Immortal Platypus

i just want to win. why won't you let me be happy

I know how to sign I lose the game in ASL

I want the sandwich, so, as an old person in the terms of this thread, it comes to me. It recognizes my seniority, after all

a conversation about ethics and morals. now give me my win back

It could also be her unintentionally using Fortune, as I believe Kalak said something about that.

We do have the capacity, but that doesn't mean we'll actually do it. There are definitely good people that don't believe in God. My brother doesn't, but he's still a good person. I just think that he would be better and happier had he stayed in the church. I think that everyone needs religion, but many don't want it. I don't think that you need it to be good, but I think that in the end, you will need it. Without the guidance of religion (and God), our laws and natural consequences would be very different. that's good, I like it when things make sense that's good

oh shoot, I thought I edited that to say that the Honorblade had more limitations. Szeth couldn't heal from Shardblade wounds, his Blade couldn't change shape, he used more Stormlight (but that's not important), etc. I think that would have an impact. At this point, I still think Kaladin would beat Szeth, especially with Plate, but near the end of WaT, that could definitely change.

Yes, and if one day reliable evidence came out that there was no God? We would no longer live in such a society. We would have no incentive to remain good. Think of Soviet Russia for example. They had no reason to stay good, and they suffered due to secret police and corrupt government officials, things which people would be much more willing to do if they don't believe it will send them to hell for all time. Objective morality doesn't ever align with your beliefs. Your beliefs align with objective morality. And people whose beliefs don't align are wrong. It was objectively bad to gas millions of Jews. If you don't agree with that, you are wrong. If you do, congrats, your beliefs align with objective morality! That's how objective morality works. Of course, in many issues it's a little more complicated than that, but that's an easy example. yeah, they're not fun.

Wasn't part of it also that Szeth burns much more stormlight? Also, Full Lashings, and to an extent, Reverse Lashings, are very rarely useful when fighting in the air like that, whereas Division could be very useful. If/when Szeth learns more of Division (like the lightning Stormform used), I think he'd have a much better chance.

Objective correctness is what is correct, regardless of what people believe. For example, I would say that the Holocaust was objectively bad. Not that I think it is bad, I believe that it is bad, whether or not people agree with that. things can be objectively true, like the existence (or, hypothetically, lack thereof) of God. Either it is true, or it is false. There is no in between Jasnah lives in a society that already has the foundation of religion to fall back upon, and I would argue that she isn't the best example anyway. Long story short? Because of personal experiences.

I would say that we think of them as wrong, not because of the pain that it causes others, but instead because our civilization's aforementioned roots in Judeo-Christian values influencing our beliefs in what is right and wrong. The reason society at large agrees about that has the same answer, in addition to the fact that when a society is built upon anarchy, or even just apathy for morality, that society will probably not survive. In addition to that, I think that humans are naturally bad, but that we do try to become more like God. So did the time in Hebrew School make you not believe the religion, or did you just dislike the school, which was associated with the religion, making you dislike the religion? Earlier you stated, "I believe as society we set what what is moral and what isn't, not a higher power." So if I disagree with society, who is correct? Me or society? Which morality is correct? Further, on this point, you said, "I don't believe in objective morality." If objective morality does not exist, doesn't that mean that the Nazis and the Holocaust were not objectively bad? Earlier you said you don't believe objective morality exists. To clarify, do you believe that objective morality exists? What changes? Well, there is no longer an objective morality. In addition to this, I believe that without a higher power, we would not exist, so the point about everyone holding the same religious beliefs is moot. I would disagree. I have not seen God, but from experiences I have had, I know he exists. If I didn't know, I would've made many different decisions in my life. I suppose there will always be that little bit of doubt, so if that counts for not knowing for certain, than I would agree that nothing would change because that is what I believe is happening. Then nobody would care. If they knew there was no God, lawlessness would become rampant. There is no point in trying, cause existence is just going to end in a couple years anyway. If everyone knew there was a God, then everyone would follow him, not by faith, but because he had proved he exists, rendering his plan to redeem us useless. What about people who believe in polytheistic religions? They'd be wrong, plain and simple. If there are multiple higher powers than they'd be right and I'd be wrong (although technically I believe in multiple higher powers). I think there already is evidence of God, but many don't. I think society would change very much if we knew for a fact if there was or was not a God. Yes. There are major themes across major religions. For example, murder and theft are sins in Islam, Judaism, and Christianity, as well as being wrong in Buddhism. I expect they are wrong in Taoism, Daoism, Confucism and more too. No, it means there are multiple incorrect interpretations of God, and one correct one. Holy cow, once school resumes finding time to type these is gonna get a lot harder

I wouldn't say that it creates no morals/ethics, but I do believe that the absence of religion causes very, very different things to become moral/ethical. I also believe that right/wrong are set by a higher power and that we consider certain things to be unethical because the US is very deeply rooted in Judeo-Christian values, inspiring what we believe to be right and wrong. .I also do not believe that they are ok in any situation, but I believe it to be that way because God has declared so, not because they are in and of themselves wrong. I believe that they are wrong, but I also believe that in the absence of a God/higher power, they could not be objectively wrong, meaning that they are not inherently wrong. I believe that they are against the natural law, or rather, the law of God. Are you atheistic or agnostic? (Doesn't really matter for this discussion, but it might help me to make my arguments more clear.) Before we go further in this, I would like to clarify terms. Do you mean ethicality as what is right/wrong? I would say that morals are set by a higher power. I am a firm believer that the government, or even society at large, cannot set my beliefs for me, and that humans cannot set objective fact (including what is right/wrong) as we are subjective by nature. If I believe something is moral, but society at large doesn't, does my opinion on morality not matter? What if I believe that something is not moral, but again, society at large disagrees? Can a society of imperfect beings set a perfect natural law? I would say no. I think this is a very important question to this debate: Can objective morality exist without a higher power? I would argue the answer to that is no, something made by humans cannot be objective as, by nature, we are subjective beings. As for that last question, through holy text (such as the bible, Torah, the Qaran, or the Book of Mormon, etc.) and through prophets (such as those spoken of in scripture, though I also believe that we have present day prophets leading the church I am a part of). Don't worry about it, I can take a little disagreement. I would love to hear your thoughts on this.

have you seen the thread Sharder One-Liners? That has some interesting quotes

this raises the question: Is murder inherently wrong (or unethical)? Is anything inherently wrong? I personally don't believe so. I think that there is an objective morality, set by God, but I don't think that anything in and of itself is inherently wrong. I think that in a different society, murder could be smiled upon. I think it would be stupid and wrong to do so, but if we speak as though there is no God (or higher being), there is not longer an objective morality, and such societies could form relatively easily. Thriving would likely prove difficult, but it could definitely happen.

"Oh good. Maybe I'll finally get an answer."

The Platypus on top of the bus takes off after Bookwyrm. "I want to know too! I was like, the first one to ever wonder!" he shouted after him.

I quickly replace the root with non-alcoholic-root without Eddie noticing. "Ah yes. Now I have root!" I say quietly as I get on the roof of the bus.

"You hop in too."

not a whole ton

"The jury would still like to hear opposing definitions. One attorney cannot determine what definition will be used throughout the entire case. The judge should receive definitions from both sides, then come to a conclusion of what will be used. "It's alright, I'm also the bailiff."

He's right