Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2026 Poal.co

553

The right thinks that it's wrong to kill people, and good to help people in need.

The left thinks that it's wrong to kill your allies, and good to help your allies in need.

It's not wrong for the left to kill those who are not their allies, in fact, killing those who are their enemies is good for your allies, so thats what you should do.

The right sees getting rid of the filibuster as either a good or bad thing.

The left sees the filibuster as either something helpful to their goals, or harmful to them, by their moral standards, they should support it when it helps them, and oppose it when it hurts them, otherwise they are neutral on the subject.

It's not hypocrisy, it's how people act when they beleive good and evil exist, and that there are forces for good, and forces for evil. They naturally align themselves with good, and work to destroy evil. For as much as thet deny moral absolutes, they certainly act as if they are diehard moral absolutists.

All the right beleives in is rules, doesn't matter what they are, just that they are being applied consistently. For as much as they may preach about morality, their actions tell a different story.

Makes sense, the left loves simplistic pop culture stories, they use fiction to inform their every opinion. Fiction is full of us vs them, good versus evil, the idea of a generalized universally applicable rule just doesn't come up often, and when it does it is usually heavily criticized and rejected, rightly, might I add, because in practice it is both suicidally impractical and morally abhorrent.

The right, on the other hand, tends to love people who preach about objective morals and normative ethics, constant rules that apply in all cases with all people, and with no consideration given as to who those people are and in how they relate to anyone else. Consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, whatever. Their heroes (Lord Jesus Christ/Rabbi Yeshiva bin Josef, for example) only care about the rule, not the people governed by them.

One side is conditioned to see the war as two armies, and decide who to shoot, the other sees the war as a bunch of people who sometimes shoot other people, and decide whether or not shooting should occur at all.

Then the supporters on the right wonder why they keep losing.

Above all, this philosophical difference with regard to morality is enough to explain the issues we are facing, we need a fundamental change in our foundational ethics in order to stand a chance of fighting back, let alone gaining any ground, let alone winning.

The right thinks that it's wrong to kill people, and good to help people in need. The left thinks that it's wrong to kill your allies, and good to help your allies in need. It's not wrong for the left to kill those who are not their allies, in fact, killing those who are their enemies is good for your allies, so thats what you should do. The right sees getting rid of the filibuster as either a good or bad thing. The left sees the filibuster as either something helpful to their goals, or harmful to them, by their moral standards, they should support it when it helps them, and oppose it when it hurts them, otherwise they are neutral on the subject. It's not hypocrisy, it's how people act when they beleive good and evil exist, and that there are forces for good, and forces for evil. They naturally align themselves with good, and work to destroy evil. For as much as thet deny moral absolutes, they certainly act as if they are diehard moral absolutists. All the right beleives in is rules, doesn't matter what they are, just that they are being applied consistently. For as much as they may preach about morality, their actions tell a different story. Makes sense, the left loves simplistic pop culture stories, they use fiction to inform their every opinion. Fiction is full of us vs them, good versus evil, the idea of a generalized universally applicable rule just doesn't come up often, and when it does it is usually heavily criticized and rejected, rightly, might I add, because in practice it is both suicidally impractical and morally abhorrent. The right, on the other hand, tends to love people who preach about objective morals and normative ethics, constant rules that apply in all cases with all people, and with no consideration given as to who those people are and in how they relate to anyone else. Consequentialism, deontology, virtue ethics, whatever. Their heroes (Lord Jesus Christ/Rabbi Yeshiva bin Josef, for example) only care about the rule, not the people governed by them. One side is conditioned to see the war as two armies, and decide who to shoot, the other sees the war as a bunch of people who sometimes shoot other people, and decide whether or not shooting should occur at all. Then the supporters on the right wonder why they keep losing. Above all, this philosophical difference with regard to morality is enough to explain the issues we are facing, we need a fundamental change in our foundational ethics in order to stand a chance of fighting back, let alone gaining any ground, let alone winning.

(post is archived)

[–] • 2 pts

Moral relativism vs objective right and wrong.

[–] • 0 pt

The science is clear, relativism is the superior morality.

Objective morality and normative ethics fail when compared to any variety of subjective morality abd relativistic ethics.

We must recognize that we should place moral value differently on people depending on their relation to ourselves, specifically their genetic relationship compared to ourselves.

We do not owe all people an equal degree of moral obligation, my child is not the same as the child of a stranger, and someone of my race is not the same as someone of another race.

My duty differs depending on the people involved, especially where it concerns their genetic identity and how it compares to mine in terms of similarity.

The principles of evolution are the source of the psychological traits that gave rise to morality and ethics, this they should be used as the basis for our moral and ethical philosophies and beleifs.

The normative ethics and objective hectic moral principles can come second, we could use utilitarianism to quantify what our goals for others should be (what should be maximized in a ratio of "good" to "evil"), and the non aggression principle as the rules we should minimize violations of in pursuit of those goals ("minimize" not "avoid", ot should be placed at the bottom of the moral ratio).

But this equation should also assign a different value based on things like genetic similarity, potential time range of fertility, etc. That factor into how well they can contribute towards producing living organisms with copies of our own genes in the future; The more genes that show up in future organisms, the better, and the further into the future that these organisms live into, the better.

[–] • 0 pt

The science is clear, relativism is the superior morality.

You can even make that statement with confidence if you're a relativist.

[–] • 0 pt

I can, and I have the computer models to prove it. I can, and I have the historical precedent to prove it. I can, but I suspect that what you imply by "relativistic morality" is different from what I do when I say it here.

[–] • 0 pt

It's good that you understand the "friend=good enemy=bad" distinction. You're delusional in thinking that only "the left" but not "the right" applies that distinction.

It's amusing that you cite religion as an alleged example of "objective morals". Religion is a textbook case of a cult of authoritarian personality where when God murders people it's good but when someone else murders people it's bad; i.e. "friend=good enemy=bad" distinction.