Is there like a fundamental theorem of morality?
>>7392837
a=a
>>7392837
explain pic pls
All men desire happiness (or flourishing, or well-being, or beatitude).
This is the premise that Aristotle bases ethics on. If men were indifferent to happiness then we could not have moral reasoning, because morals are universal principles which guide men to their universal end, and if there is no universal end which all men universally seek then there are no universal principles of action to guide men universally.
>>7393195
>Russian LAN party
russians with an ukranian flag ?
pick one
>>7393198
You're right, I found the source now:
oberigbrody/posts/412986362215915
on facebook
It's just donated food they're preparing
>>7392837
Yes OP, there is. It is popularly known as The Golden Rule, and it is fairly embarrassing that no one ITT managed to state the rule before now, for two reasons: 1) because the golden rule is actually true, where human-to-human interaction is concerned, and 2) because the fact that it hasn't been mentioned until now is a fine demonstration of the way that e/lit/ists will pass over the simple and true in favor of less pertinent, possibly less-true subtlety >>7393202 or (admittedly very simple in this case) name-dropping >>7393191 .
It is important not to confuse a "basic principle of human morality", which is what you have requested (and does exist), for an eternal, transcendent moral truth (which doesn't). It (morality) is /strictly/ relative. In the event that every fedora's dream is realized and we become radically different "trans-humans" of one kind or another, then we would be obliged to revise our morality with respect to ourselves, and this for the very reason that a basic feature of "human" existence is know known to have changed. Similarly, in the event that we encounter aliens that we know to be intelligent, yet behave radically different from ourselves, we would also be obliged to radically reformulate our conceptions of morality with respect to this new information. For now such an idea is simply the stuff of speculation, thought experiments, memes.
>>7393302
golden rule is a special case of deontological cognitivism. not fundamental at all.
>>7392837
>theorem of morality
Fuck off nerd.
>>7393309
Thank you for re-proving my point in under five minutes. You have memorized the jargon very well. Have a (You).
>>7392837
It is actually a Slav masturbating onto some chickens and the aftermath which seems like it might be that blood stain on the left.
>>7393320
>x is axiomatic
>"it only applies under y"
>hurr durr im gonna pretend im retarded do i win yet
this is you right now
>>7393302
The main problem I have with The Golden Rule is:
what if I want people to kill me? Is it then moral to kill people?
>>7393570
Morality diverges here into two primary categories: Universal and non-Universal (to put it simply).
Universally, wanting someone to kill you does not make it right to kill someone else.
Non-Universally, wanting someone to kill you does make it right to kill someone else. By killing someone else you put yourself in a position where others want to (and may) kill you. Consequently, if you die, you no longer have to worry or care about the morality of your actions, as you have already reached your inevitable end. Thus to you as an individual, your actions are justified, if you consider justice death.
