debate

"If a retarded person is incapable of engaging in social contract, I literally dont care what happens to him. If he were to be killed/raped/tortured for fun, I would not be concerned with the death/whatever of the victim, but more of the mental instability of the person who committed the act. I would not care if the retarded person would die, but I would not kill him myself because I have nothing to gain from it. If aliens were to eat them, I would not care" nah, im stating what he stated and how so? because to me it seems more like an appeal to popularity and law?

I’m not on that side tbh, what I meant was that the empathy is bi product of my own truth seeking of perception v.s reality. I don’t always have to feel to decide something is wrong Tbh my secret view is maybe once will I’ll die and become ghost or god stuff or no god stuff or aliens what ever the duck you want it to be, I hope someone comes in will just everyone was wrong XD. ANOGAKI FTW GOLD CITIES IN SHIT! You though harming animals was bad but like resources and human harvesting. Looooollll- jk jk

see, how i see it is your moral bi product comes from empathy wanting to see the truth kindness these seem like empathetic baselines dude i read a creepypasta once that god was literately this factory owner that ate humans created them, let them live on earth and have fun and then when they died he ate them was suuuuuuper interesting

Lol I’m empathetic cause I am human but it is not the morale baseline just apart of the nuance in some areas. Empathy is the bi product not the other way around for me In group and out group preference and social contracts and all that. What Mio said can also be interpreted as if it is “Outside” of himself then why should he care. The answer to that is no one has to you can if you want or you don’t have to or you could even have no feelings at all toward the matter. You can’t do anything about what has already been done and what reason should a person have to do something if it’s not someone that they should have to care about. This is one of the base lines of in group and out group preference that is partially innate which is fine. Because you decide to care about things outside of yourself it falls into your “perceived” morale diction/boundaries Besides even with you example that forces a person to care (Funny enough these types of examples are used in framing arguments to force another to take a bad plight so if they don’t answer your way you can claim morale high ground but if they answer how you want then you can claim your right and rub it in which neither of those choices dictate right or wrong of anything) you can also keep on adding to it a positive or negative details into forever in the hypothetical. Yes raping Retarted children is bad if they don’t have enough cognitive function. Then again I think there was a YouTube video about a mom who masturbated her son regardless whether you think it’s moral or immoral wouldn’t it be better to A)Go about your day cause you can’t affect it B)If you are able to do something about the situation then do it C) Laugh cause it’s ridiculous Etc. Lots of nuances but why should we care so deeply when there’s personal matters to attend to. One could even say that it’s better to focus on one’s self and those around them and then eschew the same forward momentum to those we can do something for and so forth with each person pushing to build larger in group preference so that y0u could reach places where things would have to be discussed.

see, i half agree on the raping point (kek moral discussion is pretty interesting the routes it goes xD) i see raping a person in a vegetated state who will never ever wake up fucked up because id never want that to happen to me, even if id never know it happened, i still hate the thought, as most rational humans do if you raped to death a kid with water on his brain (aka hes brain dead) id only say its wrong because the parents would have clear emotional trauma if it had no parents and no one would care, then why is it wrong? why is raping an unidentified corpse wrong? sometimes morality isnt rational, because of emotions based from empathy "well if it were me" kind of thing not all laws/morals are rational, but you could easily argue they should be no one can really say why raping an unnamed corpse is wrong, but it is still illegal

Raping is wrong’’ But another thing can be made that the person is also harming themselves not only have they succumb to bad morale functions the more that they astute to immorality of the hypothetical rapist raping a Ded corpse would make them more apt to do it again to other things as time goes on. Eventually there existence will be a negative once they are known like The Who,e tree falls into a forest thing. Once there is a degrading of this person by there own self one could argue that they are in a State of self morale atrocities with their mental state and sexual deviencies

It’s not that things are rational or logical (2 different things) or have some sort of emotional stigma it’s the fact of the matter of no matter what gets implemented who ever has the most outcry or power or whatever form of strength that they get to deem their “Perception” of Morales as the final baseline for what ever amount of time that would be doesn’t make it a social contract but for what jurisdiction they have on their group decides the morales of said group and will end up removing those not in compliance with their own baseline Kinda like discord servers but on a macro scale

well ofcourse this is a niche hypothetical lets say the government allowed the raping of only unidentified corpses is fine because logically, there is no problem with it or we could go to the real life example of the rape of corpses in countries like africa, where coroner's will just have fun with corpses no one is at risk of getting hurt, they only rape corpses in which the family will never know and wouldnt kill to rape a corpse morals are simply not rational but it would xD social contract in america is that killing is wrong some people wanna kill though and will keep killing does that mean killing is not an aspect of the social contract?

I mean there is no social contract at that point part of where this breaks down is people can do what ever the fuck they want once they realize a lot of things don’t actually exist. No contract needed only the will and execution