[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 24 KB, 428x553, fortshot.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1463615 No.1463615 [Reply] [Original]

First off, let me set a pleasant tone. Hello, /sci/! How are you? How are the kids? I was hoping you could answer a few questions for me.

I've seen Christians claim that without God there is no basis for morality, that an atheist ideology doesn't give a basis for compassion, or that it doesn't allow for morality and benevolence as real and valuable.

I think we can agree that that's unreasonable. Many people who participate in community service, philanthropy, or just general kindness are atheists. Good will is not the exclusive domain of theism.

But what about materialism? To suppose that morality and justice (not following rules, but doing good unto others as we ought to) presupposes that that man has real value. The idea that man is simply the result of the Unified Theory, etc doesn't allow for this.

Not trolling, just honestly curious for answers.

Pic unrelated, it's my fort.

>> No.1463629

oh god the fort nostalgia

>> No.1463636

Fixing typo:
"To suppose that morality and justice (not... ought to) are legitimate, worthwhile, and to be sought out presupposes that..."

>> No.1463640

honest opinion:

this sounds like a philosophical topic that most of the board can't and probably will never answer

>> No.1463664

>>1463640
It is philosophical, you're right. If I were so bold as to assume that my conclusions were correct, I'd say I'd found an irreconcilable divide between morality and materialism.

But I'm not fond of such hubris. So, I'm asking /sci/, the board which is quite possible the most intelligent one 4chan, and certainly the one with the highest concentration of materialists.

>> No.1463710

>>1463664
What is your question?
I tried to say what I thought you were trying to ask, but I honestly have no idea.
I think you're trying to ask, "Are atheists more materialistic then Christians?" but I honestly have no idea.

>> No.1463721

C'mon /sci/. I'm trying to get some good thoughts here, but you gotta help me. When was the last time a Catholic (yes, I'm Catholic) asked a moral question on here without being an awful, awful troll? I'd think this would be a breath of fresh air.

>> No.1463738

>>1463710
You're confusing "materialist" and "materialistic".

Materialistic people are... greedy, and into possession and things like that.

We're talking about materialism, which is basically the idea that everything is made up of atoms and molecules and forces and such. It's practically the same thing as being mechanist.

My question is open ended: materialism and morality seem to be mutually exclusive. Could someone who is materialist give their thoughts on this idea?

>> No.1463758

>>1463738
Oh, well that clears it up a lot. I consider myself a materialist, but at the same time it's very hard to believe that we act based on the movement and interactions of atoms and molecules is... incredibly astounding, to put it lightly.

>> No.1463770

Morality and justice are not objective concepts. The things a given person considers moral and just are pretty much a cluster fuck combination of the emotional responses and empathy common to all humans, shit he was taught by his parents and community, and philosophical ideas he heard about or came up with himself.

>> No.1463786

>>1463758
>>Oh, well that clears it up a lot.
Is that sarcasm? I can't tell over text.

>>I consider myself a materialist, but at the same time it's very hard to believe that we act based on the movement and interactions of atoms and molecules is... incredibly astounding, to put it lightly.
I won't argue for or against the validity of materialism, and I hope this thread doesn't turn into an argument about the probability of a self-sustained chemical reaction etc etc etc.

>> No.1463803

>>1463770
That's better.

That being the case, do you treat other people with respect and benevolence? If so, why?

>> No.1463812

>>1463786
No, it wasn't sarcasm, I was honestly confused with materialistic people.

>> No.1463814

>>1463803
I mean, do you have a rational basis for treating others well?

>> No.1463819

>>1463812
Alright, glad I could clear it up for you sir.

>> No.1463844

>>1463629
And while I'm replying to everything in sight - no need to suffer nostalgia. Go build a fort of your own and do adult, manly things in it! Feel free to use my blueprints, they work great. I've got outlets for my phone and laptop, the towels (big, thick beach towels) are surprisingly soundproof, and it's so nice that I've been sleeping in it for the last few days.

>> No.1463883

>>1463738

Right. The monist materialism. I thought you meant the consumerist variety, hence wut.

My stance: Objective ethics do not exist. We have a sense of morality because it was beneficial to our survival as a species. That's all there is to it.

>> No.1463895

Hello, OP.

> To suppose that morality and justice [exist?] presupposes that that man has real value.
Not really. Morality is a value-judgment. All it presupposes is a method of judging. The ontological status of the system of judgment is not required. You could interpret that as, "Most systems of morality, implicit or explicit, are convenient fictions."

>> No.1463908

>>1463803
>That being the case, do you treat other people with respect and benevolence? If so, why?

In fact I do. Why? For a couple of reasons: On the cold and calculating side of things, treating people with respect and supporting/obeying a society that enforces laws of right conduct protects both me and my loved ones from being disrespected or harmed, and historically this has proven to be of great benefit to human societies in various ways. On the emotional side, I was raised to abhor violence and disrespect against humans, and I can empathize with a human I might hurt or who I might allow to be hurt and imagine finding myself in their position. I'm also of the somewhat idealist mentality that living things as intelligent as we are deserve some manner of respect.

>> No.1463923

>>1463908
Why do you protect yourself and your loved ones, anon?

Why is it worthwhile to benefit human societies?

Why do people deserve respect?

>> No.1463937

Rationally, why is it worthwhile to spend our time preserving other sustained chemical reactions?

>> No.1463941

>>1463814
>I mean, do you have a rational basis for treating others well?

That would be the "cold and calculating" part of my answer here: >>1463908

Treating others well and supporting a society that promotes or enforces this to some degree ensures, golden rule style, that I myself and my loved ones are protected from mistreatment. We are a social species, and it is trivial to show that if we work together and don't mistreat each other, our societies become far more than the sum of their parts.

>> No.1463959

>>1463941
Is there inherent good in a functioning society?
Is there inherent good in the protection of you and your loved ones?

>> No.1463965

>>1463959

No. Is it that hard to understand? We do it because that's what we've evolved to do.

>> No.1463968

>>1463965
Are you>>1463941?

>> No.1463984
File: 39 KB, 504x562, 1269465933434.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1463984

>>1463937
>>1463923
To sustain our own chemical reactions.

>> No.1463987

Assuming morality, compassion and benevolence are good things.
My defenition of good is something that maintains and reinforces the integrity of an individual and his environment.

>> No.1463990

>>1463965
I don't mean "why do people do nice things for each other"? Of course a basic level of respect and cooperation is selected for, it makes us more likely to survive in societies.

I mean to ask:

When you commit an act of kindness, what is your reasoning for acting so? I may have misunderstood you, but I certainly don't think "I should give that homeless man some change because that's what I have evolved to do."

>> No.1463997

>>1463923
>Why do you protect yourself and your loved ones, anon?

Myself? Because, among other reasons, being alive is my favourite thing to do, especially if I am in good physical and emotional health.

Loved ones? Because I love them. I would feel badly if they were hurt, and I don't want to feel that way.

>Why is it worthwhile to benefit human societies?

Because belonging to a healthy, functional society benefits me and my loved ones in various ways. And again, because I'm an idealist.

>Why do people deserve respect?

I'm not going to say that it is an objective fact that people deserve respect, just that I personally think that way as an idealist.

>> No.1463998

>>1463984
What about the chemical reactions makes them worth sustaining? Rationally.

>> No.1464005

>>1463990

There is no reasoning at all. I am compelled by my social instincts, and nothing more.

>> No.1464016

>>1463959

>Is there inherent good in a functioning society?
>Is there inherent good in the protection of you and your loved ones?

No, which is why I explicitly stated in my first post that morality and justice are not objective concepts.

>> No.1464020

>>1463984
Newton balls are a long-term and mostly self-contained process, but I assume you wouldn't consider it moral or respectful to make sure they keep going.

What makes a more complex process worth preserving?

>> No.1464024

>>1464005
Thank you for your time, sir.

>> No.1464027

>>1463968

>Are you>>1463941?

No, he wasn't. This is me: >>1464016

Fucking image boards.

>> No.1464028

I respect/love/care for others because I feel need to naturally. This is due to complex emotions we have gained through many generations of evolution. Respect/love/care is important for survivability as a whole. It is important to understand evolution doesn't just improve the individual, it improves species as a whole also.

>> No.1464035

>>1464027

If you want to tripfag, no one's stopping you. But you'd be killing the point of an anonymous medium.

>> No.1464043

>>1464016
Alright, I can go there. Do you then have no rational basis for acting with benevolence, or am I misunderstanding?

>> No.1464055

>>1463990
>but I certainly don't think "I should give that homeless man some change because that's what I have evolved to do."
IIt's called empathy, you do something for someone else because you understand and emphasize with their situation. It's a part of social evolution, so in a way you did 'evolve' to give change to a homeless man. It's a good thing.

>> No.1464056

>>1464028
>>I respect/love/care for others because I feel need to naturally

Not for rational reasons, though? Just instinctive and emotional?

>> No.1464064

>>1464055
Giving change to a homeless man is good?

>> No.1464065

>>1464043
>Do you then have no rational basis for acting with benevolence, or am I misunderstanding?

Depends on how you define "rational", which is itself pretty subjective. As I have said, all morality is subjective. All morality is ultimately arbitrary.

>> No.1464075

>>1464056

I do not give reason behind it. I do not respect/love/care in order to get something out of it. It is instinctive and emotional.

>> No.1464078

Summary (paraphrased from the materialists of /sci/):

1. I act with respect to myself out of instinct
2. I act with respect to others out of natural empathy
3. I act with respect to society because it preserves 1 and 2.

Do the people I've talked to all agree with this?

>> No.1464096

>>1464078

>>1464028 agrees

>> No.1464109

>>1464078

Essentially, yes. You could always add "society", but that's just a corollary of 1. No one believes in objective morality.

>> No.1464110

Unless people have edits to my paraphrasing, I think we're done here. Morality is irrational, and that's ok!

Since we seem to have a few smart and very reasonable people here, I'm open to questions from you guys.

>> No.1464130

>>1464110

How would you answer the same question?

>> No.1464139

>>1464064
"good" is not an objective concept. I am empathetic towards his situation, meaning I can see myself in his place. I give him money to improve his situation and therefore my own. Empathy is really about making YOURSELF feel better about a situation by helping someone/ something else you perceive to be conscious.

>> No.1464141

>>1464110
I can't give you all satisfactory answers as to the complete and objective basis for my beliefs starting with cogito ergo sum, since you all have philosophies based in materialism and moral subjectivity. However, I think it would still be nice, or at least interesting, to have a conversation with someone of such an exactly opposite from one's own.

So, keeping in mind the above exceptions and explanation:

*ahem*

I'm Catholic, ask me anything.

>> No.1464149

>>1464141
Fixing typo:
"...a conversation with someone of such an exactly opposite philosophy from one's own."

>> No.1464165

>>1464141

Why Catholicism?

>> No.1464203

>>1464078

Natural empathy is an instinct, so your 1 and 2 can be combined. But more importantly, on top of your summary, many people pick up philosophical ideas such as utilitarianism and act on those as well.

>> No.1464210

>>1464130
By my reckoning, man is objectively good, but I'd be lying if I said that my good acts are purely rational. In fact, I'm one of the most naturally kind and generous people you're likely to meet.

>> No.1464250

Morality is a social phenomenon. What more do you need to know?

>> No.1464252

>>1464210

And modest, too. Hurr hurr.

>> No.1464255

>>1464165
I got into philosophy from reading stuff by Mortimer Adler (greatest living philosopher, read anything by him). Specifically, the Great Ideas and his book Ten Philosophical Mistakes.

After that introduction, I was introduced to Aristotle, then to Thomas Aquinas and the Summa Theologica. The Summa (which has served as the unchanging source of Catholic theology for some 700 years) was the first time I had ever really struggled to understand something. Rather than dismissing it as semantics and wordplay - as I might have had I not been familiar with the finer points and eccentricities of texts translated from Latin - I put my nose to the grindstone.

To make a long story short, I was converted to Catholicism by a philosophical text written by Saint Thomas Aquinas.

>> No.1464261

>>1464210
but would you be so kind and generous if you were not raised Catholic and didn't have religious doctrine to nurture and back up your naturally empathetic attitude.

>> No.1464265

>>1464252
Haha, you caught me there. That's a personal vice. In fact my first reaction when I read that was to start mentally listing charitable habits and acts.

Thanks for calling me out on that one, bud. It's something I need to work on.

>> No.1464276
File: 10 KB, 450x355, 123462342324.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1464276

>my face when mc thinks good can be objective in any sense

>> No.1464289

>>1464210
I wasn't raised Catholic. I grew up in a none-too-religious family, going to a Lutheran church every few weeks. When I went I just hung out with my friends. I didn't even really pay attention until I was approaching middle school.

That's not to deny the influence that the Church has had on me, of course. The amazing benevolence that I see in the monks of the Abbey I've become involved with inspires me.

>> No.1464301

>>1464289
>>1464261
Actually I wasn't even exposed to moral doctrine until my junior year of high school.

>> No.1464318

My thoughts: morals aren't an absolute or objective truth. BUT humans have considerable social instinct that gives rise to society, culture and a sense of ethical obligation.

This isn't an objective "good" thing so much as an evolutionary necessity. A hypothetical society with no empathy will very quickly cease to exist. Hence formation of a notion of "good", ethics, empathy, etc.

It's not a fact so much as the result of a process.

>> No.1464320

New question for you all:

Do you experience a conscience? Have you ever, on the brink of committing a tempting but questionable act, experienced a very real pull toward what you know (or think) would be the right think to do?

>> No.1464323

Americans donate more to charity than any other nationality. It would take 14 Germans, or 6 French, to equal the contributions of one American. We may be ignorant religious asshats, but we try.

>> No.1464343

A chemical reaction such as ours is worth sustaining because we have placed value on it. It is worth while for us to survive because the great majority of us prefer existence to non existence, the former of which only occurs under very precise conditions. Since it isn't likely one individual will be able to ensure these conditions are maintained, we instead use societal collaborations to work towards this goal.

>> No.1464349

>>1464320

Yes, why do you ask?

>> No.1464358

>>1464320

Sure.

>> No.1464364

>>1464343
The fact that almost all people place value on themselves does mean they are valuable or worthwhile, nor does it mean there is anything rationally worthwhile about society. It means that the tendency to value oneself and others is selected for.

>> No.1464366

>>1464320

A "conscience" is generally part of one's subjective experience, sure. I wouldn't read a lot into it, though.

>> No.1464375

>>1464349
>>1464358
What do you make of it? I once supposed that you could attribute it to a form of OCD that is selected for, but it doesn't function or feel like obsessive compulsive disorder.

>> No.1464384

Anyone with an ounce of imagination can, given any set of data whatsoever, construct a cosmology compatible with that data which also includes God. (Or one which doesn't.) IMHO, anyone who finds themself having to invent ever more baroque explanations solely in order to retain either axiom might benefit from stopping and asking themselves if there's any conceivable reason -- other than divine encouragement -- why they might feel compelled to do this, and whether the most honest response to discovering that the answer is "yes" is to dream up an even more complicated universe in which all such reasons can be safely ignored.

>> No.1464390

>>1464320

Do you mean, for example, your self makes a decision and a "higher level" of consciousness steps in to change that?

>> No.1464393

>>1464375

It's the echo of ethical laws that have been instilled in you throughout your life.

>> No.1464394

>>1464320

Personally, no. I guess I rarely experience such temptations to begin with.

>> No.1464402

>>1464384

You could have just said "Occam's Razor" and left it at that, yo.

>> No.1464403

>>1464390
I just mean the experience that I described.
If you want to attribute it to a higher consciousness, go for it.

>> No.1464406

>>1464364

Explain the last part of your post. The selected for bit.

>> No.1464416

>>1464375

I think it comes down to the truism of social evolution. Altruistic groups triumph over selfish groups, but selfish individuals triumph within altruistic groups.

We are humans. We are that altruistic group. We need to be kind and charitable to each other because that is the secret of our power. However, any given individual has incentive to break from that and to lie and cheat and slander because that will increase his individual success within the group, even though the net welfare may suffer. I think conscience is the result of these conflicting incentive. Above everything, we are looking out for ourselves, but we also know that by looking over for the next guy we'll be looking out for ourselves indirectly. Sometimes, however, the one runs contrary to the other.

>> No.1464417

The entire concept of morality is a fiction, an invented glue to keep society together. It has no real value. Man is matter.

>> No.1464420

>>1464417

This

>> No.1464425

>>1464417

Wouldn't say "invented" so much as "constructed" or "evolved".

>> No.1464430

Your fort sucks OP, anyone who doesn't use a series of fans and sheets to create a wind tunnel that holds itself up is doing it wrong.

Plus, it's awesome in the summer.

>> No.1464431
File: 116 KB, 355x500, 1234868555393.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1464431

>>1464402

>> No.1464434

>>1464417
so why not just eat your own legs, retard

>> No.1464440

>>1464434

How would that help anything?

>> No.1464441

>>1464406
In a society, people who are driven to preserve themselves and to form synergetic relationships with others (in other words, people with faculties of self-preservation and empathy) are vastly likely to survive and pass on their genes (and thus those tendencies) than people who are self-destructive or can't function in and benefit from dealing with other people.

Again: the fact that we instinctively pursue the preservation of our selves and others does not make that preservation a rationally worthwhile thing. It just means that people who don't pursue those things don't last long.

>> No.1464444

I often feel as though my conscious is divided between several individual personalities whenever I'm pondering heavily. Each one with their own opinion and stance on the subject at hand. These personalities debate with one another until one unified thought is produced. I often do this with large decisions that involve morals, but I believe the consequences drive the "debate". Then I question my sanity.

>> No.1464447

>>1464434
Let's not troll fellas.

>> No.1464450

>>1464416
I see where you're coming from. That's a good way of putting it. Let me ask you a question, though: does the logical method of reductio ad absurdam work in reverse?

>> No.1464452

I'd say that the value of morality is that it makes us happy.

>> No.1464456

>>1464441

The same could be said of societies and moral codes. I read (no citation, sorry) that some nomadic Inuit type people (don't really remember) routinely leave the old and infirm to die in the snow rather than keep them as a burden. It's basically understood and accepted by everyone. You could easily picture some group saying "That's not right, we're not going to do that." But they'd all die off pretty quickly.

>> No.1464460

>>1464441

I wouldn't say that morality is genetic, but instead say that the herd/tribal mentality is genetic and morality formed out of that.

>> No.1464462

>>1464452
The way you worded that... you just barely missed one of the basic ideas of ethics: joy.

>> No.1464467

>>1464441

How is it not rational to ensure one's survival. Whereas freedom while alive can approach a large degree, freedom while dead is strictly zero. If you don't want to use freedom of a measurement how about straight up just noting that living increases the chances of your genes being passed on. If you don't want to listen to that then I have plenty of others. The point is though that all of these are sound reasons to choose existence over non-existence. If you're saying this is not the case, this morality discussion is purposeless because you propose that the universe simply does in which case you are a materialist through and through.

>> No.1464471

To anyone reading this, let me be clear in case I haven't been: I've been playing the devil's advocate the entire thread, except when I was taking questions about Catholicism, etc.:
>>1464450
>>1464320
>>1464301
>>1464289
>>1464265
>>1464255
>>1464203
>>1464141

I'm not materialist. As I mentioned before, I'm actually Catholic.

>> No.1464489

>>1464450

Start with a contradiction and deduce two inconsistent statements? Yeah, trivially so. Within classical logic, at least, (p&~p)->q for all q. So, set q to p and ~p and you're done.

But I don't think you're looking at it the right way. It's more of a cybernetic system. If there's plenty of food rabbits will breed and spread and eat all the food and there'll be no more food and the rabbits will die out. Is this nonsensical? Of course not. It just means there'll be an equilibrium point where the two forces equal out.

>> No.1464494

>>1464467
Assuming materialism (as we are), there is nothing rationally worthwhile about preserving what's just a sustained chemical process. I likened it to saying that it's ethical to keep a set of newton balls (another sustained process, just less complex) intact and bouncing.

I think you misunderstood. I'm directing this question at materialists, and you (a non-materialist I gather) answered it.

>> No.1464508

>>1464494

No I'm a materialist actually. What I'm saying is if the newton balls could decide that they desired to be kept together then it could be said that such a situation is ethical while the contrapositives are not.

>> No.1464554

>>1464489
Maybe "reductio ad absurdam in reverse" wasn't the clearest way to put it.

The process works by assuming something is true, and then carefully following the logical implications that follow from that assumption. If and when the assumption leads to a wrong conclusion (not just an apparent contradiction that could be worked out with careful and thorough examination of your logic), you know that the assumption is wrong too.

Here's my question, restated and hopefully clearer. According to the principle of reductio ad absurdam, by following the implications of a thought until they reach an unavoidable and obviously wrong conclusion, we can show that the thought is wrong. But conversely, if we trace the implications of a thought and never run into an irreconcilable problem, can we conclude that the idea is correct?

>> No.1464568

>>1464508
So my self-preservation is ethical because I can decide I want to live. If I decide that you should die, is that ethical too?

>> No.1464577

>>1464554

If we can prove it by induction, yes. Otherwise we can accept it as a scientific hypothesis until further evidence becomes available.

>> No.1464598

>>1464577
Scientific hypothesis? What? We're not dealing with empiricism and the scientific method. Reductio ad absurdam applies to objective reasoning.

>> No.1464599

>>1464554

No. What if you miss an implication accidentally. Or even if we want to assume that we follow all the possible implications, the most you can conclude is that the idea could possibly be correct.

>> No.1464605

>>1464599
The question assumes that there aren't problems with one's reasoning. And yes, that's what I thought as well.

>> No.1464608

>>1464568

No, because that would be removing someone's freedom. The reason I submit for why this is unethical firstly because it removes my agency, and secondly because there is potential for benefit from that individual to society that has from that action been stunted.

>> No.1464612

>>1463615
I'm just posting to let you know that you have a magnificent fort, OP.

>> No.1464618

>>1464608
Maybe I've missed something. How is freedom at all compatible with materialism?

>> No.1464634

>>1464598

In that case, we can try to prove it by induction. Otherwise it's a conjecture.

>> No.1464638

>>1464612
Thanks anon. The ladies dig it too.

Or mine does at least.

>> No.1464661

I'm surprised I only got 2 questions about Catholicism, and reasonable questions at that. Last time I mentioned it I got madly trolled. Thanks /sci/, I'm impressed.

C'mon, we're done with the original topic. Objective morality and materialism are mutually exclusive, as I thought they were and as the materialists of /sci/ have agreed.
>>1464078

>> No.1464673

>>1464634
Fair enough. That doesn't fare well for the necessity of assumptions in reasoning, though.

>> No.1464705

>>1464673

Everything beyond Cogito Ergo Sum ultimately comes down to an assumption. We'll never have a perfect system of knowledge for this, and other, reasons. I can accept that. It just means to make the best of a bad situation, we need to be parsimonious with our assumptions. Hence, science.

>> No.1464713

>>1464705
Not even beyond it. Cogito ergo sum assumes the principle of causality.

>> No.1464717

>>1464618

Freedom can herein be defined as a state in which an individual can exercise their agency, where agency is the ability to comprehend and act on choices. While an individual might be circumscribed by their biochemistry, cognition is a variable that can manipulate itself based on preferences. These preferences come from a number of sources including genetic predispositions and personal experiences. Agency acts off of these things, defining a person's possible, and furthermore, probable choices. The ability to act, however, is agency.

>> No.1464763

You know, mc, I bet you'd really like the religion and philosophy section on the JREF forums.

http://forums.randi.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4

>> No.1464782

>>1464713

I don't really buy that. Any attempt I've read to assume away that was inconsistent.

>> No.1464817

>First off, let me set a pleasant tone. >Hello, /sci/! How are you? How are the kids? I was hoping you could answer a few questions for me.

>I've seen Christians

[ X ]

>> No.1464870

>>1464717
As an ethicist, I can assure you I'm very familiar with agency and freedom. But why is freedom worthwhile? Rationally. Pleasantness, enjoyment, and empathy are just chemical reactions that we experience.

>> No.1464876

>>1464817
What's wrong with that? There are indeed many Christians who assume atheism is mutually exclusive from morality and ethics. Sorry if that offended you, but given that I'm Christian I really didn't mean anything by it.

>> No.1464940

>>1464870

Because it allows for maximum human potential which will create the greatest good for society. It's completely subjective, what you choose to place value on though. The universe is not rational, rationality is a product of analysis which stems from an observer which in this particular case happens to be human beings.

>> No.1464960

>>1464876

sorry, i actually read through the thread now as a legitimate topic. im just on autopilot because of all the religion troll threads on here.

>> No.1464964

>>1464276
Evil ain't objective either, chum.

>> No.1464970

>>1464870

Not he guy you're responding to, but I consider all qualitative value judgments to be entirely personal. To me freedom is worthwhile only if you decide that it is worthwhile.