I do, regardless of whether or not I, very deep down, don't view my convictions as inherent truths. That reality doesn't really enter my thoughts when I'm doing something kind or generous. I receive satisfaction from doing good deeds for others, therefore I continue to do them; I enjoy acknowledging my ability to make others feel happy. So I suppose you might make the argument that they aren't, in fact, "convictions," but the difference between the two honest definitions is so negligible to me that I don't bother making a distinction between them.

okay

so, if morality is just a matter of ice cream flavors, why waste time debating about all these issues

islam isn't evil--that's just their opinion of how people should be treated

why can't we just let them have their opinion?
why try to impose our beliefs on them?

We grasp the capacity to act similarly to you, and for mostly identical reasons. At least in my case, I'm not in any moral disagreement with you; that's not the root of this discussion. I only disagree about a property of morality, not how certain acts fall under its jurisdiction. I believe that's what he's saying.

do you have any moral convictions

no i'm pretty sure that's the game's gag reflex

I hear bringing Quiet in mission 29 or 42 can corrupt your save file.

it's the game retching in utter revulsion and contempt

Mother of god...
i agree with you on something!

next time i'm in plug, i'll make a playlist of pop songs/dad rock songs that i actually like

You're confusing ontology and epistemology; we can talk objectively about the ontologically subjective.

don't act like he knows what those words mean

Can it not be "Good" in somebody else' eyes?

No, not rationally.

Like a masochist?

Oh dear. I was wondering when someone was gonna pull the masochism card.

First of all, try punching a masochist in the face, without warning. See if he appreciates it.
Spoiler: He won't. That's not how masochism works.

The thing about BDSM is that it's all consensual--so, no harm done. This does not contradict my viewpoint, because unwanted pain is still unwanted pain. Just because a masochist is a masochist doesn't mean his sensory input is inverted throughout his entire life.

"Good" and "Bad" are nonexistent concepts on their own.

If you had read my previous post, you'd have noticed that I'd said the same thing...

Without sentient beings to ponder it, there is no morality.

...thus, you're arguing with a strawman.

The existence of sentient life produces morality, and it is objective--that is my argument.

Yes, pain hurts. Why does that matter? How does that property of the sensation make it any less inherently "preferable" than the alternative?

Are you asking me why you wouldn't want to feel pain?

This is where it gets frustrating.

But there is no foundation to base your views on. Why should pain ever be considered objectively negative?

Because it hurts. It's a sensation no one wants to experience, so they shouldn't ever experience it. Unless they deserve it.

Why shouldn't pain ever be considered objectively negative?

Whereas with morality the only definition you can give it is "the distinction between right and wrong." You can't define what is wrong and what is right like you can define who is and isn't ill.

but it's so fucking easy

- does it cause pain and suffering in the universe?
- is the pain and suffering justified in some fashion?

if you said "no" twice, you have yourself what could be considered "wrong" by sane individuals

you just caught on to this, or what

i'm p. sure J.K. herself confirmed that much of years 4-7 were meant to have allusions to the holocaust

I've never understood arguments suggesting that morality is an inherent property of the universe. As if, regardless of whether or not people are here to judge actions as right or wrong, there would still exist some sort of natural "idea" of moral standards, outside of living bias. Somebody explain that to me, because I don't understand it.

It's an inherent property of... sentient life. Without sentient beings to ponder it, there is no morality.

I'm not sure how a mental illness nor consent would make any difference. The idea of 'abnormality' is subjective, and isn't murder objectively wrong regardless of the matter of consent? Or am I missing something here?

Consent is everything. Consent is literally saying, "This would be unethical if I didn't give you my permission."

Murder is not objectively wrong.

Just to clarify, what do we actually mean by 'negative sensation'?

Any sensation that you don't want to experience.

At the end of the day, does it matter? Unless you believe in a afterlife that judges you based on your behavior here, being moral is just something you do to avoid incarceration and social shunning.

Speak for yourself.