<p>
</p>
<p>Definitely, thought the ■■■■■■■■ wouldn’t stop. But, mathsciencedude rebuttals are pretty weak (probably because he hasn’t realized <a href=“Welcome stormmovie.net - Justhost.com”>Welcome stormmovie.net - Justhost.com)</p>
<p>Wow, utilitarianism is self-contradictory. There is no real argument for it anymore. Yay, you clearly haven’t taken an introductory philosophy class like I have. That’s why I know everything.</p>
<p>if you knew everything, your name would be mathsciencehistoryenglishrhetoric etc…dude. On a related note, how long can a name on this forum be?</p>
<p>By the way, isn’t communism contrary to evolution. I mean, progress is essential, is it not? Or would people be happy with nothing ever changing?</p>
<p>^That’s what I said!!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Not really. Do you believe in objective morality? And, I don’t need to take a class thanks to free online lectures and SEP.</p>
<p>by the way, any advice to increasing my post counts to 500?</p>
<p>I am a moral relativist. It’s funny because we’re talking about this right now in P&E. I’d say you have to be pretty damn selfish to think that there’s an absolute moral truth.</p>
<p>I go one step further, nihlism (error theory).</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No, Communism is an economic system while Evolution is a biological theory. They’re in two completely separate spheres.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t think absolute moral truth has anything to do with individuals. In fact, the idea that morality varies tends to be far more self-centered. Not only that, it basically violates the idea of morality itself (i.e. if the rules change they’re not really rules). So there’s either an absolute moral code, or no moral code (which is itself an absolute moral code).</p>
<p>^Exactly, to think that you can do anything that you want as long as it meets your goals is selfish.</p>
<p>Don’t really care if it’s selfish, life is meaningless thus all I care about (presently) is my welfare and happiness, don’t see the need to be altruistic.</p>
<p>Life itself is meaningless. It is the individual that must give it meaning.</p>
<p>That’s true. How should a individual give meaning to his life? Based on his desires? Wouldn’t that mean any meaning he creates is selfish?</p>
<p>Depends on what is attributed as “selfishness.” If you want to consider an earnest desire to improve the world and the lives of others selfish, than yes, any meaning is selfish. I’m not saying you can’t consider this selfish, either, because what one person thinks is better for the world is not always what is better.</p>
<p>Yeah, I consider that selfish. Look up ‘moral luck’.</p>
<p>I never said I didn’t. I never said I did, but I never said I didn’t either.</p>
<p>This thread is going well.</p>
<p>
As have I. You’re right, I made an assumption. For the record, top 1% is $47,500/year, top 5% is $33,700/year, and top 10% is $25,400/year. Most people on this website would likely fall into top 1%.</p>
<p>
Greed and consumerism and egoism is ingrained in people by society. A new society would instill new values into children; it is that first generation that would be most difficult. If the poor to rise, they cannot all become rich, so equality is the best they could all have together. If they are motivated by an organization which takes a lead in the Revolution, it could act as provisional government in establishing these ideals. The failure of the Soviet Union was in large part due to the early death of Lenin (not that he handled everything perfectly) and the ascension of the dictator Stalin.</p>
<p>
Our enemies are divided, let us unite and rise!</p>
<p>Also, I think HarryJanes is dead, not lost.</p>
<p>
Is this true when my goals are the establishment of universal human rights and making sure everyone has the means to live? It seems like it would be easier AND more selfish to just go for a high paying job and live life richly.</p>
<p>I wasn’t commenting on you Billy.</p>
<p>Where did we lose a post because now I have the 1000th reply?</p>