The Tanager wrote:Why? These "mega-entities" aren't logically impossible.
No, they're not, (to our knowledge) we've just never seen anything like them. In some ways I agree with this. With all the possible entities people have made up and called god, it's immensely likely that at least one of them exists... if they are possible.
In the Star Trek universe, I would say this holds perfectly because we know Q exists - a mega-entity with powers beyond our reckoning.
I simply doubt this is even possible in our universe.
Unicorns? Not so much. I don'd doubt unicorns. Maybe there are unicorns somewhere (minus any magical powers). And if there were hundreds of thousands of proposed kinds of unicorns? Infinitely likely in an infinite universe that they are
somewhere out there.
The Tanager wrote:What is it about morality that makes you treat it differently from the rest of reality, both objective and subjective realities?
Because morality, in a sense, doesn't exist. Morality is defined entirely by the human mind, and it is neither logic nor math, potentially dispensing with any requirement to be consistent.
The Tanager wrote:Why does the number of people matter? Why does
a lot of people saying one thing at one time and a contradictory thing at another time point towards?
I'll turn that around on you: Why does
anything matter in terms of morality? How do we know murder is wrong?
The Tanager wrote:(a) the same person being actually bound by different standards at different times rather than (b) the same person acting/speaking inconsistently or wrongly?
I select (a) because so few people call them out on it. If it was this obviously wrong, I would think that instead of having pedestals, these people would be laughing stocks.
The Tanager wrote:So you are saying: those who are okay with punching those merely because of their race are not racist (i.e., they are not, what, using their power and privilege to do so?) I'm confused on your definition of racism. You may not care about consistency in morality, but we have to use terms in a specific way in a discussion and I need to know how you are using your terms.
https://www.pambazuka.org/governance/bl ... -be-racist
Racism is prejudice plus power as defined by the correct, sociological view, not the antiquated dictionary.
This means that only white people can be racist. I lost this debate one too many times, so I reformed. I changed my views. I argued that things should be fair. I lost. I not only lost, I was flattened. Refuted, with knockdown.
The Tanager wrote:So, "more moral" means: what some people have said? what the majority believe? something else?
If everyone or almost everyone believes something about morality I hardly think it can be wrong. But I'm also looking at second-tier responses to what people say, rather than just what they say. Flat contradictions wouldn't get nothing but exaltation unless flat contradictions were permissible. It would be just too easy to refute them.
If everyone believes they have pink cats, when in fact pink cats don't exist and some of them don't have any cats, they can be wrong. These sorts of statements describe the world. Moral statements only speak to what goes on inside the human mind.
Just as you can have a mental disorder if you don't think like the rest, surely you can also have a mental disorder if your morality is that far off from the rest. The latter has a specific name: Evil.