Holy shit, I just wrote a wall of text. Sorry about that in advance. I sort of doubt I'll be following up on this.
If you're going to respond to this, I suggest reading the whole thing first so you don't accidentally end up responding to something with an argument that's addressed later on in the post.
tl;dr: What you call "objective morality" is actually "emotional morality" that's predicted by evolution, and whose weakness is that no real thought went into it.
I'll rephrase my point about objectivity. What I meant was there is no such thing as a human with a perfectly objective perspective. We can suspend our emotions when observing things, and pretty much know some things for certain, like "that patch of grass is green." But morality is different from observing that "that patch of grass is green." So if we want to find morality, we need some other means.
As limited and emotional creatures, we only have access to our own perspective, and the limited morsels of perspective communicated to us by others. Enough people agree that killing is wrong, and few enough people raise objections to this axiom, that in most cases it works as a moral. There are exceptions, of course; since we are inherently selfish beings, some people are going to disregard the needs of others and kill anyway, because sometimes, humans are dicks.
Mutual benefit according to whom? The Nazis certainly believed to be working for their "mutual benefit".
They disregarded the needs of their victims because they thought their own needs were objectively more important. "Mutual benefit" did not occur.
Of course, since you believe objectivity does not exist, i'm not even sure why you are bothering attempt to "prove" killing is wrong when proof only makes sense if objectivity exists. Unless deep down you know that 2+2=4.
Since you believe that everybody knows in their heart that teh gayz are wrong, I'm not sure what you're even trying to accomplish by arguing about it, since telling us that teh gayz are wrong only makes sense if people don't already know it. Unless deep down you know you're full of shit.
To the contrary, it is yours that leads to holocausts. Case in point: the holocaust is a characteristically "modern" event, much like the massacres of the 20th century in general, the worst humanity has ever seen, all occurring right about when your scientistic world view came to the fore in full force. Pure coincidence, i'm sure.
We have more resources and better tools with which to commit massacres. That's an unfortunate reality, but senseless slaughter is as old as humanity. The fact that we now have the tools to make senseless slaughter result in even more deaths does not prove that science causes violence, it only proves that people will use the things science has accomplished as tools to further violence because they selfishly disregard the needs of others.
Which leads me back to you. Whether you have the humility to accept it or not, your perspective is simply your own. The only obligation other people have to respect it is if they feel that it is to their benefit to respect it, just as you will only respect the perspectives of others if you believe it benefits you. The brilliant and wonderful thing about humanity is that we have the ability to communicate our perspectives and to have them be understood by others. When you have the humility to admit that your perspective isn't really any more important than anyone else's, it opens the door to greater understanding of your fellow man. You can exchange ideas, you can reach compromises, you can provide more information with which to examine issues, and even in some cases, you can change opinions.
But you've decided that this whole process is beneath you. You got it in your head that teh gayz are wrong, and decided, "this is objectively correct, there is no need to respect any other opinions on this matter because it is non-negotiable." And then you threw in the intellectually lazy "My opinion is backed by the will of the cosmos!" to make it look as though you have gravitas.
I genuinely don't know how you've managed to delude yourself into thinking that disregarding the opinions of others is the way to true enlightenment. How exactly is that supposed to expand your knowledge base, or your understanding of the universe?
Which brings me back to science, that thing that you say is the cause of all human suffering, when all you're doing fundamentally is proving that you don't know what it is. Science is simply observing phenomenon A, coming up with a hypothesis B that might explain it, and then conducting an experiment to find out if B happens consistently. If it doesn't, you come up with an alternative hypothesis C. Once you've done this enough, you can relate phenomenons and chart the progress of A if given the behavior of B or C. This is how Isaac Newton discovered the laws of motion; he observed motion happening, and dicked around with stuff that causes movement until he figured out that F = ma. Holy shit, isn't that handy? Now, if we either know or can find any two of force, mass, and acceleration, we can find the third!
The purpose of the scientific method is to try as much as possible to remove human subjectivity from the process of observing and explaining things. How do we do this? Simple: any time a scientific finding is made, a bunch of other scientists look over it to find out if the conclusions drawn make sense to them and are free from subjective bias. Is this process perfect? No, but having twenty people examining something is bound to lead to a result closer to an "objective" observation than just one. Again, it's the exchange of ideas that fuels the process and allows it to be productive. And then, further exchange of ideas between scientists and businessmen lead to the massive consumption of computers, the very thing allowing us to have this discussion right now.
I'll reiterate: what the nazis did was not exchange of ideas. They simply declared that their idea was good, and then acted on it.
Conversely, i seriously doubt you genuinely think killing is wrong purely because you have "reasoned" it is detrimental to the survival of our species (an unproven assumption to begin with. Maybe it is, maybe it isn't, who's to say?). I'm sure your feelings in regards to murder go beyond a mere abstraction such as the percentages involved in the success of the propagation of our genes if murder was not considered to be such a taboo.
I "feel" that killing is wrong, and that's probably because I'm a member of the human species, and we evolved to feel that way. I'm also providing "reasoning" to think that killing is wrong, beyond simple emotions. Because I thought that's what you were asking for. Sorry for the miscommunication.
To which i say: the hell with the "experiences", "emotions" or "thoughts" of pedophiles and other assorted deranged individuals.
If someone fucks a baby in the face, they're disregarding the perspective of that baby.
Feel like I'm repeating myself.
Why do you think i believe what i believe (whatever that actually is) regarding "teh gays"? You say it is a matter of "convenience" for me to believe such a thing as objectivity existing purely in order to act out what i assume you believe to be an underlying prejudice against homosexuals, an absurd idea if there ever was one. But where do you think this prejudice comes from in the first place? Is it ideologically driven? (which cant be, since you believe the ideology is there only to justify the prejudice in question)? Is it social conditioning (in this day and age)? What?
This is going to confuse the shit out of you I'm sure, but I would suggest that the negative reaction of so many people to teh gayz is actually an evolutionary response. We're programmed to keep the human race going, so it's reasonable to suppose that if someone saw a threat to that, they would act against it; in this case, your reaction to the "normalization of the abnormal" is simply an evolutionary response to a perceived threat to the continued procreation of the species.
But as humans, we're capable of thinking beyond our base emotions. This is how I can know both emotionally and intellectually that killing is wrong, and child molestation is something only terrible people practice. We're also capable of reasoning out whether something is ACTUALLY a threat to the continued procreation of the species, and some people deciding to get gender reassignment surgery has just not been demonstrated to be a threat.
Or you could just disregard this post because I "backtracked" on the existence of objectivity. That would put a swift end to this discussion and then everyone could get back to discussing DONALDO TRUMPU
