we're on a forum made by a select group of people, and they have set rules and conditions for us to use their free service
one of those rules is not doing whatever the fuck Herrera was doing
so in the space we're in, he shouldn't be followed and should be banned
we can have our own opinions about morality and i will say that most, but not all, people would see what Herrera was talking about as morally wrong
but there's no such thing as objective morality
i agree with AL's definition
there's the mass morality, not objective
the majority, the people in power and the setting of the situation, kinda defines the morality at that place
there's no objective version
that's why back in the day, something like slavery was seen as moral, because it was the majority and the people in power making that decision
one of those rules is not doing whatever the fuck Herrera was doing
so in the space we're in, he shouldn't be followed and should be banned
we can have our own opinions about morality and i will say that most, but not all, people would see what Herrera was talking about as morally wrong
but there's no such thing as objective morality
i agree with AL's definition
there's the mass morality, not objective
the majority, the people in power and the setting of the situation, kinda defines the morality at that place
there's no objective version
that's why back in the day, something like slavery was seen as moral, because it was the majority and the people in power making that decision
Post automatically merged:
agreement or disagreement doesnt define the existence or not of objective morality.