debate

im not saying that im saying social contract is based on the popular opinion and laws slavery was the social contract back then, and sure, some people didnt like it, but the majority did and there for it was put into law and the majority agreed it was ok social contract is based on what the highest authority says is right, like hitler (very very simplistic way to put it, ill admit) mio sees things with what benefits him retarded people cant benefit him there for kill them slavery is something that would have benefited him, so its alright apparently xD shit, jim crow laws would have benefited him, so those were alright too this is what happens when you appeal to social contract, aka laws and popularity

I mean this is like a mono axiomatic debate tbh when most ppl talk about morale even with subjective morale or objective it always starts with the mono which can always be added onto or get super convoluted with thought question fulfilled by hypotheticals which can’t always be achieved or if they are there are admendments to those because irl situations have a lot more nuance. So if we’re going to go hyper hypothetical, the government employed fast food companies to have some sort of morale jurisdiction and they say they’re willing to help animals in terms of treatment and all that shit, but I have to eat 1 chicken nugget and let’s say this saves objectively 5 other chickens because I ate it that get to not die because I have bought the nugget given the companies money so 5 get save but 1 dies but I also help fun the jobs of those working those fast food places. But then we can add another admendment where the people there are poor in this future and times are bad yet fast food is keeping people afloat in terms of jobs so not only by one standards am I maximizing the outcome of the amount of living chickens by 5 at the cost of 1 I’m helping the hypothetical economy of those employed by this fast food keep afloat their store sales but if I didn’t want to eat the nugget they still kill chickens anyways have less money to save chickens and less money to play the immediate staff therefor making the maximization abysmal by that logic This is why things get out of hand on hypotheticals and I don’t enter aint them much except to purposely make once’s that exist even more convoluted then they actually are cause these discussions when I have had them or watched others tend always get to that point

Well at least the morale debate has its hilarity and goes as far as the imagination goes But then you could have the dead as a door nail topics if I relate it to anime like Ero guro and Loli/shota... Lol old times I just watch tbh rather than engage now

Those social contracts though I don’t think hitler was a social contract it was just a person using power for immoral things. No contract they just had the power to do. It feels kinda dumba to say social contract on anything like this because there is no mutual agreement toward the stressing party and the disenfranchised party in any sense. It’s just anti human life nothing social about that

just a note, one chicken nugget has more than 5 chickens in it >w> hypotheticals in this case are only meant to test the consistency of a stance if a is ok and lets say a=b, then b must be fine as well do i know how to implement veganism in a way that will protect everyone? no but thats a discussion we should absolutely be having when slavery was abolished there was still a lot of small steps and a lot of legistater was added to get to a point where (in theory) black people would be equal to white people nothing is so cut and dry, but that doesnt mean we should throw it all out because some people would be losing their jobs

hey if your into ero loli guro i can link you some ero manga, just sayin....

a social contract is the majority of the people agree to one thing usually this comes with laws as thats the naturally next step if a lot of people agree to something the majority of germans in nazi germany supported hitler and there for the gassing of jews was morally justified apparently

On the note of slavery there were those who knew it be wrong and because it was at the cost of liberty of another even in ancient times. At the liberty of your ingroup those that are agressors can come for your group to protect them selves from an out group or the outgroup convinces an ajoinment of your ingroup which ends up dictating what your majority can and can’t do. I would say a mutual agreement to benefit the agressers is created at the dire cost of others in a negative because they can is the true justification on those massive scales in past time periods. Meaning it was never morale contract or no contract. One could say in their opinion People have always known certain things in there nuance were wrong it’s just it takes a lot of years to shift and rotate out the power of those that have been infringed with in their set corner of the world

yeah just like some people think raping kids is alright and im sure they could try and justify why its alright but that doesnt change the fact that in our social contract pedophilia is a no go because its the majority who say its not same with in tribes the consensus is pedophilia is good, there for to them it is good its the majority vs the minority because the social contract ordered by the majority say its ok, the minority is ignored hence why its described at the authority over the individual but whites back then didnt even think black people were the same species lol same with jews back in nazi germany to them these people were not deserving of moral consideration because they were "not like us" slavery absolutely benefitted the american economy, and im sure the forced labor jews had to perform also benefited germany you could easily argue eugenics would benefit the human race, but that doesnt make it morally acceptable

On your animals tbh we are no more than animals. So if an animal eats another animal because it’s evolutionary design so it has to live then it should eat the other anime by the animals logic and not humans. So it doesn’t die No those of us who are humans we eat food and yes the body can adjust to eat plants but at the same time is it reliable for some people depending on their evolutionary design, food availability (Expensive foods), and over all health and existence. Some ppl can adjust and some people can’t. Especially since some have to do a lot manmade supplements for protein and other stuff when once could say for some types of people it’s more natural for them to eat other things. It’s not gonna work for everyone. Tbh if my mother doesn’t eat meat she does not feel good, she kinda has to, her body kinda gets really tired and it doesn’t go to well. I mean I knew a person who was allergic to a lot of fruits and vegetables, can’t really just become vegan If I had it my way I’d say fuck u to both ominvored and vegans cause I think eating and drinking water is a chore and that I advocate for rapid voluntary evolution so we don’t have to eat anything and just only work on population control of the animals XD. Become new species and also turn people voluntarily into self sustaining Neko girls