well... the thing so many damn people like to eat meat that in order to get to everyone they need to quicken things up a bit. But treating the animals in montrorous ways.

I think vegetarians are all absolute hypocrites because I've never meat a kind vegetarian.

so if you want to kill a man there could be some correct ways and so called good ways but there is no right way.

There also are right ways to behave leaning on ethics and then good ways to behave leaning on morals.

If you think any way is the best it merely means it's the best you could come up with. You don't know the extent of what could be which is why even right quickly becomes "best for now". Good is a more flexible term ...and then less useful as that.

because "right" takes part into correctness so it does have a rotation point. Good doesn't I don't think you should use either but if you insist on your point the "good" would make it a bit less obscure

Tapatalk?

I don't think so. The word should at least be "good" instead of "right". Regardless the goal

oh god.

I'm horrified by your lack responsibility.

I feel like this question could gain from distinction between morals and ethics.

What if my house is blown up and me and my friends have no shelter with the winter coming and I build a quick house for us to survive. Thou someone somewhere sometime if they saw the house might say it is built "wrong" thou I'd prefer "poorly", if we survive I should think the house was rather well built.

so we can ignore good and bad in themselves and trust that god will solve it?

when you hear a commentator saying anything it probably means nothing happened. When things happen they say nothing bc they have no idea it's happening and even afterwards they don't get it:joke:

Luck has nothing to do with it. It's getting to be a pretty stable fact within the European union. But the US still just sniggers at it.

they're faking it all.

the third world war is already rolling and here.

but Putin does. And Trump will do whatever Putin tells him to. But oc there will be no nuclear strike because US 'is not capable' of anything so substantial.

There is not a single proper argument for God's existence and if one is proposed without being absolutely obscure it won't be ontological.

I probably don't have a clue either way but am interested, do you mean why it would be so or why Kant would think so?

I tried but I'm confused. What is the 'it'?

What is your 'being'? Is it A being or being, the act of being from the point of view of ME being or an abstract being being.

And what is work? A person digging a ditch might be about to bury a friend and might not consider a ditch dug a work done, but rather - time to reel in the body. Is it work because it tires or because it is not something one wants to do or because it requires a lot of trouble?

It occurred to me to mention that only 1 out of 3 people ever develope a more refined degree in thinking in problem solving area. I forget if it's called three or four dimetional something... the point is that a person developes this capability by the age of 6 or not at all. And approximately 2 out of 3 never do.

" truism of existential consideration". I'm overwhelmed with questions.:roll:

Do you mean that pessimistic people and ideas somehow take existence and its meaning more seriously? Because thou all intelligent people are pessimistic not all pessimistic people are intelligent. Most are not.

'Open soul open mind'

A person with an open soul must have an open mind but one can have what is called an open mind w/o having a soul at all.

I think the nihilist is just about the most pathetic being on earth regardless environment and time while a pessimist can be a lot of things. A nihilist is diluded and enjoys it.

I couldn't possibly enjoy being chewed by a crocodile. And when someone exclaims they are a nihilist I feel a bit of disgust. I like those who are regarded pessimists more likely than others, however, if I had to define them I would call them open minded perhaps. ...MORE open minded than the rest.

What is corrupt philosophy? Can't imagine it. A philosopher can be and most likely is corrupt but a philosophy isn't really. At all so it can't be corrupt. Its IDEAS maybe but probably not all of them.

Morality is subjective because it is a view taken by (a) person/s. It not only CAN be a view but it without exception has always been and will be a view.

I don't know whose definition that is. Merriam Webster defines "justice" as followes:

a : the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishments meting out justice social justice

b : judge a supreme courtjustice —used as a title JusticeMarshall

c : the administration of law a fugitive from justice; especially : the establishment or determination of rights according to the rules of law or equity a system of justice

2a : the quality of being just, impartial, or fair questioned the justice of the their decision

b (1) : the principle or ideal of just dealing or right action 

(2) : conformity to this principle or ideal : righteousness the justiceof their cause

c : the quality of conforming to law

3: conformity to truth, fact, or reason : correctness

mercy cannot be unjust :brow: to anyone. Not showing mercy doesn't just harm the "target" but rots the soul of the ungiving.

better means better ethically? But ethics evolve and are mostly valued from a great distance.. doesn't means much.

No. There is no such thing in the world as "better" except in daily communication that makes it quicker to explain one's decisions to other people who more or less share your view of better and worse.