John Spencer

@spencerguard · Twitter · 2025-04-26 13:41 UTC

I applaud your honesty. You are still wrong, but now being honest. You nor Dave get to define for the world what "true" morality is. Nor is it an appeal to authority to explain to you and Dave (again) the definition of morality - (a system of principles and judgments based on ideas of right and wrong conduct. It provides standards that guide human behavior by defining what is considered acceptable, virtuous, or evil within a society or by individual conscience founded in (religion, culture, social, philosophical, biological) - then explain to you how concepts of morality (right and wrong) and intentionality are codified by the collective, aka laws, then how we as society adjudicate these issues - judges, courts, authorities. Yes, you can you have your own definition of "true" morality like resting on either the philosophical or biological, for your individual conscience. But no, you and Dave do not get to determine for societies how mortality (right and wrong) or intentionality is determined, nor how murder is defined or determined. Yes we can discuss what Nietzsche or Thomas Aquinas said all you want (well you can with others) but that doesn't make your opinions the collective. You can argue what our shared morality (right and wrong) SHOULD be all you want. For example what SHOULD be seen as murder as opposed to self-defense or lawful application of the law of armed conflict. That doesn't negate was IS accepted as morality (right and wrong) in application (context), codified in laws, and then adjudicated by authorities we created.