Can One Be Immoral Alone? (Clip with Adam Friended of the

In this clip from my SSE conversation with US commentator Adam Friended, we discuss the claim that "one can be immoral while living alone in the entire universe." Do you have a responsibility toward yourself if you’re alone? Can one be unjust toward oneself?
Full video: • A Moral Quandary? | Sp...
⸺SUPPORT MY WORK⸺
Newsletter | boghossian.sub...
Donate | www.nationalpr...
⸺LINKS⸺
Podcast: "Conversations with Peter Boghossian": pod.link/16501...
Website | peterboghossia...
National Progress Alliance | www.nationalpr...
Resignation Letter | peterboghossia...
⸺BOOKS⸺
“How To Have Impossible Conversations” | www.amazon.com...
“A Manual For Creating Atheists” | www.amazon.com...
⸺SOCIAL MEDIA⸺
Twitter | / peterboghossian
Instagram | / peter.boghossian
TikTok | / peterboghossian
All Socials | linktr.ee/pete...
__________
#morality #streetepistemology #peterboghossian

[@jm162]

Very interesting conversation!!

[@drpeterboghossian]

Thanks for watching!

[@P_C-]

Adam looking sharp!

[@Phibred]

It's disorienting seeing Adam on the left side of the screen.

[@questor55]

And with legs

[@lithunoisan]

And looking his age.

[@Walingron]

A team reigns supreme

[@newpilgrim]

Not in Buddhism.

[@keksimus__maximus]

you know it baybee

[@vulkanofnocturne]

He means A-team, not just any old 'a team'. If you know what I mean.

[@JohnGatesIII]

Morality is doing the Hard RIGHT instead of the Easy WRONG......even when no one else is watching. That is the Man I strive to be.

[@gabeo9474]

How do you know what is right and what is wrong?

[@SpiritualPsychotherapyServices]

Right and wrong are RELATIVE. 😉 Incidentally, Slave, are you VEGAN? 🌱

[@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet]

How can you do right by anyone if there isn't anyone?

[@roberjohnsmith]

Morality is an abstract concept which doesn't really exist unless you acknowledge a creator as a law giver. Is an eagle immoral when it eats another bird alive? Is a lion immoral when it takes a mate against its will? Is a hippopotamus immoral for ripping another animal apart simply for stepping in its swamp?

[@Phoenix-Cloud]

Who gets to decide what is right and wrong? Even if with had a vote not everyone is going to agree. This is what laws are. They are not moral rights and wrong but just rules we agree to follow to make society stable so we don't have to live in fear all the time.

[@alittlelogic5914]

I am more and more convinced that morality consists, as opposed to the concept of doing justice to oneself and others, in maintaining and improving oneself and others. I can see this as being extremely unpopular to some (one may imagine a dictator or a serious criminal). It appears to me superior to both the Greek concept (in a way) and systems similar to Sam Harris. Though admittedly, it closely aligns with both conceptions. Phenomenal topic. Very good exchange and both interlocutors were engaged and thoughtful. Fun! ❤❤❤

[@ysf-d9i]

I think sam harris' view of morality is still just hedonism. It's circular reasoning and makes no sense. I definitely agree with the rest of what you said though. For me, the closest thing I've found to my beliefs is aristotle's virtue ethics and concept of eudaimonia and Kant's good will theory

[@alittlelogic5914]

@@ysf-d9i Well, I think there is something in Harris that leans out of a base Hedonism...A basic hedonism may well support something akin to that drink in the Hunger Games at the President's Mansion where they could throw up so they could go on tasting everything and indulging. I think Harris' focus on wellbeing/flourishing would necessarily pull psychology in and be like...dat's not psychologically healthy homie...quit it! I think his "objective facts" bit is meant to imply a bit of "whether you like it or not"....that may be overly charitable...but I don't think so 🤔...Thoughts?

[@pdxnikki1]

The Decalogue is 2 halves of a whole morality. The first tablet is moral duties in the absence of community. That comes first. Then those to others follow. You can't have one without the other. In the absence of others morality still exists. It exists as it's transcendent.

[@AKABattousai]

ATeam reigns supreme.

[@newpilgrim]

Not in Buddhism.

[@AKABattousai]

@@newpilgrim in ATeam we aren't against people who seek peace. Or those who have a deep belief system. So I'm not sure what you mean.

[@newpilgrim]

@@AKABattousai What's A Team? Is this an ad?

[@AKABattousai]

@@newpilgrim "A Team" is choosing sides on the weekly Sitch and Adam show that Adam is a part of. Sitch is the Co host and is S Class, and Adam is ATeam.

[@newpilgrim]

@@AKABattousai Hilarious!! I thought you meant ' a team.' As in, everything must be done by committee.🤣

[@GoBlueGirl78]

This is akin to “If a tree falls in a forest and no one’s around, does it still make a sound?”

[@Mariomatters1984]

No.

[@dokwalk]

One of the most moronic sayings ever.

[@9ja9ite]

If that forest is devoid of any other creatures that have an auditory sensory input then - NO. Sound is simply the interpretive description we attach to pressure waves caused by a variety of physical phenomena. Typically one object impacting another. Like a tree hitting the ground. If there is nothing to receive that sensory input then no “sound” is made. Only pressure waves.

[@dokwalk]

@9ja9ite bro. SOUNDwaves are SOUNDSwaves........................... A live creature does not need to actively interpret the soundwaves for sound to exist.....

[@dokwalk]

One of the most m0r0nic sayings ever.

[@machtnichtsseimann]

Got lost at the end with Adam's point that rules can be broken. As the student said, "Of course.", and they aren't meant to be broken. Not sure what Adam was driving at there.

[@Phoenix-Cloud]

I think the best definition for morals is how do you judge if a being is good or bad based on actions that they take or don't take (this would need to also include thoughts in their mind as a type of action, so the reasoning of why they are taking the action). if you are the only being left in existence you can still judge yourself based on your own personal morals. This is subjective so always remember not everyone has the same morals for how they judge if a person is good or bad. So an example of is killing a person ok if it means you want to steal vs killing a person if it means saving an innocent kid.

[@AKABattousai]

What if we take order vs chaos? Discipline vs Erratic Can we say morality is a concept that exists apart from a person's own idea of what they want to do? I think morality is the potential to make choices with the future conditions in mind. Since we live in a linear timeline and we can imagine ourselves in a future state. I don't think morals are just described as a personal preference. They would be described as making efforts toward certain goals. Which could be compared to efforts toward other goals. But a goal to us is something we can believe is acceptable. So Good and Bad is subjective to a single person. But Good and Bad applying to multiple or all is gonna change from being personal preference.

[@Phoenix-Cloud]

@@AKABattousai I would agree that applying it to a single person vs a group could affect what people would say is moral or not. When we dropped the atomic bomb I am sure civilians killed if they were singled out would say it was immoral because they died from it. If you add in all the soldiers who would have had to fight on the ground and singled them out they would say it was moral because it saved their life and tons of their friends. You could then apply the same thing to what is happening in israel and there are tons of palestine people saying you are killing tons of civilians and it is immoral but at the same time you got tons of Israelis how will say we are tired of being attacked and you gave us no choice so the fact that tons of civilians are getting killed is your fault for attacking us and it is moral what we are doing to protect ourself. So even when you apply it to a group they will always be bias just like applying it to a single person. Unless there is some kind of unbiased global being that can step outside of the world we live in you will never be able to have full agreement on what is moral.

[@odiedodieuk]

Adam has legs? Mind B L O W N

[@Thesmurfeater12345]

If your morality can't give you some direction on a desert island, it isn't a moral system, it's something else, probably a political system.

[@BillsYoutubeAccount]

A good definition of morality is minimising suffering, I believe Sam Harris describes this pretty well. There's also a difference between being moral and trying to be moral which I think confuses people - you can do something naievly in good faith that has negative outcomes and you are immoral even though you tried to be moral, so it's not always about choice but also making sure those choices are knowledgable. And obviously in practice is can be very difficult to tell which option will minimise suffering considering all aspects of present and future so it's like an idealistic thing we can aim towards with effective discourse.

[@keeponrockin85]

@@BillsKZbinAccount if the goal is minimizing suffering I don't think that's a good morality... Isn't a little suffering important for development? *I'm not well versed in philosophy so forgive me if this is naive

[@Phoenix-Cloud]

Saying morality is to minimize suffering is bad. So am I moral if I am hungry so I steal food from someone to satisfy my hunger? I am doing something most people consider immoral but it is ending my suffering. So an action can be moral to one person because it ends suffering for them but creates suffering for another. So does that make it neutral in that it is equally creating and taking away suffering? I personally don't believe in morals at all. I don't think any action a person does is moral and ultimately everyone does what make them feel better even if that say means dying to save your kid's life so you don't have to wake up every day and have bad thoughts of letting them die. This would mean others who watched me die to save my kid would think I was a hero but ultimately I was just being selfish and didn't want to as you say suffer every day.

[@roberjohnsmith]

​@Phoenix-Cloud or maybe you tried to save your child because you love your child. Not everything is motivated in pure selfishness. But even then, you don't believe in morals. You operate within a risk/reward paradigm for the choices you make. And I appreciate you being honest about that.

[@roberjohnsmith]

Do you believe animals can be immoral?

[@Phoenix-Cloud]

@@roberjohnsmith Can you prove that a person died to save their kid because they love their kid and not because they don't want to have to wake up suffering every day? How do you test and prove that? I think over 50% of the population of humans lie to themself and just aren't honest about their true feelings. I love to see how young kids react to things. They learn to lie very early on but if you find really young kids sometimes they are brutally honest because they don't walk around lying to others all day long to avoid conflict.

[@gethinfiltrator6700]

I see morality as a human invention. Outside Humanity - it does not exist. It's just another means to separate the wheat from the chaff. It is intrinsically subjective and it can change with perception and tribe.

[@zeusthecat6295]

I think life, at a fundamental level, has a responsibility to try to continue the phenomenon of 'awareness' in the universe. So looking at morality through a more global lens of awareness, yes, one can be immoral alone. If you are the last living thing and you end your life, you have effectively ended existence. Or in other words, you have removed 'awareness' from the universe. And without awareness, the universe technically can't even exist.

[@roberjohnsmith]

So you're saying the universe didn't exist, or couldn't exist, before there was awareness? I actually think the world needed to be created in order for awareness to exist, not the other way around. Becsuse clearly rhe universe was there first, and we sprung from it. Or do you believe awareness sprung first, and then the universe followed?

[@zeusthecat6295]

@@roberjohnsmith impossible to say since this is more or less a shrodinger's cat situation and we could never know if something does or doesn't exist if it or the affects of its behavior can't be observed. Maybe they are two sides of the same coin and one cannot exist without the other. I personally subscribe to the idea that life is the universe becoming aware of itself. And if I frame my morality around that concept: that the existence of "awareness" is the fundamental concept through which we should frame what is and isn't moral, then I believe one can be immoral alone.

[@samyouel4596]

If you view "good vs bad " as 'Constructive vs destructive " then yes

[@DugdoesDigging]

it depends on how you define morality, cause something I find moral another person may find amoral

[@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet]

I think the problem arises when there's no other person to decide whether your act is moral or immoral, indipendently from you.

[@GaJiarg]

One cant be moral or immoral alone because morality is a set of norms that is oriented towards the preservation of a given group.

[@patricko9129]

I think I agree, morality is linked to how your actions affect others. But your actions also affect your future self who I would consider an other, wouldn’t imposing a harmful will on your future self be immoral?

[@GaJiarg]

@@patricko9129 Imposing a harmful will on yourself would be unethical. Ethics is a set of norms oriented towards the safeguarding of the individual.

[@patricko9129]

@@GaJiarg I get you, morality is to preserve group and ethics to preserve the individual within the group. But…how can there be ethics if there is no group? Don’t ethics only exist for individuals within a group?

[@GaJiarg]

@@patricko9129 no. the duty of ethics is fortitude. this manifests as firmness (action or the effort to conserve yourself) and as generosity (an action or effort to conserve another individual). without more than one human, there would be firmness but no generosity.

[@ysf-d9i]

no it isn't.

[@sebastiansirvas1530]

I would say you can be immoral alone without recurring to God or even a specific ethical framework (that contemplates this). You are not currently (tA) your future (tB) self, even if you are the same person once time has passed, so at the moment (tA) the moral agent has taken the morally relevant decision, it has impacted someone that that moral agent currently is not, despite only one person being involved in this whole exercise. Now, who delivers righteous closure in this situation? I would say, given the moral agents involved and affected in this situation, yourself.

[@NoobRideseMTB]

This hurts my head. 😬

[@Potato_Sprout]

Interesting

[@drpeterboghossian]

Thanks for watching!

[@SneakySteevy]

Morality is rules that everybody is expected to follow. It’s an implied order to all and you have to obey. Ethic, is personal and choosen by oneself. You have to think by yourself and adjust if required. I din’t see our morality is helpful. Some people don’t like to obey but promote morality…🥴🥴

[@Phoenix-Cloud]

False. Morality is just the system of deciding if what you are doing is right or wrong. I have mixed feelings about the rules part because rules are strict things that must be defined and when you start to define everything it becomes impossible and an endless cycle of needing to add new rules. Morality can be simplified to simply be to do what is right or wrong. The problem is how do you decide what is right and wrong. Killing another human is one of those things that is hard to define is it ok to kill someone or not. There are many cases where people will say it is wrong and others where they would say it is right. There is no possible way to write out every possible case for it being right or wrong in our lifetime so you can't really put it into a rule. Is it moral to let 1 kid die so 2 other kids live? Is it ok to let 1 kid die so 2 old adults live 1 more year each? You see how this gets really complex and people will not agree 100% of the time on what is right and wrong? Ultimately it comes down to there is nothing right or wrong and it is all up to the opinion of each person as to what they consider right and wrong. Unless there is a god that is above all of us and can tell us what is right and wrong in every case.

[@SneakySteevy]

@@Phoenix-Cloud right and wrong have has many definition as there are humans on earth. How do you expect morality to bring adequate behaviors from everybody if morality meaning is different for everybody? What you describe is ethic. Personal to everybody. Free to choose.

[@Phoenix-Cloud]

@@SneakySteevy Isn't that the point I have been trying to make ethic is just a group of people who picked what they want to consider moral. Morals is still the root of this. Ethics can't exist without morals but morals are not global and depend on the group. You are in an endless circle here. Ethics is a group of morals picked to be true and morals is a single piece of the ehtics but they are still decided by random people and can be different between every person alive. This is the problem with anything that you can't define as true or false.

[@SneakySteevy]

@@Phoenix-Cloud it’s fundamentally 2 different concept and you describe ethic. Morality doesn’t have to be thought about since its a set of rules that have been decided for you.

[@Phoenix-Cloud]

@@SneakySteevySo below I listed the definitions of the 2 words. They are not different concepts. They are related concepts. Ethic "a set of moral principles, especially ones relating to or affirming a specified group, field, or form of conduct." Moral "concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character."

[@catalyst3713]

Yes, because you can wrong yourself.

[@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet]

For example?

[@michaeljacob5571]

Where does this injustice/justice come from? Oughts come from who/what? If I am alone, I have no belief in a god, then I make mortality. Therefore, I derive pleasure from doing X, does that make X just/an ought?

[@AKABattousai]

The argument Id make against the alone person being an atheist not needing morality is... What makes that person a better person? If following some orderly process makes them a better person. Then I'd say it's more moral instead of immoral or totally neutral. Right and wrong can be in context of a social perspective. But can also be in the context of self improvement. When we talk about say torturing animals or self deletion being wrong. Even to an atheist. It's because there is some other goal that's been made previously that's being overlooked for what we can say is needlessly selfish. A person can be greedy and uncaring toward others physical needs even if there aren't other people around. For instance, it's stretching the hypothetical but we can have a hope for a changed situation which allows the person to then achieve more personal goals.

[@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet]

​@@AKABattousaibetter than whom, if there's no other person? 'Better' and 'worse' lose meaning.

[@AKABattousai]

@@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet better always requires some hypothetical I'd say. And as long as it's a fair hypothetical, it can become a logical conclusion. But I do agree that within the hypothetical of there being no observers or no other person being impacted, there is little meaning to what is moral for them.

[@Phoenix-Cloud]

Without a god there is no such thing as morals. Some kind of higher being must exist for us to have morals. The problem is morals is just the opinion of a person so every single person alive today can have a different set of morals. Which ones are correct? If there was a god that would mean someone created us and can tell us what is right and wrong and we could all just follow it. That is the reason why we have laws to make a stable society for people to live in even if it has nothing to do with being right or wrong. We don't have to agree with laws but if it allows us to live in a stable world without always being in fear of something it works.

[@roberjohnsmith]

​@@AKABattousaimy version of self improvement is increasing my ability to mate. My ability to mate is my measure of success. So if I lie, cheat and steal, in order to attain more mates, am I being immoral?

[@gabeo9474]

Morality is the set of behavioral guidelines dictated via the sum of all prior human wisdom as interpreted by the existing society to which it is applicable.

[@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet]

So, as a theoretical body of information, it would survive the extinction (or near-extinction) of mankind?

[@gabeo9474]

@@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet Not total extinction, but, otherwise, yes. Of course, the fewer remaining humans, the narrower and more prone to bias/corruption the interpretation would be, but this would undoubtedly be corrected over time as long as humans were able to proliferate once again.

[@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet]

@@gabeo9474 I see. So do you think there are any behavioral guidelines that apply in case there's only one remaining human?

[@gabeo9474]

@@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet Technically, if there's only one left, then it is the last one, so morality would become irrelevant, but, yes, it would still exist. In the event that this lone human was able to create more humans, then you can bet that they would heavily rely on their own interpretation of morality and be adamant about passing it on to others so as to best ensure their cooperation and, ultimately, survival.

[@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet]

@@gabeo9474 I'm not so sure about that. The new humans would be the lone human's children, so he'd have quite some influence in how they'd internalize norms. For instance, the lone human might pass on a thoroughly selfish morality, or some other extreme morality. It would take some time for the children to question it and make changes to better suit their brand-new social needs. And absent an external society, they'd second-guess themselves much more frequently. Regardless, it might be very far from the 'old' morality. (Interesting that you'd say 'create' more humans. I think we have a tendency to call our creations our babies, so my argument applies regardless of the method of creation, as long as the new humans share the biology of the lone human.)

[@deathbysloth]

We all know Adam can be immoral alone 👀 👀 👀

[@AKABattousai]

I am convinced that Sitch's face reveal will be Adam boomering something. There is a chance he already said his name by accident but I have no way to check it lol.

[@nny2055]

モラルが存在する条件として、コミュニティが必要なのか。 しかし、コミュニティにこそモラルは必要だ。 モラル(インモラル)が発生する条件として、それが相対化される必要がある。と私は思う。 そしてそれはアイロニーのように思える。 モラルは我々など必要としてない、モラルは自分自身さえも必要としてない。 モラル我々の願いそのものだ。だからずっと必要な共同幻想のアイディアとして存在している。

[@sdrc92126]

Morals define the community.

[@nny2055]

@@sdrc92126 どっちが先に存在しますか？

[@sdrc92126]

​@@nny2055 Morals. A group of people with a set of moral principles decide to adhere to those principles and form a community. Like golf club (organization, not the stick😄). The rules of that club are its morals.

[@nny2055]

@@sdrc92126 私にとってそれは、人よりも前にアイディアが存在すると言ってるように聞こえるので、不可能に思います。

[@sdrc92126]

@@nny2055 People or persons can discover an idea from the set of all ideas. F=ma existed before Newton wrote it down. It worked and more people "joined" the physics community because it had benefits.

[@sdsdinclover]

Morality is a set of principles, not rules. They are defined by a society, but not strictly enforced. An individual can be unjust towards themselves, As they would naturally develop their own set of morals and framework of society even without other humans to direct it, however they would be based almost entirely on their own rational. "I poked myself with the stick, it hurt, poking myself with the stick is bad". If you have a masochist, that will change the moral framework, it would then be unjust for them to not poke themself. Morals are made tricky because they are generalizations informed by large groupings, which is why they are not rules, as rules can be fairly enforced. Morals can not be fairly enforced, see religious differences. Also... Adam from the side, and not as seen from above, looks like a different person... I find that to be against my morals.

[@newpilgrim]

Yeah, secondary diversity dimensions like religion matter. I'm Buddhist. Get a Buddhist on here and ask them what they think.

[@pdcdesign9632]

Iran is so diverse that 95% of people there follow the Shia Islam religion.

[@grahamjones5400]

If you're alone you aren't bothering anyone. This video is just Christian preaching,"If you have naughty thoughts God will punish you!!"

[@ysf-d9i]

I'm not religious. But look. If your ultimate goal in life is to be happy and do whatever you want, that's an incredibly stupid and pointless goal because all happiness and desires are, are neurological processes obtained through millions of years of evolution and also environmental reinforcement learning during childhood that tries to predict what can help you maximize your chances of survival and gene propagation. That's literally it. So for example, we desire high caloric content foods because 100,000 years ago, food was scarce and people who hate high calorie foods were more likely to survive. happiness and other positive emotions are simply *predictors* for what gives us the highest chances of continuous survival. So the entire point of life is to do things that your brain predicts (and most of the time, they're not even good predictions) will help you survive longer so you can continue to do things that help you survive longer? It's completely circular and meaningless. For live to have any meaning and purpose at all, there has to be something beyond just maximizing emotions.

[@TheKryptokat]

Morality isn't about following rules it's about acting in accordance with the reasons and will that created the rules. A modern example is you can violate the spirit of a law without breaking the letter of the law.

[@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet]

But if the laws only exist to prevent harm to others, that distinction becomes pointless because you can't break either.

[@TheKryptokat]

​@@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet The intent of tax law is to ensure the same form of income is taxed equally whether it is earned by an individual or corporation. If you take advantage of a tax loophole you are breaking the spirit of the law while still complying with the letter of the law. You can also violate the letter of the law and be moral and successful if you prove the current law doesn't hold up to standards created at the founding of the country.

[@roberjohnsmith]

What is this "will" that created the rules? If there is created rules, where are they written? Are they universal? If I choose not to follow them, am I immoral?

[@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet]

@@TheKryptokat yes, but there's no 'equality' in the absence of other individuals and entities. So you can't circumvent the intent of tax law. Note that I'm not arguing against the distinction you're making between spirit and letter. I'm saying that if you're aline in the universe, any amount of tax you pay is legitimate, because you're its measure.

[@AKABattousai]

​​@@roberjohnsmith if we all believed that it's just people and government that define the Rights people have... Then people can never call that government tyrannical. Because the government redefines what rights the people have. So in a liberal society, it's set in stone that for us in America, the bill of rights are the rights of the people as a protection "from" a tyrannical government that would act to violate or remove those rights of the people. It's why the rule of Law is important. And that the philosophy of the bill of rights is important.

[@keeponrockin85]

Your morality is the set of principles that you strive to live by... right?

[@SineEyed]

Let's say that it is. Could we also see a set of principles as a set of rules?..

[@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet]

By your definition, no one can ever be immoral, since everyone will strive to live by the set of principles they strive to live by (tautologically).

[@keeponrockin85]

@@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet oh I wasn't claiming that was the universal morality... I was just trying to come up with a definition for someone's personal morality. Does morality imply that it is universal (I'm not versed in philosophy)? So I agree with you. And a universal morality would be ideal in my opinion...

[@keeponrockin85]

@@SineEyed I'd have to think more on why, but they don't equate in my mind. Principles seem like goals or something to strive for (not perfectly attainable) and rules to me implies strictly and perfectly followed. Just opining, I'm not well versed in philosophy, so please forgive me if I come off naive.

[@gabeo9474]

@@keeponrockin85 That's one of the paradoxes of morality. Each individual undoubtedly has a slightly different understanding of morality, which means that it is at least somewhat subjective. But if morality is entirely subjective, then as long as each person acts according to their own interpretation of morality, then everyone is always moral and the entire concept of morality loses all significance. So, morality must also be at least somewhat objective in order to be meaningful. I believe that one of the main functions of the establishment of each religion was to create a universal (objective) understanding of morality as it was understood in that place and time, which was really a prerequisite for the establishment of a functional society.

[@ysf-d9i]

of course one can be immoral alone. Morality isn't just "responsibility" or "justness". and "responsibility" and "justness" cannot be reduced to a simple pleasure/harm min/maxing. Everything you guys think about morality is just not morality. You guys don't actually have any moral beliefs or values other than hedonism at its core.

[@1dustbranch111]

I am somewhat disappointed not to hear anything about the 7 sins. They can be done in a complete vacuum and they each damage the vessel differently. You dont even need animals in the equation

[@jonas6120]

True. But you can't just presuppose the immorality of those 7 things - you'll need to argue why each is immoral.

[@1dustbranch111]

​@@jonas6120 what do you mean by 'presuppose' in this context? You aren't asking for an example for each of the 7 sins for this comment thread, right?

[@jonas6120]

@@1dustbranch111 no, all I am saying is that the immorality of the seven sins is presupposed within the Christian worldview. It must be defensible outside that worldview too - such that you can convince someone who is not a Christian.

[@Elisha_the_bald_headed_prophet]

​@@1dustbranch111why 7 and not 6 or 8? And what does 7 even mean in a complete vacuum? At most I'll be able to count up to 1 (i.e. me, the only existing one).

[@1dustbranch111]

@@jonas6120 Aaah, I dont think its origins are in Christianity, its older than the Abrahamic faiths. although thats a real lot of things

[@lalilulelo.n.stitch]

Sitch and Adam take money from Brianna Wu's SuperPac

[@dokwalk]

Im so deeply sorry you had to interact with these people. Hopefully, they didnt have the Billy Madison effect on you.