Thread:Johnny-Swing/@comment-34650195-20180706193155/@comment-31674709-20180707121447

FLAH!2.0 wrote: 1. Still. Court tells an individual what to do and forces him to do so based on "ethics" (rules that it claims to be objective because of course it does).

2. What if there are different opinions about what ethics are? Is he not objective and it is you and only you who is always objective? How do you get your ethics absolutely objective? That's like saying "my laws are not actually laws at all because they are good laws but your laws are laws because they're bad laws". You act like a communist dictatorship. "Of course our glorious leader is totally different from a king because look, our glorious leader is glorious, king was not, our glorious leader presecutes enemies of the people, king presecuted noble freedom-fighters, our leader's power is an revolutionary one, while the king's power was tyrranical, our glorious leader vages war in the name of the revolution, the king waged war in the name of filthy capitalism". But in practice they are the same, exept the communist leader is even worse. Same with your ethics. They are laws. Nothig more. Hypocricy at its best.

3. Describe the difference between the two.

1. I don't know if you know but you do realize that the criminal in court did something unethical, right?

2. Ethics derive from logic, and logic is objective.

3. The non-aggression principle is simply "don't hurt anyone else", what is hard to understand about this?

Talk 12:14, July 7, 2018 (UTC)