What are your arguments against moral universalism?

give them 30years and they will claim that they always have been chinese. Ther is verey little to save anymore

You can't save everyone. Imagine sacrificing yourself to save someone who hates you. Christ died for everyone so we don't have to.

Because values are purely subjective and I value those who are more similar to me than dissimilar

>dat pic
>I remember the thread
It's true you can't never leave this place

how can a person be altruistic at all if not first for his tribe?

Also it feels better it the reason why anyone does anything.
The is-ought gap will never be bridged. All actions are inherently rooted in some type of value.

>£1.1 trillion
>2.2trilion€
>just print more money

We're not responsible for the well beeing of the rest of the world

Lots of people came from single mothers and achieved great things, I could probably find a list if I tried.

Doesn't have to be saving people from death, it could be long-term support to make them more self-sufficient. Education, infra-structure, investment.

If he's altruistic towards everyone equally.

>(apart from the fact that it feels better)
Why do you think you feel better doing that?
Those who treated everyone equally got outbred by those who treated their own better, natural selection at work. Moral decision isn't always a better one. Derive conclusions.

>Stares in Future FBI Statistic

What kind of Argument is that? I don't mean to be too much of an ass but
>Statistik is irelavant cause people exist that don't fall into the majority

A you Ok?

Why should all people deserve equal opportunity? People are have different values to you and you treat them accordingly. You would help your children if they asked, but it's unlikely you would help a total stranger in equal measure. Plenty of civilizations have thrived with several. Really, you are the one who has the burden of proof.

state your argument for it? imo universalism feels good but if you put others before yourself you end you left in the dust. like all things in life its a matter of circumstance and degree

It's simply neo-colonialism and why Fannon and the anti-colonalists movements retailiated against European society. Let chinese political entrepreneurs annex and take control of the continent.

White man's burden has generated nothing but disdain from darker peoples. Leave them alone

Attached: 1480418191927.jpg (800x460, 102K)

STUPID FUCKIN BABY, WHAT ARE YOU, A FUCKIN BABY ?!?!??!

I wasn't rebutting 'people from single mothers achieve less than others', I was rebutting 'people from single mothers would only produce an apocalypse'

people are not equal
and never will be

Attached: 6121232231323.jpg (508x524, 32K)

There is a reason why you're suposed to put in your own gas mask on first when air pressure drops in a plane.
You can't help anyone if you're dead.

I would say that it's less detrimental to my tribe's resources. It's putting foreigner over family.

Attached: pepe_dabbng.gif (498x359, 408K)

>Really, you are the one who has the burden of proof.
I would have thought that, if we hold that people should be good, the default position would be to be good to everyone, because that's most simple. You're the one adding complexity to it by saying you only need to / should be altruistic within certain limitations.

No you're just beeing Naive. You don't want to do good you want to feel good

Fuck that giving them shit is half your problem. They're Farmers can't compete with foreign aid. They need a couple of good genocide wars followed by a benevolent colonialism.

First define good, as that is subjective to what you find good. Is good your own survival?
Then tell me how it is possible that all people are equally good?
If they are not, then define who is more good than others.
Once you do that you get tribalism. Evolution already did that work for you and decided that survival of genes is the ultimate good. If you define good differently, then you will still end up with tribes because of human neurodiversity causing a plethora of value systems to manifest in people.

Also you have artificially limited your "most" simple solution to only humans. I think you are adding extra complexity. If you really want the simplest solution then all matter in the universe must be treated equally.

You can't help anyone if you can't help yourself. You have to protect yourself then your family then you're in group / nationality / country. Then and only then can you afford to give half a fuck about people who do not give a fuck about you and would as soon murder rape your entire blood line.

'Good' just meant being kind and altruistic. If you don't believe in that proposition that's fine. I'm not arguing whether morality exists, just questioning why it would ever exist in such a way that it turns out morality isn't universal and we have a greater *obligation* to help people closer to us, all else being equal.

>If you really want the simplest solution then all matter in the universe must be treated equally.
Well, I can imagine a persuasive argument limiting it to consciousness.

You should never flip off a baby. It's juvenile bs.

Kindness and altruism is just deffering a true definition and making it circular. It could be argued under some value systems that slavery and subjugation is kind, because the subjugator's civilization is superior. Or something a little less dramatic like colonialism, but still has the underlying assumptions of their definition of kindness.

Morality isn't universal because actors in the universe don't all share the same goals. And all morality stems from shared goals.

Conciousness is a spook, if you're defining it as the experience of qualia. There's no gaurantee that all matter in the universe doesn't experience qualia because we are the only source of data on it as we are the only beings who are capable of communicating that we are aware. But I expect all things are aware, but we just are capable of remembering it.
If you define conciousness as sentience (the ability to predict some of one's own actions) then it's still not an absolute scale. Some things are able to predict their actions better than others (a cat predicts if it's going to catch a mouse if it jumps ahead of its current path).

I'm aware I'm deferring the definition, it's because I want to focus on the particular issue described in the OP.

>Morality isn't universal because actors in the universe don't all share the same goals. And all morality stems from shared goals.
I don't see how morality stems from shared goals; someone can have different goals than me and it's still right I help him.

The particular issue of understanding the efficiency of tribalism for the values that people have is dependent on the definition their values.

If you help someone who doesn't share your goal at least partially then you are ultimately promoting a world where your goals will not manifest.