Who destroys the world more - the unemployed and homeless ugly poor, or the beautiful rich ?

My answer would be "The Selfish"

Abba or Justin Timerlake, take you pick.

People posting senseless polls on the internet.

hanno wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2017 9:38 am People posting senseless polls on the internet.

You're probably one of those peop@e who always harp on about how the lazy unemployed drug addict single mothers with their children from 4 different fathers etc which are ruining your and other's countries. How claiming unemployment benefit and paying for social benefits is all wrong and will destroy the world unless somebody does something about it. But like people in the great depression, you really love seeing the wealthy portrayed as heroes in movies. Seeing them as humanities saviours rather than it's destroyer.

Religious people

Sent from my ONEPLUS A3010 using Tapatalk

juansweetpotato wrote: ↑Thu May 25, 2017 8:13 amWho destroys the world more - the unemployed and homeless ugly poor, or the beautiful rich ?

Since "possibly destroying the world less" is a hypothetical (goal-based) imperative, we know from Immanuel Kant's Kritik der praktischen Vernunft, that it not a permissible foundation for morality. Morality is defined by the form in which its rules are phrased -- categorical imperatives -- and not by their content.

Morality can therefore only consist of a list of forbidden behaviours, i.e. things you are not allowed to do. There are indeed never goals in morality.

Since we axiomatically derive permissible behaviour by verifying it against the list of forbidden behaviours (categorical imperatives), and since axioms have no justification in the system itself, and are not even allowed to have one, morality does not explain itself. Hence, moral rules must necessarily be revealed.

In that sense, you are perfectly allowed to destroy the world, if while doing so, you do not engage in any of the behaviours that are forbidden by the categorical imperatives in morality.

Morality must at all times remain a consistent axiomatic system. Just one contradiction -- a bug -- would lead to a trivialist morality through the principle of explosion. In a trivialist morality, you can derive that all possible behaviour is always morally acceptable, which is obviously not true, since there must be forbidden behaviours. Since we have no access to the theory of everything, goal-based hypothetical morality is necessarily always inconsistent. Hence, Immanuel Kant was completely right to utterly reject hypothetical morality.

Therefore, destroying or not destroying the world, are not valid moral concerns.

^ I have a sudden urge to lie down....