TreyMoney

Moral relativism doesn't say that people disagree about morality. It is a fact that people disagree about morality, it is not a philosophical argument. Moral relativism argues that the there is no universal, logically consistent moral framework, and is instead morality is just the illogical whim of culture and society and subject to ad hoc change.

Moral absolutism and specifically the NAP is based on an axiomatic belief that peaceful interaction is always preferable to violent interaction. I can't convince someone to accept this belief. If someone accepts this belief, morality follows logically. If someone rejects this belief and instead believes violence is always or even sometimes preferable to peace, then that person is choosing to live in under the law of the jungle aka might makes right, which is amoral. Moral absolutism and NAP is the only moral theory that is non-contradictory and internally consistent logically. This also assumes one is interested in defining a logically consistent morality, which they may not be.

In this age of fake news, mass media manipulation, identity politics, and delusion, I would love to see another video in the cult series discussing the methods of mass mind control and ways to defend oneself against mass mind control.

Spiritual autolysis was how I became gobsmacked by enlightenment. I was reading about the holographic universe and discovered Jed McKenna's Enlightenment Trilogy and bam! Like getting hit by a bus. This was in 2014 before I discovered actualized.org. It is a crazy experience to discover that consciousness is the only certain truth and everything else is a perception that is believed to be true. I had a taste of Torquise and it was delicious. But I am now going back to fill in the gaps in my self concept in stages green/yellow of the spiral.