[deleted]

> NATO just as well declare war on Russia, as that is where the arming of Ukraine with these types of weaponry is headed.

Please do elaborate.

The longer it goes on, the more work and expense to restore and rebuild Ukraine. It’s sad that the decision is about money and not human lives but that doesn’t change this fact. At this point, the criticism will almost certainly be that they waited to long to act.

[deleted]

The same way he responded to the previous advanced weapon systems being supplied. By saying that THIS TIME it is too much.

Then he will report destroying them before they get delivered...

Agree, and it will be $ from the West to rebuild.

His military is already, quite literally, decimated. Russia is collapsing from an infestation of horribly corrupt leadership. So really, who gives a fuck what putin might do. NATO will literally elimate the rest of the russian military if they escalate. Amd there won't be a damn thing outin or russia can do about it, besides maybe launching nukes if they are even still functional after years of no maintenance.

I very very much hope that would be the next generation of russias to repay this back to the west, and not the Ukrainians

The same as every time? He utters threats of nukes. Does nothing. The war continues.

We should give ukraine more weapons sooner than later so we can end this war sooner yes.

Russians will do more empty threats, report more allegedly destroyed western equipment and mobilize more men willing to die in the name of putin's yacht

Good. Give them everything they need. Every dead Russian invader is a Ukrainian life saved.

This is the best tl;dr I could make, original reduced by 90%. (I'm a bot)

> KYIV, Ukraine - Ukraine and its Western allies are engaged in "Fast-track" talks on the possibility of equipping the invaded country with long-range missiles and military aircraft, a top Ukrainian presidential aide said Saturday.

> The attacks continued Saturday, when Russian missiles struck the city of Kostyantynivka in eastern Ukraine's Donetsk province.

> Podolyak, the presidential adviser, said Ukraine needs supplies of Western long-range missiles "To drastically curtail the key tool of the Russian army" by destroying the warehouses where it stores cannon artillery used on the front line.

Extended Summary | FAQ | Feedback | Top keywords: Ukraine^#1 Ukrainian^#2 Russian^#3 province^#4 missile^#5

The same way he has since the war began? He won’t attack a nato country or anything like that

All this should've happened sooner but better late than never! red tape and politics always gets in the way. Russia must be defeated for the good of everyone on the planet.

it will send a message to all the other dodgy countries that what they are doing is wrong and has to stop.

Eh that's giving russia too much credit. At the rate they're going its probably more like 3:1 lol

[removed]

Technically, Putin would suffer if he loses, so not everyone on the planet would benefit.

Also, who’s to say what’s “wrong” and what’s not? Most consider it wrong, but that doesn’t make it the objective statement you phrased it as.

Give them what they need to reach out and touch Russia.

So you support Russia then? Or do you just need to be contrarian and can’t help yourself?

[removed]

[removed]

Given the atrocious strategy and execution Russia has used, I am not supporting them. I am not intentionally being a contrarian. However, I don’t think the rest of the world is doing the right thing by intervening. Ukraine does not have any binding military alliances (if they did, those countries would have officially joined in against Russia) and these other countries are violating neutrality.

Your comment did not at all address the point I was making that there’s nothing that we can say is objectively “wrong” about this.

[removed]

A county invades unprovoked and under false pretense a weaker neighbour which it had previously given security guarantees to, and proceeds to commit actual genocide. Yep, nothing objectively wrong about this.

Awesome! Send Ukraine everything they want, you got my full support. Those planes and missles aren't doing us any good sitting around, might as well put them to work.

Just the drop the nukes already so we can stop being shortsighted

There’s no such thing as objectively wrong, so no, it’s not objectively wrong. However, most of us may agree in subjectively considering it wrong.

Not with this kill/death ratio they aren't

That was a lot of words to say absolutely nothing

What?

Murder is not objectively wrong? You’re just spewing nonsense, fuck off.

My point is that you're not really addressing the point of that person's comment.

The more the opposing army can be defeated from a distance, the less causalities

>Ukraine and its Western allies are engaged in “fast-track” talks on the possibility of equipping the invaded country with long-range missiles and military aircraft, a top Ukrainian presidential aide said Saturday.

>Mykhailo Podolyak, an adviser to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, said Ukraine’s supporters in the West “understand how the war is developing” and the need to supply planes capable of providing cover for the armored fighting vehicles that the United States and Germany pledged at the beginning of the month.

Objective means factual. Good and bad are not fact-based.

Further, one could argue that action is actually doing the person a favor.

It’s not nonsense just because you disagree. It’s actually what this sub is generally obsessed with, nuance.

[deleted]

I did, though. They’re claiming it’s objectively wrong.

About freaking time.

The planes they were always going to get - but those require a lot of training.

The missiles they can get pretty darn quick. They are pretty much trained on the HIMARS launchers already and just need a little bit more training to use the long range missiles on those. Just send them already!

The West must supply Ukraine with a fighter plane ASAP so training can start. Tanks aren't enough. They must be part of what is called combined arms operation. Fighters will provide air cover as tanks and infantry move forward.

Oh my god your false sense of insight has resulted in some truly inane statements.

There is no “sense of enlightenment”.

My statements aren’t “inane”, but please, enlighten me. Why do you think so?

In fact, the people trying to debate with me on this are inevitably making inane statements.

The first three words of your comment, if you mean it literally and not just something people say, draw into question your credibility on calling things “inane”.

Hows putins cock taste?

I don’t support Putin. I’ve already said I’m not supporting Russia, but it’s also not objectively wrong (because nothing is objectively wrong) to invade another country.

I'd love to hear your explanation of how genocide can be (morality wise) good, to counter an 'it's objectively wrong' argument. For it to be unable to be called objectively wrong, one needs to be able to prove it can be good (subjectively or otherwise).

Yes

Did people miss your joke? At least I thought it was pretty good.

To explain: "Every three dead Russian invaders is a Ukrainian life saved." But that of course excludes civilian deaths and that number is unknown since we have no idea how many died in Mariupol.

Things can be neither good nor bad (and objectively, they are always neither of those). But if you want me to name one thing I would consider a positive, if it is done, the people it is being done to would never suffer again. I don’t support it, because this is selective, which means treating groups unequally with no reason, which I don’t agree with. So no, I don’t consider it good.

However, nothing can be objectively wrong no matter what it is, because “wrong” is a subjective statement, just as “right” or “good” are.

>Good and bad are not fact-based

It's objectively bad to drink bleach, to maintain well being.

Technically correct but pointless, like the rest of your comments.

You're wrong.

As I replied to another post of yours, you can very well make objectively good and bad statements.

It is objectively good to keep hydrated to maintain well being. For example.

> If it is done, the people it is being done to would never suffer again.

Making a huge assumption here that they are or were suffering before being genocided. So that's adding a precondition that isn't necessarily so to the question asked.

I do not think they are pro-Putin, they just seem contrarian for the sake of it.

> I am not intentionally being a contrarian. However, ...

which is just like

> Not to be a racist, but ...

That’s conditional, not really objective.

What happens as a result of that isn’t objectively bad, and besides, that will happen to us all no matter what.

Response to what question? All I heard was a mumbo jumbo of accusations without links with silly accompanying music and Chinese subtitles.

We all know when something is 'wrong' even when we pretend we don't. The invasion of Ukraine, the tactics Russia have used, the targeting of civilians, the separation of families and in general, the world Russia is fighting to create are all wrong. That is why the entire free world has lined up against them.

And the only real support they have is from regimes that have already created what Russia really wants - an oppressed population under the control of a dictator who is answerable to nobody.

This is a war for freedom. And everyone does know what right and wrong is.

Agreed.

Exactly. It sounds like he's taking some of his philosophy teachings too stringent, and disregarding other philosophical teachings that do not say "bad and good are entirely subjective", but rather more nuanced.

Of course it's conditional, life is conditional. You can objectively say genocide is bad based on the conditions provided. And if that condition is that life is 'sacred' or whether genocide itself is outlawed, then you cannot but conclude that what is happening in Ukraine is objectively bad.

> it is objectively good to keep hydrated to maintain well being

Using that logic, it is objectively good to invade countries to expand your territory.

“Maintaining well being” cannot be considered objectively good. Nothing can, just as nothing can be considered objectively bad.

> assumption that they are or were suffering

Not an assumption, everybody that exists suffers. If you doubt that, suffering is literally defined as “the state of undergoing pain, distress, or hardship”. One technically undergoes hardship while trying to get food, which one needs in order to live.

Right, but life is not “sacred”.

Something being illegal also doesn’t make it objectively bad. For example, atheism is criminalized in Saudi Arabia, but it isn’t objectively bad (again, nothing is).

However, I do agree with you in subjectively determining that genocide is not good (it is also not objectively good, as nothing is). It is also not objectively bad.

Your “maintaining well being” example is also flawed as that is also not objectively good.

[deleted]

> Using that logic, it is objectively good to invade countries to expand your territory.

No, because you in this case subjectively add that expanding territory is always a positive. It may not be for multitude of reasons. Not hydrating yourself properly is never a positive for your well being.

> Not an assumption, everybody that exists suffers.

Ah, a nihilism hardliner are we? Most people would put the cons and pros against each other to decide whether they're suffering in life, rather than only look at the bad to decide they're suffering.

There is no such thing as “objectively right” or “objectively wrong”. We may subjectively agree about what we consider “right” or what we consider “wrong”, but that doesn’t make those things objectively so.

I think you missed the point of it being conditional... It's a very narrow view to think good or bad are entirely objective, it's also a very narrow view to think good or bad are entirely subjective. Conditions are which will decide whether something is subjectively or objectively good or bad.

As for whether life is 'sacred', it's why I added quotation marks around it. I don't mean it in the literal sense, I mean it in the conventions we've universally decided on.

> Your “maintaining well being” example is also flawed as that is also not objectively good.

Ah, it's flawed, yet I see no argument as to why. Interesting.

> you in this case subjectively add

You’re also subjectively adding that “maintaining well being” is a positive in your example.

> decide whether they’re suffering

I already showed that everyone suffers by definition. That is true regardless of whether or not they view their lives as a net positive, a net negative, or neutral.

Holy shit dude, people are dying because of Putins aggression. So your conclusion is just keep giving him what he wants? They tried that in 1939, which given your username I'd assume you'd know.

>You’re also subjectively adding that “maintaining well being” is a positive in your example.

That's not what subjective means. Expanding territory is in this case meant as always being a positive, which doesn't have to be so. Well being is clearly defined, your body dying is not maintaining well being. Hence always objectively good and bad by the condition provided. I think you've missed the part of philosophical teachings regarding good and bad that states regarding health issues and a few other things it can very well be made to be objective.

>I already showed that everyone suffers by definition. That is true regardless of whether or not they view their lives as a net positive, a net negative, or neutral.

You have not. You implied all people suffer by definition, but that is not the case. People suffer when they have more hardship to deal with than pleasure they feel. You're looking at it from a very nihilistic and negative view, that any bit of hardship means people suffer. If we follow your reasoning, I can also argue all people are joyous. For they have moments in their life that are joyful, tasting food for example.

He has missed his ethical objectivism class.

North Korea wants to throw a fit about Ukraine being armed after they armed Russia?

And so long as Russia can attack Ukraine from the safety of Russia indefinitely, how can Ukraine be safe?

Ukraine needs the tools to hit Russia on every inch of Ukraine and some ability to attack the launch sites for long range attacks. The problem here is I doubt many western countries would like to donate cruise missiles with their flag on them that hit Russian bombers at an air base near Moscow. That fear I understand. The ATACMs fear not so much.

Would be hilarious if ukraine ends up taking the entire Russia lol

[deleted]

Rumor has it that they've already been training pilots in the US.

Reddit loves war, but hates nukes. They don't see the connection.

Air defense saturation would really limit the attacks from Russia without requiring hitting inside Russia. They’ve done great lately and that keeps increasing. But Ukraine hitting Russia’s launch sites that are responsible for their strikes (more?) would be great. When I envision how this could look if (when) Ukraine pushes them fully out, I expect Russia to keep shooting like this unless there is a drastic change… until they realize it is futile due to Ukraine’s defenses. That’s a hope anyway.

It would be devastating for the whole world. Seriously I don’t understand this rationale.

Also, why the fuck would you want more war and death?

Push the Russians back to their borders, keep sanctions on and work with the new government(s) that form out of the Federation’s collapse.

Seriously, some people are deluded and think this is some kind of movie.

Oh now that the West has your full support, what are they waiting on?

[removed]

[removed]

[removed]

> Every dead Russian invader is a Ukrainian life saved.

No. Russia will just replace them. Or it bleeds white, which raises the risk of nukes.

To reduce lives lost (on both sides), either Ukraine or Russia needs to actually start winning with maneuver / tactical warfare, rather than WWI style positional warfare.

To win with maneuver warfare, Ukraine needs more equipment (tanks, planes, etc). This is how they won the Kherson counteroffensive (with a ton of ground taken and Russian heavy equipment destroyed). You don't need to kill the enemy, if you can overrun their position and force them to surrender. Russian had about 2-3000 lives lost which is a far more acceptable price than the hundreds dead every day in Bakhmut (where it's a WWI style battle with thousands dying to conquer a few metres of ground).

As for Russia, they've tried to win with maneuver warfare but it's hard to do this with incompetent command and Ukraine's extremely gutsy defence.

[removed]

[removed]

What is your point? The human mind is not capable of being truly objective ergo nothing is truly objective. However in this context the use of the word is acceptable. Murder is wrong. This is a statement of fact and law not one based on feelings. Just because you can find a handful of crazy people that think they should be able to kill someone for any reason in their head doesn't invalidate the claim of objectivity.

You must be fun at parties.

Just waiting for the nuked to drop, if you guys think for a second Putin will take a loss you're out of your fucking mind. Dude will kill himself and the planet before he admits defeat.

[deleted]

[removed]

"violating neutrality"? what neutrality? no one has an obligation to Russia to remain neutral. there is no violation.

additionally, the first person to bring up the concept of objective vs. subjective wrongness was yourself. the person you initially replied to did not say it was objectively wrong. they simply said it was wrong. if you believe that there is no such thing as objective wrongness, then you should have no problem with their statement, as it must be their own opinion. if you believe their opinion that genocide is wrong is incorrect, argue with that, don't attempt to set up a strawman about moral objectivism

You probably forgot Russia has nuclear weapons.

>There is no such thing as “objectively right” or “objectively wrong”.

No, you're objectively wrong.

What an absolute joke. Like that’s literally your argument? Youre a clown.

I could see him killing himself. I could see him wanting to deploy nukes.

I don't see it happening though. Russia is the only country I know that has multiple times given the command to send a nuke and someone in the launch procedure deciding against it.

If Putin gave that order I don't see the people agreeing to it. Instead it would likely be the catalyst for change. Because even though Putin made Russia go to war for no reason. And even though Russia is forcing to stay at war for no reason. And now Putin can see Russia is losing and Ukraine is just getting stronger. The tanks are not even there yet and now there is already talks of Jets.

Anyone can see where this is going. And when the Russians thought they might win more land, or win more resources they were okay with it. But the moment Putin tries to seal their fate and its not just minorities, and poor Russian's at risk but instead the entirety of Russia as a sovereign country I don't see them following through with that order.

Because as devastating as it would be and as tragic as it would be. Russia will end up against the word in that scenario and the world will continue on but united against Russia. And if they started dropping nukes I don't see the world allowing Russia to remain as a nuclear power, if they even allow Russia to remain as a sovereign country.

Sounds like one of my friends in college after he took Philosophy 101. Thought he was fucking Aristotle after being assigned an excerpt from Nicomachean Ethics. Insufferable for a month or so.

[deleted]

[deleted]

What the fuck is the thumbnail for this post. Lmao

Devastating for the whole world? It's a fantasy but Ukraine dismantling Russia would be a net good.

It'll be devastating for the whole world if Russia is left standing and tries this shit again in another decade.

BuUuUuUTt Asian PeEoplllle suuuhhhhhaaaaa

You’ve gotta try real hard to have so little comment karma for how much you comment

Disrupting bombers and ships in their garrisons, shooting down inbound missiles, and seizing and holding territory are the keys. It's like a RTS and Ukraine is at 75% through each development cycle.

> Russia must be defeated for the good of everyone on the planet.

Including Russians!

I would not be surprised if the conditions of western countries providing more capable weaponry is asking the Ukrainians to purge their institutions of corruption or of security leaks to Russia.

sounds like they wanted to give Russia time to be sensible about things, but Russia and Pootie decided to go full meatshield

> There’s no such thing as objectively wrong

Believe it or not, this is objectively wrong. If someone says 2+2=85, they are objectively wrong. There are a lot of things in this word that are not just a matter of opinion, as much as certain groups of delusional people disagree.

> Give them the ability to destroy military bases near Moscow and things might change.

They seemingly already have a limited ability to do just that, considering the strikes on the Engles airbase requires a similar range to be able to strike Moscow.

I mean I think you can see how many downvotes I’ve gotten due to outrage over that one comment where I simply made an observation.

Fucking invading Russia is stupid and unnecessary. There’s supporting Ukraine and then there is just being a warmonger.

Because you disagree with me?

“Right” and “wrong” are inherently subjective judgements, no matter how common one particular stance on an action or decision may be.

[removed]

Ah, but there is no such thing as “moral law”.

If you really buy into this concept, though, do you judge the actions of tigers?

I was saying one can’t judge something as ethically “objectively right” or “objectively wrong”.

Obviously someone saying 2 + 2 = 85 is objectively wrong.

[removed]

Ah, but I was talking in terms of ethics. Ethical good and bad are entirely subjective.

If the goal is to maintain stable health, drinking water does help, but it’s not objectively good. A goal of maintaining stable health is also not objectively good to have.

> what neutrality

None of these countries are technically at war with Russia.

> the person you initially replied to did not say it was objectively wrong

Indeed, they did not directly state it, but it was heavily implied.

I suggest you start reading about ethical objectivism. You've clearly skipped this part in philosophy.

If you are a nihilism hardliner, then yeah, you would say so. I beg to differ by a lot.

Why would I judge the actions of a tiger? You cannot judge that which hasn't the same faculties as humans do. But, let's for the sake of argument do so, yes I'd say that genocide among tigers by tigers is also objectively wrong to do, as it hurts their species' viability.

not being at war with Russia does not carry any obligation to not provide arms to Russia's opponent or to not sanction them. I have no idea what principles you think are being violated here.

it is simply your opinion that it was heavily implied. they did not state that they believe genocide is objectively wrong. without such a statement, it is senseless to try to start a debate about whether objective wrongness exists, as that isn't relevant to their point.

That sounds awfully subjective whether they implied or not.

That would be great. Russia should not be informed until a week before the fighter planes are deployed in Ukraine.

> Murder is wrong

Not objectively. You say it is a statement of fact and not feeling, yet it is a statement of feeling. Everyone who was born is going to die anyways, so by your reasoning I’m assuming you also consider reproduction wrong? I mean in that case I would agree but for different reasons, but that is irrelevant.

Okay, so it's not just me.

The human mind is not capable of being truly objective ergo nothing is truly objective as I have said.

In the real world contemporary society has agreed that to function we have a certain set of rules that we agree in a way to be objectively true. Splitting this hair will get you no where.

We agree it to be subjectively considered true, not objectively.

> I beg to differ by a lot

With what logical basis?

> why would I judge the actions of a tiger

They are a species of animals, just like humans. Or do you need another ape species to judge? How about chimpanzees and bonobos, the two species most similar to humans?

> hurts their species’ viability

That doesn’t make it “objectively bad”.

I’ve read about it and can clearly see it is nonsensical. “Morality” and “ethics” are concepts we invented.

[removed]

[removed]

No.

On the basis of various examples within ethical objectivism, Plato's writings among others, and various things I've already said to you.

As for the tiger. Yes, they're also animals, as are we. And yet, as we're different species and different brains, we cannot lay down judgment. Goes for chimpanzees and any other animal you can think of. I thought that would've been more than obvious.

And it does make it objectively bad, for the tigers, which was the point.

What's he holding?? Lol

Hahaha, well then our discussion is done. You clearly haven't understood the meaning of it. Your view is too black and white. At this point our argument will devolve in your position is nonsensical, no yours, no yours.

As for whether we invented it or not. Did we invent maths or are they part of fundamental truths of the universe? Why can't that hold for (parts of) morality or ethics?

[removed]

No, it's not a simple observation, it's irreverance. Bringing up an academic discussion on objective morality in the midst of a war is disgusting and unnecessary. If someone is suffering a tragedy, you don't bring this topic up; leave these thoughts in the classroom. Regardless of your many flawed premises throughout your comments, your greatest wrong is this misdirection.

[deleted]

That’s a horrible idea

If Moscow comes under attack, the situation escalates to even more insane proportions

Guaranteed won’t happen.

We could have donated heavily upgraded leopard 1’s that are in the process of decommissioning too.

Also like 50,000 70mm rockets we’re currently dismantling

Invading Ukraine was stupid and unnecessary and Putin is the warmonger.

[removed]

Which boarders? The Donbas and Crimea are now part of Russia. Taking those back is technically invading Russia and could potentially start a nuclear war.

Objective ethics don’t exist.

If I’m a loser, what does that make you? Someone just going with the masses, not thinking a single bit about it?

Let me clarify one more time: I am neither a contrarian, nor someone supporting Russia, so I’m not trolling or doing anything like that, just someone stepping back and then taking a look from a better angle.

[removed]

About ethical objectivism, we invented these concepts, and all of it is opinion-based, so no, it is not objective.

> objectively bad

You’re subjectively saying that a reduction in members of the species is bad. That’s not objective.

You do realize that all species, whether humans, chimpanzees, tigers, or any other animal, are all going to go extinct at some point no matter what, right?

Math is objective. One cannot simply say “2 + 2 is 85 because I said so”. 2 + 2 is in fact not 85.

Morality and ethics are not objective. There’s no such thing as “fundamental truths of the universe”. In some cases, an action is considered bad, while in others, it is considered good. Meanwhile, 2 + 2 is always equal to 4.

Life did not always exist and will not always exist. One person having a certain idea of ethics does not make it objective. Further, any decision made by humans or other complex animals is entirely based on the electrical signals being transmitted among their neurons. You can’t judge these actions.

It is an observation. The commenter I replied to originally said that everybody would benefit if Russia lost. I brought up one example of a person who wouldn’t. I know none of us would have much pity for Putin, but how about the Russian families who lost the person they depend on so they could fight for Russia, just to lose? How about the average Russian, who is facing struggles in a crippled economy and a potential split of Russia when they lose, meaning more uncertainty?

It is in fact true that there is no objective “right” or “wrong” in ethics. It’s not academic, it really is common sense. It’s also not “disgusting”, it’s just stepping back and staying aware of the facts. Was this the wrong place and the wrong time? Obviously, seeing as the hive-mind downvotes me without thinking about what I say.

> flawed premises

What flawed premises? Do you mind explaining how it’s flawed to note that we cannot pass our personal opinion of something as a fact when it is not a fact?

Is it not flawed to think everyone’s lives will benefit from a certain outcome?

> misdirection

I’m not misdirecting anybody.

If you think I’m supporting Russia, let me say one more time that I do not support Russia.

[deleted]

[removed]

Why? You haven't explained why it can't be so at all. In fact every building block in the world is based on those fundamental laws, so in essence, however complex we are we still are build and limited by it. Ergo, ethics and morality can therefore also be fundamental. One may consider something good, but be wrong. Exactly like someone who says 2+2=85 is wrong. Just because there are more opinions, doesn't negate the fact it can logically be a wrong opinion.

Also funny you speak of electrical signals as basis of our consciousness, if anything that proves my point.

No, it's not all opinion based at all. Like math, they're build upon logic. Not all may be arriving at the same logical conclusion though, but they may've erred, like one may in math. When there's multiple logically sound conclusions, then your limiting parameters in the question aren't sufficient. Like one can't know in certain equations whether x is positive or not.

And yes, I do know they will at some point go extinct. Is that not bad for the species itself? There's nothing subjective about that. Secondly, we are talking about a species genociding itself, not an outside force making them go extinct. So you're slippery sloping the argument.

How can something be objectively ethically good or bad? That entirely depends on what a person considers “desirable”, which is subjective.

How does it prove your point? You do realize parts of our brains are for subjective things, right?

Going extinct is not objectively bad. In general, the ceasing of life, whether from internal or external factors, is not objectively bad. It’s only considered bad if life is considered necessarily a positive, which is not objective. Tigers have to do the work to hunt to get their food, and if they overdo it, it would disrupt part of the food chain temporarily, causing chaos on a small scale.

You fail to see the point yet again. It's not about whether it's objectively bad for the universe at large. It's objectively bad, or a negative if you will, for the species itself. It's all in the limiting parameters that one can arrive at a logical conclusion.

Again, it’s only bad if the species’ existence in large numbers is considered good. That’s not objective at all. It is objectively obstructive of said species existing in large numbers, good or bad is a subjective thing building on top of that.

You are adding on a parameter. If the species is getting non-viable due to overpopulation, a reduction in size is indeed not necessarily bad. It might be good. That's your parameter you work with to reach a logical conclusion. It doesn't change whether something cannot be objective or not, you just changed the prior equation and thus changed the logical conclusion. It's like having you change a 2+2=4 into a 2+2+1=5 and then argue the previous equation wasn't objective for there's a new result in the new equation.

No, you’re misunderstanding. A species’ existence in general, or its stability in numbers, is not objectively good either.

It is for the species itself. You're changing parameters by making it be about the universe at large.

A universe based on fundamental truths cannot create something that does not adhere by those fundamental truths. It's based on objectivity and thus we cannot suddenly have subjectivity. Differing opinions does not mean that it is therefore subjective, it means that the parameters have changed. For something good to one, can make it bad to another due to their internal parameters (their life). Where genocide of one species, can be good for another, it still is fundamentally bad for the species being genocided.

[removed]

In your own words though, you only don't support him due to lack of planning and bad execution, not due to the unprovoked and unjustified assault on a peaceful sovereign nation and its citizens all in the name of installing a puppet regime and stealing its resources. You also see nothing "objectively wrong" with his direct attacks on non combatant civilian populations.

You are, simply put, a Putin supporter and sympathizer.

It’s a visual representation of me sitting in bed reading this post

No. I subjectively agree in considering his attacks on civilians wrong, but it’s not objectively wrong, as nothing is. Some civilians were definitely going to get hurt as collateral damage, but clearly Russia is going out of its way to unnecessarily harm them (which is just stupid considering at this point even if they did win it wouldn’t be worth it), which I don’t support.

I am not a Putin supporter. Look what he has done. He has exposed Russia’s military as atrocious, causing our fate to not be a Third World War, but something much more drawn-out and painful, he has ruined his country’s economy, and ruined a lot of people’s lives. That being said, I don’t think launching offensives should be met with such opposition from countries that aren’t even fighting in the war.

You’re placing a subjective positive value on existence. Even for the species, if it didn’t exist, none of its members would have had to suffer (they by definition suffer). Lower numbers also means less of them are suffering (which by definition is the case), and I think you may hold a different view on this than me, but I subjectively view suffering as bad. It’s not objective that existence is good.

Ethics and morality are not “fundamental truths”.

You’re again subjectively placing a positive value on life and existence.

We've been over this before. You're equating some hardship to suffering because by definition hardship is suffering. Yes, yet you fail to see that there are also joyful moments where for example they get to enjoy food, family, etcetera. Ergo, they may not in total, be suffering. If one argues that because they experience some hardship they therefore are suffering, I'll put forward that because they experience some joy, they are therefore joyous. It's nonsensical. It has nothing to do about subjectivity, you're using a false representation of what is, only looking at one side of the equation and therefore reaching an incomplete conclusion.

I'm not placing any subjective positive value on existance. Existance by its very nature is existing, ending such existance is a negative to said existance. That's objective.