I’m Russian. You Were Lied To About Putin.

EPSTEIN FILES: Coffeezilla, BP BREAK DOWN Latest Release

Why people mistake feelings for moral insight | Alex O'Connor

"Emotivism" is bunk. There may be an emotional (i.e., instinctual) component to moral claims. But ETHICAL ACTION (e.g., right or wrong actions) is RATIONALLY definable OBJECTIVELY within a given CONTEXT. Emotions (instincts) motivate action, and they tend to motivate good (right) actions, because what is good for the individual is often in alignment with what is good for society. Outside any society, right and wrong have no meaning. If you are alone, you can do anything you want and never do wrong; that's why those who wish to do evil first must dehumanize others, because if they are not like you, not human, then your actions don't reflect, and you can pretend your actions are not evil. "Do not do unto others as you would NOT want them to do unto you" doesn't matter if there are no others, or if the others are not your equals. Morality IS subjective, but Ethics is OBJECTIVE, as right action can be defined RATIONALLY (without any plea to supernatural beings or even subjective emotion) within a given CONTEXT (like human life on Earth in the 21st Century). We 'enlightened rationalists', educated as we are, aren't justifying contextual relativism or trying to redefine right and wrong; we are defining an objective ethics so that we can create justice and hold people to account for their actions. Only humans can do evil because only humans have the brains, minds to predict the future and take actions that exhibit freedom of their will. Animals simply express their instincts, and humans are animals, but we have a choice; we can follow our instincts, like animals, or choose to use our rational abilities to choose another action. When people do the wrong thing (as determined by society) we presume they had that choice. We don't presume dogs have that choice. There IS an objective (social) good and bad, right and wrong, within a given context (time and place), but there is no UNIVERSAL ETHICS (rational morality), and MORALITY (subjective ethics) generally appeals to supernatural beings to try and achieve a UNIVERSAL application. People murder all the time in the name of their gods, so murder isn't wrong under a religious (subjective) moral context. But ethically (rationally), murder is wrong under almost all imaginable contexts. Right action is thus rationally definable under almost any given context. Ethics is objective, not emotive.

What the U.S. Should Learn from this Latin American Country

JD Vance’s Power Network: How Theo Bros and Tech Bros Are Teaming Up

Dropkick Murphys: 30 Years of Fighting Nazis, Now Taking on Trump | On O...

If You Hate Gay or Trans People, You're Suspect | Christopher Titus (Doo...

Small plug-in solar panels gain traction as an affordable way to cut ele...

Should People Still Trust the Media in 2025? | DealBook Summit 2025

Audience ERUPTS After Comedian Calls Out Religious Hypocrites

Can You Pass The Baseline Test?

For Albert Camus, revolt is a fundamental human response to the absurd condition of life, a "yes" that emerges from a "no" to oppression, asserting human value and solidarity against meaninglessness and tyranny, as explored in The Rebel; it's not just political uprising but a metaphysical stance against despair, exemplified by Sisyphus, who finds meaning in his conscious struggle. Camus distinguished true rebellion (which affirms life and sets limits) from revolution (which often leads to destructive ideologies and new forms of oppression). 

Key Aspects of Camus's Revolt:

• Rooted in the Absurd: Revolt begins with recognizing life's meaninglessness (the Absurd) but refuses suicide or nihilistic despair, instead choosing to live despite it.
• A "Yes" and a "No": A rebel says "no" to injustice and limits but also "yes" to shared human values, creating solidarity.
• Metaphysical vs. Political: He differentiated metaphysical revolt (man against fate/creation) from political revolt (man against man/society) and warned that political revolutions often betray their ideals through violence and ideological excess, becoming revolutions of nihilism.
• The Rebel as Hero (Sisyphus): In The Myth of Sisyphus, Sisyphus rolling a boulder eternally becomes the absurd hero by consciously embracing his fate, finding dignity in his struggle and scorn for the gods.
• Limits and Ethics: True rebellion requires moral limits and a respect for human life, contrasting with revolutionary ideologies that justify mass murder for abstract future goals.
• Rebellion vs. Revolution: Rebellion says "no" to oppression but "yes" to human solidarity and limits; revolution often becomes a justification for total freedom and nihilistic destruction, leading to new tyrannies. 

Watch this video to understand the distinction between revolt and revolution in Camus's work:

Hillary: Young Jews TRICKED By Pro-Palestine TikTok

The Problem With Men, with Scott Galloway | What Now? with Trevor Noah P...