You have 30 seconds after reading this post to explain why thousands of years of ethical discussion by the best of...

you have 30 seconds after reading this post to explain why thousands of years of ethical discussion by the best of humanity cant be solved by "just treat people equally lmao"

if you cant then slave morality is just and definitely not self deception

>Just be nice to each other
really is the answer. It's just that having everyone be nice to each other all the time is hard

...

morality is a spook created by city dwellers

>communism wont work because of the fear of the other spending their time better than you can spend yours

I think it's natural to regard people close to you as more deserving, which would still lead to inequality. I also truly believe that there is an evolutionary, lizard brain type deal where people are just nicer and more generous to those who look like them.

Discussions are not things to be solved. In fact, they start after solutions are presented.

It is hard, because people don't trust others, because they know that they are secretly kinda dicks themselves and if they are dicks, then others must be secret dicks too!

I hate everyone I've ever seen who looks like me. Also, I hate myself.

people are so incredibly far from being equal that doing so disrupts order and creates chaos

people aren't equal

communism cant work because human nature dummy

Because that says nothing if how we should actually act, just that it should have an even distribution. But even Aristotle wouldn't say treat people equally, because the mean varies from person to person. You might give more to charity than you would your rich uncle for example.

>philosophy advances and changes all the time
>until 1850 when it cuts off and everything becomes fake and worthless man
You're like a Socratic Amish person.

>ethical discussion can be "solved"

no

then what's the point in having the discussion

The problem word is 'equally,' obviously. Or how to apply it. Where re-begin. Etc.

if you have two hypothetical people,
one is a diligent and pious family man who works hard, participates in his local community, provides a stable future for his children, attempts to see others grow to be better and adheres to his local traditions.

the other is a hedonistic individualist who intentionally tries to creates value in what is the opposite of good, has mtf surgical operations, doesnt have children, shuns his family, lives on handouts, and values what brings immediate pleasure over what is best in the long run.

would you say that the general cultural consensus should be that these two people are
equal in their value, and that you should encourage and discourage these things in equal measure? would you say that there isnt one who is of more value and more desirable than the other? would you have no preference for which one is the more beneficial type? should these people be treated equally? and what would you say of a society that does or does not do this.

what reasons (beyond ressentiment) could there possibly be to think that you should treat these people equally?

Cause people are different, so treating everybody the same is discriminating the superior people :)

>just treat people equally lmao
So you treat 6 year old girls and 22 year old women the same?
Do you treat a friend and a thief the same way?

you are enforcing age roles and also are a kleptophobic bigot

I'm every possible kind of bigot.

Including the kind of bigot that necessitates not being other types of bigot?

I'm a meta-logic bigot, therefore I can be and not be all kinds of bigot without any problem.