>"I wasn't using required in the manner you think. When someone says "logically required" they're talking about deductive logic, consider these premises: all frogs can jump, the animal in question is a frog, therefore the animal in question can jump. This is deductive logic (as opposed to inductive logic). Assuming the first two premises are true and accurate (I'm not saying they actually are, but lets say they are for the sake of the argument), then it is logically required that the animal in question can jump. That's what logically required means, it means that the conclusion put forth is consistent with deductive logic."

I already understood what you meant and I apologize for my rigid stance on certain things overriding diplomacy.

Someone elsewhere just suggested "logically entails" as a surrogate that wouldn't provoke my "logical dislike".

>"Sure, I agree. But saying it's a myth is a bit of a weird way of saying it, its just subjective."

No. It is neither subjective or objective, it is imaginary. It is a myth.

>"What any one person should do, based on deductive or inductive logic, is based on an incomprehensible number of variables, and based on their own goals conscious and unconscious."

False. There is nothing any person "should" do. Nothing in the universe "should" do anything differently than what it is doing nor "should" it be doing whatever it is doing.

>"But you are wrong, morality in philosophy is a normative study, aka the study of what you should do."

Then philosophy is doomed to never get to the truth as it does not involve actually pursuing it, it just goes chasing its own tail.

>"If you disagree with that, then it'd be wise to find another word instead of morality as you are using it in such a way that most people educated in philosophy won't understand what you're trying to say."

You're saying "most people educated in philosophy" are so stupid they can't anticipate a stranger's idea of morality may not conform to that of their philosophy teachers'.

>"This is just a contingent or definitional truth."

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

>"I disagree that evil or immorality has anything to do with malevolence."

Sure but how do you disagree? You can disagree with me saying the Earth orbits the Sun rather than vice versa.

>"If you think it does, that's fine, but you're definition of immorality is in no way logically required or objective."

Kindly explain that to me. I am saying that the universe doesn't care about the U.S. President nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki and sees it no different from Jack the Ripper butchering women in London or you killing a fly... however, the malevolence of the U.S. President nuking Hiroshima and Nagasaki (the victimizing of the people) is tempered by the circumstantal elements of benevolence (ending WWII sooner) which leads to the debate of it being moral or immoral to drop those nukes.

Levels of benevolence and malevolence -> levels of good and evil -> How moral or immoral?

That's what I'm saying. What are you saying? That the universe has an opinion on what the U.S. President "should" have done?