Philosophy - Nihilism versus Cynicism. (Was AS#106)

[Omega]

You people are too quick to judge this Aniz fellow. I'm sure he has the most logical motives behind this plan. Even if you want to draw a line between  good and evil, bear in mind that there are no right or wrong answers to moral questions. People just have different ways to do things and different values to judge their actions, that's all.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

"Is it moral to kill someone who is walking past you with no further reason?" ?

Tell me that has no right answer. Please justify your response.

[Omega]

One can justify anything by anything. It can be your habit, it can be your religion, it can be vital for your survival. Anything that doesn't happen by itself, happens for a reason. Is it necessary to kill is another matter. The reason for murder (or manslaughter) is usually good enough for the person who commits the act. To our point of view, it's pure madness, of course, but I for one try to avoid solipsism whenever I can.

My point is that there is no universal right or wrong, because there are as many thruts as there are minds to comprehend it.

[Fuyudenki]

...as many thruts as...

what are "thruts?"  Oh, I see.

My point is that there is no universal right or wrong, because there are as many truths as there are minds to comprehend it.

Now then.

If I were to jump from a tall building, my justification being that I could fly, and therefore had nothing to fear, and then transition myself into a large, bloody mess on the ground, am I dead?

If you're wandering around, and some wiseguy, uppity sniper decides to upgrade your brain with high-speed, precision-engineered lead counterweights, are you dead?

Truth is truth is truth.  Truth is as unbending and unforgiving as a brick wall to a speeding motorist, and there are many truths which simply can not be ignored.  If you claim that what you consider 'truth' is different from what someone else considers 'truth,' then that is your perfectly valid opinion.

Perfectly wrong, but valid, none the less.

[Omega]

I thought I fixed that typo...


Anyway, the truth probably is out there, but no one can understand it completely. Why? because we base our thinking on our sense and on our reason. Both can be fooled, and not with much effort.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

One can justify anything by anything. It can be your habit, it can be your religion, it can be vital for your survival. Anything that doesn't happen by itself, happens for a reason. Is it necessary to kill is another matter. The reason for murder (or manslaughter) is usually good enough for the person who commits the act. To our point of view, it's pure madness, of course, but I for one try to avoid solipsism whenever I can.

My point is that there is no universal right or wrong, because there are as many thruts as there are minds to comprehend it.

I didn't ask if you -could- justify it. I asked for a reason, and a justification for -that- reason.

"Because I want to" isn't a reason. It's an excuse.

So far you've said "it's ok to kill, because someone will figure out a reason every time." On that basis, it's ok, so far, to kill you as you walk past, because, according to you, it's something that the killer will find a reason to justify it. And the rest of society being appalled by the apparently senseless murder is also ok, because it can be justified.


I repeat: Please tell me why YOU feel it's "moral" to kill someone who just walks past you. Not "why you think someone would do it", not "why you think someone would feel ok about it" - I'm asking YOU, and only YOU, to tell me why you believe it is moral to kill someone who just walks past you. Alternatively, explain to me why "there are no right or wrong answers to moral questions" DOESN'T allow someone to kill at random.

Personally, I hold all my rights to diss Amber's way to run her comic as long as I'm not paying her to do it.

... right. And we hold all rights to mock you for complaining. Glad to see we've got all that sorted out.

[Omega]

why you believe it is moral to kill someone who just walks past you.
Alternatively, explain to me why "there are no right or wrong answers to moral questions" DOESN'T allow someone to kill at random.

It's really hard to explain a murder when you put it like that. It's about the details. It's all about the details.
I try to be as clear on this as I can. How do you define a moral? Mostly from people around you. Why is it okay to eat animals? because majority does it. Why in some countries some drugs are legal? Because people like them. All the ethics and morals are defined by the masses. They are not absolutes. If a person gets the idea that shooting others is not against the morals that he possesses, then it is okey to him/her kill, but it will still be judged by the society. That's what you see when there's a teenager blasting with his/her illegal gun in a school. Sometimes the people accept a murder. Self-defence, war, fear. Excuses are reasons too. Killers are people too, they just have different values than you. I'm not saying that it's it's moral to kill the next guy who walks by, because I'm saying that in the end, it is you who defines what your morals are and what are not. If this fellow kills his neighbour and explains to me why he did it, fine. You did whay you had to do, but you're still going to jail for it.

Personally, I hold all my rights to diss Amber's way to run her comic as long as I'm not paying her to do it.

... right. And we hold all rights to mock you for complaining. Glad to see we've got all that sorted out.

uuhhh... that didn't come out the way I meant it. What I was trying to say, was that I shall not complain as long as I'm expecting to have quality for my money, which I don't have.

If I sound like a ten-year-old, it's because I've spoken English for ten years, alright? What's your excuse? 

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

It's really hard to explain a murder when you put it like that. It's about the details. It's all about the details.

Try. I'm not asking you to succeed, I'm asking you to make an effort.

I'll even go so far as to say that I'll take your words with an open mind.

I try to be as clear on this as I can. How do you define a moral? Mostly from people around you.

No, one defines situational ethics based on the people around one. Your personal moral choices are based on what is right, and what is wrong, and -they- are usually based on what you were brought up with. And usually, those moral values are based on what works when getting a bunch of apes together in a society - don't randomly kill each other, for example, because it means the apes get nervous, and may kill you back.

However, you've said that morals are variable, if I understand you. You've said "there are no wrong answers to moral questions" - I fail to understand how this doesn't allow me to say "Morally, I can kill this man because I don't like his haircut."

Ethically, I refuse to kill him because I expect to get caught, and will spend time in jail as a result, and I like my freedom. However, this is a rational decision, not a moral one. Morally, I disagree with killing people. You have said that morals are flexible. I disagree. I'm waiting for you to back your assertion up with a coherent argument to persuade me that I'm wrong.

Why is it okay to eat animals? because majority does it. Why in some countries some drugs are legal? Because people like them. All the ethics and morals are defined by the masses. They are not absolutes.

Absolute or not, you've stated that "moral questions have no right or wrong answers." So... I provided a moral question, that I believe only has one right answer. You haven't answered it either way.

Is it, or is it not, moral to kill someone who just happens to be walking past you, with no further provocation?

I believe that it is never moral. You've stated otherwise. I'm waiting for your reasonable justification for such an action, on moral grounds.

If a person gets the idea that shooting others is not against the morals that he possesses, then it is okey to him/her kill, but it will still be judged by the society. That's what you see when there's a teenager blasting with his/her illegal gun in a school.

I'm not talking about society. I'm talking about morality. You said morals vary. I say it's still immoral to kill someone. Just because I'm crazy doesn't make me right.

Sometimes the people accept a murder. Self-defence, war, fear. Excuses are reasons too.

No. Excuses are NOT reasons. Reasons are acceptable. Excuses are not.

"I killed him because he was molesting my dog" is an excuse.
"I killed him because he was molesting my wife" is a reason.

While the two are close, they are not the same.

Killers are people too, they just have different values than you. I'm not saying that it's it's moral to kill the next guy who walks by, because I'm saying that in the end, it is you who defines what your morals are and what are not. If this fellow kills his neighbour and explains to me why he did it, fine. You did whay you had to do, but you're still going to jail for it.

You said morals were defined from the people around you. So.. why does him deciding that he can kill the people around him mean that he's ok? You're being inconsistent, here. Firstly you say other people make moral standards, now you're saying each person makes their own?

... right. And we hold all rights to mock you for complaining. Glad to see we've got all that sorted out.

uuhhh... that didn't come out the way I meant it. What I was trying to say, was that I shall not complain as long as I'm expecting to have quality for my money, which I don't have.

If I sound like a ten-year-old, it's because I've spoken English for ten years, alright? What's your excuse? 

Mockery. I believe I mentioned that. ;-]

[Tapewolf]

"Is it moral to kill someone who is walking past you with no further reason?" ?

Tell me that has no right answer. Please justify your response.

An interesting thought experiment.  If 'you' means an ordinary citizen, and the 'someone' is also just an ordinary citizen who 'you' kill in a random attack, then no, I cannot see how it could be morally justified.

However, if 'you' are Dorcan from BoTM, or an escaped undesirable in wartime Germany lurking terrified in the shadows and the 'someone' is a Brotherhood Zealot or a member of a death squad, then yes, I think it could be.

I'm assuming you meant the former scenario.

[Reaver225]

I repeat: Please tell me why YOU feel it's "moral" to kill someone who just walks past you. Not "why you think someone would do it", not "why you think someone would feel ok about it" - I'm asking YOU, and only YOU, to tell me why you believe it is moral to kill someone who just walks past you. Alternatively, explain to me why "there are no right or wrong answers to moral questions" DOESN'T allow someone to kill at random.

You're in a PVP zone?

Being slightly less humorous, one can imagine a society where life really has no value attached to it; perhaps their medical abilities are really effective and have no problems bringing people back to life, and everyone wants a bit of excitement.
This is really avoiding the point of the exercise; I cannot see any moral justification for killing someone randomly for no purpose whatsoever, however, it's because I (and probably most people here) value human life to be worth something, and it's not impossible for a society to exist without such a value on life.

Let me ask a question: Where does the value of human life come from? Why is it immoral to kill anyone randomly? (This question's going to be followed with asking 'why is that so' until we run out of answers.. some steps can be skipped)

[superluser]

Let me ask a question: Where does the value of human life come from? Why is it immoral to kill anyone randomly? (This question's going to be followed with asking 'why is that so' until we run out of answers.. some steps can be skipped)

Because we would limit genetic diversity that way.

[Manawolf]

Oh yes, we really need people who carry those inbred genes and call up 911 because a hot dog vendor gave them something they didn't want.

Nature works very naturally, as it picks off the stupid and weak first.  Society unfortunately seeks to stop this, and by doing so you end up with more stupid and weak people (a lot more since these stupid people don't have the sense to use protection or have the money to afford to do anything more than **** each other).

[Eibborn]

Yeah, let's all go out and kill retards! 

[Manawolf]

They certainly aren't killing themselves fast enough.  We need more Darwin Awards.

[techmaster-glitch]

Manawolf, I agree with you entirely. We need to put an end to laws that say people have to 'be safe', like getting arrested for not wearing a seatbelt. For crying out loud, let them not wear a seatbelt! We'll give 'em a Darwin Award when they're gone!

[Reaver225]

Y'see the 'why' arguement works for a lot of stuff. Why is having extra stupid and weak people bad?

(Why is their using up resources of others bad?)

((Why does it matter if we have less resources to go around for ourselves?))

(((Why does your own life matter?)))

[DarkAudit]

Y'see the 'why' arguement works for a lot of stuff. Why is having extra stupid and weak people bad?

In a world without noobs, there would be nobody left to pwn and gank.

[Manawolf]

But you can't even do that because of the laws.

[Keleth]

Look, if you really wanna start taking out idiots in the world who you don't feel belong because of whatever silly reason.

Here's the best way to start.

#1 ) Point gun at head

#2) Pull the trigger.

There, you contributed to ridding the world of idiots. Hurray!

[Alondro]

Well, there actually were periods of time in which a higher class could simply kill anyone in lower classes for no reason at all, maybe something as simple as not liking the looks of them. 

A good portion of the Middle Ages was like that, where senseless killings were commonplace, but nobody cared because all their lives were crappy.

And then there were pirates.  Cuz pirates were drunken reprobates with no morals or ethics, unlike ninjas who were awesome beyond belief! 

Ninjas rule.   

*time to end the seriousness and start a new pirate-ninja war*   

[terrycloth]

Let me ask a question: Where does the value of human life come from? Why is it immoral to kill anyone randomly? (This question's going to be followed with asking 'why is that so' until we run out of answers.. some steps can be skipped)

Because societies that allowed people to be killed at random got wiped out by more effective societies that didn't. On a more basic level, because there is a real world that morality has to accomodate in order to be relevant.

Because certain truths are self evident and built into human existance -- people want to survive and experience pleasure and not experience pain. In order for human life to have no value, people would have to not care about their own survival, because otherwise they give their own life a value. As soon as they do that, you can get an advantage by not destroying their life -- you can hold it hostage and get them to do work for you, or something. You can choose to ignore that value, but that's just being stupid and not the value not existing. You can set a $20 bill on fire if you want, but that doesn't mean it has no value.

Over time, this eventually evolved into the current 'peace treaty' that we call civilization, where we agree to value other peoples' lives and happiness in return for the expectation that they'll value our own. People who break that deal forfeit their right to life and happiness -- they get executed or put in prison. You don't need to assume anything ephemeral to arrive at this state, just people seeing and taking advantage of opportunities created by common, genetically determined tendencies.

Some of the lesser rules of morality (getting away from 'I want to live' and 'I want to be happy') are less clear-cut -- you can have effective societies that provide a safety net for the less fortunate, or that don't. That include rights for animals. That value intellectual property, or property at all for that matter. Those are more interesting questions and people experiment with them sometimes and usually end up discovering that their new society that bucks the conventional wisdom fails miserably. But, you know, if no one ever tried stuff that probably wouldn't work, nothing new would ever be discovered.

[Alondro]

Because certain truths are self evident and built into human existance -- people want to survive and experience pleasure and not experience pain.

Unless they're into the whole cutting thing...

Dang emos... 

[Janus Whitefurr]

Because certain truths are self evident and built into human existance -- people want to survive and experience pleasure and not experience pain.

Unless they're into the whole cutting thing...

Dang emos... 

I was going to say "BDSM?" myself.

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

I was going to say "BDSM?" myself.

Arguably (and I'm not going to argue the point myself) BDSM practitioners -still- aim for the pleasure.

They just use pain to trigger pleasure, which is because their pain and pleasure wires in their brain have become somewhat mixed - not necessarily in a bad way, and it's not as uncommon as you might think. *shrug*

[Reaver225]

Because certain truths are self evident and built into human existence -- people want to survive and experience pleasure and not experience pain. In order for human life to have no value, people would have to not care about their own survival, because otherwise they give their own life a value. As soon as they do that, you can get an advantage by not destroying their life -- you can hold it hostage and get them to do work for you, or something. You can choose to ignore that value, but that's just being stupid and not the value not existing. You can set a $20 bill on fire if you want, but that doesn't mean it has no value.

When someone starts stating 'self evident' truths is usually the point where we can start asking the dangerous questions. Self evident truths ARE obvious, but the reasons behind them are sometimes not so... if you drop something on earth, it will fall. Because of gravity. Self evident. But why does gravity work?

People want to survive and experience pleasure but not pain in general (barring specific cases). But why is this so? Simple dopamine sensors in your brain and programmed instincts. Why should that be a driving force?

As for the money example, it's a very good one. On a remote island, where no-one's ever heard of or seen money before, a $20 note isn't going to be worth anything - perhaps as a bit of something to burn.. In terms of pure resources, that $20 HAS no value. It's intrinsic worth is next to zero as a bit of paper. It's only when you assign it value that it means anything.

[Kuari]

Ninjas rule.   

*time to end the seriousness and start a new pirate-ninja war*   

Well since you mentioned it....  *watches a ninja spin his sword around fancily* ........  *fills the ninja full of blunderbuss, the ORIGINAL Boomstick*

Right, now that that's settled...  I really do wonder what Aniz's reasons were, despite this.  Why did he want a son?  Hell, why a son from a non-cubi?  kind of confusing..  And now that I think about it, was it ever answered if Aniz was around before or after May got married I wonder.

[Omega]

Alright. Took me long enough. One has difficulties to find some time in these dark times, it seems. This is the last time I'm doing this. After this, if we aren't clear on this matter, I'll give up and come to a conclusion that I have failed to use English language as incarnation of my thoughts. We can, of course, debate this matter further, but I'm not going to try to repeat myself and I'm not going to do it in this thread. A further note: I've written this post in three parts, so if it may feel a but chaotic, give it a rest, ok?

you've said that morals are variable, if I understand you. You've said "there are no wrong answers to moral questions" - I fail to understand how this doesn't allow me to say "Morally, I can kill this man because I don't like his haircut."

Ethically, I refuse to kill him because I expect to get caught, and will spend time in jail as a result, and I like my freedom. However, this is a rational decision, not a moral one. Morally, I disagree with killing people. You have said that morals are flexible. I disagree. I'm waiting for you to back your assertion up with a coherent argument to persuade me that I'm wrong.

By words "wrong" and "right", I do not mean true and false. When I say there are no wrong answers to moral questions, I mean that if person A sees kills people next to him, he must have have a good reason for it. So far, I've noticed that people don't go around and shoot each other spontaneously. There's always a motive behind every action. You or I are not right persons to judge those motives, because those reasons work differently to us than to Mr.A. At some point of history, I'm sure, has been events where one has killed other one just for the sake of it AND at the time, there has been nothing wrong with it. (i.e. Wild West, an invaded nation, etc.)

Look at this random cute dog:
                                             
Now imagine as I kill it. And eat it. Was that moral or immoral? IF you ask me, my answer depends on what mood I was. If you ask a PETA-member, she says it was immoral. If you ask a cat owner, she high fives with me. So was that act of immorality or just feeding. Depends on the fuzzy details, doesn't it? I was hungry and there was nothing else to eat. "Oh okay. I guess that makes it allright" says the audience. Well, there was some of these sugar things, but I don't eat those, because if I do, I'll get cancer, so I ate the dog. And get judged by the crowd.

Now I've shown you that details are what matters the morality of actions, yes?
Nothing is ever black and white in the real world.
In fact, every action is based on our previous actions which are based on previous actions before those and so on.
"But you can always chose what action you take at the moment"
True, in a way. But you know how human mind evolves and grows, right? You get to make the choice, but you base it on the information you got, you use logic or some other kind of reasoning, such as emotions that are also based on other emotions etc. I'm not counting a random acts, such as flipping a coin or tossing a dice. Ergo, your actions and decisions are based on your knowledge, which is based on your senses which can be fooled. You fool the eye, you fool the man. From this, we get to "your world" or "your reality". Your world, as I've named it, is something that everybode has. No your world is quite the same, although it is impossible to tell, because everybody has just one: their own. Your world is the sum of the information that all your senses have provided to you. From this data, you have been able to draw conclusions that define your reality.

Now, where am I going with this? You'll see. From what you just learned (or not) is that [A Every act is based on older actions and thoughts. The past creates the present. B Everything we see is folded into simple conclusions from an imaginary number amount of details. Simpler things are easier, faster and more comfortable to comprehend. C Everyone has their own your world. One cannot tell what other one's your world looks like. This means that you cannot get inside other people's your world, and other people cannot get inside your your world. (heh)

Why is it okay to eat animals? because majority does it. Why in some countries some drugs are legal? Because people like them. All the ethics and morals are defined by the masses. They are not absolutes.

Absolute or not, you've stated that "moral questions have no right or wrong answers." So... I provided a moral question, that I believe only has one right answer. You haven't answered it either way.

Is it, or is it not, moral to kill someone who just happens to be walking past you, with no further provocation?

I believe that it is never moral. You've stated otherwise. I'm waiting for your reasonable justification for such an action, on moral grounds.

What you think or may not think doesn't make any difference to the guy who thinks that it is moral to kill. I'm not saying that it is moral, or immoral, be cause I don't know all the details. You think it is not moral. Why? Because you base your reasoning to your previous encounters with similar questions. Either it is empathy to the victim or someone told you it's wrong or some other reason to serve your purpose. Alas, not all people fall into same conclusion. Why? because their previous encounters of other similar questions have make them believe otherwise, because someone told them so or they lack the sympathy for the victim and found out some other truth to serve some of their purpose. The point is that not everyone agree with you. So what makes your truth truer than theirs? I say that nothing does. The question is abstract in every way. What that means is that there is no single truth, but many truths and they all are right to whoever holds them. Yes, these truths can be changed and convert, but that applies to all the truths. Not just the opposite of yours.

D Everything you do, you do for yourself. Is it to silent your quilt or fill your stomach, you still to it just for the one person and for one person only: yourself. And it's not just for us humans. Read Schopenhauer. E All the truths are debateable, just like this one. That's why I'm willing to say that there is no truth. No single, right, undebatable answer to an abstract question.

If a person gets the idea that shooting others is not against the morals that he possesses, then it is okey to him/her kill, but it will still be judged by the society. That's what you see when there's a teenager blasting with his/her illegal gun in a school.

I'm not talking about society. I'm talking about morality. You said morals vary. I say it's still immoral to kill someone. Just because I'm crazy doesn't make me right.

Morals do not possess a physical form, sort of speak. We define morals. We create them, uphold them, and break them, when needed. Society creates them. You uphold them. and I try to break yours, by saying they do not exist. Well, not really break them, but try to get rid of that old fashioned way of thinking of yours. Because I'm a nihilist and that's what I do. Which could make my motives a bit questionable, but let's not let that bother us. The fact that I'm telling this should prove that I'm more intrested finding the truth than being right. "Keep one eye on the road, the other one fixed one your own."

F Morals live in us. When we live, so do our morals. When we change, so do your morals. When we die, so do our morals.

Sometimes the people accept a murder. Self-defence, war, fear. Excuses are reasons too.

No. Excuses are NOT reasons. Reasons are acceptable. Excuses are not.

"I killed him because he was molesting my dog" is an excuse.
"I killed him because he was molesting my wife" is a reason.

While the two are close, they are not the same.

"I killed him because he was molesting my dog, who happens to be my wife."
Again, details. All the reasons are excuses and all the excuses are reasons. If a person needs only an excuse to kill, then it becomes the reason he/she needs. If someone molesting your dog makes you as angry molesting your wife, then what is the difference to you? to the next person? It is the amount of emotions and motive that separates reason form excuse, not the difference of action. Then what affects the amount of motive you get from something? What's the word of today?
deeeetails... and previous actions/conclusions.

Killers are people too, they just have different values than you. I'm not saying that it's it's moral to kill the next guy who walks by, because I'm saying that in the end, it is you who defines what your morals are and what are not. If this fellow kills his neighbour and explains to me why he did it, fine. You did what you had to do, but you're still going to jail for it.

You said morals were defined from the people around you. So.. why does him deciding that he can kill the people around him mean that he's ok? You're being inconsistent, here. Firstly you say other people make moral standards, now you're saying each person makes their own?

yeah, I guess it sounds a bit weird now. Lemme put it this way: The morals of majority and the morals of people around you don't always match. That's a one example of minorities. I don't have to give you an example of this, do I? You can find new morals by yourself, but you still do it by "looking" around you.  Somehow you get new information and draw new conclusions. I don't know why this happens. Maybe we have some sort of need to create ourselves some ethics so we can value ourselves, or something. Just speculations. And I'll leave it to that.

Now, let's look at these conclusions.
A Every act is based on older actions and thoughts. The past creates the present.
B Everything we see is folded into simple conclusions from an imaginary number amount of details.
C Everyone has their own your world. One cannot tell what other one's your world looks like.
DEverything you do, you do for yourself.
E All the truths are debateable
FMorals live in us

[note]I try to be as simple as possible, but that always costs the details. And you know what that means.[/note]

Actually, B should be before A, because we from these conclusions, we draw our previous actions. They don't work quite 1:1, but I hope you get the idea.

To be honest, I think that even one of these key points should be able to prove that no moral question has an unquestionable answer, but I'm going to conclude this just for the sake of it.


A+C+D => F
B+F => E

Because the morals live in us.... Because the way the find their way into us, there is no right or wrong answer to a moral questions. They are just too debateable. There is no solution, unless everyone agree with it (which they don't). Just because you shout something loud enough doesn't make it so.
A+B+C+D+E+F = There is no ulitmate moral above the man => There's no right answer to a moral questions other than the one inside your head. =>[C] => [E] =>
There's no right answer to a moral questions => It's moral and immoral to kill the next person who walks past you. And because it's noth, it's neither.
I'm going to stop before this starts getting old. If you can't see it by now, I'm not going to bother go any further. I've repeated myself quite enough.


You disagree with me? Go right ahead. Ubi dubium, ibi libertas

[Dannysaysnoo]

Quod Era Demonstrandum

[llearch n'n'daCorna]

Alright. Took me long enough. One has difficulties to find some time in these dark times, it seems. This is the last time I'm doing this. After this, if we aren't clear on this matter, I'll give up and come to a conclusion that I have failed to use English language as incarnation of my thoughts.

I must admit,I've been using the Socratic Method a bit, here. I understand your point of view. I just think it's flawed, in a big way, and I've been trying to lead you around until you trip over the flaw. ;-]

We can, of course, debate this matter further, but I'm not going to try to repeat myself and I'm not going to do it in this thread.

You're right. In short order, all these posts are going to be split out into a whole new thread. ;-] Where we can go and play.

You disagree with me? Go right ahead. Ubi dubium, ibi libertas

Oh, -good-. I'm willing to agree to disagree, of course, but let's wait until we have our own thread to go nuts in. ;-]

I'll be back in a moment. *grin*

[Alondro]

Feh, all this debate is useless.  When the man-eating aliens from Umchuck-12 take over, no one will care about this stuff anymore. 

On their planet, taking over another world and eating the inhabitants is very moral.