What metaethical theory do you disagree with but find interesting from a philosophical perspective?

Well, a proposal is a proposal.

And murder is only murder when it is necessary for it to be so. Otherwise the taking of another life is variously regarded as a lesser wrong, or even a righteous punishment...Same applies to stealing...Though it is a commonly "proposed" that all ownership is theft anyway.

And forcing through threats is just another way of saying commanding by edict. Which is how most social systems function effectively.

And Universal Law might or might not give a toss about what we think. And Kant was another philosophical bloke with nice but impractical ideas.

That is why it should stand the test of time like the Bible does.

So, I would guess that if a bible was put to practical use and used to support a table with a dodgy leg, then given that the table already has a dodgy leg, then the bible would probably outlast the table.

Even your simple test proves the Bible has withstood the test of time.

Any suitably sized work of fiction would suffice.

Fiction too can stand the test of time.

1. Classic fiction often explores themes like love, loss, and morality that resonate with readers across different cultures and time periods. 
2. 
   
3. Literary Quality:
4. Exceptional writing, compelling characters, and timeless storytelling techniques, such as character development and symbolism, contribute to a work's longevity. 
5. 
   
6. Reflection of the Human Condition:
7. Fiction that tells a fundamental truth about what it means to be human can offer enduring relevance. 
8. 
   

Well the Bible is more specifically, a Mythology...A mixture of fact and fiction.

Though a bibles durability would largely depend upon the quality of it's materials and the environmental conditions that it is subject to.

Same applies to any book or publication.

The Bible is the history of the Jewish people and their struggles with their God which was later embraced by the Roman Catholic Church and turned into a universal religion.

OK.

So initially, the Bible was a historical mythology based upon a traditional GOD idea, relative to a few semi-desert dwelling Middle Eastern folk, who existed a few thousand years ago.

Then a few thousand years later a broader regional chapter was added to the collection of folk tales and fantasy, based upon the activities of a new central character with magical powers, who was supposedly the son of himself....Mythology indeed.

So the Romans et el loosely based popular religions and political ideologies upon said mythology...Often brutally.

So generational data transfer, and the fallible nature of the human brain is what it is, and therefore global society has become what it has become.

Though Universally, I doubt that the influence of Roman Catholicism extends much beyond the Space Station.

Nonetheless, if a similarly evolved intellectual species exists in the Xtrollian sector on the Planet W'hey, they will probably have come up with similar ideas in a similar fashion.

Though I fancy that the W'heyians whistle like Marmots, and the whistle for GOD is what we would refer to as a wolf whistle... So if they turn up and start whistling at you, don't be offended, they will just think that you smell like a goddess.

Just more speculations. Stick to the Bible for historical facts.

Certainly stick to the highly speculative creation and existence hypothesis known as the bible, for some regional information and a few prominent names that might be loosely factual.

Also stick in there for quite a few fantasy add-on's.

All in all, if you're a lover of mythological prose, then there are a raft of other similar mythologies out there for you delectation and stickiness.

I personally am not so keen, so you can stick mythologies wherever you fancy.

Do you deny the historical veracity of the Bible as a history of the Jewish people and their struggles with God and their neighbours?

Hmmm, what does the Bible say about homosexuality?

The Bible clearly and consistently declares that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1–13; Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:26–27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; 1 Timothy 1:10). God created marriage and sexual relationships to be between one man and one woman: “At the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’” (Matthew 19:4–5). Anything outside of God’s intent and design is sin. The Bible teaches that Christians are to live for God, deny themselves, pick up their cross, and follow Him (Matthew 16:24), including with their sexuality. This disconnect between what the Bible says and what some people feel leads to much controversy, debate, and even hostility

Hmmm, Jesus was unmarried which was very unusual, especially for a rabbi.

Jesus' single status was not necessarily "unusual" for a Jewish teacher, as being a "rabbi" in his time was a less formal title than a later, official role that required marriage. Moreover, the concept of voluntary celibacy existed within Jewish culture, particularly among certain groups or in preparation for the Kingdom of Heaven. Historical and religious sources, including the Gospels, do not mention Jesus being married, with many scholars agreeing he was single, though some fringe theories propose otherwise.

I find nihilism to be most powerful theory I disagree with. I also have so much understanding for anyone who holds such position.

It’s like your position on logic and non logical.

Nihilism is the belief that all values are baseless and that nothing can be known or communicated. It is often associated with extreme pessimism and a radical skepticism that condemns existence. A true nihilist would believe in nothing, have no loyalties, and no purpose other than, perhaps, an impulse to destroy

The Biblical mythology is indeed a loose record of a few tribes of early Middle Eastern folk and their associated fantasy GODS.

Though earlier Civilisations and their associated fantasy GODS obviously predate the Jewish ones.

And the Jewish fantasy GODS and add-ons obviously copy the previous ones, but with new spin and ritual.

And then, along came Christians and Islamists and did the same.

I used to believe objective truth, but now I think Nietzsche is right that "there are no facts only interpretations." I haven't read Nietzsche, but I studied snippets of his philosophy. I now subscribe to the theory of perspectivism. I came to this conclusion because the mind isn't a mirror of of objective reality. The mind participates in the active construction/interpretation of reality. This interpretation of reality doesn't have to match objective reality; it merely needs to be useful enough for us to navigate the world.

I'm not a relativist because I think some perspectives are better than others; instead, I'm a pragmatist and believe knowledge must be useful to action and survival.

I think perspectives can inform us about an underlying objective reality, but they represent incomplete approximations of what reality "is." Therefore, I think multiple differing perspectives can be counted as knowledge/truth because our human ability to understand the world is imperfect.

I draw a lot of my current philosophical inspirations from Kant, Nietzsche, and Jordan Peterson, but I study philosophy as an amateur.

Moral absolutism. I would love a world where things are objectively right or wrong, but I'm painfully aware that if I were placed in certain cultures or points in history I might not bat an eyelash at things I would consider unconscionable today, or conversely might consider some harmless act an abomination. I'm a reluctant moral relativist, I suppose. I would like to be persuaded that morality is more than how good society happens to be at the time.

I know you have debated this against poor or mediocre debaters so you will stubbornly cling to this position but moral absolutism is correct and just so I don't merely contradict you without giving you a thread to pull on to find evidence for yourself this belief in moral absolutism is based on moral sense theory. You will struggle to find good information on moral sense theory without me directly writing about it, so perhaps I owe that to you or unless you start digging into texts from the late 1700s which are hard to come by.

What moral sense theory implies will shake your world view but that also is a topic for another time.

There are genuinely some cultures superior to others. I know your liberal sensibilities scream differently. It's just a fact that a culture that practices child sacrifice is inferior to one that is exactly the same but doesn't . You would find yourself in times in history that you would struggle to survive in or fit into probably because you have a recency bias. Part of you doesn't want to call these other cultures inferior so instead of saying they are inferior you just claim you would struggle to fit into them. A passive acceptance that their values are equal. This passive acceptance of the values of different cultures being equal creates cognitive dissonance because you know it's bullshit.

Yet...................

You can't acknowledge that a culture may be inferior because the liberal brain has developed an unconscious bias against truth. This happens because you place some values higher than truth.

For example what do you think of the following propositions

1. Black people are inferior
2. we should nuke California and Texas
3. Pineapple Belongs on Pizza

You likely find all of these ideals morally repugnant. Which many people would agree. The first instinct of a conservative is to evaluate those ideas based on how truthful they are and your first instinct is to look at the moral value of each statement.

Your first instinct is maybe a rebuttal like "How is this different than evangelical voters" As far as evangelical voters are concerned they have the heart of liberals so we use our knowledge of their inferior thinking styles to wrap an ideology they can accept into it.

I don't know where I was intending to go with this but hopefully by now you know you are incorrect that all cultures are equal and you should show disgust at past societies if you step into a time machine and see indians scalping other indians or if you end up at a time before people had the sense to wear clothes in public. I also hope I gave you enough tools to fix your brain and to rid yourself of the mind virus of liberalism.

AI will make all those philosophers obsolete.

I just guessing that obsolescence is an evolutionary certainty.

Though philosophy as a profession is a good one if you can get into it.

High reward for little effort.

First requirement of the job is a catchy name.

Why Philosophy is the Only Skill AI Can't Replace ... The philosophical insights you're ignoring will only become more valuable every year.

You're like Fauxlaw, expecting too much of AI, too soon.

And I too have philosophical insights.

Just as you do.

You exposed yourself too early.

Moral absolutism. I would love a world where things are objectively right or wrong,

The only lens where you could see this would be evolution's survival of the fittest morals.

Where muscle determines survival of the fittest.

Not necessarily...more muscle means more calories...and efficiency is stronger than raw muscle. This is why women were more survivable over 10 thousand years with less muscles because pregnancies use a lot of calories.

Men participating in all the wars didn’t help either.