/lit/ - Literature

>>6276599
>Well you defined subjectivity and objectivity in realtion to true statements, so...
No I didn't. Get a dictionary.
>Your phenomenal experience, however, cannot.
Define phenomenal, then.
>That doesn't prevent it from capturing most people's moral intuitions. Also, that's a bit like saying, people invented algebra because they wanted to count apples, therefore math is based on subjective, apple-related desires.
I don't think you know much about mathematics. It differs from morality in that there is truth value in it, whereas morality, no matter how 'agreeable' it is has no scientific basis and no objective criteria for the determination of morality.
>Since we are social beings, and morality is part of our social reality, yeah why not. Note, however, that I didn't say agreeability was a question of majority decisions, but rather of an underlying human nature.
What about those who feel it is their 'nature' to kill? Are they wrong? If so, what is the defect within this 'morality lobe'?
>Again, this doesn't mean shit, as subjective doesn't mean 'not real'.
No shit, the point is that anything asserted from morality is by definition subjective and morality is asserted by emotion.

>>5978934
>morality exists
kek

There is no such thing as an intrinsically good person.

>>5925063
You'd have to ask a moral realist, to me good just means 'things I like' and bad means 'things I don't like'.

>>5913151