[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature


View post   

File: 27 KB, 600x418, 1590501211606.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16664146 No.16664146 [Reply] [Original]

>there are no objective morals facts
>uhhh n-no, you can't go around killing people

Why do all moral anti-realist authors do this?

You can't have your cake and eat it. Either things are objectively right/wrong, or anything goes.

>> No.16664151

>>16664146
Fpbp

>> No.16664158

>>16664146
Bait or moral development disabled.

>> No.16664159

Spbp

>> No.16664163

>>16664146
Because muh feelings. It's hard to bite the bullet when doing so has social consequences.

>> No.16664182

>>16664146
6pbp

>> No.16664186

>>16664158
Fuck you

>> No.16664206

>Nooooo, humans can't just make up their own rules to create a better society

>> No.16664209

>>16664186
The latter then.

>> No.16664262

>>16664206
The fuck are you talking about sperg

>> No.16664272

>>16664146
Because moral realism is self evidently true. Anyway, remember to stone your neighbor if he works on sunday.

>> No.16664314

>>16664262
Not him, but
>making up rules to create a better society
is basically what pragmatists believe in. Of course pragmatism as an ethical framework is far more problematic than the dogmatic systems it attempts to improve upon

>> No.16664396

>>16664314
I'm asking how someone can claim to be a moral anti-realist and somehow still state that it's not okay to murder him if *I* think it's okay to do so.

>> No.16664736

>>16664146
>objective
>moral
>fact
presumptuous terms
morality cant into objectivity, the two are mutually exclusive

>> No.16664749

>>16664146
Because 99% of them just want an even more pathetic slave morality, they want to increase tolerance but maintain safety for themselves as they are weak

>> No.16664761

>>16664206
If you have no basis for good and bad how can you possibly claim a society is better or worse?

>> No.16664814
File: 62 KB, 567x601, mondays.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16664814

>>16664736
consider that for something to be a law or fact it has to be compulsory, ie there is no deviation from it
if you presume humans to be moral agents knowing right from wrong, and morality as being a law, then humans can either do no wrong, or the statement is meaningless as morality doesn't impel the individual to do right
in either case subjectivity of judgement reigns; in the first my own sense of morality is the only morality, in the second i can freely transgress morality rendering the imposition of judgements of right and wrong valueless

>> No.16664826

>>16664151
Highly based

>> No.16664844

>>16664761
our explanations come to an end. we say why we think our moral system works. we don't appeal to a transcendent authority, and so our judgments of what is good and bad is our own. we ourselves dictate what is right and wrong; this is what we live through.

>> No.16664855

>>16664146
You can create a framework for ethics using reason and arguments. That doesn't mean it's objective and you have to follow it just means you would be an irrational person.

>> No.16665110

>>16664855
If it's not objective it implies that whatever I believe is 'true for me'.

>> No.16665119

>>16664855
oh ok, so your framework decides who is rational and irrational?

>> No.16665134

>>16664761
Things are better *for* individuals, as in comporting with their interests, rather than better in some abstract universal sense.

Just as some food is good for your health and some food is bad for you health, but we don't need some universalizing metaphysics of "health" that compels all individuals to pursue it.

>> No.16665150

Moral antirealism is the a Dunning Kruger effect exhibited by people who have read a few things about ethics. Once you get past that stage, the whole enterprise crumbles.

>> No.16665183

>>16665119
Yes and if you have a problem with the framework make an argument against it

>> No.16665193

>>16665110
It wouldn't be true or false. It wouldn't be anything.

>> No.16665222

>>16664146
anything does go. its just that we have empathy and we can value our subjective feelings while still recognizing the universe doesnt have any "should"s and that we came up with shoulds so that society is more stable bcuz societies that arent stable collapsed but absolute retardetsfwehğwfuofrwşubowfgrlıyvrwgılgyrfbugvfrwıubvrıubvrewbuloavrbuvreaub

>> No.16665234

>>16665222
>retardetsfwehğwfuofrwşubowfgrlıyvrwgılgyrfbugvfrwıubvrıubvrewbuloavrbuvreaub
based turk retard

>> No.16665240

>>16664146
moral relativism is incoherent bullshit, you can have an abortion because there are no objective moral values but you can't be a homophobe or sexist or racist or whatever. It's completely absurd.

>> No.16665253

>>16665240
Holy shit this board is such low quality

>> No.16665275

>>16665253
I know, you truly have to hit your head with a wall to be an honest relativist, but this board is full of them. There might be a really damaged wall somewhere out there.

>> No.16665289

>>16664146
Idk anon, considering morailty as a subjective act and then extending it on the basis of a common humane core probably. Or considering the objective natural insicnt of survival as a mìnot exactly moral fact. Idk, just saying

>> No.16665290

>>16665222
Hello Mehmet

>> No.16665343

>>16665275
the issue is that the classical moral relativists are unrepentant coomers who generally only want to do away with the guilt they've inherited from christianity's disdain for the sensual by faux rationality and ideological trickery
the good relativists (like me :^)) dont hold to an absolute relativity but concede that some sort of standard should be upheld for the sake of having a base level of social integrity
what this standard consists in i havent entirely figured out yet but i have an intuition for it and ill probably write a thesis some day unless i rope first

>> No.16665380

>>16664146
>You can't have your cake and eat it
What the fuck are you talking about, you absolute chronically retarded mongoloid? You can't eat cake? Cake that you specifically have? What are you, nuts? If you have cake in the fridge and then you eat it that means that you had it and ate it. As i'm eating the cake i still have the cake. I both have and eat the cake. I tried really hard to make this as accessible as possible for an extra chromosome having moron such as yourself to comprehend why what you said is one of the most bafflingly idiotic phrases that has ever been uttered. I seriously, genuinely recommend that you read a book, you stupid fuck.

>> No.16665383

>>16664146
literally never going to make it

>> No.16665388

>>16665343
>some sort of standard should be upheld for the sake of having a base level of social integrity
Why.

>> No.16665395

>>16664146
Massive amounts of cope ITT

>> No.16665399

>>16665380
This is either bait or you're heavily autistic

>> No.16665410

>>16664151
dangerously based, fpbp

>> No.16665411

>>16665388
Because without a base level of social integrity what need do we have for a philosopher. They see the answer but can't admit it to themselves

>> No.16665463

>>16664146
It's just a way of feeling like a smart person with nuanced opinions while not having to live through the logical conclusions of their beliefs.

>> No.16665547

>>16665380
He missed a 'too.'

>> No.16665560

>>16664146
Based and correct.

>> No.16665625

>>16665411
>without a base level of social integrity what need do we have for a philosopher.
Why should this matter?

>> No.16665635

>>16665625
Because a philosopher isn't going to let themselves think us into a world where they're not valuable

>> No.16665646

>>16665635
I'm not talking about what's important to a philosopher, I'm talking about why it matters in general. Why should I base my relative moral "standard" off of what a philosopher wants?

>> No.16665679

>>16665646
Oh I misinterpreted your why. I just meant "that's why you see this clearly hypocritical message."
You can base your moral standard on whatever you want

>> No.16665711

>>16665679
>You can base your moral standard on whatever you want
No you can't. If you try to say that, because there's nothing else to base it off of, we have to set SOME axiom, you're still running into the issue of said axiom being completely biased by the individual choosing it. There is no such thing as a standard base in moral relativism, and OP is right, any attempt to do as such is cope.

>> No.16665731

>>16664146
Objectivity is a social construct. So objective morality is in fact the only morality that does exist. You don't need morality if you're the lone subject, you just do things.

>> No.16665757

>>16664396
Moral relativism implies that if society deems murder acceptable, it will be.
As an amoral I don't believe in good or bad - I do believe that murder of any kind will create ripples in the society around me, forcing me to face the consequences (jail, alienation, etc...), So I won't kill, unless very motivated.

>> No.16665775

>>16665757
>As an amoral... I won't kill, unless very motivated.
What a fucking faggot, holy shit. Go back to deviantart you fucking homo

>> No.16665778

>>16665388
Because I will be happier in a society with trust in it over a murderous one. So I should work to implement the 'morals' I would like people to value even though I understand the only reason I do is selfish.

>> No.16665790

>>16665775
What? If you were given a billion dollars and a get out of jail ticket, would you kill?

>> No.16665797

>>16665775
I can be your angle or your devil

>> No.16665798

>>16665778
>Because I will be happier in a society with trust in it over a murderous one.
Why should you value happiness?
>even though I understand the only reason I do is selfish.
It's not about selfish or selflessness; selfishness in and of itself may or may not be moral, but there's no way for you to prove that it is, and therefore no logical basis for you acting in such a way.
>>16665790
Yes, but you type like a 14 year old who just discovered anime

>> No.16665824

>>16665798
What should you value instead? You can only choose that for yourself - I chose happiness/pleasure.
Once you go down this spiral of 'logical basis', you come round to see that the basis of your actions must come from some arbitrary decision/belief.
Have you considered that my writing style is simply honest?

>> No.16665851

>>16665824
>Once you go down this spiral of 'logical basis', you come round to see that the basis of your actions must come from some arbitrary decision/belief.
Yes, that's the point of what I'm saying. You claim that there should be some standard for moral relativism, when in fact, there is absolutely no way of creating a standard or even indication that one should think in some certain way or another regarding morals. Anything that you choose to base your morals off of arbitrarily may or may not be the best thing morally, in reality, to do at random. Nothing you come up with, with regards to this, will be truth (except perhaps by random chance, and even then, you wouldn't know it), and it's just a cope.

>> No.16665894

>>16665851
When did I ever say there should be some standard?
The only thing I said is that I value happiness, and that I believe a trusting society is good for my happiness. This is entirely arbitrary and I have arrived at this decisions through my arbitrary life experiences and arbitrary thought process. There is no truth, and my day to day strategy and the morals I uphold (and the ones I don't) have proved themselves to give me happiness. That is all.

More practically, I follow the law (mostly), because drawing attention from the law is a bother. My basic compassion urge makes me a decent person by modern moral code and I try to generally follow the code so as to not rock the boat. Experience has taught me that following the golden rule tends to be a good idea, as people like me then - and I like it when people like me and the people close to me feel safe and loved in my presence.

>> No.16665926

>>16665894
Are you the second person I responded to? If so, you're an edge lord retard. If you're the first person, let me know so I can type out an actually good post

>> No.16665931

>>16665240
It really takes away from any point you are trying to make when have to phrase it through bitching about some hack SJW argument

>> No.16665979

>>16665926
I am both.
I don't like being intellectually dishonest on /lit/, and taking the position of amorality required me to think of extreme case. Will I kill someone? I think of the suffering I felt when people close to me passed away. Would I be able to inflict that on other people? Its a bit of an open question for me. I have decided to work towards my happiness/less suffering, but what about other people? I want the people close to me to feel good, but what about people I never met? People I dislike? I have a small sadistic impulse, if I take the belief that I am the final judge of my own actions, then what place should I give the voice of the sadism?

>> No.16666034

>>16665979
>>16665894
Fine, then:
>When did I ever say there should be some standard?
In the very first post you made, unless, for whatever reason, you started replying to me despite not being that anon about a completely different argument than that anon was stating.
>the good relativists (like me :^)) dont hold to an absolute relativity but concede that some sort of standard should be upheld for the sake of having a base level of social integrity
this is the sentence in the original post I replied to where you mentioned it.
>I have decided to work towards my happiness/less suffering
You have no intellectual basis to work towards this. Again, anything you could possibly dream up as worth doing is random and based on chance, which is why I said that creating a standard is ultimately meaningless. There is no "well, I have to do something," because such a statement still runs into the is/ought dilemma of only being a biased opinion forced onto the world as objective fact. The only real option there is, is to search for some truth, so that one day we may be able to know what morality is.

>> No.16666101

>>16666034
No, I'm not him, just gave a coherent amoral answer.
>>16665979
>>16665894
>>16665824
>>16665790
>>16665757
These are me, maybe I missed one.
>anything you could possibly dream up as worth doing is random and based on chance,
Exactly. And a quest for truth is meaningless, as there is no great objective truth. Not unless you submit to an exterior judge, which I don't. The only thing I can see is that I have a list of urges, and everything else is built out of those urges. As currently I am living and haven't chosen to an hero, I have to feel those urges come and go, and I personally have chosen to fulfill them and live in harmony.
Beyond that, I see morals as a tool to fulfillment of urges - specifically our social ones. I don't see the need to believe in a tool - I will use it and shape it as I see fit.

>> No.16666126

>>16666101
>And a quest for truth is meaningless, as there is no great objective truth.
Yes there is, Aristotle proved there was objective truth, as the stance that there is no such thing as objective truth is, in and of itself, an objective truth. Therefore, the existence of objective truth is an objective truth in and of itself. Even so, to claim that there's no great truth is larpy; there is almost definitely a great truth, we barely understand how our own universe works yet.
>I personally have chosen to fulfill them and live in harmony.
you should choose to an hero instead

>> No.16666129

>>16665851
>You claim that there should be some standard for moral relativism, when in fact, there is absolutely no way of creating a standard or even indication that one should think in some certain way or another regarding morals.
why not? if agreement on a normative standard regarding a code of conduct is *generally* useful -- which you could argue is evidenced by the mere fact me and you can communicate with eachother -- then what stands in the way of conjecturing about what such a standard should consist in? anything else seems like a backhanded nihilism to me

>>16666034
>is/ought dilemma of only being a biased opinion forced onto the world as objective fact
why is the is/ought dilemma relevant? to whom is it relevant? why are things relevant? if you concede things are 'relevant', then you concede that things have 'value', and by extension 'meaning'. the idea that meaning and value is given by urges is tautological and does nothing to render the pursuit of a moral standard meaningless

>> No.16666135

>>16665388
Because because!!!

>> No.16666171

>>16666129
>why not?
Because your standard of what is useful is based on arbitrary axioms which make you feel good, not on objective truth.
>why is the is/ought dilemma relevant? to whom is it relevant? why are things relevant? if you concede things are 'relevant', then you concede that things have 'value', and by extension 'meaning'.
I never claimed that things don't have utilitarian value. The is/ought dilemma has utilitarian value in this sense: it is a useful logical tool. Think of it this way:
>me: I can use this money to buy an ice cream from the corner store
>you: so, you admit that money has value?
>me: while I admit that money has value in the limited sense of what it can be used for tangibly, there is no transcendental/metaphysical "use" (that we know of) for money, and I cannot make a statement regarding it as such because knowledge of such things is impossible for us to discern.
What I'm trying to say is - to relate this back to morality - morality has value and is useful in the sense that it can be used to create efficient societies for some goal; however, there is no way to pull from this the idea that morality in and of itself is good or genuinely exists, or that society should exist or is moral, or that said goal should even be a goal.

>> No.16666189
File: 507 KB, 600x427, 1600125902697.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16666189

>>16664146
I’m not sure why you are having trouble separating facts about second-order questions of morality from first-order normative claims. There is nothing in the former that implies the latter. If we return to Kant’s distinction between a Hypothetical and Categorical imperative, the question is whether there is anything that, once realised or seen, is both overriding (categorical) and self-motivating (imperative). If our moral statements are propositions (that is, truth apt), then they must have a truth maker that makes them either true or false. Generally speaking, I think the majority of people hold a correspondence theory of truth. Is there something in the world akin to the Categorical Imperative that our moral propositions correspond to? No. But simply because there is no such object, that doesn’t mean we should give it up entirely.
Though it may seem to us that our moral statements are categorical in the sense of Kant, we can justify morality on purely hypothetical basis. In fact, this is typically what anti-realists do. Mackie, for example, grounds morality as a series of subsidiary norms that promote pro-social behaviour. And indeed, I don’t think there could be society at all without certain behavioural moderations. This behavioural moderation is what we simply call morality. So instead of having a statement in the form of
>you must not murder others
you could have it as
>if you want to live in a functional society, then you must not murder others
And if the hypothetical is sufficiently attractive to enough people, it can stand in for any categorical fact about the world. Or you could be an emotivist like Hume or Blackburn and say that we, as humans, have certain innate sentiments that lead us towards liking and disliking certain actions. And no one needs a reason to follow their desires, so no one needs a reason to be moral (in most cases). On both the Mackie and emotivist case, the answer to the question
>why have morality even if there are no objective facts?
Is that it is more desirable to have morality than otherwise. If enough people find it desirable, they will enforce it. In that case, even if it isn’t your desire to act morally, you will have to weigh the benefit of subverting moral values with the cost of doing so—which may be recourse to ostracism or force. So even if you have no desire to be moral, either in promoting prosocial behaviour or from some innate sentiment, you still have reasons to abide by moral norms.
If you want it straight: Why not murder? Because we’ll cave your head in if you do. Then either kill you or lock you in a small facility with your fellow transgressors and subject you to the rapine and brutality of the kind of society your behaviour would bring about. That should be reason enough.

>> No.16666192

>>16666171
>because your standard of what is useful is based on arbitrary axioms which make you feel good, not on objective truth
but i never lay claim to objective truth anon
as i already said i'm one of the good relativists

>> No.16666229

>>16666192
>but i never lay claim to objective truth anon
The implication that you can have any logical relative morality in and of itself confirms objective truth. It would mean that you're accepting one of two things:
A) There is some objective axiom from which we can base moralities, i.e avoiding pain, but the way these are implemented vary
B) There is no objective axiom, and so an individual such as I will make an arbitrary one myself
In B, it supposes that there SHOULD be morality of some sort or that the axiom chosen will be somehow good, based on a possibly false set of beliefs. If you say "regardless, we need some sort of morality whether true or false" then you're, again, falling into the trap of supposing something like needing a morality is true based on your own feelings, which is a cope.

>> No.16666246

>Either there are facts about what is permissible and obligatory, or else everything is permissible

That's what you sound like OP...

>> No.16666255

Jesus Christ, what an embarrassing thread.
Reeks of the one dude in your class. You know who I mean: 'I took one philosophy class but quit because I knew better than my brainwashed professors anyway'

>> No.16666329

>>16666229
>the implication that you can have any logical relative morality in and of itself confirms objective truth
does it though?
>your standard of what is useful is based on arbitrary axioms which make you feel good, not on objective truth
from which we derive the hotly contested opinion of mine
>judgements ought to be considered relative and contingent upon their usefulness

>> No.16666352

>>16664146
Moral relativism is not a principle meant to be held and lived by, but a tool to use against people who don't believe in moral relativism. In practice nobody genuinely believes that morals are fundamentally and completely subjective, they only think that morals that are not theirs are not objective.

>> No.16666361

>>16666189
Why are you avatarfagging? You do realize it's a bannable offense, right?

>> No.16666374

>>16666329
>does it though?
Yes. That's why I added the prefix of logical; for a relative morality to be logical, there must be objective truth which precedes it in some way - else, it is illogical and based solely on the individual's bias in some way or another
>judgements ought to be considered relative and contingent upon their usefulness
"usefulness" must be defined, and in trying to define it, you'll realize that - like I've been saying - there is no logical way to define it without limiting the scope of the environment we're working in (see the ice cream analogy).

>> No.16666391

>>16666189
The problem he has is that any morality that is not grounded as objective is ultimately arbitrary. It's obvious that functional societies are desirable to chaotic shitholes, but that doesn't change the fact that practically everybody treats commonly held mores as objective (say, racism is bad) when these mores are not grounded by anything else but flimsy and historically contingent consensus and the power of law enforcement. Utilitarian arguments for morality are ultimately arbitrary.

>> No.16666405

>>16666329
this >>16666391 is what I'm trying to explain here >>16666374
He put it a bit better than me

>> No.16666423

>>16666189
Explain why you love Satsuki so much

>> No.16666425

Psychologically healthy people don't want to live in a world where everyone is constantly killing each other. Morality is dependent upon circumstances, bad morality makes life more miserable and painful than it otherwise would have to be

>> No.16666449

>>16666391
Morality is arbitrary in the same sense that human beings are arbitrary. A human being is a product of cause and effect, not an eternal archetype.

>> No.16666462

>>16666391
When I say "grounded as objective", I mean grounded within their own framework, like God grounds Christian ethics in a framework that is objective. You may sat that this grounding is extrinsically arbitrary (that is to say, you either believe in Christianity or not), but it's undeniable that it is 100% objective within its own framework, unlike utilitarian and historically contingent arguments for a system of ethics that are arbitrary both outside their own framework and within it.

I'm not a religious person but objective morality can only exist within a framework where the law of a superior divine being decrees it, for the will of men are arbitrary.

>>16666425
Again, everybody knows that ceaseless murder is undesirable, the argument is about consistency and objectivity. Blindspots in these aspects are the sort of things ideologies crumble from.

>>16666449
>A human being is a product of cause and effect

Arguable.

>> No.16666471

>>16666462
*Blindspots in these aspects are the sort of things ideologies crumble because of

>> No.16666601

>>16666449
>Morality is arbitrary in the same sense that human beings are arbitrary.

So, not very? Morality doesn't budge much, neither do the kinds of people you find.

>> No.16666701
File: 30 KB, 524x400, 6zfTNj2-9hPim62mFQLJe2h8nuyk9AdcU6rgWA0D3WE.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16666701

There are different kinds of moralties, I thought this was self evident.
What is it with people jumping on "muh brainlets" that don't believe in objective truth?

When the majority believe something, whether it be IRL or the 4chinz, that's a warning that you should be skeptical of it.

>> No.16666720

>>16666601
>Morality doesn't budge much
What?
Do you think we currently have the same morality as ancient greeks?

>> No.16666735

>>16666391
The only "objective truth" is consciousness.

>> No.16666750

>>16666462
>>A human being is a product of cause and effect
>Arguable.
The human form is just a temporary vehicle, which changes overtime and adapts to different traits and modes of being. The only people who disagree with this are Christians who believe that human form is the image of God, but "made in the image of God" could also just means that biologically we're a projection of the mind of God, it doesn't mean that God is explicitly human.

>> No.16666754

>>16666720

Of course. We have different customs beliefs, culture; but morality isn't that superficial. We don't read the ancients as if they are depraved unrelatable psychopaths.

>> No.16666769

>>16665790
no because I have principles

>> No.16666782

>>16666754
Today's shitlibs aliken their own forefathers to "depraved unrelatable psychopaths" let alone slave owning Greeks who fought wars for glory.

>> No.16666869

A compassionate society is ultimately more desirable. The strong protect the weak, rather than everyone being slaves to some incels idealized vision of stronkness

>> No.16666907

>>16664146
>Either things are objectively right/wrong, or anything goes.
Or, there is no objective morality, and what goes is what those with power say goes.

>> No.16667743

>>16666735
Go to sleep Descartes

>> No.16667834
File: 74 KB, 684x1024, 1603077325842.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16667834

>>16664146
Rules for thee not for mee teehee

>> No.16667838

>>16665150
Give us a reading list then, to btfo all the dumb anti-realists.

>> No.16668351

>>16666462
>I mean grounded within their own framework, like God grounds Christian ethics in a framework that is objective. You may sat that this grounding is extrinsically arbitrary (that is to say, you either believe in Christianity or not), but it's undeniable that it is 100% objective within its own framework
How is morality in a christian framework be 100% objective?

>> No.16668700

>>16668351
because is God is OOO and thus cannot be arbitrary?

>> No.16668706

>>16666126
No, you an hero first.

>> No.16668717

>>16664158
What if my morals developed different from yours?

>> No.16668732

>>16664272
based

>> No.16668755

>>16668700
How does that follow?

>> No.16668761

>>16668755
if a onmipotent being tells you something, it must be either the truth or a lie, as everything is known. an omnibenevolent being will not lie, therefore an omnipotent omnibenevolent being will tell only the truth

>> No.16668796

>>16668761
That begs the question about there being moral facts to begin with.

>> No.16668818

>>16666666

>> No.16668870

The whole subjective/objective morality debate is always used as an anti-theological bit of sophistry.
They do get their cake and eat it too: they undermine the origin of their morality, but then they choose to abide by it. So they get to deny the bits they don't want with an ease of the conscience.
I've had extremes in my life, I've lived in a homeless shelter, filled with drug addicts and hardened criminals, and I've also been to University, filled mostly with women and effeminate men. Guess which one was on the side of objective morality? That's right - the criminals. They know what they're doing is wrong, those that were beyond re-offending, wanted forgiveness, not to justify their crimes.
But then in a psychology class, I had these goodie-two-shoes who had never even seen drugs or violence probably, laughing in disdain at Christians and objective morality etc; while otherwise being model Christians.
People have it too good in their lives if they even start asking questions about morality. You try having your day about whether or not you're going to eat a pizza you found in a dumpster and then get back to me about morality.

>> No.16668922

>>16668796
if an omnipotent being believes something would it not be a fact?

>> No.16669015

>>16668870
So what you're saying is that the least capable of acting morally are moral realists while the most capable of acting morally are anti-realists? That makes it seem like you really don't need objective moral facts to have morality after all.

>> No.16669071

This thread legit made me cry. Like actual tears in my eyes.

>> No.16669113

>everyone ITT saying my happiness, I don't want X etc
Thanks for proving OPs point.

>>16668796
It really doesn't, but brainlets like yourself don't know how to actually argue the point so you make up retarded pseudo-responses like this to cover it up.

>>16666189
>If we return to Kant’s
Kant is such garbage. It's amazing philosophy degenerated to the point anyone ever upheld him as a good philosopher.

>> No.16669587

>>16669071
Of joy?

>> No.16669862

>>16669015
No, what I'm saying is, that you can rationalise your own subjective sense of morality when you're a goodie goodie, but when you've actually unequivocally transgressed, beyond what you can talk yourself out of, you will be in touch with the part of your soul that God gave you to feel this morality.

>> No.16669872

>>16664146
objective morality is a neckbeard reddit meme

>rape a kid
>OMG HE JUST DID SOMETHING EVIL!!! HE MUST DIE HE MUST SUFFER IN THE MOST INHUMANE WAY WE CAN IMAGINE BECAUSE HE DID SOMETHING EVIL!!

>> No.16669879

>>16669872
what if the kid consents tho

>> No.16670081

>>16669872
I genuinely can't think of a lower level of discourse than what is presented here. This person has an IQ of 12.

>> No.16670979
File: 772 KB, 1280x945, Charles+Sheeler+Golden+Gate.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16670979

>>16666126
Not that anon, but how about this claim? I don't know if there is objective truth. This is not me saying it is objective that it neither exists or does exist. I just don't have enough information to understand that either of those things exist. So my truth is fully subjective as a result, but not in an objectified way. Rather I am self aware enough that there could be a possibility that either objectivity or subjectivity are the absolutes of the universe. There isn't enough information and desu I am doubtful if there would be enough information for that to exist, but that is a bias and urge of mine. Not exactly an intellectual claim. This is more of a Kierkegardian excuse of having faith in my beliefs.

>> No.16671035

>>16670979
>I don't know if there is objective truth. This is not me saying it is objective that it neither exists or does exist. I just don't have enough information to understand that either of those things exist.
I never actually read The Organon so I'm not sure whether Aristotle considered this (he probably did), but I'd assume it'd go something like:
>the claim that one doesn't know whether objective truth exists or doesn't exist is objective truth in and of itself, as to state that you do not know whether objective truth exists is an objectively truthful statement, therefore falsifying the statement
Out of the statement that one doesn't know whether objective truth exists, the statement that objective truth exists, and the statement objective truth does not exist, the only one that doesn't logically falsify itself is the statement that objective truth exists.
>I am self aware enough that there could be a possibility that either objectivity or subjectivity are the absolutes of the universe.
This is the same, logically, as the statement above, and falsifies itself, as knowing that you don't know is an objective truth (the objective truth that you don't know whether there is objective truth).

p.s. this is not stating that there is some objective truth of the universe or morality, it is stating that objective truth exists, and that that objective truth is the fact that objective truth exists. There is, though, objective truth of existence - that is, I think, therefore I am. You MUST exist, in some sense, because you have the capability of forming thoughts. It's similar to the logic above; the fact that you are capable of questioning your existence proves that you exist, as only a being with existence would be able to question such a thing (even if you are - in reality - a Boltzmann brain).

>> No.16671095
File: 575 KB, 1250x955, Moj%C5%BCesz+Rynecki+Self-portrait.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16671095

>>16671035
I understand those claims, but i am even skeptical of my own existence. Meaning I don't even know if I am anything at all. I only believe what is true, because I know it is in front of me. However, I can't just deny the possibility that everything could possibly be meaningless and nothingness as well. Or it could be somethingness. Call me Schizo-Pilled, but I know for sure that it is possible I can both exist and not exist, I just don't have enough information to be sure if either are objective or are the case. So, I just believe whatever I want, whatever fact that i find valuable I latch onto it and believe it like a hammer. I make up my own virtues by pasting it together of masters in the past (philosophers). It is the only way I can think of a way to avoid the mind/body issue or the issue of existing or not existing.

I know that to be sure of ones own existence they have to believe it as the truest thing, but I am skeptical to even that.

Which means under your definitions that could be my version of an objective claim, but I am even unsure of my own claims. This goes for ad-infinitum. I have no clue if I am right or wrong.

>> No.16671118

>>16671095
cont. I can only believe.

>> No.16671125
File: 16 KB, 578x433, 487E76E4-6E54-4DB6-A5A2-78B777824D72.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16671125

>this thread

>> No.16671182

>>16664272
This but unironically

>> No.16671196

Something causes physical or psychological harm - bad. Simple as that.

>> No.16671197

>>16664146
wow, that's a pretty original thought

are you published?

>> No.16671199

>>16671125
>look guys I just have to post an anime reaction pic without contributing to the conversation while implying that I'm doing better than everyone else who has been debating in this thread so far

>> No.16671253

>>16671199
There is only preference of experience. With reason alone, there is no reason to do anything. All of our actions are “right” in the sense that they lead to preferable outcomes for the self, whether it be external or internal rewards, or a combination of both. It makes no sense to speak of objectivity when consciousness and experience are inherently subjective, and when reason is totally a slave to the passions. The only thing that we can all accept axiomatically is that we should do what we prefer to do because we prefer to do it. To suggest that any other action is better implies that it’s more preferable in some way, which is a contradiction. Therefore the most moral action in any given circumstance is that which leads to the most preferable life.

>> No.16671277

>>16664146
OP let me help explain this. There is a difference between not WANTING people to murder and claiming murder is “wrong”. At least a difference as far as language is concerned. The problem with “objectivity” is how can the “subject” come to know what is “objective”, and don’t say the Bible because if you understood the Bible then you would see Jesus’ message is quite clear that morals aren’t a set of rules to follow.

>> No.16671311

>>16671196
>Something causes physical or psychological harm - bad. Simple as that.
Says who?

>> No.16671412

>>16671095
Perhaps it would be better to think of it like this:
Existence and objective truth are both completely man made concepts. In the sense of the man made concepts, I am right in what I've said. In the sense of this sort of really abstract hypothetical you propose (i.e, what if in the eyes of something we don't understand, we don't actually exist) you are correct, in that we cannot know.
It's sort of like discerning between what we can and can't know. Suppose there are two levels of things, A and B. A-knowledge would be things like knowing that trees exist, whereas B-knowledge would be knowing that trees may or may not exist due to some lost translation between our minds and the tree, but also knowing that the "individual" or "objective truth" exists due to the arguments above. A third category, C-knowledge, may also exist. Outside of our logic, there may (or may not) be some other sort of reasoning called C-knowledge that explains "well, the reasoning you use to explain that you exist or that there is objective truth is actually abstractly false" similarly to the way B-knowledge explains that A-knowledge may be abstractly false.
The problem is, we can prove that B-knowledge is true and A-knowledge may or may not be true using B-knowledge, but we do not even know if C-knowledge exists.
This was probably a terrible explanation of what I'm trying to convey, so ask any problems you may have with it and I'll try to answer better.

>> No.16671425

>>16664158
There are no objective morals.

>> No.16671445

>>16665134
Give an example of what food is bad for you and why it is bad.

>> No.16671459

>>16671425
cannot be proved.

>> No.16671464

>>16664146
The apex predator in reality says you can’t just go around killing

every living thing below them does though, lol

>> No.16671498

>>16665388
The band of brothers theory that states where mans first laws came about, allowed civilization to flourish

If I could murder you with no repercussion do you think society would be better for you?

>> No.16671522

>>16671498
That doesn't matter, and whether or not society flourishes doesn't matter (or it does, maybe). You have absolutely no evidence or logical analysis which could show that society flourishing is morally good, or that the survival of man is morally good. You run into the is/ought dilemma regardless.

>> No.16671528

>>16671459
lol what kind of thing is that to say? if you cannot prove there are or aren’t objective morals than how the hell could you base your actions off of objective morals?

>> No.16671538

>>16671464
we may say that but we do the most killing out of any of the other lifeforms by far

>> No.16671540

>>16671528
>if you cannot prove there are or aren’t objective morals than how the hell could you base your actions off of objective morals?
You can't, and I never claimed you could. I just said that you cannot prove the claim that there are no objective morals, the same as you not being able to prove that there are objective morals. They may or may not exist.

>> No.16671623

>>16671540
ok so why does it matter then? you can say anything may or may not exist. it’s useless thinking in circles. i was not the guy you replied to but all beliefs are made up, including that there is such a thing as existence, and us talking about all of this is just masturbation. we are talking about nothing. i can say you don’t exist and you have no way of convincing me you do. it’s all meaningless psued

>> No.16671646

>>16671623
>ok so why does it matter then?
It doesn't.
>you can say anything may or may not exist.
Yes.
>i was not the guy you replied to but all beliefs are made up, including that there is such a thing as existence, and us talking about all of this is just masturbation. we are talking about nothing.
Yes.
>i can say you don’t exist and you have no way of convincing me you do. it’s all meaningless psued
It's even more pseud to try and set some standard for moral relativism.

>> No.16671733
File: 33 KB, 400x399, 897B4FC3-160A-46D0-A103-8F8C20357225.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16671733

>>16671311
Me

>> No.16671855

>>16671528
The person I was replying to said a standard upheld that will give a base level of societal integrity

That sounds like laws to me and so I merely posited the first law makers that I’ve read about

>> No.16671870

>>16671855
And admittedly I don’t know much about the band of brothers idea, was from sigmund Freud that I briefly read it, if I’m remembering right

>> No.16672021
File: 229 KB, 472x426, 1477455506446.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16672021

Applied postmodernism essentially boils down to proclaiming everything you disagree with as incorrect on the basis of subjectivity, while proclaiming your own opinions as correct, on the basis of subjectivity. It comes as no surprise all postmodernists are the most conceited fucks imaginable. It boggles my mind how a human being could be this much up their own ass.

>> No.16672085

>>16665343
>the issue is that the classical moral relativists are

>I haven't figured out yet

Why are you still talking

>> No.16672104

>>16665380
You know our may even come across the phrase "have your cake and eat it too" in a book. Your pretty silly for someone your age. But I guess with the advent of anonymity you aren't really your self and are just playing a roll for this one message.

>> No.16672133
File: 26 KB, 185x206, really.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16672133

I mean you are right, it's just dissuaded against and seen as an infantile argument "but what about killing people, hmmm there is nothing bad about killing people according to your ideology." You can of course use that argument but being a raving stark madman murdering people has negative social consequences as well as not very hopeful and useful to human man and as a general rule should just seen as barbarous and thus bad.

>> No.16672135

>>16665711
Why do you worms use jargon and linguistical masturbation tactics to discuss simple ideas.

>> No.16672138

>>16672021
t. heard about postmodernism from YouTube

>> No.16672142

>>16669872
I hope this was written ironically

>> No.16672158

>>16672138
What postmodern author would you recommend?

>> No.16672162

>>16665731
This all morality is objective and the validity of that objectiveness lives in the consistency of the idea within the individual who holds it. Whether the individuals morals are functional to fucilate their desired "good" and mitigate their undesired "bad

>> No.16672166

>>16664146
Things can still be immoral without there being a form of immorality somewhere.

Killing is immoral because it has been decreed as such so sit the fuck down, faggot.

>> No.16672169

>>16672135
There isn't any linguistical masturbation in what I said. Moral relativism is a term you should be familiar with if you're discussing moral relativism, bias is a word you learn in highschool, and axiom is something you should be familiar with if you know anything about logic/math/philosophy.

>> No.16672175

>>16672021
Well the thing about postmodernists is they are right, because they aren't describing just what they do, they are describing what is universally happening. You may believe your opinions is using something magic like logic, faith, God, truth, or whatever, but your assertions and their assertions are all completely basis. Why be upset at them for pointing this out? And it's not like they were the first to figure this out, they were just the most well known to do so. And come-on man, humans are conceited period. I haven't read much of post-modernists but if they figured out truth then I assume they figured that out too..

>> No.16672182

>>16672166
Killing is not immoral, murder is.

>> No.16672184

>>16672138
Any imagined particulars of postmodernism all boils down to muh subjectivity. There really isn't more to know.

>> No.16672186

>>16665380
it’s supposed to be
>you can’t eat your cake and have it too
meaning, you can’t eat your whole cake and still have it

>> No.16672188

>>16671253
Nice opinion.

>> No.16672194

>>16672175
>the thing about postmodernists is they are right
Post-modernism as a field of thought is 'right', but as an art movement it's bullshit. As long as we take art (which is a human concept, not a universal/metaphysical one) to be that which is created intentionally to be beautiful, post-modernism as an art movement falls apart.

>> No.16672195

>>16672186
Okay Ted Kaczynski

>> No.16672213

>>16666246
What's wrong with that statement, it's true isn't it?

>> No.16672220

I was just pretending to be a retard: The philosophy

>> No.16672237
File: 6 KB, 225x225, 1603654916773.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16672237

Killing isn't bad because it is objectively immoral.

It is bad because we make social contracts to live in an orderly civilized society.

In these contracts not killing (unless it's capital punishment) is seen as bad due to not allowing an orderly civilized society.

>> No.16672263

>>16669862
Agreed most people who have trouble defining morality have never them selves been good or bad. They are more then likely cowards who follow orders. You have to have tasted deep of the cup evil to truly know what it means to be good.

>> No.16672272

>>16672158
Foucault (although he personally did not like to be called postmodern). He is very imperfect, but he's nothing at all like the caricature presented by Kermit.

>> No.16672303 [DELETED] 

depends what you mean by bad ya bunch of bloody postmodern marxist idiots in this godamn thread that wouldn't make it over the 80 IQ mark, read some bloody books buckos

>> No.16672321

>>16672303
>post modernist = Cultural Marxism
>bucko
Go clean your room mr Peterson

>> No.16672327
File: 330 KB, 624x608, 500IQMAN.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16672327

depends what you mean by bad ya bunch of bloody postmodern marxist idiots in this godamn thread that wouldn't make it over the 80 IQ mark, read some bloody books buckos, get out of your parents basement's once ina while and go outside ya incels

>> No.16672338
File: 79 KB, 349x642, postmodernism.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16672338

>> No.16672363

>>16672169
>I'm not using jargon I'm just using words you should have learned at this organization of "formal" education hahaha you should know all this haha i learn it in highschool and in philosophy circles where they use his word it's not jargon it's just a word we use in math circles and logical basketweaving fourms haha

>> No.16672487

why should i care about what a postmodernis says. someone who has a nervous breakdown because words cannot accurately describe something or how "it is all connected in a society, drops of water on a spidersweb, all is a reflection of its surroundings" is unstable.

>> No.16672499

>>16672237
Social contracts are a myth.

>> No.16672545
File: 57 KB, 700x700, 600IQMAN.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16672545

these postmarxist modernists don't get that you begin choping away at the fabric of society with relativistic arguments and next thing you know your son comes home without his penis, blue hair, and a feminist. These are not well intentioned people.

I will give you a clue OP, evil and good are not objective or subjective, they are subjectively objective.

No one else in this thread knows what they are talking about, they are just parroting things they read or heard.

>> No.16672558
File: 8 KB, 188x211, 1603655844243.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16672558

>>16672499

they are called laws you idiot

>> No.16672570

I was just talking to a friend about this. He says he doesn't believe in good or bad but yet he says it's bad for me to not be friends with a tranny fucker. Anyway I think people who are ambiguous with there own OBJECTIVE morals are just plain liars. Sneaky liars who don't want to tell you what they really think because then they would have to stand on it. They'd rather be "nice" and "exclusive" then have to think for them selves and be honest about who they are and what they've done.

>> No.16672578

>>16672558
Laws are a myth

>> No.16672732

>>16672363
Yes. If you enter a conversation with people about philosophy or math you should know terms used in philosophy or math. There is no good way to put the word "axiom" without using that word specifically or using a sentence to explain it. Stop being a nigger.
>>16672499
>>16672578
based and checked

>> No.16672759

>>16664146
You can't do it because I don't like it bitch.

>> No.16672765

>>16672732
Don't call me a nigger you pasteape.
Why use more word when less word do trick.

>> No.16672805

>>16672765
>Why use more word when less word do trick.
That's exactly why I'm using those words you fucking nigger

>> No.16672945

>>16665711
That axiom is found here>>16671253

>> No.16673055

>>16672945
>To suggest that any other action is better implies that it's more preferable in some way [than doing things because we simply prefer to do it], which is a contradiction
That's a terrible argument. Again, is/ought dilemma. Just because something feels good doesn't mean it's moral.
>b-but it's subjective, like consciousness!
That doesn't solve the problem. You still have absolutely no way to choose a starting point from which you can say something is moral/correct to do. You could say "start from what is pleasurable/preferable for yourself" but you have absolutely nothing to prove that that's a good starting point.
>but reason ends up meaning there is no reason to do anything
Yes, and this is a fact you're going to have to live with instead of trying to cope, because there is nothing else.

>> No.16673115

>>16673055
>You could say "start from what is pleasurable/preferable for yourself" but you have absolutely nothing to prove that that's a good starting point.
it’s the only valid starting point as it is also the very basis for why we act in the first place. Without these non-rational passions and preferences, we would not act and we would not have judgment of our experience. I don’t believe in obligations or duties, but if we’re going to use the word “moral” we can only define it as being whatever leads to preferable outcomes for the self. All moral principles are derived from this basic axiom. This is why murder is significantly more immoral than killing non-human creatures. Anything that harms you in any way including that which harms others in such a way that their feeling harmed may harm you in the future through various consequences, is immoral.

I would only ever say “you should do x” given that you value preferable experiences (axiomatically true) and if x actually leads to preferable outcomes. So your only “obligation” is to follow your own desires and preferences. Still, I think the most proper way to say this is simple something like “If I do x, then I will achieve a more preferable life,” and we can get rid of most morality jargon in this way.

>> No.16673137

>>16673115
>it’s the only valid starting point as it is also the very basis for why we act in the first place.
No - it's not. Just because that's why we act in the first place doesn't mean it's a valid reason to start there, which is the entire point of what I've been posting throughout this entire thread.
>but if we’re going to use the word “moral” we can only define it as being whatever leads to preferable outcomes for the self.
No, we don't. Moral is defined as what one ought to do, and that's the definition everyone uses.
>and we can get rid of most morality jargon in this way.
Why do you brainlets keep throwing around this word "jargon"?

>> No.16673160

>>16673137
>Moral is defined as what one ought to do
ought implies a goal, and the goal is preferable experience, as we are created this way. What other goal can there be? Can you really deny that one ought to live the most preferable life? Why should he do otherwise?

>> No.16673184

>>16673160
>ought implies a goal
Yes.
>and the goal is preferable experience, as we are created this way.
Why don't you understand that how we're created doesn't factor into this conversation? How we're created doesn't imply anything about what we ought to do.
>Can you really deny that one ought to live the most preferable life?
Yes.
>Why should he do otherwise?
He could live a non-preferable life. We don't know which one is better for one to do, because there "is" nothing in the world that tells us how it "ought" to be.

>> No.16673223

>>16673184
>We don't know which one is better for one to do
it depends on how you define “better.” Objectively, it doesn’t make sense, unless you want to appeal to God’s judgment of what makes a better world, but subjectively “better” is linked to more preferable experiences. I would say that it is almost definitely better for me to not go on a killing spree tomorrow, because I would prefer not to deal with the guilt, punishment, etc.

>> No.16673284
File: 488 KB, 600x438, 1600125902770.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16673284

>>16666391
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here. OP asked how anti-realists can still advocate for people to be moral even if there are no objective moral facts, which i answered.
Now we have two new, distinct claims. One is that
>any morality that is not grounded as objective is ultimately arbitrary
which is a premise, so it will require you to first argue why it is so, and why it matters even if it is so. The second is
>practically everybody treats commonly held mores as objective
which is a different question about the truth value of moral statements, a question of moral semantics. The division here—whether our moral semantics are truth-apt—is termed moral cognitivism or non-cognitivism. Most philosophers in the field agree that moral statements have the appearance of being truth-apt, with the cognitivists saying they really are, and the non-cognitivists saying that it is only appearance. If we pair the position on moral semantics with the metaphysical position of moral anti-realism, we get the two positions i've already referred to:
>anti-realism + cognitivism = error-theory
>anti-realism + non-cognitivism = emotivism
So your original point that practically everyone treats moral propositions as tracking objective moral values is what puts the 'error' in error-theory. The error theorist doesn't suggest that our moral propositions are tracking nothing, but that they aren't tracking the objective facts that moral realists believe they are. That is the error. Rather, as i've already mentioned, they are tracking they subsidiary norms, which are the real truth-makers. We are simply dropping the 'if' part of the hypothetical imperative so it appears categorical. The emotivist would explain it as surface-level semantics which are hiding that what are merely preferences. We disguise our preferences as imperatives to lend them more legitimacy. The fact that so many agree on similar values is that they are sentiments universal to humans. It is more sophisticated than that, of course, but you don't really have to go into tortured formalism unless a certain objection is raised. In any case, whether the majority of people treat it as so has no bearing on whether it is so. And that they do, all the better—this is a good example of 'government-house utilitarianism' at work.
If the question is whether moral anti-realists can provide categorical moral values, then you've missed the point of the program entirely. The anti-realist is rather saying that there are convincing enough contingent reasons to follow them (which i outlined in my first post). For the anti-realist, morality is reduced (in lay-terms, not the technical philosophical term) to: subsidiary pro-social norms, or some universal human sentiments. Take your pick. Now both of these can be 'universal', in that they apply to either all societies or all humans, but they aren't the kinds of things we typically consider objective moral facts. Are these arbitrary? i'm not sure.

>> No.16673578

>>16664146
You can recognize that there are no objective moral facts and still claim it's immoral to kill people. Read into metaethics bro.

>> No.16673583

>there are no objective morals facts
yep
>uhhh n-no, you can't go around killing people
that's only because you don't want it to happen to you (subjective)

you fail op, 3/10

>> No.16673984

>>16672021
Retard.

>> No.16673993

watching /lit/ try to do metaethics is painful

t. grad degree in philosophy

>> No.16674023

>>16673993
Why not step down from your elevated position and enlighten us? It should be easy for you, after all.

>> No.16674032

>>16673993
>t. grad degree in philosophy
i.e. a pedo
fuck off

>> No.16674293

>>16673993
>hehe, I can't believe you think THAT
>what's wrong with it?
>*disappears*
Every time

>> No.16674319
File: 826 KB, 730x819, Capture.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16674319

>>16673993
kek shut the fuck up loser

>> No.16674617

>>16672499
Idiot

>> No.16674638
File: 31 KB, 461x314, 1602725610432.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16674638

>>16673993
This guy actually thinks getting a degree in something actually means he has authority and knowledge in the field

>> No.16674801

>>16672545
lol, nice one bucko

>> No.16674811
File: 109 KB, 634x474, 1599076605843.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16674811

>Natural Law vs Positive Law

Bros are we for real here?

>> No.16674926

>>16674811
That isn't what is being talked about itt

>> No.16675697

bump

>> No.16675747

>>16664146
Cringe, what's it like having autism?

>> No.16676205

>>16665790
>What? If you were given a billion dollars and a get out of jail ticket, would you kill?
As always, it depends on who I am killing.

>> No.16676207

>>16673284
OP here, yes I actually read J L Mackie's book, which is why I'm here. He says it in the first chapter that he's talking about second order beliefs

>By contrast, what I am discussing is a second order view, a view about the status of moral values and the nature of moral valuing, about where and how they fit into the world. These first and second order views are not merely distinct but completely independent: one could be a second order moral skeptic without being a first order one, or again the other way round.

But the problem is that anyone with this belief should not have a problem with OTHERS having different views to his. He should not condemn a rapist, for instance.

>> No.16676215

>>16672175
Look you little nigger, I am a better person than you are and definitely much smarter. Who the fuck cares about your subjective opinion? Shove it up your ass.

>> No.16676223

>>16672237
>It is bad because we make social contracts to live in an orderly civilized society.
I really do hate people who base their philosophical framework off of superficial observations in nature.

>> No.16676293

Morals are about the Good and what we think of a good life. When you honestly think it's good to kill someone then do it, I dare you. It's hard to convince yourself to kill someone is it? I hope so, that would make you a better person in my opinion but I can't speak for everyone only in relation to my own concept of the Good. That's beside the point though.
Dictators, war crimes, serial killers, they do what they do for whatever reasons. When what they are doing is not a matter of they think it's good or not, it's not even a moral act. It's rather outside of moral judgements for them. It's for the others to judge if it was good what they were doing and respond accordingly. There are no facts but think for yourself nigger only once. What do you consider is good, what not?

>> No.16676321

>>16665222
Anon are you OK or did you just have a stroke?

>> No.16676330

>>16664206
>better
Midwit detected.

>> No.16676361

>>16664146
OP you are an absolute pleb. You don't understand that people do have their cake and eat it too. It is called power.

One can believe that morality is subjective and still assert that 'you cannot do X because of Y ' because they can justify it by means of power.

The whole leftist ideology is based on this. Foucault rightfully pointed this out when he said that the proletariat wants to wage war against bourgeoise not because it is just but because they want to be in power.

So an author would be the among the first people start killing each other, so of course he doesn't want that. And through his intellectual power to a certain extend he is trying to justify that going around killing people is wrong.

That being said, that doesn't mean there is not an objective basis for morality. Morality is universal and objective, but it is being revealed to us through the Holy Spirit to each and every one of us individually, and thus it is discovering itself through human soul, evolving in time to reach its final destination at the end of the time.

>> No.16676417

What a post moral relativists really are seething hard.

>> No.16676447

>>16676361
t. teenager who learned philosophy from youtube

>> No.16676533

>>16664146
Lack of foresight and lack of empathy are two aspects of the same general ineptitude at conceiving, organizing, and participating in collaborative activities that are useful at making creature comforts not found in the rest of nature on the whole, and impossible to undertake without social cohesion--most especially what emerges from memory of who did what to whom, and what its more general effect was. The tricks of charismatic charlatans, the abuses of despots, morally retarded authoritarian laws hatched for the sake of their very arbitrariness, and violent criminality repeated heedless of the misery it makes for others and the self, all stem from the the same kind of infantile solipsistic obliviousness to nature's utter indifference to our well-being, indeed even of a sense of boundary between them. Adults who take moral relativism, of which the unreasoning "because I said so" morality of larping authoritarians is just one example, and "why can't we just get along" evasions about differences in individual conduct usual to extremely foolish women and men on the Stockholm Syndrome end of the scale in passivity is another, are grotesque and best avoided in real life, and absurd in print.

>> No.16676624

>>16676330
No morality without concept of the Good. That's why animals are amoral and not a standard for morality like this faggot claims >>16672237

>> No.16676643

>>16664146
Objective morality exists with or without human understanding/ awareness of it as it's God/ infinite intelligence/ the creators will. Moral realists are plebs who wish to justify their deviant and primitive pleasure seeking below the potential of man by imposing upon themselves a spiritual sickness.

>> No.16676660

>>16676447
At least I can for tangible opinions, unlike you retard.

>> No.16676731

>>16664146
There are no objective moral facts but society only works if he we pretend there are. Going around killing people marks you out as a enemy of society and therefore bad.

>> No.16676908

I'm gonna let you faggots in on something, there's no such thing as universal morality, just do what's best for your family and fuck everyone else, they can all go die

>> No.16676977

>>16676908
Retard, it is not in your or your family’s best interest to do whatever.

>> No.16677058

>>16676977
CZECHHHEMMMM

>> No.16677067

>>16664151
fpbp, irrefutable

>> No.16677074

>>16676977
No shit you fat dumb mutt, I'm a pragmatist and my only values is my family

>> No.16677289
File: 290 KB, 400x420, 1600125902647.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16677289

>>16676207
>anyone with this belief should not have a problem with OTHERS having different views to his. He should not condemn a rapist, for instance.
I still don't see why this follows. An error theorist may not have a problem with others having a different view than him IN VIRTUE of the fact that it violates some objective categorical moral fact that exists in the world, but he could have a problem with it for various other reasons. As already mentioned i may have countless hypothetical imperatives that are either deeply ingrained in me from acculturation, or i have learned to value, which are totally at odds with what another holds. Insofar as they are mutually exclusive, then i have every reason to admonish the rapist; a hypothetical imperative is still an imperative, whether it is contingent on my valuing some end or not. If i don't advocate for it, then it isn't going to eventuate. First order morality is simply stating the specifics of moral conduct—what specifically it is we ought to do (maximise happiness, pursue virtue, etc). All this boils down to is a preferable code of behaviour.
Even if that code of behaviour isn't grounded in some Morean moral fact about the world, that doesn't preclude me from advocating it. Perhaps i advocate it on the grounds of universally preferable desires, or universally preferable social mores, or what a perfectly rational impartial spectator would do, or that transgressions threaten the entire project of morality, or whatever. You could still derive from these basis a first-order morality which is truth apt and motivating for almost everyone, indeed one identical to existing first-order moral theories. And if you do hold these to be the measuring stick of morality, why couldn't you condemn the rapist? rape violates our universal desires not to be raped, therefore it is wrong to rape; rape is socially unpreferable, therefore it is wrong; a perfectly rational actor wouldn't rape, therefore it is wrong; rape threatens the very notion of morality, therefore it is wrong. If i hold any of these dear, it would be illogical not to condemn the rapist. Indeed, the rapist may have his own grounds for his actions, and he is welcome in admonishing me in turn. How we settle those disputes between first-order moral values in the real world, maybe is a question for politics rather than ethics.
There is really no reason you should be paralysed in condemning others simply because it isn't an objective feature of the world. In fact, i think holding a view that morality isn't made true by virtue of categorical moral facts should impassion you even further to support them—for otherwise, they would not exist at all.
I feel like we're just going in circles here. Maybe i'm not understanding your point.

>> No.16677363

>>16677289
No I understand the point and I appreciate that at least one person here has read at least one book in meta-ethics. My first post was a purposely provoking, but I still feel the potential contradiction could be the basis for a case against anti-realism. But maybe not. In either case it was interesting read this.

>> No.16677389

>>16668796
God's beliefs are a moral fact by dint of God's nature as creator and maintainer of existence