Moral Subjectivist here.
Give me a reason to not punch your face RIGHT NOW.
 Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
Moral Subjectivist here. Give me a reason to not punch your face RIGHT NOW.
Moral Subjectivist here.
Give me a reason to not punch your face RIGHT NOW.
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
|
Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68 |
I‘ll have sex with your mom again and you won’t like that, moral-subjectively speaking.
it's objectively immoral to cause me any harm
>I‘ll have sex with your m-
POW
>it's objectively immoral t-
POW
I don't care
what now?
I'm being 100% serious
>I don't care
now but in the afterlife...
Cool. Consequentialism.
See what an absolute joke objective morality is?
You can only appeal to my subjective desire to avoid harm now, or in the afterlife.
For me the meaning of life is the pursuit of happiness without taking the happiness from others and helping others to have happiness. Happiness would be the basic biological, psychological, social etc needs. (Also abstraction and contemplation of reality).
Morality comes from this.
It would be futile
It would be extremely painful.
You would get my acne juice on your hands
Subjective morals ≠ no morals.
Subjective morality is just calling it like it is. There are no objective rules about good and evil built into the universe. That doesn't mean you can't do what feels right, but it's just that a feeling.
What if what feels right for me conflicts with what you feel is right?
That already happens in real life all the time. And it's why wars are fought and people are killed.
So you've got no solution, got it.
That is why objective necessary, it's a universal standard that all people must adhere to.
Necessity has nothing to do with it. It's just the way it is. If morality were objective, then we would all feel the same way about what is good and evil. The fact that we don't all feel the same is smoking gun evidence that morality is subjective.
>then we would all feel the same way about what is good and evil
But we do, though. Broadly speaking. Any deviation is just nuances that academics and propagandists like to jerk themselves off to for fart-sniffing or pragmatic reasons.
If you take a survey of 50 civilizations, from Western nations to middle-east to Asian, I would bet my entire house that 99.99% of people would agree that:
Murder is wrong.
Stealing is wrong.
Rape is wrong.
Sexual infidelity is wrong.
Any deviation from that is an exception (psychopaths or subhuman cultures, for example) or a cope. And we in the West are coping hard, just like you are
If these was true then the civilizations of the world would have had practically identical laws and customs, but they don't. For some it's okay to murder, rape your enemies and for others it's okay to steal and cheat from certain groups.
>it's okay to steal and cheat from certain groups.
Just say israelites. Which, btw, is an exception
>If these was true then the civilizations of the world would have had practically identical laws and customs, but they don't. For some it's okay to murder, rape your enemies
Show me more than 10 nations that make it okay to murder, rape or steal. Where they OPENLY espouse, not just some obscure religious text or something like that
>Show me more than 10 nations that make it okay to murder, rape or steal
Arbitrary requirements but it would be way too easy if I just included a bunch of wars here.
If you kill to defend yourself and your nation, it isn't necessarily relativist. But most people would agree nowadays that conquering empires were exactly moral. They'd straight up say it's immoral, not relativist
Although, I am 100% for spreading and enforcing liberal democratic secular western values and morality onto the entire world. It's just that morality isn't objective like 1+1=2.
>it's a universal standard that all people must adhere to.
But they don't, regardless....
>Subjective morality is just calling it like it is.
*is just calling it how you feel in your woman heart. Everyone with a braincell knows that murdering someone in cold blood for $10 is objectively wrong and detrimental to the victim, the victim's family and society as they have to get tax-cucked to support prisons. Anything else mental gymnastics you do afterwards is pure cope
>b-but it's all aribtrary and meaningless!!
If it's all so arbitrary, go and punch an African tribe member in the face because you feel like it and it feels good. See if they understand your subjective morality as they impale you
*slaps your dick*
Lol
public backlash. Might makes right, and a crowd of angry normies are stronger than you.
I'm going to make you wish you were dead instead of punching me.
>Give me a reason to not punch your face RIGHT NOW
I am stronger than you, and I can easily crush your face, this is quite objective.
I don't care about my face getting crushed.
What now?
I'll punch you harder back.
I have a forcefield.
I'm stronger than you and will beat you up.
In fact, give me one reason not to best you up RIGHT NOW.
Which monke is the one on the bottom left
bonobo
Cause I will kill you in self defense
I will bite your balls off if you punch me
You are unable to do it
It wouldn’t be game theory optimal.
*dodge*
I WILL HIT YOU BACK HARDER
The energy expenditure is not worth it
You're too much of a manlet, you'd need to grab a stool to reach my face.
I got a gun moron
Assault is a crime. I will call the police and they will arrest you, which would make your life less enjoyable.
>PO-
POW
I’m sorry it had to come to this Anon.
>P
Bang
Not sorry sux it
Moral objectivist here, preemptively killing people who threaten me is morally justifiable.
Its morally ok to rape your mother because she needs it