Why are people so upset when you suggest objective morality doesn't exist?
 |
 DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
|
Why are people so upset when you suggest objective morality doesn't exist?
Why are people so upset when you suggest objective morality doesn't exist?
|
DMT Has Friends For Me Shirt $21.68 |
|
Because it would invalidate their religion which they based their entire life around.
Then shut the frick up about children dying of cancer moron.
Why are you upset by objective morality not being real?
How about i rape and murder your family in front of your family and you will see how subjective your reaction will be, you will choose to be upset like how you choose to like a movie, because morality is le taste!. Refarded beyond hope.
Storm God of ancient canaan isn't real
>How about i rape and murder your family in front of your family and you will see how subjective your reaction will be
Yeah I will be extremely upset. What does that have to do with objective morality though?
Because lts not a matter of taste mister
It's just my emotional state we're talking about. How can my emotional state make something le objectively bad? I don't see the connection.
yeah it is. This is your argument:
>WHAT IF I SHOVED SHIT DOWN YOUR THROAT HUH? I BET YOU WOULDN’T LIKE THE TASTE OF THAT, HUH?? TASTE IS OBJECTIVE
Well when you put it like this it sounds like he's got a point.
You actually think taste is objective? That things can inherently taste good or bad? That makes no fricking sense. Even shit tastes good to flies. But even if shit tastes bad to all humans, this doesn’t mean taste is objective. We obviously have different tastes in many things. The same can be true for morality. People may have common moral values about certain issues but also differ in others. The same is true for different cultures as a whole, or different families, different ages, genders, etc. Morality is not a simple, absolute, objective black-and-white issue. It’s contextual and subjective. The fact that different subjects can occasionally agree does not make it any less subjective
>But even if shit tastes bad to all humans, this doesn’t mean taste is objective.
Well it would mean that certain tastes are objectively bad, no? Maybe some elements of morality have a degree of objectivity and other elements don't.
>Morality is not a simple, absolute, objective black-and-white issue.
It doesn't have to be black-and-white to be objective, and not everyone even needs to agree for objective morality to be conceivable. There could be an objective source of morality separate from us that we are capable of disagreeing with.
Morality and taste are comparable. Tasty food and moral actions are analogous. It makes no sense to say that a food “objectively” tastes good. Who the frick is doing the tasting? It must be subjective because without the subject, there is no experience of tasting at all. If you had no taste buds, then how the frick could the food taste objectively good or bad to YOU? You could eat shit or pudding, it would make no difference. The same is true for morality. Suppose you had the inability to have any preferences or emotions. Then how could someone convince you that it’s “wrong” to murder or rape? None of the consequences would harm you, because you wouldn’t care. Raping a little child would be equivalent to eating a sandwich. It’s only when you have emotions, preferences, “tastes,” that you can even understand what it means for something to be “right” or “wrong,” which is ultimately related to what benefits you in some way, what satisfies your desires
Redpilled and correct take, I would love to see a compelling rebuttal to this argument but I suspect there isn't one.
>Then how could someone convince you that it’s “wrong” to murder or rape?
Well what would it matter if I can be convinced or not? If there is such a thing as objective morality then it obviously wouldn't be dependent on me or anyone else being able to understand it. I understand where you're coming from, though. If we don't have direct access to an objective morality then it may as well no exist to us, even if it is out there. So I suppose the discussion shouldn't be wether or not it exists, but if something like that even can exist in the first place.
Well suppose that it is “objectively wrong” to murder. Then what does that actually mean? If you had zero emotions, preferences, etc. and you murdered someone, would you ever come to the realization that it was wrong? In theism, morality is objective in the sense that murder is wrong for every single human because if they murder, they will go to hell, and no one likes hell by definition. If hell exists, and everyone knew that, then only idiots would murder. But if hell doesn’t exist, then the only way for something to be wrong is if it leads to negative consequences in this life. But if you have no preferences or emotions, then you would never be able to learn that anything is right or wrong. It would all be the same to you.
>Well suppose that it is “objectively wrong” to murder. Then what does that actually mean?
It means that murder is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks about it.
>Then what does that actually mean? If you had zero emotions, preferences, etc. and you murdered someone, would you ever come to the realization that it was wrong?
If you had zero preferences whatsoever, then you probably just couldn't be rational at all, and so you probably wouldn't have many true beliefs in general. I don't see what the significance of that would be.
>But if hell doesn’t exist, then the only way for something to be wrong is if it leads to negative consequences in this life.
Why in the world would you think that?
> It means that murder is wrong regardless of what anyone thinks about it.
Now for the fun part. Define “wrong”
Something is wrong just in case one ought not to do it.
>one ought not to do it
…and what does that mean?
humans are biological organisms. Of course we will share many fundamental moral beliefs because they are evolutionarily advantageous. But if you try to apply Bronze Age desert mythology in 2024, you’ll begin to see that morality isn’t so absolute, and that survival strategies change across time.
Are you asking what "ought" means?
That’s exactly what I’m asking. Do you use words without knowing what they mean?
In that case, I'd just consider it to be a primitive, undefinable concept.
No such thing. You can at the very least describe situations in which the word applies. Words aren’t created out of nowhere. You need to be able to distinguish them in some way. You’re saying that your whole position rests on an undefinable concept. Then what the frick are you saying?
>You can at the very least describe situations in which the word applies.
I can, but that's not the same thing as giving a definition, which is what you presumably wanted. Some examples are: "You ought not torture," "You ought not rape," etc.
>You’re saying that your whole position rests on an undefinable concept.
I think everyone's positions do. Definition has to stop somewhere, and demanding otherwise is just unreasonable.
>I ought to exercise
this means that exercise will likely make me healthier, and I like health. Saying “I ought to exercise” is merely expressing that I find exercise to be beneficial for me. Same with morality.
>Same with morality
It's cool that you believe that, but I don't see an argument for thinking that.
well so far I have a definition and you don’t. Your philosophy is built on emptiness. What a joke
I accept your concession.
>More reality and taste are with-parable. Tasty food and more all actions are from before your portion was eaten. Sense is not made by saying that a food tastes good to an object. Who the frick is doing the tasting? It must be god because without god, there is no experience of tasting, and no one has tried it at all. If you had no origin of taste, then how the frick could the food be tasted by an objective, and judged as good or bad to YOU? You could eat shit or pudding, it would make no difference. The same is true for more reality. Suppose you had the inward-ability to have anything carried in front of you, or you could not emote. Then how could someone convince the you outside of them, that it’s “wrong” to murder or rape? None of the opposite-sequences would harm the you, because the you wouldn’t carry them. Raping a little child would have equal value to eating a sandwich. It’s only when you have the ability to emote, what you have carried before, “tastes,” that you can even understand what it means for something to be “right” or “wrong,” which is ultimately related to what benefits us in some way, what finishes our "of-sires".
>More reality
Mor ality
The extraction from death.
Death wings
Custom wings
Customized wings from the death of our ancestors that has lead to more reality.
How is The Spirit not describing evolution here?
>Even shit tastes good to flies
Flies are objectively bad.
They eat shit, spread disease, don't take care of their young, and they lay their eggs in the dead.
Flies are part of an ecosystem
>they eat shit
Feces are waste to some resources to them. Same with rotting corpses.
They transform waste into resources, mainly by reproducing from waste, making more of themselves they are seen as resources by their predators, living off them and themselves been seen as resources, which limits their populations.
They are diseases carriers, diseases that are themselves the cause of population control abd adaptative pressure by weakening or suppressing.
They are an integral part of the current ecological dynamic and their removal would cause great imbalance.
Some freaks will find these things enjoyable.
You can still appeal to the likes of others and convince them your morals are beneficial to themselves and society at large.
Why should people do things they don't want to do?
You probably have a job of some kind, why did you pick that field and no other? Theres no objective law outlining you need to work in that field after all.
We do what we want to and avoid what we don't. Even picking a religion comes down to what religion we want to follow. They each have their different "objective morality" and people pick and choose which rules they like completely or dismiss/rationalize to be less important.
>You can still appeal to the likes of others and convince them your morals are beneficial to themselves and society at large.
Right, I'm sure if you tell a psycho that, he will listen to your reasoning and change his course of action...
You don't need to convince everyone. Not even a psycho like that will be convinced by someone putting forward a bible to their face and saying "Thou shall not kill". It's just useful to convince as many people as we can to minimize harm to ourselves and others we care for, that's what we've been trying for a very long time. Morality is a useful tool to stop chimpouts.
I agree with you to a certain degree costumes or values are subjective, but these depend on a deeper universal group of virtues that are beyond borders snd cultures and tastes, this is morality, which is timeless.
So when you say "objective morality", what you really mean is "most people strongly dislike when you do X"?
Go ahead and try and I'll bash your skull to bloody bits with a metal bat and won't feel bad about it since God and sin aren't real.
/thread
What does cancer have to do with morality? IG unless you're talking about preventable cancer like exposure to smoke or nukes or whatever
Don't atheists believe we live in a cold soulless indifferent materialist universe? Where would morality play into this? Are they like the demons from Sousou No Frieren and only know that appeals to morality make you merciful?
But why would God want a caste of corrupt pastora, priests, deacons, bishops and so on and make religion money based?
>frogposter
>moral relativist
OP confirmed subhuman atheist moron (I know, that's redundant, atheists are all subhuman morons).
>moral relativist
Noncognitivist, actually. Why does that make you upset?
It kind of destroys the hope of persuading people through reason to your moral point of view. If you disagree with someone's moral position but you both agree there's some underlying moral truth of the matter, you can try to persuade them that your belief is the right one and they should change (and the flipside is that they might persuade you to change).
On the other hand, if you and they simply have different fundamental values and the matter is subjective, there's no possible reason you can give why they should change their values, and if it's a situation where you can't both have what you want, then there's really nothing left to say and nothing left to do but give up or resort to force.
Not just that, but people use the illusion of objective morality to feel justified in compelling others to go along with it.
On the other hand, if morality is subjective you don't really need a justification to compel others. If you want the world to be one way and other people want it to be another way, you're simply in competition with them. You don't have to respect their right to have it their way any more than an athlete has to let their opponent win, not unless that happens to be part of your subjective moral system. Many people seem to have this idea that subjectivism leads to being more tolerant of disagreement, but I see no evidence of that.
>If you disagree with someone's moral position but you both agree there's some underlying moral truth of the matter, you can try to persuade them that your belief is the right one and they should change
How would you even do that if you have different fundamental ideas about what's objectively moral? I see no difference between this and the scenario where two people who don't believe in objective morality have different fundamental values.
That’s why I think it has more to do with
. People just want to believe that God agrees with them. That their view is simply in a different category. It is objectively right, and the other person is simply wrong. People do this even with taste, which is clearly subjective. We make fun of other people’s food preferences as if they have something objectively wrong with them, all because their taste is different from ours!
>How would you even do that if you have different fundamental ideas about what's objectively moral?
People still argue about basic meta-ethics. I mean you probably won't win someone over in any given conversation, but there's the hope.
My meta-ethics is based on open individualism, which is the idea that we are all the same consciousness, so we should strive for a sort of utilitarianism. But even IF people agreed with this (most people do NOT), then we would still argue about what would result in the greater good in the long-term. Donating to charity seems nice but maybe it would be better to invest that money into technology that would solve and prevent a lot more problems so that donating to charity would be less necessary in the future. When Hitler killed the israelites, he thought that he was saving humanity. His ethics were hardly different from anyone else’s, he just thought the israelites were that dangerous to the world that they needed to be exterminated.
I think it's morality is based around material conditions. Though I've never been able to figure out why sex crimes are considered worse than violent crimes.
Sex crimes are coverable, violent crimes aren't really. The body never really recovers from bones being broken ect.
Because humans tend to be moronic apes incapable of having their worldview challenged by anything without having a crisis or violent reaction
Because then you cannot even say torturing babies to death for fun is always objectively wrong. Seems like a huge problem to me...
>Because then you cannot even say torturing babies to death for fun is always objectively wrong. Seems like a huge problem to me...
Why would that be a problem?
>Why would that be a problem?
Because other people with normally developed brains will quickly identify you as a threat to their families and remove you from the gene pool by force.
Why would they do that? I can still say that I don't want babies to be tortured, I don't want to be around people who torture babies, I want to prevent baby torture, I want people who torture babies to be punished etc.
Where's the issue?
>Why would they do that?
Because they don't suffer from psychopathic autism like you do anon.
>I can still say that I don't want babies to be tortured, I don't want to be around people who torture babies, I want to prevent baby torture, I want people who torture babies to be punished etc.
>Where's the issue?
The Issue is that normal people don't need to be told it's wrong. They were born with the neurological pre-programming to know that is intrinsically wrong.
You however are missing that.
You are automatically a threat to others no matter what you say.
You are like a robot that can't be trusted essentially.
>The Issue is that normal people don't need to be told it's wrong. They were born with the neurological pre-programming to know that is intrinsically wrong.
You mean the neurological pre-programming to find it insanely repulsive at the most fundamental level. Which is the same thing I have.
>You mean the neurological pre-programming to find it insanely repulsive at the most fundamental level. Which is the same thing I have.
And that autistic anon is called....
Objective morality...
The thing you claim doesn't exist.
>And that autistic anon is called....
>Objective morality...
Objective morality is when feefees? Sorry, I don't see the connection between the two. Can you elaborate why your feelings imply an objective morality?
>Objective morality is when feefees? Sorry, I don't see the connection between the two. Can you elaborate why your feelings imply an objective morality?
Objective morality is the normal biologically determined behavior exhibited by humans.
It isn't that complicated anon.
You're not be the sharpest tool in the shed.
Alpacas shit in piles away from their grazing areas. It's a biologically determined objective phenomenon.
Humans don't eat their own shit. It's a biologically determined objective phenomenon.
Alpacas protect their young from other animals. It's a biologically determined objective phenomenon.
Humans protect their young from other animals. It's a biologically determined objective phenomenon.
etc...
Anon, your problem is that you're moronic and don't know what objective morality is. To say that morality is objective means that statements like "you ought not murder" are truth-apt and mind-independent.
What you're describing isn't objective morality but rather near-universal moral attitudes. And yeah those obviously exist, no shit.
>Anon, your problem is that you're moronic and don't know what objective morality is.
You don't anon. That's your problem.
>To say that morality is objective means that statements like "you ought not murder" are truth-apt and mind-independent.
No, that means it's normal universal behavior for humans because it is biologically determined.
Morality is a word used to describe human behavior. It isn't used to describe the movement of sand dunes. Morality is a product of electrical signals in mammalian brains.
>What you're describing isn't objective morality but rather near-universal moral attitudes.
Lol, you just described the exact same thing without even knowing it.
>And yeah those obviously exist, no shit.
Lol, your near-universal moral attitudes ARE objective morality you stupid autistic moron haha.
Well it seems that you made up your own definition and that's fine as long as you provide it before using the term. Just keep in mind that this is not how most people use the term, or how philosophers use the term.
>Well it seems that you made up your own definition
I literally haven't lol.
>that's fine as long as you provide it before using the term. Just keep in mind that this is not how most people use the term, or how philosophers use the term.
Maybe you simply don't know what you're talking about autistic anon?
>I literally haven't lol.
Fair enough, maybe you got it from someone else who made it up.
>Maybe you simply don't know what you're talking about autistic anon?
No, I'm quite well read when it comes to moral philosophy.
>the normal
As in majority? That would mean objective morality is malleable, since normal isn't set in stone.
>>the normal
>As in majority? That would mean objective morality is malleable, since normal isn't set in stone.
Maybe you should tell your mother that humans are a three-legged species because one in 50 million people are born with three legs...
If humans evolve to be three legged in the majority eventually, then it would indeed be true.
>If humans evolve to be three legged in the majority eventually, then it would indeed be true.
one in fifty million isn't a majority. It's a birth defect anon. It isn't being selected for. In fact it's being selected against. So...there you go anon.
>Fair enough, maybe you got it from someone else who made it up.
Lol, it's basic evolutionary theory you tard.
>No, I'm quite well read when it comes to moral philosophy.
Philosophy isn't a science.
>one in fifty million isn't a majority. It's a birth defect anon. It isn't being selected for. In fact it's being selected against.
This is "how would you have felt if you hadn't eaten breakfast?" -tier moronic. Consider an eugenics program that forcibly changes the majority of humans. By your definition such eugenics progam would be a method for changing the objective morality.
>Consider an eugenics program that forcibly changes the majority of humans. By your definition such eugenics progam would be a method for changing the objective morality.
If you could genetically engineer the whole human race into loving the taste of their own shit then yes, you would have changed the objective morality of the human species. You would need to artificially maintain it as a trait though because it would soon be selected away by evolution in a few generations.
Alright, that clears things up. We are assuming a different definition of "objective morality". Language games are such a silly brick wall. I see "objective morality" as something universal, and the idea you connect to it as "subjective morality within the groups".
Only if we could beam our pure ideas without resorting to labels.
Lol, you still don't understand you stupid frick.
You're an idiot.
Not even close.
I do understand. You operate with the definition that "objective morality" is defined by the biological imperative of a species. From above view between species it is subjective, within species it is objective.
>From above view between species it is subjective, within species it is objective.
Morality is a concept unique to humans anon...
So it can only be objective...
>No it isn't moron. If we just did what our biology told us to do, it would immoral.
Not at all.
All the pedophiles would be tortured and killed instead of living on the taxpayers dime for decades.
>Morality is a concept unique to humans anon...
Sure, let's assume that. Morality is subjective between races, objective within races.
>Sure, let's assume that. Morality is subjective between races, objective within races.
There isn't a single human race that eats all their own children anon.
>I notice that you didn't post a biology textbook which uses the term "objective morality".
It's called evolutionary psychology anon.
>The problem is that this isn't what "objective morality" refers to.
Lol, it's literally the whole point of objective morality.
>It is a part of objective reality that most people get upset by certain things
There you go.
And that's called objective morality.
Wow, it wasn't that hard was it anon!
>There isn't a single human race that eats all their own children anon.
You're missing the point I'm making. The only issue here is that the supply line of definitions isn't uniform, which causes disparities in understanding them. Your point of view is likely logically consistent with the definitions you assume, which haven't been supplied to me in the same form. I can't verify your logic, since I cannot know your assumptions the logic operates on.
This isn't an issue of education either, complex terms have such a massive dependecy tree of subdefinitions that their use for correct idea transfer is practically impossible. There's bound to be some differences within the subdefinitions.
That's a very long-winded way of saying absolutely nothing anon lol.
We simply don't type with the same language, so it's a given.
>We simply don't type with the same language, so it's a given.
Nope, you literally just managed to say absolutely nothing in many words lol.
I stated fact. It affect you. Have you considered that when you judge someone who proclaims to believe subjective morality, that he's misunderstanding the concept of subjetive morality instead of actually believing it? How would you verify if the person is simply uninformed, or immoral?
>I stated fact.
You literally didn't state anything lol.
Do you want me to review your gibberish?
Ok...
>The only issue here is that the supply line of definitions isn't uniform
(doesn't mean anything)
>Your point of view is likely logically consistent with the definitions you assume, which haven't been supplied to me in the same form
(doesn't make any sense)
>I can't verify your logic, since I cannot know your assumptions the logic operates on.
(not even remotely close to being true lol)
>This isn't an issue of education either, complex terms have such a massive dependecy tree of subdefinitions that their use for correct idea transfer is practically impossible.
(meaningless pseudo-intellectual psychobabble.)
(reeks of post-modernism)
>Have you considered that when you judge someone who proclaims to believe subjective morality, that he's misunderstanding the concept of subjetive morality instead of actually believing it? How would you verify if the person is simply uninformed, or immoral?
Can you review this too? It's the very core of this thread, OP and everyone else in this thread defending subjective morality might be uninformed, and thus speaking absolute non-sense based on bad education.
>doesn't make any sense
It does make sense. You see it the words, and you sense them with your eyes. Sense has been made. But that's not what you meant, was it?
I know, it's hard for the rich to walk through the eye of a needle. The more intelligent you are, the harder it is to start over, because you are already so rich. That poor fly, with his shitty goals. When will he learn that everyone is annoyed by his buzzing. What happens when he has no hive, and we figure out how to process shit without him. Behold. Ai is only 20 years away.
>It's called evolutionary psychology anon.
Post a textbook which uses the term "objective morality". That should be easy.
>Lol, it's literally the whole point of objective morality.
Nope, just your private definition.
>There you go.
>And that's called objective morality.
Nope, that's objective morality according to your private definition. You've yet to post a textbook using the term in this context.
>Post a textbook which uses the term "objective morality". That should be easy.
I don't need to anon lol.
>Nope, just your private definition.
Nope. I'm literally just quoting evolutionary psychology.
>Nope, that's objective morality according to your private definition.
You're still stupid and still wrong anon.
>I don't need to anon lol.
No, it's just that you can't.
>Nope. I'm literally just quoting evolutionary psychology.
Provide an actual direct quotation then.
>No, it's just that you can't.
What do you mean?
objective morality is a product of human behavior and in evolutionary psychology human behavior is a product of evolution.
>Provide an actual direct quotation then.
Lol, what do you think evolutionary psychology means anon?
>What do you mean?
I mean that you cannot provide a quotation from a textbook dealing with evolutionary psychology that includes the term "objective morality" because said term is not used in this discipline.
>Lol, what do you think evolutionary psychology means anon?
Study of psychology within an evolutionary context, i.e. development of certain psychological traits and so on.
Can you quote an evolutionary psychologist or a relevant textbook using the term "objective morality" the way you use it?
>Not at all.
>All the pedophiles would be tortured and killed instead of living on the taxpayers dime for decades.
Oh okay so you're a low IQ lolbert. Got it.
>Oh okay so you're a low IQ lolbert. Got it.
Lol, what you're afraid of dying pedophile autist anon?
>It does make sense. You see it the words, and you sense them with your eyes. Sense has been made. But that's not what you meant, was it?
More meaningless psychobabble...
>I know, it's hard for the rich to walk through the eye of a needle. The more intelligent you are, the harder it is to start over, because you are already so rich. That poor fly, with his shitty goals. When will he learn that everyone is annoyed by his buzzing. What happens when he has no hive, and we figure out how to process shit without him. Behold. Ai is only 20 years away.
More irrelevant, meaningless, pseudointellectual psychobabble.
That "psychobabble" is intentionally cryptic allusion to mock you by a different anon.
>That "psychobabble" is intentionally cryptic allusion to mock you by a different anon.
No anon. You say random stupid meaningless wordy shit because you think it makes you intelligent. You aren't mocking anyone but yourself.
Honestly, I just wish you the best. It's a shame I cannot convey it to you. I hope you one day get what I'm saying, it'll make you a better person.
>Lol, it's basic evolutionary theory you tard.
Evolutionary theory doesn't say anything about objective morality.
>Philosophy isn't a science.
True but irrelevant.
It's time to throw in the towel, anon. "Objective morality" as it's used by the majority of people and the majority of philosophers is something even you don't believe exists. You were wrong, but at least you learned something new today.
>Evolutionary theory doesn't say anything about objective morality.
It literally does. Our behavior is a product of evolution. That includes our morality.
>True but irrelevant.
Completely relevant. It means your philosophical gibberish is a completely illogical waste of time of absolutely zero value in any conversation.
End of story.
>It literally does. Our behavior is a product of evolution. That includes our morality.
Ah sorry, I forgot that you were using your private definition of "objective morality".
>Completely relevant. It means your philosophical gibberish is a completely illogical waste of time of absolutely zero value in any conversation.
Objective morality is a philosophical concept though, so perhaps you think objective morality (the general definition, not your private definition) is worthless trash.
>Ah sorry, I forgot that you were using your private definition of "objective morality".
It's not my private definition anon...
>Objective morality is a philosophical concept though
It isn't. It doesn't belong to philosophy or religion.
>so perhaps you think objective morality (the general definition, not your private definition) is worthless trash.
Objective reality only means one thing anon lol.
And it isn't your worthless trash...
>It's not my private definition anon...
It is. If you disagree, find me a biology textbook which uses the term "objective morality".
>It isn't. It doesn't belong to philosophy or religion.
It doesn't belong to religion, but it does belong to philosophy. What other discipline would study mind-independent truth-apt ought statements?
>Objective reality only means one thing anon lol.
>And it isn't your worthless trash...
Why are you bringing up "objective reality"? We are talking about objective morality.
>It is.
It isn't lol.
>It doesn't belong to religion, but it does belong to philosophy.
No it doesn't anon. Nobody needs to study philosophy or Religion to know that killing people outside of self defense is wrong.
>Why are you bringing up "objective reality"? We are talking about objective morality.
Holy shit you're a moron lol.
The whole point of objective morality is that it is a part of objective reality.
>It isn't lol.
I notice that you didn't post a biology textbook which uses the term "objective morality".
>No it doesn't anon. Nobody needs to study philosophy or Religion to know that killing people outside of self defense is wrong.
When you say "killing people outside of self-defense is wrong", what you really mean is that "killing people outside of self-defense makes most people upset". The problem is that this isn't what "objective morality" refers to.
>Holy shit you're a moron lol.
>The whole point of objective morality is that it is a part of objective reality.
It is a part of objective reality that most people get upset by certain things, but it isn't a part of objective reality that "you ought not murder" is a mind-independent fact. In other words, there is a descriptive fact that is a part of objective reality, but there is not a prescriptive fact that is a part of objective reality. Hence no objective morality, sorry.
>objective morality
The customized death wings of objects. How does an object die? Life is motion. Objective morality would be a perpetual motion machine.
>How does an object die?
Cell function ceases and can never be rejuvenated.
>Life is motion.
Volcanos aren't alive anon...
Either is the sun.
>Objective morality would be a perpetual motion machine.
?
>Volcanos aren't alive anon
That's one way to think about it, but when we see the exoskeleton of a crab walking on a beach, we consider the nomenclature that the whole system is the form of life, even though some could argue that it's exoskeleton is dead. Extrapolate this logic, and that's where we get the idea of a prime mover.
Its the idea of being naked, and wearing clothes. The dead things are a part of life.
>The dead things are a part of life
The subjects follow the direction of the objective. If the objective is to shoot a gun, the gun is the subject of me shooting the gun.
>That's one way to think about it
Lol, no. There isn't any other way to think about it.
Volcanos aren't alive in any sense and never were.
You're an actual moron anon lol.
There's no DNA, RNA or other exotic coding instructions in volcanos.
Volcanos don't create copies of themselves.
Volcanoes don't extract energy from the environment.
etc.
>I mean that you cannot provide a quotation from a textbook dealing with evolutionary psychology that includes the term "objective morality"
"An objective basis for morality can be found in an evolutionary account of its origin and development."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/014017509190016J
>Study of psychology within an evolutionary context
Wow, and as you can see, that includes objective morality you autistic moron lol.
Because it is a product of human behavior.
>"An objective basis for morality can be found in an evolutionary account of its origin and development."
You googled "evolutionary psychology objective morality" and posted the first result without reading it, didn't you?
He's not using your definition, you absolute doofus.
>You googled "evolutionary psychology objective morality" and posted the first result without reading it, didn't you?
>He's not using your definition, you absolute doofus.
He's literally using my definition doofus...
You're wrong again.
>He's literally using my definition doofus...
You literally only think that because you haven't read the paper lol.
>You literally only think that because you haven't read the paper lol.
You haven't have you?
Have you even read the quote?
>Honestly, I just wish you the best. It's a shame I cannot convey it to you. I hope you one day get what I'm saying, it'll make you a better person.
Very cool low IQ, samegayging, autistic, pseudointellectual psychopath. When you finally die, a dissection of your brain could help us with understanding autism.
>Very cool low IQ, samegayging, autistic, pseudointellectual psychopath. When you finally die, a dissection of your brain could help us with understanding autism.
Would Jesus say that?
>Would Jesus say that?
Jesus doesn't exist anon.
His teaching does. Funny, I've been reading about christianity lately, and now suddenly I get the sociological benefit it provides. Just don't end wishing hell onto others, like the misguided medievals.
>His teaching does. Funny, I've been reading about christianity lately, and now suddenly I get the sociological benefit it provides. Just don't end wishing hell onto others, like the misguided medievals.
Yep, you're an idiot anon. I already knew that.
Is it stupid to wish for mutual understanding and to assume good faith? (Not the religious faith, mind you.)
>Is it stupid to wish for mutual understanding and to assume good faith? (Not the religious faith, mind you.)
Jesus doesn't exist anon...
Those are my takes. My morality which you should have too.
>Those are my takes. My morality which you should have too.
You don't have any takes anon. You're just an autistic idiot that likes to say random shit every now and then lol.
>You're revealing a spirit of blind faith, but not in the way that you think. Should we call your philosophy "projective" morality?
? At this point you are basically a random sentence generator.
My only goal in this entire discussion chain has been to find mutual understanding, and assuming good faith that you'd try so too. They're beautiful concepts.
>You don't have any takes anon. You're just an autistic idiot that likes to say random shit every now and then lol.
It's true. You do follow a code of projective morality. You need to self reflect. I am taking, but you have said, "There isn't any other way to think about it." So what can you take away?
You also just admitted that you are drawn to shit, wich indicates that your spirit creature is a fly. Good thing I wash with living water, so I don't get sick from your disease. You wouldn't understand, because your water is dead.
>Have you even read the quote?
Unlike you, I've read most of the actual paper. He is not arguing for your definition (i.e. "objective morality is when most people dislike something), he's making a philosophical case for the existence of a rational objective morality according to my definition and trying to underpin it with evolutionary psychology.
>Unlike you, I've read most of the actual paper. He is not arguing for your definition (i.e. "objective morality is when most people dislike something)
He literally is lol.
Holy shit are you a sore loser.
>He literally is lol.
You literally haven't read the paper. He's making exactly the kind of argument that you'd counter by calling him an autist and telling him that normal people don't need to make up these elaborate rational explanation for why they shouldn't torture children.
You chose a really bad paper to make your point lol.
>You literally haven't read the paper.
That's right, you haven't anon lol.
Wow are you a sore loser.
I can practically hear you sulking in the corner.
Anon, his central argument is that all humans have goals and desires, and that since a stable society is beneficial or necessary towards the accomplishment of goals in general, a rational agent ought to act in such a way that a stable society is maintained. He also argues that given proper conditions, there might also arise similar objective oughts when it comes to international relations.
>Anon, his central argument is that all humans have goals and desires
"An objective basis for morality can be found in an evolutionary account of its origin and development"
"Group selection is a controversial idea for animal evolution but it is inescapable in accounting for human evolution under the influence of language and the accumulation of cultural patterns"
"Further, morality has an objective physiological and neurological basis in so far as it exists to moderate the expression of the array of genetically-derived emotional patterns."
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/014017509190016J
lol...
Yeah that's referring to the "everyone has goals and desires" part, as well as supporting the premise that social stability is conductive to the accomplishment of goals.
Come back when you read the actual paper.
>Yeah that's referring to the "everyone has goals and desires" part
Aha, notice how he never mentions goals or desires lol.
But he very clearly says -
"An objective basis for morality can be found in an evolutionary account of its origin and development"
Holy shit are you a sore loser lol.
Anon this is embarrassing. You still haven't read the actual paper.
"For the individual, the purpose must be to find something, construct something between nothing
and nothing, Not name or fame but some contribution. Not 'a footprint in the sands of time'
rapidly swept away but a structure, a pattern resulting from the individual's life, suitable to be
preserved in the rocks of time. At the minimum to make some difference, not just to be
recognised, rewarded or renowned in the ephemeral present. Rather than being an
interchangeable, featureless atom, each individual can contribute an enduring element of
pattern, a physical pattern, a thought-pattern or a behavioural pattern to last within the group,
the potentially immortal group. If he is guided by this integrating purpose, each individual can look
for a fragment of real immortality.
If purpose for the individual is thought of in this way, then morality becomes rational and
necessary. Its content will be determined by the over-riding purpose. The rules of morality which
the individual observes must then be such as to help to preserve both the individual himself for
long enough to make his distinctive contribution and also the group to which he looks for his fragment of immortality. Actions become right or wrong, good or bad, objectively."
Thanks for the link
(What)
Thanks for the motivation
(Why)
I'll try to live up to it.
(How)
>samegayging
You're revealing a spirit of blind faith, but not in the way that you think. Should we call your philosophy "projective" morality?
>Objective morality would be a perpetual motion machine.
Goal oriented customized wings of death.
Subjects are below the objective. They follow the objective. Thats what makes them subjects. Objective reality is the higher power.
Objective reality is the stronger philosophy.
Morally isn't remotely biological. If anything, it's the exact opposite of biological as it's something to STOP your body from doing thing.
>Morally isn't remotely biological.
Literally is lol. Every heard of evolutionary psychology?
>If anything, it's the exact opposite of biological as it's something to STOP your body from doing thing.
You are no different from a Christ-tard arguing that the soul is an entity separate from the physical brain haha.
No it isn't moron. If we just did what our biology told us to do, it would immoral.
>some people do not have it and do not think so
Uh... is that... subjectivity?
>Uh... is that... subjectivity?
Some people are born with mental disabilities anon.
Just as some people are born with three legs...
Because the larpers like (you) never put their money where their mouth is and start raping, robbing and killing people. The so called "moral relativists" aren't based chads doing whatever they want, whenever they want. It's a bunch of worthless Redditdorks who pathetically whisper "sorry...." when they brush someone's side .
>you think food preference is subjective?
>then why don’t you eat shit??
>Morality is relative, Chud!
>B-But I'm going to follow the Bible's teachings 96% of the time....j-just because I want to...
Lol what a loser.
Here's a quick test, steal a candy bar from a convenient store.
>>B-But I'm going to follow the Bible's teachings 96% of the time....j-just because I want to...
We're forbidding people from wearing mixed fabrics now? Or forcing women to marry their rapist? Or genociding rival tribes while keeping their female children as sex slaves? To most white first worlders, the bible (along with most ancient texts) is evil
The way morality changed from ancient isrealite barbarians is the biggest proof you need that "objective morality" is subordinate to the subjective, changing, human element.
That just means real Objective Morality has never been tried.
>Subjective morality is when you follow objective orders
What makes you think everyone wants to do those things? Very disturbing.
>I-I just don't want to do it...
Copium. Either you're a mindless slave to your body and societal pressure to do what you actually believe in or you actually do have objective morals and are just larping.
Why aren't you a pedophile?
Because I believe in objective morality.
Why do you have a problem with Pedophila?
so… if we convinced you that objective morality makes no sense, you would be a pedophile? Yikes..maybe we should just let you have your silly delusions…
No. It would mean that there's nothing wrong with pedophila.
>Whataboutism
Is Pedophila objectively wrong. Yes or no
Sure. Objective morality doesn't have anything to do with genocidal bronze age pedophiles though
You can’t even define wrong
This isn't about me. This is why everyone looks down at you for larping as a moral relativist, but behaving like there is objective morality.
You think subjective morality means doing things that are hated by most people? That’s like believing someone who thinks taste is subjective should eat shit and drink vinegar. And like I said, you can’t even define “wrong.” What a fricking joke. You use words and don’t even know what they mean
I used to drink apple cider vinegar diluted with water
Why used to? I still do it, I think a recent study showed it stopped blood sugar from fluctuating if you drink it before a high carb meat.
>Why used to? I still do it, I think a recent study showed it stopped blood sugar from fluctuating if you drink it before a high carb meat.
There is no such thing as a "high carb meat".
Vinegar however does make you feel full more quickly and thus eat less. Vinegar does have a very slight direct effect on your blood pressure and blood sugar as does everything you eat.
Basically it was a fad. It isn't a particularly amazing food item.
Caffeine, Ethanol, tannins, statins etc have far more profound positive effects when administered correctly.
I meant to type meal not meat.
>You think subjective morality means doing things that are hated by most people?
Not entirely, but having "subjective morality" that 98% lines up with objective morality means you're either you're just larping for (you)s or not a logical human being.
>subjective denial
Source your objective morality for why it's wrong.
According to objective morality I don't. Mary was a minor when God impregnated her, he is a pedophile, adultery enabler and a child rapist. Being a pedophile, adultery enabler and child rapist is moral because morality comes from an objective source (God). You are practicing subjective morality by not being a pedophile. Find God.
Being against child murder (like in Egypt, or with the two she-Bears) is also subjective morality since YHWH loved doing that. And as we all know he is the source for objective morality.
>Why aren't you a pedophile?
Because the kids are getting uglier these days
No, I just want to make music. I don't want to kill anyone my psychopathic friend.
Watch me rape a baby and then tell me objective morality doesnt exist.
You only say that to sound smart and/or to trick me into accepting whatever immorality you want me to accept.
>Watch me rape a baby
>NOOOOO NOT THE HECKIN' N-WORDERINO!
liberals are so laughably pathetic.
What do objective moralitybros think about aztec human sacrifice?
Especially because it was done under religious reasons.
>Be relativist larper
>Don't do anything cool with your subjective morality
>Actually your life doesn't change at all
>The moral relativism only matters when you're frog posting on IQfy
Lol
You guys are just mad you're getting btfo'd this hard.
Now pretend I posted a laughing frog, that's an objective order btw.
Different people have different interests.
Morality is a tool to guide people within a social framework that, unlike laws, doesn't involve the use of force or of a juridic system but of the pressure of peers. It follows a logic but this logic is derived from the interests of the group that uses it. It is context dependant thus not objective.
This upsets universalists that wish to impose their standards, their interests, over anyone else's. They want theirs to be universal and will shame, figuratively, the lion for eating the gazelle and the rodent mother for eating its weaker babies. Anon's example of the aztec sacrifying people to appease their gods.
Because it comes from a moronic misconception of what morality is