>morality is objective
>morality is objective
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
>morality is objective
Falling into your wing while paragliding is called 'gift wrapping' and turns you into a dirt torpedo pic.twitter.com/oQFKsVISkI
— Mental Videos (@MentalVids) March 15, 2023
If morality isn't objective, what is?
things that can be measured, like how gay OP is
Gravity, entropy, proton decay.
How is morality any less objective? We arrived at both through empirical observation and experimentation and both can be proven wrong by such.
No no no not that kind of objective, I can't insert my god into that!
Proton decay is entirely speculative, it has never been observed
porn of this girl
That is a drawing, kiddo.
Take your meds, schizo
Solipsism should be painful
TRUE. Just as laws require a lawmaker, likewise morality is impossible without GOD and Jesus. YOU HAVE NOW BEEN BLESSEDPILL, HALLELUJAH
Refuted by Euthryphro dilemma
Doesn't refute anything. That guy is clearly answering the dilemma with God deciding what is good.
>god deciding what is good
Literally refuted by Euthryphro dilemma. Without reference to an objective morality outside of god, the morality dictated by god can only be subjective.
God makes it objective.
No such thing as making a thing objective.
Do you support LGBT and Women's Rights?
If yes, explain why it's wrong to reject them if morality isn't objective
not OP but it's very simple
if you get 10 people you will get 10 different ideas of morality. Many people think cruel and inhumane punishment is ok. A lot of people think rapists should be raped/tortured in prison as punishment (a lot of women believe this). Some people think taxation is theft and therefore a crime. And you have a thousand anons on here who think the age of consent should be 12 and that drug use warrants the death penalty.
this is all subjective because everyone has their own opinions on the morality of actions, crime and justice etc. It would be cool if we were all on the same page and agreed to a universal, objective morality, but this is a fantasy
An image from a better time. Also good explanation why morality can/may be objective-based but it's ultimately subjective by those who apply it.
Morality Is objective. Theres arent many things to do. You kill or you dont
Its either good or bad
Theres no other choice
Now you want to argue with retard arguments we can waste our time
you missed the point entirely and it was a simple point
while yes things can be good or bad, different people have different opinions on what is good or bad. Person A has a different opinion on good/bad things than person B. Times this by the entire human population and you get a lot of different opinions. Because this is a matter of opinions and it is subjective
person a and person b would both agree that killing person c and taking his wealth is objectively wrong its not a matter of opinion
humans have evolved empathy over the course of our evolution
social disorders like autism make the concept of empathy hard to understand for sufferers
>person a and person b would both agree that killing person c and taking his wealth is objectively wrong its not a matter of opinion
I don't agree, so it clearly IS a matter of opinion.
>humans have evolved empathy over the course of our evolution
You are confusing "empathy" with "sympathy".
>social disorders like autism make the concept of empathy hard to understand for sufferers
The classic "My opinions are objectively correct, so everyone that disagrees must be insane" trick, very impressive.
>I don't agree, so it clearly IS a matter of opinion.
I don't agree that the Earth is round, so that must be a matter of opinion too.
Your argument is basically "everyone agrees morality is objective, so it must be true", which falls apart once I find someone that disagrees.
What you have shown is that the argument "everyone agrees that the earth is round, so it must be true" is similarly retarded. Luckily, there are many other reasons to believe that the earth is round. I have not seen any of those for objective morals.
no, morality is made by and for active well standing members of society
everyone in society acts in a moral way every day all the time, it doesn't matter if an autist can't recognize that
murderers and rapists don't get to participate in normal society and don't get to contribute to what morality is
> morality is objective
> except for people who don't believe in it
Gotcha.
>don't believe in it
its not a matter of them not believing but not being capable, like an autist trying to understand empathy... you don't get to make society's morality because you don't participate in society
So that makes it subjective right?
>Luckily, there are many other reasons to believe that the earth is round
I disagree.
no its empathy
thanks for taking the autism bait and confirming my suspicions
There's a difference between having a different opinion because something is truly subjective and having a different opinion because of a flaw in perception. If someone has an impaired sense of vision they may perceive an object to be a different color, shape, or distance than it actually is, but there is an objective reflection of light from that object that betrays that person's subjective vision. Likewise if someone says that ritually sacrificing children is good, we would say they have an impaired sense of morality.
people like to argue, but if they act on something they are going to do one thing or another
theres no middle ground
there are two groups who think they are doing right with opposite results
there's no third option
NOW if you think and believe you are doing bad, you are bad
The impossibility of the contrary (relativism)
subjectivism does not follow from the existence of disagreement dummy
Someone says the earth is round
someone else says the earth is flat
whether the earth is or isn't flat is not affected by the hot takes of these two people
This is more like one person says veganism is the only way to be moral and another disagrees. The earth not being flat is objective, not subjective.
>This is more like one person says veganism is the only way to be moral and another disagrees
And there is an objective fact of the matter as to which person is right in that case.
You're missing the analogy. The exclusive moral virtue of veganism is true or false regardless of someone's opinion of it. That's what objectivism means.
Objective moral facts and values exist, therefore moral subjectivism is false.
or
Objective moral facts and values do not exist, therefore moral subjectivism is true.
>The exclusive moral virtue of veganism is true or false regardless of someone's opinion of it.
No it is not.
source?
It is self evident
It's not self evident to me.
doesn't matter what retards think
retards don't make up morality
thats been said many times in the thread
I accept your concession.
The second one is true. Whether veganism or omnivorous eating is moral is subjective. I think being an omnivore is fine, vegans disagree.
You don't understand what the word 'subjective' means.
Yeah it means there’s no objectively correct answer and depends on a person making a subjective judgment
You didn't argue for that then.
Objectively and subjectivity have nothing to do with whether people agree or not.
retard
great argument
You're wrong, bitch.
I know, it’s more to do with the fact that there actually is no correct answer.
Why should we think that there's no correct answer?
“Should” I’m just saying it’s a subjective moral judgment.
There is a correct answer, God gave man dominion over the animals. Therefore it is not immoral to eat animals.
Why should I care about eating and hurting animals.
I don't care about eating or hurting animals. Why should I?
Why is it impossible for morality not to be objective?
My argument is that it is arbitrary to say these kinds of value judgments are invalid and not all value judgments. This is itself a value judgment so the argument is self refuting.
To put it another way, relativism necessarily follows from moral relativism. Relativism is incoherent.
Who is saying that those value judgements are invalid? If I were to say that morality is not objective (and I'd like to stress that I'm not committing to that, I just find your argument weird), I don't see how it would invalidate any kind of judgement.
Do you think that it is, for instance, incoherent for a moral anti-realist to say that he likes the taste of a specific kind of coffee or that his car trunk has a particular width?
I think I get your objection. For one to say he prefers a kind of coffee over all the rest is not to say no measure of value to coffee exists, but I do see how a subjective view to the value of coffee types and an objective view to a certain moral value are compatible
Yeah, that's my objection. I do agree with you thought that it would be at the very least very difficult to defend objective value judgements in any other sphere if you deny their existence in the field of morality. It's just that when it comes to these other things, the belief in objective values actually seems to be less common than with morals, so many people wouldn't have an issue with that.
I'm wondering if this presents an issue for a moral relativist commie, since these things seem to go together. Simultaneously defending the (objective) labor theory of (monetary) value alongside the subjective value of morality.
>Do you think that it is, for instance, incoherent for a moral anti-realist to say that he likes the taste of a specific kind of coffee or that his car trunk has a particular width?
If he wants to make that specific kind of coffee the only legal coffee, then yes it is incoherent.
the shape of the earth is objective
the morality of things is subjective, as evidenced by all those moral dilemmas that people argue over. Everyone has their own opinion that they think is objective, but it's not because it's an opinion
>as evidenced by all those moral dilemmas that people argue over
This is only evidence that some people are immortal.
Yes, I'm sure you are the only moral person in this sick sad world. Of course
Plenty of people are moral.
it's evidence that people have their own opinions regarding the morality of actions
See
I saw that and it's still subjective. Morality is the realm of opinions. I think you'll find 100% of people judging morality are humans and humans are inherently flawed and have different opinions on what's moral and what isnt. Regardless of their ability to perceive things. There is no definitive, conclusive, correct set of opinions on morality. And if there were, that would be one (1) set of opinions
Since the shape of the Earth analogy is played out, people can have different opinions on consciousness. Some people think it's material, some functional, some spiritual, and some illusionary. We will probably never conclusively answer that mystery but that doesn't mean an answer doesn't exist. There is still an objective truth even if no one is privy to it.
>And if there were, that would be one (1) set of opinions
No, it would be a set of facts. And it does exist and is revealed in scripture.
>No, it would be a set of facts.
Lol
That's what it would be. You're using the word "opinion" but "definitive, conclusive, correct" is describing a set of facts.
because there is no definite, conclusive, correct set of opinions on morality. Regardless of whatever books anyone has read or written. Regardless of whatever entities someone believes in. In fact you'll find great diversity of opinions just among a couple people
>because there is no definite, conclusive, correct set of opinions on morality
Even assuming this is correct, IF THERE WAS then it would be a set of facts. The idea that it would still just be a set of opinions is retarded.
As for the rest of your post, as has already been discussed at length people having their own perspectives and disagreements on a topic is not evidence of that topic's underlying subjectivity. I don't care if someone thinks it's morally good to kidnap children, rape them, then have them mauled to death by pitbulls. They are simply wrong and their sense of morality is malfunctioning.
No i don't
It isn't. Morality is determined by humans to be as subjectively beneficial for their community/society as possible. There is no objective morality and there is no skydaddy from old israeli tales.
FYI the skydady argument was originally used by early Christians against pagans.
And?
You are the new breed of what made the early Christians and modern day legacy Christians are like the old pagans.
no
if you live with moral relativity you quickly descend into nihilism, walking down the street and not being murdered or mugged is an example that we all live according to objective morals (the main one being the golden rule you were probably taught as a kid kek)
Not him, not a nihilist either , but I don't agree with the golden rule.
>The question of whether morality is objective or subjective is a complex and ongoing debate in philosophy.
>On one hand, some argue that morality is objective, meaning that it is based on principles that are true and valid regardless of one's individual beliefs or cultural context. They argue that moral principles such as the importance of human life, the value of fairness and justice, and the harm caused by actions like murder, are true and valid universally.
>On the other hand, others argue that morality is subjective, meaning that it is based on individual beliefs, emotions, and cultural context. They argue that moral principles and values are shaped by one's personal experiences, emotions, culture and society, and that there is no universally true or valid moral principle.
>It's worth noting that different philosophers have different perspectives and theories on the objectivity of morality, there is no consensus on this issue. Some argue that morality is objective but that it's based on different foundations, like natural law, Divine Command, or consequences. Others argue that morality is a combination of objective and subjective elements.
>In conclusion, whether morality is objective or subjective is a complex issue and depends on one's perspective and the moral theory that one holds. There are different perspectives on this issue and there is no consensus on whether morality is objective or subjective.
Moral relativism leads to nihilism, Moral nihilism is the belief that moral goodness and moral badness do not actually exist.
you unironically live the golden rule everyday, its not a matter if you agree with it if you left the house and didn't get raped/murdered/mugged then its the golden rule in effect
For any act there is a reward. If that reward is negative or not enough the act normally isn't done. But what if the reward is great and no one knows of what you did, is it still immoral? I would think so because the burden of the act itself even on the doer is too great to be accepted. It isn't a question of I should do onto others, the question is how does it affect me herein and hereafter.
>For any act there is a reward.
uhh i guess?
>But what if the reward is great and no one knows of what you did, is it still immoral? I would think so because the burden of the act itself even on the doer is too great to be accepted.
you have lost me here
>It isn't a question of I should do onto others, the question is how does it affect me herein and hereafter.
this is still the golden rule just with some added autism...
No, the golden rule is doing what you want to be done with you. I have no expectations from others.
because you have autism you are disqualified from this discussion
empathy and social skills are needed to understand morality
¿
>You wouldn't like it if you went to jail for a crime you've committed, therefore, you should never imprison someone else for a crime they've committed.
So much for your golden rule
>well you see you are following the go- WHAT NOOOO YOU CANT SAY THAT YOU FOLLOW THE GOLDEN ROOOL, NO YOU CANT EVEN TAKE PART THIS DISCUSSION
Morals predate the israeli tales.
>morality is objective
>it just HAPPENS to concur with my specific political beliefs
>morality is objective
>it just HAPPENS to concur with my specific political beliefs
>morality is subjective (according to my subjective opinion)
>ignore cultural universals btw, try thinking of morality in a vacuum, with nobody to practice it
>hard to imagine objects being moral right? That’s why I just gave up and said morality is subjective
This is the atheists version of a non falsifiable belief
you just sinned by creating a false argument to make your side correct
atheists can believe in objective morality, and have reached that conclusion on their own not some dead israeli dude on a stick telling them
>An atheist telling me that I sinned, but telling an atheist that they sin is a moot point
Tu quoque
>you made a false argument
That’s a hell of a way to discredit something with out actually countering
An atheists “belief of an objective morality” is de facto a God (innate, globally shared concept that a there is a source of morality that exists above all people)
>reached the conclusion on their own
>not some dead israeli dude telling them
Except you’re idea of an objective morality is firmly rooted in that’s spiritual system which you’re trying desperately to avoid. Your self denial is really pitiful, and it makes me wonder if you’re even an antisemite for discrediting Christianity for being “israeli,” or if you just like repeating redditor profanity. In either case, ad hom a makes you sound like you have Tourette’s.
Why did you even post?
>An atheists “belief of an objective morality” is de facto a God
lel
>spiritual system
spiritual system? you mean humans forming social bonds? and then through mutual empathy reach the conclusion murder and rape are wrong...
how can you explain the Christian god's morals like, don't kill don't steal, align perfectly with every other religions morals?
>cultural universals
such as?
LMAOOOOOOO
>For one, that your parents deserve respect because they’ve raised you
>That wanton murder is a bad thing
>Sense of equity, justice
These aren't universal values though?
Binary retards itt.
Objectivity and subjectivity lay on a scale. If evolution and general consensus over time agrees on certain morals, then it veers towards objectivity.
There's obviously no hardcoded morality laws, and obviously moral codes aren't a dice roll at birth.
>There's obviously no hardcoded morality laws
no you are wrong on every level, morality was was part of Humans becoming socially intelligent
you are hardcoded to find certain things disgusting because they are harmful to human's survival
And we can be sure that everybody is wired the same in that regard? People still commit incest, rape children, torture, murder, etc. It's not 100% hardcoded. Does every person who commits the above feel they're doing wrong, or are they sometimes empowered by it?
Some aspects of morality veer strongly towards the objective, but all it takes is a mutation, a catastrophe, or a popular cult to swing the slide.
you are right, there are social outsiders but their existence is what further proves what is moral and immoral. Those outliers don't exist within our society, we punish them for what we deem as crimes
while some can justify murder (in defense) or theft, there are some crimes that are always indefensible, there's no justification for child rape and most of the time child rapists were also raped as a child which would affect how ones brain is wired
>catastrophe
this is a good point too, humans are willing to do the immoral for their own survival like cannibalism but only if the social setting permits it
1. Torturing babies for fun is wrong.
2. If torturing babies for fun is wrong, then there is at least one moral fact.
3. Therefore, there is at least one moral fact.
>1. Torturing babies for fun is wrong.
Source?
see? you can only ask this on the internet
this place is fiction holy shit
im going to take some sun take care yall
You didn't answer my question.
Can you give any reasons to be a moral skeptic that are more plausibly correct than the claim that torturing babies for fun is wrong?
>1. Torturing babies for fun is wrong.
Why is it wrong?
only members of society get to decide morality
being an autistic loner means you are not an active member of society and your views are meaningless
Basically I'm just not going to accept your opinions on morality as valid. I know... ugh... I know! It's just that I'm not going to entertain the protestations of my moral inferiors anymore! hahahahahaha!
opinions don't matter, lemme rape your mom and ask you if you think it was wrong or could be justified
Oh look! The worm food thinks that we're having a debate here, and that my objectively morally correct statement (not an opinion!) that it is wrong to rape my mommy, is up for review!
morality is the collection of childhood prejudices
Stop replying the tripfag you dumb fucks
>Christcucks replying to the avatarfag
See you in 300+ replies homosexuals
Some things are objectively morally deplorable. I'm sure everyone with a sound mind thinks that killing and raping the corpses of little children is deplorable. Unless you think otherwise OP?
Some things are objectively morally deplorable. I'm sure everyone with a sound mind thinks that drowning of little children in a flood is deplorable. Unless you think otherwise OP?
not an argument
it literalyl is
the premise is that you thin drowning little children is immoral
the conclusion is that those who drown children are immoral, like God
Obviously this argument is not going to be forceful to people who think it's okay to drown children
1. Some things are objectively morally deplorable.
2.. Drowning children is morally deplorable
3. God drowned children
C. Therefore, God is morally deplorable
there you go
My dude didn't refute my original claim. Instead he attacks Christians instead. But it's good that he's sane enough to agree that morality isn't completely relative or subjective
I don't have anything to say about why God allows people to suffer even when they don't deserve it. Hopefully some christcuck with a better understanding of that will shed some light on it
So you do agree that morality can be objective and that you're wrong for thinking that morality isn't objective? Das good mane.
No, I think evil is just a word humans made up for stuff they don't like
it's your beliefs that got the plot holes
Then who do people kill and rape the corpses of children?
I chose that image because it encapsulates 3 abominations in one image. Murder, pedophilia, rape, and necrophilia. Do you think anyone who is willing to do these things have a sound mind?
>It's your beliefs that got the plot holes
Such as? And do you believe in objective morality?
1. Killing babies is immoral
2 God killed babies. (during the flood, etc)
3. Therefore, God is immoral
REFUTE THIS
God is allowed to kill because God can take life in totality. It's like asking if it's ok to kill a good Christian since you'd just be sending them to heaven. It is not, because you can never fully understand what you're doing to that person or if they're actually going to heaven. In a world without sin, all life would be taken by God(actually there would be no death because Adam and Eve would have eaten from the tree of life but you get the idea).
This. I don't understand how anybody can read the old testament and say
>yep, this is the god I'll worship and learn from
when he's clearly a psychopathic war criminal.
I just don't get why God chose to create a world with stuff he thinks shouldn't be in it, like wizards and sodomy
Is he retarded?
It's not like God has to create the world. God is perfect and self-sufficient without creation