Are things like good, evil, morals and ethics ultimately subjective

They are contingent, not subjective, though they ultimately refer to subjective desires about the way the world ought to be.

Even if they were subjective you could still discuss them.

>>530027
> subjective
Yes

> pointless
Doesn't follow

>If so, why bother having any phil/his/ophical threads anymore?
Other people having different ideas is part of subjectivity

>Why follow any morals?
Even if you don't believe in them, people who do will wallop you

There's no such thing as evil. Nobody wants to be evil, we just do the best we can. But since we have conflicting opinions, it turns out its easier to disqualify the opposing party as evil.

>>530027
Let's use your logic.

"Which color is best"
Is subjective

Therefor color is pointless. Your cartoon show would be no better or worst if the colors of the various items were different or if no color were used at all

I think you can see how subjective leading to pointless is a dumb conclusion.

>>530027
Other people have handled your other points, but even if you could prove that discussion of morality is pointless. Philosophy is still far greater than simply ethics and meta-ethics.

>>530027
Morals and ethics are not pointless. They are meant to guide the subject (yourself, others, the society) and make sense of your/others/society's actions. Its a by product of evolution that gives you the ability to understand and function in groups.

>>530168
Comparison is not reason. The limit of your comparison is that your personnal taste doesn't define what must be the taste of your neighbour. But at the contrary the point of morals is to define rules applicable to everyone. In this aspect, their legitimacy has to be challenged.

But all of this discussion may proceeds from a misuse of words : I find that saying that morals is "subjective" is false, because morals isn't the product of one people, but of whole societies. The process of formation and evolution of morals take place on another level than the isolated person.

So, >>530027, morals isn't "subjective", but just "absolute" because it is funded on arbitrary notions of good and bad. It is also not pointless ; it serves a political purpose. That is what the polemics about morals revolve around.

So, >Why follow any morals?
Usually, because we are forced to.

>>530259
If everyone said killing babies is moral than by your logic of fiat, it would be so objectively. Thankfully that's not how morals work. What's the problem with subjective morality? If morals exist to guide actions then as long as people are acting according I those morals it's irrelevant whether they're absolute.

>>530287
Customs vary greatly through time and space. Killing babies has been considered moral (with varying conditions) and is still considered moral today by certain people in certain conditions. Different morals exist on Earth and conflict eachother : the problem with subjective morality is its pretention to declare itself right and declare the others wrong. By this, we see that the political purposes of morals aren't only internal to the society which support this morals.

>>530027
Here you go.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs

Morality seems to be a code of ethics we construct in response to 1. Societal norms 2. Our mental response to the sanctions for these social norms and 3. A desire to avoid/seek out the qualia we experience because of those mental responses.

E.g. I want to determine if my moral code says "don't kick puppies". There is a 1. Societal norm that says kicking puppies is wrong. If I kicked a puppy in front of the average person, they would shame me, yell at me, or think me a bad person. My 2. mental response to the prospect of kicking a puppy, therefore, is guilt, shame, and disgust. These feelings are experiences only I can know and are thus subjective by nature, but I still 3. seek to avoid them. Therefore my moral code is against kicking puppies.

So in short, yes, in my view morality is entirely subjective. In fact, I'd go so far as to say it could only EVER be objective if it were possible to access the experiences of others, which is generally agreed not to be possible. (unless you want to argue that those experiences don't actually exist)

However, it doesn't logically follow from this that morality is pointless. It clearly plays a role in maintaining society, establishing limits on actions, and defining the self.

>>530027
ethical conduct has practical long term benefits and facilitates sustainable relationships with other systems

>>530027
>Are things like good, evil, morals and ethics ultimately subjective and thus pointless?
Whenever somebody asks this question I find it funny to just answer "yes".

>>530027
>subjective and thus pointless
No logical connection.

>>530027

You should read up on Kant's ethics.
We all know the golden rule of not doing something to someone else if you do not wish the same to be done to you. It is a good moral compass for kids, but not really sufficient for more complex problems. Now when you think about it, you could form personal maximes and extend them to objective imperatives on the simple question of "Would I want my personal maximes to be the general maxime for everyone around me.", if your answer is yes, your maxime is elevated to an imperative. You create a personal moral compass by using empathy and reasoning, of course you then can objectively state your point and why some moralities are superior or inferior to others.
There is obviously no definitive proof, but there is none in general everywhere you look, but in this case it is more based on peoples preferences than some facts which are tied into your argumentation.
If there was something which can be described as "evil", then it is the general ignorance towards the concept of co-existence with your fellow men and thus for me people who see morals as extremely subjective are automatically "evil", because they show off their blatant "I don't give a fuck" mentality.

We care because every day we go out we have to deal with people, that is all there is to it. You are not a robot and will inevitably react upon friction with others, morals are a guide towards minimizing that friction.

>>530027
because people default to being "nice" The shit hasnt hit the fan for them they arent in survival mode. Still morals and ethics are very subjective
I would say a reason to follow them is good mental health, most people for example could not stomach murdering another human being especially defenceless ones one of the reasons why Death camps were used is because soldiers suffered from intense mental trauma from murdering people wholesale just gunning them down. One German general even had to get surgery to remove a build up of feces that had dried up inside him because the stress of knowing about the murders and managing them day in day out fucked with him so badly.
People at their core know what they are doing is right or wrong and guilt is probably the most powerful negative emotion that will stay with you until you absolve yourself. You would have to be truely psychotic/psychopathic in order to not face negative emotional consequences like regret, remorse, and guilt.

On the other hand if a person is doing something immoral for the sake of survival then they will often rationalize away their actions.

There's nothing subjective about morality.

what a pointless bunch of questions

>>530027
Either because it's fun, or the people doing it get angry when their opinion is challenged and seek to validate it.