Morality is objective and not subjective. Mass genocide and mass

>Morality is objective and not subjective.

In that case, tell me how you derive an ought from an is

Basis of morality is one's own values and more importantly interests.

Morality is objective, but your argument is terrible

t. Objectivist

There is no objective or subjective morality, only the Spirit and the turning away from the Spirit

File: 1451731215125.jpg (41KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x600px

>>664972

It is pretty fair to dispute what I am saying but I 'answered' that question in the first post. If you think my 'answer' was bad then tell me why, I am not saying I am 'right', it's just something I am thinking about, but you need to tell me why I am wrong. Maybe I am.

The Universe is all that we know that there is and if you can't get your oughts here there is nowhere else to look.

Since without conscious witnesses the Universe is just Physics unfolding then the well-being of conscious beings is the basis of objective morality.

>>664962
>Morality is objective and not subjective.
why? because you say so? give me an argument to work with or fuck off

> Mass genocide and mass rape can be objectively said to be less moral that helping an old lady cross the road.
How do you prove this objectively? Without some subjective basis in opinions, feels, etc.

>>664962
Finally, an _ethics_ thread.

Deontology.

>>664962
What if the old lady you help cross the street then blows up an orphanage?

What if you genocide all the Nazis before WWII, preventing all the casualties of the war?

Would the genocidal act not have an objectively better outcome?

>>665002
>Since without conscious witnesses the Universe is just Physics unfolding then the well-being of conscious beings is the basis of objective morality.
WITH conscious witnesses the Universe is just Physics unfolding. Furthermore, you're pulling that out of your ass. There's no reason for well-being of conscious beings to be inherently superior to suffering of conscious beings. You are, in fact, basing your "objective morality" on your personal opinion which is not objective at all.

>>665020
>There's no reason for well-being of conscious beings to be inherently superior to suffering of conscious beings

You what mate?

>>665039
Prove it, then. We're talking about objective morality, after all, so it can only be based upon provable facts, not on anything as nebulous as opinions or consensus. There's no reason for well-being or suffering to have an inherent moral quality.

>>665019

By your questions are you trying to claim that mass genocide is better than helping an old lady across the road or are you trying to start some weird, improbable 'alt history' thread?

Your first two premises are mutually exclusive.

As for your third, the well being of which conscious beings? Me? My race? Humanity? My family?

>>665053
>There's no reason for well-being or suffering to have an inherent moral quality.

That's like claiming that stabbing yourself in the head with a knife isn't detrimental to your health.

>>665068
No, because health is a material quality. Morality is not.

>>664962
its subjective.

>>665068
Health is something that can be objectively defined and quantified. Morality is not. Yes, it's obvious to you that well-being is morally better than suffering, but something being obvious doesn't make it objectively true.

For that matter, something making holes in your skull CAN, in fact, be good for your health(either directly when your brain is under pressure or indirectly when a surgeon needs to, say, remove a tumor), though obviously you'd prefer not to use an instrument like a kitchen knife for that.

>>665071

You've come up with a single measurable value of health then?

This is as stupid as saying, "What literature appeals to conscious beings is the basis for objective literary quality."

>>665063
>Your first two premises are mutually exclusive.

In what way?

>As for your third, the well being of which conscious beings? Me? My race? Humanity? My family?

All conscious beings.

>>665084
No, because health is relative. Some people say fat is unhealthy, some people say it is healthy (http://qz.com/550527/obesity-paradox-scientists-now-think-that-being-overweight-is-sometimes-good-for-your-health/). Some people say homosexuality is unhealthy, others say monogamy is unhealthy, etc. It's relative, but still a material quality, like the tastiness of a particular food. We have experts in health of course, but we also have experts in food tastiness.

>>665082
>Health is something that can be objectively defined and quantified.

Nope.

>>665094
>In what way?
Goodness and badness are wholly metaphysical quality. The material universe is wholly physical.

>All conscious beings.
But their suffering might increase my well being. See gladiator fights.

>>665098
While you're alive, you're healthier than after you've died. That sounds pretty objective to me. Everything else is just quantifying how close you are to dying.

>>665109
If that were objectively the case, then doctors would never be allowed to perform euthanasia or abortion.

File: 468px-Scruffy.jpg (34KB, 468x351px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 468x351px

>>664962

Wrong. Morality is subjective.

Morality is something humans invent, not something built into the fabric of the universe.

There is one star in our solar system - is objective. No one is going to tell you different.

Mass rape is evil - is subjective. The vast, vast, vast majority of humans would agree with the statement, to the point where people who don't can be justifiably declared either insane or at least incapable of interacting with society to the point where they should be locked up for the safety of others.

Even if all humans everywhere agreed with the statement, that still wouldn't make it objective. A human could be born one day who disagreed. Or aliens could arrive upon the earth and disagree. That makes it subjective.

Facts are objective. Opinions - no matter how many people hold them, even if holding the opposite opinion is literally insane - are still subjective.

>>665104
>Goodness and badness are wholly metaphysical quality.

There's no such thing as a 'metaphysical quality'. You're going to struggle to come up with an undisputable definition of metaphysics, let alone declare something a 'metaphysical quality' as if that means something.

>>665109

If a conscious being is alive it is better off than it is dead. The 'well-being of conscious beings' satisfies the same claims you are making about health.

>>665115
Being a doctor is about more than just the objective health of the patient. They also have to take into account the far more subjective well-being of the patient as well as more indirect concerns.

>>665058
I'm asking which of those actions is objectively more moral?

>>665133

Helping an old lady across the road.

Are you seriously disputing that rather than making an 'alt history' claim?

>>665127
>If a conscious being is alive it is better off than it is dead. The 'well-being of conscious beings' satisfies the same claims you are making about health.
Except we were talking about two completely unrelated concepts. There's no inherent reason why being alive or being dead would have any objective moral value: you're claiming that one is "better" but you haven't proven it.

>>665127
>There's no such thing as a 'metaphysical quality'.
A metaphysical quality is a abstract quality can't be validated materially.

>You're going to struggle to come up with an undisputable definition of metaphysics
Quality or objects which are not material.

>>665128
The wellbeing is often what is used as the criterion for health.

>>665139
So assisting someone murder children is morally more acceptable than preventing a war?

>>664962
The division of "conscious being" from "unconscious beings" (if that can be a thing in the English language) is arbitrary and cultural. Humans are literally made of the same thing as diamonds, only arranged in such a complexity that its reactions to other things and processes is perceived (conveniently, by humans themselves) to be somewhat different or better. But there really is no objective difference between us and the rocks when you look close enough.

>>665002
>if you can't get your oughts here there is nowhere else to look.
Why are we supposed to have oughts?


>>665002
>the well-being of conscious beings is the basis of objective morality
Why?

Morality is abstract; as I know it, it cannot be objective. "Good" and "bad" don't even exist as thoughts because thoughts, it seems, don't exist as objects.

>>665171

I wouldn't say that is true. I admittedly can't give you a single defining red line but it is certainly something that can be studied empirically.

http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf

>>665145

>A metaphysical quality is a abstract quality can't be validated materially.

Unless you have a way of validating it non-materially this still means nothing. In fact it is a circular argument.

>>665142

>Except we were talking about two completely unrelated concepts. There's no inherent reason why being alive or being dead would have any objective moral value: you're claiming that one is "better" but you haven't proven it.

The Universe is all that we know that there is and if you can't get your oughts here there is nowhere else to look.

Since without conscious witnesses the Universe is just Physics unfolding then the well-being of conscious beings is the basis of objective morality.

>>665147

You haven't made any such serious argument. Your argument is analogous to a claim "if I saved a child from cancer what if he went on to kill two billion people in a nuclear war". It is clearly bogus speculation.

>>665192
>The Universe is all that we know that there is and if you can't get your oughts here there is nowhere else to look.

>Since without conscious witnesses the Universe is just Physics unfolding then the well-being of conscious beings is the basis of objective morality.

You can keep repeating yourself all you want, but you can't derive an objective morality out of that.

>>665192
>http://fcmconference.org/img/CambridgeDeclarationOnConsciousness.pdf
No argument there, plus the declaration seems to be working with the concept without questioning its existence or at least explaining it. Basically they sound a lot like "hard scientists" of the 18th century talking about soul.

>also, daily reminder that there was once hard empirical evidence for the existance of soul, and it was measured

>>665192
>Unless you have a way of validating it non-materially this still means nothing. In fact it is a circular argument.
This is the point of things like heysechasm and religious revelation. I'm not asking to believe in those things, I'm just saying that if you are a materialist, "objective morality" is laughable and it makes you sound like Sam Harris.

>Mass genocide and mass rape can be objectively said to be less moral that helping an old lady cross the road

No, it can't.

>>665177
>Why are we supposed to have oughts?
Nice troll. Every day you are eating from the trash.

>>665237
Of ideology

>>665209

I just did.

>>665227

>religious revelation.

How exactly are you going to objectively define religious revelation?

http://articles.chicagotribune.com/2013-09-09/news/chi-skokie-murder-insanity-claim-20130909_1_jeiloni-miguel-renteria-cynthia-renteria

>>665213

They are working on empirical criteria.

>>665177

>Morality is abstract; as I know it, it cannot be objective. "Good" and "bad" don't even exist as thoughts because thoughts, it seems, don't exist as objects.
>Why are we supposed to have oughts?

Y'know, unless you are seriously claiming we ought to kidnap 11 year old girls and burn their titties off you need to come up with something better than "why, why why".

>>665245
>I just did.
No, you didn't. You derived an idea of morality out of it, but it's not objective.

>>665245
>How exactly are you going to objectively define religious revelation?
I will post a thread later on giving a critical case for Christ. It's too long for one post, and I'm still working on it.

>>665245
>Y'know, unless you are seriously claiming we ought to kidnap 11 year old girls and burn their titties off
What.

>>665253

Have you got a better way of defining morality?

Given that the Universe is all that we know that there is?

>>665257

I look forward to laughing at that.

>>665264

You heard me.

File: Girls.png (490KB, 449x401px) Image search: [Google]

490KB, 449x401px

>he thinks that objective morality exists for a species of semi advanced ape

Humans aren't that impressive. Thinking that there is some sort of universal standard for what a bunch of animals should and shouldn't do is fucking retarded, and you have made us all dumber for voicing your opinion.

>>665264
>is/ought fallacy

Morality is just like any other abstraction. Why do you think it's specially objective?

>>665285

>if I repeat something that was answered in the first post I will be vindicated.

>>665275
>Have you got a better way of defining morality?

Define "better". There are a multitude values from which morality could be derived, but that doesn't mean any of them are objective.

>>665275
>Have you got a better way of defining morality?
A meta-legal jurisprudence.

>>665276
>he doesn't know what 'objective' means and proves it through inappropriate specifying

File: allahu-akbar-grandma-gif.jpg (24KB, 500x283px) Image search: [Google]

24KB, 500x283px

>>664962
>claims morality is objective
>uses a relative argument
nice

>>665292
Firstly: not demonstrated.
Secondly: even if "oughts" are noumenally available, you haven't demonstrated how they follow from is.

>>665295
>A meta-legal jurisprudence.

Lol.

>>665294
>Define "better". There are a multitude values from which morality could be derived, but that doesn't mean any of them are objective.

Again, unless you are claiming slicing a 14 year old girl's nose off and using her intestines for a hat is worse than putting out a fire that was going to kill an entire orphanage I suggest you make the argument that morality is subjective.

>Objective morals can from human well being
Sam Harris please go

>>665330
I don't think you understand what subjective means.

If we can both agree that something is wrong, right, ugly, or beautiful, it does not mean that is objective. It means we are of the same mind about that. Having multiple people agree to something does not make it objective.

>>665357
You forgot to explain to him that having *all* people agree doesn't make it objective either.

File: Stirner.jpg (5KB, 160x189px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 160x189px

Spooky thread

File: 1414476026319.jpg (368KB, 1280x960px) Image search: [Google]

368KB, 1280x960px

>>665357
>>665360

Last post because I am off to bed.

Unless you can make an argument that torturing an entire city of pople slowly to death by cutting their skin off and then raping a baby in the bum is better than saving one million people from dying of a communicable disease then you cannot make a case for subjective morality.

The burden of proof is on you if you claim morality is subjective.

The burden of proof also relies with the religious when they make a claim morality is objective thanks to divine revelation, because last time I checked what is divine revelation is a subjective claim.

http://awkwardmomentsbible.com/pastors-wife-murder-children-for-jesus/

Therefore since the Universe is all that we know that there is we are left to find our oughts here.

I propose that without conscious witnesses the Universe is just Physics unfolding therefore the well-being of conscious beings ought to be the basis of objective morality.

And there is not one person in the whole damn thread who has refuted me.

>>664962
>Mass genocide and mass rape can be objectively said to be less moral that helping an old lady cross the road.

Yes, if you are a utilitarian. And utilitarianism is based on an axiom that isn't objective.

>>665002
Morality is subjective.
Humanity's purpose is to purther science and increase it's scope of understading objective truth.
Pursuing science is Moral. For we are fulfilling our purpose through it.
Anything against this is amoral.
Genocide is comenable if scienctific fields are expanded in the process.

Please tell me how I'm wrong.

It's obvious he doesn't know what the word objective and subjective mean.

He's treating the word objective as though it means utilitarianism and the word subjective as though it means arbitrary.

>>665395
Ok, here is one point: What constitutes a conscious being? If we take as "a conscious being" every entity or agent that has the ability to experience events, either from internal or external sources, that leaves us in quite a pickle. Humanities continued existence threatens billions of species and hundreds, if not thousands, of species of living, conscious beings to extinct every day due to the sheer number of humans, and the requirements needed to sustain them.

So the "objective moral choice" would have to make a choice: Quality or quantity? What is the consciousness worth saving? The uncountable ones who cannot defend themselves, or the few billion who are dominant?

This choice, in and of itself, is subjective and therefore, morality cannot be objective.

>>665395
I think the Germans already made that argument for you. Time to read some holocaust theology.

>>665418
>Humanities purpose
Who says we have a purpose? That's subjective too. If anything our purpose is merely to survive

>>665418
You've contradicted yourself
You say Morality is subjective, but then you provided what you call an objective purpose, and said anything against that is amoral, if that were true morals would be objective

The idea that there is a single mode that allow humanity should follow is the source of all despotism. The despot identifies what that mode is and tasks himself and his cronies with enforcing it.

>>665442
You don't understand what the word objective means.

>>665445
And you're just a shitposter.

Define "well-being"

is this thread bait or is op just really dumb

>>665452
Yes.

>>665452
He's making the same argument made in The Moral Landscape

>>665447
I see objective as regardless of human feelings and opinions, what do you see it as?

>>665458
Given that I am not a cunt, and am busy with other things, I do not know who authored the piece of liquified shit you're referencing if you don't name the author.

Come on guys everyone knows morality is objective, you're all just plebby producers who haven't peered into the world of forms to see the true form of good :-DDDDD

>>664972
this
hume solved morality in that objective morality doesn't exist, we just have feels which we can use logic to shape.

>>665461
>I see objective as regardless of human feelings and opinions
>I see objective

Right, you're dumb. Go read Hume.
If you're too dumb for that read Hume for beginners.

>>665463
DUDE ASIAN TSUNAMIS LMAO
>>665485
Given that I have, I'll pass, you haven't answered the question

>>665448
Food, money and sex, mainly.

How old were you when you realized that the only reason you really care about other's "well being" was 1700 years of Christian overlords?

Your argument is 100% circular.

"Reduction of suffering" is all well and good for practical definitions of morality, since few people will see the value in disputing a standard that subjectively benefits everyone. When you get down to it, though, that's just consensus morality. If you want an objective rational justification for morality, you're going to have to do a lot better than

>what is moral is the well-being of conscious beings
>why is that what's moral?
>because the well-being of conscious beings is the source of morality

Surely you can see how you're just saying this, without providing any rational justification for your claim. Now, one might argue that an objective justification is not hugely important - what matters is that we have a moral framework that makes most of us feel good. In the case of your initial argument, though, that would be moving the goalposts significantly

>>665510
13 when my father introduced me to de Beauvoir's contributions on intersubjectivity and I reread the gospels in light of this.

>The Universe is all that we know that there is and if you can't get your oughts here there is nowhere else to look.

Why must it be possible to derive oughts?

>>665019
>>665063
and probably others
There are different levels of morality. At the lowest level(s), you can say it's objective, for all practical purposes if not by rigorous logic. Getting into dividing lines of what parts can and can't be considered objective is a different conversation, and one I suspect is, generally speaking, both too complicated for this site and too simple for this board.
also, holy shit did this descend into fighting between schools of philosophy fast

Morals are for the weak

>>664972
Any action, including inaction, has consequences.
Those impact the expiriences of things that can have expirences.
These are not arbitrary effects and bound by natural laws.
If you "should" do anything, that "should" is derived by analysing these consequences on other conciousnesses.

"but what if i want to harm people" You are being a child and in most cases harming others will not give you the results you think it will, because you haven't thought it through. Cooperation will get you more preferable states more reliably.
"but i am a true sociopath and truly want to inflict suffering on others, whats wrong with that" the definition of the word "wrong" . You are causing harm, even if you don't care about it, and are morally wrong to do it. Your lack of a sense of morality doesn't change the objective statement.
similar example: "how can you objectively say eating shit is unhealthy? what if i want to eat shit till i die?" then you are not talking about health.

>>666065
>expiriences of things that can have expirences
>expiriences
>expirences

>>666065
How much Sam Harris have you watched/read? I think its too much

>>665448
Well-being is pleasure.

>ctrl+f "tits"
>ctrl+f "fuck"
>0 results related to pic

Impressive

>>666238
Watching any Shmuel Harris at all is unhealthy

I have a friend who thinks objective morals do exist, but (for reasons he still hasn't explained) we can't know them

>>664972
>2015+1
>still believing in the is-ought gap
Just go Aristotelian, m8

>>665002
No you didn't, you just derived an ought from an is again. You described the state of the universe (is) then claimed that this state should compel us to act in a certain way (ought). You silently passed over how this could be done. If it could be done.

>>666616
You do realise that you are a cunt.

File: GkVoW7c.png (62KB, 904x510px) Image search: [Google]

62KB, 904x510px

Morality and ethics have never made any sense to me because they always seem to gloss over the absolutely massive problem of how 'creating yourself' is possible. Where exactly is this power to break out of the causal chain of the universe? If we could somehow create uncaused events it would mean that they would have to be unconditioned by prior experiences, which would essentially just make them random.

I still can't comprehend how the majority of modern philosophers subscribe to libertarian compatibilism.

Morality is real and objective and it comes from God. Just as there are physical laws of the universe, there are moral laws of the universe.

>>666743
This pre-supposes God

>>666766
Given that their post indicates that the poster presupposes God, there's no point in telling them that the conclusion is found in the premise. They're content with their fallacious reasoning and ignorance, leave them be.

>>666724
"Creating yourself"?

The way I see it, my choices and my will are the subjective perceptions of some my own neurofisiological activities. I could see a brainscan of the same. I'd be perceiving them differently, but they'd work the same regardless.

My actions upon the physical don't happen independently from my will, and my will isn't independent from the physical. In fact, the separation is imaginary and the argument is nonsense.

>>666766
Yes, it does.
God exists and not believing in God is a choice that you have made for which no one but you is to blame.

File: Emperor_Sidious.png (690KB, 614x768px) Image search: [Google]

690KB, 614x768px

What if the old lady who you help cross the road will after murder 100 trillion humans?

>>666805
Doesn't that make the act of helping her even more moral?

>>666799
Nuh uh

>>666840
Yuh uh.

>>666805
Just take the dentology approach man. It was your duty to help her cross the road so you had to do it. The fact that she murdered 3/4ths of the planets population is her impressionability, not yours.

Also watching an old lady kill trillions would be hella metal!

File: KIKERY.jpg (7KB, 300x180px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 300x180px

>>666799
I agree. There is indeed a natural moral order to the universe. The Goys are meant to serve the Jews!

>>666893
>>>/pol/

File: Socrates_Louvre.jpg (154KB, 600x800px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 600x800px

>>666796
>"Creating yourself"?

the idea that at some point, you're capable of making decisions "freely"

A child is taught to run into a crowd of people press and button and he goes to heaven, in reality he's a suicide bomber. Generally speaking people wouldn't say he's the villain, but those who raised him are since they shaped his decision process. If he was 25 though, there wouldn't even be the remotest debate as to whether or not he was responsible for his actions, but where is the difference coming from exactly?

Because he's older we expect him to 'know better' and abstain from doing the actions that he performed, but we know for a fact that this isn't true, he quite literally didn't know better, so where is the justification for the expectation coming from? He was suppose to behave differently than he did, but how could he have?

>"No one goes willingly toward the bad"

File: Morals-Without-Belief-in-God.jpg (134KB, 720x720px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 720x720px

>>666743
So its an arbitrary distinction what morality is that god decided just out of its own head, with no reference to anything external.
That redefines morality to "whatever the big boss wants". Thats not morality.
Like god asking you to sacrifice your son doesn't make it moral, thats abhorrent evil shit. Don't matter if a god wants it.

So, morality imposed on you is not morality.

Try again.

>>666799
>God exists

Prove it objectively.

>>667111
Not him, but
>>637821

>>667106
>Reasoning about God from a naturalistic perspective

Irony.

>>667118
>argument from literally nothing

>ducks swim
>wood swims
>ducks are made of wood

Wordgames are not proof.

If there was nothing, nothing could prevent something from just appearing.

>>667118
Nice meme. This guy tries to prove one made up thing (God) with other made up things (scientific nothing, sustained reality, etc).

>>666743
> Just as there are physical laws of the universe, there are moral laws of the universe.
You can objectively prove gravitation and other laws of physics with experiment. What kind of experiment can prove so called moral laws? If there is none then your claim is bullshit.

File: 1446240769769.jpg (70KB, 400x550px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 400x550px

>>667127
Reasoning from what interacts with reality in measurable ways is wrong? As opposed to reasoning from things that literally are not measurable and do not interact with our reality?
Are you unwell?

File: 1434495765643.jpg (15KB, 220x294px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 220x294px

From how I understand it, if things in nature showed evidence for being constructed towards goals beyond itself (such as organs being "for" the use of whatever) then we have the basis for objective meaning and an objective good in reality, would we not?

>good can be generally understood as things supportive of a goal
>supporting things in nature in working towards their ends is supporting the good of the natural world, this including people as well
>this is synonymous with following the natural good

likewise

>if things work towards ends beyond themselves then you have evidence of natural intent (not explicitly supporting or denying something giving it intent).
>Natural intent is the basis for something having natural meaning
>thus nature has meaning innately

>>667151
Funny how we can only measure pi through a circle

It is not wrong but there is irrationality at the root of "measurable things"

>>667106
>that pic
I suppose if you appeal to subjective values that quote can be right, but I doubt it ends up having as much meaning as it is trying to display.

>>667152
There are several problems with his arguement.

I seem to remember the pre-socratics rejected the idea that the universe is working towards some goal on the grounds that with how old the universe is it would have already been complicated. Keep in mind when they were saying this they operated on the idea the universe was a few thousand years old, today we know it's billions.

The other problem is that we can clearly decide the pattern of how things will grow through things like selective breeding.

>>667152
> good can be generally understood as things supportive of a goal
Can be countered by argument that natural goals are inherently evil. Humans can create chemical weapon with evil goal in mind. Why nature can't do the same with AIDS or other shit for example?

>>667156
Right. We can get a mathematical model that is representing reality, get pi from that model, then if you actually are that dense, cut a circle out of paper and measure that with string. Thats how you can confirm Pi. And every, and all, physical calculations are tested against the real world to see if they actually represent the real world correctly.

I know this isn't /sci/ but fuck at least try to get some standards going on this board.

File: 220px-Buffon_needle.svg.png (3KB, 220x132px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 220x132px

>>667156
> we can only measure pi through a circle
It is like we can only observe number only by calculating something. Strange isn't it?

File: Lugosi_Bela.jpg (34KB, 386x463px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 386x463px

What is so complicated about morality? If the old lady crosses the road by your help to blow up an orphanage, then what of it? If she does not cross the road, the community will never know off the threat of innocently elderly bombers. If the lady does, then the orphanage is destroyed, but certainly not all lives will be lost and this will be a situation to be learned from. Rather, why not realize we can extract the benefit of the bombing without suffering too many of its destructive consequences? If our overriding goal is the flourishing of human dignity (as opposed to, or really rather than, some touchy-feely respecting of human dignity and human intrinsics), then we know some portion of those affected by the bombing, by mutation of their mental state (dead is one such state), will learn, and others won't, learning being our moral obligation to improve our understanding of human nature. So, those who would not learn are worse than the bomber who is at least acting out, perhaps philanthropically, and they give-up their human dignity, thereby willfully becoming amoral and inhuman.

Well, then the benefit is the gain to those who would learn, and the detractive is their destruction or demotivation by death or the extended death of demotivation by those who would not learn. Best bet is to help the lady cross the road, then pull out a gun, shoot her legs, and perform a bag check, the worst case being the total transformation of the original scenario from elderly-bomber to elderly-killer, something anyways ethically equivalent! So cut all her tendons if she is, or turn ourselves in if she is not. Utilize a tribunal to evaluate the community's response to the situation, let live those who call it a learning experience, and cull/kill (not murder) those who call it a debacle. The practical or perhaps normative goal here is not exterminating those incapable of processing elderly bombers of orphanages, but leave only familial cultures immunized to such threats are propagated.

>>667161
>Can be countered by argument that natural goals are inherently evil.

No, that logic presupposes the preference of certain goods over another which is unfounded. Any aggression of certain thing is only acceptable insofar as it necessary to your own good as the aggression would be in the spirit of you trying to complete/continue to complete your own natural ends. To what extent harm can be done to others in pursuit of your own good is a matter of necessity. If there is a chemical weapon out there then making it fulfill its good ethically would rely on accounting for the good of those who would be involved.

>>667159
>already been completed
That makes no sense.

>decide the pattern of how things grow
We all play a part but that's irrelevant to the good of individual things. And even if we were to manipulate the design of an organism, it still has things towards which it develops. It was only the manipulation which is contrary to that natural law.

>>667158
Why are you not explaining anything about how you got to that conclusion and instead just stating your results as facts. Like, why bother?

Its about objective morality, and its really not that difficult. Same as physics. You can say "yeah but thats just your idea of physics. Its subjective" That is a sentence you could formulate. Does it make sense? No. Same with morality. If your morality is not about how your actions impact others, you're playing wordgames. If it is, its based in natural law because thats the medium through which your actions do the "impacting".

>>667168
>>667170
But you have to analyze natural objects to calculate its unnatural value. You try to eliminate its incomprehensibility by explaining how you conceive of it which is faulty. It's like saying you can see magnetism itself with the naked eye by messing around with iron filings and a magnet. You can see the effects but not the cause

>>667184
> that logic presupposes the preference of certain goods over another which is unfounded
It isn't. If every goal is evil there is no preference. People are evil. Viruses are evil. Everything works because of self-interest. Why good even should be some kind of default quality of existent goal?

>>667190
What?
What do you mean by "its unnatural value"? The value is part of a model that we use to make the real world predictable.

>>667184
>It was only the manipulation which is contrary to that natural law.

So why the hell do we give a shit about a law that we are clearly above? Pretty much all of our foods were selectivily breed to be what they are. We couldn't even maintain our food supply without going beyond this so called natural law so clearly no one gives a shit about this law. And what happens when we get the ability to fuck around with genes?

As for the other point. If the universe is really working towards some end why isn't there the slightiest hint at it? The appearance of life is basically a crap shoot with a trillion to one odds and at any moment a random meteor can pop and knock out the planet.

>>667190
> It's like saying you can see magnetism itself with the naked eye
It is like most retarded analogy ever because eyes in the end literally can only see photons and if you forgot photons are magnetism itself. You see only magnetism and everything else is illusion created by your brain.

>>667186
>Why are you not explaining anything about how you got to that conclusion and instead just stating your results as facts. Like, why bother?

The intent was to be as backhanded as the quote was when stating my view and then see if I get a response that questions my words and not the quote's.


>Its about objective morality, and its really not that difficult. Same as physics. You can say "yeah but thats just your idea of physics. Its subjective" That is a sentence you could formulate. Does it make sense? No. Same with morality.

Lovely, but in here lies the issue. If were to back it in something objective like Natural Law it wouldn't be based in naturalism as naturalism denies final causality. If were to value it in any other way, its a struggle to find something objective to derive normative claims from, which is why modern society now largely understands it as reducing down to consensus or willful pleas.

>>664972
well if morality is objective than surely it is objectively true that if x is wrong then one ought not do x

as in, it is an objective universe fact that one ought not do immoral things

>>667226
>denies final causality.
Not sure I understand your objection here. Elaborate.

>>667226
Hey Wolfshiem. I'm thinking about converting to Catholicism but I got to know, and this is a deal breaker.

What are the limits on masturbating to anime? I swear by the Virgin Mary (peace by upon her) that I'm not gay but I just can't stop jerking off to traps.

File: Botty the Bot.png (2MB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1000x1000px

>>667252
There is an anon giving a very simplistic argument for Natural Law here >>667152 and his appeal to nature working towards end which is an appeal to final causality existing (there being ends beyond themselves to which objects are designed for naturally). However, the idea of there being natural ends to nature means there is an underlying purpose towards which things develop. This is incompatible to a blind non-supernatural universe which naturalism subscribes.

>>664962

Moar of gril anon

File: Christ-Chan realizes the heretics just keep posting anyway.png (147KB, 745x814px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 745x814px

>>667262
>What are the limits on masturbating to anime?

Relevant to you:

http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm

>2351 Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.

>2352 By masturbation is to be understood the deliberate stimulation of the genital organs in order to derive sexual pleasure. "Both the Magisterium of the Church, in the course of a constant tradition, and the moral sense of the faithful have been in no doubt and have firmly maintained that masturbation is an intrinsically and gravely disordered action."138 "The deliberate use of the sexual faculty, for whatever reason, outside of marriage is essentially contrary to its purpose." For here sexual pleasure is sought outside of "the sexual relationship which is demanded by the moral order and in which the total meaning of mutual self-giving and human procreation in the context of true love is achieved."139

>To form an equitable judgment about the subjects' moral responsibility and to guide pastoral action, one must take into account the affective immaturity, force of acquired habit, conditions of anxiety or other psychological or social factors that lessen, if not even reduce to a minimum, moral culpability.


Consider the last part when considering masturbation as a medical solution or when trying to fault your will when there may be biological struggles making it difficult for you. Ultimately, masturbation as defined in the quote is looked down upon. It puts your biological desires above your will and works against your own self-mastery along with devaluing sex and sexuality.

File: Aui0fRv.gif (1MB, 455x264px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 455x264px

>>667274
Oh. Oh naw that wasn't me, I'm not retarded. Thats just the usual hyperactive agency detection.
Thank you though for clarifying. I think we'll butt heads again.

Out for today, cheerio.

>>667296
Night, man.

>>667262
Added, your sexual orientation is irrelevant. No need to worry about it in the discussion here.

Imagine confessing your anime taste to a priest, who himself has every DVD of Dragonball Z.

>>665395
>Unless you can make an argument that torturing an entire city of pople slowly to death by cutting their skin off and then raping a baby in the bum is better than saving one million people from dying of a communicable disease then you cannot make a case for subjective morality.
That's not how it works.

>The burden of proof is on you if you claim morality is subjective.
You're the one making the claim that morality is objective in OP, so the burden of proof is really on you.

>>664962
>Morality is objective and not subjective
if this is true, how come we see differences in morality over the ages and between cultures?

Feeding Christians to the lions was just fine for the Romans.
Slaughtering countless animals just for fun is just fine for us today
Killing a Jew is just fine for ISIS
Shitposting is just fine for faggot OP's

>>664962
Who is that semen demon?

Marx is a mix of rich man guilt, millenarialism, catholicism, pseudohistory and pseudoeconomics. Don't read it yo.
Only leftists keep Marx as a noticeable author. He should be among all the bizarre scientific shit the 19th century brought, just like phrenology.

>>664972
My feelings

>>667118
You mean that thread where Constantine got the fuck blown out of him continually with his "I skimmed wikipedia" grade knowledge of physics?

Sorry, you can't logic something into existence. Provide material proof of God. Don't give me that "hurr, there can't be material proof" shit either; God is supposed to be a being that had a very real material effect on the world.

>>667152
Nothing in nature is constructed towards a goal. Your organs don't actually have a purpose, they just do certain things and we assume that this is some purpose; in reality they're just jumbles of atoms that have come about through sheer chance.

>>669816
Not to mention we can do just about anything we like with them.

I doubt that the cow I ate would agree the purpose of it's muscles was to be fried in a pan along with some vegatables and spices.

>>667679
modern family girl

>>667197
>It isn't. If every goal is evil there is no preference.

You have no way to state them evil coherently unless you state it in the way I already refuted.

>>667203
>So why the hell do we give a shit about a law that we are clearly above?
What?
I'm not telling you to like or accept it, but rather argue it as naturally good. That people care about an objective morality does not make it less of an objective morality.

>If the universe is really working towards some end why isn't there the slightiest hint at it?
This would say this question is trying to establish an end towards matter and energy itself, which I don't think either of us are well read enough to say anything about one way or another but in individual objects, as I already game example, there are hints of things working towards ends beyond themselves we know from everyday experience.

>>669816
How they come about is not important, that they come about with the form to work towards a specific end or ends. Of course we have to discern what a thing's shape is made for (such as a heart) but that doesn't mean that we are attributing purpose to it but rather us noting the innate powers of the things. We already see fundamental elements of reality and their innate abilities in relation to other things.

>>669813
>Sorry, you can't logic something into existence.
No one is. You don't need material evidence to prove something, you can also use deduction to prove the necessity of something. This isn't using the argument to make it exist but showing how it must already exist.

>>671028
>No one is. You don't need material evidence to prove something, you can also use deduction to prove the necessity of something.

You can't deduce something into existence. God is not necessary to existence and that entire thread was Constantine getting his fanatical shit pushed in by people who actually know what the fuck they're talking about.

Cosmological arguments only make sense if you've already bought into the self-delusion.

>Of course we have to discern what a thing's shape is made for (such as a heart) but that doesn't mean that we are attributing purpose to it but rather us noting the innate powers of the things.

Except that's exactly what you're fucking doing. A heart pumps blood, but it has no greater purpose to do so.

How it came in to being is important, because something can only have purpose if someone creates it with an intention. If you take something an utilize it for a purpose without having first created that thing for a purpose, you're just utilizing it; it has no higher purpose.

>>671028
>That people care about an objective morality does not make it less of an objective morality.

The fact you can't objectively prove it makes it less of an objective morality.

>This would say this question is trying to establish an end towards matter and energy itself, which I don't think either of us are well read enough to say anything about one way or another but in individual objects, as I already game example, there are hints of things working towards ends beyond themselves we know from everyday experience.

Hiding behind ignorance is blatant cowardice. There is no evidence that anything has a purpose; literally not one single shred of evidence to suggest that anything that happens has any motive behind it besides chance. Fuck off.

>>671044
>God is not necessary to existence
That thread showed he was, though....

>>671118
No, it fucking didn't, you goddamn retard. He made a bunch of baseless assertions rooted in not knowing a single fucking thing about physics, got educated on his errors, and doubled down because he's a delusional cancer on this board.

>>664972
god

>>671125
His arguments look fine to me. The counterarguments were mostly, "lol the Jews were goatfuckers," and that thing about the infinite cube, which he responded to.

>>671140
Then you didn't read closely enough. Throughout the thread people continually point to his fucking errors in understanding physics, and how he misapplies, or applies theories that aren't accepted, in an attempt to justify his position.

I'll say it again: cosmological arguments only make sense if you've already bought into the self-delusion. They're not as strong as you think, and you still cannot logic or deduce something into being. God is subject to the same requirement every other assertion is subject to: burden of proof, and because there are serious socio-political ramifications, his existence cannot in any capacity be given the benefit of the doubt.

>>667035
The difference being that once you've matured you're able to use a fuller faculty of your brain, are less gullible / imaginative by nature, and can apprehend reality with a greater degree of critical thought, so as to recognise that perhaps it isn't best to follow blindly without questioning. Interesting that we can utilise philosophy to argue about the fundamental ability to philosophise

>>671144
Seems like your criticisms of him can only work if you're already dedicated atheism, desu. I won't say his theory is airtight in that there could be other explanations for his questions. but I will say that I didn't see any offered.

I think morality is both objective and subjective. There are universal moral laws without which society cannot exist. We all implicitly agree to behave morally insofar as we're not out there robbing, killing, or committing some other injurious behavior.

The subjective component is what we as individuals consider injurious. For example, some people think piracy is theft whereas others think it's justifiable. Whatever argument one comes up with, it'll be subjective.

Furthermore, human society across the are consistent with this. All societies agree that there are some moral laws. Societies just differ in how strictly they adhere to the moral laws and how they define them.

my 2c, after 10 minutes of thought.

>>666724
Libertarianism and compatibilism are different things. Most philosophers are the latter, few are the former.

>>671148
I would say the criticisms work if you have any regard for scientific method. Atheism doesn't figure into it. He's trying to speculate on something we have literally no fucking capacity to know a damn thing about, hence why I say he's trying to logic something into being. There is no evidence for God, ergo there is no fucking reason to believe in God.

>>671170
Are you trying to say the scientific method is the only way to reach truth?

>>671182
It's the most effective one we've found yet. Through the use of the scientific method, we've garnered a greater understanding of our universe than ever before, a vastly greater understanding than any other method of understanding truth has garnered us before.

>>664962
If the cosmos and its natural laws are all there is, then there is no absolute moral. It will all depend on mutual agreement and shared values.

If you believe in the Truth, with a capital T, there are objective values defined by something, somewhere, like God.

>>671200
Kuhn, Lakatos, Feyerabend.

You're talking shit, cunt.

>>664962
Noun: morality
1. Concern with the distinction between goodand evil or right and wrong; right or good conduct
2. Motivation based on ideas of right and wrong

Good is that which empowers you. Evil is that which you fear.

There's no objectively empowering thing and there's no objectively feared thing. Some things come close in measure, but that's all—they never reach an objective state.

>>664962
You are correct for the most part.
>the well-being of conscious beings is the basis of objective morality.
A little more complex than that. You make it sound like utilitarianism is the ultimate truth. In reality, some beings are more worthy of wellbeing than others due to moral/immoral actions. Of course, you didn't explicitly contradict that. Just adding on to what you said.
You are a wise man, OP. People who disagree with you are incompetent faggots.

>>671236
>Talking shit

Hardly. Give me one other method of inquiry that has even come close to accomplishing as much understanding of our universe, or improved our lives in such a tangible way as the scientific method? You can throw out the names of dead men, but your feels wont help us understand the universe regardless.

>>671044
>You can't deduce something into existence.

That's entirely wrong though. Not only in what you mean but what you say as well. Deductive arguments don't make a thing exist, they work as evidence to show that if some premises are held as true, certain other truths must be real by that logic. Pure Mathematics and literally every theorem in the history of academics is against you on saying that deductive arguments aren't sound. You're rejecting academic thought in a very significant way, which is not respectable or show your intelligence well at all.


>Cosmological arguments only make sense if you've already bought into the self-delusion.

Cosmological arguments are a kind of deductive argument. They are right or wrong based on their merits as an argument, not pre-conceived notions.


>Except that's exactly what you're fucking doing. A heart pumps blood, but it has no greater purpose to do so.

You're imagining an argument that isn't there. Objects working towards beyond themselves is the basis for meaning existing in the universe innately. This isn't an argument for some nebulous "greater purpose" but deriving an understanding of goals in relation to nature.

>How it came in to being is important, because something can only have purpose if someone creates it with an intention.

That's wrong though. I already explained in >>667152 how we can derive something like purpose without needing to appeal to something outside nature. The view originates from purely logic and empiricism, as it originally had.

Surely you could make an argument for a god from accepting innate purpose but that doesn't mean it requires a god.


>>671057
>The fact you can't objectively prove it makes it less of an objective morality.
What wasn't proven in my argument before?

>Hiding behind ignorance is blatant cowardice
Admitting you don't know some things isn't cowardice.
But you are wrong, I just gave you evidence originally. Don't be so mad.

>>664962

>>664962

Watch and learn kids. This is how you automatically wreck the shit of any vulgar utilitarian likecOP in ethical debates.

>the well-being of conscious beings is the basis of objective morality.

The well-being of which conscious beings?

Those in your tribe or those in my tribe?

Who decides what counts as "well-being"?

If you are the one to define and distribute "well-being", what's to stop you from doing so in a way that disproportionately benefits you and your tribe?

Why do you presuppose that what counts as "well-being" for yourself is commensurable with and equivalent to what others take to be "well-being"?

What is your procedure for determining whether an action will increase "well-being"?

How could you prove that such a procedure can reliably distinguish between actions that enhance well-being and those that reduce it without ambiguity or inconsistency in all cases?

If morality is objective, then how can mass rape and killing happen, in the middle eastern countries controlled by sharia courts, gang rape of non-Muslims is considered a game or as a sport

Millions of Hitler clone
Vs
One Hitler clone that transgendered

Both are pretty evil but I'd say killing mass Hitler clone is a less evil than helping a transgendered Hitler.

>>665019
>What if you genocide all the Nazis before WWII
Nazi's were being evil pricks before the war even started. If the Jews had had the leadership and ability, there would have been open civil war.

File: image.jpg (42KB, 391x376px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 391x376px

>>666893
This.