Is morality objective or subjective?

>>1513211
Pope shat in the woods

File: 1462270452255.png (429KB, 399x614px) Image search: [Google]

429KB, 399x614px

Subjective

>>1513211
See
>>1495687
Specifically this post: >>1495693
>That the pope is not objectively wrong for pooping in the woods. He is relatively wrong compared to the bible. But the bible is not objective, and the wrongness of pooping in the woods is only relative to the non objective morality of the bible. If your subjective morality is based on the subjective bible, pooping in the woods is wrong. If your subjective morality isn't based on the bible pooping in the woods may or may not be wrong.


Pope shat in the woods

Subjective

All morality comes down to "I like, or dislike this" pushed on everyone else

Doesn't mean you can't make value judgements, but get over yourself

I know there's nothing objectively bad about murder. But I abhor it anyway.

The universe is a system evolving observers that participate in the system's knowledge of itself. All morality, and indeed all experience is based on the irreducible immediacy of being an "I" inhabiting a body in time and space. Although it's true concepts do not exist in any substantial way outside of the total of these human "I-streams", that there is nonetheless a gradient for undesirability and desirability for existing in this way suggest life's the system's collective awakening to itself. In Hind scriptures it's said "life burns up ignorance", ignorance interpreted as the unconsciousness of matter.

Morality is conditioned but the sense of morality is not. It is neither subjective or objective but exists as an intrinsic feature of the beings experience of itself: the modalities of how it relates to these experiences and the world are conventionally referred to as "good" and "evil".

Doesn't matter

>>1513211
the idea of morality is no less objective than the idea of health, yet nobody seems to object (pun intended) to medical practice
>but doctor, who are you to say growing a colony of bacteria in my esophagus is not OK?
>what if taking off my limbs makes me more healthy because it means having less body to worry about?
>the fact that my pet will die if you don't take that tumor away doesn't help determine that its dead body will be less or more healthy than it is today

>>1513368
Poor analogy

Health is the level of functional or metabolic efficiency of a living organism.

That's objective

Morality is not

>>1513211
If there are universal values in humanity than the roots of morality are surely objective. The interpretation and definition such universal values are, as expressed, subjective.

>>1513505

Sure, but humanity doesn't have universal values

>>1513211
Neither. Morality is contained within perspectives. Certain perspectives see morals as subjective and thus dynamic. Others see morals as static and thus objective and self evident due to warrants that are informed by that perspective.

Whether there is an objectively correct or definitive perspective has yet to be explored thoroughly enough that dissent would quieten.

>>1513211
It is nothing more than collective coercion we force upon one another to feel comfortable.

>>1513211
The very fact that this question can be asked proves that morality is subjective.

>>1513232
Where his holiness does his business is his business

Objective, but hard to find the truth.

Thinking it is subjective is a symptom of intellectually laziness. And harmful to society, as well, since it leads to anything goes.

>>1516352
>Objective, but hard to find the truth.
You say it as if the categorical imperative was hard to understand.
Kant already solved this and every ethics scholar just borrows from him over and over.

>>1516352
I preferred your first post. Are you afraid of insulting anon's who relate to Stacy the School Slut? You shouldn't. They're not here, and if they are, they don't matter.

Why not both?

Almost all humans have clear lines for certain things and at the same points, but the lines get blurred with others.

>>1516450
At least sluts get some, eh?

I'm not sure you spergs realize you're at the bottom of the barrel. Everybody in existence is higher on the social ladder.

But you guys think you're better, so maybe morality is subjective, even if it is a retarded subgroup that makes it such.

>>1516363
>Kant

I think I need some top-shelf kek for this.

Subjective. But autists have a hard time with ambiguity.

>>1516498
Cute. I don't think there would be many people who would take up defence of Stacy the School Slut. Worse, there would be a lot of people who wouldn't want to think of themselves that way, real sluts included.

The majority of people on that ladder would baulk. What does that mean for you?

>>1516450
>I preferred your first post. Are you afraid of insulting anon's who relate to Stacy the School Slut? You shouldn't. They're not here, and if they are, they don't matter.
No, this is an anonymous board.
The problem is that it would derail the thread.

>>1516498
>At least sluts get some, eh?
I've always been amused by this sort of comment, it only really works on the people who don't know how to find prostitutes in their area, or how to get "extra service" from strippers.

>>1516530
I hate to be that guy, but argumentum ad populum. Is the majority now the true metric of objectivity?

>>1516527
Ambiguity much like chance are based on limited understanding.
People with your attitude in the past were probably sitting around when their friend asked where the sun goes when it sets and rises and responded by yapping, fuck you somethings don't need answers.

>>1516555
The argument is based on reputation which is inherently determined by opinions placed upon you by the populace. We aren't discussing objective things we're discussing were people stand on a social ladder which is determined by metrics like the majority.

>>1516568
Oh, sorry. I thought we were still on about morality being subjective/objective. I should have opened the thread.

>>1516557
Yes, there have been absolutely no thinkers who could handle subjectivity and ambiguity. It's not like Socrates started out REEEEEEEing about them or anything.

IT'S OBJECTIVE
CAPITAL LETTERS PROVED IT FAGGOTS

>>1516518
That's a top meme response!