>morality is subjective. Ok, nice meme. but, can you prove it?

No, probably not. But until an objective morality system is proven to be objective (as in, not just the moral tenets of it follow from objective principles, but that the central principle from which these stem is objectively a "good") I'll probably continue to hold to it.

>>1517918
>Something else than me exists

Ok, nice meme. But, can you prove it?

>>1517918

It can't be anything but subjective. Things are only good or bad from the perspective of a subject. Nothing is good or bad for the universe as a whole, so there is no objective good or bad.

>>1517928
>Something else than me exists
something specific?
Everything exists as part of my experience.

>>1517937
Meaning, can you prove you're not just a hallucination, that you exist as something else than my experience?

>>1517918
thank you mr skeltal

>>1517964
> you're not just a hallucination
But I'm is hallucination for you.
> that you exist as something else than my experience
Without a clear and unambiguous definition, I can't say nothing about it. It's necessary to define what it means "you", "I", "
illusion",etc. But if I understand correctly. No, I can't.

File: image.jpg (22KB, 512x288px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 512x288px

>>1517918

The teachings of Islam dictate that gays must be stoned

For a while, people agreed that gays were horrible.

That attitude changed with culture, rationality and in a sense, science.

Islamic countries to this day, still kill gays. A majority of western society does not wish for this to happen.

There is a biological aspect in which our morality is based on, but only to ensure the survival of a community/ tribe of people. That is how we evolved, and in a sense how we are evolving.

We've gone from being tribal about race, to being tribal about culture, a set of principles which we value. Freedom to do as you wish, and be who YOU want to be being one.

A fair go for all, another. To judge not lest Ye be judged.

Like all things in life, it is a combination of nature and nurture.

The thermometer measures the temperature. There are no two exactly the same thermometer. Two different thermometers will show different temperature of the one object. Temperature is subjective.

>>1517918
Sure, i think killing babies is fine and dandy, do you think the same way?

>>1518013
That's the point. It's very unconventional to believe only things you can prove, because you can't prove almost anything.

>>1518054
> can't prove almost anything.
But, I shouldn't. you claim - you prove.

>>1518067
You claim morality is objective.

well it's not objective

>Ok, nice meme. but, can you prove it?
Everyone has a different conception of what morality entails. Some conceptions involve objectivity, others don't.

This thread reminds me of this

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/03/02/why-our-children-dont-think-there-are-moral-facts/?_r=0

I'm surprised that even here people are misseducated in philosophy. Or are the ones claiming subjectivism is so certain mostly the historyfags.

>>1517918
Nice try troll

File: 8BRkelS.jpg (76KB, 632x522px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 632x522px

>>1517918
Its as objective as anything else.
Brains are matter, brain-states are determined by the state of the universe in general, you can (in principle) compare brain states on how conducive they are to happiness/wellbeing.
Finding a ideal state is an optimization problem, with all the trappings and problems that entails.

If math is not subjective ("but 1+1+1 equals one to me and thats that!") then neither is morality.

>>1518043
R u sayin f a m there's a instrument tht can measure some kinda basal morality with high accuracy and precision?

>>1518208
You assume that happiness and well being are inherently good. The problem with objective morality isn't the way to get to a goal (for example happiness) but that people have different goals.

>>1518227
>You assume that happiness and well being are inherently good.
Because they are, idiot.

>>1518231
That's only if there is objective morality. You're saying there is objective morality because there is objective morality. Explain why are happinrss and well being inherently good?

>>1518227
Thats what I explained, if math is objective, or if ANYTHING can be objective, then so is morality.

Anyone could say "but 1+1 equals 5, because thats just what it does to me, and you can't disagree because thats just my opinion!". Same with morality. People can simply be wrong, and ignored if they are spouting demonstrably retarded nonsense.

Its not a problem exclusively for morality that someone can come along and just start makin shit up about whats real or not. "But cuttin off peoples clits is totally best!" or "beating your kids is good for them!" is just objectively wrong. It just means you are wanting the wrong things, and are unaware that you could want other things and it would be more rewarding. This is not arbitrary, if you have a human brain there are constraints on what will and will not be conducive to you being content, and to what degree. Its not just randomly different for everyone, like its not arbitrary what food is healthy for you.

>>1518268
You're still just making claims but not presenting evidence. You're right that if happiness is objectively good, then there is objective morality. 5+5 is always 10, but what if the answer you're looking for is 20.

>>1518268
Why do you assume that there is an ideal state of being human? The goal of a collective morality is not necessarily the happiness and well-being of the individuals within it. Strictly speaking, any morality that preserves itself can be argued to be good. Slavery was considered morally sound once, that did not make it objectively good at the time.

>>1518325
I told you, but I'll try again. Happiness is not some weird arbitrary thing, if you are a humanoid ape and have a material brain.
"What if eating 5 apples is healthy, but some people want to eat 20 apples?!" Is that what you're asking?
The reasons people might look for "20" can be valid and correct reasons that will lead to the expected results if they are basing that decision on valid information and valid model of reality. If then someone says "but i want 10 apples though", and they want it for the same purpouse, like making exactly 1 apple pie that needs 20 apples, they can be objectively wrong about what they want.
Same with any psychological benefit of any action or state.
"Good" is not arbitrary, same as "healthy" is not arbitrary. Its not easy to define, and not always clear, but its by no means just completely subjective. Even if someone claims they are healthier when they repeatedly try to drink bleach, they are just objectively wrong, no matter if they disagree on what health is.

>>1518341
That just seems confused about what we're talking here.
>Slavery was considered morally sound once
>that did not make it objectively good at the time
Thats exactly what I mean, people were objectively wrong about what is moral, if it wasn't objectively a good thing to do, or if it objectively caused unneccessary suffering, or if it was based on or justified failures of empathy and compassion.

>>1518345
I get what you're trying to say, but you still haven't explained why happiness is objectively good. Like I said, your explanation works if there is a right answer for "what shoukd humans try to achieve?".

>>1518353
>people were objectively wrong about what is moral, if it wasn't objectively a good thing to do, or if it objectively caused unnecessary suffering

Are you arguing that consequentialism is objective? You seem to bring up issues that have obvious answers when considering which option causes the least suffering/most happiness, but there are a ton of scenarios that can't be definitely answered with consequentialist thinking (without total knowledge).

Also, if we assume that morality is objective, would you assent that there is an ideal moral choice in every situation, and furthermore, and ideal state of being?

>>1518354
There is. A higher state of contentment and wellbeing in general for as many concious beings as possible. There is nothing else to achieve or value.
If by "happiness" you don't just mean delirious manic laughter, but a fulfilling and "good" life.
it doesn't have to be ideal, and there doesn't have to be an ideal life blueprint for morality to work. There are no ideal "blueprints" or values for health. Yet medicine is very much objective and works.
"Happiness", as in moving further away from unnecessary suffering, is what is good. Thats what the word means. Moving towards that is better, moving away from that and closer to needless suffering is worse. If thats not what morality means to you, then you are the "1+1 is three to me" person. There is nothign else that good or bad could apply to.

>>1518368
Where does this morality come from then? Is it an universal law like gravity?

>>1518367
>but there are a ton of scenarios that can't be definitely answered with consequentialist thinking (without total knowledge).
Totally true, same as for health. Its absurdly complicated, and some issues might be unsolvable in principle, or equivalent, or just not worht discerning because they are too close together. There might be true paradoxes in there. But paradoxes don't make anything subjective.

>would you assent that there is an ideal moral choice in every situation, and furthermore, and ideal state of being?
There might be an ideal choice, if there was an ideal state. I don't know if there is an ideal state. Like I don't know how high people should be able to jump to be considered healthy. Health is still objective though, and there are many things that are objectively unhealthy.

>>1518378
I don't see a meaningful question here.

>>1518380
If morality is objective, then I assume it's an outside force that is uninfluenced by humans. If it is created by humans, then it's very hard for them to be wrong about it like you claim.

>>1518380
>Totally true, same as for health. Its absurdly complicated, and some issues might be unsolvable in principle

Okay, but if some choices are "unsolvable", how can there exist an objectively correct choice?

Furthermore, if we assume that we are completely aware of all conceivable consequences of an action, and we make an "objective" choice on the basis that what's "objectively" correct is the choice that will cause the most happiness and the least suffering overall, how shall we then decide what suffering is worth in contrast to happiness? How can we decide if happiness is worth more to people now, or people in the future (like in the case of human experiments)?

I am in agreement with you about a lot of things. We can say that eating healthy is, objectively speaking, generally better than not eating healthy. But this does not imply that morality is objective. For it to be objective, there has to be a set of rules that govern what is right and what is wrong for every being, everywhere. And that's not morality, that's religion.

>>1518402
Is chemistry an outside force? Is there an ideal truth behind chemistry that has to be there for chemistry to work? What are you on about?

>>1518416
If its unsolvable, its still not subjective. THere are unsolvable engineering problems right now, noone claims its an "any solution is valid" scenario.

With human experiments (i assume you mean callous brutal grizzly shit), a consequence is that you will live in a society that does human experiments. What effect does that have on the rest of humanity? A terrible one I think, which is why we don't do it. Which is btw why we do paid human testing that has very small risks for health but benefits in general.
We value human independance more that that. Its just what a human brain does, that is not opinion. If we were an insectoid species in a hive society, where there are literally different classes of beings, we might value things differently, or if there was more at stake, like in a war. It might be a morally lesser evil to do experiments to win out against the nazis for example. Just that our intuition tells us very strongly that we would rather fight some nazis as is than survive and live in a society that can "conscript" you into unvoluntary grizly medical experiments. It would fundamentally devalue life.

>For it to be objective, there has to be a set of rules that govern what is right and what is wrong for every being, everywhere.
No. Why? That is not true for health either. Its generally healthy to eat some bread, but some peopel are allergic, so its not a rule that holds true for everyone always - now what? Nothing. Health is still objective, even if its hard to discern in many cases. It doesn't make the other cases any less clear or objective.

>>1518232
Unless you want to redefine what good is, yes, it is.

Ethics is guide on how to live, with the aim of making people the happiest and the best people possible. So, when they mean "good", they mean that which makes people this way.

>>1518433
I think we're dealing with different definitions of objectively.

>Objectively : Of or relating to something that can be known, or to something that is an object or a part of an object; existing independent of thought or an observer as part of reality.

We're talking about objective morality. The idea behind morality as being something subjective is that it is not an inherent part of reality, but rather a construction of mankind.

For morality to be objective in the way that math is objective, it has to exist independent of man. For it to exist independent of us, it has to be governed by immutable laws.

>>1518433 addendum

>>1518416
>Okay, but if some choices are "unsolvable", how can there exist an objectively correct choice?
I think this becomes obvious if you actually invision a scenario like that. Like you are given two buttons, and you have to press one, and you don't know what either of them do. Would you be morally to blame if one button killed a puppy, and the other one did nothing? No.
But would you be objectively to blame if you just killed a puppy slowly to hear it scream? Yes. Why would the "equal options" scenario invalidate the other choices where you can evaluate the outcome to a high certainty?
Where else would a standard like that possibly apply, and why should it apply to morality?

This is one of the weird confusion points that doesn't make any sense if you think about it, but comes up almost every time. "It has to be perfect, or its subjective". Nothing works like that, no other science is held to that impossible bar.

>>1518456
Laws of nature, yes, same as any other matter. Because our brains-states are generated by our brain, and our brains are matter. So they are not arbitrary, and neither is health, or psychological health (aka happiness or wellbeing or whatever).

>>1518433
Chemistry is studying the reactions of different substances. It is controlled by laws of physics which are uninfluenced by human opinion. I'm just trying to figure out where yiu think these morals come from. Humans? God? Or have they just always been?

>>1518450

There is a difference in what we both are discussing. You have already defined what "good" is while I'm trying to define it.

>>1518468
Where does health come from? If it comes form nothing, is it subjective? Why is it objectively wrong that eating your own entrails till you die is unhealthy? What is the objective ruler for health?

>>1518468
>There is a difference in what we both are discussing. You have already defined what "good" is while I'm trying to define it.

You are trying to redefine it? Why?

>>1518463
So the laws of nature are the laws of morality?
Or did the laws of nature create the laws of morality?
If the laws of nature created the laws of morality, should they not then be able to be altered?

>>1518473
He's not trying to redefine it, it has no objective definition, that's what he's trying to get across.

>>1517930
Good post getting overlooked

>>1518479
Moral value of an action is a consequence of how this universe works, yes, so it is ultimately dependant on how the laws of nature work.
I don't understand the "altered" part.

>>1518479
Chemistry also has no objective definition, you can say chemistry for you is eating dirt, and thats just as valid as any other definition. But that misses the point though. You can call this "good" whatever you want, as long as we are talking about the same thing. If you are not talking about good and bad in terms of suffering and wellbeing, you are talking about chemistry as eating dirt, and are not really in the discussion.
>>1518485
No, its a naive post that just repeates a hundreds of years old confusion.

>>1518472
There are things that are objectively unhealthy and they're again controlled by laws of physics. But morality is different, there's no physical part in it. Healthiness is also not a very good comparison, since it already is the goal. You assume that we should try to achieve happiness but why is it that way? What would control it?

>>1518490
That is equivalent of asking "but why does chemistry care about atoms and how they work? Who controls that?" Achieving happiness(in a very broad sense) is just what we are talking about when we talk about morality and values. If you are talking about something else, you are talking alchemy, or interpretive dance instead of chemistry.

>>1518479
>He's not trying to redefine it, it has no objective definition, that's what he's trying to get across.

In what we are discussing, it does. If you want to redefine the term so that it becomes subjective, it loses any kind of value.

>>1518494
That's exactly what I'm asking. If objective morality exists, why does it value things it does?

>>1518490
>You assume that we should try to achieve happiness but why is it that way?

That's the origin of ethics. What they mean by good is that which leads to happiness.

What would you call good?

>>1518503
I would also call achieving happiness good, but that's just what I think. I don't think there is any outside force or objective laws that humans should obey.

>>1518501
And as I said, thats like asking "if objective chemistry exists, why does it adress how atoms behave?"
I don't understand how that is a meaningful question. Morality in general adresses consequences of actions on wellbeing and suffering of concious creatures. Thats what we call morality. That is the word we use to talk about this specific issue.
The question of "where does that come from" just doesn't come up in any other area of inquiry. Its just not a meaningful question.

So, what exactly do you want to ask here, that you could also aks about some other area of interest?

>>1518378
It's derived from the physical configuration of our bodies in a self-preserving system.

>>1518513
If you approach morality fron that angle then, yes, you are correct. But what you're saying is that morality is what humans should do to achieve happiness when in reality it's what humans should do. You're inserting your opinion in the definition of the word. What I'm trying to say is that for morality to be objective it should be controlled by or be an outside force.

File: e9d.jpg (120KB, 680x907px) Image search: [Google]

120KB, 680x907px

>>1518535
I.. I can just repeat myself here.
If the word "morality" does not translate to you into wellbeing and suffering, you are just talking about something else entirely.
There is no "outside force", its all laws of nature. Its all how our universe is, and how it works and behaves. There is no outside inside distinction that I can see here. Except if you think you are not part of this universe somehow, but thats /x/ territory.
I could say that "chemistry relates to atoms in motion" is just an opinion, and we have no REAL definition of what chemistry is, because no outside force dictates what its supposed to be, we just made that word and that distinction up.
But it still adresses a specific area of investigation into the world, and as long as we agree on that, we can meaningfully talk about it. Otherwise, what the fuck even

>>1518543
I do think that we should minimize suffering but there are surely some questions where we do not agree. In that case one of us would be wrong, assuming there is objective morality. That's where your theory needs an outside force to determine what is "good". I could also just keep asking "why is that good" and eventually you'd have to say "because I think so". That's when morality becomes subjective.

>>1518543
>If the word "morality" does not translate to you into wellbeing and suffering, you are just talking about something else entirely.

It doesn't. It was never about that. Everyone's been trying to tell you.

>>1518208
Math is subjective though. Try convincing a dog that 1+1=2.

>>1518512
You don't need some outside force. You just need to consider the terms as it is.

>>1518535
Wait I think I got it, you want to ask basicly if there is an objectively correct thing to want, or how we would know what we should want.

Like, "should we want to be happy?"

I don't think thats morality, I think thats closer to just definitions.
"we should want to have our wants fulfilled" is the answer here, and I think its as dodgy as the question.
There is nothing else to want but be happy and not suffer or be in pain. What else COULD you want but the fulfilment of your wants? The trick is just to realise how much that entails. Its not hedonism, its realising that you are in a better more fulfilling state of contentment if everyone around you is also happy and you live in a healthy society. Because we are social animals and thats what our brain dictates. Its just the state of things as they are.
"What should we want?" -> if you have wants you want them fulfulled, thats in the definition, there is nothing else to add

>>1518554
No, I wouldn't have to do that, it would be good because it would either reduce suffering in general, or increase wellbeing in general, which is basicly the same thing.

>>1518558
It was literally about whether morality is subjective, see OP.

>>1518562
As I said earlier, IF anything is objective, then so is morality. Whether someone can comprehend it wouldn't change anything.

>>1518570
>IF anything is objective, then so is morality
My point was that nothing is.

>>1518576
No that wasn't your point, thats just your opinion on what your point was etc.
No useful statement or discussion or insight can come from that stance. So.. best of luck or something.

>>1518554
I'm not the one you are arguing with.

Do you think Epictetus and Lindsay Lohan life advices are worth the same? That some human being would be better off listening to Lindsay rather than to Epictetus?

>>1518581
Thinking anything is objective is itself a subjective stance to take. Everything can certainly be objective — through a subjective lens. The better way to evaluate things is not from a subjective-objective dichotomy but from an interconnected relationship between subject-object; more like a polarity.

But my point was that the dog does not speak our language. OUR language. As in math is a part of human language, not a universal one.

>>1518588
"The Sun is larger than the moon" is subjective in your view?

>>1518593
Ask a dog or anything non-human that, see what you get. Each word in every sentence is part of human language. These analyses of the world depend on the human brain.

>>1518599
This is just a load of pseudo-intellectual shit, isn't it?
No matter what you think, the Sun does have a larger mass than the Moon.

File: ucdkQ2bbv.jpg (78KB, 405x720px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 405x720px

>>1518605
Yeah I think when arguments like "but my dog doesn't get it" come into play you're done.

>>1518605
How is it fucking pseudo-intellectual when you CAN'T ASK ANY OTHER ANIMAL ON EARTH these questions? Are you retarded, dude? The questions are posed by humans, in a HUMAN language — case in point, these analyses are subjective, the subject being Human.

"Sun" and "Moon" do not exist in a cockroach's reality.

>>1518611
Doesn't mean the sun is not larger than the moon.

File: derpak.png (208KB, 557x306px) Image search: [Google]

208KB, 557x306px

>>1518619
Everything is anything, so its all real. Science!

>>1518619
How can one be larger than the other to a cockroach when they don't exist for the cockroach?

You have mistaken your own brain and the commonality of it within human society to represent universality. But all around us are lower creatures who do not share this supposed "universal" analysis. And some day, we may very well encounter some alien creature with the capacity to analyze beyond ourselves — maybe "Sun" and "Moon" are merely rudimentary depictions within some greater mind's analysis of everything.

File: 1462941296135.jpg (96KB, 640x618px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 640x618px

>>1517918
I can actually.

It doesn't exist independent of the observers of it. Two different cultures can have two entirely different moral codes. A feral child will not develop a moral code at all unless brought to socialize with enough other humans. Since it exists only in the minds of human beings and is not an immutable feature of the universe it is by definition subjective.

Also kys pls.

>>1518489
You're literally stupid. This is why I hate coming to /his/

>>1518570
>IF anything is objective, then so is morality
mmmmm no. You don't know what objective means.

>>1517918

The level, sophistication, explanatory, and pedagogical power of a morality is dependent on immense series of data (historical, autobiographical, etc) that is processed by a neurology with variances in things like "acceptable proximity to other agents", etc and then tested against the environment a morality seeks to order.

Intelligence is more important than the good. For without it, the kingdom of the good falls to dust and decay.

>>1518656

And it is far easier for humans to lie to themselves that they are good and that others are bad than it is to ask the simple question and demonstrate before others

"Do my tools work?"

But most human beings are talented at interfacing with other humans, not talented at making sensible hypothesis about reality and testing them out.

>>1518628
Or, maybe the cockroach is a dumbass and the Sun is indeed larger than the Moon, regardless of what the cockroach think.

>>1518645
>Two different cultures can have two entirely different moral codes.
Doesn't mean their moral codes are worth the same.

>>1518672
Yes they are worth the same thing. They're objectively worthless and only have value in the context of society and human experience. Why can't /his/ understand subjectivity?

>>1518672

Of course. But unfortunately we're dealing with that faggot of a bridge named Man. Tribalism is the force that bifurcates morality into a million different special flowers but those possessed most by that instinct will be the ones to most harshly insist that their one special flower is the summit of moral consideration.

But maybe such flowers need such guardians with such chauvinism.

>>1518669
From our perspective the cockroach is a dumbass. The cockroach thinks it's plenty intelligent. And we would be dumbasses in the face of anything higher too.

>>1518681
Not true. Ethics are very important, anon.

>>1518682
Aye, but the answer is not being a relativist either.

>>1518689
>From our perspective the cockroach is a dumbass. The cockroach thinks it's plenty intelligent.

I don't know if cockroaches think, but whatever it does, in terms of astronomy, yes, it is a dumbass.

>And we would be dumbasses in the face of anything higher too.

Yes, and?

>>1518693
>Not true. Ethics are very important, anon.
It is important... SUBJECTIVELY! Objectively speaking nothing is more important than anything else. Objectively speaking, morality is meaningless. It only gains meaning when tied to the human experience and given a set of goals to achieve by codifying prescribed behaviors. Outside of that it has no meaning whatsoever. Do you understand?

>>1517918
Different societies developed different moral systems.
Morals have changed over time.
Good and evil are relative

>>1518681

Moral codes are hammered in response to biological preferences and experience. But once hammered out, produce a series of behaviors that can be templated onto other human beings and thus our judgement of morality is a judgement of the series of behaviors and responses it provokes at such and when moment.

A morality that preaches carpe diem and a disregard for future-orientation will be conquered by the morality that praises saving and waiting for the right moment to attack.

Of course the main fault with humans is an inner proviclivity, can't really call it a "morality", to create propositional weapons to dislodge propositional structures but without regards to the stability of such a weapon in the larger war space.

In other words, humans like to utter "truths" with far more rapidity to dislodge "lies" or "false truths" than they like consider whether the "truth" can survive sustained scrutiny. Even worse, they get an instant payoff if they half succeed by virtue of signaling tribal alliegane and loyalty.

Humanity is two races. Interfacers-to-Interfacers and Reality interfacers.

>>1518706
What at all does that have to do with what I said?

>>1518703
But anon, how that goes against what I said? I'm discussing another thing.

>>1518704
You are arguing for moral relativism.
Which is in my opinion, bunk. Not all moral codes are equivalent.

>>1518698
>Yes, and?
What we think is only objective when we ignore the existence of all other minds.

>>1518715

Calling a moral code "objectively worthless" is missing the point that such codes have a feedback effect with the anticipation, priming, and repition of particular behaviors which alter the practicioner's standing in life and tribal affiliation.

No two codes are worth the same, the expectation is even more ridiculous considering they are forged in the haphazardry of cranial machinery. Even a superior brain can have a DURF moment and crystallize an odd disfigured valuation of life.

>>1518729
Anon, no matter how much you try to play with words, the Sun is indeed objectively larger than the moon.

>>1518703
That is retardation. That is what meaning MEANS you moron. What the fuck do you think people mean when they use the word? That its a force like gravity, that its imposed on us somehow? Ethics mean something in the only way that anything can mean anything in principle. How are you this confused, fuck..
"but it doesnt REEEAALLYY mean anything.." is horseshit. It really means something if it means something to us, thats the only way anything can mean anything at all, noone uses that word differently.

>>1518704
Yeah, people got morality wrong in the past, same with fucking anything like inhouse plumbing or fuckin medicine. They drilled into peoples heads to let demons out too and boiled piss to get gold. So what? Why does it make morals more or less objective compared to medicine if some idiots are being retarded about it? Who cares?

>>1518736
I'm not arguing that it isn't. But if you acknowledge the existence of other minds, you acknowledge the existence of other realities, i.e. there are no constants.

>>1518736

A better, and more meaningful way, to express that is

"I'd bet my life that the sun is larger than the moon."

Just saying "objectively" and "it is" are formalisms that don't add necessary data. Whereas putting a semblance of skin in the game means that you have an actual investment in this picture of reality and thus "support it" as opposed to being a mere signal repeater.

>>1518743
The Sun is larger than the moon, regardless of the existence of observers.

>>1518749
Sun, moon, and size difference are not existing variables in all minds.

>>1518757

Does anyone take this kind of mental masturbation seriously?

>>1518731
Like I said you don't understand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity. For some reason /his/ has such a huge problem thinking outside of the human experience.

I already said that subjectively it matters a lot. It's a big part of the human experience. Outside of that it doesn't matter at all. So you're right in what you're saying but you fail to see that we're essentially saying the same thing. You are only thinking in human terms rather than absolutes. I'm telling you that in human terms, you are indeed correct. In universal terms all of the attributes of morality break down and it is therefore subjective. The question was to whether or not morality is subjective, not whether or not certain moral codes can produce more amiable results for the humans employing them, and it is subjective, and certain moralities can produce better results for those that employ them. We are literally arguing the same thing and you seem to think that this extra part added on is in some way an argument against my other point.

Pls learn to separate fact from opinion.

>>1518759
/his/ is the dumbest board because at least other boards like /b/ and /soc/ know they're stupid.

What if I am a conquering warlord, and by brutally subjugating the lowland tribes, I create a net abundance of 1,000x wellbeing and health units for my people in the capitol?

Am i being morally good?

>>1518759
Philosophers did for thousands of years.

>>1518764
it depends if you're a consequentialist or a virtue ethicist

>>1518749

A feature of language is infinite recursion. An appeal to a final ground can be thwarted by infinite trolls of meta-leveling.

Instead focus on more concrete realizations (If the moon was larger than the sun, why do we rotate around the sun? ad nauseum). The best proof is simple results. Maybe Uunga Nuunga moves the Earth like a duck toy but look at what this scientific worldpicture has produced! Rockets and satellites!

You have to shame these motherfuckers by brute example. Show the the reward of intelligence and the punishment of stupidity.

File: opinion.jpg (60KB, 549x670px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 549x670px

>>1518682
>special flowers

Is it that time again!?

>>1518769
>You have to shame these motherfuckers by brute example. Show the the reward of intelligence and the punishment of stupidity.
You're retarded. What do you think this argument is about? Do you think by me pointing out the non-constant quality of human analysis that I am therefore discrediting it and saying it is useless? Because I never implied that. I even acknowledge that creatures like a cockroach are "lower" than us.

Your megalomaniac objectification of your own mind is what prevents you from progressing in philosophy, which is the real path of self-divination.

>>1518780
>Your megalomaniac objectification of your own mind is what prevents you from progressing in philosophy
That's good for him since philosophy is for stupid people who can't do real science anyway.

>>1518787
Science came from and is a part of philosophy.

>>1518791
No philosophy is protoscience from before empirical analysis existed.

>>1518798
You don't understand philosophy for shit. Empiricism is a philosophical notion. Modern science is a narrow slice of modern philosophy, like a branch on the overall tree.

Well, it depends on how we define morality. If morality is a system of rules to encourage actions that are good maintaining cooperation within a society, then one can imagine that there exists in this universe an optimal strategy for that goal. That strategy would probably be very similar between cooperative species, just because of the laws of the universe and how they interact. No society would get very far killing each other.

There are a lot of things that are human specific though. Things based on our evolutionary history. Rape is a morally wrong because of the way human reproduction is structured. Theft is a morally wrong because of the way we view property.
Regardless though, it seems that these optimal strategies are built into the very nature of the universe. The tricky part is that nothing is forcing us to adopt optimal strategies, and most of the time we can't identify them when we see them. This is what makes morality subjective on the individual level.

>>1518803
On a history board I would expect you to know that before the rise of empiricism all of the sciences were known as forms of philosophy, and an argument could be accepted as fact without proof simply by virtue of the speaker's oration skills, something that is seen often in history. And as it became more possible and fashionable in the future to produce more objective and concrete proof of claims and hypothesis philosophy, as a practice of argument without concrete proof shrunk in scope to where it is today, covering only difficult and complex topics such as metaphysics, ethics, and sociology, where concrete answers and proofs are difficult or impossible. And it continues to produce almost nothing in terms of tangible benefit because it is the art of mental masturbation employed by people who fancy themselves good thinkers but lack the maturity to use matematics and empirical observation to produce concrete results. True, science sprang from philosophy in the same way that trees sprang from seeds but a seed cannot be harvested for fruit. Philosophy is the act of hypothesizing without finding answers and is not science and is inferior to science in the context of producing answers to questions.

>>1518840
On a history board I would expect philosophy to be trivialized and misunderstood by scholarly historian types.

Science became something other than a subset of philosophy by scientists, unphilosophical people. Philosophers know that science is still a subset of philosophy. One of the more useful subsets, mind you — which is why it was made into its own very complex area of study / inquiry.

Utilitarianism is practical in society. But the non-practical is just as essential. It is philosophers, who take both practical and non-practical things into consideration, that move us forward on the grand scale.

>>1518873
Nah. That's literally wrong. Something non-practical is by definition useless until it can provide some tangible benefit. You're just self important. And you claim science as philosophy so that you don't have to feel so useless. But the semantic and categorical differences don't actually mean anything in the real world. But by all means, continue to mince words and argue semantics. That's what philosophers are best at anyway. Meanwhile me and other electrical engineers will be busy doing real work.

>>1518887
I'm not surprised someone so historically revisionist as yourself is on a history board.

Your claim of scientists being superior is fucking laughable, dude. Scientists don't run the world. They aren't making the executive decisions on how the world operates and what goals the world is aiming for on a planetary scale. They are fucking laboring with machines and numbers in closed environments, funded and housed by the governments.

The men who read and understand philosophy are the ones who establish the setting for science to thrive and employ scientists to work towards certain goals that the scientists are often not even fully aware of. It was and still is a product of philosophical endeavor that the usefulness of science became recognized. Scientists and science itself have small goals. If scientists were in charge, we'd be living in the society of the last men. It's because of philosophy and philosophers that there is a greater vision, movement and a goal on a planetary scale.

I'm not a philosopher, that title is reserved for only a few people. But I clearly read and grasped philosophy to a fuller extent than you did.

>>1518910
k.

>>1517922

You are asking an ethical 'system' beg the question regarding its own foundation, which is exactly what Kant claimed is inevitable. So, welcome to Kantian ethics, friend.

>>1518645
>Since it exists only in the minds of human beings and is not an immutable feature of the universe it is by definition subjective.
Thank you. One other person that isn't a solipsist in this thread.

Let's say a few things that I believe both sides will agree with:

1- If you want to be happy/stronger, not all strategies are worth the same.
2- For example, if that's what you want, having self control is better than not having it.

Anyone disagrees?

>>1518180

You can have a first-order moral realism couched within a second-order or meta-ethical coherentist/non-foundationalist epistemic framework.

>>1518368

You are not demonstrating anything. You are making bald assertions and then calling anyone who doesn't agree with your assertions an idiot. You are also making your own definitions to beg the question of your conclusions, i.e. 'happiness is shunning pain and seeking pleasure and this is good, therefore seeking happiness is good'. Do you see the circular reasoning there?

File: curb-your-enthusiasm-larry-david.jpg (50KB, 640x365px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 640x365px

>>1518981
>bald assertions

>>1518991

Also called a bare assertion, or proof by assertion. Choose whichever doesn't fangle your dangle too horribly.

File: kek.jpg (210KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 1920x1080px

>>1517918
Morality comes from game theory

>>1518981
This is clearing up definitions, not reasoning. This is what the words mean. If you are saying moral behaviour is not the same as evaluating your action on their effects on other concious beings then you are playing useless wordgames.
I'm saying this problem of definitions is not unique to morality, its true for everything, but that doesn't bother anyone, because it's not a real problem. Its just confusion.
Example: what if i decided that astronomy is about how turtles procreate. You can say "but thats not really astronomy, thats just you being an idiot" and I can reply "thats just your opinion, there are no facts behind your claim that astronomy is about how stars abd planets move, thats just opinion, there is no real basis for astronomy and its just subjective". Have I said anything of value in that case? No. Are you saying anything of value when you say morality is not *really* about effects of actions on conscious creatures and their wellbeing, and thats just an arbitrary opinion on my part? No.
Is it circular to say that astronomy is about stars and that talkinb about stars is therefore talking about astronomy? Is this a smart thing to ask?

>>1518759
>argument demonstrating how observations are dependent on the observer
>THIS IS MENTAL MASTURBATION WHAT A JOKE

>>1519111
Allright, say everything is subjective. Cool. Every claim you make about reality now has a certainty attached to it. Those claims that have a certainty beyond any reasonable doubt can be assumed to represent reality close enough to be called "objective". Those are claims that can be assumed true with a moral certainty. Wow. Deep and meaningful. And has nothing to do with the topic or how objective and subjective are used in general. But we cleared it up anyway.

Moving on.

Is morality as a concept completely devoid of anything that can be called objective, or is it truly a "chose what you want, its all equally valid statemenets, nazis were as right as aztechs to murder kids, and you can not say anything to contradict that" kind of deal.
Because I think you'd be an idiot or a coward to think that. Now you can say something in response that matters and moves the conversation forward.

>>1518928
But Kantian ethics aren't objective. The fundamental principle has not been demonstrated to be a good. Kant was an idiot, and philosophy is better with him forgotten.

Nietzsche > Kant.

>>1518681
>Why can't /his/ understand subjectivity?

Autism. I'm not even joking. Autism seriously hampers one's ability to feel empathy and handle ambiguity.

>>1519150
>The fundamental principle has not been demonstrated to be a good.
Kantian ethics doesn't have a "fundamental principle" that would have moral content like that. The "fundamental principle" of Kantian ethics is a reflexive idealism; being aware enough to even conceive of "ethics" as a discrete concept is enough of a "fundamental principle" to begin building a system of ethics.

>>1518025
Nice post

>>1519133
>And has nothing to do with the topic or how objective and subjective are used in general
How do you figure? The OP question was, can you prove the subjectivity of morality? Understanding subjectivity vs. objectivity is the first step to answering that.

You make the error in thinking that if all things are subjective, they are equal. Idiots and cowards take equality from subjectivity as you said. Greater types take inequality from it.

Objectivity carries the implication that this is all there is, and it now hovers over people like a stone tablet. There is cowardice in pushing the notion that your observations are objective, too. You are afraid of not just possibly being wrong, but more importantly, afraid of having to defend yourself against others. By placing the golden concept of "objectivity" over your words and deeds, you thereby exempt yourself from taking the ultimate responsibility as an individual of them.

To me, a person who thinks all morals are equal is a slave to his own shortsightedness, or is an idiot or a coward. A person who thinks their morals are objective are more assertive, which is respectable, but they too are shortsighted and also cowardly in a way. A person who thinks it is all subjective, AND also inequal, and is willing to defend themselves without the assistance of any objective / God notion, is the real beast-king here.

>>1517928
>The self exists
Ok, nice meme. But, can you prove it?

>>1519168
Then they aren't objective. Anything built through such mental construction inherently cannot be.

>>1519197
I don't really understand your criticism. What would an "objective" morality look like to you?

File: 1470570235051.jpg (31KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 400x400px

>>1519190
bruv, I explained how objectivity is used, and that it doesn't imply 100% mathematical certainty. Why you still on this?

And why did you explain to me what I think on a bunch of shit that I haven't even mentioned, as if you are the authority with deep insight on that somehow? What the fuck kinda powerfantasy are you trippin on my man?

>>1519206
It would either have to exist independent of human recognition.

>>1519225
Humans are the only moral things. Rocks aren't moral. Animals aren't moral. Your proposition doesn't make any sense. Morality is a human endeavor.

>ITT people with no education in philosophy whatsoever discuss issues using terminology they don't understand

>>1519207
1, your explanation of how objectivity used is not how everyone uses it, and this HAD to be cleared up — it wasn't irrelevant to the discussion.

2, I answered your question here:
>Is morality as a concept completely devoid of anything that can be called objective, or is it truly a "chose what you want, its all equally valid statemenets, nazis were as right as aztechs to murder kids, and you can not say anything to contradict that" kind of deal.

I mentioned another option it can be, and I made a claim as to what kinds of people choose which options. There's not much else that can be said about this.

>>1519282
1. Not everyone, but most and pretty much everyone who talks about these topics at all. Waste of time.
2. K

File: 1464754424552.jpg (133KB, 728x546px) Image search: [Google]

133KB, 728x546px

>>1519264
don't you mean InThisBoard?

>>1519090
>Is it circular to say that astronomy is about stars and that talkinb about stars is therefore talking about astronomy?

Yes, actually. Not every conversation about stars is about astronomy. We could be having a conversation about the effects of Aries passing through the 12th House has on your intellectual life. We ate taking about starts, but we are not taking about astronomy. So not only is it circular, it's a category error.

>>1519150

The 'objectivity' of the categorical imperative is it's formal necessity.

>>1517918
Burden of proof is on those trying to prove its objective. If morality can not be proven as objective then by definition it must be subjective, if it even exists at all.

>>1519408

>objective validity is the possibility of applying a concept to an object of experience
>we have a concept of good
>this concept is applicable to both actions and outcomes
>actions and outcomes are objects of experience
>'goodness' is a moral concept
>therefore at least one moral concept has objective validity

>>1519312
>K
And you were bitching about moving the conversation forward.

>>1517918
>morality is objective.
Ok, nice meme. but, can you prove it?

>>1519456
Prove the concept 'good' is objective.

>>1519456
Go home Kant, the adults are talking.

>>1517918
>Morality is objective
Nice meme, can you prove it?

>>1519733

That was the proof.

>>1520073
Then its nonsensical fallacy. One man's good is another's bad, you haven't proven anything.

File: sibe+pup[1].jpg (88KB, 575x600px) Image search: [Google]

88KB, 575x600px

>implying dogs don't know what morality is

Looks like someone isn't a Good Boy.

>>1520181

It was a logical demonstration by modus ponens. If you want to get anywhere you're going to have to challenge the truth value of one or more of the premises.

Seriously, git gud, cunt, you're embarrassing yourself.

>>1519234
Then it can't be objective. It springs forth from a subjective medium. You can't get objectivity from subjectivity.

>>1520318
>>1520181

The fact that you can have an argument or disagreement over the 'goodness' of something suggests there being some object under contention, meaning the fact of moral dispute entails moral objectivity.

>>1520331

They are codeterminant.

>>1520281
my dog is being immoral when he shits on my carpet? I agree that dogs might have some form of a code of conduct, not really something I've studied, but this doesn't prove that morality is objective. morality is just a feature of social animals which facilitates the formation of a community, whether this is a wolf pack or a city. good luck finding a snake that observes any form of morality. they don't even care for their young. I've owned guppies that would even eat their babies (and they were well fed, mind you)

>>1520331
>dude but, like, the chemicals in your brain dude, like, they change your perception duuuuude

>>1520332
No the fact you can have an argument doesn't. The concept of 'good' has an objective meaning, but is describing something which is subjective. It doesn't prove moral objectivity, all it proves is the word good has an objective meaning.

Something can be good for someone and bad for someone else.

>>1520318
All you are doing is arguing semantics.

>>1520332
you can have the same arguments over art, that doesn't mean that there is an objectively best painting in the world

>>1520354

>All you are doing is arguing semantics.

No, you are. You're equivocating the meaning of good, holding its philosophical sense and its more common sense as the same. I haven't defined 'goodness', only claimed it is a moral concept, which is true.

Again, my argument here >>1519456
is valid, i.e. the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises through logical rules. Challenge one of my premises or shut the fuck up.

>>1520375

There also isn't an objectively best way to pursue a good life. That doesn't mean the pursuit of goodness is not an objective pursuit.

>>1520393
pursuit of goodness is extremely vague. there is no objective best way to pursue such a platitude. there is also art that is considered good and bad but these considerations are ultimately subjective

>>1520375
>>1520393

And again, note you are holding AN OBJECT in dispute, applying concepts to that OBJECT. The capacity for a concept to apply to an object is objective validity.

If you didn't think there was some objective validity to your application of your concept you would not bother with an argument when someone challenged you on it.

>>1520385
>no you

You can not apply the concept of good to to both actions and outcomes objectively.

All you have proven is the concept of good exists and has an objective meaning. But you have not proven that its application is objective, which I have disputed and you have ignored.

Therefore you are only arguing semantics.

>>1520413

Obviously it's vague, we are speaking in generalities here. 'Vagueness' doesn't entail subjectivity.

>>1520393
Then you do not understand what people mean by moral subjectivity.

>>1520423

AGAIN, the application of a concept to an object IS objective validity. If you can apply the concept of good to an object, the concept of good has objective validity.

>>1520429

I'm not the one confused about concepts, here.

>>1520426
the vagueness is hiding the subjectivity of it. if it was objective then there would be a very specific way to "pursue goodness".

>>1520443

>if it was objective then there would be a very specific way to "pursue goodness".

Why would this be the case?

>>1518025
>That attitude changed

Uhhh, you haven't been to an Islamic country recently have you?

>>1520436
You're still just arguing semantics over concepts, rather than its application. You do not seem to understand what we are discussing.

You have not proven that there is an objective morality, only that the words have an objective meaning.

>>1520438
Just keep telling yourself that anon.

>>1518562
Math isn't subjective. Mathematics principles are the observable relations within our Universe. Just because something doesn't have the cognitive ability to observe these relations doesn't mean they don't exist.

God I want summer to end

>>1520443
Where is this goodness that you pursue?

>>1518681
Some produce better results that can be observed such as lower mortality rates, higher literacy rates.

>>1520454
if the words have an objective meaning then objective morality exists as a linguistic construct built on those words

>>1520474
You really aren't getting this are you?

The word phlogiston has an objective meaning, and exists as a objective concept, but that doesn't mean it wasn't a load of shit.

We aren't arguing about the validity of the concept, we are arguing about its application.

>>1520454

When I say something like 'mercy in judgement is good' I am applying the concept, 'good', to an object, the demonstration of mercy. You can dispute my application of the concept 'good' to that object, but even your doing so presupposes the possibility of there being such an application.

>>1520496
this does not mean that there is an objective moral code you dingbat

>>1520491

That wasn't 'me', and you're the one who isn't 'getting it'. If you can apply the concept to an object you've achieved objective validity.

>>1520508

It means you've allowed the possibility of there being objective validity to moral concepts. If you don't want to do such a thing, don't enter the conversation.

>>1520510
Again, your object is a semantic one, you have only proven that the word has a meaning.

You have not proven that an object can be objectively good or objectively bad. There is a concept of good, but you have not proven there is objective goodness.

>>1520281
>dogs can't create a spaceship and land on mars
>this implies mars doesn't exist

SUMMER
FAG
RELAVIST
GET
OUT

What determines morality? Your brain
Where did your brain originate? The Universe
Thus, morality exists within the Unvierse QED

>>1520443
Can you give a "very specific" definition of health? If you can't is medicine subjective?

>>1520513
>If you don't want to do such a thing, don't enter the conversation.


That isn't what the conversation on Moral Subjectivity is about, I've told you this countless times.

That anon's comment was valid to the real conversation, how dare you dictate to him your retarded misconceptions about the discussion.

We are not disputing the concepts themselves, we are discussing whether their application is subjective or objective.

>>1520627
see >>1520491

>>1520656
There can exist and does exist a relatively objective human morality in the sense that humans are social creatures and work together to create civilization. We share a mutual social environment where we agree on certain fundamental principles that we hold in common. Extrapolate far enough and this becomes more and more objective in the same way that limits approach infinity.

>>1520671
That is a subjective application not an objective one.

>>1520676
It's basically objective

>>1520650
All your tissues, organs, and systems are functioning properly with minimal disease or disorders. Your body weight and fitness level do not cause undue abnormal conditions. Also your psychology is not hampered by undue extreme stresses or neuroses, and you can cope with a wide spectrum of situations.

I'm sure I'm missing some other aspects of health but those would be some basics. I'm not a doctor.

>>1520686
>Relative objectivity.
That is subjectivity.

So no it isn't basically objective.

>>1520693
Basically objective is equal to objective just as .99999999999999 is equal to 1, objectively speaking

>>1520698
No because you aren't applying it objectively, your applying it subjectively.

>>1520705
No it is objective

>>1520698
and 0.99999999999999 isn't equal to 1 either, objectively speaking, its a lower number.

>>1520727
You can't have relative objectivity, that is what subjectivity is.

>>1520733
You're objectively wrong

>>1520728
go ask /sci/ to explain why you're wrong too

>>1520656

You are misunderstanding me. I stated my position quite plainly earlier in the thread, here >>1518959

>>1520758
No I'm not, you are. Great rebuttal btw.

Also 1 - 0.00000000000001 = 0.99999999999999

You arrogant dipshit.

>>1520689
Yeah and there we go:
>minimal disease or disorders.
>undue abnormal conditions
>is not hampered
>undue
>extreme
>can cope with a wide spectrum of situations.
ALL of that is subjective and open to interpretation in a million ways.
How is anything you said specific in any way my dude? How blinded are that you don't see how you try to completely switch up the standards here? Come one man.
With all your definitions, tell me how high a healthy person should be able to jump, or how fast they should run, or prescribe "very specificly" what food you should eat? Like, exactly what food and and exactly what nanosecond.

You just enumerated a bunch of things that at best indicate health, or are kinda sorta related to health.

And how, please, can you say this is founded in anything objective? Who are you to say that if I slice my wrists open and spray blood for as long as possible on my walls that its unhealthy? By what outside force have you defined that? What if i want to die of the black plague and call that the epitome of health?

See, you can play that game with anything. But the fact is, morality is objective, the same way health is objective. Because even though the definitions are weird and not precise, and there are no hard&fast rules, and we are wrong about both a lot, we know what we are talking about when we talk about health and medicine. And neither one is just a matter of opinion. Same with wellbeing and morality.

Also your definition technicly applies to a dead person, depending on what you define as "function properly" (you could define slowly decompose and nourish bacteria). Like, again who are you to say how they SHOULD function.

>>1520804
You are mathematically wrong .999 repeating is equivalent to 1

>>1518959
Can

>>1520827
>You are mathematically wrong
I'm not. (unless i miscounted the decimal places but I don't think I did)

Convenience is not objectivity.

File: My opinions are facts damn it.png (73KB, 928x687px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 928x687px

>>1518180
Kek this article is retarded. It seems to be implying that fact is synonymous completely with truth and that opinions can't be true.

I mean look at this, are we supposed to think this is ridiculous? Sure on some of them you can argue the pros and cons of the effects, but not one a childish scale of 'Good and Evil'

Oh no at the end he seems to know actually, he's just making a bad strawman.

>>1520843
.999 repeating is literally mathematically equivalent to 1

>>1520886
You are the only one to mention repeating. He has made no mention of such. He is right, the number 1 and 0.[I can't be bothered to count 9s] are not the same.

>>1520886
If you say so pal. I'm still not wrong.

>>1520900
you are objectively wrong

>>1518043
>Two different thermometers will show different temperature of the one object.
How?

>>1520894
He devolved into just going 'no your wrong' ages ago, I'm just triggering his pettiness.

>>1520894

See there he goes again >>1520903

I'm really not anon, but your giving me a good kek.

>>1520920
you're wrong, objectively speaking

>>1520911
Implication is that one of them is broken

>>1520923
Anon, why are you doing this? You're just making yourself look stupid.

>>1520733
No, it is not. Subjectivity pertains to subjects, the observers. Objectivity pertains to objects, regardless of their observers.

>>1520807

Best post in the thread to b h

Morality is subjective. But all this is just an argument about definitions. Like all of philosophy. Eternal arguments about definitions, without ever getting anywhere.

Assuming the definition of morality is that people should be happy, then there are objective moralities. But this is just a definition that's made to win people to your side by redefining a well known word to mean that you are right, with no attempts to ever clear up the misunderstanding in conversation with real people, because the misaligned definitions serves you well.

It is similar to the definition of racism. Most people think racism is bad, so when a racism expert tells them something is racist, they think it's bad. However, what the racism expert doesn't say, is that racism means something else when they use the word. They are tricking people into making judgements of something without them actually ever considering it. People conclude that racism is bad based on the definition of discrimmination based on race. This is something they have put thought into, and when the racism expert says something is racist, this is what they think it means, and they agree that it's bad. When in reality, it's a really dishonest thing, because they never put any thought into whether racism is bad or not, based on the racism expert's definition. They are getting tricked into thinking something is bad, based on false premises. They never made a decision about whether prejudice+power is bad, but still make the shortcut based on a misunderstanding of the racism expert's definition, which the expert has no interest in clearing up, because it helps them getting people to agree to things they thought they put thought into, but never did.
(I am not saying it's okay with prejudice+power, only that it's not a decision people have gotten to make)

It's similar with morality, if we work by such definition. The philosopher will say something is bad moral, people will think it must mean it's wrong. tbc

File: 1457570543014.jpg (126KB, 480x608px) Image search: [Google]

126KB, 480x608px

>dude we should jsut like ahve no laws b/c everything is totally relative bro xd

leftists need to be eradicated

>>1520945
And what we are discussing in your/their own words is an agreement between subjects, the consequences that they are trying to achieve or avoid may be objective, but the insinuation that one is objectively good or bad is subjective.

Relative objectivity, as in relative to the subject, is not objective, it is subjective. I'd love to know how your defining 'relative objectivity'.

>>1520968
You could, but that would violate your morality, which is constant and not relative.

>>1520965
Because people have been taught bad morals is wrong. But what the philosopher doesn't say is that morals means something else when he uses the word, so people get to the wrong conclusion that something is bad just because it's immoral. When immorality is not a bad thing when we go by a philosophers definition. It's dishonest to not try to clear up the different definitions, you are tricking people into thinking they agree with you because you use different words that sound the same.

So "morality" in the philosophical sense is maybe objective, but how we should act, you "morality" in commoners language, is subjective.

>>1520968
Nice strawman.

>>1520807
The human body has objective biologically developed functions of tissues and organs and an objectively optimum blend of nutrition to maintain and promote health. These aren't subjective, they are a function of our physical bodies biochemistry.

>>1520969
>Relative objectivity, as in relative to the subject, is not objective, it is subjective.
Pepperoni pizza, as in pizza that doesn't have pepperoni, is not pepperoni pizza, it is non-pepperoni pizza?

Legal statuses vary across time and space, not being momentarily contingent on any subject's opinions. Guilty and innocent, responsible, non-liable, etc, under the law, are objective, factual statements.

>>1520984
Literally not a strawman

>>1520973
??

>>1521000
Correct, and that makes them subjective.

Are we playing fun semantic games again?

>>1521011
Looks like one to me.

>>1521011
>If I say it's not that means it's not
So this is the power of objective morality

>>1521032
Well its what they've been doing all thread.

>>1521025
Law is derived from the will of the people.
The will of the people is extrapolated from their individual doctrines of morality.
It's not a long walk to imply that an individual's view of morality will significantly influence his opinion on law.

>>1521020
No they aren't subjective. You either are guilty or not, but that depends on the laws that are in place at any given time. Your legal position of guilt isn't subjective. It's contingent on the codified laws, not on a subject's perspective.

>>1521054
Law and the will of the people is not objective, as I'm sure my freind below will tell you.

>>1521057
True, but the laws themselves are subjective. Are we going back to our fun semantic games again?

We aren't questioning the concepts, we are questioning their application. For the last time.

I'm going to go to sleep shortly, just so you know.

>>1521054
>>1521054
>Law is derived from the will of the people.
>The will of the people is extrapolated from their individual doctrines of morality.
>It's not a long walk to imply that an individual's view of morality will significantly influence his opinion on law.
That's a gross oversimplification. Most people think OJ's guilty of murder but that isn't his legal status. That the origin of law relates to a subject's inner life doesn't make it so the law isn't objective. A ten foot building might me derived from a man's opinion that ten foot buildings are nice, but if the man's opinion shifts the ten foot building will still be extant, external to the subject, an object - as it is with laws. That buildings might rise and fall, and that laws and statuses might shift, does not change that these exist outside individuals.

>>1521085
>>1521096

>>1521099
Nothing there immediately apparent I disagree with or contradicts me. What is your point?

>>1521085
Objectivity can be derived from Subjectivity
Just because it is derived from Subjectivity doesn't mean its also Objective

>>1521116
>>1521085

>doesn't mean its also subjective

fixed

>>1521116
see >>1521114

>>1521114
That law isn't subjective. It is external to subjects. It is an object, whether or not it is made by subjects just like material constructions.

>>1517918
Is there any act that is always wrong, no matter the context, and has always been seen as wrong in every culture throughout history? If you can't answer yes, then there is no objective morality.

>>1521135
What would make that objective instead of just universal?

>>1521145
That's just semantics.

>>1521164
Universal implies subject-independence, therefore objectivity, the converse isn't true, because objects aren't necessarily constants.

>>1521132
I may have fallen into a trap there with my wording, but I'm half asleep.

See the concepts vs application stuff yada yada. I'm not denying they are objects.

I'm too tired to get into Objective vs Universal or whatever, but I might come back tomorrow and see if you've made any good points.

There is a theoretical infinite set of subjective moral doctrines that could ever exist if sentient, self-aware, conscious life was allowed to exist and reproduce infinitely. Any constant between all of these subjective moral doctrines could be considered objective morality. If you cannot find a constant between any of the subjective moral doctrines then an objective morality cannot exist.

>>1521168
We're starting to get into 'what makes a chair objectively a chair' territory here

>>1521191
But then how could you prove one of those subjective moralities was not adversarial to a theoretical objective morality and actively working against the categorical imperative of morality?

>>1521191
>Any constant between all of these subjective moral doctrines could be considered objective morality

That may be an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

File: 1468135167661.jpg (74KB, 441x399px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 441x399px

Presuppose an relational model of objective morality need not individuals to be aware of it to exist
Define morality as the mathematical value of the quality of life divided by the potential of life
Observe that human life has a physical, abstract value that could theoretically be measured with enough technological/academic advancement.
Conclude that morality is best interpreted as the objective maximization of the potential of human life balanced with the individual subjective idea of quality of life


??????

>>1521243
Also you want to maximize potential while maintaining a higher quality

Anti-natalism works with this definition b/c anti-natalists want to minimize suffering to 0 but this paradigm will also minimize suffering while maximizing potential of human life so anti-natalists will abandon their ideology if humanity works to maximize my paradigm

i'd also amend that quality of life is quasi-subjective as eventually we could measure the physical real value of the individuals subjective idea of quality of life

objectivity can be and often is derived from objectivity and vice-versa so within an objective -> subjective -> objective sandwich we find the human mind

File: 1469772388829.jpg (81KB, 796x664px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 796x664px

>>1517918
Existence is indifferent to the pain and suffering experienced by living things. Animals eat other animals and their own young all the time, sure it is in the name of survival but from perspective of morality can killing ever be justified? I dont think so, so that would automatically mean that either most living things are immoral by default or maybe the sad reality of our existence is that fucked up shit happens all the time and we cant do anything about it. Fuck even now a gamma ray burst could hit our planet at any point in time and kill us all.

tldr; Im high, so ignore me

>>1517930
ok what about if i killed a child. from what perspective would that be ok?

>>1518146
you cant have both. It must be one or the other. You cant say that morality is objectively subjective because that means that there is objectivity even though you say that there is subjectivity

>>1518341
>Slavery was considered morally sound once, that did not make it objectively good at the time
no but this doesnt prove subjectivity, it just means that people were wrong, as we all are sometimes

>>1517930
But things are objectively good or bad for humanity. The scope of morality extends exclusively to humans; just because it doesn't extend to the rest of the universe doesn't mean it doesn't exist

>>1518025
Just because people once believed something was right. The morality of actions is not dependent upon the judgment of man. Actions are right or wrong because the action is either for or against humanity.

>>1518232
Happiness and well-being are indications of thriving--thriving meaning living well, and living being the point of life.

Happiness is an indication you are living life correctly. Therefore, performing the actions that lead to happiness would be actions of living a good.

Now, before you start saying that someone can be happy killing people, remember that I said that happiness is an INDICATION. Some people's trigger for happiness may be corrupted, and in those cases, they would be false indicators.

Someone who would like to kill would also like to social stigma. Not killing people and NOT being imprisoned would also provide happiness and would be an indicator of living a good life.

>>1518341
>the goal of a collective morality

>collective
>morality
These terms are not intrinsically linked.

>>1521843
Then how do you tell when people are right?

>>1518456
The nature of man exists independently of the thoughts of man.

A rapist might want to believe that he can imprison and rape a victim everyday without ever giving that person freedom or sustenance, but the victim will eventually die under those conditions. The morality here is not subjective;, he cannot simply will that there will be no consequence to the girl. Either he complies with the nature of a human person, or he destroys the person.

>>1521899
it is very difficult and i dont think we are there yet but Im sure it is knowable

>>1517918

>morality is subjective
>the last statement is not

>>1521890

I can't prove this, but I don't think that there are people that their "happiness" is elevated in murder. Maybe they think they're being happy, but that is because they are already corrupted, and instead feel elevated or euphoric.

This claim is inherently unfalsifiable though, so don't listen to me too much.

>>1520965
Actually, true philosophy is interested in the meaning of concepts, which predicate the definition of words. Sophistry deals with the definition of words, and the misleading of people through ultimately impossibly incomplete definitions.

You describe sophistry with your racism example.

>>1521947
Anon, here, I agree with you, I was just pre-empting some stupid responses.

>>1521833
Mathematics is literally a "social construct", and yet it is objective, and it is only objective insofar as it is rigidly defined to allow it to be.

>>1521191
Suppose the common link to every possible moral frame is the notion that you ought to act according to the moral principles containes in said frame, no? Because a system of belief that made no assumption on how people ought to behave is not a moral system... but then I guess this is a circular argument.

>>1521948
>I get to define what is and isn't philosophy.

Such overweening fedora tippery.

>>1521201
Nah, it's frequentism. If you meet 1000000000000 ducks and it seems it is a constant that ducks have 2 legs, you say ducks have 2 legs because that has been true so far.

>>1517918
cant you rpove it pretty easily? different people have different ideas of what is good and bad isnt that the definition of subjective morality?

>>1521938
The statement "morality is subjective" isn't a moral judgement, it is a judgement on morality. Like saying homeopathy is hocus pocus, isn't a saying my statement is hocus pocus because my statement isn't homeopathic.

>>1522023
The most basic logical-mathematical precepts seem innate, though (identity, addition, subtraction).

>>1522045
And the same can be said about morality. If people actually tried to make sense of it instead of flinging shit like apes, maybe it would reach a similar status.

>>1522046
There's pro-social behavior, group dynamics, empathy and a bunch of stuff associated with the grounding of morality. This stuff has adaptive value and we do know some principles of it - but a lot of this shit also offers grounds for tribalism, dehumanization, and crap like so. Morality is kind of a muddier concept, compared to mathematics.

So is beauty, even though we certainly have the wiring that makes us more likely to find this more beautiful than that or whatever.

Because there isn't a strict rule, just some general ones that may bend or even be completely absent in cases.

>>1520989

>optimum blend of nutrition to maintain and promote health

You are DEFINING health here dude. And now your definition says "healthy is having nutrition that promotes health".

And there is no such ideal value. You define the ideal here completely. Ideal to be able to run for a long time? Or ideal to be able to live longest? Or ideal to not have diabetes? Or ideal to be the most fertile? Or ideal to be at peace mentally? Different bloodchemical levels required for all of those.

And who says that these performance levels are ideal? What if i run faster and live longer with artificial proteins or nanobots in my blood? Isn't that healthier? Speaking of, you still haven't said any specific thing about how fast I should be able to run to be considered healthy, or what the ideal speed is.

And you still haven't explained by what standard your definition of health would trump mine if I said that being immune to poison is healthier than the alternative, and drank small ammounts of poison everyday to achieve that while feeling sikly all the time. OR if i just said "i want to die bleeding to death from tiny cuts, and I think that is the healthiest way to live". Who are you to disagree?

See, you have solved none of the problems here. This "subjectivity" game can be played with anything.
I could say that morality is just mental health. If that is objective, so is morality. You could just have a healthier brain if you live a good life in a good decent society, and expiriencing more pleasant things and being at peace with the world and yourself just makes your brain chemicals closer to ideal.

But for some reason you think that is not objective, while health is?

>>1522064
>There's pro-social behavior, group dynamics, empathy and a bunch of stuff associated with the grounding of morality.
The problem is that they're merely associated with morality, and morality is not rigidly defined in terms of them. If you define morality as strictly the maximization of well-being, for example, you have a perfectly objective moral system to work with.

If everyone has a different conception of it, from sky daddies to asinine naturalism, we're going to get nowhere. It's calling several different things one name.

>Because there isn't a strict rule, just some general ones that may bend or even be completely absent in cases.
There isn't a strict rule because discourse on morality is decidedly unserious. Define the term first, otherwise all we have is people talking past each other.

I don't know why you think my position is at all controversial.

>>1521843
>it just means that people were wrong
No it doesn't, the aspects about it that were 'good' still are 'good', we've just decided not to do anymore for the sake of a different 'good'.

There are cons to freedom. I think freedom is the better path, but to say one is good and one is bad is completely subjective, they both have pros and cons.

>>1522037
I'm still not convinced. We aren't talking about physical beings we're talking about opinions. Its more like a 'rotten tomatoes' score on a movie, a collection of subjective opinions are still subjective opinions, it doesn't make them objective it just shows a lot of people share an opinion.

And if a duck had one leg it wouldn't stop being a duck, that's a no true scotsman fallacy..

>>1522046
>The same can be said about morality
I don't believe you. Prove it.

>>1522251
But them having pros and cons is what makes them objective though.
What you are saying is that some people evaluate them differently, but they all use the same reasoning skills and intuitions to do it. Some are just wrong on the facts and come to wrong conclusions.

There being different opinions on this doesn't mean all opinions are equally valid. Some are more reasonable even if they are not perfect. Like, thinking some people are worth less than others is just a failure of empathy and compassion, its just literally moral blindness that you can reasonably and effectively argue against.

>>1522174
The categorization of objects or concepts into the terms 'good', meaning positive or helpful, or 'bad' meaning negative or detrimental.

This is inherently subjective because the categorization changes dependent on the subject and the subject's desired outcome, and in many cases will inevitably cause an outcome perceived 'bad' by a different subject.

Nothing is inherently good or bad, they are subjective opinions based on the perception of consequences.

And this does not mean the concepts are not objective or without value, it just means they can only be applied subjectively.

>>1522304
One man's pros is another man's cons. Neither are wrong objectively.

>>1522304
Empathy and Compassion are not objectively good.

And some people are worth less a
than others in many respects, this isn't a failure of empathy or compassion.

>>1522324
And one mans round earth is another mans flat earth. Neither is wrong objectively.

Its all about why they think what they think. And they are not both correct. And its not just "feels". They evaluate the situation on benefit/cost and harm done/prevented etc basis, and some of that reasoning is sound, and some is not. Sometimes, it might even be truly equal, or not enogh of a difference to be able to tell, or straight up paradoxical. Like any science or area of investigation or any part of objective reality that we can talk about.
They're all still objective though, and some people can be objectively wrong in their analysis. The trick is to find out why a certain moral intuition is what it is, and whether it is based on a wrong perception and if the "logic" behind it makes sense or not.

>>1522337
No that my friend is a false allegory.

In that case one is wrong objectively, and it can be proven.

>>1522322
That seems nonsensical.

Explain to me how a situation where everything that can suffer suffers to the highest degree possible, forever, for no benefit at all. No silver lining. Just suffering for everythign that can expirience suffering.

Does "bad" apply here objectively? What could be worse? How would not any other situation be objectively better?

What other way could there be to define bad.

>>1522346
No, this is too easy.

Some people are masochists and would view eternal suffering as the highest 'good' and any other situation as worse.

>>1522342
No it literally can't. You can prove it to yourself and anyone who agrees. You can't prove it to the flat earthers. Or the creationists types. Its just your word against theirs.
Same with moral / amoral. I can prove to you that beating your children, ever, always leads to damage to their psyche. There are still billions who think its moral to beat them. Because that knowledge about psychological damage just hasn't sunk in, and they go by their uninformed intuitions.
Same with any other moral problem. Its always a moral calculation of damage vs benefit, intuitions are just fast unreflected evaluations that come with a high degree if undeserved certainty.

>>1522353
Oh no you literally can prove the earth isn't flat. If someone ignores the evidence it doesn't stop being proven.

Still a false allegory.

>>1522351
Yes, they absolutely would. And they'd be closed off to other forms of pleasure and not be able to achieve the good feeling or mental state of having friends that value you and feel safe around you.
So that is the "cost" masochists pay. The ammount of expirience they can have is limited.

Also peopel are not generally masochists. That is a mental disorder. And its classified as a disorder because it compells you to do things and enjoy things that cause harm.

That is what is defined as bad behaviour. They enjoy being morally bad and can't help it. They would be better off enjoying something that is also beneficial to others, because people are social animals.

>>1522359
And you can ignore evidence in a moral evaluation and ignore good moral reasoning.
Whats your point here? Where exactly is the distinction?

>>1522363
Doesn't make it objective.

It may be bad to the subjective view of society at large, but that doesn't make it objective.

And so what if its categorized a 'mental disorder', that isn't objectively 'bad' either.

>>1522371
No I don't ignore evidence of of 'good moral reasoning' whatever that means.

You have yet to prove it, if you did I would be forced to accept it or ignore it, but until then I can and am contesting it.

>>1522363
And by 'cost' your assuming again that they value your perceived 'good' losses. This may not be the case.

>>1522383
Yes, that is objectively bad. It causes uneccessary harm.
Thats what bad means. If it causes uneccessary harm to others, and indicates that you do it intentionally and plan to do it again, that is the definition of a bad person.

If you have a masochist who is cogniscent enough of his condition and finds someone with a compatible flaw, they can make it work with far less harm and shame and suffering involved. But if they had an actually healthy relationship and enjoyed each others joy instead, they'd be clearly better off and more easily happy and content, with more benefit to everyone. So it would be a morally better alternative if you could "heal" masochism.
That is an objective moral evaluation.
Going "nope nope its not nope" makes you the equivalent of a flatearther. You are denying evidence here mate.

>>1521822
A Trillion years from now, as the universe is reaching it's end, it wont make the slightest difference whether you killed a kid. Any argument you make that the kid might have had an impact that lasted a trillions years into the future (unlikely) can be countered by the chance that they would of had a negative effect that lasted trillions of years into the future (also unlikely).

File: show me the evidence.jpg (70KB, 460x992px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 460x992px

>>1522386
I found this for you.
>>1522393
They value the same thing as anyone else values, fulfilling their wishes/needs.
They can just be wrong on what they should want to be in a state of happiness/ more wellbeing. People can be idiots. Flatearthers have a percieved different standard for evidence and reasoning. So what? Does that change that the earth is most likely round? No. Does peopel feeling strongly that beating your kids improves their character mean anything? No.

>>1522395
No it doesn't. What makes unnecessary harm objectively bad?

Again you are rellying on your own subjective veiwpoints and assuming they are objective when you have no proof of it.

And I'm not going 'nope, nope, nope'. That is what you are doing. I am reasoning and contesting your arguments.

You are the equivalent to the flat earther here, because you actually are ignoring my arguments, and dancing around them.

>>1522414
False allegory.

>>1522400
Well, I think it would still have an incredibly minor effect trillions of years later (Butterfly effect and all). But it wouldn't be objectively good or bad.

>>1522415
Thats the thing, you can play that "but thats just what YOU think" with literally anything, and that doesn't matter anywhere.
Thats what a flatearther would say: but thats just what YOU think, and this is what I think, so it's just as valid.

You are saying "bad" has no objective meaning.

Try this. For anything that could expirience suffering, it expiriences the most ammount of suffering possible, for the longest time imaginable. No silver linings. Just horrid abject terror and pain and misery.
Would an action causing this scenario be bad?
If it is not bad, what would be bad?
What could be worse?
If your definition of bad and worst does not apply in this scenario, does your opinion matter?

>>1517918
>>morality is subjective.
>Ok, nice meme. but, can you prove it?
Wouldn't the onus be on you to prove that it is objective?

>>1517918
In the complete absence of any evidence that morality is objective its seems a reasonable thing to assume

>>1522432
No you can't. There is objective evidence that the earth is round and that evolution occurred (though you'd be right in saying that doesn't make it true per say, but it makes it the most credible.)

Where you have not provided any objective proof, just subjective opinions.

And AGAIN I am not saying the word bad has no objective meaning, I am saying it has no objective application.

>Try this
I've already done this one.
>If it is not bad what would be bad
It would be bad to someone who didn't like it.
>What could be worse
Well if they are a masochist likely never feeling pain again.
>If your definition of bad and worst does not apply in this scenario, does your opinion matter?
It does apply in this scenario, its just not being applied objectively. I wouldn't like it, think it good, but that doesn't mean our figurative masochist wouldn't.

It wouldn't mean society as a whole would either, but society as a whole's opinion is also subjective. We don't have laws because some things are 'objectively bad' that's a lie used to simplify, we have laws to protect societies' subjective interests.

>>1522456

>And AGAIN I am not saying the word bad has no objective meaning, I am saying it has no objective application.

If it has an objective meaning then it has an objective application, even if that 'application' is only to a class of propositions--that's what it 'means' to 'have objective meaning'.

The conversation of ethics, like the conversation of science, grounds its own activity in its being done.

>>1522504
>To have an objective meaning means it has an objective application.

Don't think it does, do you have any objective proof?

Are you trying to arguing that subjectivity doesn't exist?

See >>1522322

>>1522520

I am trying to argue that it is something of a false dichotomy, yes, and that though the standards of evaluation for 'naturalistic' propositions and those for evaluative ones, though different, rest on the same epistemological grounds.

But how do you know the words good and bad have objective meaning, anyway? What's your evidence?

>>1522559

>How do you know good and bad have an objective meaning
see my old friend above here >>1519456

But I'm not sure any words do have a subjective meaning, within the context of their subjective language.
see my other old friend above here >>1521096

But other than that I don't think you understand what subjectivity means. Being subjective doesn't mean something is without value, many things have subjective value.

Currency for example, has a objective meaning and a value, but only within its own subjective structure.

To say its a false dichotomy is meaningless, because they aren't opposites, no one said there was dichotomy. Subjectivity is relative objectivity, only objective when in the context of certain subjects.

We aren't arguing about whether the nuances of the morality construction are objective. We are arguing about whether it is a universal force, which it is not.

The past is certified as a finished product
Anything which has ended is finished
That which is perfect is finished
The perfect man is no exception to the rule
The perfect man of the past is made according to the rule of the past
The rule of the past is a law of injustice and hypocrisy
The revelation of the meaning of the law is revealed through the law itself

>>1522596

>see my old friend here
That was me. I did not demonstrate what you take me to have demonstrated.

>We aren't arguing about whether the nuances of the morality construction are objective.

No, 'we're' not. I am also this fella >>1518959

>>1522617
See this is what subjectivity is. Perfection is not applied intrinsically, its applied within the subjective context of the product.

>>1522634

You're a fucking twat, mate.

>>1522618
> I did not demonstrate what you take me to have demonstrated.
Oh you'll find that was all you proved.

>I am also this fella
Oh I know, I'm this fella >>1520828

I have refuted you, but you don't refute, you just want to play semantic games. Why don't you take your own advice here >>1520318
>If you want to get anywhere you're going to have to challenge the truth value of one or more of the premises.

(Taking that it is indeed you anon, I don't know)

>>1522636
Nice rebutal.

>>1520807
>proves 'Health' is subjective
>therefore morality is objective
>Comon! we know what we're talking about when we say 'unicorn'

>>1522646

You haven't refuted anything. You've dug your heels in, at every point, even though when it comes down to it we are, basically, in agreement. You've set up your own standard for 'objectivity' as a 'universal force' (what?) that no one accepted and no one was trying meet.

>>1522661

There are conversational contexts in which it is perfectly sensible and objective to talk of unicorns. Unicorns don't have 16 legs and 4 heads, for instance. If someone claimed this you could rightfully call them out as wrong. That unicorns are not 'instantiated' anywhere in the 'physical' universe is irrelevant to the objective criteria of 'being unicorn'.

>>1522680
That is exactly what you look like to me. You have decided the word subjectivity has some arbitrary meaningless definition (What is your definition exactly?) and therefore doesn't exist. And have proceeded to try and force the goalposts to move.

I have refuted you, I have explained my refutations, and I have constantly called out your goalpost moving, where you have just said 'no you'.

You have proved nothing and spent the entire thread calling me names. I think its pretty clear who has won this little debate.

>>1522708

You already ceded the territory I was after here >>1520828

The rest is noise. Pompous, blustering noise.

>>1522729
So your admitting your ignoring my refutations then.

Can does not mean is. You were being subjective.

>>1522750

This is a 'philosophical' 'debate', all that needed to be established here was logical possibility. You allowed that. By that, you lost.

>>1522351
>No, this is too easy.
>Some people are masochists
Masochists enjoy pain. Get it? They -enjoy- pain. Therefore pain isn't suffering necessarily.

Regardless, one can simply imagine a universe without masochism and continue with the thought experiment.

>>1522295
>prove it
Prove what, that these muddled and ill-defined concepts of morality are based on social cohesion and maximizing well-being?

>>1522763
But I have not allowed the logical possibility
again see >>1522322

And here is the original post you replied with to with your irrelevant concept validity shit.
>>1519408

You have failed to prove anything, other than the criteria of goalpost moves. Even if I had allowed the logical possibility (which I didn't, I refuted it) that still isn't proof.

And then you got fwustwated and started calling me nasty names to hurt my feewings like a child. As well as possibly denying simple maths problems.

By that, you lost. :)

Have a nice day and don't be to hard on yourself.

>>1522776
>Regardless, one can simply imagine a universe without masochism and continue with the thought experiment.

Waa, it proves me wrong so get rid of it.

>Therefore pain isn't suffering necessarily.
Then suffering goes in with the synonyms of bad, proving nothing.

>>1522783
see >>1522322

>>1522799

I don't lose anything by your ignorance, my man. Stay stupid.

File: I love being right.jpg (200KB, 500x673px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 500x673px

>>1522826
Back to classic projection and Ad Hominems. For a last jab.

Hope you and your 'no such thing subjectivity' worldview all the best, and you never know, one day you might find some actual proof I'm wrong and I'll have to bow down to your great majesty.

Until then stay mad bro.

>>1517918
That's one skinny polar bear.

File: 117.jpg (21KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 400x400px

>>1522813
>Waa, it proves me wrong so get rid of it.
No, you thinking that masochism is somehow a contradiction here shows that you absolutely did not deal with what was actually discussed. You completely missed the point, and brought something up that is not an objection but an irrelevancy.

By suffering I meant a state where the beings scream and beg for death so their current state ends. That they would do anything in their power to stop their torment and escape the situation they are in. That whatever situation you could put them in that is not THIS situation, it would be preferable. That they would not want to go back to this extreme suffering in any other circumstance they could expirience otherwise, even death or being raped for eternity by scorpionbaboons that have the faces of their parents.

How in the fuck did you not get that this was meant by "worst possible suffering"? How could you possibly think masochism gets you somehow out of that? This is not about simply inflicting physical pain. Its about the state of mind that normal humans move towards on the expirience-spectrum if subjected to horrible pain, yes, but not just pain. Obviously.
Now, I hope this is clear. If you think that masochism is in any way relevant here, please ask again, I'll try to explain in more detail.

So, again, putting all things that can expirience anything in principle, in a situation where any other situation would be preferable, for eternity. Is this objectively bad?
If not, what would or could be worse?
If that is not bad, what would you call that state?
If someone said "well this is not the worst thing, there is something worse", what in the fuck could they be talking about that would make any sense?

>>1517930
nice assertions, but still no proof

>its so cuz i said so