Thread replies: 9
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1
File: karajan06.jpg (147KB, 640x495px) Image search:
[Google]
147KB, 640x495px
Morality is inherently subjective, to find objective moral standards would be a milestone in epistemology.
However, under the umbrella of utilitarianism (a subjectively valid understanding of morality) one can indeed find moral truths.
Utilitarianism deals with suffering and well-being, again two very vague and subjective experiences, however one could generally describe "suffering" as the state of mind in which one doesn't want to find oneself in without expecting greater rewards for their well-being in exchange later on.
According to this description (again, rather vague and subjective), one can propose that a world in which every sentient being was to suffer excruciating torture and pain in a real-world scenario of Hell, no one would find himself wishing to experience this.
This includes people who derive pleasure from pain, this scenario describes pain in such a manner that no one could sustain the torture without losing their mind.
This also includes people who can zone out real-life pain, such as Buddhist monks who are capable of self-immolation without even flinching.
This proposition suggests that everyone, including the Buddhist and the person who enjoys pain, would experience the first-hand sensation of fierce fire burning every inch of their body without any room for escape or alleviation.
I find it hard to believe that anyone could ever wish this for himself and for that reason this would be one global moral standard once you accept the premises of utilitarianism.
>>
>>1982576
>Morality is inherently subjective
Nice objective claim there, bud :^)
>>
>>1982585
It's objectively correct.
>>
>>1982588
Proof?
>>
I've actually been struggling with moral subjectiveness for a while now. I know I am supposed to give life my own meaning based on empathy, but suppose someone else comes to a different conclusion than me using the same technique of empathy. Which of us is right? Does either he or me have the right to subvert each others opinion? If so, then wouldn't all ideological conflict ever be morally unjust?
>>
Morality is subjective but ours is the best
>>
>>1982601
There are subjective moral truths, you couldn't logically prove that Hitler was incorrect in gassing Jews without adhering to a moral system that is again only subjectively valid.
Ideological conflict is often justified as two opponents might agree to the same basic premises but disagree on how to implement their moral system in the best way possible.
Hitler probably experienced some sort of moral duty when he had millions of people murdered, now there is room for discourse which perhaps would show Hitler that murdering all the Jews in the world won't ultimately solve the problems he was trying to get rid of (I'm saying this without any value judgments, let's not bring /pol/-stuff into this).
So even in that sense a conflict between Jesus Christ and Hitler would be just and sensical, unless either one of them disagrees with a moral premise the other agrees with, such as "We should listen to God." or "The suffering of sentient beings is undesired.".
The latter I think most people agree with, intuitively or logically.
Which to me again makes most ideological conflicts justified.
Unless of course you speak to say an ISIS-fighter who argues that one has to kill non-Muslims because God wishes for this, you cannot persuade him by trying to argue for your system of morality.
I don't think it would be "unjust", it just would be pointless.
Beyond this, there is no logical reason as to why his moral system is worse or better than yours.
You'd simply have to say "agree to disagree", unless your moral system would demand of you to take actions against him.
>>
>>1982646
>Beyond this, there is no logical reason as to why his moral system is worse or better than yours.
>You'd simply have to say "agree to disagree", unless your moral system would demand of you to take actions against him.
Then why even think about morality? If there is no true worthiness in it, and the whole thing is simply decided by force, rhetoric, or personal experience(randomness), then how am I supposed to live in a world where everything is wrong? This is tearing me apart
>>
>>1982733
Because suffering and well-being matter despite this.
You factually don't want to suffer, it's impossible for you to desire true suffering and this is true for everyone else.
You can't develop a holistic system out of this by only applying logic, but there is much more to philosophy than mere logic.
>where everything is wrong?
Nothing is wrong.
Nothing is right either.
Thread posts: 9
Thread images: 1
Thread images: 1