Posted on Reddit and with no good replies

>>2103659
>reddit

dropped

Morality is a spook.

File: 1476760896129.png (804KB, 816x803px) Image search: [Google]

804KB, 816x803px

>it's a reddit philosopher thread

Still in college?

>>2103671
would rather be in college than in high school tbph.

Rule 1 of 4chan. Don't mention reddit.

The "baseline" of morality has some of the properties of subjectivity.

You can decide the suffering of sapient beings is evil while their happiness is good, another person might decide that happiness is more important than alleviating suffering and someone else vice versa, someone else can say that good and evil is about virtues and someone else might declare liberty to be inherently good. All this looks very subjective.

However beyond this morality has to be logically consistent. You cannot exclude chimpanzees from the definition of sapience knowing that they have large brains similar in many ways to our own. You would have to create a new arbitrary moral like "humans are the only possible sapient beings". In this area morality is objective.

This in turn suggests that the original assertions are more valid and more "subjective" than ones created on a whim leading to a whole other debate.

I can't really answer your questions, but hopefully you can see the difficulties I am encountering.

>>2103659
>So, based on that, why the hell does nobody simple say, "Yes, it's subjective."?
What are you smoking, like whoa nigga it's both I mean come on the will as a self determined entity can be negated as a subjective limitation, but also once the will reflects onto itself the limit is exceeded and thus it becomes objective like seriously man this is like Hegel 101 it applies to all forms of will including morality since morality is the will begin aware of its own freedom.
Dude like, open a book haha.

>>2103659

Depends on what you mean by subjective. Ethical systems are as objective/subjective as math.

You may think that anthropology shows us that there are different ethical systems and that is enough to claim morality is subjective - but there are also different math systems and different systems of logic does that show mathematical and logical systems are subjective?.

You could say yes to both ethics and math- and that's at least consistent. But, that's not really how I think of subjectivity.

>>2103746

Yes, the math systems are all subjective. I have said in other posts that the only distinction I make between science / maths and other parts of philosophy is that science / maths have much more commonly believed axioms and criteria for validity.

I think mentioning God is helpful in the context of objective morality. By objective they mean someone / something g coming in from some meta-universal-logical place to lay down "Objective Morality". Of course this could never happen so it doesn't exist. If God really did come down here I could disagree with him.

>inb4 "objective" in academic philosophy has a very specific meaning that is used to optimise the potential for unfalsifiable masturbation

I know this will happen. You always get people claiming that objective morality exists but if you ask them questions you eventually realise they have some sort of "morality must optimise human happiness / flourishing" criteria that they wanted to hide away. They choose the fucking criterion and then pretend they did it "objectively"!