Is morality objective or subjective?

File: C.S. Lewis.jpg (33KB, 650x488px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 650x488px

Objective.

https://www.youtube.com/user/CSLewisDoodle/videos

Everybody seems to agree on what good and bad is, for the most part.
So I think it's mostly objective.

>>2394638
What's the difference between killing and war?

Subjective.

I came to that conclusion by observing that every moral system eventually comes down to "because I said so" when you play the why game long enough. Each value system ultimately has to place a good (or goods) as the focal point from which the rest can spring from, but they're all ultimately just pinning things down in a void.

>>2394649
If everyone started to change their mind on this and the group-thought was now different, how could it have ever been objective? At what point do enough subjective opinions tip the scale and qualify it as objective truth?

>>2394648
He has a lot of videos. Was there one in particular that was relevant?

>>2394689
So if they are subjective, then do they even mean anything, can they even be considered morals? If one person views murder as moral, how can you disagree with that? This eliminates any sense of "right" or "wrong" and leaves you only with "I dislike this, personally".

>>2394638
>The Metaphysics of Morals

there is both really...objective morals determined by logical conclusion and subjective morality imposed by society

On a superficial level, it is relative/subjective.

When you get to the deeper aspects of morality, it becomes objective as Lewis pointed out. There is a universal moral law that all humans are aware of.

By saying "that's evil!" or "that's good!" you are by definition comparing it to a moral standard. If morality is completely relative, there is no such thing as good or wrong. Hitler is just as right as Gandhi. This is where nihilistic atheism leads to.

>>2394669
What's the difference between taxation and theft?

>>2394710
this, OP…read Kant.

duty, maxims, categorical imperatives...good stuff

>>2394704
>So if they are subjective, then do they even mean anything, can they even be considered morals?

They're just tools meant to judge the people and world around you. You determine what actions and persons are acceptable for your environment.

>If one person views murder as moral, how can you disagree with that?

My own self interest in not wanting a society that condones murder coupled with collective might to enforce it.

>This eliminates any sense of "right" or "wrong" and leaves you only with "I dislike this, personally".

This ultimately achieves my aims so the difference doesn't actually matter.

>>2394752
Recommendations on where to start with Kant?

>>2394752
Kant never manages to bridge the is/ought gap and provides no reason to value his particular moral system.

>>2394694
Those that talk about morality, excerpts from the book "Mere Christianity".

>>2394733
>Hitler is just as right as Gandhi. This is where nihilistic atheism leads to.

What's the problem with this? It is not in our interests to enforce a world where people like Hitler are given free reign to do as they please, so we ensure that this doesn't happen.

>>2394773
>Those that talk about morality
Those being?

>>2394765
Metaphysics of Morals

>>2394767
How many philosophers truly bridge the is/ought? Simply applying some of Kant's maxims brings the ought into is.

>why/how you do something is just as important as what you do.
volunteering at a soup kitchen so your friends think you're a good person is wrong. Doing it to help people is good.

>>2394815
>volunteering at a soup kitchen so your friends think you're a good person is wrong. Doing it to help people is good.

If the end point is others are helped, is it really wrong due to your intent only? The positive outcome of others being fed isn't altered.

>>2394638
Subjective because of what >>2394689
said.

>>2394704
>This eliminates any sense of "right" or "wrong" and leaves you only with "I dislike this, personally".

That's what morality is, except it's not just 1 person, but an entire group of people against a minority.

>>2394733
>Hitler is just as right as Gandhi.

And he is, you just disagree with him, alongside most other people, therefore he is evil, but he could be good. It just so happened that he lost the war, and he didn't got to make his morality the right one.


Ultimately that's how you decide what is right and what is wrong...You impose your ideas. That's the only true definition of morality: What the current most powerful group of people think is right and is wrong.

The only reason things like "don't kill" and "don't steal" are (almost) universally agreed to be bad, is because if we accept them in society, we are putting ourselves at risk, while not gaining a lot from it, so it's not logical from our own egocentric perspective to do so.

>>2394842
not necessarily. Kant outlines more of it.

there are several acts that vary in morality.
1. Acts that go against duty and our desire
2. Acts that go against duty but appease our desire
3. Acts that affirm duty and our desire
4. Acts that affirm duty but not our desires

1 and 2 are immoral because they do not conformm to Kant's "duty"

3 and 4 are both moral, but 4 is more admirable or whatever word he used...its been a while.

>>2394815
>How many philosophers truly bridge the is/ought?

None that I know of, ergo they aren't able to provide an objective basis to morality.

>Simply applying some of Kant's maxims brings the ought into is.

Which is fine, but you're still just using morality to create the world you want, not enforcing an objective good. The good is good because it's helpful and preferable to you, not because it is good.

>>2394794
>On Sexual Morality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBp8M8M4DMs

>Proving an absolute Morality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_VYCqCexow

>Right & Wrong, A Clue to the Meaning of the Universe
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QmHXYhpEDfM

>The Reality of the Moral Law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqsAzlFS91A

>What Lies Behind the Moral Law
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kcRFYGr1zcg

>The Poison of Subjectivism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs

>Bulverism
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DH53uFBOGbw

>The Necessity of Chivalry
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GBT9LasyC3E

>The Three Parts of Morality
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtTeCyrgjIQ

All actions which are physically possible are equally valid actions. No human action or thought is more or less valid than any other.

>>2394892
So what is an objective good?

>>2394896
Nothing, because good is a subjective value judgment.

>>2394896
see
>>2394893

If you're using morality as a means instead of an end, it's an illusion and not real morality.

Relativists like
>>2394871
>>2394689
>>2394902
Don't really believe in morality. They simply use "morality" as a tool (pic related) to enforce their own beliefs on others.

OP is asking whether there is ABSOLUTE, DIVINE, OBJECTIVE morality. And there is.

File: Moral Relativism.jpg (31KB, 430x504px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 430x504px

>>2394906

>>2394689
>>2394871

so murder is wrong only because someone with "authority" says so?

Ending a sentient life is not objectively wrong?

File: IMG_0094.png (317KB, 1000x944px) Image search: [Google]

317KB, 1000x944px

The Constitution says — “Congress shall have power to declare war...” I agree to this. I endorse it. I swear to help carry it through... What then, am I less a Christian? Is not war a Christian service? Is it not perfectly Christian to murder hundreds of thousands of fellow human beings; to ravish defenseless females, sack and burn cities, and enact all the other cruelties of war? Out upon these new-fangled scruples! is is the very way to forgive injuries, and love our enemies! If we only do it all in true love, nothing can be more Christian than wholesale murder!

In another pamphlet, under the title, How Many Does It Take? he says, “How many does it take to metamorphose wickedness into righteousness? One man must not kill. If he does it is murder. Two, ten, one hundred men, acting on their own responsibility, must not kill. If they do, it is still murder. But a state or nation may kill as many as they please, and it is no murder. It is just, necessary, commendable, and right. Only get people enough to agree to it, and the butchery of myriads of human beings is perfectly innocent. But how many does it take? is is the question. Just so with the , robbery, burglary, and all other crimes... But a whole nation can commit it... But how many does it take?” Why must one, ten, one hundred men not violate God’s law, while very many may?
https://theanarchistlibrary.org/library/leo-tolstoy-the-kingdom-of-god-is-within-you.pdf

OP, seriously don't bother with C.S. Lewis. He's not a philosopher, just an apologist and nothing he says will hold up to philosophical scrutiny. Kant is a good suggestion, as are Plato and Aristotle for starting points. If you'd like something from a more egoistic angle, try Spinoza. The work to go with for Spinoza is Ethics, as for Plato I'd start with Apology and Symposium, then move on to the Republic. The Nicomachean Ethics is the big work of Aristotle, but I'm not widely versed in his work.

On the other side of the coin, I'd actually recommend Max Stirner's The Ego and Its Own, and Friedrich Nietzsche's The Gay Science.

>>2394925
>he's wrong cuz i said so
Not an argument.

>>2394925
>t. butthurt atheist angry that Lewis debunked Stirner/Nietzsche

>>2394906
>Don't really believe in morality. They simply use "morality" as a tool (pic related) to enforce their own beliefs on others.

Actually I use it as a tool to create a society conducive to my existence and the existence of the people I love. But that set aside, morality is just an idea created by man, and ideas are tools to serve man, not idols to be served.

>And there is.
>do you have a single fact to back that up.jpg

>>2394914
>Ending a sentient life is not objectively wrong?

No. Every society has countless exceptions where they consider it entirely reasonable to end sentient lives. Execution, warfare, and mercy killing come to mind.

>>2394906
>And there is.

But what is an example of this? I am looking through the videos, but a brief answer that can be summarized in text would be appreciated.

>>2394932
>>2394934
No. His works are only convincing if you already agree with him, but they flat out don't stand up to formal logic.

>>2394947
>No. Every society has countless exceptions where they consider it entirely reasonable to end sentient lives. Execution, warfare, and mercy killing come to mind.
Is it wrong to kill someone you know is guilty even though a jury found them innocent?

>>2394947
>"do you have a single fact to back that up"
>what are all the links posted in this thread

>>2394923
Isn't killing wrong, unless it is in self-defense? I am not sure if you can really, honestly, define war as self-defense, but maybe.
But then, why is killing in self-defense any less "wrong" than killing in general?

>>2394952
No, but society will still see to it that someone who does so is punished to ensure that rule of law is maintained.

>>2394953
Lewis' apologetics don't count. Make some actual philosophical arguments or bring up some actual philosophers.

Atheists don't believe in morality.
Rape, murder and torture is OK to them.

If you say you don't like those things, that means you believe in morality. But wait! You just said that morality is subjective? So you are admitting that your disgust of rape/murder is just an illusion and no different from what a serial killer's opinion on the issue.

If you don't believe in objective morality, you don't think there is anything inherently wrong with raping a little girl and cutting her throat with a blunt knife.

>>2394892
refer to #4 in
>>2394889

doing a good act because it is good and not because it is in your best interest shows a lack of bias and is the most admirable/moral act.

ex: Not lying even if you want to spare yourself punishment/criticism.

lying is not subjectively wrong because we want people to tell us the truth, Kant makes it a categorical imperative

ie: a world in which all people lie cannot function, therefore lying is not good/inline with duty

>>2394964
>if i dont like it, it doesnt count

How about you come up with an actual argument and try to refute him?

If he's wrong, you should easily be able to do that.

>>2394964
>No, but society will still see to it that someone who does so is punished to ensure that rule of law is maintained.
What right does one person have to take another person's life based on opinions?

i remember when i was an edgy 15 year old moral relativist, but then i grew up

>>2394969
We can only ever according to our own desires. If you at according to duty, is because on a certain level that you wanted to and believed the outcome of it preferable to the alternative. This is the fundamental failing of Kant; he assumes that there is some sort of impulse that drives us that is somehow separate from our desires. No matter what you do, you do it because you chose to do it. So the notion of "duty" doesn't hold up to scrutiny.

>>2394971
He never brings up a convincing argument for us either being aware of natural law or natural law existing in the first place. Seriously, there are better thinkers to go with here. Cicero makes a better case for Natural Law, as does Aquinas. You just look foolish and ill-educated by using Lewis.

>>2394972
Collective might. It's what holds society together, and it's what we use to preserve our way of life. This is true of even the most benevolent society.

>>2394947
>each society has countless exceptions

You're using subjective morality to deny objective morality
>actualwtf.jpg
Having consentual sex with a sexually mature human of the opposite sex is not objectively immoral, but society has said the partners must meet certain age parameters to be "moral"

So killing someone, even if the law of society makes it justifiable, does not make it moral

>>2394978
I've seen this stereotype bandied around continually, but it's never held up to my own experiences. The teenagers that consider themselves philosophical enough to seriously think about the subject of morality tend to be some sort of extreme moral realist with really black and white views.

File: IMG_0777.jpg (798KB, 2000x1515px) Image search: [Google]

798KB, 2000x1515px

>>2395006
>Collective might. It's what holds society together, and it's what we use to preserve our way of life.

>>2395012
There was never provided a good reason to believe it's objectively wrong.

Hell in A LOT of cultures around the world and ages have had some sort of ritual killing that was morally right according to their own civilization.
Mayans, Aztecs, Incas did ritual sacrifices, Chinese and Japanese placed honor above life, so you have rituals like sepuku or harakiri.
Hell, some niggers in Africa raised and ATE humans in masse just because they where different (pygmies), yeah morality is not objective.

>>2394972
The right given to him by the people who dictate also morality.

>>2395031
>The right given to him by the people who dictate also morality
Morality isn't dictated.

>>2395020
Moral relativists are pseudo-intellectuals. They think they have figured it all out when they don't understand the arguments for an absolute biblical morality.

It's a phase, just as atheism is a phase.

Funny how you stop being a moral relativist when a thief steals your money or someone rapes your wife.

>>2395036
Prove it.

>>2395039
>Funny how you stop being a moral relativist when a thief steals your money or someone rapes your wife.

But I don't. It's not in my self interest to condone either of these things. I just don't think it's universal moral law.

>>2395041
Just doing what your told makes you a robot, not moral, because that requires differentiating between good and evil. In that case you better have a good god.

>>2395052
So you actually have no real enmity with the thief, rapist or murderer.

Remember, the thief has a different opinion on morality and you believe that morality is completely relative. So the thief is just as right as you are.

>>2394638
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/02/12/us/baby-lab-morals-ac360/

>>2394648
/thread

>>2395031
Could you not argue that those people are morally wrong? To have an objective morality, does that mean all people have to behave "correctly"? A single failure can negate it?

>>2395030
using Kant's categorical imperative, a world where everyone killed people for whatever reason does not work.

the fact tht every civilization has made murder a punishable crime (even if said punishmennt is death) means tht it is universally recognizable as immoral. As for the exceptions, those are the true examples of using subjective morality to create a world that is beneficial to us.
>allowing police to kill in the line of duty
>allowing soldiers to kill to help gov'ts achieve their goals without riskng their own lives
>allowing killing in self defense.

Now, what's your defense as to why killing is ok? Because fallible humans said so?

>>2395075
>So you actually have no real enmity with the thief, rapist or murderer.

Define real. I'm really mad at them, and would like to see them punished for their crime.

>So the thief is just as right as you are.

In a universal sense. But in a more temporal sense, he doesn't have the might to see his ideals become reality.

Believe me, this isn't a phase, I've considered this fully and its ramifications.

>>2395091
>using Kant's categorical imperative, a world where everyone killed people for whatever reason does not work.

But not everyone does kill nor will everyone kill, so his categorical imperative doesn't bear consideration. It's morality for autists.

>the fact tht every civilization has made murder a punishable crime (even if said punishmennt is death) means tht it is universally recognizable as immoral.

But that's not the case, as evidenced by the exceptions.

>As for the exceptions, those are the true examples of using subjective morality to create a world that is beneficial to us.

Which is the only morality that is.

>Now, what's your defense as to why killing is ok? Because fallible humans said so?

Your argument against is that a fallible human said otherwise.

>>2395094
>would like to see them punished for their crime.

How can you punish them for a crime that doesn't exist? In their eyes, they committed no crime. In your eyes, they did. Why is it "wrong" enough to necessitate a punishment?

>>2395111
>How can you punish them for a crime that doesn't exist?

A law was enacted against it and they violated it.

>Why is it "wrong" enough to necessitate a punishment?

Because it is in my interests and the collective interests of society to see that they are punished for it.

>>2394638

Objective

Only degenerate will state that it is subjective

>>2395132
I think therefor I AM

Has there ever been a civilization or culture that thinks running away from battle is heroic?

Has there ever been a civilization or culture thinks cowardice is a good virtue?

No, so moral relativity is incorrect. Mankind shares moral laws more than you might think. The statement of "morals are just subjective" is itself a statement of fact, something objective. The statement is a logical paradox.

The only thing relative is on the surface level. There is a universal standard and people have different opinions on how to achieve that standard. But there is a universal sense of disgust when a Mexican cartel tortures people or when IS beheads an innocent woman.

Why do atheists deny a deep-rooted conscience?
If their worldview of random chance evolution and purposeless, senseless life is true, the world would be a much more chaotic and anarchist place. Instead we find the opposite.

"They show that the work of the law is written on their hearts, while their conscience also bears witness, and their conflicting thoughts accuse or even excuse them" - Romans 2:15

"To the pure, all things are pure, but to the defiled and unbelieving, nothing is pure; but both their minds and their consciences are defiled." - Titus 1:15

Only low IQ people believe in objective morality.

One would have to look back to our ancestors, and the earliest humans to find an answer to this question. Obviously certain moral standards are subjective and change from culture to culture. So it leads me to the question:

>Is there a certain set of basic, inborn morals that all humans share?
>If so, what are these basic morals?

For example, do all mentally sound humans agree that it's wrong to kill someone with no valid reason? The term "valid" being subjective, of course. We don't have an inherent drive to kill, and only do so if we feel necessary, but when we do kill, we feel guilty.

Only low IQ retards believe in subjective morality.

If you don't believe in divine truth, I guess you have no problem with me fucking your wife.

>>2395157
>Has there ever been a civilization or culture that thinks running away from battle is heroic?

Draft dodging, being anti-war, refusing to fight/engage in violence?

>Has there ever been a civilization or culture thinks cowardice is a good virtue?
Similar to the above; passivity and reluctance to engage in violence/aggression, valuing self-preservation.

>But there is a universal sense of disgust when a Mexican cartel tortures people
Is the cartel member not repulsed?

>>2395125

but not all laws are good laws.

we have a sex offender registry that includes streakers and public urinators and harmless child porn possessors. but no public registry for murderers, assaulters, drug dealers, domestic abusers etc.

File: oWo.jpg (8KB, 250x247px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 250x247px

>>2394906
I don't use it as a tool for anything, i'm just stating a fact. What is wrong and what is right is defined only by power, I hate using the "i'm just stating a fact" thing but you can't deny that this views have changed and warped over time, and if they do, how could they be objective?.

And I am religious, but even believing in god, his word on what is right and what is wrong isn't more valid than anyone else's, he's just another figure of authority, and even having the knowledge of all of existence couldn't give you a real answer as to what is right and wrong.

>>2394914
Not someone with authority necessarily, a group of people, anyone that is capable of enforcing it.

And not really...I mean, I don't like it, I don't think it's right, but the only argument I have against is "I don't like it" and "most other people don't seem to like it either".

>>2395020
I'm not a teenager, I used to believe in black and white, but I can't really anymore, i'm not sure if you are defending that, but if you are, by all means I'd like to hear a good argument for it.

>>2395039
If someone comes and punches me in the face, I think that what they did is wrong, but they don't. For me they are bad people, but from their perspective, they aren't. What I feel is no more correct than what they feel, and the only thing making my feels be validated is whether I have people that sympathize with me, if nobody does, and on the contrary, people sympathize with that other guy, and they rule it that he is right, then he is, who is there to say otherwise?

>>2395090
You could, but then what if they argue that you are morally wrong for not doing so?

>>2395091
You already got a better response than mine, but I'd like to add that not everyone thinks that the greater goal is to achieve a functional society...In fact from my experience, most people don't seem to give a fuck, they put their own interest way before that. So it's not an accurate measurement, as it's also based on morality.

>>2395162
>For example, do all mentally sound humans agree that it's wrong to kill someone with no valid reason? The term "valid" being subjective, of course. We don't have an inherent drive to kill, and only do so if we feel necessary, but when we do kill, we feel guilty.

Even animals seem to adhere to this. It is uncommon for animals to become bloodthirsty killers that go on slaughtering rampages, without some sort of disease.

>>2395179
>You could, but then what if they argue that you are morally wrong for not doing so?

Then aren't they adhering to the idea that a moral is objective, because you've violated it? If they accepted it as subjective only, wouldn't the offender never be seen as "morally wrong" because, if they are subjective, they are acting in accordance to the only morals they are capable of having; their own subjective ones?

ITT:
>moral relativists make the universal claim that there are no universal truths

OP you should check out C.S Lewis, he answers your question and elaborates on why morality is objective.

People like Stirner, Nietzsche or Kant are shit tier that only pseudo-intellectual atheists bring up.

>>2395183
Mammals are nurturing by nature, evolution selected compassion over lizards.

>>2395174
Indeed, I never claimed all laws are good laws. It's in our collective interests to try and change laws to our betterment.

>>2395194
Well, i'm not proposing a situation where a group of people that believe in subjective morals go against a group of objectivists, in this case, it would be 2 groups of people who believe their views are objective.

File: myth.jpg (23KB, 300x237px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 300x237px

>>2395203
>evolution

2/10 for making me reply

>>2395183
Yes, but that's explainable from a completely egoistic angle.

>>2395207
Then God created man and placed him over the snake.

>>2395203
Even reptiles do not just mindlessly kill, though. Birds are also a middle ground, and they don't do this either. They seem to follow set standards for behavior relating to killing out of necessity for self-defense, territory (livelihood), and food. They don't seem to typically engage in senseless bloodbath type killing.

>>2395197
I'm not saying that there are no universal truths, i'm saying that morality isn't one of them.

>>2395179
>I'm not a teenager, I used to believe in black and white, but I can't really anymore, i'm not sure if you are defending that, but if you are, by all means I'd like to hear a good argument for it.

I'm not. When I was a teenager my morality was very black and white, and in my experience most teenagers that consider themselves to possess a strong philosophy also tend to be hardline moral realists. The gray areas that come with moral relativism and moral nihilism don't seem to work well with their psychology.

>>2395206
So then can the person claiming morality is ONLY subjective, remain true to that, if they will shift to claiming their view is the objective truth?

>>2395197
Actually, I only made the claim that no moral system seems to stand up to extended scrutiny and that the conclusion to be derived from this is that they're baseless.

>>2395211
Explain?

>>2395199
whats wrong with Kant? Just because he doesnt name god as the ultimate motivation for morality does not mean his work doesnt coincide with christia morality or aa a belief in god

>>2394638
Relative, westerners might have a problem with eating dogs and cats but there are other grouips that have no such qualms. It all comes down to muh feels.

>>2395236
Attacking a non hostile organism expends energy, and exposes you to risk of injury, which makes it less likely the attacking organism can feed themselves or reproduce. It's worth noting that among animals, violence between members of their own kind is still fairly common, even if they don't go on killing rampages, as they often fight to scare away or eliminate competition.

>>2395241
Kant uses the "better for society" argument which is basic entry level tier atheist apologetics.

>>2395221
see >>2395211

And even if it wasn't the case, can we really take that as proof of a universally wrong or right thing? In that case we would still be basing that assumption off another completely arbitrary pillar, this time being "it's nature's way, therefore it's the correct way".

Which is the stance that I used to take.

>>2395231
Nobody can be fully unbias I imagine, everyone ultimately believes that something is right or wrong, I will take a stand if I have tho, but I will remain fully aware that I do so with no greater authority than the people going against me.

>>2395199
>disregard actual philosophers and listen to a shit-tier apologist who exercises no philosophical rigor

Shameful.

>>2395221
>Even reptiles do not just mindlessly kill, though
That depends on your definition of mindless, where do you draw the line on sentience and consciousness?

>>2395258
In fact I like to touch on that of the arbitrary pillar because it's also what I think of any religious moral system.

I believe in a god, in the christian god in particular, and I obey his word, out of my own free will, but I do not believe that his word on what is right and wrong is objective either, because it's the same situation as with the animals.

"This is right because god says so"
"God's word is the true word because he created the world"

Which is similar to saying "in my house it is ok to kill because I say so and I created it". You might give god the authority to decide what is right and wrong because he created everything, but his decisions STILL don't hold any real validation, they are still purely subjective even if you heard them straight from god's mouth.

>>2395272
Needlessly.

>>2395301
That's because it isn't in the realm of hard physical sciences.

>>2395295
If you accept him as the source of all things and in a sense, the entire universe, then isn't he the objective truth, by nature of BEING it?

>>2395313
I think the most comparable thing I can think of is:
Someone draws a picture of a hippo.
You don't recognize it as a hippo. That doesn't erase that it was created as a hippo, and no amount of arguing that it's not a hippo can change the fact that it's creator made it to be a hippo. If someone sees it as a horse, that person is wrong, because it's not a horse. The only person who can say what it is is the person who created it, because all else is just an interpretation of it.

>>2395334
The creator having the right to determine what it is entirely arbitrary.

>>2395313
>>2395334
Yeah, like >>2395340 says.

The example can work the other way around, what if someone draws what is clearly a horse, but claims it's a hippo?

It's not exactly the same because here we are assuming that the drawing is in fact something other than a hippo, but you get the point.

>>2395340
Telling me this without providing me an explanation as for why is worthless. Please explain your point?

>>2395362
Then you see a horse in your own interpretation, but the creation is a hippo. The creator of it never made a horse, only something that was recognized as a horse.

This goes to creating something that has never existed before though. So they draw some creature that no one has ever seen. No one can even comprehend it in any way. The creator says "this is a hippo" but you have no concept of a hippo; you cannot recognize it as a hippo, so you believe it to be a horse.

>>2395364
There's no clear objective reason that a creator gets to determine what a thing is. He has his opinion, but there's no objective standard that says his opinion is any more correct than anyone else's; it's not as though it goes down in a cosmic ledger that his drawing is indeed a hippo.

>>2395383
What is it when everyone reasons together and reaches a conclusion? Who creates that opinion?

>>2395383
So then how do you reason that he's the creator of some thing?
How do you reason what any thing is?

>>2395391
That never actually occurs. When you have two people holding the same conclusion, they're actually holding subtly different conclusions that are altered by their own internal experiences and frames of reference.

>>2395383
If a mother has a child, is that child not her offspring, because someone else says that it isn't, because it does not resemble her, but someone else who they insist is the real mother?

>>2395411
>So then how do you reason that he's the creator of some thing?

The fact he put pen to paper.

>How do you reason what any thing is?

Guesswork and opinion. If he says it's a hippo and I find that agreeable, I'll go with it.

>>2395374
Then I can chose to accept what the author has said, or follow my own gut feeling.

What if the creator never tells me what it is and I just stumble upon it? The problem is that i'm still basing the assumption off the authority that i'm giving the author. Simply because he is the author. An authority that I can also chose not to give him.

In a more mundane example, George Lucas made the Star Wars prequels, but nobody liked them, so Disney decided to pretend they didn't existed, and people pretend they don't exists, even tho the author's will is that they exists, the way they are, and are part of that world.

>>2395424
We can safely assume that the mother is the mother of the child, by basis of the fact she created it. However, the mother, by virtue of creating the child, does not have any basis for dictating what the child should properly be.

>>2395440
She dictates that it is her child, although it does not resemble her. People insist that due to it not looking like the child of its mother, it cannot be the child of its mother, although by virtue of having created it, this has to be true.
By virtue of having made a drawing with the image of a hippo in mind, it is the creator's drawing of a hippo. If it doesn't resemble a hippo to someone else, that doesn't erase that it is the creator's drawing of a hippo.

>>2395454
The difference between these scenarios is that the mother could actually prove that it's her child via genetic information. Further, this is also different in that the act of reproduction, by definition, creates a child and she knows she engaged in both the necessary sex and birth for the child.

The creator of the drawing however has no means to prove that his drawing is that of a hippo and the act of drawing however does not by definition create hippos exclusively.

>>2395439
>What if the creator never tells me what it is and I just stumble upon it?

Then you don't know the truth of what it is. You know only what you think it to be, but this doesn't erase the objective truth of it being a drawing of a hippo.

I do not follow your Star Wars example though. People pretending they don't exist doesn't erase them from existence. They still exist as Star Wars, the same way the drawing of a hippo exists. You even use the language "pretending" which means denying reality.

>>2395391
A concession, most likely. You could get a bunch of like-minded people in a room and have them come to an agreement, by compromising.

But I don't think you could do that with all of humanity.

>>2395424
You can assume the child is hers because it came out of her, but she did not dictate this, if she dictated that it was not her child, the child would still be hers.

It is a fact that the person made the drawing, but what the drawing actually turned out to be isn't dictated by the person who drew it, not unless everyone agrees that they do. Because if someone saw that drawing, and tough it was a horse, and there was nobody else there to tell them otherwise, then how could that drawing possibly be a hippo?

If someone can actually come here and question something, and you can't prove him otherwise, you can't really say something is objective, can you?

>>2395470
But this just comes down to, then, whether or not you can prove that God created everything, not an issue with respecting him as an authority the same as any other human (who did not create everything, but only interprets everything given to him).

>>2395481
>if she dictated that it was not her child

But she knows this to be true, by virtue of having created it. To say otherwise would be lying on her part.

>and there was nobody else there to tell them otherwise, then how could that drawing possibly be a hippo?

They would not know the truth from having never met the creator of it, but that doesn't erase that the creator made it and saw it.

>>2395483
And we're back to square one. You've been focusing on proving that he created everything, what we've been focusing on is whether the act of creation is sufficient to dictate the nature and teleology of a thing. This is why I initially chose to skip the nature of whether it was her child or not (as this question is completely irrelevant, I was hoping you would realize that on your own) but instead went to whether she has any basis for dictating what the child should properly be.

>>2395497
What is the nature of the thing, if not what it actually is? What does "properly be" mean in this sense?

>>2395496
This is why I do not deny that objective facts exists.

But in this case, there is proof, and that proof remains truth regardless of what anyone says, it was a thing that happened.

But if your only proof of something is "this person says so" then you are not really proving anything, because one person's word is just as good as the other's.

>>2395515
Well, there is no proper nature to anything, which is the point we're (well, at least I am, I'm not sure about the other guy, but I think he's on the same page) getting at. The creator dictating it is just as baseless as any other standard. Even the opinion of an all-powerful god is just another opinion.

>>2395496
>>2395517

Or in other words.

What is the unmovable, true event, that defines an image as being a hippo, and not a dragon or a horse?

If the person that painted it sees a hippo, but everyone else sees something different, then what is the truth, and why is the author's word the final word?

If I actually painted a horse, and said it was a hippo, or if I painted a mass of nothing and said it was a horse, would that make it truth?

>>2395539
I missed emphasizing/stressing where I said earlier that a hippo had never existed previously.

If you painted "a mass of nothing" and said it was a horsealooza, which doesn't exist, because this was what you intended to create, but you've just created it, how could someone say otherwise? They have no concept of what a horsalooza is. How can they say that it isn't something that they have no concept of existing?

Neither, I did a proof of this some time ago. No matter what position you take you arrive at a contradiction.

>>2395614
Is it not reasonable to say there are both objective AND subjective morals? Some things that are objective, and others that are subjective?

>>2394967
>So you are admitting that your disgust of rape/murder is just an illusion
Empathy isn't an illusion.

>>2395576
I feel like if we keep going you'll have me question truth as a whole.

But let's keep going anyway. I think the first you'll do in that case would be to try and create a concept of what a horsecock5000 is. You would have to make up an approximate description, which would be general. Just like with any other animal, and give it an arbitrary name, so you can refer to it and have other people understand what it means.

Because ultimately, a hippo is a hippo, but it might be called a hipopotamo, or it might be called a horse. Tho now we are getting into a more semantics related problem.

And the example has turned convoluted because we are comparing an abstract concept to something physical, which is only a representation of something else.


This is going to be "let's keep asking "why?"" until there is no more answers.

If you just look at the definition of morality, it's obvious that it's objective. People only say things are subjective because they ignore the rigid definitions of words, and without rigid definitions, language is useless.

>>2395638
My general idea was based on someone saying they can't respect "someone else's opinion, just cus they're God they don't have any authority". But in this scenario they have no other information available, if we are operating under the belief that God created everything/is the universe/etc. So it comes down to someone else taking the first form of something and deciding it should be something else, but if God has created all things, then you cannot create anything that wasn't already first created by God. You can't say a horsecock5000 is a horsecock9000, when God made both of them already, and there are already rules defining what each horsecock is. (Or can you?)

My issue wasn't proving God exists, but operating under the rule that he does exist, and what that means.

>>2395666
The first half of the 20t century called, it wants its failed philosophical project back. Language can't be rigidly defined. It's defined by context and cultural boundaries.

>>2395666
>without rigid definitions, language is useless
Objectively?

>>2395666
So how do you define morality, Satan?

>>2395686
Principles concerned with predicting which actions produce an inevitable something, or a futile nothing.

>>2395717
What would you say to the billions of people who would not define morality (or their languages equivalent) in this way?
What makes this definition better than theirs?

>>2395730
There are no other definitions. There are only less clear ways of stating this one.

File: 1427608239377.jpg (80KB, 365x720px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 365x720px

>>2394649
>mostly objective
this is why this board needs humanities.

>>2395740
But a definition that says nothing at all is useless.
What is "something" and "nothing" supposed to mean here and how do they relate to actions? There is no action, not even inaction, that leads to nothing if you were to use the commonly accepted definitions of the terms.

>>2395767
what did he mean by this

>>2395820
Any action with the intent of returning reality to a previous state is futile and any action with the intent of advancing reality to a new state is inevitable. The challenge of developing morality comes from the perception of actions shifting depending on the scope at which they are viewed from.

>>2394638
Morality is cute dogs.

>>2395674
I kinda want to abandon the metaphor for a second.

I'm not an expert philosopher, and as much as I'd like to be able to properly answer your question, I find it hard in my mind to correlate physical concepts with abstract ones to come up with a clever way of doing so.

God can tell me that this hard thing in front of me is called a wall, and I can accept that it's called a wall, it ultimately doesn't matter what it's called, or what I think of it, because if I walk towards it, it will stop me regardless of what I think. But this doesn't necessarily apply to non-physical concepts. And this also doesn't apply to a representation of a wall on paper, because that is not, actually, the thing it represents, it's just that, a representation.

So I guess i'm taking a bit of a materialist or whatever perception on the matter now, which I don't wanna do because you can prove something without it needing to be physical, but what I wanna know, is what would make god's word on what is wrong and what is right, the objective version, if you strip away the authority he is given by people? What would make him different than other rulers?

Isn't the very point of morality its objectivity?

>>2394648
The first post got it.

Why is this thread still going?

All moral statements are ultimately just predictions about the future, and are thus objective. It's just that some of those predictions are things like "if we don't do thing, our world will collapse and eventually people will arise again somewhere else sometime in the future, and only those that do thing will avoid collapse."

File: puppies.jpg (6KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

6KB, 259x194px

Morality is objective for a given frame of reference. For a fixed context, morality is clearly defined.

What this means is that morality is a set of rules that must be stored somewhere, because all the people share it in common (although some choose to ignore them).

Most religions and civil codes share common laws (do not kill, do not steal, etc) because the frame of reference of a human society is well delimited and thus common moral laws are derived from it.

File: 1487287693627.jpg (129KB, 600x719px) Image search: [Google]

129KB, 600x719px

>a bunch of carnivorous and warlike apes on an Armenian birdsong database debating whether their specific societal standards of morality are subjective or not

Really tickles my synapses

>>2394704
>If one person views murder as moral, how can you disagree with that?
With words and actions.

>This eliminates any sense of "right" or "wrong" and leaves you only with "I dislike this, personally".
And when you scale that up to the societal level, you get exactly what you already have now.

People usually recognize evil, even if they are reluctant to recognize good. Some might look at an apparently heroic action and imagine a selfish motive behind it--the desire for fame, or praise, or monetary reward. Few people, however, will hesitate to call evil by its name. Yet, once they have done so, they have placed themselves in a bind. They have bound themselves by law. Because evil is possible only as the perversion of something good, the opposite of something good, the denial of something good. Once people acknowledged a transcendent standard of good, they themselves have placed the world under a law.

They can't escape the bind by saying that law exists, but merely as a utilitarian stopgap, to ensure the safety of the greatest number of people either. For even then they are invoking transcendent standards: the notion, for example, that the greater good: or that anyone should be concerned with another person's safety. Utilitarianism cannot suffice to prevent murder or theft, because some individuals sometimes find these actions quite useful. Yet they are actions universally condemned, by civil law and common morals. Such condemnations are among the moral truths that human beings naturally know. -These norms witness something that philosophers describe as "natural law."

>>2396180
Oh don't give me that shit, people claim selfish and brutal acts are evil, then they spend all day not committing them, not caring when they are done or supporting them. People of all philosophies and ideology will justify evil acts against groups they don't like.

There is no good or evil, it's all subjective.

>>2396219

I have no idea what you're trying to say.

>>2396219
>it's all subjective
Like pain?

>>2396180
>all day committing them

>>2396227
That people don't actually recognize evil when they rationalize it. They don't see it as such.

>>2396229
No, even more subjective than that.

>>2394638
>ctrl + f "spook"
Really /his/?