Is morality absolute and objective?

>>2671259
It's absolute but not objective. It's relative to what God decide.

>>2671259
If your answer to this question is "yes", you're an imperialist.

>>2671259
My morals are my own. But they are absolute.

It's objective but not absolute. Read Kant.

>Everyone has different answers

I guess it's relative then. Pretty much what I thought.

>>2671259
Morality is a method for mediating human qualities, which are absolute. Morality can vary, but the components of humanity that it regulates do not.

>>2671665
/thread

>>2671533
>Everyone has different answers
I guess no one knows if the earth isn't round or flat then

>>2671281
isn't the categorical imperative a from of absoluteness?

>>2671262
How does God decide? Does God zap one action, making it moral, and zap another to make it immoral?

That's completely fucking arbitrary! Why would I obey that moral code, except to avoid hell?

File: 1360463683181.jpg (336KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

336KB, 1920x1200px

>>2671259

Neither.

There is no fixed morality.
Morality is not objective, its subjective.
Period.

>>2671665
>For this reason, John Stuart Mill's "Rule Utilitarianism" can easily be declared as the greatest ethical theory ever - period.

Let people act in a way that they deem is moral, letting them do whatever they like, so long as it does not cause harm to another person.

I would strongly suggest you listen to what Mill has said about how to live a more fulfilling life, but it's up to you.

"It's better to be a Socrates dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied."

>>2671280
shut up stirner

>>2671259

I apply a different morality to friends and family than I do to random assholes i don't know

>>2672863
"While they dont cause harm to any other person"

Thats bullshit m9. If I have to kill 1 person that intends to use a nuclear bomb in order to save 1 million people I would be causing harm to that one person but it wouldnt be considered immoral under almost every moral philosophy.

Morality is subjective. Does it mean we dont need it ?. No, we do need it.

The fact that its subjective means every society has to decide which values are important for it and teach it to you when you are a kid so you become something like religious fags that act like god exist when it doesnt, so you act in ways you think are "good" without knowing "good" doesnt even exists. And also punish those who dont adjust to its moral values. You cant send them to jail but you can make everyone else hate that person.

Morality is a super natural concept that some things magically have objective virtue and lack of.

It doesn't exist and is a completely incoherent idea.

>>2672978
>Hur dur but what if one baby kill makes not kill 1 million babies !!!!!!!!!!!!


John Stuart Mill was a social reformer, as was his predecessor Jeremy Bentham. Mill's "harm principle" was meant to be used by a ruling body of government and applied as law to the people; we're talking everyday occurrences, such as prostitution, recreational drug usage, etc. Following the harm principle, these are some of the things that should not be illegal (at least in part).

Using crazy, hypothetical scenarios to find flaws in an ethical theory is largely seen by critics as a just pointless nitpicking, since no one can say when there has been a time when someone had to "kill 1 person that intends to use a nuclear bomb in order to save 1 million".

File: wBPBlln0aZRIP2cOfrHzSpgPmHZAIGJ8BwYpda89IBU.jpg (118KB, 444x767px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 444x767px

>>2671259
Morality is the scope of property on which costs can be imposed that people will retaliate against

E.g. as I write this we all participate in the informational commons - when you advance a pseudoscience like marxism you're polluting the commons with your nonsense and imposing a cost on others to clean up the mess you make.

We evolved intuitions over thousands of years in order to protection against the imposition of costs on our property, and those moral intuitions are different in every group and culture (see Jonathan Haidts work). There's nothing else to morality so stop with these childish arguments

>>2672837
It isn't arbitrary because God=Morality. He will only make things that are morally good morally good i.e. because God is eternally good he will not lead us astray by making is moral commands arbitrary. His word is the litmus test to ethics.


Ergo fuck yourself I won.

>>2672863
>It's better to be a Socrates dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied
Why?

>retards who have no idea what absolute means

>>2672863
>"It's better to be a Socrates dissatisfied, than a pig satisfied."
yes, this is what liberals believe