>"morality is objective" >"for example murder

Because of the "only objective things matter" autism that pervades modern thought.

>>3126492
>"morality is subjective"
>for example murder is FUN lol I am so edgy xD
Why do people on 4chan do this?

>>3126563
Not actually an argument.

>"math is objective"
>"For example 1 plus 1 is obviously 2"
Why do people do this?

>>3126492
murder is only justified in self defense

Like How America invaded Germany in self defense

File: 1499923634297.png (168KB, 671x603px) Image search: [Google]

168KB, 671x603px

>>3126492
It's true though you fucking contrarian.
Murder, rape and theft are all seen as immoral.

Don't misuse Botan for your shitty edgy memes you fuck.

>>3126687
>Murder, rape and theft are all seen as immoral.
By you.

>>3126745
If you don't see them as immoral then you lack morality.
Simple.

It's because people confuse "objective" with "intersubjective." Morality may not be truly objective but there's still a basic set of moral precepts that almost everybody agrees with - everybody you're ever going to run into, anyway. Sure, there are people with truly alien value systems living in tribal backwaters out there, but come the fuck on, you're never going to debate morality with any of them.

People say things like "morality is objective" mostly because it's a good way to shut up the people who bleat "morality is subjective" every time they get called out for doing shitty things. Appealing to subjectivity is a fucking cop-out - it's something people do when the conversation is making them uncomfortable and they want to shut it down.

In the same way, "art is subjective!" is a cop-out that people use almost exclusively when somebody criticizes something they like. This exchange plays out every day in comment threads all across the internet:
>Your favorite movie is shitty.
>Art is subjective!
Again, obviously it's technically true - art really is subjective, there's no platonic ideal of "good art" floating around somewhere in the ether. Still, there's a core set of aesthetic standards that virtually everybody agrees on. While you can't prove that a given movie or whatever is bad OBJECTIVELY, you can demonstrate that it's bad INTERSUBJECTIVELY, which, unless you're sitting in a 400-level philosophy course specifically about subjectivity in art, amounts to the same thing.

>>3126751
Doesn't sound very objective then.

>>3126755
>people who bleat "morality is subjective" every time they get called out for doing shitty things
i don't know a single case of someone who did this. how many mass murdering psychopaths were well-versed in The Ego and Its Own?

I do agree that we should have morality. on a societal level punishing "immoral" acts like murder is in the collective interest of everyone in that society. however, this isn't enough to truly justify morality on an individual level, even once we agree on which things should be punished by the collective. the best outcome for any individual is that everyone around them follows this moral code while they break it in secret. of course with good enough policing you can counter this by making the chances of being caught too high, though in practical terms you can never catch every crime.

>>3126492
Autism. The inability to recognize nuance and shades of grey is a common symptom.

>>3126492
Unironically autism.

>>3126762
no, it's basically like saying

If you cannot see that "For every natural number x, x = x" then you are not rational

>>3126646
only retards think 1+1 is obviously 2

>>3126857
I'm not talking about actual violent criminals, dude. Unless they're philosophy undergrads, when people parrot "morality is subjective", 99% of the time it's in an online debate and not real life - so I'm talking about the kinds of people who go on 4chan, basically. It's not a defense psychopaths use to justify murder, it's a shield people use to avoid taking responsibility for boring old everyday shitty behavior.

>>3126857
>the best outcome

This is subjective.

For many people, the best outcome is a simple life of virtue.

File: 1492214924506.png (280KB, 646x595px) Image search: [Google]

280KB, 646x595px

>technology and mass surveillance making it more and more possible to enforce group morality at all times

This is an issue you really only find among analytics and it basically comes down to the fact that they're proud of not actually knowing anything. It's commonly held that continental philosophy is associated with the social sciences and analytic philosophy is associated with the "hard" sciences but analytic philosophers outside of obvious subsets like philosophy of science basically have zero interaction with science as it actually stands. When they say they're in accordance with natural science what they mean is that they have a fetishistic sort of belief in a kind of "rigor", where as long as your writing is 'clear', 'syntactically valid', etc. it doesn't matter if it's banal, unproductive, or just either ignores or contradicts empirical evidence. It all goes back to G.E. Moore and his dumb shit about his hands.

Which is why you see ridiculous stuff like in the OP. as long as you can form a logically valid argument (p, p>q; tf. q) then you don't have to actually give evidence for your premises because analytics only care about their aesthetic understanding of rigor.

>>3126492
Do you want me to murder you?

>>3127025
No.

>>3126633
no, actually an argument. I have never seen people in reality or in context make the argument 'why is morality contradictory.'

Why do people do it here? It is/was it autism?

>>3127052
This is reality.

>>3127052
Really? Exploring other cultures might help you then, in a non-ironic, literal sense. Or just reading history.

>>3126755
>It's because people confuse "objective" with "intersubjective." Morality may not be truly objective but there's still a basic set of moral precepts that almost everybody agrees with - everybody you're ever going to run into, anyway. Sure, there are people with truly alien value systems living in tribal backwaters out there, but come the fuck on, you're never going to debate morality with any of them.


t. liberal after the fall of positivism

>>3127087
>different cultures and scientists used to believe different stuff about the nature of physics / the law of physics, therefore physics is subjective

good one, anon

>>3127052
Maybe it's because you only associate with brainlets of a like kind.

>>3126755
But I disagree with them.

>>3127072
Offline, then.

Is it because you are concerned about possible repercussions of people who do in fact have morality?

Really makes you think as to why we've got it. Almost like a group collective response desu

>>3127109
>Diversity = strength of argument
Nice false compromise bro

>>3127104
Good argument.
>inb4 poe's law

>>3127117
You could justify executing people for blasphemy in the same manner.

>>3126492
Because they don't know anything about moral philosophy and take things like that for granted?

>>3126909
that's exactly why I'm saying that you're assumption of their motivations is wrong: you have no idea because the only people who say it nowadays do so anonymously.

Our innate sense of morality is derived from evolutionary psychology. It's partially what's good for the species as a whole and what's good for us as individuals. A species that goes around murdering, raping, and stealing will likely be less successful than one with a sense of empathy.

>>3127211
>Our innate sense of morality
>Our

& Humanities with another quality (not really) thread

>>3127052
Morality is ultimately arbitrary and therefore should not constrain a person's behavior when determining alternatives and executing plans.

File: hello.jpg (678KB, 3192x2124px) Image search: [Google]

678KB, 3192x2124px

>>3127225
>clarifying your sarcasm with a parenthetical statement

>>3127220
>Our
Yes our

Your reply is the equivalent of a downsie say ">our" after someone mentions "our sense of rationality"

>>3127229
Got any evidence for your sweeping claim?

>>3127220
Obviously it's going to be different from person to person. But if you could measure the average, our species would show at least a semblance of empathy to others of our kind. If we didn't it is unlikely we would be here.

>>3127236
Why should I be concerned with the average?

>>3127232
Yes, because in the same way that logic is intuitive to the vast majority of people, morality is intuitive to the vast majority of people.

>>3127238
I'm just saying that when people talk about morality, that that's generally what they mean.

>>3127228
Yeah sorry I wasn't sure brainlets like you were able to recognize it so I had to be sure. Next time I'll humor you and pretend like you'd be smart enough to recognize it .

>>3127244
So morality is just what the average roughly feels?

>>3127248
Picture that as the center around which morality revolves.

>>3127243
How do you explain large groups behaving both illogically and immorally in the past?

>>3127257
>How do you explain large groups behaving both illogically and immorally in the past?
They were convinced it was moral

>>3127262
How do you know that's not happening to you in your life?

>>3127257

Lack of thought / lack of rigorous understanding of logics or moral philosophy

>>3127267
I believe that it is moral to defend oneself against people trying to harm you. If jews, as a whole, were actively trying to destroy the aryan race, then what the nazis did could be justified. I believe the nazis thought that the jews were trying to destroy them, in that sense they were "defending themselves." They had the same mindframe as I do, just on a larger scale.

>>3126492
Modern people have strong tendency to treat human rights like moral values as well, and modern people usually think human rights are objective.

>>3127284
But we're the ones who figured it all out?

>>3127287
I wasn't thinking specifically of the Holocaust.

>>3127299
I'm using that as an example of a group of people acting immorally in the past.

>>3127304
But your argument was specific to that example.
How was slavery defending oneself? Unless you're going to extend any individual gain to be defending oneself.

>>3126751
You're not even gonna argue in favor of your position? Just go nuh-uuh?

>>3127297
We have definitely made moral progress, but there are still unresolved issues (like abortion, animal rights etc), and obviously many people still hold onto immoral views

>>3127315
How do you distinguish unresolved issues and your own immoral beliefs?

>>3127309
In the case of slavery I don't know if anyone thought of it as moral, rather they didn't think it was immoral, because they thought they enslaved were subhuman. This isn't all slavery, I don't know about all of those examples. But I think when a group of normal people do bad things they've been convinced that what they are doing will lead to something good, like a utopia, or saving a population from damnation.

>>3126492
Because we're born with that programming
Don't worry sjws are working hard because the programming also includes strange sexualities.

>>3127323
You were born knowing murder is wrong?

>>3126857
If this was true then people wouldn't be arguing.

>>3127317

Based on the rational arguments in favour and arguments against a moral position

If there are good arguments both ways then I would consider the moral issue unresolved

>>3127329
Yes, just like all children.

>>3127339
But we've determined that people aren't very good at doing what you're describing.

>>3127342
I find it interesting that people who think humans have no innate morality can think that while sociopaths act distinctly from those who aren't sociopaths.

>>3127349
People in general are not good at almost anything (math logic physics chemistry) so that's why it's important to have people like professional philosophers that are rigorous in their analysis of moral arguments.

>>3127358
>people like professional philosophers that are rigorous
How can I trust a group who are majority moral realists yet reject aesthetic and gastronomic realism?

>>3126755
>Again, obviously it's technically true - art really is subjective,

this isn't obvious at all and the fact that you assume it is just shows how shit at grasping the basic argument you are

>>3127360
>aesthetic and gastronomic realism
These are debated issues and there are many on both sides

>>3127376
But moral realism is more heavily weighted. Why?
Feels like they want to control people's behavior.

>>3127244
this is just straight up untrue

people think they'er are objective right/wrong actions and it is this objective 'thing' to which our actions either correlate to or don't

which is why when we look back in time and see tings like the inquistion and witch buring etc, we think that what they did was wrong. it was morally wron then and it is morally wrong now

we don't say oh well it was seen as okay back then so I guess it was moral then but not now.

the holocaust doesn't become okay because the average nazi thought it was

morality is objective

put it this way, what is the difference between the two statements:
>That woman is 32 years old
>killling that woman is wrong

the two statements have the same structure. x is y. so tell me why is one an objective right/wrong statement and the other is supposedly some wishy washy maybe it's right in this time period/cuture maybe it's wrong, it's based on averages, it's relative bla blla

it makes no sense. both statements are statements of fact. they are either true or false.

just because we cannot touch with our hands that which our moral statements correlate to, doesn't mean it doesn't exist

>>3127360
Hello r/askphilosophy. I'm guessing this is you.

https://www.reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/321abt/if_you_are_a_moral_realist_are_you_also_by_the/

>>3127392
>put it this way, what is the difference between the two statements:
One is an opinion.

>>3127395
No.

File: Mongol_amazing_facts_6.jpg (53KB, 750x500px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 750x500px

>>3126687
>Murder, rape and theft are all seen as immoral.
Hi, my name is Chagatai/Olaf//Ulfric/Mehmet/Yasuke/Igor/etc..

>>3127379
It has a better consensus because it is studied more. I guess this is because philosophers don't pick their field of study out of a hat; more are interested in moral questions than whether Chinese food is better than thai

>>3127360
>How can I trust a group who are majority moral realists yet reject aesthetic and gastronomic realism?
Because they are different things and the arguments that try to show they are all the same are not that sound.

>>3127420
>more are interested in moral questions than whether Chinese food is better than thai
Because they want to control people.

>>3127342
>Yes, just like all children.
You mean the same kids that are known to torture animals sometimes(some of them), bully each other, and need adults to teach them to share and not act like little shits?

Of course, they don't do stuff like murder, but still...

>>3126492
Because almost every single moral nihilist doesn't have any argument in favor of their position, they just raise very shitty objections towards moral realism. What people do then is point out that there are things that everyone think is wrong and if you disagree with it, social shame is hopefully going to shut you up so we don't have to listen to your claptrap.

>>3127427
>le evil conspiracy

>>3127433
Who said conspiracy? It's individual desires aligning.

>>3127430
well...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

>>3127436
>m8 it's not a conspiracy, I'm just saying that these guys are going into a socially irrelevant field in order to exert their non-existent power on society as a whole
lmao

>>3127431
>What people do then is point out that there are things that everyone think is wrong
But this isn't true.
>and if you disagree with it, social shame is hopefully going to shut you up so we don't have to listen to your claptrap.
Might as well save time and start the "argument" with that anon.

>>3127427
So I guess that's also why OP made a thread on this topic rather than on aesthetic philosophy?

>>3127442
It's simply the manifestation of their core personality which is to tell others how to act.
If they were had different interests, talents, intelligence etc they might become a financier or a psychologist or a police officer.

>>3127443
>But this isn't true
But it is true.

>>3127446
No it isn't.

>>3127445
Wow, psychologizing away a position, woooow

>>3127452
It is, you just need to restrict the statement enough and you can apply it to every society.
For example "killing someone is wrong" might not be considered evil everywhere but something like "killing in cold blood someone of your same social status just because you wanted to see him die" is considered to be evil by everyone.

>>3127458
You said everyone not every society.
You also assume there are no two societies with disjoint moral sets.

>>3127463
I said every society as in "every individual composing those societies".

>>3127430
>You mean the same kids that are known to do things propers of devils that normal humans would do only by accident?

Yes, we're mixed with devils, glad you noticed.

>>3127470
But that's not true.

>>3127476
Of course it is, who exactly doesn't agree with a statement like the one I said earlier?

>>3127479
It's not obvious to me.

>>3127472
>to do things propers of devils that normal humans would do only by accident?
wut

>>3127482
Anon, I'm not including severely autistic people in my statement, they lack the capacity for moral reasoning.
It's like saying "everyone finds running on two legs more practical than running on one" with the purpose of demonstrating that two legs are biomechnically superior.
Of course people born with only one leg can't agree with that, but it's not a decent objection to the fact that running with two legs is biomechanically superior because they don't disagree with that statement on the basis of actual experience, they disagree because of a deficiency they have.

>>3127392
>put it this way, what is the difference between the two statements:
>>That woman is 32 years old
>>killling that woman is wrong

I'm too much of a brainlet to understand how moral statements can be non-normative and still mean anything. Like, I can say "killing babies for fun is wrong" and that can be a true statement, but what it really means is "killing babies for fun is a thing you shouldn't do" and that has to be related to some kind of goal, so it's more like "killing babies is a thing you shouldn't do if you want the world to be a nicer place" or something similar.

Just saying "is x wrong?" in an absolutely pure sense just doesn't seem to make sense in the same way as some other true/false statement like "does 1+1=2".

>>3127495
I'm not severely autistic.

>>3127501
I doubt it.
Fine, psychopath.

>>3127504
see >>3127453

>>3127399
prove it

the null hypothesis is the two statements, having the same structure, function in the same way

onus is on you

>>3127519
>helping that woman is good
>killing that woman is good
Two statements, having the same structure, function in the same way.

>>3127431
responses like these are pretty cringeworthy man

>>3127500
>but what it really means is "killing babies for fun is a thing you shouldn't do"

no, ""killing babies for fun is a thing you shouldn't do" means: ""killing babies for fun is a thing you shouldn't do"

that's why they're two different sentences, because they mean two different things.

>Just saying "is x wrong?" in an absolutely pure sense just doesn't seem to make sense in the same way as some other true/false statement like "does 1+1=2".

but it does, everyone intuitively understands what "x is wrong" means. you can't just try and explain it away like you're doing, when basicay everyone other than babies and psychopaths understand what right/wrong means

>>3126864
The after life changes everything.

>>3126492
Because modern people consider murder is against human rights, and human rights, to them, are moral values which are absolute objective and cannot be questioned at all.

>>3127553
>everyone intuitively understands what "x is wrong" means

I mean, I feel like that's true, but what I intuitively understand it to mean is basically "you shouldn't do x" which you just said it doesn't mean. So what does it mean?

> He thinks murder is morally right
This is your brain on leftism.

Humanists are functionally autistic.
>>3126687
>is/ought

>>3126755
Morality is a humanist meme. I disagree with all of it.
Agreeance is not a metric, you fucking sperglord.

>>3126857
>best outcome
Fuck off to /r/eddit wit hthat garbage.

>>3126909
Online is 'real life' you fucking undergrad.

>>3126956
All sciences are trash, any philosophy associated with that trash is not philosophy. It's professional dick-sucking.

>>3127702
Hi /pol/.

>>3127117
Nobody has morality, because morality doesn't exist.
>>3127211
Fuck off back to /r/eddit.
>>3127243
Logic doesn't exist, either.

>>3127339
>rationality is good or valid
Back to /r/eddit please

>>3127358
Rigor is nonexistent, it's a made-up concept by moralizers trying to justify their sick will.

>>3127392
>morality is objective because it makes me feel good my humanist hudgy-budgy

>>3127431
Weak power is not morality. Morality does not exist.

>>3127553
>people are ideolocized into thinking something
>this means it's right
Fuck off.

File: max.gif (5KB, 200x175px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x175px

>>3126687
>immoral

>>3127714
>>3127719
>>3127721
>>3127724
>>3127728
>>3127731
>>3127734
>>3127736
>>3127737
>>3127740
>>3127743
Just woke up?

>>3127779
No, I found this thread and decided to assault it.

File: 1440181142778.jpg (48KB, 443x443px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 443x443px

>>3127744
It's absolutely simple stirnercuck
>you do something
>the majority dislikes it and punishes you
>therefore it's immoral

>you do something
>the majority likes it and rewards you (materially and immaterially)
>therefore it;s moral
You can always go some of the non-governed territories like Bir Tawil and die of autism if you like :^)

>>3127819
Morality is nonexistent

File: 1465506425170.jpg (50KB, 631x796px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 631x796px

>>3127823
>nonexistent
>can get jailed if you break it
Huh, really makes you think, egotard.

>>3127828
Just doesn't get caught.

>>3127828
That's not morality, that's systematic weakness imposing itself through the embodiment of Ressentiment.

>"Morality exists"
Why do people do this?

>>3127828
>Not liking Kim-Jong Un might get you in jail in North Korea.
>It's immoral to not like Kim
Really made me think.

>btfo moral fags arguments
>gets mad and sputters about how society will punish me
Feels good exposing them for the little shits they are. "wah wah listen to me or daddy will beat you up!"

I'll rape you and your anime waifu. You're fucking spooked, kiddo.

Morality is the set of customs and social rules that a society imposes on its members
Most people have innate instincts to follow societal norms
It's plausible that basic rules like "don't kill members of your tribe" are themselves innate
Most societies and religions have developed the same basic tenets, such as don't murder, don't steal, don't fuck other people's wives, because they have empirically stood the test of time when it comes to sustaining a successful culture

It's plausible that there is a set of morals that would "objectively" lead to the best society, though "best" would have to be defined axiomatically. E.g. "a society where unnecessary suffering is minimized" or "a society where pleasure is maximized"

Also, reminder that most people who say "but morality is subjective/not real/a spook" are autists who still abide by those rules but like to feel smart because they've figured out they are to some extent social constructs

>>3127788
By having muh opinions instead of some form of steady argument

>>3126492
Because they are clingy mentally ill weaklings who need some semblance of "divine and ever true" order to function properly or explain their sheltered world view.
Also retards who don't understand the difference between law and morality.

>>3128056
>Also, reminder that most people who say "but morality is subjective/not real/a spook" are autists who still abide by those rules
Wow it's almost like there's a large group who will use violence if you don't. Bravo.

>>3126658
Also like how Germany invaded poland in self defense.

>>3126492
>for example, here's another empty statement with nothing to back it up

>>3127246
>tfw to intelligent

>>3127553
>implying everyone understands anything
>implying anyone understands anything

File: eternal jew 8.png (200KB, 396x408px) Image search: [Google]

200KB, 396x408px

>Moral Relativism

>>3126563
>"morality is subjective"
>for example, as human beings we dislike murder for a plethora of obvious reasons that relate to our own lived experiences
Why is this too complex for zealous liberal redditors to process?

>>3126687
>seen as
DING DING DING! There it is! You your self see it's subjective

>>3127819
>implying the majority of humans even have coherent opinions
>implying that even if they did they would be worth following

>that car gets 30 mpg
>this one gets 25 but looks a lot cooler

An autist would say there is an objectively correct choice here

>>3128109
>arguments are good because muh onions
Back to /r/eddit

>>3128056
Fuck off back to /r/eddit, psychobabbling assbag.

File: you.jpg (20KB, 367x500px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 367x500px

>>3128494
>Because they are clingy mentally ill weaklings who need some semblance of "divine and ever true" order to function properly or explain their sheltered world view.

>>3126492
Guys, I don't get it? Why can't I just murder people?

>>3127312
Not him but how about this; you don't have the right to deprive people of their life, property or humanity. All people have the right to life, and just because you think it's subjective, doesn't make it so.

>>3132752
>restating my position is an arguement

>>3126492
A society that widely agrees about moral subjectivity is pretty much doomed because justifying our own autism is the bread and butter of the human race. Throwing objective morality in the trash is giving free reign to fucknuttery.

>>3126687
>Murder, rape and theft are all seen as immoral.

[citation needed]

>>3126492
>murder is right thus not murdering is wrong
>why do people not see this?
This is you.

>>3133844
Are you retarded?

File: 1465973697282.jpg (86KB, 850x400px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 850x400px

>>3126492

Because we are biological machines, and what harms us or helps us is not just a matter of opinion.

If you think morality is not about doing/avoiding harm, you are not talking about morality.

>>3128813
It's a shame the alternative is to carry water for the christards

yes, op. obviously all humans are 100% blank slates and its just a coincidence that every culture on earth has highly similar values and moral beliefs. nobody has any instincts, beliefs or evolutionary behavior at all haha. great post my friend

>>3133211
You're right, all people should freely give their bodies, property and lives to the insatiable psychopath because... reasons! At least I gave you a reason why society considers these actions immoral you dipshit.

>>3134480
>its just a coincidence that every culture on earth has highly similar values and moral beliefs
It's not a coincidence, these are the values most beneficial for society's survival and growth, so they were selected via an evolution-like process. This doesn't mean they are objectively true tho. You don't even need this values to be based on instincts, you can explain their prevalence by societies, driven by self-preservation and expansionism, educating/brainwashing their member in the most beneficial to them(i.e. societies) way.

File: wittymcwittstein.jpg (139KB, 1300x731px) Image search: [Google]

139KB, 1300x731px

>humanists can't form a single argument
>argue about shit that has nothing to do with objective morality
>confuse each other with their weak language game
>mfw

Heh, at least you tried.

>>3126492
Morality is subjective obviously.

>morality doesn't exist
>don't literally murder me on the spot though :-(

File: Selection_009.png (40KB, 635x440px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 635x440px

>>3126658
Get yo vocabulary straight

File: 1499011300518.jpg (218KB, 800x1541px) Image search: [Google]

218KB, 800x1541px

>>3126492
Because they are unaware that there are ontologies other than naive realism.

File: 1443806680565.jpg (44KB, 607x608px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 607x608px

>>3126925

>>3126502
first post is best post

>>3126492
>except in war because then murder doesn't count

>>3126492
BECAUSE GOD CREATED US WITH THE INNATE CAPACITY TO MORALITY, NOT STRIVING TO USE THAT CAPACITY TO ITS FULLEST POTENTIAL IS WRONG AND WILL LEAD TO DECADENCE.