>take ethics class >everyone is a moral relativist What

>>3197098
it's pretty arrogant to think that your moral system is the only right one

>>3197098
Nice Witcher 2 May-May. +1 Upvote

>>3197138
who cares about arrogance when right is right?

>>3197291
How do you know what's right?

File: ZdorovKirillVladimirovich_0.jpg (100KB, 1500x998px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 1500x998px

>>3197098

File: bd8.png (230KB, 588x427px) Image search: [Google]

230KB, 588x427px

Heh, face it kiddo morality is a spook.

If you can't handle that, quit your degree now, you'll only be wasting your money.

I think the golden rule sets one up to produce an objective theory of morals.
The golden rule is based upon the logic of human behavior, an objective principle. If you break the golden rule you are a hypocrite, or illogical and in error.
The golden rule can be simplified to "don't do things against other people's wills."

>>3197256
Trailer for 3, wasn't it?

>>3197333
Okay, but your logic is only your own, defined by your subjective perception of reality. It cannot be used to produce an objective moral viewpoint as such a thing cannot exist.

>>3197098
>Take ethics class
>Teacher is a universalist
Why are quixotic ideals so favored in academia? Is the baseline assumption that all cultures and ethnic folk are all exactly the same and ought to be treated the same popular because of all that weed people have been smoking?

>>3197354
If someone is a hypocrite in their actions against others, they can't escape it. It is objective in that sense.

>>3197367
>they can't escape it.
No? People can change certain aspects of their lifestyle if they so choose

>>3197367
Yes, but whether they ARE being a hypocrite is a matter of your own opinion.

>>3197367
You're also presuming that breaking the Golden Rule can never be ethically permissable, which is fairly childish.

>>3197409
>Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself
But other people aren't me?

>>3197383
No it's not, it's a matter of the subjects psychology. If they don't want people to lie to them, they shouldn't tell lies. If they do, they are a hypocrite. You realize words in our language do have an actual meaning don't you?

File: 1453737630578.jpg (26KB, 331x334px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 331x334px

>>3197098
Let me guess. What is moral is what is best for """""humanity""""" right?

>>3197424
What about World War Two? According to the Golden Rule fighting it would have been completely unjustified. Yet, if it was not fought millions would have died.

>>3197409
In ethical dilemmas, the golden rule takes priority.

>>3197437
Yes, I think that war is immoral, but it is a necessary evil. A rational evil which is justified.

>take ethics class
>christfag arguing with the teacher every day

>>3197427
Define "lying".

According to Clinton's logic he wasn't lying when he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".

And that is where moral absolutism and the golden rule breaks down, it is dependent on individual, subjective logic.

As for your rather bizarre point on the meanings of words, so what? Words are wind. Homer thought the seas were "wine dark", we think they're blue. Who are we to say we are right and all others aren't?

>>3197437
It was 100% unjustified. Especially the invasion of Germany , had Hitler had his way h would've just migrated all the jews to Israel and kept the 1/4 mischlings in Germany... he literally warned people that if Germany were invaded before he could resettle the Jews he had a certain other solution in mind...

>>3197438
Why should it?

>>3197446
There you go. Breaking the Golden rule can be ethically permissable, and so it cannot be used as the be all and end all of all morality.

>>3197475
Lying is knowingly telling falsehoods.
If Clinton meant he didn't have sex with her, I guess he wasn't lying. But if he knew sexual relationships included oral sex in that definition then he was lying.

>>3197474
>Take ethics class
>Morality is universal and absolute
>gender roles are subjective
>Also fuck white people

>>3197487
So there we are. Now we're having to get into matters of opinion about what, exactly, "sexual relations" are. We see the golden rule is not an objective, logical measuring tool, it's based upon fundamentally subjective assumptions.

>>3197505
Like I said, it's dependent on the subject's state, but it is an objective measurement of such.

>>3197489
Nobody thinks gender's subjective, they argue it's a social construct.

>>3197511
>I-it's an objective measure of the subjective!

Give up, son.

>>3197303
by the support of reason, homie. being right about something isnt the same thing as claiming ownership of whats right. anyone can be right, its a matter of representing whats right.

>>3197524
What, there's no difference between truth and error? Same thing. How can you claim I am objectively wrong if it's a matter of opinion.

>>3197513
Social constructivism is a post modernist concept. Post modernist are hardcore subjectivists... their argument is that Gender roles are a social construct based an ad antiquitatem therefore anyone's personal gender indentification is true.

Aren't only a minority of philosophers relativists?

>>3197354
>your logic is only your own
This is not true.

>>3197533
In the Anglo sphere most academics are analytic philisophers who reject post modernism. On paper at least, I've had a very different experience t b h
>>3197530

Be honest OP, have you read Kant?
No, his wikipedia article doesn't dount.

>>3197098
It's this becoming a pasta now?

>>3197528
I don't, because I know you're too stubborn to understand that you're wrong. It's why you came here looking for validation after you lost your argument with the teacher.

I deal with this by being secure in my own opinion and reasoning, instead of needing my opinion to be the truth from which all others deviate.

The "truth" is a highly subjective thing.

>>3197536
Prove it.

File: greatpyramidcoord2.png (581KB, 539x850px) Image search: [Google]

581KB, 539x850px

>>3197098
>What is wrong with my generation??

Your species is being tortured, damned, and genocided by the gods for their treason - and it's exactly what you deserve for murdering God and committing genocide in his name.

> Then many will fall away,[c] and they will betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HQjOcL6yMlI

>>3197329
even if you can you should quit if you're a philosophy major

Why should it surprise you that modern day post-imperial westerners choose the ethics that permit the most, restrict the least and excuse just about anything with minimal brainpower?

File: Humanities was a mistake.png (67KB, 689x1264px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 689x1264px

>>3197098
>If you have to choose between one evil and another, I'd rather not choose at all.
>If you have to choose
>I'd rather not choose at all
???
Inaction is an action in of itself m8.
Did you not like the taster session for A2 Philosophy and Ethics or are you shit posting the most basic of ethical arguments: deontology vs teleology?

What a coincidence that the people against morality are the ones that have a terrible, often sociopathic, behavior

>>3197940
>nazis
>debating civilizedly

you have to go back m´lad

>>3197474
ha I wish

>>3197098
Morality is subjective

>>3197429
Stirner stands no chance against Kant

File: fed.png (377KB, 594x422px) Image search: [Google]

377KB, 594x422px

>>3197098
>What is wrong with my generation??

>>3197560
There is absolutely nothing to imply ownership or any necessary relationship between language and the user of language. Whatever you signify, and whatever relationship you signify between what you signify and another thing you signify, can just as similarly be signified by any other person. When I point at a thing and say "This thing is here", this is ultimately and absolutely true for everyone. Me being me does nothing to change anything about whether or not the thing is there. We would actually need evidence to prove that logic and reason has anything whatsoever to do with the user of logic and reason than evidence to prove the opposite; the opposite is utterly self-evident.

>>3197098
>ethics class
That was your first mistake

>>3197950
>What a coincidence that the people against morality are the ones that have a terrible, often sociopathic, behavior

Whenever I see someone posting Stirner, the first thing I have in mind is: "that poor soul is miserable, I hope that he/she/it can get better later in life and can stop using antidepressants".

>hypothetical universe in which no life evolves
>somehow there is still an absolute "morality" that exists somehow

lol absolutists

>>3197437
Wait, who would've died exactly if no war was waged?

>>3198172
Morality applies to living beings with free will. You are fucking stupid if you think your argument proves anything.

it's objectively wrong to rape and kill a young girl just because you feel like it

anyone who disagrees with this truth is a psycho

you're not a psycho, are you?

>>3198243
So, it must not be absolute then, since it depends on life existing, genius.

>>3198262
>it's objectively wrong to rape and kill a young girl just because you feel like it
what if she's super hot and i'm really horny though
see? really makes ya think...

>>3198262
If I was a barbarian horse nomad and I saw a QT young Slav or Goth to take as a concubine, why not?

>>3198290
>"dogs are mammals"
>there's a hypotethical universe where life didn't develop
>therefore, it is wrong to say that dogs are mammals
Your logic is shit.

>>3198300
>>3198305
Yeah, but how would it make you feel if you were raped? Can't you see that it's wrong? Back to the golden rule...

>>3198342
>dogs are mammals according to this subjective subjective classification system we have agreed upon
>rape is immoral according to this subjective classification system we have agreed upon
thanks for proving my point.

>evil is evil
Imagine how different and simple the world must be if you have such a limited mind. Being stupid is a blessing.

>>3198358
So everything is subjective and we can't really kno nuffin? Thanks, Aristotle.

>>3197098
>If you have to choose between one evil and another, I'd rather not choose at all.
That's life... Everyone and everything lives on the proverbial blood of others, either directly or indirectly. Every moment you've been alive, someone else somewhere has suffered for. With every breath you take, you instill some degree of suffering the world.

And moral relativism doesn't mean there is no definition of good and evil, it merely acknowledges that each group creates its own definitions, and one may not agree with the other. If your society's moral code conflicts with another, then form your perspective, you are right, and they are wrong, and you are duty bound to act accordingly. Only moral objectivists believe that there's some universal morality and with enough reasoning we can all come to a single agreement, thus we must treat all cultures as equals, regardless of how distasteful they are, and reason with them towards a mutual understanding. Moral relativism acknowledges this may not be possible, that the only solutions may indeed be enforcement of one culture's beliefs over another, and thus there is no need for universal "acceptance". But I suppose that's just the sort of doublespeak we have running through our society today, where these two positions are often thought to each be exactly the opposite of what they really are.

>>3198370
There are patterns and those are not subjective. What a mammal is, is based on a pattern, not because we think or feel mammals should look a certain way.

You can also try to use patterns for moral, which is what we mostly do. The most used one would be something along the lines of Kant or the "golden rule", do onto others as you want them to do onto you".

Are there really people who think that there is something like objective moral? You can easily create scenarios where you have to break any rule made. Or would you argue that a police officer shooting a hostage-taker goes to hell for eternity? Why don't you have these simple thoughts on your own?

>>3198370
the creature that we are calling a "mammal" has objective characteristics, but our system by which we differentiate "mammals" from other groups is an arbitrary level of difference in characteristics

Are you starting to get it?

>>3198305
Still obviously wrong.

>>3197098
Good and bad only exist in the mind.

Therefore, they are by definition subjective, and can be whatever you want them to be.

>>3198346
>>3198447
VAE VICTUS
Morality is arbitrary. Only strength and weakness determine right or wrong.

>>3198458
lol what about taking defenseless women as concubines shows strength?

>>3198472
You killed all the other males defending them.

ITT : People fail to realize that perhaps there is a God and his divine commands are objective.

>>3198447
Explain how it is wrong?
He might have a lot of offspring, he might enjoy it, in the end he dies like everyone else and all his actions will be forgotten over time.
Christianity even defends rape in parts and if you "regret" it at the end of your life you're all fine.

Real question is what if two brothers rape a woman, one dies the next day and never regrets his actions because he still has the sweet smell of her pussy on his hands. The other one lives a long life, as he grows old and has children on his own he realizes that what he did as a young man was wrong and he truly regrets it.
One goes to hell for eternity the other one goes to heaven for eternity?

>>3198478
Two actions completely distinct from one another. Killing other males with equal intent in killing you might show strength, in so far as strength manifests itself in physical prowess, but the subsequent action of taking the women shows no such strength.

>>3197098
If a bird steals a bag of chips. Does it deserve the same jail time as a human?

>>3198491
I considered it but it seemed implausible.

>>3198494
How is it not wrong? You're denying the agency of another for the sake of your own. By all standards thats a moral infringement. It's wrong to do it today in America, it's wrong to do it 1200 years ago in Mongolia.

Whether or not its wrong has nothing to do with the perpetrator's reaction to it, nor does it have anything to do with whether or not it is "forgotten", your judgments are entirely dominated by your conceptions of time and space.

>>3198501
It does technically take some degree of strength to hold down a struggling victim during the rape.

>>3198523
Like I implied before, strength is not just physical.

>>3198501
It shows the strength to fulfill your desires. All those hot, young girls you see daily. We both know that what you want is to just grab their tits and fuck them from behind. Yet, all we do is quickly looking, always hoping we are not spotted so to not be a creep. They wear the shortest shorts and the deepest cleavage because they know you desire them and they want to taunt you, but because of society and what you deem right you don't act upon your desire.

>>3198472
Kill her husband and brothers and father and take her as a prize.

>>3198501
You simply want and you take and you remove the obstacles in the way of your object of desire. I don't see what "showing" has to do with anything. In 3 generations both of us will be dead, except I would have fathered 20 children and her family's male line would be exterminated. I removed sexual competitors and proved my evolutionary fitness. I don't see what's so hard to grasp. The moment you pick up the sword, you realize that words are arbitrary, it literally does not matter what you are fighting for, because if you kill the other man, you are now the only opinion.

>>3198430
>Or would you argue that a police officer shooting a hostage-taker goes to hell for eternity?
No, I'm not religious. Shooting a hostage taker, however, is immoral (as far as I see).
>Why don't you have these simple thoughts on your own?
I do have those thoughts you pompous cretin.

The rest of your post really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I was attacking your/some other anon's bad logic that leads to total skepticism. You say nothing about that and don't clearly prove anything.

>>3198521
>It's wrong to do it today in America, it's wrong to do it 1200 years ago in Mongolia
>It was okay to do it 1200 years ago in Mongolia, it's okay to do it today in America

>By all standards
No, and I'm pretty sure raping women (of other tribes) was an okay thing for a longer time than it is seen as a bad thing. (though that is only an assumption)
>your judgments are entirely dominated by your conceptions of time and space
Not sure what you are trying to say here.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a rapist. But your perception of what is wrong or right is coined by society and nothing else. For a long time gays would be killed or shamed, nowadays they are cheered on.

>>3197098
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

>>3198599
>I'm pretty sure raping women (of other tribes) was an okay thing for a longer time than it is seen as a bad thing.

>your perception of what is wrong or right is coined by society and nothing else

That's fucking ludicrous, im talking about a system of morality that applies to all societies, you literally say that other societies thought it was ok to rape women so that means it was ok to them, but MY system of morality is only culturally predicated???? I feel dizzy

>>3198580
Well, my bad. I don't really understand the conversation you had beforehand and only replied to your last post, thinking you are arguing for moral absolutism.

>>3198616
Let me ask you a few questions.
Can a woman be raped by her husband?
In a rape, who is the injured party? Her family or her person?
Do children know what they are doing? At what age? Is it okay for children to go to war?

>>3198599
>>3198616
Again, i'm not talking about how rape is "seen" across cultures. On a moral scale, i'm talking about what rape IS. My argument is that it doesnt matter what the law of the land is, rape is objectively wrong. Doesn't matter if its a primitive tribe that practices rape regularly, or is some assailant in a american society in 2017. The argument that other societies in the past saw rape as alright is not sufficient, because it doesnt fucking matter what they thought or how they saw rape.

Then you claim that a system of morality i'm talking about is only culturally conditioned, but then argue against it by alluding to culturally conditioned understandings of rape. Are you mental?

There is a certain pattern of behaviors and morals that a society must follow in order to become more advanced. If they do not follow these patterns, eventually, societies that do follow them will advance past them and might end up with power over them. This would indicate there is a type of 'social natural selection' that is at the basis of morals.
'Don't kill your neighbor' and 'don't steal' wasn't just pulled from someones ass one day, it was observed that allowing those behaviors to continue left your society in a worse state than those who did not allow that behavior.
Now you have to ask, why is that the case? It certainly isn't because of anything we did. No human decided that murder and theft would have the negative consequences that it does. The only explanation is that some rule, or combination of rules, of our universe makes it so.
A 'Universal Morality' if you will.

>>3198631
Yes, a woman can be raped by her husband. Certain circumstances, even within the confines of a legal marriage as defined by today's society, can dictate a certain sexual exchange as rape.

Her person is the primary injured party, morally speaking. Although that's an oddly legal, and therefore cultural, framework. But sure.

That is a loaded af question. What constitutes "knowing" what you're doing for even an adult? Adults are necessarily responsible for their children.

This is another whacko fucking question. Children are utterly incapable of engaging in a broad political conflict, by both cultural and absolute standards. The question is gibberish.

>>3197329
>morality is a spook
This is a smart answer

>>3198640
>Then you claim that a system of morality i'm talking about is only culturally conditioned
yes

>but then argue against it by alluding to culturally conditioned understandings of rape
I don't know what that means nor how I implied that.
I believe that rape is only wrong if you perceive it as wrong, if someone else rapes a woman I also see it as wrong because I perceive it as wrong. I can't even imagine what an absolute moral system would look like desu.

>>3198641
America is based on theft and murder, the land was taken by force from people. The only thing that matters in nature is being fit enough to survive, being a nice guy does not necessarily mean you do great.

>>3198717
>America is based on theft and murder, the land was taken by force from people

My calm wasn't about how groups treat other groups, but how they treat people that are a part of their group. I think optimal way of treating outside groups is a much more advanced study that we probably don't even have a good grasp of today.

>being a nice guy does not necessarily mean you do great
I didn't argue that. My claim was that societies that allow people to do things like kill, rape and steal from each other will perform worse than those that do not and that this indicates there is some underlying principle at work that is not determined by human fiat.

>>3198773
>>3198717
This. The question is intra-group theft and murder. Conquering and plundering other group's shit doesn't prevent your own group from flourishing, hell it usually helps.

But doing that shit within your own society makes it impossible to actually produce anything, so you collapse.

>>3198660

Someone else, with equal validity, can say:
>A woman is not a legal person. Therefore she cannot be raped.
>A woman must be subservient to her man and give him sexual access to procreate.
Therefore she cannot be raped by her husband.
>A woman can be raped, if the man she is having sex with is not her husband.

>A woman's rape is an affront to her family's honor.
Read the story of Dinah in the Bible. She didn't get raped at all. She had premarital sex with a Canaanite prince and her brothers took vengeance and slaughtered the town, because he was sexually brazen with her.

>Children should know never to disobey the dear Leader.
>If a child tortures and murders another child or even an adult, they aren't liable.
>Children can go to war, grooming the mounts, fletching new arrows, tending the herd that will feed the warrior horde, and defend the camp if necessary.

Every single answer you've is noticeably tainted by your Western post-modern liberal values. There are civilizations and cultures that have flourished which have expounded some of these principles. In fact, some of these statements would not have seem outlandish a few decades ago in the same Western society you grew up in.

>>3197098
Moral relativism is practical in the real world.

>>3198717
>I don't know what that means nor how I implied that.
When you alluded to other tribes seeing rape as okay as an historical fact that objects to the idea of objective morality. That is an example of a culturally conditioned understanding of rape.

Can you not entertain the idea that some people can be wrong in their sensibilities? Even the ones that they settle into passively? I'll answer that for you: you CAN entertain the idea, because you entertain it for me and my conception of the morality of rape. Just because some people at one time were cool with rape does not obliterate the idea the all the people in history who thought rape was chill were all equally and completely wrong, and the idea that rape is objectively wrong across all time and space does not conflict with that.

>>3198717
>I believe that rape is only wrong if you perceive it as wrong, if someone else rapes a woman I also see it as wrong because I perceive it as wrong.
Not that anon but you're saying that if we have two people with different morals observing an act, the act might be moral and not moral at the same time. This is a textbook example of contradiction.

>I can't even imagine what an absolute moral system would look like desu.
So you're saying that you don't really know much about ethics and ethical systems that have been developed through history.

>>3198799
>post-modern
Moral relativism that you argue for is a common element of postmodernism.

>>3198799
>A woman is not a legal person. Therefore she cannot be raped.
legal claims are not the same as objective moral claims.

They can say that a woman is not a legal person, and refer to a document that their society deems as perfectly legitimate that states that a women is not a person.

That person is right, but only in so far as he is saying: "My society's laws do not recognize women as legal people, and therefore I can do with them as I wish; nothing that I do with women is punishable by law." This can be a correct statement. HOWEVER, when they say the above, they are NOT saying: "A woman is not a person." They make no objective claim, only a cultural claim.

>would not have seem outlandish
Again, this has nothing to do with how things SEEM, LOOK, or APPEAR to people. These modes of observation are prone to error; they only are capable of alluding to culture, or that which is not necessary.

This argument basically works for all the other nonsense you say.

Separate cultural law from necessary reality. Women are objectively people, in spite of all the cultural documents that might say or imply otherwise. Just because something is legally permissible in a particular society does not mean it is morally permissible.

>>3197329
>morality is a spook.
Go back to getting brain damaged from drugs and justifying your unfulfilling life and debauchery with simple-minded rhetoric.

>>3198849
>Again, this has nothing to do with how things SEEM, LOOK, or APPEAR to people. These modes of observation are prone to error; they only are capable of alluding to culture, or that which is not necessary.
So in order for us to look at what real morality is, you would require a man to be born via spontaneous generation, know no society, culture, laws, or even another single person, and see what he would consider moral or immoral, having never met another man before? I don't understand. On one hand, you are saying that there can be an objective morality but nature, from which our race and all the beasts and plants and microbes sprang, is completely amoral.

>>3197098
I don't like that this is turned into a pasta. It was a genuinely interesting trait to Geralt in the books, mainly because the entirety of the series works to show that his theory is mainly unworkable

>>3198863
Only a fucking simpleton would automatically assume that a debate about morality is about drugs and debauchery. Go take your iron pill in the form of a bullet through your fucking head.

>>3198905
Only a drug-addled mind would say "morality is a spook" to such an important question. A nonchalant and retarded teenager...

Also, you tell me to go put a bullet through my head, but I bet you'd go crazy if anyone ever shot themselves in front of you. I would not because I am genuinely a psychopath who operates based off a constructed meta-ethics and normative ethics, believe it or not. I don't care for most human beings, and do not find the thought of them dying around me worrisome. People like me need a meta-ethics or normative ethics or we'd become monsters.

>>3198916
>meta-ethics or normative ethics
metaethics and normative ethics*

File: nietzsche_fedora.jpg (21KB, 474x528px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 474x528px

>>3198916
>I would not because I am genuinely a psychopath
>I don't care for most human beings, and do not find the thought of them dying around me worrisome

LOL holy shit you didn't just say this

>>3198956
I prefer Schopenhauer over Nietzsche because he did not abandon the project of establishing a meta-ethics and normative ethics. I wasn't being literal with that psychopathy stuff, retard. I was discreetly trying to make the point that in order to sway people from doing what we find horrifying you need to justify and defend a meta-ethics and normative ethics. Watch Funny Games directed by Michael Haneke and tell me that "morality is a spook", faggot. If morality is a spook, then that should be something that causes immense grief when fully considering its implications .

>>3198986
Stirner and Nietzsche were both losers who unknowingly defended Marquis de Sade.

>>3198838
No, it is not. I like the taste of raisins, others don't. I think something is wrong, someone else does not. (homosexuality for example). I argue that absolute morals don't exist and it depends on your subjective morals.

>developed
How can they be developed if they are absolute?

>>3198814
>objects to the idea of objective morality
But their idea of morality, of what is right and wrong, was different.

But why do you think our perception of what is wrong and right is more important than their perception? Why are we right in thinking rape is wrong and why are they wrong? Again, maybe we are the idiots, maybe we should just grab those tits we so much desire. Why be nice?

I'll go to bed now. I'm also not sure what exactly you are arguing for, it is an absolute moral system where something like rape is always wrong, no matter your opinion or that of anyone else, right?
Absolute, and therefore most likely god given, vs subjective, developed moral is the only arguing that makes sense to me.

File: 1485438544097.png (118KB, 330x390px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 330x390px

>>3198916
>not being a monster

>>3199003
On a deeper level the monster and cute critter are one if morality is a spook. This is truly frightening, and the fact you lot speak like edgelords about this truly disgruntles me. To stab the girl or give her a puppy is one and the same if morality is a spook in the sense this indifferent Cosmos makes no distinctions within your atheistic materialist or physicalist views -- or processual in case of Deleuze. I advise you to read Willfred Sellars and at least attempt to reconcile normative with naturalism, you fucking piece of shit.

>>3199026
>attempt to reconcile normative with naturalism
attempt to reconcile normativity with naturalism*

>>3199026
wew lad

>>3198986
>>3199026

It SHOULD cause immense grief if you're some autist who spends all his time thinking about stupid shit like objective ethics.
The truth is you're a talking meatbag who evolved from and among animals that kill, cannibalize, and rape without hesitation, and your only objective goal is to reproduce and make more copies of yourself. We all are. Things like universal morality don't exist because morality applies within a cultural context where you have the luxury of a framework of precedent and patterns to analyze. Human societies and laws are simply rules that lets us harmoniously live together in artificially enlarged macrosocial groups, and maximize the exploitation of our environment to secure more calories, more resources, and more opportunities to mate. Expecting yourself to be above natural processes and cycles and the way your very brain is designed is laughable. Now go outside and get laid or some shit.

>>3199046
I am a "moral agnostic" in that I realize the greater in pain in life is for moral anti-realism (like relativism) to be valid, and I try to grasp any hint of a greater metaphysics or eschatology to ground moral claims, as a feeble source of hope. This approach leads me to being child free (not antinatalist) in the sense that I do consider the possibility of moral anti-realism, and thus, from my own personal sentiment, I choose not to bring children to such a potentially cold, indifferent life.

>>3199026
>o stab the girl or give her a puppy is one and the same
So?

>>3198986
>I wasn't being literal
Yes, you were. You are also rude, something that certainly doesn't help in a civilized discussion.
You use big words and big names, and at the same time you are trying to not be literal and you insult. Why even argue if you do it so poorly? You will gain nothing this way but stroke your own ego and make others think you are an asshole.

>>3198994
>were both losers
Doesn't mean they were wrong.

>>3199026
You should understand that this is not something people choose. Nihilism and that there are no absolute morals is a great problem for most atheists, life would certainly be easier if we had something to guide us, but it's not like things are true just because it would be better that way.

>>3199052
>your only objective goal is to reproduce and make more copies of yourself.
There is no teleology to evolution, you retard. There is no objective to evolution, it is blind and to claim my only goal in life is to procreate makes you a terrible philosopher.

Also, you sound like a logical positivist, which is full of shit. I am not in the mood for your scientism bullshit, faggot.

>>3199052
>Human societies and laws are simply rules that lets us harmoniously live together in artificially enlarged macrosocial groups, and maximize the exploitation of our environment to secure more calories, more resources, and more opportunities to mate
And which man decided which pattern of laws allows for all of those things most optimally?
There was no man, because none have that power. Human laws are an attempt to match a universal precedent that transcends us. No man decided that murder is wrong, the universe itself is setup in such a way that to allow people in your group to do that puts you at a real and objective disadvantage to those who do not.

>>3199075
Me, rude? You're the flippant retarded edgelord saying "morality is a spook". This is such an important question that has huge impact, and you try to deal with its import with a mocking joke and then feigning innocence? You're the faggot that started this train wreck of being a jerk. This question is a life and death one, which is so important, and you, most likely a pitiful teenager, think you can dismiss its magnitude with a wry humor and condescension to those who take it very, very seriously?

Regardless, to answer this question, we must first underline a metaphysics, which all ethics are grounded in. Good luck in deriving any certainty in any metaphysical system for long...

>>3199091
All morality has to be grounded in a metaphysical or eschatological system. Most people argue for moral relativism by assuming reductive physicalism/materialism to be true.

File: IMG_6969.jpg (157KB, 992x880px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 992x880px

>>3199077
There's no moral goal to evolution. All life is just a bunch of self-perpetuating chemical codes. If you fail at perpetuating that code further, then you have failed and your code gets deleted. If a natural process is the only reason you are alive and you fail to continue that process, it seems you're objectively bad at it.

All I know is that when I wake up in the morning, I don't think about how pointless my life is, even though I very well know that no one will remember my name in a 100 years except as a scribble in a genealogy book and some DNA samples. I feel perfectly at peace with myself, because I cannot know what can't be known and I cannot change what I can't.
Damn man, you sound like a 14-year-old who needs to prove to people on the Internet you're smart.

>>3199091
Why do you keep saying this? It's juts wrong. Murder has helped a lot of people come to power just like theft.
There is no universal law that rewards you if you abide to certain rules. Stealing, murder, rape can help you achieve your goals a lot, be it reproduction, joy, or power.

The idea of these things being bad comes from society, because others not doing these things is best for me.

One thing I will say is that reductive physicalism/materialism is bullshit. That I know for sure, but I feel a lot of people are conditioned with this ideology's biases. When you truly revolt against reductive physicalism/materialism, there is more mystery in life, hence why I choose to be a moral agnostic. Even if you're atheist, there are other forms of mysticism that could give life an "intrinsic spark" to it.

What I noticed is most teenagers do revolt against Christianity, which is fine, but then they tend to turn to other metaphysical systems without ascertaining their limitations and faults. Reductive physicalism/materialism has a lot of faults.

>>3199096
Hint: There are multiple people in this thread. You called him a faggot, which is certainly rude.

>>3199114
More specifically, I think these things being bad come from society because refraining from doing these things results in the greatest net benefit to everyone, which is an important distinction.

>>3199108
>it seems you're objectively bad at it.
Philosophy is not your forte, and you need to stop. There is no objective good or bad in moral relativism or nihilism. In your view, there is no teleology to evolution, meaning it is a blind movement with no good or bad, there being no goal to continue the process of "your code".

Also, reductive physicalism has many issues in it, like the Hard Problem of Consciousness. It is unfalsifiable, and outside the domain of empirical science.

>>3199128
Rather than act like an offended piece of shit, why don't you respond to the substance of the post? It seems you're more interested in being offended than approaching this immensely important question.

>>3199141
>meaning it is a blind movement with no good or bad
with no objective moral properties*

>>3199141

You can't prove to me what constitutes rape, theft, murder, slavery, or even evil. You still haven't made any stride into explaining at all what morality even is. All you have said so far is, "Nuh-uh! It's not what you think it is! You're stupid!" Jesus Christ. Explain what objective morality is and what is an objectively moral act or stop rambling on about nonsense.

>>3197098
You can't choose not to choose, that in itself is a choice, likely one in this scenario that leads to an evil worse than one of your other options. Have fun screwing yourself and those around you over because you desperately cling to the philosophical high ground. In reality you'll totally ignore your own moral philosophy and just be pragmatic but that's pretty much true for most people

>>3199163
>You can't prove to me what constitutes rape, theft, murder, slavery, or even evil.
And you can't prove reductive physicalism is true. I made the point all metaphysics, by which we ground ethical claims, are UNFALSIFIABLE. Most people arrive at moral nihilism or relativism by presuming physicalism to be true, but you have issues like the Hard Problem of Consciousness and more. Physicalism/materialism is unfalsifiable, unless you are a logical positivists which Quine did a good job refuting.

>Explain what objective morality is and what is an objectively moral act or stop rambling on about nonsense.
I am explaining to you how philosophers of the past established a metaethical and normative ethics. First they develop a metaphysical system, and then they establish an ethical system.

I agree with you that we cannot reconcile normativity with naturalism at least, but my point is naturalism is unfalsifiable just like all other metaphysical systems like panpsychism or much more.

>>3199146
>be an edgelord who gets verbally admonished for being a cunt
>"WHY DON'T YOU JUST ANSWER QUESTION WAHHHHHHH"

>>3198863
All he said is that morality is arbitrary, where are you getting any of this from that?

>>3199233
There is more substance in this post here:
>>3199212
than this entire fucking thread because, unlike you pseudointellectual nihilist teenagers, I actually read a wide-range of philosophy with an open mind beyond Continental wankers like Deleuze and Foucault. Most people here are unknowingly logical positivist physicalist assholes who don't consider the potential of life being intrinsically special. Even Schopenhauer, whom was a big pessimist, was not that bad, no joke.

The only true morality is utilitarianism taken to its ultimate conclusion: the erradication of suffering through human extinction.

>>3199238
Read here:
>>3199212
And respond to that instead of bringing attention to the content of my character.

Also, this is anecdotal and probably irrelevant, but most people who argue morality is arbitrary are unsavory, egotist pieces of shit that normally live hedonistic lifestyles, hence my rudeness.

>>3198996
>No, it is not.
Yes it is and you should read a book on logic instead of making an idiot out of yourself. A thing can't be x and not-x at the same time. (inb4 you start pulling some sophistry out of your ass) The examples you bring up are about unrelated things. Liking and not liking, thinking and not thinking something... are not the same as claims of the objective state of things (which "rape is only wrong if you perceive it as wrong, if someone else rapes a woman I also see it as wrong because I perceive it as wrong." is)

>How can they be developed if they are absolute?
Complete knowledge of ethics isn't inborn in humans, so we attempt to find the system that is true (through philosophical dialogue and development). Instead of picking words and trying to come off as smart you should read a book.

>>3199256
That's negative utilitarianism*. Negative utilitarianism or negative consequentialism would, indeed, lead to antinatalist conclusions, but regular utilitarianism would not.

Just telling you this for future reference.

>>3199258
I actually think paraconsistent forms of logic are better defended than formal logical systems.

>>3199257
That's nonsense, morality does not exist in nature it is entirely an invention of man. Any one moral system is every bit as arbitrary as any other.

>>3199272
Read a book.

>morality does not exist in nature it is entirely an invention of man.
What is the nature of the universe, aka metaphysics, is still being debated upon. I do not think arguments that nature is entirely reducible to the physical are well-defended. Like I pointed out, numerous times, materialism/physicalism are unfalsifiable, just like all metaphysical systems, and science -- by itself -- does not prove materialism/physicalism.

>Any one moral system is every bit as arbitrary as any other.
I'm making the point you believe this because you think the universe is composed of nothing but physical constituents. I agree with you that we cannot reconcile normativity with naturalism in a purely physical universe, but I do not agree with you that physicalism is true by default of scientific knowledge.

Furthermore, I question whether our definition of the physical is truly cogent enough, but I dislike those who jump on the New Age train too quickly.

>>3199293
I recommend Thomas Nagel's Mind & Cosmos: Why the Materialist Neo-Darwinian Conception of Nature is Almost Certainly False.

>take philosophy of science class
>professor spends the whole semester preaching to students that science is bullshit
What is wrong with my generation??

>>3197098
Yeah, I was surprised to see how many moral relativists there were, even when the teacher had already pointed out multiple problems with moral relativism.

>>3197138
You don't have to believe your moral code is the right one to be a moral absolutist. You just have to realize moral relativism is flawed.

>>3199586
Could you provide some of the problems with moral relativism?

>>3199254
Yeah and they're all pointless bullshit because they don't mean shit compared to raw violence, power, the fear of death, and the almighty dollar.

>>3198894
>nature is amoral
absolutely
> require a man to be born via spontaneous generation, know no society, culture, laws to know real morality
no... it is only that all society, culture, laws are false systems of right and wrong. they may be perfectly useful for maintaining themselves, but say nothing about real morality.
that being said, anyone from any society can discern objective morality through their reason. reason, which is accessible to all humans and distinguishes them from animals, reveals morality. any Mongol could know that taking concubines is morally objectionable, and then act accordingly. Nothing stopping the chap

>>3197256
>>3197338
it was written in the first book, they use his quotes in the games often.

>>3199258
>i know nothing about logic

top kuk undergrad

>>3197481
Have you got a source on Hitler's warning?

>>3198996
The idea is that our perception is informed by reason. that's not necessarily to say that we as a people of a more particular society are more apt to reason than say the Mongols who raped and pillaged; however, I think its fair to say that our society is more accommodating to meditation and reason. We have the time and leisure to do so, so we more aptly and commonly arrive at the right moral conclusion that rape is always wrong.

This is not difficult; we can say rape is objectively wrong in all circumstances and be perfectly confident that we are right in saying so in spite of the hundreds of years of people acting otherwise because we can justify the claim on reasonable grounds. Laws and culture may differ, but the standards of reason do not change. What we or anyone else SEES as right or wrong has nothing necessarily to do with what is ACTUALLY wrong. Humans are perfectly capable of intellectualizing conclusions, as opposed to just arriving at conclusions based on what we see and experience...

>>3201376
>This is not difficult; we can say rape is objectively wrong in all circumstances
http://scp-wiki.wikidot.com/scp-231

File: tenor[1].gif (902KB, 498x272px) Image search: [Google]

902KB, 498x272px

>>3197427
>You realize words in our language do have an actual meaning don't you?

>>3197489

>Fuck white people

That sums up my university experience pretty well

>>3197333
> Don't do things against other people's wills
So not a big fan of Obamacare I take it.
Or taxation.

Your motto, like all platitudes, falls short when wills differ. My will is for you to send me $100 via Paypal. Who are you to go against my will?

>>3197098
Must be a cultural thing, basically everyone I know is an utilitarianist.

File: 1501960280992m.jpg (108KB, 1024x637px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 1024x637px

>>3201758
>Be me, freshman year of uni
>Think all the /pol/ memes about trannies walking around campus and college profs literally joking in class about how much they hate white people was a meme
>Year ends
>Borderline white nationalist now
It's bad, like it's really really fucking bad. I don't even know where to begin with just how anti-white uni has become. I started out in uni thinking I was pretty liberal but at this point I don't even know.

>>3202257
What school/major?
I went to prety good stem program and there was none of that.

>>3202281
University of Montana. I have a high IQ and test well (30 ON ACT, all 5's for my AP tests) but i fucked around a lot in highschool (paddy genes). I thought it would just be like a normal school but that entire town is fucked beyond belief. It's like a mini San Francisco in the heart of Montana.

2/10 do not recommend
>Degree
CS

>>3202295
Ha, I went through Missoula and noticed a lot of hippy/granola types.

>>3202310
>Hippie and Granola types?
Right? I knew the town was pretty liberal but getting to actually know the town in a somewhat in depth way is a major change in perspective. It has this strange mix of ultra liberal types from cities along the northwest coast coming in and ruralite locals mixing together. Just to give you a sense of how liberal the town really is, Bernie Sanders had a rally in this town of not even 100,000 people and a lot of churches around here fly the gay pride flag.

In the university itself, people openly joke about how "old dead white men are irrelevant" and "white people are literally the worst". There were multiple LGBT protests all throughout the year as well. There was also ancom graffiti just about everywhere and murals of Marx and Engels in the school buildings.

I guess I just didn't know how left leaning the place was.

>>3202344
I too love to roleplay on 4chan

>>3202378
>Roleplay
It's not. Come to the uni if you don't believe me

>>3202480
Ok "college boy", post 1 picture, any picture you've taken on campus.

>>3201857
Utilitarianism has the advantage of being how calories work for living beings, so naturally it takes a preeminent seat in our psychology. All other moralities are attempts to provide alternatives in fringe cases.

>>3202496
>Post Facebook pictures on 4chan
Yeah no I've seen how that goes. The graffitti is littered all throughout the town , there used to be a lot of it under the Madison Street bridge especially. As for the gay flags the united church of Christ across the street flies it, and the mural of Marx and Engels is in the lit building.

>>3197333
My will is for you to suck a dick, don't act against it

>>3197138
Why would you follow your moral code if you didn't think it was the correct one? That doesn't make any sense.

>>3202496
Frig off doxxychan

>>3197098
Because consumerism relies on relativism. You're surrounded by people who are products of their environment and their culture.

>>3202727
>Frig off
Is it so hard to say "fuck" you fucking faggot?