Is morality subjective?

>>325298
Yes.

>>325298
No.

Next question.

>>325308
>>325311
/thread

>>325298
It's subjectivically objective

>>325298
Define subjective.

>objective
>subjective
>>>/mu/

It's made up

>>325298
It's a spook

>>325298
Morality is a buzzword.

>>325342
defined by the person's point of view
"muh feelings" and all that

File: Max_stirner.jpg (10KB, 200x237px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 200x237px

It's a spook

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m9We2XsVZfc

Morality isn't real. Only autists who get triggered by the idea of someone disagreeing with them will try to say it's objective.

>>325298
Yes

If it weren't, one moral maxim would exist that all humanity assents to. None such is available

If you want to say morality is objective you have to define it and you'd have to define it using entirly objective terms. Than you would have to say why we should even do it without falling into Hume's Is-Ought trap. Than you would have to deal with the fact that anyone else can define their own good and evil.

It's a fucking nightmare.

>>325298
morality is just words.

if you want a useful concept, define it.

>>325298
the universe does not know what morality is, its literally just social laws in cultures

>>325611
>If you want to say morality is objective you have to define it
>>325633
>if you want a useful concept, define it
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/morality
>1. Recognition between right and wrong
there lies the problem, right and wrong are relative to the affected, to the time/space conditions of actions, and to intelligent beings themselves ("intelligent" as in "capable of discerning consequences of acts and of planning")
>2. A set of social rules and beliefs that define which conducts are right and wrong
there are several conducts which most cultures can agree as "wrong". you can't say that those cultures reached those conclusions objectively though

>>325706
the person who wants to use a concept needs to have a definition for it. digging up usual meanings from wikipedia is not quite the same.

also just throwing more undefinable words like good and evil at it isn't an improvement.

>>325720
i can use Merriam Webster if you want
"morality" isn't undefinable objectively, "good" and "evil" are
it's like "quintessence", the definition is there even though it's a word used for something that doesn't quite exist or is vague

>>325831
words do not have some kind of permanent value. they are literally variables.

you do not need to prove it means something. you just need to explain what the fuck you mean by it, and it is a constant that people who use 'morals', 'good', or 'evil' in arguments do not have an explanation.

it is possible to argue by just throwing words at things and there are people stupid enough to be confused by it.

>>325298
Parts of it are, parts of it aren't, by human standards at least.

Morality isn't one monolithic entity, rather a collection of ethics dictated by culture, personality and experiences. We like to believe justice to be blind and that we hold everyone to the same standards but in reality we'd feel differently about a pedophile being tortured than we would a dog.

Morality as a natural concept can't be objective, it's all based on human emotions. Nature doesn't give a fuck if you murder or steal unless you believe in Karma.

>>325298
Yes, all moral propositions is a intentional state, now go and try find intentional states outside subjective ontologies...

Even if god existed would still be subjective, it's at best intersubjective.

>>325873

>Morality as a natural concept can't be objective, it's all based on human emotions.
>Nature doesn't give a fuck if you murder or steal unless you believe in Karma.

>ishygddt

File: 1444655699821.jpg (379KB, 2474x1912px) Image search: [Google]

379KB, 2474x1912px

pic related

>>325920
Lions kill their mates young if it's not theirs. The reasoning behind this is simple, the lion doesn't want to raise offspring that's not of there genetic lineage. It's in its nature to conserve its resources. That doesn't mean it can't have emotions, but any moral dilemmas it faces illicit a simplistic, primal response.

Almost all humans find killing a child for whatever reason reprehensible. It doesn't matter if you were kucked, the very concept of murder is something that's distressing to most humans. This distress is something more complex, more personal than something a lion could manage. It's why we create laws for ourselves, they exist because it allows us to enact punishment that otherwise doesn't exist in nature. It orders the world in a way that's soothing for us and our human sensibilities.

File: buddha-religious-wallpapers-1024x768.jpg (152KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

152KB, 1024x768px

If the action is good:

>1: it benefits another being

If the action is bad:

>1: it hurts another being

When one acts without considering the feelings of others, this is bad.

When one acts only to recieve benefits, this is bad.

When one does not understand the basic concept of righteous deeds and immoral conduct, this is bad.

>Any effots to enlighten another individual
>Ending of bad habits
>Common sense to know righteousness
>Love of truth

This is righteousneed.

Amitabha

>>326059
makes sense to me

It's built up by the society you grow up in.

>>326059

I never got past that whole everything is maya but be compassionate anyway thing in buddhism.

>>326059

>When one acts without considering the feelings of others, this is bad.
>When one acts only to receive benefits, this is bad.

Bad for who?

>>326314
A Bodhisattva's sensibilities.

It's all idealistic bullshit

>>326379

Not all of it. I bet the Buddha would be a much better conversational partner than his dipshit followers.

The Buddha didn't follow Buddhism to reach his conclusions, so I have no idea why his followers follow it.

>implying Buddha was real

>>327219
"Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theists"

Srimad Bhagavatam is an ageless classic