Ethics.

>>8483570
>objective ethics
Lmao

Ethical Intuitionism by Huemer is IMO the best recent metaethics book

>>8483572
Care to expand, fag?

>>8484019
No

>>8484019
The term "Objective Ethics" doesn't actually make a great deal of sense - ethics are personal principles by definition, and if everyone's personal principals were the same there wouldn't be such a thing as ethics.

Of course you might be expected to uphold a code of "ethical practice" as say, a doctor, but this is still basically an arbitrary standard that has been judged to be the minimum level of acceptable treatment by some guy with a rubber stamp; so it's always open to change.

Morality is supposed to be more dictatorial in nature, so maybe that's what you mean; the words are similar in meaning but not quite interchangeable.

Morals come from a god, or some other power that arbitrates a supposedly objective code of conduct; believing in these only makes sense in the context of theism or an esoteric philosophy of good and evil.

File: 1469796127423.gif (199KB, 500x366px) Image search: [Google]

199KB, 500x366px

>>8484082
Well some philosophers have observed the natural tendency of humans to be calm and kind as signs of an innate moral backbone.

But of coarse all these philosophers didn't spend much time around niggers and mudslimes to realize how barbaric our animal ancestors are.

>>8484082
So does objective morality exist?

>>8484105
There is no natural tendency present in all humans.

There are a few basic preprogrammed responses like cry, shit and bite; everything else is what starts as crass mimicry of our elders, and often never progresses further than that.

>>8484112
Only if there's A: a legitimate "god", and B: it somehow cares enough to make demands of human behaviour.

Which are for my money highly unlikely propositions, but you can think what you like, because there is no evidence that what you believe has any effect on what happens to you after you die.

>>8483570
As an expression of value, ethics are tied to the conciousness of the valuator, and so, the perpetuation of the valuator is the primordial ethical goal.

>>8484115
Explain why in every society through out time murder of innocent civilians deemed wrong?

Well, it's up to each individual whether he wants to practice objective ethics or subjective ethics. So I guess even then ethics is somewhat subjective, given that each individual has to make a choice what ethics he believes in.

But under subjective ethics, anything can be ethical. You can justify adultery and stealing under subjective ethics.

>>8484388
self interest + social contract

>>8484129
Apparently someone just read Sartre and
decided to ape all his theories to sound smart

OP I would start with Hume and Kant, probably
Hume first because he's easier to read, as they
were pretty much at odds about the objectivity
of morals. Read "Moral Distinctions not Derived
from Reason" as a quick start.

Of course there's plenty of other places to start,
the question's a little ambiguous, and starting
with Sartre wouldn't be a bad choice. You could
read "Existentialism is a Humanism."

File: 1471976744998.gif (420KB, 616x338px) Image search: [Google]

420KB, 616x338px

>>8484082
Exactly, subjectivity and objectivity actually aren't different things unless you are thinking about reality abject from experience. Determinism is the same a probabilism. One can be expressed in the other, that's what love is, it is redemption by the power of sin, conscience by the power of unconscious matter, it's the self-imparting force which differentiates being from non-being, it generates all incommensurability, and without it the universe would be uniform or in quantum equilibrium so to speak, nothing could be said to exist.
So it's no surprise that logical positivists have been saying exactly that for ages. But they are assuming that love is not equatable with being and that's where they fail in their thinking.

>>8484129
Let me play devil's advocate for a moment and question why the existence of objective morality must entail the existence of a God. Why can't there just be moral "laws of nature'?

ethics are a spook

>>8483570
I will safely assume you didn't read Plato, Aristotle, Aquinas, Kant or contemporaries like MacIntyre and thus you should start with them.

>>8483570
The Ego and Its Own

>>8484115
How do you know that?

>>8485602
Thank you. I wanted a good framework to start with and then move beyond that.

>>8484965

>Why can't there just be moral "laws of nature'?

Hume