Is morality subjective?

No, but it is subjunctive.

it's subjuctivejunction

No, it is relative.

>>9282847
Whether morality is subjective is itself subjective (but the previous sentence is not).

>>9282864
To what?

Morality is spiritual.

Morality as a set of standards to govern behavior is only useful when it is concretely subjective. That is, the standards one uses must be rigid to their purpose (e.g. when quitting cigarettes, refraining from smoking is imperative), but when those standards cease to be useful, they should be discarded lest they pass into your obduracy. I've not smoked cigarettes in about a year and a half, so having one every month or less won't do me much harm.

Everything is.

>>9282847
Define subjective

>>9282886
my dick

>>9282847
no

btw subjectivism isnt intellectually humble like so many seem to think it is, its arrogant in the face of millennia of human thought.

To people who believe morality is subjective. Why condemn human atrocities?

>>9283175
>muh feelings

typical moral realist

>>9283184
Because "morality is subjective" is a convenient excuse to impose whatever your emotions tell you onto reality. Subjectivists unconsciously project their morality as if it were objective.

>>9282847
No it's based on divine law

>>9283186
Nice tactic. Moral relativists are the biggest fee fee babies of them all

>>9283186
what does any of what i said have to do with feelings

>>9283204
Sure, but not any more than moral realists. Any generalized morality or law is essentially an attempt to force taste, see >>9283184

Any attempt to "condemn human atrocities" in a concrete way is an attempt to legislate taste: "that disgusts me" becomes "that is (generally) disgusting" becomes "that is wrong." If the connecting statement were true, no one would commit "atrocity." Of course, watching the GI footage of corpse pits in the concentration camps is pretty repulsive, but it is literally useless aside from eliciting those feelings of disgust. We have seen that attempts to ban Nazism have the opposite effect.

>>9283241
>If the connecting statement were true, no one would commit "atrocity."
wdhmbt

>>9283241
>agree with me
>go one to tell me why he disagrees

>>9283175
Sproul, is that you?

>>9283244
If something were generally disgusting, i.e. disgusting to all people, no one would do it. Disgust to humans is a defense mechanism, like guilt; it's your emotional brain telling you that "something is wrong here." But it can't be "wrong" generally, because it's your brain that perceives the revulsion.

>>9283249
All I'm saying is, both positions are silly. Moral relativism is one degree of silliness higher than moral realism

>>9283264
You've never done something that disgusts you? Or fills you with disgust later?

>>9283264
>both positions are silly
a sign of intellectual weakness; the failure to subscribe to either aspect of a true dichotomy.

>>9283184
Because you personally find it pleasant to live in an atrocity free environment, of course.

It's like asking 'to people who think taste is subjective, why like chocolate icecream?'

>>9283269
Of course, hence its position as a mental defense mechanism. There is, however, a grave mistake in trying to preempt that feeling for others. Let's say murder were successfully legislated out of existence. After a sufficient number of generations, humans would lose the capacity to feel disgust for murder, and the laws become what the claimed to be: pure gospel, virtuous by respect of their own proclamation. With one's personal disgust reaction switched off, one has no emotional way to distinguish a revolting action from a pleasant action, it becomes totally intellectual. At this point you're going to have a generalized revolt against the law itself, because no one will understand its basis any longer.

When an emotionally healthy child accidentally or purposefully kills a small animal, the child feels guilt and revulsion: these are the things that preempt further loathsome acts. You yourself are filled with disgust, and you yourself resolve to not feel this way in the future. Law cannot feel for you, or anyone else.

>>9283280
Literally, not an argument. A third option is to subscribe to my morality rather than any prefabricated notion, subjective or objective

>>9283184
I'd say morality makes sense when we shorten it's scope of reality it refers to.

The concept by itself isn't founded on any unquestionable, unmovable "essential" canon. It is a human invention, and therefore has no absolute inherent value in terms being.

However, that doesn't mean that we should abandon it altogether as a practical concept.

In the scope of society and general human interaction it is fundamental. When living in society, morals are the unwritten contract between its users so that they may all continue to benefit from being a part of it.
Of course, it is very useful that most people simply by being raised within a certain society can keep the moral contract going by making it into an intuitive part of their lives. Ergo, the feeling of "right" and "wrong."

>>9283312
>After a sufficient number of generations, humans would lose the capacity to feel disgust for murder
WOW I'm impressed by all your sources friend good job you sure convinced me

>>9283315
>no absolute inherent value
I'm going to ask you to define
>value
>practical
>benefit
>useful
and then I'm going to laugh as you fail to provide any justification for your pathetic relativist claims.

>>9283317
Is this not how evolution works? If you cease to use an appendage, after a sufficient period of disuse, it becomes vestigial. If humans stop using the mental appendage of disgust, it will become vestigial like the appendix, or legs on a whale

>>9283325
I don't think moral disgust works as simply as an appendage. Probably requires plenty of different brain parts and stuff.

File: socrates.jpg (77KB, 1068x617px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 1068x617px

>>9283325
No, actually. The way evolution works is as follows:
1: A body part becomes no longer useful to a species of animal
2: Children who grow smaller, less developed versions of that body have a slight edge over their siblings because they're slightly more efficient with scarce resources
3: After thousands of years the body part has been mostly bred out of existence
For that to apply to morality, you would need:
1: A complete abolition of all scenarios wherein a moral judgment would ever have to be rendered
2: A scarcity of resources or some other situation that prompts amoral people to be more physically and/or sexually competitive
3: But without scenarios wherein a moral judgment would have to be rendered there would never be an opportunity for moral/amoral people to compete along those lines, and thus never an opportunity for amoral people to become dominant.
This is just from a philosophical standpoint. Practically speaking, you will never abolish all possibility of moral judgments, and to imply you can is ridiculous. From a biological standpoint, as well, your line of thought fails because moral disgust is not an isolated phenomenon but intertwined with ever aspect of your brain. And your entire argument presupposes materialism, because otherwise morality would be outside the reach of evolution.

>>9283333
What about desensitization? An individual person's disgust reaction can become totally eroded over the course of their life. Why couldn't the same thing happen to enough people for the reaction to become an evolutionary artifact?

>>9283354
>tfw religion will win because it increases evolutionary fitness

>>9283354
>Practically speaking, you will never abolish all possibility of moral judgments, and to imply you can is ridiculous

This is all I wanted to hear admitted. So an admonition against general murder ("Thou shalt not kill") fails for the same reason. The law implies that it can supersede a person's morality, which according to you, it can't, since its existence hinges on the presupposition of total abolition. Murder, for instance, is an all legal circumstances wrong by virtue of its definition as "wrongful killing." Therefore the law itself is worthlessly impractical

>>9282847iz your mother subjective uou fuckind fa
G

>>9282939
>the standards one uses must be rigid to their purpose
But there is only one purpose with an infinite amount of imperfect expressions. That's why more intelligent people cooperate more; because their expressions are closer the the singular perfection.

>>9283398
>We can't reach perfection so we shouldn't even strive for it
You are weak and cowardly, and intellectually dishonest to match.

>>9283361
Because that wouldn't be evolution (good explanation by >>9283354).

The "erodedness" of morality that people may experience isn't something that is biologically passed down from father to son, so it doesn't fall in the realm of evolution. Whatever "degeneracy" that might happen isn't something that is inherent to certain genes or something that can be bred out of existence.

Morality is something [taught], so any "disgust" that might be felt in relation is therefore also taught.

What you are implying is something more along the lines of a radical cultural shift on society as a whole, not something genetically inheritable.

>>9283405
Generally speaking, there is "only one purpose." You would call it the "perfect" purpose, but there's not such a thing as "perfection" except in abstractions like math. The "one" purpose is purpose itself, which you then adapt in situations as it suits you.

>>9283407
I wouldn't say "shouldn't." And who is this "we" that does the striving? "Perfection" applied in situations (e.g. perfect musicianship) is an unattainable abstraction anyway, so to abstract it a degree further into "perfection in all situations" is even more illusory and foolish. Not only that, it's a useless concept that describes nothing at all.

And all of this is still not the same thing as saying "don't strive to be better at what you do," because that statement implies concrete modes of action.

>You are weak and cowardly, and intellectually dishonest to match.

Keep projecting

>>9283430
>I wouldn't say "shouldn't."
>even more illusory and foolish. Not only that, it's a useless concept that describes nothing at all.
This is your final (You), spend it wisely.

>>9282886
each person's own environment, circumstances, and desires

>>9283565
So there are contexts where it would be absolutely fine for me to rape you and cum in your mouth

>>9283569
#saudi_arabia

>>9282847
The older you grow the more you realize that there is no truth, only interpretation. Even math is defined by its abstractions. What does it mean for a triangle to have certain properties as opposed to a circle? It means that we have created the idealized concept of a triangle, and thus that triangle has certain properties. That does not mean the triangle itself is true.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NCoeC9DyxQ

>>9282847
>>9282847
Depending on where you want to go, you may need a compass and a map. There is no universal morality because not everyone wants to go to the same place. In that sense it is subjective. If, however, you know the place you want to go, then the subjectivity of opinion regarding how to get there may slightly differ only regarding the route, but not the underlying direction. There it becomes no longer subjective once you've established a destination, and more so if you want to get there in the shortest distance and time, in which case there is an objective standard, or rather a reality shared by the subjective collective known as humanity.

There is your way, there is my way, but as far as the only way, it does not exist. ~Nietzsche

One interpretation of what he means by that is we all have our own unique preferences and aspirations