Morality

Short answer: Morality is suicide.

Long answer: No, because the myth of "objective morality" has changed throughout history. Slavery and maiming your children have all been moral at one point in history. Subjective morality, however, also does not exist.
What people think they have for morals are just a matter of perspective.

If someone's morals are to kill gay people because their religion told them to, and you try to interfere, then you are technically the bad guy.

Yes, at least for us. A snake might not consider the moral implications of attacking a mouse, but it's important for us humans, because our brains have developed to become rational and emotional.

Murder can be rationalized, but something still tells you it's wrong. That's the part of your brain that has evolved to 'feel's, empathize. I think that ethics is such a confusing subject because logic cannot be applied to solve the problems it presents. Ethics require warm emotion, not cold rationality.

How can we determine what is the right thing to do in every circumstance? Is there a general principle? I think thats too difficult a question, but one thing is certain, morality exists, even in a godless world.

>>9375525
A continuation:

What is considered moral may change, but one thing is certain. Even if we don't know what is the right thing to do, the right thing to do definitely exists.

nah

>>9375530
> the right thing to do definitely exists
why
what makes it right
who/what is the source of moral authority

Morality is just "muh feels" desu

It exists as a concept in the minds of people and nothing more.

>>9375547
where do feels come from
what makes beating a dog with a shovel feel bad, man

>>9375551
empathy is natural to humans

File: 1481479485225.jpg (52KB, 688x726px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 688x726px

>>9375547
>>9375551
>>9375563
very nice

>>9375563
hmmmmmmmmmmmm

>>9375547
Very true, but you can't dismiss 'muh feels', because no normal person can completely ignore emotions.

>>9375500
Morality is subjective, your own individual code which you follow. And regardless if you're aware of it or not you follow Christian morality. The west may be secular, but Christian morality has been so heavily pounded in to the minds of the collective for over a thousand years that it will take hundreds of more years under an entirely new morality to get rid of the slave morality of Christianity. If you blindly follow a morality like the Judeo-Christian one, the Islamic one or any religious morality invented soley to control you and ensure you are docile and obedient then you are doomed to fail in everything.

>>9375579
More like, even if you could, why should you? It's not like there's anything else to guide us.

File: 54354353453453.jpg (38KB, 333x500px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 333x500px

>>9375500
Yes, we can even be scientific about it

Don't you just fucking love science?

>>9375593
>>>/reddit/

>>9375500
Does morality exist beyond man? Is it a physical force or law in the universe? I believe the answer is no. However I believe morality exists for man. I believe morality is the teachings of admirable and idealized behavior exhibited by idols and heroes. Which actions are moral and immoral are based on personal experience and are subjective. However I believe the belief that because something is subjective, because it doesn't exists as a reality beyond humanity, that it shouldn't matter and that its a "lie" or "illusion" is foolish and misguided. Morality governs something more powerful than our actions, it governs the purity and conviction of the human spirit. If you act repeatedly beyond the scope of your moral compass you will break as a human being. If you act repeatedly within the ideals of your moral compass than you can gain traits like courage, confidence, conviction, personable traits that mold you into a leader among men that's recognizable by other humans. Humans don't get to choose what they believe is morally right and its a product of the conditions of their life. Therefore acting with moral conviction in a way that aligns with the morals of your fellow man strengthens your bonds and leads to respect and admiration, while acting against his morals will lead to hatred and disgust.

Because of these traits the role of Government is fundamentally ruled by the morals of society. Law is ruled by morality. Fundamentally in the court of human interaction morality is significantly more influential than logic and reasoning. Even the belief that men should base their actions on Logic and Reason is a moral argument and belief routed in the idea that mans morals cannot be trusted over objective truth, this belief is itself a subjective morality.

Holy fuck, don't know if /lit/'s level has decreased dramatically in the last months or every answer to this post is a satire.
Only current good thread is the faceapp one desu

File: tips-fedora.jpg (5KB, 226x223px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 226x223px

>>9375593

>>9375598
Morality does exist beyond men. Look at studies concerning morality in rats, wolves, etc.

>>9375608
Kill thy muffuggin self

>>9375608
>Empathy and morality are totally the same thing
kys

do you think morality exists in the lion that mauls the baby antelope?

do you think morality exists in the wasps that lay their eggs in the brains of spiders?

do you think morality exists in the chinese?

>>9375534
I guess he wanted to say "right" as in it feels right, not the same person but it's an interesting point in >>9375525
I'm not a fan of the anthropological part but if I understand we could say that morality definitely exists, it's not objective, it's not universel but we certainly feel shame for example and we can maybe bend our perception but the feels we can't really suppress them

>>9375613
>do you think morality exists in the chinese?
A breed of people who eats infants is a race of demons.

>>9375525
>>9375608
>>9375615
>muh moral factum
Unironically not an argument.

>>9375623
You got a source for that?

>>9375636
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/dec/31/chinese-cannibalism-infant-flesh-outrages-world/, http://theseoultimes.com/ST/?url=/ST/db/read.php?idx=7333, http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2143294/A-truly-monstrous-medicine-The-Mail-investigates-Chinas-gruesome-human-baby-flesh-pills.html

ITT: a lotta hot sources

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

10KB, 200x237px

ITT: spooks

File: a brighter summer tay.jpg (188KB, 1194x1600px) Image search: [Google]

188KB, 1194x1600px

I hope not.

>>9375610
>>9375611
How typical, post-modernists not believing in facts. Because facts are oppressive - much better if nothing actually matters.

>>9375500
By definition yes.

File: 1489871790918.jpg (149KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 1920x1080px

>>9375525
>but it's important for us humans, because our brains have developed to become rational and emotional.

>>9375696
>confusing facts and data like any 20 yo rationalist while believing to be rigorous

found the undergrad in STEM

>>9375690
>filename

kek

>>9375696
You're ridiculous

>>9375702
>implying your attitude to both isn't exactly the same

>>9375707
because you can't handle the truth

>>9375709
nigga
1) you can't possibly know if certain animal behaviours can be equated to what we understand as morality.
2) even if you could know, it would be irrelevant. you're just widing shit from "humans" to "subjects who postulate ethic codes". you're not arriving to new conclusions for the analysis of morals.

File: 1487622786763.jpg (58KB, 960x958px) Image search: [Google]

58KB, 960x958px

>>9375551
Feels come from the knowledge of factual information.

We value a cat over a rock, because we understand general biology. Biology teaches us that cats have brains, and that within brains, there are processes that compute emotions.

>>9375500
this isn't a question

>>9375764
>>9375689

>>9375748
As I said. Data and facts are both irrelevant to you. You dismiss them to escape responsibility for your own actions. All scum do.

File: LJ_Detail_of_Charon.jpg (395KB, 1082x1425px) Image search: [Google]

395KB, 1082x1425px

>>9375769
In case you're not trolling, you don't have a clue on what's philosophy of moral about and think you know big shit because you've read a couple National Geographic-tier articles on mouses or wolfs. Stop it.

Y'all mother fuckers ain't even talking bout the same thing.

Define 'morality', for a start.

>>9375783
Codification of behaviour/judgements over behaviour which doesn't rely on utilitarian arguments.

>>9375769

try addressing his argument, which concerns what philosophical interpretation can do with facts.

>>9375500
Of course it exist, claiming otherwise would be retarded, but it's not without limits, and it's a man made concept, so it has self contradictions and paradoxes.

>>9375783
How I command you to act.

>>9375500

i usually sympathize with a semantic non-factualist account because of the way that morality operates in our language but w/e

>>9375869
An interesting way to look at it.

>>9375869
"Suck my cock now" ain't moral

>>9375910
It is by his hypothetical definition. Not by yours, evidently.

>>9375925
how can it be moral tho

>>9375930
Because that's what he understands to be moral, you see. It's just a word after all, it means whatever the speaker wants it to mean.

Wrong question. The right question is: "What would be the most moral person imaginable, and how do I become that"
If you think that's some sort of a hippy activist working in Nigeria, think again.

>>9376226
>What would be the most moral person imaginable, and how do I become that
What would be the point of asking this question? It doesn't lead to any genuine understanding, but instead only requires your vague intuitions and uninteresting prejudices on the subject.

>>9376517
Same could be said about any philosophical question. What's the point of this particular one? Not being a piece of shit

What a bad thread.
Spooks and bad logic.

File: HpjZoHc.jpg (135KB, 1829x788px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1829x788px

>>9375608
>>9375696
>>9375709
>>9375764

>>9376530
>Same could be said about any philosophical question.
No. It just really was a pretty bad question. Certain questions have to be explored first, before the once like that one in that post.
>What's the point of this particular one? Not being a piece of shit
A better question in that case would be "What is the nature of not being a piece of shit"

>>9375566
Holy shit a young ones reference. Loved that show

>>9375566
Fucking great image, saved

>>9376558
I'm not even a STEMfag---I hate 'em, even.

>>9376558
>>9376707
I FUCKING HATE moralfags
WW3 when

File: laughing-jesus.jpg (31KB, 429x547px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 429x547px

Why yes. Why did you ask?

>>9375500
yes, moral realism is true and this is obvious
people only disbelieve it because of empiricism, but moral realism has no problems empirical realism doesn't have
you can argue about what's true morally and you can argue about what's true empirically
>in both cases agreement may be elusive
>in both cases arguments eventually need to be introduced from outside the domain (why believe in the empirical at all? why believe in the moral at all? how can any moral/empirical argument be better or worse than any other? what does "moral"/"empirical" even mean? etc.)
>in both cases we ultimately don't yet understand the ontology of the domain (what does empirical reality consist of? what does moral reality consist of?)

just accept that morality is like any other topic: some views are better, others are worse, some arguments are better, others are worse, some concepts are better, others are worse, some distinctions are better, others are worse, etc.

>>9375500
Morality is a practice, not an entity

>>9375500
No, and therefore I killed your mom.

>>9375500
Why are you asking? Conscience got you down?

Now there is an answer to all your problems: moral relativism. After long deliberations, "We" have decided that nobody is able to prove that morality has any meaning, therefore it doesn't have any meaning. This is very convenient as now you don't have to take any responsibility for your actions, and ain't that just swell?
The logic might seem a little unsound to you, it might seem to you that We haven't proven that morality is untrue either. However, do you have any proof that the logic by which you came to that conclusion is true? Didn't think so. In fact, you cannot prove that facts are factual, hahaha. But they sure do hurt. And you don't want to get hurt, do you know?

That's what I thought.