>objective morality You guys don't seriously believe

Fuck off and read Kant

>>9866631
Fuck off and read habermas

were all humans and we all participate in the same rational thought. It's intuitive that the same things should be good and bad for us

>>9866631
Subjectivity is objective.

File: 1492927088364.jpg (337KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

337KB, 1200x900px

>>9866631
Awww that's cute. Little baby atheist gonna try to convince everyone slavery isn't wrong? Awww so edgy so cute

>>9866631
>we all participate in the same rational thought
What makes you think this?

>>9866831
I'm a human, I have the capacity for rational thought, therefore so must other humans.

>>9866638
Fuck off and read Bernard Williams

>>9866873
Your argument undermines its own premise

>>9866873
I bet you have irrational thoughts too

>>9866873
so this is the intellectualism of /lit/ I've heard so much about...

>>9866873
I've read some dumb shit on here before, but man.

>>9866717
Not in rational schemes of perception.
(Please don't leave me hanging with the quote)

File: Transfiguration-of-Jesus-greek-icon.jpg (217KB, 1600x1062px) Image search: [Google]

217KB, 1600x1062px

Morality is divinely driven and divinely given.

>>9866873
So, let me get this straight, if you've got genital herpes so must I?
I don't want to be solipsistic but you can't even prove there are other humans, or the fact that you're a human yourself. This thought of yours sounds just plain dumb

>>9867397
You know what? What if there's no God?

>>9867406
Then there is no morality. This is what Nietzsche's getting at. God exists, of course, but if he didn't there would be no concrete basis for morality despite certain thinkers' attempts to establish it.

Morality is humanist nonsense.
>>9866638
Kant is full of more holes than the Reichstag.

>>9867415
So who created morality if there was not god?

>>9867427
Well, in a godless universe, to quote /lit/'s favorite thinker, morality would just be a spook. It would all be a fiction that people tell themselves.

File: everything-that-we-know-and-love-is-reducible-to-the-18628046.png (159KB, 500x517px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 500x517px

>>9867437
Morality is not a spook. Even if a god didn't exist, people paint enemies of society as evil to dehumanise them. That's what morality is; good: beneficial to a society, evil: detrimental to a society.

>>9866873
>humans
>capable of rational thought

>>9867397
Islam agrees

>>9866831
Morality not being completely grounded on universal axioms. It comes down to the premisses that are accepted, and there is no ultimate authority on this besides each and every one of us - unless there is one absolute authority, God.

>>9867626
Wrong. Stupid legalist.

File: 1480023491700.png (38KB, 625x626px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 625x626px

>>9866631
Thomas Hobbes explains this in the first 100 pages of Leaviathan yet retards still pick ''muh individualistic relative moral routine''

File: images (76).jpg (19KB, 344x291px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 344x291px

>>9867669
>one guy said something one time
>everyone should agree immediately and stop talking about stuff related to that thing
Shuddup with that tone, pal.

>>9866873
>everybody has what I have
Yes-men ruin everything

>>9867626
Two men have a duel in isolation. There is no index of the population. There will be no investigation. The duel is legal.
One fights honorably according to traditions. One cheats, wins. Nobody knows about the cheating.
Where is morality by your standards? Morality was here long before urban cattle, but they might be mutually exclusive.

>>9867655
Islam is not completely explained by its atrocities. The Quran has guidelines for drunken behavior, but Islamic states ban alcohol entirely.
I would rather judge Islam by its mystics and literate people. As a political, cultural and historical rival they have been more advanced and far less.

>>9866706
Even if that were true, things being good or bad for us as humans doesn't constitute objective morality.

File: 1498282478554.jpg (34KB, 600x337px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 600x337px

>>9866631
'Tis a thing manifest, be thou some manner of brainlet?

I think moral individualism is the best moral theory. Unlike other theories, moral individualism caters to the individual. The individual is responsible for his or her own actions, and must do what is in within their best self-interest(to do so otherwise is impossible, refer to psychological egoism). Moral collectivist theories fail, because humans aren't altruistic, and denying people their individuality and placing them into the 'herd' is setup for failure. Moral relativism fails to assign any responsibility for one's actions, making things like slavery morally acceptable(under moral individualism it is immoral, as it is not within the slaves own self-interest). Moral Objectivism/Absolutism is absurd, because those making such claims have no evidence to back up their beliefs. Morality may very well be objective/absolute, but humans can never come to know it.

These threads show the true face of /lit/. The most of you are fucking mongoloids.

>>9868853
>under moral individualism it is immoral, as it is not within the slaves own self-interest
It would be moral for the slave owner though. Pass.

Objective morality as it is known to us is morality that of the ruler anyways, and unless we go beyond being ruled, which is impossible, the need to know about objective morality is naught.

>>9868890
Both the slaves and the slave owner are responsible for their actions. It may be moral for the slave owner to own slaves, but it's the exact opposite for the slaves. Under moral relativism it is perfectly moral for the slave owner to do so, he has no responsibility. Under moral collectivism/utilitarianism, things can go in any direction. It is entirely dependent on who the majority is, and if it so happened to be the slave owners, then that would be the moral thing to do. Moral objectivism/absolutism has no argument due to a lack of evidence.

The objectiveness of morality to me is the objectiveness of logic. The golden rule rests upon the logic of human behavior in how they treat one another. If you break the golden rule you are illogical or a hypocrite and in error. Can' get more objective than stupidity.

File: 186348471.jpg (11KB, 612x243px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 612x243px

>>9868909
You could try centimeters.

>>9868933
>not using your thumbs

>science proves animals have morality
>huh duh humans don't have one
>slavery is good
>niggers raping my wife is good
>honor is bad
>honesty is bad
>nigger culture is good
>feeding the poor is bad

>>9867677
Not a rebuttal

>>9866638
Kantianism is just a form of anti-realist constructivism, read a book nigga.

File: image.jpg (47KB, 567x565px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 567x565px

>>9869285

>>9869197
>science proves animals have morality
sam harris pls go

>>9869197
>science proves animals have morality
Source?

why do so many people agree on what is good and bad then?

inb4 social construct

>>9868853
Back to the past, Jack. Your babble is just Enlightenment piss.

>>9869919
How so?

>>9866873
how do we know that our thoughts our objectively rational my friend

File: 1502251870460.jpg (15KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 480x480px

>>9866631
>Universally
>Preferable
>Behaviour

File: 1450217121716.jpg (162KB, 1462x1462px) Image search: [Google]

162KB, 1462x1462px

>objectivity

File: 1494985132861.jpg (241KB, 1069x1196px) Image search: [Google]

241KB, 1069x1196px

Reading Nagel's The View from Nowhere made me doubt that morality isn't objective.

I'll have to read more into moral realism, but I can see how moral anti-realism might be false and based on an arbitrary conception of what counts as objective. It's like how nihilists exclude meaning a priori from their survey of the world and then claim that meaning doesn't exist.

>>9869939
You're mirroring Enlightenment philosophy, because you're a hack anclap

>>9870281
I'm a minarchist

>>9870748
Yes, an Enlightenment retard.

>>9871691
Ad hominem much

>>9869788
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gsf2zCcWuTE

>>9866631
subectivity is a bandaid

>slavery and genocide aren't bad

gonna have to do a little more to convince me you fucking fedora edgelord

>>9871855
>convincing and debates are the way to change peoples' opinion

says the liberal rationalist

>>9871873
>says the liberal rationalist
is that an insult?

>>9871855
>slavery and genocide are bad becuz they make me feel bad AND IF YOU TRY TO QUESTION MY CHEAP ETHICS YOURE JUST LE FUCKING EDGY TEEN FEDORA SONIC COMMUNIST GAY RETAAAAAAAAAAAARD1
'ok'

>>9871914
>pain isn't a bad thing in itself
>causing pain to others for pleasure isn't wrong
>human beings don't have a right to life

yup you've really backed up these claims well. any arguments other than "muh teenage nihilism"? go back to reading neechee

>>9868724
Lmao

>>9871914
if this is the best you can, neck yourself

>>9866631
There's a reason why virtually all people are repulsed by someone's torturing a baby and upset by an injustice done to an innocent person. How underage must you be to deny objective morality wholesale, one wonders.

>>9866631
It exists, and we don't need religion to prove it does.

>>9866762
how is slavery wrong, sweetie?

>>9868930
>logic
>objective
howling

>>9867626
Beneficial or detrimental to which society, exactly?

>>9868853
yum yum gots to eats those tasty children and weaklings and dismembers them too, my precious. I am responsible for my own moral sense, gotta eat eat eat the weak because it is fun

>>9867626
Read MacIntrye. If you're going to be a materialist (and you shouldn't) at least be a Chad Neitzchean and not a Virgin Utilitarian

I define good as something that makes people feel good.
I define evil as something oposed to good.

So, using this logic, we can assume that killing a person is evil because it doesn't make feel that person good.
Killing hitler would make a lot of people feel good and only a few feel bad, so killing hitler is good.
Slavery makes a lot of people suffer, so is bad.
Letting my wife cuck me, is not good from an evolutionary sense, so is evil.
women being whores destroy society so it doesn't improve the feeling good of nobody and punish the common good (society).
being gay is wrong because God said so.

>>9872998
Is this the part where you tell us the reason or...?
>>9871935
>pain is a bad thing in itself
You can be redeemed through suffering. And pain is inseparable from life. How many people do you know who have never felt pain? What does it mean for something to be "bad", is your definition of bad whatever makes people feel pain?
>causing pain to others for pleasure is wrong
If pain is not always bad(as I have argued) then how can causing others pain necessarily be wrong. Even if it was wrong why is my pleasure outweighed by their pain. Why are they worth more than me? I am uniquely positioned to know what makes me feel good and to look after myself, so is it not then obvious each person should look out for their self first? What does it mean for something to be "wrong" is it the same as being "bad"?.
>human beings have a right to life
What are rights? What does it mean to have a "right to life"?

>>9875287
You all has the rights to suffer for my amusement, my relativistic goonie princesses. How delicious you are yumz yumz to eat. The only rights you have i gave you, and my sweets tooth demands its own rights .... to crawl in your chamber as you sleeps and do the things that my moral conscious tells me yumz yumz ... your breath won't be wasted if it feeds the hunger.

>>9873889

This is awful bait

>>9876129
So this is Moral Realism and Altruism... wow.

>>9868853
>I'm17andthisismoralphilosophy

>>9876193
Nice strawman you are going after there.

Nihilists need to be necked, not like they'd care anyway

>>9879270
Is this >>9876129 you? Either way feel free to actually post an argument in response to >>9875287 anytime. Not sure why you would claim I'm attacking a strawman as I dismiss someone who is clearly retarded instead of responding to my argument.

are redditors snitching on the write what's on your mind threads or what? i want to discuss such literary topics as jacking off

>>9866638
>some 18th century g*rman cunt has it all figured out
likely story

>>9866631
How spooked some people can be.

File: 1475125245343.png (39KB, 630x480px) Image search: [Google]

39KB, 630x480px

>>9867677
>Implying Hobbes isn't a fucking boss and there isn't more people who think similar to him
>Moving away from the point and bringing out a completely different argument
Thats why you people are the cultural cancer killing humanity

>>9881750
this

>>9867626
Hello thrasymachus

File: nervous.jpg (171KB, 386x444px) Image search: [Google]

171KB, 386x444px

>>9867397
>Not even God given morality is objective.

>>9869197
>science
first mistake

>>9875287
Pain is indeed inherently to life but is pain the same as suffering? No, I don't think so.

Pain(much like death), being it inseparable from life, cannot be a bad or evil thing on itself unless life is also taken to be bad or evil.

Following a similar logic, things such as pleasures, being it also natural to happen in one's life cannot be a good thing unless life is also taken to be good.

Is life good? No, for if that was the case death would also be implied to be an evil thing and so would be the creator of it (God or the Universe or whatever)

Now what does it mean to be good? What is suffering? Is God?

Well, if there is an all powerful deity controling the universe while we live a purely deterministic life, doing good would be doing it's will while doing 'evil' would be simply doing it's will while ignoring the true reason of it, which would take you to various degrees os suffering.

A person who steals does so in order to judge his pleasure taken from this crime as 'good' and because of so he steals, but although he will feel pleasured with it, it will only breed within him ambition and desires and once these desires cannot be fulfilled because things happened in such a way that they could not have been, his soul will get restless and he will blame God, the world or himself over that instead of accepting his nature as a good man would do, suffering because of it.

Now if God does not exist, there are still things that are out of your control and your concept of good/bad ends up becoming hedonism, which wanting or not will give you a great deal of both suffering and pain.
Now I'm going to keep spurring my purely personal beliefs
>Is human life valuable? Do we have the rights of life?
No, nature itself does not gifts us with life for a long time
>Causing pain to others is wrong
Both wrong and correct. Although there is no evil on pain itself, we as human beings serve better to our own natures if we keep together as brothers. Someone that purposely does harm to another in other to gain a useless preferable is not difference from an allergy or cancer, not benefiting the whole. The only evil in causing pain to others is to not acknowledge your true purpose and act in ignorance.

Let no act of yours be without purpose
Let your purpose be the same as the purpose of god
Let your life be filled with pain, but never suffer from it

>>9871842
I always found something off about this guy, but i havent until now been able to put my finger on it.

However, i've now realized that the uncanniness stems from how he basically is Jordan Peterson.