Is morality relative?

>>129808426
Are phat asses relative?

What the fuck does that mean, "is morality relative"?

Wanna know the answer? Same answer as this question:

Have we had this faggy dick up the ass thread before?

Yes Pinocchio, now clean your room.

>>129808426
BRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP, IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT MONEY AND WOMEN DIDN*T GO AFTER YOUR WALLET. JUST BEAUTIFUL

>>129808426
yes, absolutely

>>129808426
morality is defined by whatever is good for society. however true morality is unattainable according to game theory because we all act selfishly instead of out of the good of society.

thus the optimal strategy is for people to pretend to be moral while exploiting behind the scenes, and that's exactly what the wealthiest and most powerful do (like Hillary Clinton, for example). As a society we must realize this and become much more vigilant and stricter towards cheaters who exploit while maintaining a moral facade.

To anyone that matters, yes.

BBBRRAAAAAAAAAAAAPPP

File: BRAAAAAP.jpg (63KB, 480x480px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 480x480px

>>129808426
>Is morality relative?
Some elements of morality are informed by culture. But some things, like aversion to murder, are found in all human cultures.

We all know the answer, since morality is dictated by social stricture and in order to harm our fellow men we have to participate in society at least somewhat. The question lies in whether the pleasure of a sin is worth the consequence that will come. (Generally not.)

>>129808426

Basically, yes. Just like the majority of other things in this world.

>>129808426
Are you? morality doesn't come from outside forces it's up to you to decide. Either you think it's a good idea to go along with societal norms or you don't. Ultimately the decision is up to you.

>>129808426
Only if you understand that "relative" doesn't mean "arbitrary".

Morality is driven a set of social instincts which help human beings thrive as groups. That which advances collective well being is objectively moral, however because reality is complex it can be hard to predict what actions will lead to the improvement or maintenance of your group's well being. As a result different people will have their own perspectives on what course of action is the morally correct one. Those differences in perspective make morality seem "relative", but it is is still based in the objective reality that some actions will advance your group's well being and others will harm it.

>>129808597
Objective

>>129808426

Partially.

But so is everything.

>>129808426
only if youre a nigger

sure

>>129808426
Dont lose your stripes. You need them to blend in with the herd

>>129808426
No.
Yes.
Depends on the society you're asking.

Perhaps the best thing that can be said is that it's human.
Btw that ass has been inflated.

File: 87-angelina-pipper.jpg (128KB, 680x382px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 680x382px

>>129808426
No, but moral things can be deemed immoral and vice versa. This is when revolt is necessary to correct the twisted paradigms. As is now.

Yes if you're a degenerate, no if you believe in God.

>>129808426

Absolutely not.

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

>>129809427
Morality is rooted in advancing the collective well being.

You suggest that there is an objective moral choice (ie the one that advances the collective well being the most), but because we do not know what that is, different peoples interpretations of the most moral action lead to a false appearance of moral subjectivity.

I would ask, isn't human well being by itself by itself a subjective concept. Each of us defines what it means to have a good life on our own. What it means to live well is a personal decision.

>>129808426
No, morality stems from human nature.

Now the true redpill is that since different races evolved in different environments, their conception of morality differs.

File: 1351634634.jpg (3KB, 79x125px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 79x125px

Of course

Hi newfags. Thank you for your interest in our community. Please read the rules. Please lurk the archives. Please learn what shareblue is and how you can distinguish illegitimate content from legitimate contribution. For example, OP has posted a completely random pic of a girl to get attention, then he has asked a contextless and unanswerably broad question. Then he probably left and started three more one-line writing prompt one-posts. OP is a spammer, not a contributor, and we do not reply to spammers. We ignore them, report them, or type "sage" (pr. sah-gay) in the options field.

>>129810457
babies first philosophy video!!!

I'm so happy for you. However, don't you think that we wouldn't still be having this discussion if Kant really had it all figured out centuries ago?

>>129808426
According to Deontology, morals are universal and therefore not relative, if you cannot universalise your action to always be "good" it is not moral, therefore actions that can be universalised are morals and always will be. This doesn't always work howeverin instances such as 'white lies'.

Then there's Utilitarianism which attempts to say that morals aren't relative but can basically be used to justify any action and shoots its own point in the foot for it's trouble.

And then there is virtue theory which again basically gets shot in the foot by cultural shifting of morals. e.g aztecs thought it was fine and dandy to sacrifice humans whilst we currently deem that as bad.

tl;dr morals are entirely relative but some argue they aren't because its beneficial to society when they're not.

some call this Ethics and not morality but they in real world experience they equate the same thing

>>129808426

Think about it for all of 30 seconds.

>Nothing is objective

If that statement is true, then it's an objective statement.

Relativism is a logical fallacy.

>>129810862
and here, you'll see what we call "thredmom" - thredmoms are humongous faggots, and you should treat them as you would your biological mother - with disdain, disrespect, disregard, and frequent inappropriate contact to her fat cock

>>129809026
what about the aztecs? didn't they murder the fuck out of people?

>>129811166
When and how does saying morality is relative imply that everything is relative?

Morality is for pussies

>>129811275
the entire point of civilization/rule of law is that you don't walk around killing people willy-nilly, anon

aztecs were a tribe that sacrificed people for religious purposes, it's not like they did it whenever they felt like it

>>129812054
True, in fact murder was wrong in Aztec society

>>129808426
No that's a logical fallacy dumb fuck

>>129810935

Yes, because we are inherently selfish and can't admit when we're wrong.

>>129808595

/thread

>>129808426
yes
/thread

and yes I get to /thread my own post

>>129811350

As Socrates noted, universal ethics is the logical conclusion.

If ethics are relative, then ethics don't matter at all

File: 9eb127dc3ecda38ce85ed41d96c3ecd3cca1e24af74622781c6da4b27640a843.png (61KB, 212x218px) Image search: [Google]

61KB, 212x218px

>>129808426
>is morality relative?
No

>>129808426
No
>>129810935
>However, don't you think that we wouldn't still be having this discussion if Kant really had it all figured out centuries ago?
Philosophy isn't a religion, there's no consensus. People are going to talk about philosophical concepts for all of time.

>>129808426
>Is morality relative?

The short answer is No.

File: 4d chess champ.jpg (21KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 413x395px

>>129808426
lol no

Yes but we must pretend that no.

>>129814471
why?

>>129813335
if we can argue about it, then it is relative.
No one can argue against the fact the first three digits of Pi are 3.14 because its not relative. That can never shift no matter how cogent your argument.
Morality can be argued over because its nature is relative otherwise we would have reached a consensus by now and would no longer be arguing about it therefore it is relative.

>>129814733
Because we will be in a world of shit without it.

>>129808693
Means there is no such thing as right and wrong, it's just your opinion.

>>129808597
Yes.

>>129808426
Individually - yes
In totality - no

morality is only relative when you're talking about society vs society. within those societies morality isn't relative at all

>>129808595
fpbp

>>129808426
No, it is engraved in every human being to some degree

>>129814471
But is that the moral thing to do

>>129808426
Yes. The only moral that doesn't change is self preservation.

>>129817283
Yes

>>129808426

Dear lord that's one juicy ass. I swear to Osiris I will lay with her.

Seriously though, why is it that only pornstars appear to have bodies like that? Is it the camera angle or editing? There are plenty of nice assed women out there. But none come close to this. She even has the girl next door face to go with it.

>>129808426
How do you measure morality if it is objective?

>>129816997
that's a good take on it.

File: 1496783010660.jpg (31KB, 236x236px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 236x236px

>>129808426
I often ponder this. What is manipulation, power and what we deem "evil" is actually the holy law of the universe.
Strength through violence and manipulation is undoubtedly the most effective tools to gain power over others, thus the most efficient tools of evolution.
The very same system "god" supposedly created.
We've been lied to and weakened with false religions telling us to avoid evil at all costs and make ourselves be "good" while the true "elite" and most powerful and successful people on Earth thrive in the advantages of the true holy law of power in the universe.
We've been brainwashed to view "evil" as bad.

>>129808426
No with that a face.

>>129808426
https://youtu.be/QmHXYhpEDfM

>>129814749
Just because it's hard to figure out doesn't mean it's relative retard.

>>129808426
Yes of course. Comes from the country that flipped morals 180 degrees 4 time in the 100 years.

>>129809026
>like aversion to murder
Murder of people from alien tribe were acceptable in all human cultures and glorified to the skies in many.
>scalps

>>129818483
I would argue that it is divine revelation from natures God

Confucius called it the Mandate of Heaven
The Hebrews called it Gods commandments
Christians call it Gods moral law
Buddhist call it the 8 fold path

Some call it natural law

We can see traces of it in all human beings
And we know that we have broken it at some point

>>129808426
yes with the rejection of drugs, tobacco and alcohol

>>129808595
penis weanus ofcourse

File: 32423423423.jpg (45KB, 361x480px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 361x480px

>>129814749
>That can never shift no matter how cogent your argument.
Easy peasy. Make a law that Pi is 3 and kill everone who says otherwise. Pi is 3 objectively know.
>but muh math
You are a smart kid, make new math with Pi=3 as axiom or you will go to the stake. Grotesque idiotic impossibility ? Well how about geocentric model and astronomy based on that? It even worked for practical purposes lol.

Non effective? Yes. But will it work? yes it will. And new truth is objective now. As no observers observing that Pi =/= 3 exist.

File: 52345.jpg (480KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

480KB, 1920x1200px

>>129821081

>>129808426
Her face is gross but that ass is phat.

File: 1494560351624.png (11KB, 200x163px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 200x163px

A better question is whether it's better for society to believe that morality is relative or whether it's objective and universal. If it's not, then you're having to weight believing in truth over usefulness, and at that point I'd want to know what the value of truth is such that it ought to be pursued and pushed even when it is not useful.

File: Trotsky1494103274414.jpg (594KB, 1452x1448px) Image search: [Google]

594KB, 1452x1448px

>>129823585

Why would you go to a Soviet Commie, while searching for God?

>>129808426
No

>>129808426
My biggest goal in life is to smell a woman's asshole.

File: 345234534.jpg (97KB, 720x409px) Image search: [Google]

97KB, 720x409px

>>129824038
>better
Usefulness for many. Truth for the few.

>>129809427
What if two collectives are at odds? What's moral then?

>>129824421
How do you prove God to Communist firing squad?

>>129808812
Morality is based on natural law. hth

>>129808597
to rednecks, yes

>>129824421
If they were an honest Communist they would be closer to God than you, liar, purveyor of fake quotes.

>>129808426
Yes. Absolutely. Morality is not written down on some stones by God. Even if it was how does that make it objective? It's just what that god believes personally. Morality is relative and thus is basically arbitrary. You decide if murder is actually wrong. If you kill a murderer is that wrong? He's murdered people but so have you if you decide to kill him. Innocence and guilt can be tossed around like a ball. So can right and wrong. It's all relative. It's all arbitrary. But in the end we as a society decide what's moral based on what we think is best for the collective.

in ancient greece and rome and arab countries to this day practice pedophilia in a complete normalized way, so yeah I would say morality is relative

>>129824038
That's actually very interesting. We as humans tend to praise those who believe in truth as a principle but we never stop to think about the practical purpose of truth. I think standing on the truth of relative morality to be not only right but even practical. It can help us understand the motives of a group from their perspective thus we will not unfairly persecute that group for their misdeeds. And that can stop reverse from happening to us. If we don't have an understanding that can lead to miscommunication which can lead to all sorts of problems.

>>129825983
US practiced pedophilia too (legally), and weed drug was legal too.

>>129823157
Dude you're not even discussing whether or not morality is relative. You're just saying that we should create moral laws and if anyone disagrees then we kill them. Enforcing your morality doesn't make it objective it just makes you a dick.

>>129808426
Depends on your perspective

File: 41234123.jpg (14KB, 238x256px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 238x256px

>>129826838
>You're just saying that we should create moral laws and if anyone disagrees then we kill them. Enforcing your morality doesn't make it objective it just makes you a dick.
Well if only carriers of my morals left, how aren't they objective? Who would argue them? Everyone agrees with them.

>>129815089
>Mortality is just an opinion
Yeah, you can't die if you don't believe in it.
Whenever I see dumb comments with my flag here, I am reminded that the US isn't as educated as I wished it were.

>>129827195
If everyone agrees that rocks are alive it doesn't actually mean rocks are alive. Agreement doesn't equal objectivity.

>>129808426
If a murderer thinks it's okay to commit murder, and you don't, who's to say who's right? It's all "relative". If you argue that it is inherently wrong, then by what absolute standard of morality are you drawing from? That's hypocritical. If all morality is subjective, then there is no objective standard. tl;dr morality is objective.

File: 25234534.jpg (40KB, 540x450px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 540x450px

>>129828355
>Agreement doesn't equal objectivity.
>says Democracy
You probably forgot that you country flipped opinion 180 degress on many many many things about what is right and whats is not in your society. Just by agreement of majority.

>>129808426
Well, since people are able to have different morals, I'd say it can't be objective

Morality among other things is that voice in you're head fella. Some have It and some don't. The trick is figuring out why you don't just kill for the hell of it or pinch a little kid in the face for fun...Think. Hear that voice...What's it saying...

>>129823585
You know God exists

>>129825481
Not written on stones
But written in our conscience

>>129828935
I don't see how that's relevant.

>>129829011
People believe different conflicting things to be true
Does that mean that truth is subjective

>>129810457
Kant was a fucking pussy

>>129829454
Not really. People murder, steal and rape all the god damn time. If morality were so intrinsically sowed into our nature then no one would disagree about what's wrong or right.

>>129824654
You know what's up. A lot of the modern social malady is a result of truth having been brought down to the unwashed masses.

>>129826236
There is no fairly or unfairly when you embrace relativism. There is no attitude (of charity, benevolence, or whatnot) that gets automatically emboldened at the cost of another (malevolence, prejudice, or whatnot) because of relativism. All that happens is that universal standards are abandoned, and so they cannot be relied upon to resolve conflicts of interests. You say this is right, and I say it's wrong. If neither of us thinks there's a truth which we can discover by means of reason to resolve the disagreement (if truth is no longer believed in, and consequently no longer acts as a arbitrator between us), then all we're left with is violence, whether it be physical or mental (manipulation).

Embracing some kind of objective and universal morality doesn't prevent you from "understanding" another culture. It simply allows you to judge them, to say that they are wrong in what you in fact understand them to be believing and doing.

You can easily see the concrete result of the filthy unwashed masses believing in relativism. Even without looking, though its results are easy to see, and plainly written in the face of the west, you can, in theory, predict what would happen in a culture that embraces relativism. Losers, i.e., those who find themselves falling short of the established norms/standards, will rise up and rebel against those standards once they realize that standards are relative, illegitimate. Why accept a standard that finds you a loser? Especially if that standard's made up. No! Eliminate those old made up standards and erect new made up standards. Standards that no longer find you a loser. Nevermind the fact that no such new standards are possible, since all standards are...well, made up.

There's nothing useful are relativism, as far as the plebes are concerned.

>>129809427
hail Jesus

>>129808426

Yes, and only people who have had their brain fried by Abrahamic religions think that morality is objective and some sort of inescapable law of physics.

It's like that bit in The Last Action Hero, if I shoot some random mechanic and no one catches me and I'm a psychopath who doesn't care then nothing bad will happen to me, I'll get away with it. God won't send me to hell, Thor won't strike me down, Karma won't get me back and I won't be reincarnated as a slug.

And you might think this is a bad thing to think but it's the opposite, if you understand that morality is just a code of conduct human beings agree upon then you'll understand not to get up to christcuck antics like forgiving a serial killer if he repents the second he gets executed, accepting back abusive people into your life if they claim they've changed, getting turbo autistic about the stupidest little thing like saying a swear word or turning on a fucking light switch, le turning the other cheek when someone is messing with you rather than defend yourself because you understand that the only thing that's going to enforce subjective human morality is other humans and you can't let other humans shit all over you.

>>129808426
Morality is subjective but the consistency of one's moral system is not. For example, you cannot consistently be against slavery and for the state. The existence of the state objectively implies slavery. On the other hand, you can choose to support slavery just because it pays.

>>129808426
morals make people weak

>>129829864
Having a moral conscience does not necessarily mean that we can't violate it or even subconsciously trick ourselves into thinking it's right to do wrong

The same goes with truth
If a negro gets shot while attacking a policeman, even if she sees video footage of him doing it, his momma will believe he was innocent most of the time

>>129830145
If he repents
""If""
Not to mention he will probably have some time in purgatory because of it

>>129808426
relative to God

>>129830263
Than the NAP is just your opinion

>>129808426
She can sit on my face any time she wants.

>>129831274
never?

File: shkrelitty dhrelitty.jpg (114KB, 866x824px) Image search: [Google]

114KB, 866x824px

>postmodernism

Part of morality is how we supposed to act in a given environment. But there are other factors, like instinct. There are things we can show to any culture in the world and they would be pleased or disgusted. They both interact, trying to attain balance. Morality can suppress bad instincts, increasing one's chance to adapt better to it's environment. So you take environment A and B. There are instincts not accepted in A, but somehow accepted in B. Suddenly, there's not the huge need to shut it down.

>>129831019
It's my subjective morality. There is nothing objectively good about being against slavery.

>>129808426
BRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP

>>129808812
>tfw you just realized all of China and Japan lives by this philosophy.

>>129831450
Don't be jelly

>>129831531
>There are things we can show to any culture in the world and they would be pleased or disgusted.
https://www.liveleak.com/view?i=f41_1462529834
Are you pleased or disgusted?

>>129830025
I don't see how that's correct. Of there is charity, malevolence, benevolence etc when relativism is involved. It's just that we relativist recognize that what those things are can be debated and there's no single right answer. We can both think that there's a truth to be discovered but as you can see there's many problems with that. We can both disagree on what that truth is and sense we've accepted objectivity we would be unwilling to compromise at all or even try to understand each other's position. Because why try to understand their position when you believe yours is objectively correct. Its the main cause of the conflict between the Eastern and the Western cultures.

There are few cultures that generally accept relativism. All the ones I can think of are European and those are the most tolerant and peaceful cultures in the world.

And about your whole loser rebellion theory is just kinda ridiculous. People usually aren't so socially insecure that would take up arms just to change society's standards on what qualifies as a loser. The people who you would usual consider to be losers would probably be too lazy to start a revolution anyway.

>>129832514
Fucking animals.

>>129808426
if you're religious they can't be

>>129832650
Funny thing is they think same about you.
>Is morality relative?

>>129830659

we do have a moral conscience but that doesn't mean it's all the same. And we know there are people who just don't have a conscience at all.

>>129827962
he said morality, you fucking turboautist manlet

>>129832842
Now, If a similar video, without any context, just a girl being stoned somewhere, and no one knows why, I think the vast majority would be disgusted. In my opinion, there are some foundations for our morality, written in our lower brain. But after that, of course it can change and adapt.

morality is a spook

>>129808426
Of course it is.

Psychopaths don't have the ability to emotionally connect with society, therefore don't empathize with morals.
Autists are unable to socially connect with society, therefore don't understand morals.
Mental retards and idiots are unable to cognitively connect with society, therefore don't know morals.

If you are emotionally distant from a different society, how can you empathize with their morals. And if you are socially distant from their society, how could you understand their morals? And if you are cognitively different from them, how can you know their morals?

You're restricted to YOUR society and your society's morals, therefore it's impossible for you to know or care about other society's morals.

Arrr, ye scallywag landlubbers ken nowt aboot morality!

>>129808795
SNIFF, IMAGINE ALL THE PEOPLE!!

Assume moral relativism is true. Then every moral proposition is only relatively true. By this logic moral relativism itself is only relatively true, and some moral propositions can be objectively measured. This is a contradiction to the original assumption that everything is morally relative and thus moral relativism must be false.

>>129834620
Moral relativism is not a moral proposition but a observation about the nature of morality.

>>129809472
Whaat
Phat asses are clearly relative
If everyone in a town had phat asses they wouldn't be phat, they'd be average
If everyone had flat asses, an average one would be phat

>>129808426
Atheist here. I believe it is. Life is an anomaly and we're all just animals anyway.. Does it matter what a person did 500 years ago? What about 5000 years ago? Everything is forgotten in time and only the fittest survive. Are chimps evil because they kill off rival tribes. What makes it different when humans kill off rival tribes? I mean the Jews commit the greatest acts of evil and nothing ever happens to them. Only the strongest survive.

>>129808426
yes, but you can fool yourself into thinking it's not in a stable safe society where everyone has a certain level of discipline and long term outlook.

If you're in a starvation scenario or in a war, suddenly thou shallt not kill or eat kids does not seem so ironclad.

>>129824846
>My ancestors are smiling at me bolsheviks.
>Can you say the same?

>>129808812
>we all act selfishly
Game theory doesn't imply selfishness you goon. Neither does rational self interest.

>instead for the good of society
Social contracts, like providing people with rights, are a form of game theory.

File: astro dog.png (1MB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x900px

>>129808812
Religion is used to convey morality, so its not confined to society. I don't know about universal morality but religion helps to bridge the gaps.

>>129835496
Moral relativism makes a proposition: All moral statements are relative. That proposition is about morals. Therefore, it is a moral proposition.

If the world "moral" can be applied to anything then it has no meaning.

Morality defined cannot be relative.

File: 1492134121963.jpg (150KB, 900x562px) Image search: [Google]

150KB, 900x562px

>>129838155
Pretty much this- they're not related. Fitness and morality aren't compatible- that's the given.

>>129808426
Yes and no.

Yes because there is no proof of God or Allah who punishes you on this earth or beyond.

No because you can't structure society and its legal framework on moral relativity and expect it to function. Post-modernism with its cultural and moral relativity is called deconstructionist for a reason.

>>129808426
It's objectively subjective.

If one has been given a proper, classic education, many notions of right and wrong become inarguable truth. The conscious and unconscious mind is born with some sense of this as well.

>>129808426
/pol/tuga

https:// .gg/fxQ7nFw

>Put "discord" in the gap, captcha thinks its spam

>>129808426
idk but she looks yummy.

>>129808426

Obviously. If I steal your private property that's ok.

If you steal mine that's theft. Ok?

>>129838779
No being about morals does not make it a moral proposition. Saying "killing is wrong" is a moral proposition. Saying "Morality is relative" is a observation about morals.

>>129838779
There's a clear difference dude.

No and saying so is a preformative contradiction.

>>129808426
Horrible skunk face

>>129843471
Even atheist evolutionary biologists such as Dawkins theorize that morality is not relative but a evolutionary biological aspect of different species that exists to better the species collective chances of survival. Some evolutionary psychologists have even theorized that overpopulation and high density living in metropolitan areas increase anti-social behavior since survival of the individual and his genes take priority over collective survival in overpopulated situations.

>>129808426
pretty much, there are some universal morals, but detailed codes of conduct are regional and broken down by a number of factors like age, sex, economic position, etc.

File: Bowden.jpg (303KB, 450x685px) Image search: [Google]

303KB, 450x685px

>>129825214
How dare you sir, as a HuWhite educated man of the Northwest, I can assure you that wide hipped, large bottom women are something our Germanic forefathers sought for amble breeding. I cannot help that I get rock hard thinking about a lovely phat booty cutie bearing me 20 HuWhite children.