Prove to me that morality is in any way objective. Oh that's

>>134053438
If morality isn't what ensure your property remains your, then what does it.

What else but moral enact the respect of your property?

>>134053438
We need more Stirner threads

Read some Crime and Punishment.

File: 1490868224175.jpg (136KB, 655x650px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 655x650px

>>134053438

Nationality is our invention to keep you chimps at bay with bananas you call fiat currency.

>>134053438
Categorical imperative describes the concept of morality very well.

>>134053438
There is already a Striner thread going on, fuck off to there

Also
>Mental masturbation is not politics related

>>134054361
>>Mental masturbation is not politics related
Wait, I thought politic was nothing else but that.

>>134053438
Morality is subjective because it's based on culture.

>>134053438
If you dont think there's any meaning to life why dont you just kill yourself?

>>134053438
/lit/ here.

I will actually do this if you respond to me without your flag. Smashing your shit will be the most pleasurable moment of my night.

>>134057282
go on then, you look like you need it

Only retarded believers believe in objective morality.

Read the Bible.

>>134057997
Very well, but before we proceed I should ask you a few questions, just to establish first principles so that we make no mistakes.

The first: do you think we should address the question of whether or not morality is subjective or objective? Yes or no will suffice.

File: 1499912129911.jpg (112KB, 655x983px) Image search: [Google]

112KB, 655x983px

>>134058298
geddin gud bedder than bzzin bad

>>134053971
Crime and punishment is literally a story about how spooks ruin perfect crime

>benign moral because it's apparently "just right thing to do"
Wew lads

>>134053438
It isn't but we need it to ensure the existence of our (or any) society.

>>134058722
Why would I care about existence of ""our"" society?

>>134058407
>perfect crime
>slaughtered an innocent woman in cold blood

no

>>134058897
>innocent

>>134058952
The pawnbrokers sister was entirely innocent.

>>134058897
>innocent
Nice spook. Self interest is all there is

File: 1500156902889.png (55KB, 179x267px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 179x267px

>>134053438
>Objective
You mean Absolute Vs Relative argument you fucking brainlet nigger.

File: Black_Sun_2.svg.png (80KB, 1024x1024px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1024x1024px

>>134058298
Well I suppose that's too complicated a question for a Stirnerfag so let's jump to the second question.

If we are going to actually ask if morality is objective, ought we to ask the question seriously. Should you, dear brainlet, actually ask the question honestly?

If the answer is no then, a fortiori, we are not bound to the result, and the question is meaningless since you do not believe that logic exists or is necessary. You are under no obligation to accept the conclusions of any logical thought. So if you think that 2+2=10, which is factually incorrect, you are still not wrong to do so because intellectual honesty is not necessary.

But do you believe that? Think 2+2=6 right now and believe it. Do it now. Believe something that you know to be untrue.

I submit to you, Stirner-reader, that you cannot do this. You cannot do it because we have just discovered an Objective moral duty--a duty without the fulfilment of which you literally cannot be sane: Intellectual Honesty.

Morality is the understanding of Right and Wrong. Moral Insanity is the inability to understand Right and Wrong. There is no functional distinction between factual correctness and moral correctness. THEREFORE, the fact that it is impossible to be correct without being Honest is evidence of at least one objective (which is to say, not dependent on perspective) moral law.

One is enough to disprove your thesis. There is at least one absolute moral law without obedience to which you are not sane.

>>134059061
Why don't you go and and commit crimes for your benefit then? What are you a coward?

File: op.jpg (29KB, 600x585px) Image search: [Google]

29KB, 600x585px

>>134058864
because you would be the first one to die, you fat basement dwelling neckbeard piece of shit.

pic related. its op.

>>134058864
It doesn't matter if you care about it or not. You're an integral part of it. You are obliged to play certain games and if you won't you'll end up being a miserable outcast or a criminal

>>134059035
Yes, I know. I was just fucking around as per usual on 4chan but in all seriousness that book is a masterpiece

>>134059123
>reddit spacing

>>134053438
Only a dictator would assume a universal morality. Moralities, like cultures, are manifold. And many are incompatible and should not be mixed.

File: anime_girl_reaction_face (26).png (264KB, 548x449px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 548x449px

>>134059305
>Inept argumentation in defense of a bad philosopher

Stirner was a hack. Go back to the Greeks, pleb.

>>134059305
>Anon raises a valid argument which is irrefutable
>HUR DUR THE SPACING I WIN THE ARGUMENT XD
Kill yourself

>>134053438

Biologically and evolutionary, it is to a certain point.

If all humans did was kill each other, we wouldn't survive, for example.

File: 1477622920757.jpg (10KB, 285x287px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 285x287px

>>134059123
Holy shit.

>>134059305
End your life

File: 1426868621140.png (76KB, 1017x709px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 1017x709px

>>134053438
>>134059580


This.

Stirner knew it wasn't within human nature to wake up and start killing people, its illogical.

>>134059123
Nice, it's refreshing to see something other than
>no u nigger

>>134059123
But the quantum mechanical nature of reality would suggest that universal Truths do not exist at a foundational level.

1+1=2 is a cute example, but the building blocks of reality are binary quanta, which are unknowable. Those then combine to form your 1's and 2's much higher up the structural ladder.

>>134059123
>should
cool spook, my dude

>>134059952

Thinks like possessions and whatnot are also biological

If someone steals your food that you need to survive, then you'll get it back up to killing the person because it's your survival at stake.

It's why we have a dislike for thieves.

Society, whether a big city or small tribal village, gets along because it's in the interest of the group and species; our species has a biological drive to survive ad replicate, and whatever benefits that will be part of our moral makeup.

>>134053438
The best tool to measure morality is by success.

>>134060335
Define success.

File: 1474612772206.jpg (219KB, 474x444px) Image search: [Google]

219KB, 474x444px

>>134060267
But this is not a spook. No no, there is nothing external at all about this postulate--I have asked you if you, internally, yourself, believe that you should believe things that you know to be true. Do you believe that it is okay to believe things that are not true?

If so, then, as I have said, a fortiori you do not believe that spooks are wrong, or that there is any legitimacy in bringing them up. Your entire argument is submission to my will--you are agreeing with me by even attempting to argue rationally, no matter how bad you are at it.

Every attempt you make to reason your way out of this is simply further submission to my argument. You are even now demonstrating that you are INCAPABLE of violating the moral law of honesty.

>>134060175
Rationality is the divination of truth through reason alone. 1+1=2 does not become any less true rationally simply because our universe may or may not be more complex than originally thought. The means by which you study that universe (empirical science) are themselves based in Rationality. If you dismiss Rationalism you dismiss your entire means by which to make any sort of argument. Thus, de facto, you agree with me.

>>134053438
There exists an objectively best method to achieve any goal. Having at least a semi morally sound worldview is needed for humans to survive.

>>134060364
Maximization of potential life goals and our ability to accomplish them.

>>134058620
>raping and killing people who have not done you any misfortune "because you can"

What is good is power, and the feeling that power is increasing. I can't prove slave moraltiy to you, for I am not a slave.

>>134058864
A billion men cannot be wrong.

File: angry bird hitler.jpg (89KB, 646x402px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 646x402px

>>134060506
>>134059123
>>134058298
>>134057282
There you go /pol/. I owed you one favor, so I proved that morality is objective. Can you please stop nuking /sffg/ now? I'm seriously just trying to talk about how much I hate Patrick Rothfuss and I'm tripping over you guys in there.

Heil Hitler or whatever it is we do here.

>>134060279
Society, whether a big city or small tribal village, gets along because it's in the interest of the group and species; our species has a biological drive to survive ad replicate, and whatever benefits that will be part of our moral makeup.

This.
And, in different scenarios there are different paths of survival, which will mostly contain the same core elements that guarantee the mainteinance of the individual and the group through time, but will greatly differ in the ways of achieving it.
Therefore, the moral values established in a certain culture might not be appliacable to another.

>>134061090
Cheers, /lit/ nigger

>>134059123
2+2=4 is only logically honest insofar as it is an indication that said person understands mathematics. Mathematics, like everything else, is dependent on world knowledge which is based on experience. It doesn't define morality.

>>134056083
Perhaps you can have no meaning to life and yet still prefer to live over death

>>134053438
if there is no morality than you just kill yourself because your life is meaningless atheist

>>134060364
Is the USA or Syria more successful?

>>134059123
This is one of the dumbest posts on /pol/ in many months.
>hurr you don't think 2+2=6 therefore morality is objective
How stupid do you have to be to present an argument like this? Even a first year high school student could do better.

>>134061390
Depends on the criteria. Subjective.

File: shiggirymoto.jpg (27KB, 464x713px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 464x713px

>>134061256
No!

Mathematics is a philosophy, derived through reason. Euclid proved this--do you think he actually took a line and subdivided it 10,000 times to see if points A and B ever met? Or that Pythagoras actually found a bunch of giant stone triangles and measured them to figure out his theorem? Maths, Geometries, these things are not contingent on weltken. Theoretically speaking you could literally be a brain in a jar without any senses and still derive the concept of numbers because the tools are all there.

Every form of logic that we have today is derived from this basic understanding of Aristotelian Rationalism.

>>134060506
No. We study the world through the lens of empiricism not rationalism. Rationalism is factually wrong.

>>134060506
No. We study the world through the lens of empiricism not rationalism. Rationalism is factually wrong. Mathematics is based on empiricism, not rationalism.

>>134053438
>Oh that's right, you can't.
you know how many things there are that aren't proven, but that are true, or of critical importance

jesus why do I waste my time on you trolls. Stay stupid theres nothing I can do for you

>>134061340
Life doesn't need meaning. What meaning does a fungus have for living? None. It just is. Meaning is a meme. It's not objective, it's not necessary for life to exist and it's not a reason for existing.

>>134061506
I can wait for the day all rationalists are hung from lampposts.

File: goatsaved.jpg (41KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 500x500px

>>134061470
Your inability to comprehend the substance of my argument should be embarrassing to you. The example I have given is not relevant. In fact, the real example is the question of whether or not this discussion, in its entirety, ought to be addressed honestly, X+X=2X is merely a simplification for brainlets like yourself and EVEN THEN you are incapable of grasping it?

This is the point: If you cannot be correct without being honest, then honesty is an objective moral duty, in the literal (which is to say the only legitimate) sense of the word. You cannot be correct without being honest. Morality is literally the set of rules governing what is correct and what is incorrect.

>>134061513
Empiricism is a RATIONAL discipline, brainlet, it is CONTINGENT on Rational precepts. If Rationalism goes, Empiricism goes. These are not independent concepts but rather iterations of the same tradition. Jesus Christ, what is your complaint? What are you actually trying to say, that it is impossible to discern facts without physically finding them in the material world? What then if your senses are deceived? What if the question the answer to which you seek is purely theoretical?

It is possible to derive truth through reason. We KNOW this to be true because we've already done it. What the hell is your problem? How difficult is it to accept that truth exists and can be found without banging rocks together like a monkey?

>>134053438
At the moment, we cannot, you're right.
Should morality now be irrelevant, I'm getting the impression by the position of property this was intended to deny the importance of morality.

Let's assume we know without doubt morality is made up, it's relative, can it being so still benefit a person/persons/society. It's like rules or law afterall.

Would we care to say since our laws are based on nothing but our agreement to follow them, be nothing but insignificant? of course not, they regardless of them being objective, suit cooperation and unity.

Morality is a natural form of this process. I'd argue since the nature of our human environment is structure in such a way, our biology too, that morality is a natural process that would be unlikely to not develop and is therefor not just nonsense, perhaps it's like mathematics, in the sense it finding logic in patterns that best suit our society/group and even if it's contained, and subject to change with new information, i.e (wrong looking outside in) It's still in its contained way, truth.

So yeah slavery eventually is just reasonably impractical.

>>134053438
How can you objectively say that morality is subjective?

>>134061857
Your argument was very easy to comprehend. And easy to dismiss because it fails to meet even the bare minimum standards of a real argument. You have a below average IQ and sadly you think you're smart because you post on /lit/, one of the dumbest boards on the internet.

File: fffffffff Spengler ppic.jpg (14KB, 153x232px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 153x232px

>>134053438
S P O O K E D
The only morality is our collective interest

>>134061857
Your last assertion is false. The truth cannot be found without knocking two rocks together like a monkey.

File: maxresdefault.jpg (50KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

50KB, 1280x720px

>>134062028
Oh yes, /pol/ is such a more intellectual board, you have the best memes, let me deploy one by reminding you that what you just attempted ineptly to employ was a rhetorical device and was thus
NOT
AN
ARGUMENT.

File: ffffffffffff spengler.jpg (365KB, 740x2996px) Image search: [Google]

365KB, 740x2996px

>>134061090
/Lit/, I posted an oswald spengler thread on your board and on /pol/. I literally got a better esoteric shitpost-discussion on /pol/. Your board is about as intellectual as reddit

File: incredulous_frog.jpg (19KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

19KB, 306x306px

>>134062206
I disagree. And you do as well--since the position you are taking here is one of unabridged Empiricism, which itself relies on Rational underpinnings for its foundation.

Need I explain how this is true?

>>134062338
>le pepe

File: image_0.jpg (51KB, 750x705px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 750x705px

>>134053438
Morality is objective because our morals have been objectively conditioned by tptb.

>>134062269
Yes I know, we're terrible, the place is full of pseuds. I go there to talk about fantasy novels because nobody there actually cares about philosophy, they care about memes. If you want to talk philosophy you pretty much have to go to another board and find someone arguing about it there.

And here we stand.

>>134053438
Often, You see most humans getting into a battle of wits as opposed to actually exploring the topic, it appears most are more concerned with displaying superiority here then having a conversation.

>>134062223
Neither board is smart. But you are even more dumb than the low average around here. Your idiotically childish argument held no water to any rational thinker.

File: General-Hux-590709.jpg (21KB, 590x350px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 590x350px

>>134062597
How hard is it to just type the fucking argument, Jesus Christ.

File: fffffffff faustus, carl vogel von vogelstein.jpg (735KB, 1024x786px) Image search: [Google]

735KB, 1024x786px

>>134062464
Well, /pol/ is not much better either. 4Chan was never for serious discussion but at least the iq was high and people would get philosophical references. Since trump it hasn't been the same.
Shame cripplechan is such a shit website.

>>134062750
Well, every place has its gems, /pol/ included. The chimpout threads were fun even when I was still a total lib. The Michael Brown nonsense was about what zipped it up for me.

>>134062924
There are still fun threads indeed

>>134062696
You first.
>durrr 2+2=6
That's not an argument. That's just retarded. Even you being a low IQ subhuman have to know that your "argument" didn't hold any water.

>>134063171
But that wasn't the argument. 2+2=6 was an example of a logically incorrect premise. Are you saying that 2+2=6 is not logically incorrect? If so, show your work.

Or do you agree with the larger argument? If so, on what points do you differ?

>>134063391
And you never demonstrated how OP's premise is illogical. You just used a strawman and made yourself look retarded. You also never should have mentioned being from /lit/. That was really tipping your fedora.

File: Tijger en Leeuwen jacht rubens.jpg (247KB, 640x502px) Image search: [Google]

247KB, 640x502px

are you non-violent, /pol/?
If you claim this you are a lying coward.
We all know, whatever your ideology is, that if it goes on like this for another 15 years we will all be forced choose mass murder and mass violence. But it will also force us to discover ourselves again.
We have been too wealthy to know what we are really capable of.

(This is a /Euro/thread american redditfags pls stay out)

File: IMG_1284.png (231KB, 1280x809px) Image search: [Google]

231KB, 1280x809px

>>134053438
The Holly Bible.
Get cucked atheists. You would all act like complete chimps without it.

>>134063797
Violence is unavoidable in any competitive environment. The only hope we have is that the violence happens in non-violent arenas - like the stock market.

File: Bane.jpg (63KB, 471x710px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 471x710px

>>134063650
But that is wrong. I very clearly illustrated that there is at least one objective moral duty--intellectual honesty. The existence of one objective moral law invalidates OP's premise.

There was no strawman involved, nor did I make myself look retarded. You are simply insulting me because you cannot argue against me. Then again, if you even attempted to argue against me you would be de-facto accepting the legitimacy of my argument, so I suppose it's understandable that you would simply admit defeat and resort to insults instead, but that doesn't change the facts.

>>134061857
>claiming others dont grasp the argument
>literally not understanding something objective (math) vs something subjective (opinions)

>>134064130
Indeed, we institutionalise and control violence in government. To use violence against those who would use violence against others and to use violence for the greater good. You know the thing

But what if a new group which makes up a new plurality want to overturn these institutions to use govermental and non-governmental violence for their tribal gain. This is what faces us in the future.

>>134064315
Who is talking about opinions? What do opinions have to do with anything?

>>134064251
Clearly that isn't an objective morality since religious zealots ignore intellectual honesty as a matter of course. Intellectual honesty is rare and hardly considered moral.

>>134064315
Rationalists grasps onto the idea that mathematics is somehow rational. It's hilarious.

>>134064474
Opinions regarding politics, for example. Or morals. Makes it subjective.

>>134064633
Seems like a theist notion to me.

>>134061513
Reason adjusts observation, not vice versa.

File: DEXYjT3XsAAxgbo.jpg (94KB, 427x640px) Image search: [Google]

94KB, 427x640px

Question: Why do people get so pissed when you say morality is subjective. I mean, it's still important and useful, just like laws, marriage and every other untangible concept.

People who think that it is indeed subjective aren't egoistic nihilists who don't give a shit. It's just that morality is a human invention so shit works better.

>>134053438
So you finally got around to reading Neitzsche? grats.

>>134064489
Who is talking about religious zealots? I have made no assertion that morality is either common or associated in any way with religion.

I am saying that we can logically derive that there is such a thing as morality and that at least one moral precept is objective.

>>134064633
It's a factual statement. The entire field of mathematics is applied rationality. This is not grasping, it is obviously true.

>>134064644
No, it doesn't. If you can prove logically that a moral principle is objective--i.e. that it is impossible to be correct without holding to it--then it is not a matter of opinion but a fact. Your having incorrect opinions on morality doesn't mean a damned thing.

>>134064721
You're refuting science, we'll done.

File: think more friendo2.png (145KB, 433x420px) Image search: [Google]

145KB, 433x420px

>>134053438
There isn't one, but using such logic to justify any form of wrong doings inherently flawed because even if morality has no ream meaning, the fact that other people believe it does means that you will be punished according to them. Therefor it is the place of the person without morals to pretend as if they do, if only for the fact that if they don't others will hate them.

>>134064923
How do you logically derive objective morality? Can't be done.

>>134064923
Then why do different societies have different rules

>>134064923
Just got here, and you've presented interesting points.

However aren't you conflating morality itself with the sense of a moral duty?
Those are different things and what you said about intellectual honesty seems to be the latter and not what OP asks

>>134064923
Mathematics is applied rationally. The foundations of mathematics is still empirical evidence. 1+1=2 because it is empirically true, not because I'm some genius.
There is a very good reason why the idea of zero is relatively new.

>>134059123
Math isn't morality. You cannot compare the two. What you said doesn't really challenge the idea that morality is subjective. That 2+2=4 is fact (to the extent of mathematics being facts). Morality however is not based on logic or fact but on a relative presumption. You might say don't hurt others because everyone pursuits happiness which is entirely logical (although this does exclude selfishness) but it's on the relative presumption that we pursuit happiness or that we should care about you or others pursuing happiness.

Morality is opinion.

>>134064967
"Examples of a priori theory are: No material thing can
be at two places at once. No two objects can occupy the same place. A
straight line is the shortest line between two pOints. No two straight
lines can enclose a space. Whatever object is red all over cannot be green
(blue, yellow, etc.) all over. Whatever object is colored is also extended.
Whatever object has shape has also size. If A is a part of Band B is a part
of C, then A is a part of C. 4 = 3 +1. 6 = 2 (33-30). Implausibly, empiricists
must denigrate such propositions as mere linguistic-syntactic conventions
without any empirical content, i.e., "empty" tautologies. In contrast
to this view and in accordance with common sense, I understand
the same propositions as asserting some simple but fundamental truths
about the structure of reality. And in accordance with common sense,
too, I would regard someone who wanted to "test" these propositions,
or who reported "facts" contradicting or deviating from them, as confused.
A priori theory trumps and corrects experience (and logic overrules
observation), and not vice-versa."

>>134065009
I JUST fucking did it above. This entire discussion is taking place because nobody will acknowledge the legitimacy of my argument or meaningfully critique it, they just repeat over and over that I am wrong without explaining themselves or attempting to proffer an argument.

This increases my certainty that I am correct, since if I were not, one of these brainlets would have actually tried arguing with me by now.

>>134057282
>>134058298
>>134059123

Here you are. Peruse at your leisure. Intellectual Honesty is a moral duty. It is not possible to act correctly by refusing to be honest with oneself, therefore Self-Honesty must be a moral duty.

I defy anyone to prove me wrong.

>>134065119
Well firstly, a society's rules are determined not by morality but by a society of people who may or may not be moral.
But secondly, how many societies have you encountered where intellectual dishonesty is held as a virtue? The entire point is that there is at least ONE moral duty which is objective, which you cannot be correct without holding, and that is Honesty.

>>134065186
There is no real difference between the two. If there is an absolute moral law--something you cannot be correct without obeying--them morality is objective. It is simply a function of rationality.

>>134065341
You have not yet done it. Your above arguments don't even address the point. Even if you keep repeating them, you're still not objectively proving objectively morality. You can't even explain why morality shifts from culture to culture and between historical periods. If it was objective this wouldn't happen.

>>134065291
Much of your a priori statement doesn't hold for quantum mechanics.
Secondly your a priori isn't some mental gymnastics, but based on empirical evidence you've encountered in your life. If nature worked differently you would have come up with a different and equally false a priori.

>>134065275
No, 1+1=2 because it is true, not because it is empirically true. If you discovered it through other means it would be equally true. Empiricism is a TOOL for testing hypothesis, it is not a quality imbued in truth that makes something true. Rationalism is a means for determining truth through reason. Empiricism relies on Rational precepts at all levels--so if you deny Rationalism you de-facto deny Empiricism.

>>134065288
Yo absolutely can, if it is objective, and it clearly is. You define "morality" as what people feel is right, I define morality as what IS right. If you accept that you must accept facts in order to be correct, you accept my premise. I am clearly right.

Morality is not an opinion, it is entirely rational. Morality is that which it is not possible to act correctly without. What other definition of morality is there?

>>134053518
Look at this fag. FORCE or a THREAT of force protects your property. Morality protects nothing.

>>134065341
And youre judging their morality with you own SUBJECTIVE morality. You asserting they arent using morality is silly and baseless. We would even disagree on morality. Are you stating youre the correct one in your idea of morality? Its subjective.

>>134065341
Well, if there is an absolute moral law, it only says there there exist objective moral rules, not that morality is fully objective.

But moving on to your point, isn't there a difference though? I mean, if you're talking about intellectual honesty, it could be one's moral duty to be honest but whether its "right" somehow to lie to yourself or not is subjective isn't it?

Hmm as I'm typing, I think I might be seeing your point - lying to yourself isn't truly possible if you know you're lying. But even then, that's talking about some action, as opposed to whether its morally right or not.

I'm not well read on philosophy and so might be missing something basic

File: steve.jpg (23KB, 306x332px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 306x332px

>>134065504
Morality doesn't shift from culture to culture or between historical periods. Moral facts, of which I have demonstrated one (one either accepts facts or is morally insane) do not change.

What you describe is simply the prevailing ethos of a society, most of which are incorrect. Objective morality is that which it is not possible to function without. Subjective morality is not morality at all, it is simply behavior. If a child is taught something that is wrong, it does not become moral simply because he was taught it.

Your definition of morality has been watered down to the point of meaninglessness, whereas mine is necessarily objective because it is based on actual logic.

If you cannot come to a moral conclusion logically then perhaps it is an opinion, but who have you ever met who disagrees with my precept? That one must be honest with one's thoughts if one is to arrive at truth?

Nobody sane. And that is the definition of morality: To act correctly.

File: 1494930997184.jpg (47KB, 645x968px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 645x968px

>>134065341

>>134065635
Haha, no. Rational opinion is dependent on real world experiences. This is why a rational actor in Meca is not the same as a rational actor in Germany.
Mathematics wouldn't exist if it differed to objective experience.

>>134065829
>Morality doesn't shift from culture to culture or between historical periods
Full retard. We're done here.

>>134053438
do you want to be fed to lampreys?

does anyone want to be fed to lampreys?

no?

morality is objective and can be summed up as "don't cause unnecessary pain"

>>134065829
brilliant arguements
I have enjoyed reading your posts and feel wiser for it
however I do have a question
I have little children, thier world is made greater and better by myths/legends/fantasy
they become smarter/creative by considereing these things, and yet I am lying to them when I tell them santa clause is real
and yet there world is improved by it

>>134066027
Yeah, just wow.

>>134066038
>uses you dying as an example
Lol.

>>134065751
No I am not, I am saying that there is ONE, and notice that I have only named one, objective moral precept, which is the responsibility to think honestly.

Anyone who does that is acting at least that regard moral. Anyone who does not is acting immorally. The point of this was not for me to lay out every objective moral precept that exists but to disprove OP's hypothesis by showing that ONE at least exists.

If there is one, perhaps there are others. Perhaps not. I do not pretend to know how many there are, but I know for certain that there is one. I have not yet heard anyone disagree meaningfully with my point that there IS at least one.

>>134065790
I only set out to demonstrate that there is at least one absolute moral law because that is enough to obviate OP's hypothesis. But okay, let's discuss this.

So here's the point. "Right" is not subjective, it is a matter of fact. X is X, that is factual. Y is X is false. So if you cannot think honestly without being wrong, then it doesn't matter what your culture believes, or what you believe. You are still acting incorrectly in the most technical of senses by being dishonest.

No person can truly believe something that they know to be incorrect without being insane. Perhaps literally, as Orwell said. Doublethink is insanity. My point is that this moral principle is a matter of logical fact, it is inarguable that all sane people believe they must think honestly if they want to discern the truth. That is a moral law. I do not mean morality in the fuzzy D&D idea of the word where good and evil are somehow separate from literally correct and literally false--that is a new age concept. I say that that which is morally correct is materially correct, and that which is morally incorrect is materially incorrect.

>>134066190
so you're saying you'd like to be fed to lampreys?

>>134065975
rational opinion is not dependent on "real world" experiences
mathematics does not depend on this world
it is rational, existed *before* this world, will exist when this world is gone

this "real world" depends on rational opinion
or it does not exist

>>134066027
>>134066181
Not an argument. What people believe is not morality. Morality is a fact. Either you acknowledge that fact or you are immoral.

You still cannot deny the moral duty of intellectual honesty. Simply sniveling about "wow I just can't" isn't an argument. You haven't offered a single one.

>>134066252
What is your political affiliation. In what do you believe in, if I may ask.

>>134066343
Hahaha. What? Mathematics is merely a tool that works within and is defined by the universe we inhabit. A different universe with different rules can exist.

>>134066252
Nietzsche and Freud would beg to differ with you

>>134066364
>my subjective morals are different than other culture's morals
>this somehow means morals are objective
You've failed here. You're finished.

>>134066252
>Right" is not subjective, it is a matter of fact. X is X, that is factual. Y is X is false.
I don't agree with this. For example, suppose the discussion is about whether it's "right" to kill somebody who means to harm you. There could be arguments on both side, one person could say it's "right" because your life is super important, whereas someone else could argue its not since all life is important and you shouldn't take someone else's even at your expense.
Can probably think of better examples but not on the spot.
Anyway I guess what I'm trying to say is that morality need not be objective since its a question of what is correct (behavior), but you state what anything that is morally correct is materially so, not sure how to interpret that in this scenario.

>>134066122
Telling stories and mythology is not an act of evil or deceit, it is educational. Children must learn to outgrow myths and superstitions while absorbing the lessons within. However, when a child is grown, do not try to trick him into believing something you don't.

>>134066408
I do not know. I've been trying to figure out which side is actually right for years.

>>134066516
That which is logical must necessarily exist and that which is illogical cannot exist. There cannot be a square circle, or a square triangle.

>>134066577
Did Nietzche and Freud willfully disregard facts? If so, they can disagree all they want, they are empirically wrong.

In order to deny my point you would have to say that it is possible to be wrong while being right. To deny a fact and be right about it. How is that possible? I am saying that it is immoral to refuse to acknowledge truth.

>>134066578
Nope. I have not named a single subjective moral, I have named one objective one. It is not possible to refuse to believe a fact and be correct. It is literally impossible. That is an objective moral precept.

Demonstrate how I am incorrect. Demonstrate how you can deny a fact, and be right.

Logic is not morality.

However, both are based on instinct. That is what one means with 2+2 must be 4, our instinct tells us that is is right. Logic does not exist outaide in the real world, we create it ourselves and project it on the real world. Two sticks are only two sticks becuase we seem them as TWO sticks.

The same instinct that we found logic, we found morality upon. That is, to each and every one of us, our morality and feeling of right and wrong is as subjective/objective as logic and everything else.

>>134066659
I have no idea what the objective moral stance on murder is, as I've said I was only able to determine one (so far) inarguable moral fact, which is that one must acknowledge facts in order to be correct.

Morality is literally about what is right and wrong. So to be moral is to be right. Right?

The entire point of this is that if there is one objective moral law then there might be others. But in any case the existence of ONE absolute moral law is proof that OP was factually incorrect.

But, the real point here is that the "moralities" of people which change from day to day aren't really morals at all. They're laws of convenience, products of culture. These things are not meaningful precisely because they change. They might be useful at the time but they aren't "real," they're just behaviors.

But if we were to search and consider rationally to discover more moral laws then we could conceivably derive more such precepts. This is why I do not understand the hostility to me here. I am simply stating facts.

>>134066516
You cannot prove that a different universe exists without using the rules of this one
just because somehting "could" exist, doesnt mean that it does exist
therefore it is not only a tool that works within, it also works in other "places"
it is not "defined" by the universe we inhabit
it DEFINES the universe we inhabit

can you prove to me that I am not communicating with you from another universe?

>>134066725
>morals differ
>even you admit it
>this means they're subjective
>but you deny it
You're in denial. Your own posts are contradicting themselves. You're so finished. You've obliterated your own flimsy non-arguments. We don't have to say anything, you already beat yourself.

>>134066954
Morals do not differ. The only morality that is real is that which is rational and thus objective. I have stated this point repeatedly and I have not contradicted myself. You repeat over and over that I'm being "obliterated," but really, you're just backpedaling waiting for me to make a mistake.

But there is no mistake to make, because I am objectively right. You cannot refute my central point in any meaningful way whatsoever, your only claim is that because people make up rules that cannot be logically defended and then call them "morals" that that makes it so. I say it does not. No moral is real that cannot be defended rationally, and a moral that can be defended rationally is necessarily absolute.

You are frightened of the implications of this. Firstly because it BTFO's OP and thus everyone who agrees with him (including you) and secondly because it means you've just lost badly to someone from /lit/.

>>134066954
Everything differs and is thr same depending on perspective dumbass lol
Just becuase we each have our own perspective that doesnt mean there is no objectivity, thats not what objectivity means. Just get out

>>134054291
So this

>>134066915
Ok I think I see what you mean, you're not discussing morality as used in common parlance, but more about absolute moral laws.

You're right, OP was suggesting all moral laws are subjective and you've disproven that, but I guess you're trying to say, for instance on murder, that there is one "right" stance to take and that in the scenario I described one of them is objectively correct and one is wrong?

>Morality is literally about what is right and wrong. So to be moral is to be right. Right?
Well that's the question, and you're starting out with that premise. Morality is about what is right and wrong, but people's opinions on what is right vary. Of course, this is because of different life experiences, but the question really is whether there is an absolute "right" answer, as opposed to answers that depend on more info like background stories of the two people, etc.

>>134067175
Morals differ radically between cultures and time periods. You clearly have never studied any history.

>>134066725
You're literally describing neurosis, something that overwhelmingly afflicts and will afflict humanity
Your point was to say that nobody can believe in something that's wrong while knowing it, but that's called denial and rationalization.. tons of political systems and worldly deeds, if not most, have been built on those mecanisms
You're grossly overestimating human's capacity for rational thought and objective observation

>>134067282
I don't know if there is an objectively right position on murder, believe me I've been studying Normative Ethics for a long time and we haven't gotten super far in the field but we know that there is at least one.

The idea however is to reduce morality to binary systems of correct/incorrect that are as certain as mathematical principles.

>>134067295
I am aware that different cultures and societies have had different social religious and cultural mores.
What I am saying is that at least one moral law is inviolate. It is undeniably an absolute moral law: The law of rational thought, of accepting facts. It is not possible to be correct without accepting facts. Morality is literally the study of correct behavior. Therefore if one cannot act correctly without obeying this law then it is literally, LITERALLY an objective moral law.

And if there is one objective moral law than there may be others, but at the very least it disproves the claim that morality is subjective. Even one exception, one instance in which it is literally impossible to act correctly without acting in accordance with a principle, is proof that there is objective morality.

>>134067495
I did have the caveat "and be sane." Of course an insane person can believe something they know to be correct, moral insanity is a real problem.
I certainly never claimed that most, or even many people act in accordance with the moral law, or have ever done so.

>>134067710
>What I am saying is that at least one moral law is inviolate. It is undeniably an absolute moral law:
You're even more moral relativist than anyone else ITT.

File: 1476361038212.jpg (113KB, 553x504px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 553x504px

>>134067937
You're even worse at arguing against Deontological Ethics than fucking /v/.

>>134067495
humans are not rational beings.

You do irrational acts, and rationalize them later.
You make decisions like all other lifeforms, based on ability to procreate, this is your prime directive. The decision is made based on what is in best interest for procreation, not on what is rationally best interest for your life etc

The decision making part of your brain has developed to do this better then the part which governs rational thinking because of evolution.

ie evolutionary process favors people who make decisions based on ability to procreate over those who make decisions based on rational judgement.

only in so far as rational thought helped the process of procreation was rational thought developed by evolution

biology has no use for rational thinking beings

>>134061506
Plot twist: so-called christian heritage is actually hellenistic

>>134067710
But then you're just fooling around the definition of insanity and conveniently labelling any irrational thought or act as such
Even sane and sound people have some slightly irrational beliefs that can be deeply rooted and express themselves in topics regarding material possessions, violence or sexuality
Your definition is pretty solid, but it's basically some Kantian unachievable ideal that must be followed and pursued at all times, when the reality is that there is a definite subjective and unreliable part to morality, because we are unreliable and subjective creatures that have created fairly arbitrary systems that are anchored partly in rationality, but also partly in tradition and ego

>>134068076
>>134067710
Kiddo, I know you're underaged but seriously, moral objectivism has been rejected for thousands of years because we knew it was false. You're way behind the times. You're talking like a primitive cave man. You need to read more, study more, and grow up. Then you can come back and talk with the adults.

>>134066949
You're retarded.

>>134068211
there is somehting the "christians" dont want to recognize
that christianity was a set back to "western civilization"
christianity, the original jewish plot to undermine western civilization

File: 1362696990696.jpg (52KB, 448x419px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 448x419px

>>134053438

Sense of fairness is the bases of morality. Countless experiments were conducted on lower mammals and especially primates to show we have a shared, notions that were evolved as we are a social species and thus need some inborn understanding and a reference frame.

Our over-arching morality is a build up on our a-priory notions of reciprocity and fairness. Of course the said morality have major cultural influence but some bases of commonality exist in every and between every society of humans.

There are are of course mental deficiencies in the human population under the major family of psycopathy. Some of those people try to rationalize their inability to understand the societies they live in, as they themselves understand, being given power over others they would utterly crush them. Their puzzlement of the workings of society is manifested as a criticism on it and several autistic philosophies sprung up on that bases.

Since human societies have self inoculation against such individuals as a form of systematic violence.

tl;dr if you are too autistic to follow rules not to hurt others, they will split your head open as to prevent your agency to continue manifesting damage

File: greatpyramidcoord.png (460KB, 513x684px) Image search: [Google]

460KB, 513x684px

>>134053438
>>134054291

>Prove to me that morality is in any way objective.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NOWmRG7euy0

>>134064013
Like greeks and romans did?

>>134068421
I am not sure, but I think namecalling falls under

.....not an arguement

>>134068249
"moral objectivism has been rejected for thousands of years because we knew it was false"

for thousands of years .... that seems like a long time ... you sure about that

"we"

whom is this we you refer to
do you have a mouse in your pocket?

>>134068242
I am aware that it is an extremely stringent definition of morality, but again, my point is neither to demand that all people act in an ultra-moral way nor to condemn anyone for doing otherwise--my point is that this moral law is clearly logical. It may be difficult to impossible to actually live up to, but it is there. It is rational.

And of course it is true that various cultural ethics are, while perhaps based on true moral principles (I doubt any society has based its morality on deliberately rejecting facts for example) that does not erase the existence of this absolute moral law. It simply means that we have not yet derived (if there is more to derive than simply being honest with oneself about facts) the rest of the absolute laws. I don't even assert that any exist, only that they might.

Again, I only came in here to kick OP's ass. I think I've done that. Bear in mind that this SINGLE principle destroys his entire ideological postulation. The fact that I'm essentially (and yes, good catch) pushing a Kantian Imperative, except derived purely from reason might be extreme, but I could think of no more inarguable fashion to do it than that.

>>134068249
Brohammed, you literally could not be more incorrect. Are you being serious right now?

>>134068211
>>134068428
Christianity has nothing to do with this. But yes actually, it did have Hellanistic roots, as the bible was largely assembled and codified in Greece at the Council of Nicea.

>>134068428
And all their rituals, attire, and dogma were "borrowed" from "pagan" religions. But just from the exoteric version.
It's the ultimate black pill: we were always lied about our own heritage. Not just in the last two centuries, but from year 0

>>134067710
Ok so now that's interesting - are you saying there could be ideas for which there are no objectively right positions?

I can sort of see that

What if I doubt that I doubt that I doubt....ad infinitum. How am I intellectually honest then?

>>134060506
Your moral duty of honesty is to yourself. You might have BTFO OP but I thought Stirner's whole shtick was that one's only duty was to themselves. [spoiler]then again I stalled out and never finished The Ego and His Own[/spoiler]

File: flash_662615_largest_crop.jpg (125KB, 1120x720px) Image search: [Google]

125KB, 1120x720px

>>134054361
>Mental masturbation is not politics related

>>134059123
>Equating morality with a 2+2=4 question
Is-ought you fucking moron

>>134053438
>same autistic subhuman from last night
Reminder that Stirner followers, as well as all lolbertarians are literal subhumans on the autism spectrum and are as potentially destructive to humanity as are Marxist liberals.

Reminder that morality is an objective science and is derived from the physical laws of the universe.

>>134068740
What the fuck is with you and Christianity? Does it surprise you that a religion absorbs elements of those it comes into contact with? Take the tinfoil hat off for a second and stop with this nonsense. A religion is just a set of cultural mythos passed down through a medium of symbols. It isn't a Jewish conspiracy and it isn't a lie. It's culture.

It also has nothing to do with morality.

>>134068776
Again, I don't know, but it's possible. On the other hand it might be possible that there is in fact an objectively moral solution to every situation (provided you have sufficient information). We do not know the extent of moral law largely because idiots like the people in this thread refuse to even acknowledge what we DO know. It's hard to explore a burning forest.

>>134068859
I don't think he was really an Egoist. That said, the mere existence of an absolute moral law does more or less endanger Stirner's philosophy because it creates an absolute statement of right and wrong independent of self interest.

>>134069054
I did not compare morality to a 2+2=4 question. I stated that accepting facts as being true is a moral imperative. I am not even certain how this is controversial. I know the grey-name fellow simply dislikes me because reasons, but I have not heard anyone disagree with my conclusion thusfar. If you have a criticism I'd love to hear it because you would be the first person to actually address the point instead of calling me a dummy face.

>>134069311
I already have. Is-ought. Even if accepting facts as true is a moral imperative, that doesn't mean shit about objective morality or not. I don't know why you have completely distracted and strawman the argument to be about rationality, because rationality can't tell you shit about morality

>>134068738
Kicking ass might be too strong of an expression, you gave him a slap I'd say. You cannot deduce that all of morality is objective, but that some moral decisions can be based in rational thought and lead up to some objective truths

>>134069311
Can u answer my question. What if I doubt then doubt that I doubt then doubt that I doubt that I doubt....ad infinitum. How am I intellectually honest. How can I possibly be?

>>134053438
How Can We Demonstrate that Objective Moral Values Exist to a Nihilist Who Holds They Are Illusory?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fbeoe2_6qx4

You're welcome.

>>134069570
Why not? Why can't morality be rationally derived? Is that not exactly what I have just done? If it is not logically possible to act morally (correctly) without intellectual honesty than intellectual honesty must necessarily be an absolute moral law. That is a rational proposition. I do not mean fedora atheism Rationality, the Rationality of which I speak is the same employed by Thomas Aquinas and Aristotle alike.

Are you saying that morality MUST be illogical? How can you even make such an argument? This is not an is-ought situation, it is a matter of logical fact. You cannot act correctly without accepting facts. Morality is acting correctly. This seems pretty open-shut to me.

>>134069665
I was not attempting to prove that all morality was objective. But if even a single moral law exists that is objective in the sense that it is derived not from culture or interest but from reason divorced from those things, then it proves that morality is "in any way objective," which was the challenge offered in OP.

>>134068810
>>134069698
I am not even sure what you are saying, elaborate and I will try to answer. What you are describing sounds like uncertainty. If you are uncertain as to facts, then that is not the same thing as rejecting facts. Doubt is the first step to discovering the truth, as they say. The question is, if faced with a fact that is undeniable, something you are certain is true--would you disbelieve it? Could you, even, and remain sane? I do not think it is possible. Hence my position.

>>134068740
it even worse then that senpai

you want to read about a blistering eye opening understanding of judaism, christianity

start researching "The Essenes"
children of the light they are called
there are some interesting mainstream books about them, but the darker side of their history is seldom told
they wrote the bible

tldr version
small group of jews is outcast from judiasm
they say fuck you to the jews
form thier own colony, they are super smart, brutal and tough SOB's
they decide to retake the kingdom from the pharisees ... write the bible, to pit the truth against the jews and thier hypocrisy

first arguement you will here from jews
"jesus was jewish"
no he wasnt, he was essenes, he was an outcast, they had forsaken him
they never considered him "jewish" (while at least until he was a success, 2000 years later)

there is no judeo-christian culture
the very word is an oxymoron

>>134070177
>Morality is acting correctly.
Based on what values? Coz morality is fundamentally based on value systems that are not rationally derived only rationally expressed.

It does become an is-ought problem when you started saying this "There is no functional distinction between factual correctness and moral correctness" One is an is, the other is an ought.

The fact that so many posters ITT accepted your sophistry is embrassing but expected in /pol/

>>134054291
Kek bananas can at least be eaten. Fiat is more like sand

>>134069311
Ok that makes sense.
Thanks this was a good discussion and not just the usual "fuck off kike nigger" sort of thread

>>134053438
Every being experiences pain
Every being is coded for survival
It's within every humans's interest to work collectively

>>134070177
So basically your argument is as follows: I must believe in things that I believe are true. But I do not necessarily have to act in accordance with those beliefs. If I am insane for instance. How is that objective morality? It is a fact: I believe in this. Not really pertinent to the discussion.

>>134070600
Morality is the state of acting correctly. There is no other definition of the word that I am aware of. My postulation was that no person is capable of honestly thinking that they can reject facts without being incorrect. This necessitates that a person thinking dishonestly must be insane. Thinking honestly is a prerequisite for correct action.

Therefore, thinking honestly must be a moral absolute. What is the problem? If morality demands correct action, and logic is capable of determining things that are absolutely correct, then the act of rejecting logical conclusions has to be immoral.

>>134071163
My argument is that because it is not possible to be correct without accepting facts, accepting facts must be a prerequisite to morality, because morality is literally about acting correctly, and thinking is an action.

A universal moral precept is about as objective as it gets. That this seems simple is the entire point. It is obvious. Self-evident even. That's morality--or the only interpretation of it that I can see that makes any sense.

>>134071204
And my counter argument is your postulation is fucking irrelevant to whether morality can be objective or not. Repeating your argument doesn't make it any less wrong

>What is the problem?
As you so conveniently ignored in the post you replied, morality is fundamentally based on value system that cannot be derived rationally. Sure you can 'think honestly' on how to express the 'Thou shalt not kill', but whether you accept it or not cannot be rationally deduced.

>then the act of rejecting logical conclusions has to be immoral.
No it is just fucking irrational not immoral(or moral for that matter).

>>134071441
There is no argument there though. For example, you are saying, if Brad believes in X then he has a moral duty to believe in X. Well of course that's the case, because he believes in X. What you are saying is that a person's intention is their intention. Well we already know that. But that is not true for the insane so it cannot ever be universal. That is not true for someone who like I said doubts that he doubts ad infinitum. Their intention is quicksand with no footing.

>>134071553
I ignored your point because I simply do not agree. Morality is not based on value systems, it is based on acting correctly. I believe that acting in accordance to logic is the DEFINITION of acting correctly. I do not agree that morality cannot be derived rationally, because logic, a function of rationality, can determine things that are objectively correct.

Since rejecting facts is literally incorrect, rejecting facts must be immoral. Your example is also absurd, the subject upon which you think honestly is not relevant, it is the thinking honestly part in and of itself that is the moral precept. If you think honestly, you are acting morally in that regard, if you think dishonestly, you are acting immoral.

What is your evidence that morality cannot be derived rationally? I feel that I have just done it in at least this one instance. You are simply stating that I am wrong because of your a priori assumption that morality cannot be rational. I disagree with your premise. What case can you make that morality cannot be rationally derived? Why not?

>>134071809
No, what I am saying is that if Brad thinks about X, he must think honestly about X and not dishonestly, otherwise he is acting immorally, because one cannot think correctly without accepting facts, and morality is synonymous with acting correctly. Thinking is an action. If a person doubts eternally, but they do so honestly, then they are still thinking honestly and thus still acting morally.

>>134053438
Because if morality was really subjcective if you really believed in spencer bullshit pseudo-philosophy, you will not even see the interest to do this thread. You will simply live according to your subjective conceptions, considering everything as your properties and laughing at 'spooked ' people that you can use for your pleasure more easily because of their moral limitations that you see as nothing more than illusions.

But, you, all other spencerposters, and spencer himself by writting his book, prove that there is an objective morality. Why ? Because they enter into the debate of ideas, they try to convince other that they are right, they try to disprove the theories they see as false. In other words, they enter into a form of hegelian dialectics in which they try to affirmate their views and negate other people views on morality, they try to make their views objective by making everyone agree with them. If morality was really subjective, then they will no need for debate for them and for spencer at all, they will simply live according to their pleasures and abandon the world of the debate of ideas. But since they instinctively understand that it's not the case, they have to make their views on the subjective nature of morality, objective, by proving it to other people. They need to see the validity of their thesis by co fronting it with other peoples ideas, to make it objective, in order to be able to believe in them. In other words, they enter into a form of dialectics, which like all dialectics pursue the same goal : make a thesis objective by confronting it with negativity. So, the simple fact spencer needed to write a book to defend its thesis prove that its thesis is false.

But those shit thoughts were already debunked by Socrates 2 millenia ago, nothing new. Adressing to the sophist who defended the idea that truth was subjective and man-made, he simply objected ' if the truth is always subjective, then how saying it, isn't ? '

File: 1500197229963.png (75KB, 390x310px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 390x310px

>>134072115
>I do not agree that morality cannot be derived rationally, because logic, a function of rationality, can determine things that are objectively correct.
>I believe that acting in accordance to logic is the DEFINITION of acting correctly.
>believe
Wow it is almost as if you have your own value system while trying to disprove the existence of a value system. You have already did it for me in proving that morality cannot be rationally derived.

Congrats I am done wasting my time with this confusion between morality and rationality.

[spoiler]Start with the Greeks and maybe next time you won't fuck with /lit/'s mascot [/spoiler]

>>134072502
Right, so like the last five guys, you cannot attack my point and simply repeat over and over again that I am wrong because I'm wrong.

Thanks for losing. That makes, what, five of you? Easy enough.

>>134072277
desu he did it coz he wanted to watch the world burn and piss of Marx and Engels, he said so himself

>>134054349
No it doesn't, retard. It is completely arbitrary. Kant was a fucking moron.

>>134072115
If Brad believes in X of course he will think correctly about it because he believes in it. Basically what you are saying is a tautology. And I guess that's the point you are trying to make. But I was very specific when I said doubts were ad infinitum. Because there is no earhtly way to rationalise thought in respect to this. That person's actions will never be in accordance with their beliefs - the key is that he doubts to infinity. I understand that if he doubts that he doubts that is still a belief. But I am going a step further. Though it isn't pertinent to the argument. But neither is your argument. Because what OP is asking is how a person's actions relate to those around them, not with themselves.

>>134072277
Plus your argument has the damned if you do, damned if you don't situation, with if people who deny the existence of an objective morality is implicitly agreeing there is.

This is literally the same as that kid in the playground with everything-proof shield in a game of pretend

>>134055266
Objectively wrong statement.

>>134072632
Shit excuse for the need of validation by confrontation, i:e for making his works objective by confronting it with the world of ideas. And what about other spencerfags ?

Why do you think they're so eager to 'destroy spooked ideas ´ and morality ? If they really believed in their ideas, then they would consider the various thesis on objective morality as their best allied, because by spooking other people, it allow them to use people who live by it and expand their property better. It's better to live in a world of 'spookd people' if you hae ascended into the knoweldge of the subjective nature of morality and the only thing you want to do is to expand your property, no ? But strangly, the first thing they do when they 'discover' truth and morality is subjective is trying to convince everyone that it's the case, i:e to make their conceptions on truth and morality objective and thus be able to believe in them.

>>134072907
Belief is not relevant to the discussion. What I am saying is that thinking honestly and without self-deception is inherently moral, and the opposite is immoral. When you encounter new information or come to a conclusion, it is moral to think honestly about whatever the subject is, because that is the correct thing to do. It does not matter how someone's doubts impact their ability to act in accordance with their beliefs, that has nothing to do with my postulation, it is the act of THINKING honestly that is the source of morality, not the act of believing X or Y. The belief is irrelevant.

And yes, my argument is relevant, because OP said nothing about those around him. He said, prove to me that morality is in any way objective, and I did. It is not possible to act correctly, which is the definition of moral behavior, without intellectual honesty. This is universal. It applies to you, and to me, and to everyone else. It applies across every attempt at a moral framework ever conceived. It applies to every tribe, every mud-hut dwelling band of pygmies, every priest and every man who has ever lived. You cannot act correctly if you do not think honestly. That makes it objective. That's what objective means, and that defeats OP's request, which was to provide any way AT ALL in which morality is objective.

>>134073006
>damned if yo do, damned if you don't.

No. If you enter the domain of debate of ideas, then yes, you agree with objecrive morality because you try to produce one and prove it to others. That's simple, but that's not flase in any sense.

There's a way of escaping that circle though, and it's silence. The only reasonable solution if you really believe morality is subjective is mutism really. ' no need to talk, no need to debate, because the truth is subjective and I don't see the point in convincing other spooked people that it is, living by it and expanding my property is enough . ' Strangly, I don't see many spencerfags being coherent with their ideas and go mute.

Not exactly on topic, but could anyone recommend some books or readings by Strauss?

>>134065668
>I only act like a civilized person because I don't want to get shot
Interesting proxy Jamal

>>134053438

Positive psychology.

File: 1548206596.jpg (48KB, 600x462px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 600x462px

>>134073157
>Why do you think they're so eager to 'destroy spooked ideas ´ and morality ?
Coz maybe if they did, life would be better for them?

>because by spooking other people, it allow them to use people who live by it and expand their property better
No? Striner claimed that a Union of Egoists would be better than current shit. Also Striner didn't necessarily advocated expanding property or anything like that. Did you even read about him?

>>134073585
pic extremely related

>>134059123
What an entitled piece of cringy garbage.
>I scroll /lit/ and therefore dear sire I'm, so to speak, smart

>>134073446
You defined it as such. Acting correctly is moral. Except no. I get what you are saying. But your statement is an absolute. Only am insane person can escape your law. Everyone else is incapable of doing anything but acting correctly. It is just the way things are. For there to be morality there must be on the one hand a way to behave and on the other hand a way to misbehave. That is not allowed in your definition of acting correctly. The actor is forced to act correctly and cannot do anything other than act correctly. He is not a being conscious of behaving or not behaving. You saying he is acting correctly is irrelevant. He cannot act otherwise.

File: IMG_1404.jpg (33KB, 417x354px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 417x354px

>>134053438
>tell me why fucking toddlers is wrong
The thread

>>134053438
Sure, get on my helicopter and we'll go for a ride and talk about it.

File: file.png (80KB, 300x170px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 300x170px

Pic related is the Golden Rule of morality.

Explain how is this not an opinion? It's essentially a well worded hardwired behavior program to ensure the survival of the species.

>>134053438
Morality itself is only a concept but it is a concept that is encouraged for the purpose of preventing the kind of degeneracy that can crumble a society from within. OP is just another "Prove to me that (x) is real" faggots that just wants to be edgy and whose threads tend to shit up the board.

File: 1452340696734.png (38KB, 600x700px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 600x700px

>>134059178

>>134073446
>>134073446
What u are saying is that if I program a robot to think a certain way and it does so then it is acting moral just as a human would be lol.

>>134074627
>Coz maybe if they did, life would be better for them?

Of course it would not. Objective morality is predictable, you know most people will act like according to that objective moral, thus allowing you to dispose of them more easily, to have more things at your disposition, and so more. A spencerian world would be unstable and unpredictable, with subjecive egoist moralities making the world.

>doesn't neccesserly advocate for expanding your property.

I read him, not so much to be honnest. To be honnest, that isn't so important, it's what spencerfags did of his thinking that matter the most, and since most of them happen to be also ancap retards, expanding your property seems to be the ultimate goal of spencerian thinking. I don't think that we should only look to the original works to judge a movement of thought, looking to its living face is as important. I don't care that Adorno, would be horrified if they saw modern SJW, it still represent the living face of his thinking, in the same way I don't care Marx didn't necesserly advocate for violent revolutions in order to instore proletarian paradise. Lenin and Engels associated the marxist thought with a thought of the revolution, and thus the living face of marxism is revolutionnary. Spencerfags are obsessed by expanding their property and should be fine with objective morality allowing them to do so.

>pic extremly related.

in what ways saying that participating in a debate of ideas is wanting to positively prove something as truth and negate other things as false, thus wanting to manage to reach objective truth is 'my criterias' ? It's the basis of dialectics and of debate of ideas. You see, that's why you never talk with a subjectivist, they implicitely agree with a lot of objective senses of the words, of language, of reality until they are in a difficult position. Then they do the ' yeah but your definitions of words are spooks so it doesn't matter haha rekt ' flip.

>>134053438
If we forgot what the word "morality" was, what would we say?

How does one qualify the feelings of guilt, or maybe the feelings of righteousness? And if one doesn't feel anything at all, but the other person is ashmed, then who is in the right?

For this reason, morality is primarily a social device.

In some countries, it's okay to eat dog meat; it's actually celebrated by some cultures.
But in the west, it's frowned upon. There's generally a level of disgust at the idea that someone's dog could be cooked and eaten. It invokes disgust/sadness. But we have no problem eating beef. Vegans, likewise, have a problem eating any animal, but won't think twice before buying that avocado or banana which has traveled distances at the expense of the oil companies and large cargo ships which spew more emissions than anyone's car ever could.

Morality is rather simple.

If there exists no barrier or physical law, be it natural or artificial, then a society will build a moral around it.

Put a fence by the road, and the child will never have to learn safety. Take the fence away, and safety becomes important.

>>134059123
>objective morality must exist because of m-muh feelings
really btfo'd him

File: 7adcdd714793512f03c4a06cbfc018e2929a36e1.jpg (72KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 600x600px

>>134076264
>looking to its living face is as important.
>implying Strinerfags are ancaps or even Striner approving of private property
>i don't care whether X said is right or wrong, but what people who listen to X is right or wrong
Wew lads

>thus wanting to manage to reach objective truth is 'my criterias' ?
It is when you have effectively claimed that people who wants to dispute your claim that morality is objective proves that morality is objective.