Is morality objective or subjective?

Objective.

>>134240780
Some things are objectively morally wrong, like murdering people for fun.

>>134240780
Subjective, as the spectrum is infinite.
You can always do worse, and you can always do better.

>>134240780

there is order in the universe

qed

>>134240780
This feels like a slide thread, but I'll bite for you: Some experiments have shown that the most innocent human minds, have a sense of "justice" and "injustice", of "right" and "wrong", and "morality" or "immorality", which minds are these? Children, very young children. I can't recall the source or if it was a psychology or sociology experiment, but it tried to prove that society and its culture are the ones that corrupt human minds, and that children are brought to this world with a sense of what is fair and what isn't, this is quite a controversy because it sounds like a theory by some communist guy that said that the society was to blame for the way people acted or some shit like that

I haven't seen a good argument against molyneux's distinction between morality and ethics. The antithesis to objective morality at it logical conclusion seems to be nihilism, which offers no compelling motivation to do anything at all.

So I'll go with morality, because if morality is not objective then it doesn't matter what I do anyway, rendering the distinction meaningless

>>134240780
Objective.
These threads are cancer

>>134240780
Damn she's thicc

File: GLR.png (276KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

276KB, 500x500px

>>134240780
Both.

It isn't a simple answer and if you are looking for one you are a fucking simpleton.

Stop asking stupid questions.

>>134240780
Are you religious or not?

Morals vary from person to person, but the greater moral variations are given between different time periods or eras, so we could say morality is subjective but in different scales and degrees.

File: image.jpg (37KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 320x240px

>>134240780
Objective

>>134240780
Depends on who you ask.
Which would lead a logical person to say subjective. Cultures have different sets of morals but some, like "hey, don't murder me bro" are universal.

File: 1498412707512.jpg (127KB, 750x937px) Image search: [Google]

127KB, 750x937px

>>134240780
Divine and objective.

>>134240780
those feet are fucking shit

Children of single mothers are objectively worse off then Children of a mother and father.

The word bastard is simply a descriptive word meaning fatherless. It gets it colloquial pejorative meaning from bastards acting like bastards.

>>134241185
Children truly show the human condition at a ''blank slate''. Uncorrupted by the lies that they are later fed.

>>134241185
Forgot to mention, morality is both objective and subjective. It's objective that murdering things is wrong, however it's impossible to expect us to just walk through the grass and attempt not to step on any ants that we might be killing while walking, at the same time, you can't blame morality for it because you might argue that you didn't know the ants were there, so you can't be blamed for it, but then that means that, since I'm telling you this, then next time you step on a bug, it will be morally wrong? Objectively, shooting every single nigger you come across because "they're subhumans" is wrong. Subjectively, you were walking through the prisoners for lifetime halls, and it turns out you were shooting at all these niggers because the local government couldn't keep feeding them any longer, because you had way too many niggers in there, and they would never do anything valuable for anybody, ever again, because they're stuck in there, forever, so it might be a good choice to execute them so that you can spend money on helping the homeless get back on their feet (Big emphasis on helping them to get back on their feet, instead of "providing gibs")

>>134241404

He asked about morality as an object, not a picture of morality. There's a huge difference between the interpretation of something (guess) and THAT something (actual answer)....

File: 1500413297870.jpg (59KB, 750x727px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 750x727px

>>134240780
If you don't feel it, it's not there.
If it's written in law, it's there.
If you don't see it from outer space, it's not there.
You know how it ends anon.

>>134240780
Subjective.

Even "murdering innocent people" is entirely subjective. We mostly all agree it is, some of us even think it's objective, which is a good thing, but it's not. We can logically reason why not murdering innocent people is preferable to murdering innocent people. But that's not objective.

both. here's my take

there are universal, truths, this is God. People find objective truths by introspection and reflecting on their own lives, which is subjective.

In a shit ton of mythological creation tales, the female, emotional entity comes before the logical, objective male entity.

However God is universal, there are still numerous circumstances relative to conditions. why is eating pigs taboo in the middle east? because pigs need a shit ton of water that they don't have.

so there are parameters, and universal truths, being God. and everyone ought to act within God, but then people don't always behave the same or play God out in different ways.

If you're vegan, you're most likely to say it's objective.

Any other person that is not a retard, will tell you it's subjective.

File: CZC_dmRUwAAXkvh.jpg (91KB, 500x669px) Image search: [Google]

91KB, 500x669px

>>134241924

Subjective Morality is actualy the evil itself.

>>134240780
Neither. True morality is beyond humanity's grasp.

>>134240780
>prime breeding material
Based

>>134240780
evolutionary speaking it is objective, things like randomly killing people in your community are objectively immoral in an evolutionary sense because those types of acts destroy society instead of helping that society and their members reproduce. In a cosmic sense there is no way to know if it is objective or subjective.

Objective, subjective, whatever.

Morality is pretty intuitive though, and you don't need a holy book or a philosopher to tell you certain things are wrong when you're thinking about doing them.

File: 1385648949742.png (149KB, 305x338px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 305x338px

>>134242073
I'm a vegan and I just said it's subjective. Strange how your pre-conceived notions about life can be shattered that easily.

>>134242083
>because muh holy buuk said so

>>134242083
Having subjective morality doesn't mean you are tolerant.

File: 1495864208057.jpg (8KB, 269x211px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 269x211px

>>134240780
Subjective of fucking coarse. I don't understand why people still can't grasp what morality is these days.

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

>>134240780
It's objective. One of my personal favorites on the gayq.

Leviticus 20:13 If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

File: 5246092+_a2db2661bae5d147b648f000405d65c2.jpg (12KB, 267x200px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 267x200px

>>134240780
If a bear shits in the woods and you eat and contract AIDS will you die?

>>134240780
Ah, a philospher.

Nature has instilled in us an objective morality. Although there's certainly room around the edges for debate and a plurality of opinions.

>>134240780
I'd like to be morally objective with her, IF you know what I mean

>>134242396
> canadian
> brainlet
unsurprising/10

>>134240780
Objective you dumb weeb

>>134241094
So are you saying gladiators were objectively a bad thing?

>>134242471
>there is room for debate on something that is objective

what the fuck?? That's the definition of 'subjective'.

>>134240780
subjective
might makes right

For the retards calling morality objective: When a village was conquered in ancient times, and all its men were murdered during the fight, only the women and children remained, if morality is objective, then it's wrong to murder the children; however, on a subjective point of view, it's perfectly acceptable, under different context, to murder these kids, because they might group up in the upcoming years, and try to fight back to avenge their dead fathers, so it would be morally good to murder these kids before they get the chance to avenge their fathers, because by murdering them, you're ensuring safety for your families, and the safety of the entire city you made out of that little shithole of a town, which means that you sacrificed these children for the future wellbeing of many, many more people than these kids were. Sacrifice one to save a hundred, so to say

Since it's such a complex thing, it's easier to just say it's both, objective and subjective, depending on the case, and from which point of view you're looking at it

>>134240780

Objective. Read ethics and politics

>>134240780
Google "The Poison of SUbjectivism PDF" and download the first file and read it. I have still never found anyone capable of debunking this essay, because it is impossible.

>>134242315
I said most likely, never said that it was a given. If you're a vegan and believe morality is subjective, then you probably don't argue pro veganism from a moral pov, and instead choose veganism for health or environmental views.

Which are still shit ;)

File: 744b0aba86c0c5c7eb91d1c9a5724efb.jpg (70KB, 736x474px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 736x474px

>>134242379

It already implies tolerance of views which is the root of evil. Relativism comes next...

Objective. If you observe human nature and how we are as a species, one can infer the true correct moral through objective observation.

Since reason is man’s basic means of survival, that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; that which negates, opposes or destroys it is the evil.
Since everything man needs has to be discovered by his own mind and produced by his own effort,
the two essentials of the method of survival proper to a rational being are: thinking and productive work.

Living according to human nature: Be rational, peaceful and productive.

>>134240780
Morality is a human construct. it doesn't actually exist. there is no universal right or wrong, just what we've assigned and accepted as being right or wrong. so I would say subjective because many people have their own moral scale of what they believe is right and wrong and also as a society as a whole, what we all agree is right or wrong. this has fluctuated though out civilisations / time periods, it's ever changing.

File: 1498094104091.jpg (78KB, 517x650px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 517x650px

>>134242315
Of course.

>>134241924
The difference between subjective and objective is the lack of a subject.

but you can derive an objective, universal, godly truth from this.

as in, why is murdering people bad? well for one you wouldn't want to be unjustly murdered yourself, looking at yourself is a form of subjective truths, yes. but also this is the golden rule, and can be applicable every where no matter the subject.

when someone asks what is right, i think the best thing to do is to look at what you would do, which is subjective, or what you would like to be done to you. but these lead to certain objective principles, and they are universal, but they are not the extent of morality. then there are certain circumstances that differentiate between people that changes morality, which is subjective.

>>134242621

Most gladiators did not enjoy killing for the sake of killing.

That being said, gladiator matches should be legal so long as both parties are consenting.

File: snek.will.kill.us.all.png (80KB, 1982x1133px) Image search: [Google]

80KB, 1982x1133px

>>134240780
Subjective given that morals only exist insofar as we believe they do

>>134242848
>>134243112
Children are born with a sense of morality, innocent, pure, and untainted by society and the "human constructs", so morality as an objective concept, does exist, at least within the human brain, and it's tainted and corrupted by society. At the same time, morality is subjective; hence it's both, objective and subjective

>>134241185
Children only believe in "right and wrong" when it benefits them. A child always believes himself to be right.

>>134242555
Fucking this. Holy shit

File: super cool stirner.png (211KB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

211KB, 1920x1080px

>>134241228
>antithesis to objective morality is nihilism
Only if you're a spooked faggot.

>>134242848
morality does exist, but on a different plane than scientific truths.

truth can be comprised of things, but it also must be comprised of what to do about those things.

there is universal principles that are right because you see them play out across every civilization's morality. (of course, some civilizations like ours degenerates, and falls out of morality).

but to a certain extent, you are right, morality is a social construct because people of the same community must agree on what is right and what to do about things. otherwise, there can be no objective, rational discussion.

>>134242785
This is so funny, you keep assuming things about people that actually turn out to be completely untrue / the opposite. I am a vegan for moral/ethical reasons. What are you going to pull out of your ass next, that I have green eyes because you say most vegans do?

>>134242871
The Golden Rule is not objective. Pointing out that someone is a hypocrite doesn't make their argument invalid so saying I wouldn't want to be murdered doesn't objectively necessitate that murdering innocents is wrong.

The Golden Rule is subjective, and it is by far the most preferable / safest / most productive ethical system we have yet come up with and I try to follow it to the letter, but that doesn't make it objective.

>you wouldn't want someone to unjustly murder you

And if I did? Does that make murder okay?

>>134240780

Subjective because it is dependent on human moral instincts, yet objective because those moral instincts are common to the vast majority of the human race, with the exception of psychopaths and other aberrations.

>>134240780
If it's subjective, it's just opinions.

>>134240780
Utilitarianism is the only objective moralism.

>>134243181

How can children be born with a sense of morality when they are not even able to understand the concepts of things such as death until they are older, so for example how would a child with no understanding of the concept of death have morals on whether it was wrong or right, they only know what they've been taught is wrong or right from their parents / guardians.

>>134243362
>morality is just opinions

Yeah, that's what we are arguing. Do you have a counter-argument, or just a non-sequitur?

File: longshanks.png (913KB, 1273x542px) Image search: [Google]

913KB, 1273x542px

>>134242656
Who is this leaf who pretends I gave him permission to reply to my post?

The point, leaf, was that there is a "core" morality that is objective while we leave the subjectivity to the outer edges.

>>134243181
>Children are born with a sense of morality
Nobody with a child believes this. They have to be taught not to do basically selfish acts and when they observe that certain acts bring certain consequences, they begin to lie. Nothing can be objective and subjective; that makes 0 sense.

>>134240780
Humans are not made to have a perfect sense of morality

>>134243509
They are not. There is no preloaded moral "firmware", as opposed to breathing etc. It has to be taught.

>>134243402
Subjective statement

>>134243304
i'd agree that the golden rule is to a certain extent subjective, because in finding the golden rule you have to look at how you'd like to be treated.

but the reason why it's objective is because you can apply it to every civilization and to the universe at large. Hermeticism has a saying of the universe, "as above, so below". golden rule means harmony and shit my nigga. it is true regardless of the subject

>And if I did? Does that make murder okay?

no that just means you're unjust and immoral.

>>134242621
It would seem so at first glance. However, I could imagine that one could argue that there were reasons for producing gladiator shows which went beyond simple enjoyment, etc. A dangerous place in which to put oneself, morally speaking.

Morality is subjective
Ethics is objective
:^)

>>134243803

i've never heard of this argument and I don't know shit about it.


where can I go to learn more about it?

>>134240780
Neither, because it isn't real.

>>134240780
It has both components. It's objectively wrong to kill people for no reason, but it's subjectively wrong to kill them as punishment for murder. Subjective morality exists in moral grey areas.

>>134243226
>>134243575
>>134243575
>>134243714
Open a new tab, do a google search for: "children are born with morals" or whatever like it, and you'll find loads of links about the subject, and the sources you're looking for, I hope. I won't quote a bunch of articles and sources and studies over it when you can do the research yourself with a couple of clicks

>>134240780
Depends. One could argue morality is the system by which a society maintains a healthy social interaction. In which case morality would be objective.

If morality is not used to achieve something, or measure something, then it is purely subjective.

Objective

If it were subjective, nothing would mean anything and we wouldnt be justified in any laws

Subjectivism is retarded

>>134243756
>unjust and immoral.
according to who?

>>134241094
>being this christcucked

>>134240780

Objective, as ordained by reason, but relative.

>>134243925
might makes right
you can justify anything you can enforce

>>134240930
fpbp

>>134243902
>Open a new tab, do a google search for: "children are born with morals" or whatever like it
>support my point for me since I care so deeply about it that I won't even support it
Kys

>>134240780
I think the idea and sense of others well being is objective as it is inherent in all beings (whether or not they act on it) The ability to maintain this sense, however, is subject to sociological and environmental factors i.e. ones association with reality. The universe as a whole may seem indifferent, but that is obviously a false pretense considering it's structure and how it enables life to exist and have conversations such as these.

>>134243756
>you're unjust and immoral

Oh yeah? Says who? the laws of physics? Is there some concrete evidence that me murdering an innocent person is wrong or do we just all agree not to kill for the sake of societal harmony? The Golden Rule isn't perfect, like if I said I did want someone to murder me, if in my mind I was totally okay with that and saw nothing wrong with it, does that mean that according to the Rule, I am justified in murdering other innocent people? It seems it does, according to how I interpret the "do as you would want others to do to you" rule.

>>134243925
>If it were subjective, nothing would mean anything and we wouldnt be justified in any laws
Power justifies laws. It's is no deeper than that.

>>134243938
according to God and the laws which govern the universe. it's not practical. because life would not exist if it was ok to destroy life with no reason.

I see what you're saying

but remember truth about the universe is comprised of two things

>things
>what to do about those things

just because morality isn't tangible, that doesn't mean it is not real.

File: ching chong.png (285KB, 1861x1081px) Image search: [Google]

285KB, 1861x1081px

>>134242315
>vegan
>leaf
>attributing quotes that werent in the bible to the bible
>mocking christfags for it

why havent we banned all leafs from this website yet

>>134244237
Nice strawman, I didn't attribute any quote to the bible. Show me where I did.

>>134243902

telling people to google = not an argument.

File: 1499973347891.jpg (38KB, 960x960px) Image search: [Google]

38KB, 960x960px

>>134244080
>read up on one of countless articles because I don't care enough to lecture kids over the most basic of philosophy subjects
>Kys
Do you also tell your highschool teacher to kill himself when he tells you to pick up a fucking book?

>>134240780
Morality is subjective because there is no Big Other

Ethics is objective however

>>134244229
>according to God
so subjective to God's will
also you are free to disagree with Gods version of morality

>>134244029
>>134244210
>might makes right

power only gives you the means to enforce your subjective morals on other people, but without power they have no backing other than "this is what I think"

>>134243925

it can still be subjective and you can still have laws. someone can think murdering is wrong, someone can think murdering is right, neither of them are exempt from law, just one marries up with the current laws and the other doesn't.

law is separate.

Morality by nature is subjective you fucking idiot. You can pretend your morals are superior but that doesn't make them any less subjective. Anyone who thinks otherwise needs to learn the difference between objective and subjective.

>>134244353
>"Objective morality"
>It's just God's subjective morality

I love this, I say that all the time.

File: St Anthony the great.jpg (70KB, 346x530px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 346x530px

Morality is objective and comes from God

And the statement that all morality is subjective is ironically an objective belief.

>>134244339
>Do you also tell your highschool teacher to kill himself when he tells you to pick up a fucking book?
I would if we were debating and he told me to research his point instead of presenting it, lol.
>non white
>can't into debate
Color me surprised. Most people usually go 1 or 2 posts before going full fallacy; work on it.

>>134244353
yes but if you go against God's will then life and the universe becomes unstable. doesn't matter

File: Degenerate.jpg (43KB, 500x378px) Image search: [Google]

43KB, 500x378px

>>134240780
it is objective, morality is a long term survival strategy that is proven to work and when civilizations step away from morality they decay and collapse.

>>134243524
Sure.

Without God, there is no basis for objective morality.

You godless people are merely stealing the morality from God and his people. You're thieves, and you think you're better than God.

>>134244479
>>134244423
Might makes right
God's ability to enforce his morality is dependent on his power

File: victory morals.jpg (17KB, 236x354px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 236x354px

>>134241310
This


>>134241535
That's so fucking gay.

>>134243720
A subjective statement would be me claiming Utilitarianism is the right philosophy. If Utilitarianism is an objective way of "judging", it's not a subjective statement.

>>134241228
>I haven't seen a good argument against molyneux's distinction between morality and ethics

Stop listening to that retard and pick up some Dostoevsky, or something

>>134244353
You're free to be immoral, yes. You're not free to escape the consequences of your immorality.

>>134244692
see
>>134244626

>>134244626
I think He has that covered.

>>134240780
Objective. We, as humans, have no right to say what is and isn't moral because we disagree as a species. Majority Rules will get you a cucked up culture.

Subjective. Examples:

Case 1: "Lamb are good to eat." A wolf would say yes, a lamb would say no.

Case 2: "It's good to fuck niggers." A white father would say no, but his daughter with her Western education and Tinder, is forever a coalburner after her mandatory sociology 103 class, SOC103: Nigger Dick Experience

Subjective. All who oppose are weak faggots who cannot handle their own freedom.

File: some fag.jpg (305KB, 1637x809px) Image search: [Google]

305KB, 1637x809px

>>134244310
(You)

>>134244353
>>134244423
>>134244450
>>134244479
>>134244606
>>134244626
the argument that objective morality comes from God is a gigantic Appeal to Authority fallacy and is a retarded argument. Christcucks who blindly follow this are retarded and no better than sand niggers. Your faith should at least make sense if youre going to commit your life and soul to it

>>134244747
I never said he didnt

>>134242704
Why was the village conquered? It's too complex to explain? No, you're too dumb to notice you're skipping the entry point of your reasoning. Do not try to lecture anyone on morality then. Just do something usefull. I just heard we need people in garbage disposal. You see a container with garbage, you pick it up and put it in the machine - there, you are doing something useful. Stup running your keyboad imbecile.

And we meet again, you're still a dumb ass, fructose is still a drug, lustig bitter truth.

>>134241094
Psychopathic killer would like to disagree with you.

>>134240780

Morality is obviously subjective. I could be a serial killer and if I'm not caught by other human beings who impose their will on me nothing will happen to me. I won't go to hell, karma won't give me cancer and I won't reincarnate as a slug. Morals are just agreements on conduct so humans can co-operate that are subject to violation, disagreements and refinement.

The idea that morality is some sort of force of nature is a fucking retarded notion coming from religion and leads to things like complete cuckoldry where people will forgive murderers because it's le up to le God to judge them or complete mentalism where it's ok to murder innocent people en mass if God tells you to do it.

>>134244839
>Appeal to Authority fallacy
might makes right is reality

>>134244839
Okay, that's a screenshot of my post. Now can you point me to where I attributed a quote to the bible?

>>134244839
Appeal to Authority is only a fallacy if the being with authority is countered by another authority, or is out of his field, etc.

Appealing to the authority of God is not a fallacy. God is not wrong, does not lie, is not mistaken, and is, again, the only basis for objective morality.

He, being above us, dictates what is good and evil, and enforces his dictates.

You, being in open rebellion against God, are a fool.

>>134244807
morals dont apply to animals, they cant comprehend them. Both cases you gave are opinion vs opinion and you dont even look into the morality of either situation

>>134244606
>Without God, there is no basis for objective morality.
True, mostly. There would have to be a higher being or presence; something from which knowledge can be gained. Not necessarily a man in the sky or some shit.
>You godless people are merely stealing the morality from God and his people. You're thieves, and you think you're better than God.
Which god?
The problem with the whole god's objective morals horse shit is that there are countless gods all with their own objective rulings on how to live life which leads me to believe gods are an invention to impose a supposedly objective morality on man.

>>134240780
We can't even decide on how the objective and subjective relate, so I don't know!

>>134244998
>He, being above us, dictates what is good and evil, and enforces his dictates.

What does above us mean? Like he's literally above us, in the clouds? lol

>>134240780

Objective. This isn't even a question anymore. All animals have a form of morality in groups and socialized children develop morality at about 3 years of age. Moral relativism is false.

Subjective.

>>134244929
see my earlier post >>134244365

>>134244998
See, your response is to just double down on your argument
>why is god right?
>because hes god and hes right
that makes no sense and cant be reasoned to. What happens when you encounter somebody who doesnt recognize your authority? All your arguments fall flat, and youll just go >reeeee heretic

>>134245028
There is only one God.

File: sdg.jpg (4KB, 168x160px) Image search: [Google]

4KB, 168x160px

>>134240780
Objective. Morality is necessary for a functional civilization (see Plato's: the republic). Immorality, or degeneracy, tears down the simple concepts that stand up society, like family.
To understand without reading the book, here is an example: several people move into an area. Some of these people want to murder the others. Fear of murder results in sleepless nights, and thus, makes it harder to survive, resulting in decreased production for the society. Thus, laws are made that punish murderers. this deters murderers, and thus murder. Murder is morally wrong, but it is not prevented because of that, but rather that it is harmful to the society. The same can be said for sex, and with a similar example. immorality hurts functionality, and thus should be removed for more to benefit.
now git gud

>>134245092

are you saying that two groups can't have subjective morals that differ between them?

this isn't correct.

>>134244325
>>134244461
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2017-05-kids-payoff-good-bad.html
There you go, 2-3 minutes on google were enough, at the end of that article is the source: More information: Arber Tasimi et al. Children's decision making: When self-interest and moral considerations conflict, Journal of Experimental Child Psychology (2017)

>>134244877
If you're the same guy that decided to trust the burger about what the people in my own country are eating, in the current year and month, rather than trusting me for it, then you're fucking retarded. He did have a little bit of truth, the "traditional" venezuelan food was like that, but nowadays people eat whatever they can get their hands on, this includes all sorts of fruits and veggies they can manage to afford. I never stated fructose wasn't a drug

The village was conquered because they were savage subhumans that were murdering whoever tried to settle near them, the conquerors murdered the men that protected the village, but then had the morally gray choice of what to do with the kids, and ended up with the scenario I gave you, stick to the topic instead of trying to insult me senpai

>>134245018
Morality is opinion. If you say "it's good not to rape, therefore we create a law against rape, because rapists running around would ruin the community," then collectively and enforced via law, a morality is agreed upon as a guideline of the community.

It doesn't negate the fact that it's an opinion that rape is bad, and it is an opinion, because it will happen regardless.

Morality, in many cases, is a matter of opinion. "You shouldn't attack your neighboring countries." That's an opinion, and if the attacker can get away with it, no God will strike that nation down. It's happened countless times, just as rape has happened countless times and no God struck the rapist down.

Morality is opinion enforced by the fear of punishment by laws established by the rulers of a domain. Period.

>>134245080
He has more dimensions to his being than we do. He exceeds us in literally everything that is good to have or be. He is further above you than you are above a dirt clod.

>>134245364
Awwww, lemme guess
You think it's the one you worship?
>this goy

Subjective.

>Random murder is morally bad
>Murder in self defense is morally ok

>>134245363
That's because you have no idea what the nature and character of God actually are.

Maybe you can understand this.

Go make your own universe, and then you can set your own rules for your own universe that you created.

>people in this thread: "morality is some monolithic concept that can be treated as one idea but is most certainly not neurologically motivated"

we are born with the capacity to know and understand life, humanity, and dignity through our own experiences. many of us, for example the Slav or the Turk Roach, willfully discard this aspect of what Carl Jung knew as the Collective Unconscious. the human experience does not drive the mudslime or the south east Asian, and certainly not the negro. They see the world through the wild, feral eye that evolved through animalistic barbarism. Whites and several Asian cultures share emotional culture that expresses love, tragedy, jealousy, mourning, beauty, honour, and dedication. when you translate stories from one language to the another, they are easily understood. Our brains evolved in very similar ways. Notice art and stories from africa are simplistic, on the level of kindergarten or below. Their brains did not evolve- could not evolve- in a such a harsh climate. That is why apologists constantly insist to look at those cultures "in context"

if you narrow your definition of morality to Whites and Asians, then yes, there is morality.

>>134245466
So if god said 2+2=5 you'd say that is objectively correct?

>>134245536
>Murder in self defense is morally ok
That's not murder.

>>134245439
Nothing you cited was morality tho.

Subjective of course. It seems objective in the sense most people share the same evolutionary inclinations but its not the same for everybody

>>134240780
Is math objective?

>>134242704
>immoral things are done for the benefit of those committing it, therefore morality is not objective

venezuala, they are looting your house! get off your computer and stop them!

>>134245498
There is only one God, and yes, I worship Him.

There is a choice to not worshiping God, and you are worshiping that alternative choice.

Your side lost this war thousands of years ago.

>>134240780
objective.
Kant's categorical imperative:
Whatever you do, imagine if EVERYONE did.
e.g. You murder someone for their money... which leads to everyone murdering each other for their money.
i.e. anarchy/hell.
Hence, Laws that restrict the individual freedom where it harms others individually, or is detrimental to society as a whole.

But I literally do not expect low-iq leftists to grasp this concept. So by all means, keep spouting off your "morality is subjective!" garbage :)

>>134245572
If God hardwired the universe to where 2 + 2 = 5, you'd laugh at me for saying it was 4.

Objective.

Doubt me? Read David Enoch's paper "Why I'm an
About Morality (and Why You are, Too)"

Here's a link to the paper:

https://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&pid=sites&srcid=ZGVmYXVsdGRvbWFpbnxjbWlmMjAxNHxneDo0ZWJmMzVlYjQxMjk1ZDM0

>>134244880
He is just a dangerous animal wearing the disguise of a human. We don't expect dangerous animals to hold to standards or morality -- We put them down.

>>134240780
Ultimately I believe Subjective but it has to be seen as and treated as Objective by the individual, that objecture morality being best found in existing conglomerates of past subjective moralities.

shit should have said:

"Why I'm an Objectivist About Morality ..."

>>134240780
objective. It's just that my mortality is the objective onethat must be universally applied.

>>134245718
Exactly.

Is it okay if every single human being is a homosexual?

No, because the species would die out in one generation.

So it is immoral to be homosexual.

>>134241094
Objective in what way? I agree it's wrong, because that's my moral intuition, i.e. that's how I'm wired and how I was raised. But how is it OBJECTIVELY wrong? I can say it's objectively true that the "law of gravity" is true because I can test it and make observations but how can you say that a moral infatuation is objectively true?

>>134245071
Objective: Tyrone fucks your wife because his genes are superior, and his semen when combined with your wife's will provide great offspring that most likely will be a really massive improvement to society as a whole, as long as you take care of the children after he runs away

Subjective: You fuck your wife because you provide for the family, although your genes have a 50/50 chance of creating kids with microcephalia, or creating kids as good, genetically speaking, as Tyrone's, but since she's your wife, you provide for her, you dated her since you both were 15, and you gave her all the emotional support she needed, then it's moral for her to bear your children, and not Tyrone's

There's your objective and subjective comparison

>>134245546
and now your argument devolves to
>y-you just dont understand
neither do you, fuckwit. nobody understands god, not even the seraphim

>>134245439
no youre missing the point. youre having a group of people simply state "it is bad to rape" and accepting it. that would be the opinion

the morality behind it would be "is it bad to rape, and if so, WHY?". and upon that theyd form their opinion

youre just stating your opinion and declaring it so

>>134242621
That's not murder.

File: dissipionted cat.jpg (17KB, 215x197px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 215x197px

I object to the feed bill .

>>134240780
She can moral all over my face

>>134245536
>murder in self defense
tippity top kek

>>134245850
>infatuation
*intuition

>>134245836

OMFG YOU NAZI

STOP SAYING THE TRUTH,

>>134241185
eh, i kinda have to disagree with you there, having been around children.
They frequently have to be taught how to play nicely with others, and are stuck in the "morality is subjective" mentality, which leads to conflict.

>>134241094
Why does gaining pleasure from the act change the moral judgement? Would murder be morally justifiable if you were clinically depressed and incapable of experiencing joy from the act?

File: Silence.jpg (157KB, 460x469px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 460x469px

>>134244890
omg you are dumb, Morality is a survival strategy that is proven to work, you do not need a god to enforce it.

If you fuck a lot of people you will become diseased even if you do not then the populations genetic diversity will increase to the point that further change will become ever increasingly unlikely thus a population stagnates. If you fuck your sister then there is not enough genetic diversity then rampant negative mutation.

If you run around killing people and are not caught and are allowed to breed then that propensity is passed on until it reaches a breaking point in the population. The population would have a chaotic die off and would be force to restart if there are any survivors.

The whole god thing wile it can not be proven or disproven was giving to the idiot masses to control them for their own good. The ultimate judge is not god but survival, you survive you pass your genes on you win. If you maintain the right level of diversity then you population will have enough positive mutations to continue to change with its environment and continue to be successful.

>>134245751
I'll ask you again, if your God opened up the sky and told you that 2+2=5, would you say that is objectively correct?

Even if you held up 2 fingers on your left hand, and 2 fingers on your right hand, and that was 4 fingers, but God literally opened up the sky and told us all that 2+2=5, against all reasoning and evidence, would that be what is correct? Don't shift the goalposts, answer my question yes or no.

>>134245859
Correct. You do not understand that morality is objective, because you do not understand that without God, there is no objective basis for morality.

Because you do not understand God, at all.

>>134245672
1+1=2 is true for you and me, abortion or eating meat not so much so no, morality is not objective

>>134246052
I'll just let you read my response again, because clearly you have not comprehended it.

Laws infer a Law giver. Even mathematical laws.

>>134245572
Depending on who you ask God is omnipotently omnipotent. Meaning He can make a four sided triangle, or a circle with a pi value of exactly 3, etc, etc.

So yes, if god said 2+2=5, it'd be true by definition

>>134243803
this is correct

>all the religious cucks ITT that still believe in shit like morality and free will.

4chan's IQ dropped like a 100 points in less than a decade

>>134245439
could it not be argued that rape is damaging? The rapist will get off, and likely get to do it again. The one subjected will likely be traumatized and rendered less efficient at either producing offspring, or working. Therefor, rape is bad because it can be harmful to the community.

>>134243853
hegel, neitzsche, freud

>>134245859
>>134245634

Morality doesn't exist, only morale.

>>134246282
>costa rica

>>134245945
You're disagreeing with me, and also with Arber Tasimi and his coworkers: >>134245428
>>134245673
Tyrone's genes will allow any woman he rapes to birth the next Einstein, he wants to rape your wife. Morally speaking, it's objectively the best choice to let him rape your wife, and take care of his child, even if your wife kills herself and you end up with crippling depression, humanity as a whole wins out; subjectively, however, the only way to stop Tyrone from raping your wife right here and now is to shoot him, because he's the unstoppable rapist negro and he can't be stopped by anything but death, and your wife will kill herself after she gives birth to the kid, and you'll have to take care of the kid so that he grows up to be the next Einstein, so the best choice in this case would be to just shoot Tyrone to save your wife, and your sanity, but also deprive humanity of the next Einsten, provided your wife doesn't kill herself before giving birth to the kid

Try again, without using ad-hominems

File: 1480342845965.jpg (59KB, 400x571px) Image search: [Google]

59KB, 400x571px

>>134240780
Is THICC

Theft, slavery, rape, and murder are all affronts to property rights and therefore objectively wrong.

Everything else is subjective, but one should always be careful not to draw too much ire.

File: ancapthinking.png (57KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 256x256px

>>134240780
Is science objective or subjective?

>>134246282

Determinism is for sub 110 iq monkeys

>>134240780
her feet are hideous
2/10

>>134245850
>but how can you say that a moral intuition is objectively true?

My moral intuition also informs me that I can make such a claim. I can offer no more insight on the matter.

>>134242621
they didn't have a choice

File: literally not an argument.png (354KB, 472x500px) Image search: [Google]

354KB, 472x500px

>>134243902
I might just do that, but in the future you should know that it's your own responsibility to support your argument.

>>134246472

Fuck Einstein and his nukes

>>134240780
morality is what's necessary to survive and anything added on serves as fancy decoration that says "We are civilized"

>everyone with templar flags correctly explaining morality is subjective due to a lack of a Big Other, while ethics is objective due to a big other being subjective morality

fucking brainlet other flags pls go

>>134246207
>No, I won't answer a simple yes or no question

alrighty then

>>134246231
>God can make a four sided triangle

Except that making a four sided triangle and changing the definition of what a triangle is are completely indistinguishable here. A four sided triangle cannot exist by definition. Not even an omnipotent being could make it happen.

>if god said 2+2=5, it'd be true by definition

No, he would be wrong.

>>134246435
youre changing your argument because youre wrong
>>134246088
morality is objective but not because God declares it to be, youre twisting your argument and my words around

>>134245561
my only grudge is whith the harsh climate, complete opposite, thye had every opportunity to develop, riches beyond imagination, huge continent full of everything you need, yet they did nothing with it, maybe because of it, who knows, anyways, just don't say it

>>134246597
You can't have a moral intuition about the nature of all moral intuitions.

>>134245999
Motives clearly matter where questions of morality are concerned. This fact may actually be an interesting tool to explore the nature of human morality.

>>134246528
objective but only within the realm of observable conscious reality which is arguably unfinished and cannot be extended to all reality conscious or unconscious without irrational subjective abstractions

>>134246545
umm sweetie, I dont think you even understand the meaning of that word.
But it's all right, keep praying to your imaginary friends and cleaning your room.

>>134246545
a 109 iq monkey would be pretty smart

>>134240780

Depends upon the morality. In the shadow of the universe it is subjective, but there is the light from which that shadows cast and the spiritual goads which the material kicks against.

>>134246472
>all of this moral dilemma garbage but none of it would realistically happen in real life in any fashion
The point of a moral dilemma is to provide a somewhat believable scenario. Furthermore, he could always rape some other woman besides my wife. Continuing, since he's currently trying to rape my wife, there are a lot of ways to shoot a person that wouldn't just kill them, but only prevent them from rape.
Finally, a mischlinge genius baby would be a net NEGATIVE on the world since the media would likely use it to promote racemixing in general, which would likely outweigh any individual benefit that Tyrone's genius rapebaby would have provided society.

File: 1500490032375.jpg (83KB, 589x570px) Image search: [Google]

83KB, 589x570px

>>134246674
Here you go babe, just 4u >>134245428
>>134246679
Not an argument

File: tumblr_ot99abHnZQ1uhii41o3_500.jpg (54KB, 423x637px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 423x637px

Alright, i thought this was gonna be an ass and boobs thread, where are dem funbags?

>>134240780
Morality is not 1 single thing and is susceptible to change. Things that are more susceptible to change are subjective and those that are not are objective.

>>134246900
>about the nature of all moral intuitions

I only claim such in the extreme case, where the answers are clearest. And I do claim it. The situation is similar to the fact that I claim that "race exists", based on my experience and observation of clear cases which are not at the "fuzzy edges".

>>134246472
I never said that things that were immoral were not beneficial, but rather that morality has a stronger structure, making it better for society to thrive, and thus for survival and production. If Tyrone rapes my wife, and Einstein is born, good (not for me of course). However, if rape is rampant, then there will be no family structure, and thus, more single moms, who will beg for gibsmedat, and create crime committing children like a goddamn factory. (see single motherhood studies). more crime, more insecurity, less production, less cohesion, everyone lives in a shack, we all lose. immorality can produce good, but only on a microscopic scale. see Venezuela as an example. You loot, and feed your crying children, but everything is terrible. your point is null.

>>134247100
>I don't understand how a thought-exercise based on a hyperbolized scenario works
Okay
Ignoring that
>Finally, a mischlinge genius baby would be a net NEGATIVE on the world since the media would likely use it to promote racemixing in general, which would likely outweigh any individual benefit that Tyrone's genius rapebaby would have provided society.
Wrong, because as you said it yourself, Tyrone won't just be raping your wife, he will rape any white woman he comes across, which means that he will impregnate hundreds of women with his Einsten babies, and while, possibly, a single genius rapebaby won't provide enough to society to outweigh the negatives, I'm sure that a hundred of Einsteins, all specializing in different fields, would catapult humanity to the next age; I guessed it was pretty obvious that Tyrone wouldn't just be raping your wife, but everyone's wife

morality being objective is a left wing idea desu

>>134247555
You know there are more things that go into what is being birthed than just sperm of the male.

>>134245428
>born with it
>5 and 6 year olds
Looks like you've proven yourself to be wrong.

>>134243008
mutual consent does not automatically equate to "it's okay".
Getting consent from a child to engage in pedophilia doesn't make pedophilia morally acceptable.
Filming yourself in a porno and then letting others watch it still has a detrimental affect on society as a whole.
Unmarried women having promiscuous sex and then having multiple children is bad, even though she and her partners were mutually consenting. It's bad for the children, who now will be raised without a father.
Abortion is obviously wrong since the input of the baby isn't even asked.

>>134241826
This could be summarized by the statement that moral law is more rigid as the victim's merit to society is increasingly proven.

is objectivity objective or subjective?

File: fractal-jigsaw-puzzle-thumb.gif (908KB, 308x263px) Image search: [Google]

908KB, 308x263px

>>134245999
>>134246938
To add, the distinction must be made between a person's intentions for doing a thing, and the actual results of that thing. It's not the pleasure obtained per se which proves immorality -- and I don't wish to wonder right now about whether or not thoughts can be immoral -- but rather the doing of "bad" acts from which one believes one will derive pleasure.

>>134248111
subjective

>>134248111
checked if true

>>134241094
what if i'm murdering a nigger who is about to stab an innocent aryan child?

>>134248111
In the real world or the ideal one?

>>134248339
Then that's not murder, by definition. That's self-defense by proxy.

this thread is a bunch of wankery. get off /pol/ and go read some philosophical ethics you peons.

>>134247555
pls refute
>>134247545

Morality is whatever society enforces it to be. That's why propaganda is so necessary.

We didn't arrive where we are without the Jewish media polluting our minds with programming.

>>134247887
I'm a medicine student, I would know about it. But it's easier to hyperbolize an scenario to discuss a subject than to research the most perfect and ideal example based on peer-reviewed articles that would take me an hour or more to form an idea just to propose an argument in this mongolian basket-weaving board. It's easier and more practical to just pull off an odd scenario that helps me get the point across
>>134248046
Yes, pretty good, good job
>>134247929
>expecting a 2 years old kid to speak or even understand what the fuck you're talking to him about
Sven, I think the musk of Muhamaad's pubes are getting to your brain, you don't seem to be thinking straight
>>134247545
Rape isn't rampant, it's just this one Tyrone doing the raping, cops refuse to catch him because that's racist, he's the only rapist in the entire city, he's impregnating hundreds of women with these Einstein babies, and given that they don't kill themselves, or the kids don't die, or the kids are left without a dad (As in, given the kids are raised properly by a good cuck), they will grow up to be the next Einstein in any subject they decide to take, such an amount of Einstein-tier genius rapebabies will catapult humanity to a new era, way beyond the negativity that this scenario might provide, but that is, given the white husband is a good cuck and raises his wife's son, which is why this attempts to explain how, subjectively, this is immortal, yet objectively, it isn't

Completely unrelated, but, in Venezuela, the only "looters" are criminals and corrupt officers, national guards, and government paid thugs trying to push a narrative, kind of like (((the media))) in first world countries, there's nobody looting to "feed their children", the people looting aren't starving to death, I can safely assure you that
>>134248737
I swear I can only write so fast

>>134245428
>Arber Tasimi et al. Children's decision making

"In the current study of 5- and 6-yearolds"... Yeah 5-6 years after they are BORN. Thus this does not say anything about children being born with morals or not.

>>134244880
morality being objective doesn't mean that everyone obeys it.
it just means that certain behavior AUTOMATICALLY falls under "good" or "evil", like murder, pedophilia, incest, rape, robbery, etc.
Certain behavior, especially when it becomes widespread, but even on an individual basis, is bad for society, and therefore, OBJECTIVELY immoral.
Just because the pedophile enjoys being a pedophile, or because the pedo doesn't see anything wrong with their behavior, doesn't mean that their behavior is beneficial.
Just because societies and people have different, subjective views about what is good or evil, doesn't mean that objective good and evil don't exist.
Math exists. Some people are good at math, some people are bad at math. Doesn't change the fact that there is an objective correct way to use math, and an incorrect way.
Same with morals.

>>134247555
>i don't understand how thought experiments
I'm criticizing your shitty thought experiment, not thought experiments in general.
>race of geniuses
Wait, if he's raping a lot of women then it's okay for me to shoot him since you never said my wife was the first victim. Secondly, I would prefer the white race to advance the way it is without taking a lot of black genes from one source. You need to learn more about genetics and heritage.

File: 1499631664450.jpg (96KB, 986x553px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 986x553px

>>134248339
That's not murder, a word which is at its heart is a legal term. Keep in mind that even the Bible makes a distinction between killing and murder. Indeed, the Commandment "Thou shalt not kill" is a famous and well-proven case of a rare mistranslation in the KJV -- The orignal text in fact reads "Thou shalt not murder."

>>134248997
You added just a tad bit too much simplicity into your comment making it too extreme and untrue.
Realistically he could get, even with his glorious genes a very few amount of women that could birth such a child, and even then the early development of the child also batters a fuck ton and thats something even harder to replicate. And not only would failures of children ( crude name ) would outnumber nonfailures for him, but for every other bix nood chimp they would outnumber them 1 to a million.

>>134245536
murder and killing are two separate things.

>Muhamaad`s pubes
And you are the one talking about ad hominem attacks

>>134248909
You're both right, and wrong, at the same time. Morality has an objective core, and a subjective surface, the subjective surface can be manipulated, the objective core is part of the human nature, as proven by different studies, one of them I quote here: >>134245428
>>134249087
>expecting a 2 years old kid to be able to speak, receive orders, or even understand that he exists
Tep kok
>5-6 years after they are BORN
Mind if I ask, why are you capitalizing "BORN"? Like, why are you drawing such attention and emphasis to that word in this sentence? It's like you're midly suggesting that there could be children 5-6 years after they are unborn? Of course it's 5-6 years after they are born, why is this such an important thing, that you felt like you had to emphasize it, I mean, isn't it logical it's fucking 5-6 years after they were born? What else could it have been? 5-6 years after the first mitotic cell division?
>>134249362
I'm telling you this is a good race horse, and you're telling me it stinks a lot when it shits. You're drifting away from the subject at hand for something entirely unrelated to it

>>134240780

As in that ho is objectively obese and fucking disgusting

>>134249574
The argument inside my post doesn't change even if you remove the ad-hominem. The problem with ad-hominem attacks is when they are used as an argument by themselves, not when I give you a counter-argument, and then call you a faggot as well

File: 1497577842450.jpg (35KB, 720x714px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 720x714px

>>134243944
>condemning nigger-tier behavior is cucked

>>134245836
from what i understand, homosexuals don't really get to "choose" who they're attracted to.

They can, however, choose not to act on their impulses.
Same with rapists.
Same with potential burglars.
Same with a married man/woman considering going online and cheating on their spouse.
Same with the heterosexual who wants to masturbate.

I think people focus too much on homosexuals because they're trying to rationalize their own sins as "not as bad, so God won't mind as much."

God minds. All sins are black in his eyes. Homosexuals have to learn to control their impulses, but then so does EVERYBODY.

>>134240780
Are the laws of the universe objective or subjective? There's your answer, son.

>>134240780
Morality as defined by dictionary.com is "conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct." Seeing as there are specific rules of right conduct, it is objective. However, these rules are arbitrary and based on either superstition or rational thought. I suppose the basis of morality can be subjective depending on whether you think that particular superstition or rational thought is really objective.

If you are a Christian, morality is objective because your superstitious beliefs clearly defines what is moral.

If you are an atheist, morality is subjective because morality is dependent on the quality of the reason/logic you base it on.

File: 1481335038004.jpg (159KB, 480x533px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 480x533px

>>134240780
Subjective, but there is a very limited finite amount of morals that are pragmatic in the real world in their immediate and long term results

File: 43243254354107_0.jpg (198KB, 1446x1272px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 1446x1272px

>>134243944
>>134244839
>>134246282

File: 1495459717866.png (121KB, 258x245px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 258x245px

>>134241185

That would explain all the millions of child soldiers in Africa. Or are you talking about real children ?

>>134240780
Are you a murderer if you pay taxes and known that the money is used to kill innocents?

>>134246038
i agree that a discussion on morality doesn't necessarily have to include God.
but, from a survival standpoint, certain behavior can have a temporary benefit, but in the long term are detrimental.
I think a lot of "morality is subjective" type people only factor in the short term cost vs. benefit, instead of the long term.
Rape, as a short term strategy, works just fine. Population is increased, the rapist feels good.
As a long term strategy, it's bad, because the children are not raised the same as children born in a happy home with loving mother and father.

>>134249210
It's a single Tyrone, he won't ruin the genetic pool of the entire fucking white race, lmao, a hundred Einstein-tier kids would be enough to catapult humanity in every aspect of science, you don't need an entire RACE of Einsteins for it

And objectively speaking, it's not okay for you to shoot him, because the pros out of these hundred kids that will be born out of all these rapes, in this hypothetical and shitty thought experiment, will far outweight the cons, and the value of the lives of the 200 parents (100 raped women and 100 sad white cucks)

Morality is fully objective when applied to a hivemind, like ants. Morality turns subjective the more complex the organisms involved in it, because their interactions become far more complex, and they progressively acquire higher tiers of consciousness depending on how far evolved they are (It has been proven some animals have lower tiers of consciousness, when compared to us humans). This is why morality is both, objective, and subjective
>>134250373
It depends, really, are these child soldiers evil at the age of 4, all the way up? Or are they corrupted by the outside evil force of dindus, and progressively turn evil? You can easily sway a kid to be an evil child soldier in just a couple of years, making it look, to the ignorant eye, like the kid was born evil. Nonetheless, kids are born good: >>134245428

subjective to people that dont feel like theyre confident on their morals and objective to those that think morals have obvious answers

>>134240780
Morality is ultimately pragmatic, as it's biological in nature. When biological needs are satisfied you develop non-pragmatic moralities.

>>134246472
literally have no clue who that is, nor do i care what they said.
i'm speaking from my own personal experience. throwing out names of people i don't know doesn't change anything.

>>134250944
>a 2017 peer-reviewed article in the Journal of Experimental Child Psychology is worse than my anecdotal evidence
Wow, great argument faggotron, you sure convinced me with those hot opinions!

File: 1487953814744.jpg (17KB, 200x232px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 200x232px

>>134241535
Ironically "christians" don't realize jesus was a raw food vegan that intermittent fasted daily, and tried to tell people that heaven is the earth we live on now. That we have to be the change we want to see in the world, etc.
Instead, they worship him as a deity and can't wait to die to go to heaven.

What a joke

>>134240780
Is this a serious question? Subjective morals are what we call 'ethics'. Without objectivity there can be no morality - which is part of the problem today, all sense of objectivity is washed away with individualism and science.

Moral relativism is literally subjective morality.

>>134248997
You are missing my point. I am arguing for structure, and in the area of the Tyrone happening, that would fall apart. You can have a hundred Einsteins, but if they don't get a job, drop from school, and rape murder etc, what use is their knowledge? Unless they apply it, it is worth nothing. (see all studies done on single mothers).
Again however, I must make myself clear. I am speaking in regards too the whole of a society. Yes, if all the men were good cucks, and the rape babies were productive members of society, then yes, this would be beneficial. I concede this. however, if we are talking about anything outside the individual occurrence, then morality will prevail in effectiveness. Immoral things can be done for the greater good of humanity, I am not denying this, but again, if we want a structured society with maximum output, morality is the best. See The republic for a bigger explanation of how that works. sorry for rushing you, cunt

>>134251317
Science can define objectivity. It just has no opinion of its own. Many love to use science to back up their opinion, but this shouldn't be confused with saying science says this or that, because it doesn't.

>>134251213
((((((((((((Journal)))))))))))

>>134240780
It is subjective, but we're all better off pretending otherwise.

>chaotic neutral reporting in

WHO UP SMASH THAT MF LIKE

>>134251229
jesus exists in the bible to kill off the idea of an anthropomorphic god

File: 1396415306508.jpg (17KB, 300x325px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x325px

>>134251555
I liked the example another anon used in this thread, about taxes. If I donate money to a charity to help whatever the fuck, and it turns out this money is being used to help the druglords in South America to grow in power and murder each other; subjectively speaking, I'm doing a morally good thing, because I'm donating to a charity to help whatever the fuck, and I didn't know what the money was going towards, but objectively speaking, I'm financing druglords in South America so they can terrorize small villages
>>134251929
>hiding behind memeflag
>using a meme-tier response

>ITT psychopathic liberals try to defend their serial killer fetish

>>134242621
Most people that got butchered were criminals sent to fight exotic animals or other people.

Pro gladiators were just hard core WWE people. Fun and weren't meant to kill each other but it happens

>>134240780
It's both.

There is a clearly objective superior decision in retrospect. There is also a superior morality based on your personal paradigm, even the retrospective is often based on this.

In the heat of a situation morality may not even factor into a decision or set of decisions.

But morality is both subjective AND objective in that we can all claim to aspire to a higher ideal, preferrably an impossibly good one, but we'll always act against that inevitably. And we know it, too.

>>134248022
You can't get consent off them though lol your point is invalid

>>134240780
Ready for some truth..?
The question "is morality subjective or objective?" is not structurally valid.

>>134252389
>the only person in the entire thread that agrees that it's both is A FUCKING LEAF
Now even I am doubting my own argument, it's truly amazing what a single little flag icon can do to a post

File: spooky stirner.jpg (55KB, 508x512px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 508x512px

mandatory post:

SBOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOKSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS XDDD

>>134240780
Morality is completely objective.
However, some guidelines are gray areas designed to usher a healthy behavior.
Nevertheless, moral relativism is cancer and false.

>>134252122
This example is faulty. The idea here is that doing something wrong while thinking it is is correct, makes it correct. If I were to donate to whateverthefuck charity, and think I am giving money to a good cause, whilst funding a bad one, the fault is not mine. If there is a box on the street with a little slit for money, and a sign that reads "give to the poor starving people of Venezuela" however secretly, the person managing it is going to kill a person if the box is filled, and has premeditated this without telling anyone, who would be arrested for the murder? The killer, or the people who donated?

>>134252614

It's okay m8. Believe it or not, every Leaf isn't a retard.

I'll be the first to admit I'm an understudied pseudo intellectual, though, but "two things can be true at once" seems to be a theme that a whole lot more people need to learn, and quickly.

This isn't a matter of trying to be right or wrong, either. A lot of things "just are" and that is that. And that's not necessarily good or bad. Some of those things we are fully able to deem immoral if we can prove they are destructive or have reason to believe they are.

Sometimes those things get over turned with more thought, data and consideration. Sometimes they get proved to be correct later even after we tried to make the change to the "hip new thing."

This shit has been going on throughout all of human history. Anyone who thinks we're radically more special than the Romans or Greeks is a moron.

It's relatively objective depending on the frame of reference.

Ex./ killing a random person is morally wrong. However, killing a person that is trying to kill you is morally justified. More controversial: Violent conquest was morally justified 2000 years, but is no longer due to capitalism/communication abilities.

File: 1500511338207.jpg (40KB, 300x225px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 300x225px

>>134252122
Eso du bs de verdad!

>>134242471
Da Bait-N-Switch sandwich shop

>>134252614
>both
I'm afraid I misunderstood your argument all along. I thought you were arguing for solely subjective. I will concede, as I have before that immoral things can be good for society in certain circumstances, such as human experimentation, and our magic Tyrone babies. So a leaf, and a burger agree with you, if that is any consolation.

File: 1476085753746.png (421KB, 983x376px) Image search: [Google]

421KB, 983x376px

>>134253343

> It's relatively objective depending on the frame of reference.

Subjective but there are moral truths that exist because some cultures have shitty morals.

>>134253343
>relatively objective based on the frame of reference
holy fuck you cant be real

>>134240780
100% subjective

>>134246052
He isn't avoiding the question. He's saying God's words reflect reality because God is God. From that perspective, God would be correct, and know something true about the expression in question we don't. Otherwise it wouldn't be said by God. God would have total knowledge and is by definition perfect.

>>134253105
When you ask who would be arrested for the murder, you're inferring that the penal system, and the law, are a good moral guideline. If you're in a 20 floors building, and some guy jumps off the root, and you're in your apartment in the 18th floor, and you accidentally shoot your shotgun through the window, and kill the guy that jumped off, then you're in for some trouble. But then if you add that the guy didn't jump off, but he was actually pushed off it by his gold-digger wife, because she wanted some sweet money, and then also add that the guy shooting the shotgun through the window, didn't know the shotgun was loaded, because he often points an unloaded shotgun at his wife, as a method of taking out his anger, and they have been doing that for many years so she never bothered to report it as abuse, but it turns out he missed his wife when he pulled the trigger (he always pulls it because he knows the shotgun is always unloaded, so they both knew the outcome that should have happened), and shot through the window, and the one that loaded the gun happened to be his son, who loaded the shotgun with the intention of framing his dad for the murder of his mother, but ended up causing the murder of the guy that jumped off the roof of the building, but didn't actually jump because he was pushed off; then you end up with a really fucked up case of: the son, the wife, and the old guy, all going to jail, either for intended or accidental murder, or for murder attempt. But on a morally-based point of view, the old guy didn't do anything morally wrong, as he was tricked, and the only two to blame are the wife and the son. Convoluted? Yes, but it reminded me of something I had read a while ago, let's see if I can find it
>>134253894
I'm used to anglos misunderstanding me for being venezuelan, so it's fine. I'm glad it wasn't only the leaf agreeing with me, made me feel like there was something odd going on here, being a brown guy and only having a leaf on my back

>>134253152
#NotAllLeaves
I trust you, leaf, and you are right, people need to stop thinking in absolutes

File: 1498334431876.png (2KB, 618x298px) Image search: [Google]

2KB, 618x298px

>>134240930
/thread

>>134240780

It's important to attribute a heightened importance to certain aspects of and acts in life in order to give people something to strife for, individually, in the form of an archetype and collectively, presented as a higher will that leads us. It's the ideological putty we build upon to attain our set goals... or the goals of others.

There is no objective morality, only the illusion of it. Upholding this false belief allows spiritual authorities to move and bend the masses according to their aim.

>>134253105
>>134254405
Found it, I also happened to forget the part with the safety net in the 8th floor, or in my example's case, would be in the 17th floor. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ronald_Opus

>>134245695
Fucking moron.

>>134254381
>he isn't avoiding the question
>he just never answered it at all

Lol, okay then.

If God said 2+2=5 Christcucks would accept that, I do understand that, but they are already mental slave-zombies, so it comes as no surprise they would accept something that is impossible, even for an "omnipotent" being.

A four sided triangle is a rectangle, Yahweh cannot change that.

>>134240780
Which perspective would be healthier?

>>134240780
well morality wouldnt exist if there were no humans to develope it, believe in it and behave according to it, so its subjective. It simply wouldnt exist if there are no humans to believe it because its an idea, not a tangible piece of matter.

>>134254405
I could argue that pointing the shotgun at the wife is wrong, as she is put in danger (#1 rule of gun safety, always assume its loaded.) but that just adds to that clusterfuck, and i'm about to go to bed, so screw that. I have to add that yes, it is strange that the leaf was on your back. normally I see canadians connected to brown people in the front, in a bent over position.

File: CoffeeStar.jpg (42KB, 620x608px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 620x608px

Where Angels Fear to Tread
>>134226044
>>134226044
>>134226044
Get your coffee on lads
Oy vey dem Slides

>>134240780
Its Objective by default, it only becomes Subjective when people disagree.

but if we had perfect empathy and forgiveness, it would be Subjective.

the "Lying" satan does is
>When you lie to Yourself
(and bury your head until (((they))) (who have a different morality) are in charge.)
/thread

we dont need god for objective morality if we can something that cant be ignored, relativised and denied: something like pain.
cutting your finger is objectively bad even if there might some case where it is necessary and "good" in the big picture, the pain is still bad. once you established a fixed point you can build your framework on it

>>134240780
Subjective morality is a contradiction. Moral judgments are all subjective, just like beliefs are all subjective. But there is an objective standard for moral judgments just like there is an objective standard for our beliefs. The fact that people have different moral beliefs is no support for moral relativism or nihilism, since people have contradictory beliefs about all sorts of things, and that doesn't suggest there is no fact of the matter.

File: 1423618272568.jpg (140KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 640x640px

>>134255389
A soft kek

I found the source of this clusterfuck of a story, and my example wasn't that far off, either: >>134254800

>>134255672
we do need god for morality.

otherwise its jungle rule, now get that flag down you filty athiest

>>134254381
listen dipshit, you dont get to opt out of the argument with
>muh holy buuk
the idea is rationalization of it. to give you a reason to actually argue: if God made things a certain way, would there not be a reason why it worked? Or does gravity hurl me into the air?

>>134240780

the core of morality is objective (don't do to another living thing what you wouldn't want done to you)

its application is subjective (we have to fight against patriarchy, which is something bad you did to us, so who cares if you feel like this is something bad we're doing to you)

>>134255672
Pain might be unpleasant, but even if it was universally undesirable (it isn't since there are masochists), that wouldn't make it bad in any moral sense. Pleasure and pain are not synonyms for good and bad; plenty of unpleasant and painful things are good, and plenty of pleasurable things are not good. Morality is not about maximally satisfying desires, that's just regular old prudential or economic reasoning, nor moral reasoning.

File: morals graph.png (100KB, 831x636px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 831x636px

depending on your basic moral sensibilities and on any scams to suppress any one base principles you may pick up different ideologies that promise different moral orders.

Rejective

>>134240780
Objective.

Morality wasn't born in a vacuum.

Objective. Humans cant agree enough to make subjective work. we need clear predefined rules for society.

>>134255703
Okay, what is the objective standard for moral judgments? Can you post it so we can all know what to do / not to do?

>>134240780
My feelings are objective but your feelings are not.

>>134256173
you are looking at this in a way too abstract way because that's exactly where the morals start:
>pain is bad
>so dont inflict pain to others because its bad

that's the most primitive and basic moral framework.

>>134256173
>>134256156
>>134256147
>>134256115
>>134255853
>>134255703
>>134255672
>>134255639

>Read the Talmud
Is it moral? Is it illogical? is it both?

We can never know what morality is except by trial and effor, the same as every human endeavour ever, thats why our histories are destroyed. To make sure your "Morals" have no physical basis. when they do

>>134255853
with or without the net, the point still stands. I have to say, I still feel dumb for arguing with someone I agree with. have a good one man, Im calling it a day.

>>134255672
When you work out hard, your muscles will ache the next day, this is painful, does that mean that working out is objectively bad, or even wrong? Considering that there's zero basis for the idea of exercising yourself to be bad, in any sort of way, for your body. Pain isn't always bad; and please don't take the easy way out of this by saying you can rip a muscle if you overwork it

>>134255672
I agree with the pain principle. Suffering is always bad. I am religious though.

>>134256115
Jungle rule is whoever is strongest wins. Objective morality based around conscious experience is not whoever is strongest, it is whoever causes the most suffering is wrong.

>>134256440
>humans cant agree on what morality is
>therefore it's objective
i hope you're only pretending to be this retarded

>>134256564
Arguing with someone is never bad, because it keeps your mind sharp and is a good practice for formulating your own arguments, even when people agree to them, it's also great for having a deeper understanding of yourself and your own mind. Arguing is one of the healthiest things you can do to keep your brain sharp, as long as you're doing it properly instead of falling back to logical fallacies. So don't feel bad about it senpai

>>134256569
look here >>134256505

no need to get bogged down about what pain is good or not. at least Im talking on the most primitive and simplest level. like nigger level

>>134256785
Eh, I've been during this entire thread, arguing that it's both, subjective and objective, and gave plenty lengthy arguments for it, I think you're late to the party my dude

Morality is neither fully objective or subjective; if you proclaim "All morals are X" you end up with a tautology.

>>134256173
I would argue that masochists are immoral. It's immoral to inflict pain even on yourself.

>>134256569
Working out might cause pain in the short term but overall it improves your strength so that you can fight to end suffering. Also working out is enjoyable lol, you get a rush from it that outweighs the pain.

You have to look at it from the widest lens possible. What causes the most suffering in the entire system across all of time and space, not what causes the most suffering in the moment.

>>134256637
>Pain is always bad
Please, use your moralcompass and never cause childbirth pain. O wise one.

Law of the Jungle can be groups numpty, the biggest (group) tells the smallest (group) to do their dirty work.

Maybe if you trick them, you can get around the pain rule?

You're so indoctrinated to The Talmud you cant even find your own arsehole.

>>134256964
well obviously there is a subjective morality. Im only here to argue that there are objective, human-centric fix points and we dont need god in the equation.

>>134257904
Yeah you're right, these are the most basic ones, I agree

>>134257904
without god, wheres the centre line?

straight back into subjectivity

>>134258015
we can only define the bottom (objective bad) and then aim for the highest imaginable good. if you want to call that god be my guest. but that's all we can do

>>134257664
Childbirth pain is to prevent the greater pain of your people dying out.