>but anon, that's immoral! How do you respond to this?

"morality is subjective"

gets them every time

>>36572209
is that statement objectively true?

if it is, then there is objective truth

and if objective truth exists, then there is objective right and wrong

and if right and wrong exist, then good and bad exists

and thus we have objective morality


... of course if your statement is not objectively true then it's nonsense

Morality doesn't make sense to me.
I prefer to make my own rules of good human decency.

Girls love rebels.

>>36572209
but then they'll know ur autistic

>>36571950
>morality is for the gays
stopped in their tracks.

>>36572349
pretty big jump from "2 + 2 = 4" to something like "eating animals is wrong" my main man.

>>36572349
Let's assume you have objective morality. Reach efficiency while keeping up happiness, could be a summary.
So what? Why should I care? This is a good policy for managing a country, but in personal matters, I don't care at all.
Moreover, when they call you amoral, what is that even? A call to the good path? A threat?

>>36571950
You stop doing it you degenerate scum

>>36572633
But why? I don't know if I should give an example, but it happens with things that don't affect people.

>>36572589
> Reach efficiency while keeping up happiness, could be a summary.

that's an example of subjective morality often used in anthrocentric cultures like marxian collectives

i'm arguing for Objective morality - something outside of cultural norms, which is true at all times, no matter if a certain groups of human beings agree with it or not

for example, the Khmer Rouge held that intellectuals were a threat to the revolution, so they deliberately killed the educated... going so far as to execute people who wore spectacles, cos they probably got short sighted from reading

now perhaps you agree with them, but i'm guessing you wouldn't like to be killed simply for having the ability to read this dumb poast of mine, yeah?

yet for the Khmer Rouge, it was completely 'moral' for them to slaughter smart people - that was their cultural belief, their morality as seen from within their subjective worldview - and they developed that from a utilitarian perspective, thinking that 'The People' would be happiest and most efficient if unencumbered by dissenting voices
(it should be noted that we also have examples of Capitalists treating human beings as 'things' to be exploited and discarded, but your definition was more akin to the language of left-leaning utilitarians so i went with the KM, no offence)

so i would ask you, in your opinion is it 'always' wrong to treat human beings as mere tools to service society?

if so, then you hold to an Objective Morality outside of cultural norms

and if you hold to such an Objective Moral Law, from where do you derive it?

>>36572349
>is that statement objectively true?
no. i'll make it simple for you.

everything is subjective, even reality. even this statement.

morality is subjective, as it is based upon personal beliefs. you are confusing morals with ethics.

File: pooh.jpg (9KB, 208x242px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 208x242px

>>36573202
paling metamorphosis crimbo hopscotch free-radicals buddy

>>36572349
yes, I agree with this, except I don't think absolute truths are practically applicable within our frame of reference, and I think we should always work with probablities. I think for example that it is improbable that there a divine creator, but i think it is very probable that there is and underlying pattern to our universe that defines action -> reaction, 0/1, good/bad.

I just say I am a consequentialist and rationalize it.

>>36572633
dubs of truth, it's not good for anyone to be nihilist hedonistic drone.
although, desu most people who point this shit out are hypocrites, we're not always entitled to make virtuos life decisions, like having a certain diet.

>>36571950
OP, did you openly display your hatred for dogs again?

>>36573642
>I don't think absolute truths are practically applicable within our frame of reference

i hear you, anon - and i promise i'm not having a go

but if we look at this statement you made, it itself is a truth-claim

and if you think it's an absolute truth applicable to our frame of reference, then it's self-defeating; since it demonstrates an absolute truth applicable... etc

i'm really sorry man, i'm not messing with you

but it's a paradox

>>36573110
killing people isn't and wasn't 'always' wrong. People in the Western world have come to the consensus that killing is (outside of war and the execution of criminals) wrong. This changes nothing about other cultures and how their morality system operates.
Morality only seems "Objective" when every single person is taught and convinced to have the same moral code.
Morals have been shifting around and changing since a shared culture was a thing.

>>36573979
>killing people isn't and wasn't 'always' wrong.

i neither addressed this issue nor asked about killing people

i was asking anon if he thought it was always wrong to treat human beings as mere cogs in the machine

so i'll ask you the same thing

and i'll ask if you truly think that belief is a product of your culture

... or is it something which is true even if your culture changed it's view