Are morals truly subjective? Can a man really be evil, and can a man really be good? Is evil real? If there is no afterlife, then does anything we do in life truly matter?
>>1076898
No, yes, no, yes, no.
>>1076904
Can you give examples and such?
Answer to any philosophical qusetion = You can't know
>>1076898
Yes, no, no, no, no
>>1076898
Don't quote me on any of this and feel free to fire away if you feel differently, but here's what I think.
Morality is flexible, but not exactly subjective. Evil is something we can all unanimously agree is objectively harmful. Opinions will vary from culture to culture, but generally speaking most of what we perceive as "moral" stems from empathy and reciprocity. These are systems that allow us to live and connect with one another.
Can a man be good or evil? I suppose so.
If there is no afterlife, that is just that. Way I see it, you are succeeded by what you leave behind regardless. I feel like the ripple I leave behind is probably more important than my own brief flash in the pan existence.
>>1076898
>Are morals truly subjective?
Yes
>Can a man really be evil, and can a man really be good?
If really = objective, then no
>Is evil real?
See above
>If there is no afterlife, then does anything we do in life truly matter?
Yes. truly =/= infinite
>>1076898
>Are morals truly subjective?
Absolutely.
>Can a man really be evil, and can a man really be good? Is evil real?
Evil does not exist. Neither does good. They're opinions. One man might think murder is wrong, but to another it's just part of the job.
Whatever the case, the universe is indifferent. Everything is made of the same fundamental building blocks, atoms, quarks, you name it. Which means nothing is evil, and nothing is good. If you commit genocide to an entire demographic of people, the world will continue on. The remains of the dead will erode and become part of other things, like soil, and in the end, because of conservation of matter, nothing will really be destroyed as long as the universe lasts. And everything we do will be irrelevant once heat death occurs anyway.
That being said, it matters to us as people. Wars raging in the Middle East mean nothing unless it affects you directly, then it's the most important part of your life. We become attached to things and have independent morals of our own. Committing evil or practicing good only applies to those morals. You can agree with others and follow theirs, but it's yours and yours alone that dictates how you live and what you do.
Think about it this way. Everything in this post is just letters clumped together into groups, but we choose to give them meaning, and we choose to interpret them in our own way. And that is what life is all about.
>If there is no afterlife, then does anything we do in life truly matter?
Again, no. Whatever you do now, the Earth will be consumed by the sun in 5 billion years regardless. But we can at least convince ourselves it does matter so our lives aren't wasted time.
tl;dr - It's up to you.
>>1076898
Yes morality is based on emotion so its subjective.
>>1076898
Moral preferences can be subjective, but moral preferentialism is unethical. If you act without observance of the welfare of others, you are behaving unethically.
>>1078773
Why?
>>1078773
Thats entirely subjective as lions dont care if you another lion decide to fuck their mother for example. Its all subjective there is no objective morality.
>>1078629
>the Earth will be consumed by the sun in 5 billion years regardless.
>you will never captain the first ship to humanities new home
>>1078787
>>1078791
>>1078822
Morals are subjective end of discussion.
>>1078827
>>1078787
The first cause of morality is subjective, but beyond the minimal threshold of caring or not caring for the welfare of others, you can establish principled logical relations between moral propositions.
If I reckon that I care about this, what is the logical underpinning behind this propensity? Do people ultimately care about the notion of welfare, dignity, agency, etc, or is it all just happenstance intuiting that lacks any sort of ethical substance? Would you kill or harm something if it were merely by proxy (non-visceral, less eliciting on social instinct)? What if it weren't human, or an asocial animal or creature? If we can establish that morality is in any way cognitive or generalizeable, you can then apply rational methods to discern right from wrong (under the proper parameters)
>>1078827
>claims that morals are subjective
>which is an objective claim
>about morals
This is a bad meme.
>>1076898
No. No. Yes. No. Yes.
