Is morality objective?
No. All values are axiomatic, you cannot derive an ought from an is
I'm sure to some extent it is. The human brain isn't a completely random thing. Cognitive neuroscience isn't a made up thing.
>>1292516
That still only exists on a subjective level though. It also can't account for the differences people have in morality.
>>1292507
Does this mean math and logic are subjective?
We take the objective-subjective dichotomy way too seriously, or at least incorrectly.
All morals are spooks
>>1292544
That says nothing about whether they are subjective or objective.
>>1292550
>Listening to memesters
>>1292550
Spooks are manmade, ergo subjective.
>>1292485
No.
To the extent that our emotional and social nature is anchored in genetically inscribed instincts derived by evolution though natural selection, we can say morality is universal to the extent that certain biases and emotional receptivities are inbuilt.
They are merely interpreted in slightly different ways by various cultures.
In fact the cultures of the world have so much more in common than in which they differ that we don't notice all the ways everybody is alike.
>>1292485
It's objective in that it has a purpose, a goal. ie. the well being and survival of a particular society or culture. Just as empathy and hierarchy has the same purpose in a pack or herd, morality serves the same function. writ large and codified into laws.
It's subjective in that there's much debate as to what the most optimum methods to achieve that goal are, as well as what said end goal actually looks like.
...and then two such cultures or societies come into conflict, and all bets are off.
>>1292485
Its as subjective as 2+2=4.
Some people might disagree and say 2+2=5. Who cares? Not everyone has a valid opinion.
We are mammals, our wellbeing depends on the state of the universe. Two states can be compared with more or less accuracy as to the wellbeing of concious creatures in it.
If your actions lead to less wellbeing for no justifiable reason (something that will increase wellbeing in the longterm, like cutting someone open to remove an appendix), then your action is morally bad.
If it increases wellbeing, its good.
This is the last bastion of mythology and religion, and it is desperately defended by all manner of wordgames and shenanigans and convoluted nonsense.
If you can agree that putting someone in debilitating pain until they die instead of trying to improve their life is objectively morally worse, you have opnened up an objective moral continuum, and the rest is details.
If you think leading a happy and fulfillign life and being tortured to death after beign forced to eat your children alive are just preferences, and entirely equivalent brainstates objectively, thats saying 2+2=5. You can do it, but that doesn't make your opinion worth listening to, or change the fact of objective morals.
>>1292769
>If your actions lead to less wellbeing for no justifiable reason (something that will increase wellbeing in the longterm, like cutting someone open to remove an appendix), then your action is morally bad.
>If it increases wellbeing, its good.
[Citation Needed]
