We try to function on pieces, when the pieces are parts of a whole. We rely so much on the fish given to us, that we don't look at the source of the fish. Some say "Our greatest fundamental is that we have no fundamentals".
I've debated so many times, and I'm just tired of it. I said "I believe in this" and someone would say "Why", so I explain to them why, and they reply "Why is that?", and I'd go further into detail to realize that my piece was perfect, and it was perfectly laid out among other perfect pieces, but my fundamentals were imperfect; and a piece of an imperfection remains nevertheless imperfect.
I'm tired of hearing the old cop out "Morals are subjective" or "Morality doesn't exist". That's just being lazy. We come up with theories like libertarianism or communism, or whatever, to try to explain morals, but when we base civilization on it, and civilization falls, we're left devastated, because we relied solely on a perfect part of an imperfect whole.
Millions of immoralities will occur, equal to the death of millions for some, or maybe it might occur as the feeling of a loss of a loved one; either way, somewhere down the line, all of you will experience an unnecessary immorality, because someone wasn't perfect enough. If you're going to support some ideology, anything, even at the smallest level, you better have some fundamental moral principle that is perfect, to justify it.
Morality is neither objective or subjective. there are only degrees of awakening
>If you're going to support some ideology, anything, even at the smallest level, you better have some fundamental moral principle that is perfect, to justify it.
Ultimately all your angst is pointless, the truth is there is no "perfect moral principal". Moreover even if there was, people would still not apply it in their lives. So better to face cold hard reality than to pine away for an impossible fantasy that wouldn't matter anyway.
Civilization isn't based on morals anyway, that's just after-the-fact observation by moralists
>>1337356
>>1336885
I would agree with this anon, but disagree that "civilization isn't based on morals". It is and it isn't. Its based on reciprocity, the concept of returning kind for kind, you scratch my back I scratch yours.
But overall OP is just buttmad. His psychology demands that a perfect moral order exist, but no such order exists, because all value-systems depend upon asserted axioms.
The mere idea of an "objective" morality isn't even coherent most of the time. What does it mean?
That a morality is universally enforced? Then no morality is objective.
That a morality contains no contradictions and proceeds from orderly principles? Than there are dozens of objective moralities.
That a morality is based in part on Nature, or an appeal to an existing law of reality? Than there are dozens of objective moralities.
That a morality is the will of a god or spirit? Than it is arbitrary realpolitik. Is "Thy will be done" is basis enough for morality, than anyone's will is basis enough.
That a morality is universally felt and believed in by all Mankind? No such morality or moral feeling exists, if it did we would not even be having this discussion.
That a morality is based on some teleological function of Mankind? Who defines this function? If it is set by a Creator, than it amounts to real politik manifested through biological dispositions, if it is set by nature it is subject to the above rebuttals.
In short, OP, not only is there NOT an objective moral principle, I doubt you've even investigated what it would mean for a moral principle to be absolute except insofar as thinking "If I had the perfect moral theory, everyone would believe it, or would be 'wrong' to not believe it"
At the end of the day value-systems are asserted by individuals and groups to formalize their own desires, and social systems are created to allow individuals to help each other in the achievement of their desires. Anything beyond this is lies and nonsense.
>>1337420
Then*
>>1337420
>>1337395
>>1337356
>>1336910
I think of morality as a connection, rather than a conception.
Communication is objective; it exists in the biology of humans, but language is subjective, in the sense that people have an individual sense of language, that when they communicate their language with others, they share vocabulary and knowledge, thus adding to the language. Morality works similarly; when I have morals, and I communicate my morals, I'm communicating my individual needs and desires with other, and they are doing the same with me, which adds to the social perception of morality. It is only valuable because we say it is, like money, like honour, etc. Therefore, to have a moral society, is to have a socially harmonious society, a society that has complete communication.
It's ironic that our social devices are so great, yet we're less social than we were hundreds of years ago when we were in our prime.
The ingroup, your family, your family, your people, your species; whatever you belong to, that's YOUR field of reference when it comes to morality.
>>1337585
>It's ironic that our social devices are so great, yet we're less social than we were hundreds of years ago when we were in our prime.
Double what?
I'm curious as to how you think we were in our prime hundreds of years ago, as well as to how it is, despite being more interconnected than ever, we're somehow less social. (The first argument I've only seen from the Amish, and the second I've only seen from old technophobes who cannot into cell phones going on about true human contact as if you can't have both.)
Have any of you retards read Aristotle's Ethics? How about the Bible? How about any of the many other works of virtue ethics?
>>1338814
Yes, what about them?
