Why is moral absolutism so commonly accepted, /his/?
What "proof" is there that morality is universal/absolute/would exist without society?
Thinking outside the box is hard for some people.
>>344915
Are you referring to moral absolutists or moral relativists?
I wouldn't say it's "so commonly accepted".
IMO the most common morality, at least in the west, is a sort of vague deontology based on empathy that accepts some degree of situational ethics. I guess you could contrive that as absolutist in a way, but it's a far cry from something like divine command theory. I also know many cynical people who are moral nihilists. Despite the conservative meme, I can only point to a sprinkle of actual moral relativists, they tend to be inconsistent with examples that are taboo enough in their own culture.
>implying the universe isn't moralx
>implying detachment from ultimately mechanical sensory drives doesn't yield great benefits in emotional and spiritual health
>implying 'evil' isn't an imbalance of egoic impressions, and that the 'good' is the correct balance of those elements
>implying morality isnt the proper, organic relationship of agents in a system both most conducive to that system and to its individual members
>implying the moral intelligibility of the universe is a fluke of arbitrary chaos
>>344990
Nice word salad there, Praceteom.
>>344990
>implying sense of words you are making with
>>345051
It's really not that hard, go back to reddit
>>345061
I am on reddit. I'm tabbing back and forth between here and there. You go back to school.
>>344903
As soon as you recognize moral relativism, you have to ask whether someone has a better system than you. Easier to kill peo...err, fight evil than change your social mores.
>>344903
because the republicans have discovered what their supposed oppressors discovered too: in liberal democracies you must format the children through the republic itself, in thinking that the Human Rights are the alpha and omega of the morality.
The mandatory education by the republic would permit to output good little republicans en masse.
The entertprise is bound to fail nonetheless, since there is no praxis of the Human Rights, precisely because the Human rights forbids this praxis. A praxis is always mandatory in order to avoid speculations, but the HR forbids this. Paradoxically, the HR castrate people, because they cannot adopt another moral doctrine than the HR: if they do, they would practice the other doctrine which would enter in conflict with the HR, especially if there is a proselytism in the new doctrine.
Only the morality through the companies as offering a service to the clients [not the employees] is acceptable, because they are called secular by the occidental humanist --- just as secular as is the HR, according to the same humanist.
We are left with people having faith in the HR, but not practising them : a century after the mandatory education by the republic, we still need justice and police for the people still do not meet the rationalist-republican fantasy of the free agent acting freely according to his reason.
the sole fact that you need a structure to regulate people shows the paradox of the HR : you impose the HR on people who do not want them while claiming that people must apply their free will.
Also, the HR has two views : the rationalist one who wishes to educate the masse [he thinks that everybody should go to university (in order to be a good citizen and have a good job)] and the liberal who wants people to dwell in leisure. To learn through leisure remains a fantazy and shows that the HR consolidates the human nature which is more hedonistic than anything else.
>>347239
>To learn through leisure remains a fantazy and shows that the HR consolidates the human nature which is more hedonistic than anything else.
which is to say that people want to do what they want [and they want pleasures over displeasures] without assuming their choices, so they manufacture performative laws which are sanctified in order to objectify to reach a point where people can claim that these laws are disconnected from their personal desires, and so others must accept them. the objectification is a nice trick but does not hold on large scale with our nations filled with billions of people [billions created by the liberal themselves]
the laws are the legal laws and the logical/scientific ones. the defeat of the faith in science is best illustrated in the dispute over the climate change. both in the ''scientific community'' and the public, nobody knows what goes on and the lack of consensus reminds everybody that speculations objectified in science, math, logic, reason are conventions which will never save anybody and fails to back up the HR. [of course, the science which does not back up the HR will not be called science by the proponents of the HR]
There are only two faiths, both expressed through structures.
-the faith in the human rules [laws and sciences] [through immanence]
-the faith in the deities [through transcendence]
the point is to depart from the faith, which strong men do and manage, but too many believe that they are strong enough to live faithless and end up depressed leading the way to suicide.
the departure from these two faiths does not lead to a structure like the liberals love to have and this departure remains a personal matter. Plus, most people love hedonism and love to be hedonist far too much that there are not on earth to be something else.
>>346912
>>345061
>>344945
>>344903
>>344990
>Why is moral absolutism so commonly accepted, /his/?
Outside of relihion, it's not at all. Nihilism / moral subjectivity is ingrained in modern people, which is why everyone only judges based on "feels and often can't even comprehend moral dilemmas anymore.
>>344903
Because humans create said society and project themselves onto it...
Not saying morals are absolute 100%, but human nature bends in a certain direction.
>>344925
Absolutists. God said it, they believe it, that settles it.
>>344903
The fact that almost all civilizations throughout agree on certain morals.
