There is no true universal or objective morality.
Prove me wrong.
Protip: you can't.
>>451161
last time we had this thread pretty much everyone agreed...
>>451166
Alright. There is a universal objective morality. Prove me wrong. You can't.
There is.
Read the book Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.
There is an absolute truth, not relative.
>>451180
Saying that there is an absolute truth doesn't entail that there is an absolute moral truth. If you think there's an absolute moral truth, explain why.
>>451180
Nigga pls
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i63_kAw3WmE
Chomsky blows relativism the fuck out. There has to be at least some absolute principle to morals, or it's an entirely incoherent position.
Thinking that moral absolutism means we all have to do everything exactly the same is a completely retarded position, clearly it allows for differences in attitudes and actions.
All of this comes down to people reading IEP or Wikipedia on a subject and rejecting the simple definition rather than thinking hard about how the position could work.
Morality is objective, but it is not a simplistic dualism. The Good is the degree in which we are awake for the moment-to-moment experience of life.
>With singular brevity, what is expressed here, in a transcendent sense, is to be called “good”: the absence of anything that, penetrating inn itself, might take him outside of himself in desire or impulse.
>“Evil” is the sense of need in the spirit: that of every life that, not knowing how to stand up in himself, loses heart here and there, yearning, looking to complete itself with the achievement of one thing or the other. As long as there is this “need”, as long as there is this internal and radical insufficiency, the Good is not there.
>Plotinus again clarifies the meaning of “being”: to be is to be present, to be in act.
>To be, therefore, is to be awake. The experience of the whole concentrated in an intellectual clarity, in the simplicity of an act – it is the experience of ‘”being”. To abandon oneself, to fail – this is the secret of non-being.
>The “evil” of men has no place in reality and therefore in a metaphysical vision which is always a vision in accordance with reality. Metaphysically ‘good’ and ‘evil’ do not exist, but rather what is real and what is not – and the degree of “reality” (meant in the spiritual sense previously explained by “being”) measures the degree of “virtue”.
>>451180
The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe is a better fiction book.
>>451192
Relativism isn't the only alternative to absolutism. Also, relativism need not be incoherent. I think you might be guilty of the same thing as others when assuming that relativism must be incoherent and that it's the only alternative to thinking that morality is absolute and objective.
>>451203
Bait.
>>451200
Can you translate that into English? How exactly does the reality of something entail objective value?
>>451205
Just watch the video.
>>451192
>There has to be at least some absolute principle to morals, or it's an entirely incoherent position.
Foucault blows Chomsky the fuck out: the proletariat is an organ of its own power and morality is a hindrance to its power.
>>451223
I'm betting you're just being lazy. I'm betting I'm about to spend 20 minutes just to realize that I was still correct in what I said and that Chomsky's comments are probably not even all that relevant to what you're saying.
There is an objective/absolute morality.
Because if there wasnt, we would all be killing, raping and murdering eachother.
The entire world would be anarchy, everyone trying to fulfill his chemical urges, doing whatever feels good.
Moral relativism is a dangerous atheistic concept.
Morality is objective because whenever you say that someone is evil, or that your morality is better than someone elses, you are confirming some sort of universal standard.
If it is relative, then there is no good or bad. There is no morality at all.
>>451235
>Because if there wasnt, we would all be killing, raping and murdering eachother.
>Implying that isn't what's actually happening.
Relativism doesn't entail that people stop having and acting on their values, it's a theory about what makes moral judgments true.
>>451219
>When the soul has pure and impassible reason for a guide, in full self-mastery, where he wants to direct his energy. Only then can the act be said to be ours, not another’s: from interiority of the soul as a purity, as a pure dominating and sovereign principle… not by action misled by ignorance and fragmented by desire … For, then, passion, and not act, it would be in us.
>Feelings are the visions of the soul asleep.
>As materiality is the state of swoon of the spirit, so the reality of sleep is every reality that appears to us in the midst of the material senses. The coming out from the body and the abandonment of the world of bodies is, however, not grossly interpreted: it is essentially about an interior transformation, a self-integration in the “intellectual nature without sleep”. And this is the true initiatic and metaphysical realization.
the good is the self-overcoming of our material, and hence bestial, natures.
>>451238
>you are confirming some sort of universal standard.
No, you're confirming that you have values and that you judge those values to be superior to others, not necessarily that those values actually are superior. Relativism, again, doesn't entail that there is no good or bad, it entails that what is good or bad is relative to a particular speaker, culture, etc. There are also alternatives to absolutism which aren't relativist.
>>451244
That only mystifies the problem even more. What is entailed in "overcoming our material natures" and how does the product turn out to be something absolute?
There is a spiritual war going on.
>God
Creation
Absolute Truth
Objective Morality
`there is a divine plan and purpose to life´
vs
>Satan
Evolutionism
Cultural Relativism
Subjective Morality
`we are just animals, there is no purpose to life´
The latter controls the world, through its occult agents (Illuminati, Freemasons, Luciferians, etc)
The devil is a liar that uses deception to manipulate millions of people into rejecting the creator.
>>451224
Holy shit, people use this as a prescriptive ethical stance
>>451257
>>451256
But by claiming it is all just relative, how can you say that your values are superior to anothers?
Contradictory.
>>451262
Such a predictable response.
>>451257
Amen.
>>451262
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
>>451263
Because judging something superior doesn't entail that there is any objective property about that thing such that any rational person should be expected to recognize it as such. I judge pepperoni to be a superior pizza topping to sausage, that doesn't mean it makes sense to expect me to think that everyone ought to think the same way.
>>451265
>>451267
>>451270
>>451279
http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
>>451279
>>451262
>>451290
The shitposting atheist started first.
>>451256
>BE, ENDURE, become a CENTER. Through “ascesis”, through “purification”, through what Plotinus himself will now make explicit. You have heard of “solar way”. This is its secret. Separated from those with disordered need, yearning soul, and confused look – more ‘non-being’ than ‘being’ – they are attracted to the invisible worlds.
>Unify Yourself – Be One.
That bundle of energy, that people of beings, sensations, tendencies that you are, enfold it under a single law, under a single will, under a single thought.
>Bend your “soul”, use it in every sense, take it to every crossroad as long as it is inert, incapable of proper motion, dead to every irrationality of instinct. Like a perfectly tamed horse, when driven to the right, it goes right, when driven to the left, it goes left, when braked, it stops, when incited, it flings itself – so also your soul is for you: one thing you keep wholly in your fist. Without constraints, you will be One: being one, you are – and you belong to yourself. Belonging to yourself, greatness belongs to you.
Becoming the absolute, unmoved master of yourself. In this you grasp your true self as not being different than the fundamental essence of the rest of reality, a fact that is true for all living beings. So this does not mean becoming master of yourself in a hedonistic, careless sense. Even Schopenhauer says to believe man comes from absolute nothing, is inexplicably born, and returns to absolute nothing is absurd. He is only the ephemeral manifestation of an eternal, indestructible principle. If we align our beings to this principle, we directly perceive the truth which is beyond all dualities because it is what conditions duality in the first place.
>>451223
I'm watching the video and his point is that thinking any conceivable value system is possible is incoherent because, if we think values come from culture, culture is limited and therefore not every conceivable value system is possible. This isn't a point against every form of relativism, it's a point about an extreme form of relativism that he's attributing to Foucault. Just as I suspected, it doesn't say anything about the necessity of absolute moral truth. Also, and people keep ignoring this for some reason, relativism isn't the only alternative to absolutism.
>>451161
I want all the shitposting atheists and religitards to leave /his/ tbqh
Nobody gives a shit about what you think about god.
You cant even coeherently conceptualize a meaningful idea of god in the first place you gigautists
Sage on this shit
And fuck you OP. I'm tired of this fucking bait threads that are absolutely void of any meaningful discussion
>>451328
If you think that metaethics is about atheism vs religion, then you're retarded.
>>451332
unfortunately, in this board it has proven to be so.
>>451344
No, it's proven to be something that apparently provokes religious people. That doesn't actually make metaethics about religion. If provoking religious people were our criterion for determining if something is about atheism vs religion, then every topic would be atheism vs religion. How about instead of bitching, you join the discussion and steer it in the direction you want it to go or you ignore it altogether?
>>451161
>prove me wrong
>prove
You're making me uncomfortable with that word.
>>451376
Why? If you'd prefer, substitute "prove me wrong" for "show that universal, objective, morality is more plausible than any alternative."
Then how how come all cultures, no matter how isolated, seem to develop the same moral teachings in their folklore and such?
>>451400
They don't. Pederasty has been valued in some cultures but seen as morally abhorrent in others. Humility has been seen as a moral virtue in some cultures but not in others. I could continue.
>>451408
`Dont kill´ seems to be a universal value, even held by the most isolated tribes in the world.
>>451190
Categorical Imperatives m8
They are not your friend.
>>451423
Apart from human sacrifice and such.
>babby's first philosophy
Take your undergrad garbage somewhere else.
>>451444
prick
>>451423
No it isn't. Pacifist cultures have been few an far between and make up a tiny fraction of the entirety of humanity. You could say, "'Don't murder' is a universal value," but that only works due to the fact that wrongness is entailed by our concept of murder (whereas killing doesn't entail wrongness). This only kicks the can down the road since we now have to explain what exactly constitutes the wrongness of a killing such that it is murder. Also, even supposing that "don't murder" is something every culture would adhere to, it doesn't show that there's an absolute or objective morality, only that there's been a particular prohibition which all cultures have shared. That's something easily accommodated by theories which aren't absolutist.
>>451430
Not that anon but the categorical imperative is a way of constructing a coherent set of commands relying on our conception of what must necessarily be the case if we're to be held responsible, namely a free will, it doesn't entail any conceptually necessary relationship between commands issued on the basis of reason alone and morality.
>>451444
Metaethics is rarely studied at the undergraduate level. I have a feeling you're saying this because it makes you feel better about yourself.
>>451408
Generally though, the ideas of not killing people or stealing and such are present in all cultures, no matter how isolated.
>>451459
No, killing is and has been a very common feature of humanity and even if valuing the opposite were something common to all cultures, it wouldn't entail that morality is absolute.
What about family? It's generally accepted that you do not bring harm to your own family. Is that not an inherent set of morals.
>>451476
Tell that the Chinese people killing their daughters or the fundamentalists disowning their gay children.
moral relativity is garbage
>>451458
>Also, even supposing that "don't murder" is something every culture would adhere to, it doesn't show that there's an absolute or objective morality, only that there's been a particular prohibition which all cultures have shared. That's something easily accommodated by theories which aren't absolutist.
What theories? Why would cultures all around the world, isolated from eachother, develop the same moral teachings?
>>451458
So you expect us to believe that these cultures prohibit these acts but do not believe that they are immoral practices? Doesn't prohibition imply that the thing being prohibited is wrong in some way?
>>451493
Moral relativism isn't the only alternative to absolutism and you also fail to explain why you think it's garbage.
>>451495
Relativists, non-cognitivists, error theorists, and others can account for it on the basis of human nature being such that we're inclined to live in communities and killing each other for no reason makes community impossible. That entails that not killing people for no reason is a matter of practicality, not necessarily a matter of absolute moral relevance.
>>451504
Any culture that is non-pacifist won't have a ban on killing. They'll have a been on certain types of killing. This doesn't entail anything about the nature of morality. Some group could prohibit something on the basis of it being detrimental to other goals while another culture could truly believe that thing to be immoral. Even supposing all cultures believed the same sorts of killing to be immoral, it still wouldn't entail that morality is absolute, only that cultures share a common value. Prohibition doesn't entail moral wrongness for the same reasons. It could be practical to prohibit something without having any moral motivation to do so and, even if there were a moral motivation, all it would entail is that some or all people have been morally motivated to prohibit something, not that morality as such is absolute.
I'll check back later if anyone is responding to >>451531 or another post of mine.
![79916e151ea66505fb19d1b583cfc4c4a3b7679e13395c0a1a894ce86346ae87[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/gZRkPSl.jpg "79916e151ea66505fb19d1b583cfc4c4a3b7679e13395c0a1a894ce86346ae87[1].jpg")
>>451257
This is why I visit /his/
>>451180
>read this book
Fuck off, nigger.
>>451493
>unable to distinguish between moral relativism and moral nihilism
>>451265
Yeah, the guy he as responding to really deserved a lengthy intellectual refutation.
>>451185
>>Saying that there is an absolute truth doesn't entail that there is an absolute moral truth.
prove this
>>451836
Spinoza's god is compatible with their being an absolute truth but it being amoral. As is Geist.
>>451836
What is there to prove? Saying that at least one thing is absolute doesn't entail that morality is absolute.
>>451836
I can't tell if you're trolling but existential statements are true when at least one thing is an instantiation of that statement. In other words, take a world and make all of the things in it part of one long disjunction. For simplicities' sake, say the world consists of two things: p and q. If we make a claim that at least one x is A then we make the claim that "p is A or q is A." This statement turns out to be true when either p is A, q is A, or both p and q are A. Substitute "p" for "morality" and we see that in this world, there are two cases where morality is A and one where it isn't. Let A stand for absoluteness and we see that the statement can be true in at least one case where morality isn't absolute. Thus, saying an absolute truth exists doesn't entail that morality is an absolute.
>>451257
finally someone who gets it
>>451983
lol
>>451983
That doing PCP is a really bad idea?
>>451971
>Let A stand for absoluteness
top lel, and why do you say that it is permissible to replace your abstract A with absoluteness ?
>>452033
Because that's what the statement was about. We can make existential statements about whatever we want and the truth conditions are always going to be the same.
>>451192
>All of this comes down to people reading IEP or Wikipedia on a subject and rejecting the simple definition rather than thinking hard about how the position could work.
More like kids being taught relativistic platitudes of equality and the autistic impulse to look for a Truth, and once they have their nihilistic tantrum during their teenage years, they'll make stupid threads like OP, as if it means anything
>>452052
There are countless philosophers who aren't moral absolutists. Pretending that everyone who doesn't agree with you is an angsty teen only serves to make you feel superior, it doesn't actually make you correct.
>>451161
There doesn't need to be.
We agreed on certain values, codified them in law, and we're going to enforce them with might and there's little you can do about it because we're going to lock you up or even kill you if you try.
>>452094
The question isn't whether or not there needs to be, it's whether or not there is. I agree with what you said though and I think a lot of people only cling to absolutism because they think that without it everything would suddenly be chaos.
>>452065
It's not about philosophical convictions, it's about the way this "issue" is framed by OP.
First, you have to look at what "absolutism" and "relativism" both mean. Absolutism means there is at least one absolute. Relativism means there are none. So, you can obviously have one fundamental that holds true beyond all other factors in this case. And there is one fundamental basis that constitutes all morals. This is theft. All morals are based upon the prevention of theft, whether it be theft of life, material, well being, rights, freedom, or even power. Try and name one moral that doesn't prevent "thievery" in one form or another. It's impossible. Now, how does theft work? What constitutes theft? Well, for something to be taken and considered theft, you need something in power over it which can be affected by the taking of this object or essence, and the thing in power over the thing being taken must be able to consent to the thing being taken to be taken away, or else it cannot be determined whether or not it was theft. In short, for there to be theft, there must be ownership. Ownership is essentially power in combination with will which has relationships to theft. For the thing to be taken and considered theft, the Will of the thing in power must be violated, directly or indirectly. Then it is theft. It's obvious that theft exists, and it's obvious that all morals, religious or secular, set out to prevent this. Even seemingly unconnected morals like the "golden rule" only set out to make a system in which no will of a thing in power is violated. The every moral and moral system sets out to prevent the theft of an object or idea for either a group of power holders, individual power holders, or the collective hierarchy of power holders. It will always hold true.
>>451458
>I have a feeling you're saying this because it makes you feel better about yourself.
No, what makes me feel good is /lit/ being free of you trash.
>>452156
The issue was framed in a way that has been common on 4chan for years. You now have a choice of contributing to the discussion, bitching, or ignoring it.
>>452190
This isn't /lit/ and, again, your language indicates to me that you care more about feeling superior than actually contributing to the discussion, which is one philosophers have always cared about.
>>452199
>This isn't /lit/
Right, keep your sophmoric "is x le objective" pleb discussions here on an inferior board for inferior minds like yourself.
>>452205
So, am I supposed to leave and feel bad for starting this thread or am I supposed to keep it here? Make your shitposting consistent at least, please. Other people have managed to have a rational discussion in this thread and I would think that someone of such implied high intelligence you'd be able to as well.
>>452174
>whether it be theft of life, material, well being, rights, freedom, or even power
Yeah sure if you stretch the meaning of the word theft you can make it fit to anything.
You're like those people who pretend morale is always based on the maximization of well-being, or on non-aggression. If you mash it hard enough, everything can fit into your little conceptual hole.
Moral axiomatism is bankrupt.
>>452239
If the definition of theft is the action or crime of stealing, and the definition of stealing is to take (another person's property) without permission or legal right and without intending to return it, I haven't stretched it at all. I clearly defined what "property" would be considered as. Theft in itself is a broad term. It's obvious that broad terms have broad applications.
>>452174
Utilitarians don't fall under your criteria. A utilitarian could find it perfectly acceptable to steal from the majority of people if it meant that it increased happiness.
>>452262
>Theft in itself is a broad term
It's not that broad that talking about "stealing power" isn't a stretch.
Also you commit the massive semantic jump of saying that because all morals prevent one form of theft, all moral aim at preventing all form of theft.
>>452265
Utilitarians will doing anything they can to prevent the theft of their happiness, or whoever's happiness they are trying to protect, something they have control over and want to continue to have control over. Even people who follow "immoral" paths such as those outlined by Ragnar Redbeard will do anything they can to prevent the theft of their core and added on beliefs and values, at the expense of another theft perhaps, but always protecting their own ideas and the things which keep those ideas in place going.
>>452285
Now you've stretch your definition of stretch into "everybody agrees with himself".
>>452282
That's not what I meant. I'm saying there is at least one absolute in all morals, and that absolute is that they prevent theft, and that they must prevent theft, in one form or another. The type of theft they prevent is relative, the theft they commit at the expense of that theft is relative, the fact that there is always prevention of theft in one form or another, is definitely not relative.
>>452301
Can you give an example of a fictional form of morality that wouldn't fit into your system?
If you can't you're just spouting tautologies.
>>452285
"theft of their happiness"
That's a pretty big stretch and it still doesn't work unless you want to count potential happiness as a property held by someone, at which point you're just picking your favored word (theft) and stretching it to apply to literally everything morally relevant. We could do the same for a number of other words. Even if we agreed that it's all a matter of theft, you've just obscured the issue and pushed the problem back one level so it's now an issue of "Is there an absolute with regard to what constitutes theft?" It becomes an issue because with a definition so broad and vague, we could even include things that are obviously morally irrelevant and show that they fit your definition.
>>452319
That's not how absolutes work. Absolutes are absolutes, and "fictional morality" does not exist. There will always be someone fucked enough to believe in something. However, a moral system that tells and individual to be inhumanly pacifistic, and identify with no group, as in they follow the will of nothing but fate, means they would have control over nothing besides their body, and if they somehow give up their power that they hold over their body willingly, and the thing which receives this body has no care for it and chooses not to exert power over it, then they own nothing, and therefore have no chance of having something taken from either them or the group, no power scheme.
>>452366
>That's not how absolutes work. Absolutes are absolutes, and "fictional morality" does not exist.
Oh bby you can't start your argument with "show me a counter example I dare you!" and then throw that shit at us. You have to tell us what you would accept as a counter example.
Your conceptual hole is meaningless since every form of injunction (moral or not) can be translated as "don't steal [thing of concept]" in your system.
>being inhumanly pacifistic
It's still translate as "don't steal someone else physical well-being" in your idea.
>>452325
Happiness can be measured and observed as an emotion which is earned through experience, something brought out from the internal to the external that can be taken away just as it was brought on. Happiness can be transformed into benefit and be taken away from its source, and the new force then can exert power over it. Therefore it can be stolen. It's exactly an idea that applies to everything morally relevant. That's what an absolute is. However "theft" itself isn't enough. It's all about the prevention of it in one form or another.
>>452391
This doesn't, in any way, respond to my post. You can't account for utilitarian values unless you take potential happiness into account but you're only taking actual happiness into account. You need to say that potential happiness can be stolen. If you say that, you're ultimately stretching the notions of theft and property to the point that they are synonymous with good and bad, at which point you haven't answered the question at all, you're just adopting a different vocabulary for descriptions. The problem then goes from, "is there an absolute and objective morality?" to "is there an absolute and objective limitation to relevant considerations of theft?" given that we could describe literally anything, not just the cases you prefer, as including theft. For instance, someone in the car ahead of me slowed down. That was morally wrong because the driver stole my ability to continue at the same speed.
>>452382
>moral or not
How so? And just because an absolute applies in other areas doesn't mean it doesn't hold true in this one.
>>452407
Ah, it is theft, but the moral applications of that are relative. It all depends on what you believe in at that point. You could call it a moral if you really wanted to, but most people wouldn't. The incident has potential to be morally wrong, but whether or not you thought of it that way is relative.
>>452428
Okay, so since you're literally just replacing "bad" with "instance of theft" and you think the application of the concept is relative, you're a relativist, not an absolutist.
>>452437
Relativism means there are no absolutes, I'm claiming there is at least one absolute, therefore I'm not a relativist.
>>452439
But does this apply in EVERY area, or just a few? Obviously it can't apply in every area because not all areas are power schemes in which there can be ownership.
>>452449
Your only absolute is an ill-defined word. All you're saying is "good is moral, here is my absolute, but good can be relative".
Why is this still going on, are you just pretending?
>>452449
You aren't though. You're claiming that "instance of theft" is synonymous with "bad" and that it's application is relative, you're just confused about what it is that you're doing.
>>452460
All you're saying now is morality applies to issues of power, which only helps in defining the extent of the field of morality, not in what is moral and what is immoral.
>>452470
Application is relative, basis is not. The basis is the absolute. I've never heard an absolutist claim otherwise, unless they were extremely religious. It's not necessarily "bad", because "bad" is another aspect of application, which is relative. However, every moral conceived has a basis in preventing theft.
>>452490
A vague term isn't a basis.
>>452480
What is "good" or "bad" is a relative aspect. A moral doesn't have concrete compositions, but it has a concrete foundation.
>>452496
It isn't a vague term. It just has plenty of applications. It's pretty clearly defined, and the philosophical spect is set in stone.
>>452490
I can't anymore.
>>452499
>>452500
>>452499
>What is "good" or "bad" is a relative aspect.
THAT MAKES YOU A RELATIVIST HOLY FUCKING SHIT
YOU CAN'T SAY "GOOD IS RELATIVE, BUT I'M A MORAL ABSOLUTIST BECAUSE I SAY GOOD IS MORAL"
ARE YOU BEING PURPOSEFULLY DENSE RIGHT NOW? BECAUSE CONGRATULATIONS I'M MAD
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUCK
>>452504
Hue hue
>>452504
Fuck man, that's not what moral relativism is. That's the first thing I said in the original argument. Moral absolutism means there is at least one absolute, and the rest is changeable from there.
>>452517
JESUS FUCK YOU'RE BEYOND HELP
>>452504
http://www.peterkreeft.com/audio/05_relativism/relativism_transcription.htm check this out. It defines relativism and absolutism clearly, and has some good arguments. I added in the theft idea as an example, but this gives you a general idea...
>>452517
Look, you are confused. You don't know what you think you know. I know this is the internet but I can guarantee you I know more about this than you do and you definitely don't understand what relativism and absolutism are.
>>452530
That article has got nothing to do with the idiot claiming that all morality is anti-theft.
If it's you, please stop posting your opinions forever. It's one thing having wacky ideas, it's another being unable to argue anything.
>>452536
You're so full of shit
>>452537
Actually, it's a book, and it gives him some leverage. Fucking listen to it.
>>452547
>and it gives him some leverage
It is absolutely irrelevant to the fact that he's a moron who doesn't understand what moral relativism is, or can't follow conversations.
>>452543
Okay, you're right. You should publish your findings.
>>452553
It completely backs up his view on relativism. Not the fact that he probably has never tried to hold conversation with anyone. Ever.
>>452559
There's nothing to back up. He's a relativist who doesn't understand that he's arguing for relativism because he thinks that if you substitute a term for all instances of "bad" you're no longer a relativist.
>>452565
Christ, even I understood that he wasn't just "substituting" a term. It was a shit tier argument, but it wasn't that bad. The book in the link has basically the exact same definition of absolutism. Maybe it's wrong, but at least it shows he didn't just pull it out of his ass.
>>452574
It doesn't though and you should stop samefagging. It was just a substitution of a term because everything which can be construed as theft under such a broad definition and everything which can be construed as bad is coextensive. This tells us nothing whatsoever about the nature of morality as absolute, relative, or otherwise. The book doesn't back this up either.
>>452574
>Christ, even I understood that he wasn't just "substituting" a term.
Even you are wrong then. Because that's what he's doing. There is zero information content in replacing "bad" with "theft" when the definition of bad is that stretched. Arguably if he did something is explain that moral has to do with issues of will. This defines what is the field of moral, not what is moral and what isn't. It's still relativist.
That books look terrible by the way.
>"religion is to relativism what Dr. Van Helsing is to Count Dracula"
Is this philosophy for toddlers?
>>452596
I have to go but if that guy samefags again it's really better to just stop. He's either trolling or he's at a point where he can't learn. In either case, there's no progress to be made. I know how irritating it is though. I know.
>>452596
This is true. The book is way better than the summary they have on the site, I read the print awhile back and it was actually very good.
>Theists unable to contain their butthurt
>>451161
>There is no true universal or objective etiquette.
Tell me why this statement, when applied to morality, gets all this hemming and hawing.
>>453771
People on 4chan tend to be on the "mount stupid" part of the graph.
>tfw people to this day cannot grasp the fact that human morality is an evolutionary byproduct of humans being social creatures that tend to form communities and thus have it in their best interest to form strict codes of conduct for all members of an in-group to abide by to avoid collapse of the tribe into literal and metaphorical cannibalism
>>453817
>thus have it in their best interest to form strict codes of conduct for all members of an in-group to abide by
>to avoid collapse of the tribe
>what is Nazi Germany
>what is Soviet Russia
>what is every dictatorial system ever
>>453822
>what is sacrifice some to save many
If Stalin didn't industrialize his country as fast as humanly possible, which yes did involve many dying, then the Soviet Union would have undoubtedly collapsed. Don't even get me started on this.
>>453817
morality is inherent to the universe then cool thanks bro
>>451180
>There is.
>Read this book.
Laziest philosophy ever.
If you don't understand it, don't cite it, if you do understand it, explain.
>>453828
Then please explain why the Soviet system collapsed and isn't around anymore
>>453833
Nothing lasts forever, especially political systems, also Gorbachev was a fucking traitor.
>>453828
Unless you can demonstrate that the collapse would entail more death and not just dissolution into numerous polities, I'm skeptical of a legit moral/evolutionary imperative. Even if you can, I doubt you can demonstrate that it follows that dictatorships all acted on a similar imperative.
I find it easier to believe that kin selection picked traits that were useful most of the time, but that can become circumstantially maladaptive. We have plenty of maladaptive traits already. The male urethra is a goddamned mess, for example.
>>453836
Or aggressive centralization leads to a decrepit system
>>453844
>Unless you can demonstrate that the collapse would entail more death and not just dissolution into numerous polities, I'm skeptical of a legit moral/evolutionary imperative.
You ever heard of this thing called "Generalplan Ost"? And that's just external threats. Maybe you should also take some looking into China's history of what happens when a modern state collapses into decentralized warlordism as would have happened if Stalin had not purged the officer corp and ruthlessly centralized all areas of industry.
Ironically, China itself would be pulled out of this era of warlords by a Communist revolution.
>>453854
Numerous polities in close proximity can stabilize the same way large centralized polities do. If they had, we could similarly argue that the growing pains were worth it.
Like I get the gist of people behaving in the best interest of their group, and this being evolutionarily adaptive, but the argument you're making is still a bit of a stretch even allowing for that.
>>453877
>Numerous polities in close proximity can stabilize the same way large centralized polities do
Did I just fucking read this?
>>453822
>what is Nazi Germany
>what is Soviet Russia
short-lived societies, what is your point?
>>453884
They demonstrate that forming strict codes of conduct for all members of an in-group to abide by doesn't avoid collapse at all
>>452174
You're stretching the meaning of the word theft. Theft requires displacement of ownership. You can't steal a life. If you kill someone, you're not left with an extra life for yourself. Destruction of life is more appropriate. This goes the same way for "theft" of well being or freedom: "deprivation" is the right word. You're not awarded extra well being or freedom when you remove that of another.
Note however that someone might simultaneously gain well being while denying it to another person, such as in the cases of slavery or sadism. This of course doesn't mean that one person's well being is proportionally transferred to an other, much rather that subjecting people to certain obligations and restrictions can generate you material gain or that you get your kicks out of that.
Also many cultures accross history with a coherent moral system have justified and praised some forms of theft such as conquest (the theft of territory or control over it), virtual goods (titles, positions), or even material goods (taxes, fines, confiscations).
Your opinion is non-relatively shit
>>453906
Well obviously not every strict code of conduct can do, if anything those demonstrate they weren't the right kind of codes.
>>451161
yep so just kill yourself while throat-fucking an infant to death.
>>453880
Perhaps I wasn't clear. Numerous polities can exist in a state of peace. Entities as large as Russia and China are the exception and not the rule usually.
>>451161
you and everyone else who whines about this is just saying it because you dont want people to tell you not to watch porn or whatever. grow up bitch
>>453822
lmao equivocating nazi germany and soviet russia thats really profound. 1984 dark communist hitler stepping on your face forever
something you retards will never grasp is that as long as there is a class society there will be a "dictatorial system". the united states (also nato, japan, israel, australia, etcetera) is a "dictatorial system" whereby the government who acts in the interests of private property exercises a dictatorship (using their military infrastructure, for one) over countries that have been deliberately held back from developing. dunno why im trying to help you morons though im just gonna get called a degenerate or "cuck" or some gay shit like that
>>453906
you need to read more and also shut the fuck up more. soviet union collapsed PRECISELY because codes of conduct necessary for maintaining a socialist MoP was breached overtime. try not to choke when you breathe
>>453948
That's not what dictatorship means. Are you esl? Maybe looking for a word like hegemony, colonialism, or imperialism?
>>453926
no they can't and never have you retard
>>453967
all of those things are dictatorships. a "dictatorship" is the political phenomenon of one group of people "dictating" the lives of another
>>453836
half agree with this post (guess which part lol)
>>453974
That's not typically how the word is used or understood. Usually the defining feature is a dictator.
>>451161
You just did Faggit.
Kill yourself relativistfag
>>451180
Fucking this
>>454328
You're right about the absolute, but it's Siva mate, not Christ.
Fucking ignorant mong.
>>453771
Are you asking why people will tend to say this about morality as opposed to other things like, say, physics? There's probably a lot of reasons but I think a main one is that we use descriptive language in our moral judgments but it's a lot less clear than most of our non-moral descriptive language. That leads people to question whether or not we're all actually talking about the same things or even we're even describing something real at all.
>>453817
I think that's true but we see varying degrees of overlap between cultures. David Wong is sometimes called a moderate relativist who makes an argument along the lines you're getting at. There are universal interests we have which serve to restrict any possible morality but not to the extent that there can be no variation between "true" moralities.
>>453830
No one denies that there is something called morality, people just argue over the exact nature of it.
>>453948
How is this relevant to the thread? I think you're basically right but are you implying that some sort of relativism is correct? I read Marx as saying something like that.
>>451244
WHAT ARE YOU EVEN SAYING jesus
>>451302
you think you're jesus, stop with the new age bs
>>454626
>neo-platonism
summarise this
>>454637
the many proceed from a primordial unity. our consciousness is of the same essential nature as this ultimate reality. if we can overcome the influence of matter in ourselves, we can ascend to the supreme good
>>454637
It's literally what he posted. Neo Platonists believe in a single underlying "oneness". All things are connected to this principle (cf Wikipedia)
>>453969
>states smaller than fucking China can't peacefully coexist
Huh
>>454678
Nice meme
>2015
>not being a Relativist
>>454696
meme?
>>451180
>Some people in different parts of the world with different cultures have some of the same values and laws
>There must be a God who gave them morality
Literally one of the worst attempts at philosophy ever recorded
>>454739
smarter men than you have arrived at this same conclusion, my friend. guess who I'm gonna listen to
I'm sick of this meme that people's armchair philosophy is just as legitimate as published word or that they've discovered something no one has thought of before. The more you actually read, the more you realize how many incredible arguments have been made over the course of history for every conceivable position, and it takes a miracle to be a footnote to someone else's ideas
>>454764
Smarter men have also arrived at relativism. That's a bullshit argument. If I'm gonna play the appeal to authority game I would rather go with a thinker who wasn't starting with Chrsitianity and then just Ad Hocing his ideas
>>454779
>Plato
>Socrates
>Plotinus
>Proclus
>Iamblichus
>Confucius
>Rumi
>Aquinas
>Merton
>Eckhart
>Schopenhauer
>Guenon
>Evola
>Kant
>Dante
>Steiner
>Gurdjieff
stop talking out of your fucking ass.
>>454804
>all those outdated fucktards who had zero ideas about anthropology, sociology or ethnology
>>454804
>Implying Kant and Aquinas weren't trying to defend Christianity
Making lists is fun but it doesn't do anything to prove that there's objective morality. Objections have been raised since the Skeptics. Just saying people have thought of ideas isn't an argument
>>454824
>All these people smarter than me who have different opinions
>2 0 1 5
>0
>1
>5
>>454850
You are being retarded. If you have no arguments shut up. I will not accept there is an objective, common morality for niggers who ate people and 21st century civilized people just because le smarter people who were racist biggots with superiority complex and narrow views said so.
>>454804
>Uses Socrates and Plato to argue for Divine Morality
Read Euthyphro
>>454893
He never answers the question tho
>>454924
>>>/reddit/
>>>/tumblr/
seriously /his/?
I tought this wasn't /pol/
>>454924
>traditionalists in charge of providing no arguments again
Never change faggots.
>>454934
>guy calling some of the greatest thinkers in history racist bigots, gets called out on it
>objecting to this
you can join him
>>454939
>some guys disagreed with you!!
>everything is relative la la la la
yeah great argument faggot
>>454940
But they were literally racist biggots and it is pretty normal. Allah! you are unbearable.
>>454946
faggot
Well this thread ended well
>>454940
>platon thinks non greeks should be enslaved
>steiner LITERALLY IS A NAZI
>not racist
Stop being so defensive. Racist is not necessarily an insult.
>>455030
No one gives a fuck about your tumblr tour of history faggot.
>>455039
I'm being baited, right?
>>455043
No, no one gives a shit about the icky personal views of people way smarter than you.
>>451161
All of civilization follows the seven laws of Noah.
All
Thus
Universal morality for mankind.
בני נוח
Categorical imperative
ײַ
