In my opinion morality is entirely subjective and entirely based on human empathy and human sentiments.
Prove me wrong.
wrong board
>>504194
Read the sticky
empathy doesn't exist in the atheist world view
fortunately, all atheists, like all believers, are made in the image of God.. that is why you have empathy, even if you don't recognise where it comes from
if you really think about your position, you would conclude that it makes no sense for you to feel compassion or empathy as an atheist
Religion is codification of morals, attempting to sidestep relativism by creating an absolute and arbitrary definition. Morals are different from laws, which serve a similar function, but rather than preventing you from doing things because they are wrong, they prevent you from doing things because of punishment, when relies on enforcement.
>>504185
I mostly agree. But the logical constructions that are built from these personal preferences can sometimes detach, in a way, moral decision from empathy, gut feelings, and such.
Some people would shut these niceties to push the fat man onto the tracks, because they figured that saving the other five was more important through their reasoning. Some people would reason differently or just follow their gut.
>>504198
>empathy doesn't exist in the atheist world view
Mirror-neurons, son.
Kin selection or group selection, if you'd like the evolutionary approach.
No offense meant to your religion, though.
>>504194
holy fuck
>>504185
Morality can't be entirely subjective, exactly because it is based on human empathy and human sentiments. After all, most people posting here are likely to be human, and feel sad when someone close to them dies, and feel happy when they eat the food they like.
It is culture that makes our morality drift off from how it naturally is like. We have a sense of tribalism yet we are on relatively good terms with a nice amount of other countries. We jail murderers, pedophiles, etc. instead of lynching them.
Religion is a strong tool to make a set of morals more influencial than others, because of its transcendient nature (spiritual, theological...)
You don't need to be religious to have morals obviously, but religion helps putting a standard for morals that isn't automatically natural or political.
If you are truly interested in having your belief challenged, read Moral Realism: A Defense by Russ Shafer Landau. There's a pdf online. No one is going to convince you in one post.
>>504194
Are you stupid?
>>504198
>empathy doesn't exist in the atheist world view
>>504216
If morality is based entirely on empathy, it *is* entirely subjective. Some people empathize with murderers and pedophiles and there is nothing to tell them they're wrong on your world view except mob rule, i.e. moral relativism, which is intersubjective.
>>504256
holy fuck are you sure this isn't me is it?
>>504258
Most people don't, hence "can't be entirely subjective". It is obviously subective, we don't make up one entity with one mind.
(i've never studied philosophy so if there's a term for that I want to know please)
>>504218
Maybe I will, but you will have to convince me it is worth delegating time to. Couldn't you at least make an attempt at describing the gist of it, since you found it so influential and convincing and the arguments so profound?
You can't honestly say that it was some brilliant piece of work that genuinely moved you with a solid argument and then have nothing to say other than 'read it for yourself'.
I do have a very long reading list and only a human lifespan in which to read it.
>>504273
You what m8?
the more i read and try to understand the point of view of religious people, the less tolerant i become for this debate.
i'm starting to think r/atheism was on to something.
>>504297
You have t- oh it's bait.
>>504297
That is because they smugly declare to have an objective morality while in both practice and theory proclaiming their morality comes from an undefinable concept such as "god" is the most subjective and silly position, both in theory and in practice that one could imagine.
>>504287
I don't know I don't remember writing that last bit and it was supposed to be addressed to the guy above you hole-lee fuh-kk
In my opinion morality is partially objectively, partially subjective and open to arguments and entirely based on human intellect and belonging to human race as an axiom.
shitpost me wrong if you'd like to pass the next minutes like that.
>>>504198
>empathy doesn't exist in the atheist world view
empathy does exist in the general atheist world view ( note: atheism is a broad category, too broad to say useful stuff about it).
empathy does exist in a materialist world view too ( which is different than atheism).
>>504218
thanks for the book( i hope one day one of you fucker will up a pirate library), unfortunately reading 300 pages of difficult stuff and posting on a thread on 4chan rarely go well together, i might read it in the next months, after the 20 books i plan to read.
>>504297
note that you can have religions that are not based on absolute moralities, or do not argue about morality, or do not force a moral system as law or even don't even contain a moral system in their teaching.
some might encourage you to "think, rationalize" and build your own morality system.
most mainstream religions have a list of DO and DON'ts as morality system.
>>504258
i would like to add that, following my definition of empathy, i could occasionally end up thinking as " morally positive" even crazy acts such as killing another man.basing everything on simple empathy is really a weak argument unless we make up some weird definition of empathy.
make it empathy as a start and reason plus knowledge as mediators to find the morale laws and then suddenly you have at least something not ridicolous to discuss.
>>504319
Blindly believing is a cancer hurting many religions, and isn't even advocated in either the Bible or the Quran (don't know about other faiths).
The problem is that these people are raised being told to just believe, hence they end up lacking critical thinking capabilities later in life, and when they try to reason with others they fall in the loophole of "my reasons are superior, because God said so, because the Bible is right, because my reasons are superior", etc.
It's honestly more agreeable to argue with converts rather than people who were raised religiously to begin with.
>>504216
>most people posting here are likely to be human
>>504368
Who knows. As far as you know, I could be a black swan.
>>504368
>>504258
>Some people empathize with murderers and pedophiles
Clearly their actions aren't right but I do empathise with pedos and murders, those poor cunts have their brains wired the wrong way. That isn't to suggest I don't empathise with the victims of their wrong actions as well.
You don't seem to even grasp what empathy is my friend.
Let me guess, it has something to do with a book with a talking donkey in it that says the creator of the Universe orders people to murdering an entire city and carrying off the underage girls for rapey tiem and kill people for picking up sticks on a Saturday.
>>504357
personal life note: i was raised by catholics which basically were teaching people that faith required an unrational " just believe" root.
doctrine was also full of " our limited human mind can't even process some truths of god so you better shut the hell up and believe that god is made of 3 spirits and yet is still one".
there have been quite alot of arguments through the centuries about faith with or without reason.
but since we are talking about morality and not faith, one can easily see how reason can cooperate with the holy rules of god, which actually were clearly made to stop a bunch of sandjews to stop self-destroying their tribes while being lost in the desert.
in my opinion I find it highly plausible that human morality might be a topic that is ill suited to being defined in written terms.
>>504185
>opinion
Opinions are like arseholes and yours are disinteresting and uninformed.
>>504401
Yeah, blind belief has been a powerful tool for the Church. Even Islam, which prides itself on having the direct word of God written on paper, fell for it - now you have people praising Muhammad like a messiah and murdering others for accidentally sitting on a copy of the Quran.
The OT makes a relatively important point out of questioning oneself though - when the Jews were praising to God without applying his moral teachings, God got pissed at them for blindly sacrifying to him without wondering whether that was more important than being good to your peers or not. There are other cases of God giving us reason to get to him better and understand his creations, but I might be pulling this out of my ass or I must have misread it so you're free to contradict me.
>>504419
I was merely being polite and reasonable and acknowledging my opinion to be just my opinion rather than declaring my opinion to be the absolute truth, unlike most other people on 4chan.
Quit being such as unpleasant and rude cunt.
>>504435
i was talking mostly about the root of faith being a "just believe" unrational concept.
all the 3 big religions, especially jews, interpret the holy scriptures.
if jews were sacrificing animals in the temple only to be terrible unfaithful or unmoral people outside it then it's more a problem of them not knowing/caring well enough about the law of god and not believing blindly.
>>504465
Your opinion is uninformed by scholarly reading, lacks any demonstration or evidence, any further reading, any connection to major ethical theories, and contained a bait phrase.
>Opinions are like arseholes and yours are disinteresting and uninformed.
Opinions are like arseholes and yours are disinteresting and uninformed.
I suggest you plug both of yours.
>>504496
Not everyone communicates as well as you do. We're all on /his/ to learn. Either take the time to point out why OP is a retard, or pass your way.
>>504505
I see you've not done any university. The first lecture traditionally begins with a statement much like:
>Opinions are like arseholes and yours are disinteresting and uninformed.
It is one of the major lessons of first year.
>Either take the time to point out why OP is a retard, or pass your way.
Your opinion is uninformed by scholarly reading, lacks any demonstration or evidence, any further reading, any connection to major ethical theories, and contained a bait phrase.
>>504496
>Your opinion is uninformed by scholarly reading, lacks any demonstration or evidence, any further reading, any connection to major ethical theories, and contained a bait phrase.
Nothing you have said even slightly indicates you have done any "further reading" or indicates even the slightest and most slender ability to "demonstrate" or "evidence" whatever your opinion is. An opinion you don't, even, frankly dare to grace us with, probably because it is so ill-formed and idiotic that even you don't want to espouse it and try to defend it.
>>504523
>implying I'm studying anything related to humanities
I'd like to be at least middle class later on, thanks
>Your opinion is uninformed by scholarly reading, lacks any demonstration or evidence, any further reading, any connection to major ethical theories, and contained a bait phrase.
Exactly. I think you should've started with that. Don't forget some people come from other boards and have had their discussion capabilities fucked up.
Morals are for steeple. I for one abuse them to my will. I am become ubermech.
>>504543
hitler go back to your grave you manlet fuck
>>504528
Here's a hint, this isn't soggy sao where we compare dicks. Yours got cut off with scissors.
>>504534
>Exactly. I think you should've started with that. Don't forget some people come from other boards and have had their discussion capabilities fucked up.
Or maybe OP could have read the fucking sticky.
>I'd like to be at least middle class later on, thanks
If you were doing a humanities degree you'd know there's no middle class location in capitalism, except perhaps for Ehrenreich's hypothesised PMC which is a variant on Poulantzas' incredibly controversial new petit-bourgeois hypothesis.
You've probably never heard of them. They're what was happening in tankyism while Frankfurt was happening to critical theory.
>>504523
>I see you've not done any university. The first lecture traditionally begins with a statement much like:
>>Opinions are like arseholes and yours are disinteresting and uninformed.
>It is one of the major lessons of first year.
Top kek.
You must have been imagining what Uni is like from your job in McDonalds.
In all honesty the first thing you learn is "use a condom". There is not a single course where the opening lesson is what you claim it to be, my burger flipping friend.
>>504577
>There is not a single course where the opening lesson is what you claim it to be
I heard it in both English and Philosophy 100, I use it when I lecture in History 100. Engineering mates use it in Engineering 100.
>>504566
i don't know about any of this, but I can tell you many things you can't even begin to understand
(I can't understand anything either and I'm failing)
>>504600
>(I can't understand anything either and I'm failing)
Maybe you should have chosen a degree best suited to your capacity to enjoy or learn.
Or considered if "the middle class" exists before aspiring to join it.
In any case good luck with your studies. If your hobby is humanities, remember to read more theory.
>>504608
Your degree is chosen by the type of high school diploma you have here, and I was pushed into doing STEM shit in high school because I was on very bad terms with my middle school's staff and they didn't want me to pick what I wanted even though I had shit grade in everything but humanities-related subjects
All I remember about society and economics was my social science classes in middle school, which did mention the different classes.
>>504596
>I heard it in both English and Philosophy 100, I use it when I lecture in History 100. Engineering mates use it in Engineering 100.
Of course you did. While getting together some fries for order.
Jeez. I have never heard so much nonsense or such inability to deal with OP's actual point.
I mean, what is your actual counter-point, rather than insulting him and fabricating lies about how you went to University and the course was structured around calling people arseholes?
>>504198
>empathy doesn't exist in the atheist world view
>Prison population is significantly more theistic than general population
Explain
>>504627
>what is your actual counter-point
Argumentation does not happen by point / counter-point.
Particularly if you can demonstrate that the entire direction of discussion is futile.
How many angels do dance on the head of a pin? At one point this area of discussion was of vital importance.
>>504625
You poor bastard.
>>504636
>Particularly if you can demonstrate that the entire direction of discussion is futile.
By citing a cliche just because OP used the word 'opinion' in his post?
Grow up.
You have this opportunity to make a counter-point rather than just obfuscating.
Take the opportunity or show everyone on this thread you have nothing except dissembulation and shitposting up your sleeve.
>>504185
Objective morality is easy to define
Things that unecessarily harm someone = immoral
Things that don't harm anyone = not immoral
No society has achieved it yet
Even our Modern Western society is full of illogical hypocrisy
For exemple, a consensual incestuous relationship between two adults (hurts no one) is considered more immoral than cheating on your partner (hurts someone).
>>504655
>By citing a cliche just because OP used the word 'opinion' in his post?
It'd be the utter lack of any connection to the scholarly discourse and the use of "prove me wrong."
>make a counter-point
This isn't the way the world works, you don't make counter points to the psychotic in the street, you throw change at him or worship him as a god.
>>504685
>It'd be the utter lack of any connection to the scholarly discourse and the use of "prove me wrong."
Oh I see. This must be your first time on 4chan.
It is entirely within the discretion of OP to post a provocative statement and say "prove me wrong". That doesn't mean OP is proven correct, it means OP is starting a dicussion with a provicative statement.
It doesn't mean shitposting is a sensible answer.
Welcome to the anonymous imageboard culture, Rebbit.
>>504683
Incest is naturally repulsive though. And for good reasons - a child born from anything closer than a first cousin is much more likely to be handicapped. We want to spread our genes, not to mix them together. And it effectively hurts someone if a baby is born from it.
In comparison, polygamy was and still is accepted in several cultures, and men and women's ridiculous sex drive points to having several sex partners being a natural alternative in societies that demand it. It doesn't excuse cheating but it's not like it comes from nowhere either. A lot of people want to cheat and there is a market for that, while few people want to bang their sister.
>>504729
>It is entirely within the discretion of OP to post a provocative statement and say "prove me wrong".
No it isn't:
>a high level of discourse is expected
>>504751
>a high level of discourse is expected
This is the most hypocritical post in the history of /his/
I'm still waiting for your basis for morality........
Oh wait did it consist of "everyone with an opinion on anything ever is an arsehole".
Good one!!
>>504765
>I'm still waiting for your basis for morality
You'll be waiting forever, OP. Demonstrating somebody wrong doesn't require advancing an alternative opinion.
>>504738
>Incest is naturally repulsive though
So is homosexuality, yet it's accepted
Such is the hypocrisy of our society.
If two people of the same family are in love, I see no problem with that, especially in the age of condoms and birth control.
Also, the risk of birth defect is vey low with isolated cases of incest, and only becomes prevalent when several generations of incest happen in a row
>>504768
>demonstrating someone wrong only involves calling someone an arsehole.
This is your last chance to say something of value.
>>504773
Homosexuality as a concept is a recent thing. Same-sex secks wasn't always repulsive, and men are even wired for it (prostate stimulation).
>>504779
That which is proposed without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.
>>504799
"Prove me wrong" = give me dismissals of this opinion because I'd like to expand my views
Yes, high-level discourse is expected, and OP's a fucktard, but worse of all, this is a board on 4chan and in the end it can't separate itself completely from the site's culture. Just bear it or ignore it, since calling the OP an asshole certainly doesn't make the quality of the board any better either.
>>504788
>Same-sex secks wasn't always repulsive, and men are even wired for it (prostate stimulation)
If you go with the exceptions, same can be said of incest (Egyptians, European nobles, Manchurians, various native tribes...etc)
Still, despite some exceptions in a few societies, both these pratices were frowned upon by most of humanity at any given time
>>504779
He is right though. You being right or wrong doesn't hinge on him being right or wrong.
Two people who disagree can both be wrong about a subject and offer valid criticisms to each other.
