Let's talk morality and ethics /lit/
Tell me, what do you say when someone tells you "Morality is a social construct"
>>7833762
I'd point out that without social constructs they would be pic related.
Breaking structural norms that exist to reduce suffering is unethical.
I would also suggest that thinking about such deep questions only leads to anxiety.
>>7833800
Doesn't that mean morality is just whatever we agree it is? and there is no objective morality?
>>7833813
>there is no objective morality
Nothing is objective save mathematics and the science that derives from it. Social Sciences especially.
>>7833880
Isn't math also subjective based on what we consider a 'grouping'. for example what is one? how much is one?
>>7833919
No. You define certain things axiomatically and all things that follow are necessarily true.
I.e., It's not the statement (A) that is true but rather (A implies B).
>>7833880
>Nothing is objective save mathematics and the science that derives from it
let me guess, you're a fan of praxeology
>Tell me, what do you say when someone tells you "Morality is a social construct"
>"Your point being?"
>>7833762
I'd say 'no, it is an existential construct.'
Man is ultimately vulnerable to the society he is inserted in. He copes by the fervorous belief that others will act dignifiedly if he does so too.
But yeah, no to >>7833813
do's and don't's will vary wildly from culture to culture, just try to read some linguists and anthropologists. But! There is such a thing as a search for an "ideal" morality, where philosophers question themselves about which actions and which sets of values would lead to less suffering, or be more personally integer or what not. It could be a fun read.
>>7833762
"I need to stop having conversations with myself"
>>7833958
Searching for an ideal morality by minimizing suffering is just a utilitarian approach to the problem.
There are many perfectly pleasant ways to live that result in minimal suffering in the short term, but doom our species in the long; popularizing petrol powered personal transport, fast food proliferation, industrialized commercial fishing, convenient but irresponsible waste disposal.
Ah wait, we're already doing all of that, I'll shut up now.
>>7833994
>implying we live in a moral world
not just a social construct, but a spook
>>7833946
this desu
>>7833762
It's not. Ethic is considered a social construction.
The starry heavens above me and the moral law within me.
To make a long story short I could just say that ethic is a compromise of all morals
>>7833800
Stay spooked, my property.
>>7834061
property is a spook. it'd be nice if spooktards actually read stirner
>>7834007
The more different people I meet the more I realise that some of them just might.
Do you think we are all living in the same world?
>>7833762
>what do you say when someone tells you "Morality is a social construct"
smile and nod because while the statement is technically correct, there's 999,88878% likelihood that the person saying that misunderstands it and is at least a semi-fedora with whom no intelligent discussion can be had
>>7833880
>Nothing is objective save mathematics and the science that derives from it. Social Sciences especially.
Yeah, that claim might need some justification.
>>7833938
That's no different from defining moral axioms though. I think you're confusing math being objective with the fact that physical phenomena are objective outside of ourselves.
I'd agree and tell them to follow those social constructs unless they're intelligent enough to operate around them without being imprisoned or killed, which they likely aren't.
>>7834326
Bonus points if the person proceeds to substitute whatever moral axioms society deems acceptable with what they seem ideal and then proceed to be struck by an amnesia beam and act as if their new set of moral axioms are universal and self evident forgetting the fact that they just refused the previous set of axioms on ground that all axioms are essentially arbitrary.
There is only one absolute when it comes to morality and ethics:
The ends always justify the means.
People are too afraid to admit this for fear of being considered callous or stone-hearted.
>>7834390
Meta and Normative ethics solved.
>>7833880
i guess i can goedel my way out of your statement
>>7834390
but what ends are desirable and what ones aren`t? you still need to make a moral judgment and commitment of some kind to determine that, otherwise you'll only do random shit
>>7833762
I would say:
"Yes it is."
>>7834390
That's an overly simplistic view. The means imply ends themselves, your actions are not a straight line, the means you use have ramifications, not to mention the fact that in practice people don't have one singular "end" they wish to attain. The way I see it there's really no such thing as "ends" and "means", only actions and consequences. A linear string of actions will cause a spread of consequences.
It's only the bad teenage-nihilist understanding of philosophy that translates "socially constructed" as "non-existent/unimportant/false." All meaning available to us is socially-constructed but that's the only lens for understanding we have, so it matters.
>>7833813
Eh, kind of.
>>7833880
yikes. nah.
>>7833919
You got it
>>7834326
I feel like the fedora-types kind of stay away from the language of social constructivism because they think it's "illogical" anti-science hipster shit (and they know it only through it's tumblr-bastardized forms like "sex is a social construct and so my new gender is starfish.")
>>7834365
I think math-anon is making that mistake too
>>7834389
Nicely phrased! That is the Actual Most Annoying Thing.
>>7834402
kek
Calmly tell them that not all social constructs are created equal, like most things.
What are some good arguments for the non-existence of objective moral values and duties?
