>>7895379
>how can anyone argue for an objective morality
>objective
yes, you are a pleb

>>7895379
People who argue for objective moralities don't care about the fact that their fundamental moral principle can't be reached using reason.

literally "but muh feelings"

>>7895382
Eh?

you can get an 'ought' from an is if you use functional concepts

for instance a watch 'ought' to reliably tell the time, since 'ought to tell the time' is a function of the concept watch.

>>7895379
You can't. The last few centuries of philosophy is basically people trying to ignore that Hume was right.

The few millennia before that was trying to ignore that Pyrrho was right.

>>7895379
Start with the Goddamn Greeks.

>>7896157
No thanks

>>7896201
The fuck off of asking pleb questions, since you don't want to take trouble to examine them.

>>7896036
mm

a watch tells time

if it's broken it's a broken watch there's no need for an ought.

Also, your rebuttal ignores the spirit of the question, which refers to moral prescriptivism rather than the description of objects

>>7896207
No thanks. I'd rather just discuss the questions I asked if that's alright

>>7896215
You are free to discuss it of course, but you'll be running in circles if you think anything substantial will come out of /lit/.

>>7896220
what are you talking about? >>7896214
is a substantial post imo

>>7896220
It's likely just going to be mildly funny squabbling and memes and perhaps a well thought out answer somewhere to break that all up. I'm fine with that

It's a uniquely modern problem. Aristotle bypasses this problem.

But if all you know is Locke, Kant, Nietzshe etc then you will be a relativist schizo modernist.

Return to Aristotle.

>>7896249
im schizo communist b0ss :)

>>7896252
nice derail

>>7896249
>Aristotle bypasses this problem.
How?

>>7896214

broken is a normative description.

Take another example- he is a captain, he ought not to abandon his ship.

The virtue of captain is in staying with the ship