Pro tip, you cant
>>73969235
Correct, we can't.
>>73969235
t. Atheist
>>73969235
If god exists then morality is objective. If he doesn't exist then there is no such thing as morality.
>>73969456
>>73969235
Sure it's relative. For instance, you all believe it's OK to subjugate and kill animals, yet would not like to have the same things done to you by a more intelligent species.
Just because it's relative doesn't mean it's bad or unneeded in society.
This would be considered racist by a lot of America today
>>73969568
This has always been stupid to me.
If there is a God and he's unjust and makes up a bunch of stupid rules and if you don't follow them you permanently exist in a state of pure agony for all eternity you better fucking bet your ass I'm following those rules.
>>73969594
This is something, in terms of what morality can be defined as, I would say that the platinum rule is pretty solid:
Do not do unto others as you would not have them do unto you.
>>73969367
>>73969235
Stop acting like a child.
No one owes it to you to convince you that their beliefs are correct. The vast majority of us believe things like "murder is wrong" to be brute facts. Yes: they're arbitrary. Yes: they're based on biology and feelings.
You actually agree with us, because you wouldn't be posting this kinda stuff if you weren't looking for approval and feedback from others.
It's a psychological question--not one of absolute rationality. There is no objective ethical framework to which we can irrefutably appeal.
But we still all have a shared one that we all agree on. And once you stop being an edgy teenager, you'll stop acting so fucking entitled and pretending someone else owes it to you, to explain why you believe it, too.
>>73969748
>platinum rule
>>73969781
PRIMORDIAL MEXICAN BLOWN THE FUCK OUT
>>73969781
>we all agree on
>>73969688
But you wouldn't know what the rules are to begin with. You would be guessing them seeing as you would have no reason to assume one particular religion is correct, or one set of ideas about God's rules is correct. Therefore irrespective of what God's rules hypothetically may be, you can't choose to live by them even if you wanted to.
Prove to me you're not a godless commie. Protip: you can't.
>>73969688
Coward
>>73969952
Guessing and gambling is the safest option.
>>73969981
A coward for a mote of time to save from an eternity?
>>73969781
We don't all agree on the same moral framework.
That's stupid.
for example: Psychopaths believe murder is ok and islamic people believe underage sex is completely fine.
>>73969235
When you're talking about morality, you're talking about here and now, not then and ubongo bongo land. If you want to argue about different morals, go to that place, nobody wants you here if you can't respect basic societal rules.
Different social norms, different cultures, stop trying to poison developed ones
>>73970072
>Poison spooks.
Nice spook
>>73970041
What's your point? There are neither any members of ISIS nor any psycopaths in this thread.
By the way: psychopaths (by which you are prolly referring to socipaths) actually do believe that murder is wrong. They lack empathy--not a sense of right and wrong.
>>73969977
Spookity spooked spook
>>73969235
Morality is what the strong decide it is.
>>73970287
You said we have a shared ethical framework.
I was just pointing out that is wrong.
People have different ideas on what is right and wrong.
The fact that most of society can agree on some morals is irrelevant.
There are still others that do not agree with most of society.
>>73969235
Technically not, but current moralities are end result of memetic evolution, where civilisations/cultures that beared beneficial viewpoints (like judeochristian commandments don't kill/steal/cuck so you can expect others not to as well) grew while others didn't, offspring inherited morality, infecting rest of population.
Most of moral codices are in essence rules of protecting social order and tools for cultures to sustain themselves.
How OP defends his point
>spouting memes and posting shitty stirneredits
Truly you destroyed us.
It's cute when autismos think that there exists such a thing as ambiguous morality
It is relative, but there is literally nothing wrong (and in fact it is evolutionarily advantageous) to impose your morality onto others.
>>73969781
Dude, you where trying so hard to be an edgy contrarian faggot that you just turned out to be a regular faggot.
Yes, there is an absolute moral and ethical framework we can work with, it's simple causality.
We can measure the affects of our actions on other people a number of ways, by MRI scans or just health. Our actions have a direct impact on our health, and we can measure it.
The only way you can say morality is not objective is by saying that life has no inherent value, and if that's true then you should kill yourself.
Therefore, there are some actions we can definitively say
>>73969235
Prove to me that mathematical concepts are relative and not embedded in information regardless of the formalism.
Pro tip: You cant.
Specify your question shitskin.
Also morality=/= ethics.
>>73970592
If you use spooks to defend something,is not my problem.
>>73970732
>The only way you can say morality is not objective is by saying that life has no inherent value, and if that's true then you should kill yourself.
What measure would you even use for value of human life?
Flat value? So it's moral to kill to gain enough to outbid some fella's life?
>inb4 infinity
>>73970790
>I create an spook to defend my argument and take it as an absolute value, and you have to prove that the spook that I created is wrong
Take a siesta Spain you're drink
>>73969235
If we apply the theory of evolution to civilizations you can get an objective view of what good morals are. In the context of a civilization obviously.
Considering each civilization start with a different culture, set of morals one could assume that these morals have an important effect on the welfare of the civilization. By observing which civlizations collapsed and which flourished you can get a grasp of which morals are best for a society to thrive.
So morals are subjective but the best morals are objective because we know what kind of morals dominated the world for several centuries. That's why I think European morals are the best there is. Well, before we started the decline.
>>73971017
I tried to show you the fallacious nature of your post and it flew over your head.I am outta here, you are retarded Pedro.
>>73970959
Human life is it's own measurement. Human life creates value, because humans are the only thing that can experience "value". Sentient life is valuable because sentient life creates value.
>>73971017
>I created memes that enhance my autism
Go be a tumblrtard somewhere else you postmodernist faggot
>>73971027
>you're drink
Nice English paco
>>73971219
Im drink, proper granaries are a spook
>>73969235
Degenerate bullshit. There's a specific line of progression that a species goes about, and morality are rails to ride along.
>>73969568
False quote. That quote is not from Aurelius; he was very devout.
>>73971158
Your analogy is dumb and baseless. You proved nothing.
>>73970790
They're not.
1.You always have to include shitloads of implyings in every mathematical statement you omit in normal life.
Whitehead, Russel "Principia Mathematica"
>Famously, several hundred pages are required in PM to prove the validity of the proposition 1+1=2.
2. Look up Gödel's incompleteness theorems that disprove absolute definition of every formal language.
And for an example - every imaginary number math starts with "let us assume there is such an i that i^2=-1 " that is not rooted in any prior statement, someone theorized it as an entity, and it's used because it works.
>>73969425
Thought he was eating a taco from the thumbnail
>>73971410
Let me bite the bait: How is my analogy dumb and baseless?
>You proved nothing.
And again due to your inferior shitskin genes the point flew over your head. It was my intention to point out how those statements cannot be proved or disproved.
>>73971552
>maymay Godel and Russell
Man, I am fully familiar with modal logics/set theory and all it implies. You could have added Chitalins Omegas and Kolgomorov complexity to the mix,but it would not change the nature of the argument. You missed the target. The argument is that it cannot be disproven or proven in regard to digital physics (information based) . That is the central point.
>>73970732
>We can measure the affects of our actions on other people a number of ways, by MRI scans or just health.
We can observe that certain effects take place. Morality, however, is not about what is, but about what ought to be.
Pray do tell, what does your MRI scanner tell me about that?
>>73969235
Case and point
Niggers from Africa and Muslims
You win OP
>>73971397
>When a man points to the moon,the fool focuses on the finger
>>73971797
I should specify that the argument goes through neurobiology to anthropology, physics,evolution theory etc.
Reread my post again polish bro,you addressed the wrong issue here.
>>73969568
That quote isn't real senpai
>>73969235
"Relative" and "objective" are not mutually exclusive
>>73971635
You are dumb m8. You proved nothing with your comment. Your analogy was dumb.
Morality is a spook the weak use on the strong
>>73972100
Marc Aurelius was probably one of the wisest and most based man ever walking on this planet.
If our leaders were just a third of what he was we would live a golden age here.
>>73971863
MRI can tell you what decisions you ought to take if you want to be healthy, or a faggot.
you obviously are choosing to be a faggot.
>>73970545
there is no end result of evolution - that would only be true if there was a fixed environment to adapt to and in reality there is a changing one and these societies you're talking about tend to grow up to a point and then collapse which is hardly some sort of ideal evolutionary achievement to be accepted and never questioned.
someone post the pic of him in ancap land
