![moralrelativismissue3cover[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/R6K25b1.jpg "moralrelativismissue3cover[1].jpg")
>lel morality is subjective xD
>classical liberalism's morals are just inventions of dead white men xD
>no you shouldn't do anything to help anyone
>yes you should only think of yourself
>its all relative anyway xD
When will this cancerous meme die? Or are we just riding this meme philosophy until civilization collapses?
Moral relativism is literally the edgy philosophical bullshit version of Stephen Colbert's truthiness: it validates bullshit views that have the quality of seeming or being felt to be true, even if not necessarily true.
In that case, tell us how to bridge the is-ought gap
>>1019544
moral relativism is the invention of those wanting to impose their politics and use it as an absurd self-defeating "opponent", not to beat the moral relativists (they dont exist), but to convience the idiots to follow their politics.
moral relativism is a contradiction in terms. relativism is a scientific methodology used in different social and human sciences, where it has a legitimate position and is used without trouble.
>>1019548
make me fggt
>morality exists xD
now that's a meme
>>1019587
Spotted the atheist nihilist.
![b092f7e32d9c725208745e8fbdefa46a[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/EcgI7Eu.jpg "b092f7e32d9c725208745e8fbdefa46a[1].jpg")
>>1019587
You walk into pic related, how would you feel?
>morality doesn't exist xD
now THATS a meme
Atheism is a mental illness.
A cancerous poison.
>>1019544
>lel morality is subjective xD
That's literally true, though. What we think of as morality differs between cultures and time periods. Have you finished puberty?
>>1019617
(You)
>>1019548
>tell us how to do something only an omnipotent being can accomplish
We can try and we'd do a much better job if everyone was on the right wavelength.
>>1019637
>Psychopathy: the philosophy
>>1019637
So I guess you won't have trouble with me beheading your mom with a knife after I've raped her.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LqsAzlFS91A
There is an objective moral law that all humans are aware of.
C.S. Lewis has covered it years ago in his book "Mere Christianity".
The Poison of Subjectivity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs
>>1019544
In modern times there seems to be a big confusion between a philosophical statment on the nature of reality and you not being an asshole for acting it out. Like subjective morality. Or the way people interpret "Langauge is defined by usage" as "I'm not a fucking moron for using the word 'literally' wrong".
So as such it's not a statement on the philosphy itself, but more like entitled shitwits using it as justification to disregard social mores.
>>1019544
The people intentionally collapsing society have plans to rebuild it in their image.
>>1019654
>doesn't know what a psychopath is
>>1019655
Was slavery moral? How about the bombing of civilians? Abortion? People have always been arguing over what is right or wrong, and they always will. So clearly morality is not objective, unless you don't actually understand what that word means. Recognizing this doesn't make me a bloodthirsty lunatic, so cut the childish bullshit.
>>1019655
>There is an objective moral law that all humans are aware of.
no there isn't, which is why morals change depending on culture and time period
>>1019655
>There is an objective moral law that all humans are aware of.
You're right, all humans know that Allah is the only God and that Muhammed is his prophet
C.S. Lewis has already debunked subjectivism and proven that the Bible is correct.
/thread
>>1019690
>doesn't make me a bloodthirsty lunatic
And why is that? Explain.
>doesn't know what a psychopath is
>The psychopath can appear normal, even charming. Underneath, he lacks conscience and empathy
Its all relative :^)
>>1019699
You can't just spew bullshit and then declare yourself the "winner," faggot.
>>1019699
Yes, it was so thorough that he subscribed only to the Church of England
>>1019699
>threading your own thread
>pretending C. S. Lewis contributed to philosophy in any way
>>1019702
How are you not getting this? I think matricide is wrong, but there are people who would agree with me on that point who also approve of genocide against Muslims, which I think is wrong. Clearly not everyone on the planet is using the same rulebook. Are you just pretending to be retarded for the debate practice or what?
![morality[1].gif](https://i.imgur.com/UPk5KFW.gif "morality[1].gif")
/thread
>>1019717
What if universal and personal values overlap?
>>1019716
Prejudice is not proof of nonexistent morality.
>How are you not getting this?
>Are you just pretending to be retarded
>you don't actually understand what that word means
>Have you finished puberty?
>LALALALA IM RIGHT YOU'RE WRONG YOU'RE AN IDIOT
>debate practice
Maybe you need some kiddo.
>>1019717
fify
>>1019732
>nonexistent morality
No one in this thread claimed morality didn't exist, fuckwit. Just that it can't be measured objectively.
![foucault-1[1].jpg](https://i.imgur.com/JA82B98.jpg "foucault-1[1].jpg")
>>1019734
>EDGIER THAN THOU
A fucking cancer on philosophy
>>1019745
Morality doesn't exist.
>>1019746
You have no idea what naive intervention is, do you? You're just another christcuck memer, aren't you?
>>1019745
So what Hitler, Stalin, Mao, ISIS and Mexican cartels are doing are okay?
There is no good or bad?
You're an edgy darwinian nihilist psychopath.
If nothing matters, kill yourself!
>>1019752
its all relative maaaan
>>1019762
like, whoa!
>>1019762
Typical christcuck. No arguments, just 'clever' zingers you picked up from some hugbox echochamber. So sad
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lgcd6jvsCFs
Objectivity is true.
Subjectivity is false.
>>1019761
10/10 that's exactly what these kids sound like.
>>1019770
Its all relative anon :^)
>a thread full of stupid neets think they can solve an argument that has existed since the beginning of philosophy
wew laddeh
>>1019761
>implying Hitler did anything wrong
Found the brainwashed liberal cuck.
Explain me this, atheists: why do you live?
If you're real atheists, and thus nihilists, you came to conclusion that there is no meaning. Since life must necessarily include suffering, and non-existence excludes suffering, isn't life logically worse proposition?
Reminder that all who claim morality is objective are appealing to their particular deity as a higher authority in an attempt to convert as many people as possible to their religion.
>>1019878
>living solely because a holy book told you to
How cucked can one group of people possibly be
>>1019885
You didn't answer my question.
If you exist, you believe. If you really don't believe (true nihilism), you wouldn't exist, because logic dictates that you shouldn't exist.
>>1019878
>If you're real atheists, and thus nihilists
Your premise flawed and so your question makes no sense.
>>1019890
>If you exist, you believe.
That's your opinion
>>1019890
my existence has falsified your conclusion
>>1019893
My premise is not flawed.
Atheism implies there is no God, not just Christian God, or some bearded man in the sky.
That is real atheism, or nihilism. ''Atheism'' in conventional sense is usually denial of Christian God.
But since no human can know everything, you must believe in something, and that something is in effect God. Something that keeps you alive.
If you're really nihilist, you accept that there is no meaning, so true nihilist will annihilate himself, because logic dictates so.
If you keep existing, then you have a meaning, thus you aren't a nihilist.
Why can't reactionaries comprehend moral nihilism?
Morals aren't even subjective because THEY DONT EXIST
Doesn't stop humans from judging
>>1019923
Muslims believe in God, are they nihilists?
>>1019923
>If you keep existing, then you have a meaning, thus you aren't a nihilist.
Define "meaning."
>2016
>falling for christard bait
For shame
>>1019899
That's not my opinion. You believe in something and that something is God.
You just don't believe in Christian God.
>>1019921
Nihilism is proclaiming that there is no meaning, there is no God. If there is no meaning/God, then there is no reason to suffer.
Since you necessarily must suffer in life, there is no reason to live logically, since there is no suffering in non-existence.
>>1019937
>That's not my opinion. You believe in something and that something is God.
I don't.
There, I've just debunked your theory
>>1019937
You are projecting.
You can't live without belief so you think no one else can. This is wrong.
>>1019923
>because logic dictates so
Are you implying that anyone who doesn't believe in gods has made a religion out of logic? Because humans in general tend to make decisions based on feelings.
>>1019930
Of course they aren't nihilists.
Nihilism is impossible prospect.
Nihilism is proclaiming that there is no meaning and that your free will is absolute.
Only way to prove that your free will is absolute is ending your existence.
Thus at any point, there is God.
>>1019932
Meaning is God. Meaning is what prevents you from ending your existence.
>>1019923
not him but how is that atheism guaranties nihilism
>>1019953
>Meaning is God.
According to who?
Praise Jesus
>>1019929
Morals do exist their just [spoiler] social constructs[/spoiler]
>>1019968
The pleasures outweigh the suffering by a large margin.
How hard is that?
>>1019968
>So why are you existing?
Survival instinct, high pleasure to pain ratio.
>>1019957
You're just asking empty questions trying to avoid answering my original question.
Since you claim that there is no meaning and that there is no God, then your existence is meaningless, and non-existence is superior.
No one would suffer for no meaning. Thus you have a meaning, and thus you believe.
>>1019981
>Since you claim that there is no meaning
Never said that. Never said the opposite, either.
>Thus you have a meaning, and thus you believe
Believe in what? [spoiler]These aren't empty questions, anon. You just can't answer anything without the circular logic inherent to your narrow belief system.[/spoiler]
>objective morality
>good
>not a spook
>>1019610
> unzips dick
>>1019993
>Never said that.
So you aren't a nihilist.
>Never said the opposite
That's contradictory. You can't not believe and believe. If you aren't a nihilist, you believe in something, you believe in some meaning.
>Believe in what?
In something that becomes meaning for you, and in meaning is God.
it is probably the case that the only reason that humans are predisposed to having what people consider to be morals, or a moral intuition, is because such behaviour evolved through the selection pressure that human beings hwo cooperate normally are much more successful than human beings who don't.
our "intuitive" morals, like knowing whether somethin is fair or not, helping others so they can help you in the future, feeling indebted to someone who has helped you are all just successful behaviours that came about through evolutionary psychology, probably.
>>1019996
>letting your mind distort the natural capacity you have for empathy to feel a false sense of power in your edgy distasteful humor
>>1020010
>behaviours that came about through evolutionary psychology
And there's nothing wrong with that.
>>1019991
No non-existence is not. You saying over and over does not make it so. Your 'logic' as you call it is not reasonable. You dont cut your nose off for a pimple. Atheists are not all nihilistic. We simply do not believe in dieties.
>>1020010
>probably
might as well shut up
>>1020023
>Being spooked
>>1020023
>doesn't get dark humor
>becomes enraged when other people engage in it
>>1019761
Moral subjectivity doesn't imply that anyone is right. It means that morals are defined by a society. If society deems these actions okay, then it has defined moral guidelines. To say that morality is constant, and doesn't change is an opinion completely ignorant of human history.
>>1020006
>>1020034
You necessarily believe in something blindly if you keep existing.
That something is effectively a deity, God.
>Atheists are not all nihilistic.
Because you aren't real atheists. You just don't believe in Christian or Muslim God. You believe in something.
>You dont cut your nose off for a pimple.
Because you'll suffer more without a nose than by having a pimple.
However, non-existence precludes any suffering. So why exist, when non-existence is an option?
Not feeling is better than feeling, since feeling necessarily includes negative feelings.
>>1019544
>morality
>>1020072
I believe by not existing I wouldn't be able to get my dopamine and serotonin and therefore by existing my well being will be bettered by existing than not existing. Look into hedonism faggot
>>1020072
>Because you aren't real atheists
wow, you people manage to no true scotsman both christianity and atheism
>>1020072
No, I do not believe in any god. Yes i am a real athiest. Meaning in life is self defined.Why would believing in something make me want to live? That does not even make sense.
>>1019544
>Or are we just riding this meme philosophy until civilization collapses?
>mfw the world is becoming more nihilistic while its crumbling
>mfw civilization is going to suffer a slow, painful death with climate change
>its their opinion if they don't believe it xD
We're fucked. We're completely fucked.
>>1020093
Simmer down there, Chicken Little.
>>1019548
That's entirely unrelated. The is-ought gap is basically the naturalistic fallacy, has nothing to do with relativism.
>>1019544
People attack relativism wrong.
This is my argument:
So a relativist says that there are no moral universals. Then, what do they say to a person who believes it is imperative for them to violently enforce their moral stance? If they ought not, then the relativist is admitting they believe a moral universal, if they are permitted, it's moral nihilism.
That's the razor you have to go by. Relativism is an umbrella view but you can always, always show a relativist secretly harbors a moral universal or is a moral nihilist.
>>1020076
>shitty_stirner.jpg
>>1020023
>le picture of zach braff and john c mcginley looking perplexed
>>1020082
>I wouldn't be able to get my dopamine and serotonin
Why do you care about that?
You won't suffer because you lack dopamine and serotonin, because non-existence precludes suffering or enjoying. Non-existence is nothing. And not suffering is better than even suffering for a second.
>>1020091
>meaning in life is self defined
So you believe in something blindly.
>Why would believing in something make me want to live
Fear, even if you don't want to accept it. If you truly accept that there is no meaning, nor God, if you're a nihilist, you won't fear or hesitate, because not existing is better than existing.
>>1020087
I just chose to use that term to draw a difference between being a nihilist and simply not believing in Christian God.
>>1020127
There are basic societial moralities such as not killing or stealing non communal property. There is also altruism and empathy. These preexisting any organized religion so ce they were needed to for us to be social animals. We see it an all social animals. Most everything after that is up for debate.
>>1020127
I say that their moral enforcement is fine, but don't expect people with opposing morals to agree or tolerate his faggotry. I have morals, but I understand that these morals are neither constant throughout time nor universal throughout the world.
>>1019672
>he's not a luciferian
Keep on signaling christcuck. Your reward is just around the corner. . .
>>1020148
Blindly? What do you mean? Defining my own life's meaning is no diffrent from breathing. I don't lean on a god so I simply do it myself. Wondering get from place to place without a goal would get boring.
I fear no god because I believe in no God. Call me what you will. Ending my life makes no sense because my suffering is minute what about this do you not get all suffering is not equal. The simple act of suffering is not ordained it is just something that happens.
You do that understand and worst of all you are unwilling to.
>>1020148
>And not suffering is better than even suffering for a second.
you are assuming that there are no pleasurable life experiences. why hold pain up on a pedastle above all other feeling?
>>1020169
Truly there is no religion edgier than Satanism. All it does is take the BBEG of the Bible, and turns him into the thing to be worshipped. The least they could do is make a new guy.
>>1020173
>I fear no god
Because you don't call it God, but you fear something. If you were true atheist and nihilist, you wouldn't fear.
>makes no sense
It makes perfect sense.
>not all suffering is same
Meaningless point. Suffering is suffering.
No one can choose to suffer.
Thus if not suffering at all is an option, one will chose that if he's honest and logical about his nihilism.
But you aren't certain that is an option, thus you fear what comes after death. So you're not a nihilist, you believe in something.
>>1020123
No, really, it's over. We're pretty much at the tipping point, and we're headed in the wrong direction. Soak it in lads, this is the height of humanity.
We had a good run. We got to the moon at least.
>This is the way the world ends, not a bang but a whimper.
>>1020173
>Call me what you will.
>Fool.
>>1020213
Good riddance.
>>1020207
>atheism necessarily implies nihilism
Why are people still responding to this baitster?
>>1020127
This is what I do as well. However, I am a moral nihilist but I'm not a fool. I'm smart enough to know what a world without morals looks like and it's not a safe place, nor is it a place that I would want to live. In the end however, I acknowledge that there are no universal truths about the way we should act. That our inclination towards morality is the product of the evolutionary imperative for order among communities, and the rest is merely added on top of this foundation.
If someone were to try to violently force his moral stance on me he wouldn't be wrong but that doesn't mean I'd enjoy living under his rules. Simply put, he'd be inconveniencing me to the point where I would also have to use coercive force to remove his nuisance.
Example: Sharia law has all kinds of arbitrary nonsense in it that would be a pain in the ass for me to follow for no reason, I could do it surely but why bother, this doesn't help me. I don't like Islam's culture or aesthetics, I don't care for its god or theology. So of course I support military operations against Islamist political entities, keeps them out of my life.
>>1020222
Stop being so edgy, you're scaring the children.
>>1020181
I'm not denying that.
I'm just explaining you it's logically impossible to accept that there is no meaning or God, and that non-existence is certain, but still exist.
Because not existing precludes any suffering, or desire, or anything. If you are a nihilist, that is the only logical choice.
>>1020253
That would be necessarily true only if humans were purely logical creatures. The pleasure of an orgasm every night when I masturbate is plenty to live for.
>>1020207
No I fear nothing you are projecting. I don't seek from life what you do. My confidence is not so thin.
No it makes no sense you saying it over and over is the real meaningless thing.
No I will not choose not to suffer if it costs me my life that simply does not seem reasonable. I can't work the logic out of doing such a thing.
You ignore the quality and quantity of suffering because it would break you whole premise. But the thing is that every one considers quality of life when making choices.
I do not fear what comes after death I just enjoy my life.
You can choose to to suffer btw look into the stoicism. I doubt you will though
>>1020229
I may well not be bait Christians can be pretty damn misguided
>>1020218
Cunt
>>1019981
Why do you need somebody else to give you purpose?
>>1020297
>I'm going to try to redefine words like a raging Autist because I'm wrong
It's confirmed bait. Abandon thread.
>>1020297
Then I do not suffer.
>>1020302
But I'm having such a good time reading this insanity.
>>1019991
You are positing two mutually exclusive statements:
>believing in nihilism means you believe in absolute free will
>believing in nihilism means you follow logic (you should kill yourself etc.)
Neither of these is really related to nihilism and the two positions are also mutually exclusive. If your life is dictated by 'logic' then you don't have absolute free will and if you have absolute free will you may deviate from logic on a whim.
I would say that a particular 'materialist' flavour of nihilism would be to posit that you don't even have any free will and that everything you do is just the result of physical processes.
Regardless, your whole no true nihilist argument is bunk.
>>1020323
That's why I said you can only prove your nihilism and absolute free will by killing yourself.
Your second part of argument is called hard determinism. In that case you aren't a nihilist.
>>1020307
No you are misguided.
1. You assumed all atheists are nihilistic. False.
2. You assume that nihilist are unhappy. False
3. You assume all suffering is equal. False
4. You ignore human rationality. False
5. You make false assumptuons What you assume is the necessity of belief. This is wrong as well.
6. You don't take people at their word.
You are the one who is misguided.
>>1020235
Awesome meme bro top kek :D
>>1020326
None of it is bad enough to want to die.
>>1020326
>Suffering is a negative experience.
Let me guess, you're about 20 years old and never suffered any real hardship in your life, have you?
>>1020344
You keep using these words you don't understand. Why compels you to embarrass yourself like this?
>>1020356
*What
>>1020149
then there still are moral universals..
>>1020152
nobody pretends they are. everyone ever agrees that people can do things differently and be fine doing things differently. i feel like moral universalism and moral relativism are often closer than most people think, like the argument against universalism is just a form of autism.
>>1020234
This is precisely what I mean, yes.
>>1020363
Like what?
I would wager that they are more humans being humans than anything else.
>>1020346
1. I didn't say that. I said real atheism (as opposed to just denying Christian God) is nihilism.
2. I never even talked about that.
3. I said suffering is suffering.
4. I'm not ignoring rationality, I'm just saying end product of being a rational nihilist is ending yourself.
5. That's not wrong, and I have explained it, and you keep ignoring it, and you argument is your words.
6. Why would I?
>>1020373
Honestly, you sound like a 20 something year old who just read babbys first apologetics and went out to le stump le unbelievers.
Come back when you've had relevant life experiences. Until then, don't bother people who aren't naive retards like you
>>1020368
a priori, you can't have a moral system that demands it's users kill themselves off as soon as possible, or the moral system will cease to exist (be self-refuting). A moral system must allow for propagation.
In general, that means all societies have some way of getting men and women together to fuck, have some means of gathering foods, and caretaking children, and these are genuinely moral prescripts.
>>1020385
>have some way of getting men and women together to fuck, have some means of gathering foods, and caretaking children
It's called instinct. Notice how the specifics always differ from between cultures. That is where the subjectivity comes in.
>>1019544
Why can't we just take a functionalist view to morality and culture?
Morals may not be objectively determinable but we can objectively observe their outcomes and pick and choose the ideas that are best for our society.
>>1020373
>real atheism (as opposed to just denying Christian God) is nihilism.
>>1020373
1. You are talking to a bunch of 'real atheists' so you did everything but say it.
2. Then why commit suicide?
3. Yes thus implying it is all equal. That is the other way your point would hold up.
4. Yes you are. Killing yourself is not reasonable if you suffer little. I have said this to you before.
5. It is only right for you. I reject the notion your explanation is poor.
6. Because that's all you have. Otherwise you do what you do now and ignore reasonable arguments.
>>1020385
Like the guy said instinct.
For example women will make themselves pretty.
How they do it is subjective.
Women in China used to bind their feet to make them appear smaller. Pacific islanders file their teeth.
No higher power required.
>>1020439
Instincts aren't morals.
>>1020443
No but morals are instincts.
>>1020443
not everybody has that "instinct", bruh. you're categorically wrong.
>>1020456
What instinct?
Just because not every one has it does not mean that most dont. What ever it is.
>>1020471
exactly. the moral command "thou shalt not murder" is not a moral command for the vast majority of people who would never murder anyway. it's for the few who would. morals are almost always to contain outliers.
>>1019544
>meme philosophy
Meme (noun)
an element of a culture or system of behavior that may be considered to be passed from one individual to another by nongenetic means, especially imitation.
All philosophy is meme philosophy you cancerous shits
>>1020474
More people would murder than you think.
But I do think know what that has to do with the thread.
>tfw all this bait
>>1020485
>More people would murder than you think.
*fedora*
gj taking an ideological stance to be right
>>1020525
>fedora
Go back to /b/ you meme-spouting manchild.
>>1020485
>More people would murder than you think.
How many people have you murdered? How many murderers do you know?
There are 7 billion plus people on Earth. Most of them, an overwhelming majority of them infact, will go through their lives without murdering a single person - and it will have 0 to do with religious doctrine.
You can say the exact same thing with the most of humanity that has ever existed.
>>1020592
OK what are you trying to argue? You jumped in half cocked I think.
>>1019655
>So I guess you won't have trouble with me beheading your mom with a knife after I've raped her.
Why won't I have trouble? Why would that follow from moral subjectivism? Because you'd be OK with it? We are different people, some people will do things I will oppose and I'll do things other people will oppose. Conflict follows. Dialogue may help bridge the gaps but sometimes we'll use force to push for what we feel is best.
What follows from moral objectivism? That there is a moral law independent from all humans? The realization that not all humans follow this unverified law makes the law's supposed existence to be of no practical consequence. Even if you believe in this objective morality others don't so you'll be using persuasion and violence to push for it, same as above.
>>1019761
>So what Hitler, Stalin, Mao, ISIS and Mexican cartels are doing are okay?
It's my subjective opinion, and of a large subset of people alive today, that those entities are wrong and so me and like-minded folks oppose such entities. Other folks will disagree and so we will be in conflict. Some people will change their minds. Some people will be silenced through coercion, maybe even death.
>There is no good or bad?
Doesn't follow, unless you consider subjective experiences to be unreal.
>If nothing matters, kill yourself!
My life matters - to me.
>>1019878
I'm actually pretty content. I believe I can still have a lot of wonderful times. If I was sure I was going to be miserable, sure I might want to jump.
Anyway, why the rush?
>>1019991
>But in non-existence there is nothing, neither pleasure nor suffering.
>So non-existence is superior, since there is no suffering.
How is it superior to a life of pleasure outweighing suffering?
Assyne pleasure is positive and suffering is negative. The absence of either is 0. Any life worth more than 0 is worth living.
>>1020127
I have my own morals and will clash with people who have different morals
Saying "those people are stupid, they don't follow the REAL morals" accomplishes nothing besides making you feel superior and justified. Really, it just gets in the way of analyzing objective reality and other people's rationale for their own actions because it makes it harder for you to consider something that you disapprove of.
>>1020439
You are born with violent instincts. Acting on such basic impulses as they come isn't the way to function in polite society.
Psychopaths don't really evolve such mechanisms. Does that absolve them from their deeds?
>>1019544
Morality is objectively subjective.
>>1022084
No, that's why I'm arguing for moral universalism.
>>1022105
And that would accomplish what, unless you could persuade or force everyone to adopt the same morality?
Just cooperate with people who agree with you on important points, try to persuade people that disagree and, I'm not saying you should but I'm saying you would if you had the balls, put down your opposition whatever it might be. The other guys with the will and power to change things will try to do the same.
>>1020127
Knowing that my opinions are opinions doesn't mean it's impossible for me to disagree with someone else's opinions, faggot. If morals are relative, that doesn't mean there are no morals, or that every moral has equal basis in logic and reality, or any of that other shit. That kind of thinking is the result of retards taking a complex idea to a simple extreme.
To put it another way: Health is relative. Someone with cancer might think that people who have AIDS are healthy by comparison, but people with AIDS probably think that people with the flu are healthier. People with no active illness might think themselves healthy, but some other observer might measure health differently and decide that they're not actually healthy because they're overweight, or underweight, or not eating what they think they should be eating, etc. All of these are relative positions and vary based on one's point of view.
BUT
They are also dependent on fact. The fact that they are relative and open to interpretation (to an extent) doesn't mean that someone can claim cancer is healthy, fat is healthy, water is poison and exercise is a death sentence and still have their views considered just as valid as the people who know what they're fucking talking about. When you interpret moral relativity to mean that any given moral stance is valid, that's what you're trying to do.
>>1022140
>Be non-theist American
The only reason i haven't murdered is because the penalty for doing so would rob me of my youth. Probably the main reason i haven't been murdered as well.
Monetary disputes that are based in illegitimacy are hard to solve without murder.
Morality is a survival instinct.
>>1022207
>The only reason i haven't murdered is because the penalty for doing so would rob me of my youth.
Good thing such penalty exists, then.
>Probably the main reason i haven't been murdered as well.
Well, no system is perfect, ahah.
The problem with moral relativism is that, while some things are a difference of opinion, other things are just objectively false.
The problem with moral universalism is that it is objectively false.
>>1022200
/thread
>>1019654
You think that philosophy is based on empathy? You think that philosophy should be intuitive?
>it make me sad so morality is real
If you are saying that philosophy should be based on one specific part of the brain, then you would be arguing for morality being subjective.
>>1020072
I can't be bothered to quote all your stupid ass posts but Camus has tackled your whole
>You necessarily believe in something blindly if you keep existing.
line of thought.
Actually all of your points have either been refuted by philosophers through out the ages or don't make any sense. All the people here who know even a little about philosophy are laughing at you.
Morality is relative and it changes all the damn time, that doesn't mean a society should sacrifice its accepted morals in the name of tolerance.
Ideally, though, a society should review its morals to ensure they're rational and have some measurable reason to be enforced. If you find something morally reprehensible for arbitrary reasons and punish people for it that's retarded. Some of society's morals are literally just dumb shit that caught on because everyone else was doing it or somebody with power said so once.
Of course morality is subjective. Systems of morality vary across time periods and cultures, even within cultures too.
Who has ultimate authority on morality? You?
There are a growing amount of people who think that if a man and woman both have one beer and then have sex, that man is a rapist. We're all moral relativists, whether you know it or not.
>>1019548
Reason.
>>1019544
lol how can morality even be subjective if all other human beings are merely objects to me.
>>1019544
Is there even truth
>>1019761
Poor little thing, so scared to see its sand castle blown away
>>1022207
Not everyone is twisted like you.
This entire discussion pisses me off. Political systems are arbitrary "social constructs" that are created by fiat to match the desires of a particular person or political community. No one would argue that a given political system is perfect and absolute and the best for everyone everywhere and should be ran exactly the same way under all conditions.
So why do people refuse to acknowledge morality is the same way? Created by fiat to match the desires of a particular man or group of men?
Its ridiculous.
>>1022401
>Who has ultimate authority on morality? You?
I actually do have ultimate authority. The defining characteristics of humans is their ability to reason, and their ability to value things.
I can choose my own moral code, and follow it rigorously, thus I am the authority.
However, that doesn't mean anyone has to agree with me. But it wouldn't fun if everyone agreed with me either.
>>1019544
>>classical liberalism's morals are just inventions of dead white men
>>yes you should only think of yourself
But classical liberalism is the idea that you should only look out for yourself. That's the whole point. Think of the founders using ambitions to counteract each other or Hobbes' idea that in the state of nature we have ultimate power over everybody's body. Classical liberalism assumes that men mostly suck, and then tries to create a lasting order for such a world.
>people still don't realize that morality is a form of self-preservation of in-groups and that it is only logical for any social, tribal species like ours to adopt it to better cooperate with each other
>>1021293
Come on dude. You need a heart of stone not to laugh out loud at images of murdered babies.
>>1022200
>The fact that they are relative and open to interpretation (to an extent) doesn't mean that someone can claim cancer is healthy, fat is healthy, water is poison and exercise is a death sentence and still have their views considered just as valid as the people who know what they're fucking talking about. W
yes, stick to your spooks
>>1022340
>stupid ass posts
Anon's posts are not stupid.
Camus is in line with his reasoning, except Camus offers a third choice.
However, anon is arguing (using weird phrasing) that third choice is essentially same as leap of faith, and that third choice is not honest, because he believes that no suffering is better than suffering mixed with joy, so if you were driven by logic you would make that choice. Going against logic equals leap of faith in his view.
>>1019544
Moral is relative
It's not good to kill but if my family is in danger I will kill
>morality is objective
Okay, show it to me.
Morality, as in the goals of it, are as subjective as art and taste. Once we agree on the goals of morality, though, the method of conforming to it becomes perfectly objective.
>>1024109
> because he believes that no suffering is better than suffering mixed with joy,
Are we supposed to just accept this premise?
>>1020149
This is widely true, but the subjectivity still pours through these concepts to some extent.
For starters, we know that different humans have different levels of empathy, and that indoctrination, trauma and stress can easily destroy a person's ability for empathy. This alone means that you probably couldn't hold a soldier fighting in a war to the standards of the same man a few years earlier or later. At the end of the war, he is probably 10 times more likely to rape a woman or shoot and torture captured enemies for the kicks than he would be a few years later. Possibly he might even "forget" about doing these things.
The second is that the concepts of property and communal/non-communal also change from culture to culture. Not only are there cultures that allow certain humans to be counted as property, but for example, whether things like water in a well, trees and animals in a forest or minerals below a farm belong to the population in general, to a minor noble or to the King could easily change depending not only on law, but on the strength and ability of the nobles to enforce it.
Not to mention that some particularly secluded cultures, or cultures that are already victims of ostracization, do feel like it is fine to steal from "outsiders".
>>1019544
If you cant prove it and it doesnt feel right to me, why should I believe it?
>>1024279
Your text wall was worthless. Outliers happen that does nothing to central concepts.
Most of the time people with less empathy will adopt what they think is the best practice for fitting in.
>>1024303
>Most of the time people with less empathy will adopt what they think is the best practice for manipulation.
FTFY
>>1024251
He argues that if you were ''really'' nihilist, you would accept that as a fact, claiming that if you have meaning or you chose to have a meaning, you aren't nihilist.
as expected for a board about humanities,you guys are fucking retarded
>>1024306
Meh that's cool to.
>>1024329
Explain
>>1019544
Oh! All this time I thought morality really was subjective! But it looks like OP has all the answers, and he can explain everything to me! So OP, can you explain universal morality to me so that I may also enlighten my fellow relativists?
>>1024311
>He argues that if you were ''really'' nihilist, you would accept that as a fact
Sure, that means that most atheists don't accept it and hence are not nihilists.
>>1020567
>>1024334
you argue(not you specifically anon)on the most baseless premises about subjects that are easily solved
no,morality doesnt exist,you cant fucking catch a morality in the wild
yes,it is useful and greatly benefits humans(in as much as you view the continuation of human experience a good thing)
>>1024364
No it does exist. It is a concept.
The social contract which noone can deny exists it a moral one.
>>1024109
>no suffering is better than suffering mixed with joy,
That could only be true if the net value of joy minus suffering was negative in someone's life. If it's positive then there is no reason to kill yourself as you would be denying yourself pleasure by doing so.
>>1024371
so assuming it exists,how does that change anything
is it inherently more meaningful because it exists?
driving of off that,is lets say,life meaningful because it exists?
>>1024388
and seriously what the fuck is wrong with 4chan nowadays,are you guys incapable of dissociating atheism and nihilism from meme-tier fedora spouting?
>>1024109
Camus isn't in line with his reasoning. There is a reason his third and preferred option, the absurd hero, keeps on living.
Either of you should explain why being an absurd hero is a leap of faith, when by definition it is not and why no suffering is better than suffering mixed with joy.
>>1024388
It does exist. Can you possibly deny the existence of the social contract?
No the fact of a basal morality existing only means that a basal morality exists.
Life only has meaning if you choose to give your life one.
>>1024428
im not denying the existance of the social construct,im only stating that objective morality doesnt,and that is a pretty clear fact,i can easily imagine a society in which selfishness is advantageous,and it that case it would be considered moral(and probably have heated debates between retards on cantonese charcoal drawing forums)
>>1024378
You could argue that, but you could also say it doesn't make sense to observe life as whole.
If alternative to life is non-existence, then why not pick it over even 5 seconds of suffering?
>because I won't feel pleasure
You won't feel suffering either. You will feel nothing, you will not exist.
>>1024340
I believe that was his point.
>>1024474
Why wouldn't it make sense to observe life as whole?
How is feeling nothing preferable to feeling pleasure? I guess you what you're saying could be true for someone who can't pass the marshmallow test.
>I'd rather kill myself so I won't have to suffer 5 seconds now, than live and experience net pleasure over the course of a day/week/month/year/entire life
>>1024494
but you are going to die eventually,rendering any experiences in life meaningless
>>1024502
I'm not denying that. Just because living life a sisyphean task doesn't mean you can't derive pleasure from it.
>>1024539
*is a sisyphean task
>>1019544
it is subjective though lol
i mean i would go into a more in-depth refutation but you didn't say anything
>>1022852
TWISTED FUCKING PSYCHOPATH
>>1024539
But if you derive pleasure from it then pleasure is your meaning, and that denies meaninglessness, at least from your own personal perspective.
>>1020393
>best for our society
>best
By deciding something is 'best' you've already made moral/value judgments. Whether you realize it or not you've already come to your conclusion because you've implicitly chosen to value some outcome over another.
>>1024458
You aren't paying attention to what you are saying. If you acknowledge a social contract then you acknowledge some sort of objective morality. Selfishness is not disruptive toward society in sum cases Selfishness is understandable and even expected. That however is not part of the social contract there are only a very few rules that must be followed in order to not degrade society. You are out of your depth here you don't seem to have the nuance of thought.
>>1019655
I'm reading Prelandra. C.S. Lewis is a based fellow.
>>1019548
You don't need to, and in fact the fact that you cannot derive moral claims from material circumstance seems in fact to be one of the great many coffin nails in the theory of moral relativity.
>>1020429
>women will make themselves "pretty."
Only in cultures which deem it necessary.
>>1025905
>you cannot derive moral claims from material circumstance
Material circumstance like an empty stomach? Which would have a pretty big impact on how you would view "Thou shalt not steal"?
I mean, really, all you prove here is how sheltered and pampered you are. Do me a favor and visit a slum, and then tell me how people's living conditions doesn't influence their moral outlook on life at all, you whiny little millenial faggot
>>1025929
>Material circumstance like an empty stomach? Which would have a pretty big impact on how you would view "Thou shalt not steal"?
No actually. I'll suppose you've known great malnutrition, hunger, and need before in your life.
Besides, that one's view on the truth of a matter be a certain way does not in any manner decide the actual truth one way or the other.
For example, I could be a stupid person who's view of mathematics is such that I see 1+1 = 3 in base 10. But thankfully my views on this matter do not have any bearing on Truth whatsoever, be they correct or not.
Even so, what makes you think that stealing is necessarily wrong in the first place?
Kill yourself, you don't know me.
>>1025916
In which culture do women not want male attention?
>>1026012
Rape culture.
>>1026014
You disgust me.
>>1026017
..
0
>>1026012
Male attention specifically requiring intentionally prettying oneself is a cultural construct.
All I'm saying is there is no universal instinctual compulsion to do so, as you imply. It would be more accurate for you to say that humans have an instinct to attract the opposite sex.
>>1026028
>cultural construct
No such thing, literally every aspect of human behavior stems directly from biological determination.
>>1025929
>I'm hungry, therefore it's ok to make someone else go hungry by stealing from them.
You sound like a bad person.
>>1026028
Yes there is its common mating behavior a monster primates females often demonstrate readiness for mating.
It manifests itself like this In humans. The act of prettying is not a construct how one goes through the act is the construct.
Give me one reason to believe in objective morals that aren't MUH FEELINGS
>>1026136
Social contract
>>1020023
>natural is better
Nice meme.
>>1026043
Culture is itself emergent from biological underpinnings, so the two are compatible.
They are different levels of behavioral development and inheritance.
>>1026239
Not objective then
>>1026356
Social contract is objective. It's the minimum that will make a cohesive community. It's the same everywhere. There are only a few rules but they are transcendent.
>>1026321
>Culture is an emergent property
Why not just call it a biological construct?
>>1026739
Because they aren't the same thing.
>>1026739
Because that's a given... and basically says nothing...
I may as well say culture is a "thing," it's a noun.
>>1026757
It seems to me that terms like "biological" and "construct" are somehow mutually exclusive outside of reference to genetic engineering or breeding.
>>1026754
>culture is a result of biological machination but they aren't the same thing
Culture is just a different expression of biological function. It's all the same, and saying it's a biological construct is just a means of differentiation from other specific functions like homeostasis and respiration.
You are implying people are rational and act according to belief. I can reach nihilism through reasoning (flawed or otherwise) and still be afraid of death.
Also life could end in non existence even if there was a god. There could be a god and no meaning, there can be meaning and no god.
>>1019610
Tis not unreasonable for me to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger
-David Hume
>>1027182
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/An_Enquiry_Concerning_the_Principles_of_Morals
>>1020127
The problem with all those who want to "refute" moral relativism is that they think it is a kind of moral objectivism. When they just don't mix feelings with morality, "So you just don't feel bad when you see dead babies?".
It's always
"All is relative, so it's okay if I rape your mom??"
"All is relative, so Hitler did nothing wrong??"
Well, what is to be "okay", what is to be "wrong"? You're just assuming we think in these categories, when in truth we are just telling there is no "ought" fluctuating about in an objective vacuum, that if you remove your will from your experience, there remain no values.
>>1027286
>in truth
What is truth?
anyways
it's just like a category man
>>1027289
I knew someone would reply something like this. Don't know if baiting or not but, well, I think you know what I meant by "in truth", that is the important. If that is unintelligible to you without an "objective" definition of "truth" then, well, you are probably a computer or something.
>>1027330
Oh so you're telling me that the use of the category "true" is ok and sound, but you can't use categories like "right" and "wrong" because reasons?
It's indefensible. Even the statement "there is no truth" is a goddamn truth statement, and so self defeating.
I take no offense to the use of the term, I only point at the term to take hold of your categorical critique from a position of linguistic relevancy.
>>1027354
>Oh so you're telling me that the use of the category "true" is ok and sound, but you can't use categories like "right" and "wrong" because reasons?
It is relative to the context :^)
But seriously, I am not talking about the use of the words "right" and "wrong" by themselves, but the use of "right" and "wrong" in the objectivist way. You can talk about "right" and "wrong" with someone who have similar ethical views, but not with a cannibal savage.
>Even the statement "there is no truth" is a goddamn truth statement
It depends on what one means by "truth". Language is way more than just applied logic.
>>1019878
Tbch life is pretty dreary and I'll probably off myself when I get bored of little pockets of escapism and drugs. Though, you sound like a bit of a nut
>>1027372
>You can talk about "right" and "wrong" with someone who have similar ethical views, but not with a cannibal savage.
Much in the same way I guess that you can talk about higher mathematics with someone who has been versed in the subject, but not with a child or someone with no understanding of it.
That children exist does not mean that the truth expressed in mathematics no longer exists, only that some people do not or cannot know that truth. Truth remains, regardless of whether it is known or not.
>Language is way more than just applied logic.
Granted, then in the logical and proper sense of the word.
>>1027397
I can understand when someone talks about something being mathematically proven to be right, and I don't have a problem with objectivity in the math field.
For me, the difference between the relativist and the objectivist is that the former doesn't call his will "the will of God" or "the objective will".
who here /tribalisticmorality/
