>and then he said morality is a social construct
>>444492
>morality exists without social elements
>rocks and trees can be immoral and moral
wat
It is, they are created so the specific society can function.
For example the Mongols saw nothing immoral about killing masses of innocents, while we do.
>>444492
You're right, morality isn't socially constructed, it's passed down from God after he appears as a burning bush or sends his angels to talk to a man in a cave.
>>444544
>>444506
>>444492
>>444492
It definetly is. It is scientifically observable. Just look at different societies. Or one society in different times.
In middle ages killing a black cat or burning an infidel was totally moral.
In asia eating cats is moral.
etc. etc.
>>444573
epic XD
>>444573
It's always a Christian never one of the other two
>he hasn't read the genealogy
>he still thinks morality is not merely a pyramid of values arranged from most to least important
>he doesn't realize this value pyramid is going to vary based on culture and psychology
>>444591
>he thinks there are only socially-conditioned values
>he thinks we aren't born with an intrinsic grasp of what is right and obviously wrong, such as killing for pleasure, and that the rest isn't just an accretion of unspoken norms and social values about the shit that isn't life-and-death and more contingent on situational and cultural circumstances
>le deviancy disproves an otherwise universal sense of right and wrong maymay
>everything is a social construct
>except the notion that "everything is a social construct', that's Truth with a capital T
>>444492
>replying to obvious troll shit like this
Its like you want /pol/ 2.0
>The inescapable conclusion is that subjectivity, relativity and irrationalism are advocated [by Richard Rorty] not in order to let in all opinions, but precisely so as to exclude the opinions of people who believe in old authorities and objective truths.
>Thus, almost all those who espouse the relativistic 'methods' introduced into the humanities by Foucault, Derrida and Rorty are vehement adherents to a code of political correctness that condemns deviation in absolute and intransigent terms.
>The relativistic theory exists in order to support an absolutist doctrine.
>>444628
Can you refute him?
>>444625
I can't remember but Nietzche actually referenced that for a moment in Greek society pleasure killing was actually seen as a good thing. A more obvious example would be the gladiator battles where pretty the whole society agree'd that killing for fun kicked ass.
What makes Nietzsche based is he doesn't just stop after observing are the rules are made by society but he goes on to explain the mechanics that society uses to construct the rules and the two different mind-sets for constructing morality: master and slave.
He also addresses the natural instincts that are involved in making morality and discusses how the role they play. They do have a part but they are not a very big deal. He also argues that the genetic pool is diverse enough so different groups of people will be predisposed to different values and thus different morals.
If you wanted to explain how morality is universial you would have to account for the massive differnece various societies have. For instance, you would have to explain slavery. You can't just resort to 'mai feels'.
As a matter of fact the only moral system that doesn't resort to humans making shit up on their own is the idea of a Platonic Form of 'Good'. Which requires a God to function.
>>444639
It's not a contradiction to say that social constructions are a social construct. Society is constructed and so are constructions. In fact pointing this out actually makes the arguement stronger. As I said if people didn't make all this crap where did it come from? The only alterntive is going back to Neo-Platoism
>>444625
>he doesn't understand that we don't kill others because we measure the emotional and practical consequences to be greater than the benefits, and that morality is only the term we use to denote the experience
>>444705
Yeah I can. He says the year is 2013 while it's in fact 2015. Maybe he should've asked John Oliver about what year it is.
>>444573
>Humanity has achieved more in the last century that it ever has in its entire history
Is he talking about body counts?
>>444705
>refuting a hurr durr le 2000 year old desert book maymay strawman
>>444718
>beep boop i am internally weighing a cost-benefit analysis of whether or not to rape my daughter beep boop
autism speaks
>>444744
yeah, you just don't do it, because you think it's wrong, right?
Not because you don't want to rape a child.
>>444711
>In its simplest form, the argument runs as follows. Every human culture has some sort of moral code, and these overlap to a considerable extent. There is a common core of shared values such as trustworthiness, friendship, and courage, along with certain prohibitions, such as those against murder or incest. Some version of the golden rule—treat others as you would have them treat you—is also encountered in almost every society. The existence of these universal values is easy to explain: they enable societies to flourish, and their absence would jeopardize a society’s chances of survival.
>The claim that every society must share these basic commitments thus links up with findings in evolutionary ethics. It is also supported, according to some, by the results of the “moral sense test,” a research project conducted by Harvard’s Primate and Cognitive Neuroscience Laboratory. The project is an internet-based study of the moral intuitions of people from all over the world. The responses are sufficiently uniform, according to the laboratory’s director, Mark Hauser, to support the idea that there is a “universally shared moral faculty” common to all human beings and rooted in our evolutionary heritage.
>What appear to be striking differences in moral outlook turn out, on closer examination, to be superficial disagreements masking underlying common values. For example, some nomadic cultures have considered infanticide to be morally acceptable, while in other societies it is viewed as murder. But those carrying out infanticide may be motivated by the knowledge that they lack the resources to support the child. Their action is thus prompted by a concern for the well being of the community, and perhaps, also, a desire that the child be spared avoidable suffering—values that would be recognized and approved by people in other societies where, since additional children would be less of a burden, infanticide is prohibited.
>>444711
>>444757
>
>Take the issue of slavery. Some societies have seen nothing wrong with slavery; others view it is a moral abomination. This would seem to mark a basic and serious disparity in moral perspectives. Yet both parties may subscribe to the principle that “all men are created equal.” Their disagreement may be over whether or not the people being enslaved are fully human. And defenders of slavery in the United States did indeed used to argue that blacks were sub-human and could therefore legitimately be treated like animals rather than as human beings.
BTFO
>>444744
Well let me ask you. The guy doing the raping. Where is he getting his morality? Didn't he just decide that the feelings of the people he is hurting do not matter as much as his own feelings? Didn't he just come up with his own way to weigh feelings?
Or maybe he thinks he won't get caught and the consequence weight is lower?
The rapist KNOWS what he is doing but still chooses to do it.
Now the person who see's his daughter being raped still needs to weigh morality. For instance he might decide to kill the rapist or he might decide it's wrong to kill and he should subdue until the cops come. What-ever he picks man is going to depend on his own ideas about right and wrong.
>>444757
Your post shows a profund lack of understanding about cultures. Or rather the person you are quoting probably never read a history book.
No, not all cultures thought "all men are created equal" that's a very modern idea. The Greeks and Romans did not beleive in equality. Aristotle famously said that some men's only purpose to society is to be a slave. Plato proposed a radical caste system based entirly on the idea that the smarter and stronger (less equal) members of society should get all the rights and those who are not strong or smart should get less rights. Virtually every ancient society believed women were inferior to men.
And no they did not justify their slavery by saying the slaves were animals. They knew they were human and say nothing wrong with enslaving them or to harm them if they tried to escape.
What you mentioned is HISTORICAL REVISIONISM, it's trying to say that the last 20,000 years of human civilization all had Enlightenment values. That's simply not true. Ideas about equality are only about 400 years old.
>>444492
some relativist faggot said this in my class
Morality literally is a social phenomenon though.
>>444798
But all of these cultures would agree a proper human being should not be enslaved. That's what he's saying. Enlightenment values only made society accept an enlargement of that definition
>>444765
>>444767
I'll also add this. The Enlightenment equality values you ignorantly think every society had depend on one thing to work. A God.
No you cannot have Enlightenment value and be an atheist. Why is everyone equal according the Enlightenment? It's not because they have equal nature (they had a rough idea about inheritiability even back than) it's not because they have equal nature (they didn't) it's because they were all made by the same God (usually a Deist God) and thus all had equal souls.
I'll rephrase this, unless you believe in God and souls you have no right to believe everyone is equal.
This is why the entire system was BTFO by Darwin and Nietzsche. There's no soul, everything happens by natural proccesses and we do not have equal nature. Equality is just another false religion now.
>>444821
>But all of these cultures would agree a proper human being should not be enslaved.
No they didn't...you could be a fucking prince and still be enslaved. Look at the story about about how Rome was founded, the early Romans invited their enemies to a feast but it was a trick and they enslaved all of them regardless of if they were a king or peasent (probably an exagerated myth but they point is they thought that enslaving your enemies was an upright thing to do).
We only think there are universal norms in morality because we view all of history through a modernist lens. When you look at what ancient societies thought of themself you see them doing things that are outrageous. Our society might think the Holocaust is a universal act of evil but a few thousand years ago it would be something no would blink an eye at, you could do pretty much anything you wanted to people if they were deemed an enemy.
>tfw people try to bullshit their way into saying their morality is the right one by trying to prove that morality is objective
>tfw they can't even do that
>>444852
Yeah so people were harsher with their enemies, so what, how does that disprove they didn't share a universal regard for the autonomy of the proper members of their own society
The problem with morality is that people (especially philosophy majors / folks in the humanities) like to label "morality" as defined by laws currently in place, or laws put in place thousands of years ago, the old definer's of what is moral and immoral (various religions)
But the truth is morality itself is completely different from these laws.
What was perceived as moral, or immoral change over time depending on the era or region etc.
If you lived in isolation where only your mind is the law, and you did whatever you liked. things would end up changing, eventually perhaps years or so, your version of what is moral or immoral might change to something different than what is commonly perceived as normal morality because you became used to pushing the boundaries of your societies ideology and favoring your own instead.
This doesnt mean anyone would turn into ravenous apes if left without enforced morality, it would just be different slightly from current morality.
Because lets face it, a lot of laws or moral standards are either made to make money, or increase social status, make life easier for some over others etc, and have no real moral bearing in terms of primitive life.
We all start with an inner since of morality, and although selfish, this morality is what I could only describe as true morality, and that is sympathy and sadness. "I'd miss my father if I killed him for his food" "That child is hurt, I should help it, its difficult for me to see it suffer" "I wouldnt harm this person because I would not want to be harmed by them" These are basic forms of morality that are within everyone. It can be conditioned out of people of course, but it inherently exists because as a species it benefits us to avoid hardship or trauma which comes from the negative consequences, and so this basic form of morality is more "true" than the social construct of enforced morality aka laws or religious morality.
>the year is LITERALLY after 1918
>there are still people that don't recognize conscience as a biological mechanism that allowed us to create functional societies and morality as rationalization of said conscience
>>444914
Define god
>>444852
Yes if they were DEEMED AN ENEMY and therefore not a proper person. I'd like to see a society that enslaved people of the same race, community, religion, political ideology, social standing, and gender.
But I don't think such a case exists on a societal level. Maybe an isolated case of an immoral person, but I don't think any society is heartless enough to see no fault in enslaving someone just like them.
>>445105
>I'd like to see a society that enslaved people of the same race, community, religion, political ideology, social standing, and gender.
I can't even see the goalposts anymore.
>>445144
No, the original argument that humans need to dehumanize their enemies to enslave or kill them, regardless of culture, still stands. It's just the other guy was autistic enough to think societies treating their enemies brutally somehow disproves the existence of root universal values. Not to mention the only reason there wasn't half as much moral outrage over the sick shit people did back then was because they didn't have cameras and social media to broadcast injustices to the world.
>>445168
>need to dehumanize
Mirror neurons son.
I don't like suffering.
When I perceive others I relate with to suffer, I suffer.
I make up things to keep myself from relating.
We actually relate with almost all things while we are infants, even non-living things such as rocks. This is non-adaptive, so we grow out of it. Learn to discriminate. Empathizing with the enemy is generally not adaptive.
Morality has no adaptive value onto itself. Categorical distinctions in ethics are used to justify harming others, as well as helping.
Ultimately, I have to admit I don't abstain from killing because I think there is an absolute moral imperative. I just don't want to kill as much as I want to be accepted by others and, looking into the mirror, myself. What society deems acceptable and what I've been shaped to deem acceptable are constructions, far from universal. But they were adaptive, at least in the context they developed.
>>444765
>>444765
The american slave trade was justified the same way the ancient greeks justified it. ie they (the greeks or Americans) where tge superior race or breed of humans so it wouldn't be "inhumane" to enslave what they saw as troglodytes (cave dwellers) and inferior and they would never have slaves from their race or creed. Where as the Romans believed all people where equal and had no qualms enslaving fellow romans. Two different "avarage" social moralities with similar end results
T. Marcus Sidonious falx
>>444729
Defend where a document assembled out of a wide array of oral tradition has any place in the government of a modern nation.
>>445300
the original quote wasn't even talking about government what are you blithering about
>he doesn't know that it's all just a survival mechanism
>HAHAOHWOW
The problem with so many discussions of morality is that many hinge on metaphysics. Whether or not abortion is moral depends on whether or not we consider fetuses persons. Whether or not we should treat everyone as equal rests on a debate over whether they are in fact equal.
However these debates really ought to focus on consequences. Does abortion results in good or bad consequences? Does equal treatment result in good or bad consequences? There is so much a greater degree of agreement when it comes to what occurrences are simply good or bad compared to what defines a person.
maybe morality is a side effect of compassion and love for your fellow human
>>445300
>Defend where a document assembled out of a wide array of oral tradition has any place in the government of a modern nation.
The Common Law.
>>444492
faith occurs by lack of praxis of the new doctrine you are looking at. faith occurs when you let your mind run, since you learn the new doctrine through books or discourses, and think that it is necessary and sufficient. faith happens because you never reflected on anything and you are scared to leave hedonism, even though you want to leave it.
faith happens when you are nihilist.
There are only two faiths, once you refuse empiricism that is to say, once you dwell in faith:
-the faith in the human rules [laws and sciences] [through immanence]
-the faith in the deities [through transcendence]
the point is to depart from the faith, which strong men do and manage, but too many believe that they are strong enough to live faithless and end up depressed leading the way to suicide.
>>445957
What is compassion and love a side effect of then?
4/10 made me reply.
>>446004
understanding maybe? I don't know, I haven't thought about it long enough
Morality is arbitrary, it doesn't matter what moral values people have as long as they have something to guide them. Society and especially parents have to instill them in their children, regardless of what they are.
>>444573
>tfw ironic 4chin niggers are going to think he's wrong
>>444588
No duh, Neil is from the United States, most likely any religious debate will be with a Christian there.
>>444573
The average crazed bronze age mystic has a far better understanding of humanity that your average fedora tipping scientist
>>446231
Pic unrelated? Diogenes was an atheist
>>444573
>Humanity has achieved more in the last century that it ever has in its entire history
That's bullshit, but I agree with the rest.
>>446250
What does that have to do with anything?
>>446256
It's ironic for one.
>>446250
>Diogenes was an atheist
no he wasn't.
>>444573
Citation needed
Pretty sure he didn't say that. That's some Dawkins-tier shit.
Tyson doesn't give as much of a fuck about religion
>>444588
it's because there is a war on christianity and on christmass.
>>445267
>greeks
>they would never have slaves from their race or creed
are you serious?
>>444897
>it's 2015
>there are people dedicated to interpreting the world instead of trying to change it
>>445105
> I'd like to see a society that enslaved people of the same race, community, religion, political ideology, social standing, and gender
Debt slavery was common in ancient world, as were free men selling their children into slavery. You could basically enslave your neighbor if he would fail to repay a debt to you, and then sell him overboard if you wish so. And both parties saw it as just and morally right thing to do.
>>445105
dude, you need to reassess your argument, you 're not making any sense. Your leaps of logic are bordering elementary school.
>>444864
that wasn't the argument. The argument was about viewing slaves as less than humans.
>>444719
underrated kek
>>444588
Every religion the same as every other religion. Only with different hats
>>444492
No, morality is not a social construct, its a biological one. There are many tangents responsible for its existence.
Like testosterone in men. If a man has more testosterone, it is more likely that they will have right wing ideology. But also be more aggressive, more criminal, think of foreign military intervention in a more positive light etc.
and testosterone is but a small tangent. There are many like it that determine how we think. IQ, exercise, disease like Alzheimer, schizophrenia. Deficiencies in food, minerals, stomach flora (http://www.neuroscientificallychallenged.com/blog/microbes-and-the-mind), parasites like the cat thing in feces. Leaded gasoline also made people more violent and criminal because it was a neuro toxin.
Behavior stems from a biological machine base. Is is not as fluid as you imagine and there are many biological limiters put in place to govern it. Some of them have huge impact, some of them lower, some of them are unknown. One of the biggest things on human thinking is testosterone. It decreased because of obesity, decreasing the manliness in men. That largely explains why so many men now are so pussified.
>>444628
racist
>>446309
When a quote contains the word "unironic", you know its made up.
>>446231
Fucking this.
>>447214
Yeah, this is why releasing fellow Athenians from slavery was the most important thing Solon did. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seisachtheia .
>>447077
Which supports the argument that no one would enslave someone who they believed was a proper human being, namely their own countrymen.
>>447572
>no one would enslave someone who they believed was a proper human being, namely their own countrymen
Why do you keep coming back with this shit? Debt slavery was a thing in Ancient Mesopotamia, Greece, Rome, Israel and pretty much most of the ancient cultures we are aware of. Selling your children into slavery to your fellow countrymen was a thing, hell, selling yourself into slavery in time of famine was the only way to survive for many. So no, rejection of slavery in some form isn't some universal moral rule.
>>447595
>debt slavery disproves morality
Weak shit mane
Your arguments are incoherent. The original argument was obvious differences in attitudes/practices can be explained as just being different expressions of the same root value.
Romans regarded only the full blooded roman as the true citizen and freeman. A Roman selling himself into debt slavery doesn't disprove this any more than the justice system trying and convicting a black man disproves the the ideals of egalitarianism of society at large.
Why not just accept that on the whole humans have a pretty basic and universal send of right and wrong instead of acting like different cultures are alien species or something
>>447743
> Romans regarded only the full blooded roman as the true citizen and freeman
No? From the very beginning Romans gave away citizen rights to entire communities and clans, and integration of conquered elites into Roman State was the key to its success. Freed slaves, regardless of origin, automatically became citizens, although with reduced rights, and their children had full citizen rights as born to free man.
>differences in attitudes/practices can be explained as just being different expressions of the same root value.
>Why not just accept that on the whole humans have a pretty basic and universal send of right and wrong instead of acting like different cultures are alien species or something
So Romans/Greeks accepting slavery as the basic principle of economical and social life had the same root values as the modern societies? You tried to move the goalpost by saying they accepted slavery only in regard to foreigners, but as I've showed, it's a bullshit. Like, literally, average Roman thought it's acceptable to sell your children in slavery in time of need or to enslave your neighbor who owes you monies. Average ancient Middle Easterner thought it's pretty much acceptable to sell himself into slavery rather than to die of hunger - and from the other side - it's pretty acceptable to enslave your needy fellow countrymen.
>>447837
If that countryman fucked up or needs to do what he has to do, yes it was acceptable to sell himself into slavery. But it's not like legionaires were enslaving free Romans who were on their shit wily nilly. Face it, every culture has had an idea of what it means to be true human being, and drew their moralities around that definition. The universal recognition of your intrinsic value as a human being doesn't just randomly inoculate you from the consequences of your actions. You're literally trying to tell me because some people fucked their lives up that society never believed they never had any worth in the first place. Yeah, no
>>447884
> yes it was acceptable to sell himself into slavery
So there was nothing morally wrong about buying someone how sells himself, and now it's considered morally wrong to buy people, so it looks like quite basic moral principle has changed.
> every culture has had an idea of what it means to be true human being, and drew their moralities around that definition
Yes, but these ideas are quite different.
> The universal recognition of your intrinsic value as a human being doesn't just randomly inoculate you from the consequences of your actions
> You're literally trying to tell me because some people fucked their lives up that society never believed they never had any worth in the first place.
So you saying this is an exception caused by a very bad circumstances. But look at debt slavery not from POV of someone who "fucked their lives up" or "faced with consequences of his actions", but from POV of the buyer. The buyer has no urgency, he didn't fuck anything up, he's pretty successful man. In other words, he has no need to abandon some basic principle of morale, he can recognize the intrinsic value as a human being without loosing anything, he can support his fellow countryman without enslaving him. Yet he fails to do so, and society is totally ok with that. And this is only one example, look at human sacrifices, genocides, serfdom, wars, common practice of infanticide, etc. Fucking mongols, m8. In the end, I can't see how "intrinsic value of a human being" is some kind of universal moral value and not quite recent western invention.
>>447959
I don't think anyone can deny the fact all ancient civilizations believed in the worth of the human being, however that worth might diminish or disappear given particular circumstances. This is a basic moral principle. War doesn't disprove it. Genocide doesn't either. Roman society must have made it easy to rationalize away the buying of your countryman by just branding the debtor as less than human, or just not responsible enough as a Roman freeman to continue being one.
>being this stupid
>>448067
Well I agree, they did believe in the worth of free male members of their society. Yet the very idea of "servi res sunt" is quite alien to us and can hardly be reconciled with modern views, regardless of rationalizations Romans came up with.
>>444718
His hat looks like Tentacruel
>>444492
immorality is haram
They are must know shame as their mom.
>>444827
;^)
>>444492
Tell me why killing a random person is bad then. Go ahead, prove why human life has any value to it at all with undeniable evidence that does not result from your emotional weaknesses of "buh muh feelings".
Morality is just a chemical construct of the mind, like all things. It is not an absolute, and its definition changes to fit the culture of the civilization it was spawned in. Nothing makes a man wrong or right.
>>450666
*By of the mind, I mean that it's a part of our brains.
>>450666
Suffering is objectively observable. Suffering is undesirable a priori, that's what it means. Ergo, inflicting suffering on another living being is bad.
>Morality is just a chemical construct of the mind, like all things. It is not an absolute, and its definition changes to fit the culture of the civilization it was spawned in. Nothing makes a man wrong or right.
>discarding everything that is subjective
>except your own subjectively conditioned worldview
Fuck off with this weak shit. Your babby's first relativism worldview is just a chemical construct of your mind too, so who gives a shit what you say.
>>450666
oooooo we've got a biological/chemical reductionist here.
Nothing makes a man wrong or right? Well, maybe nothing rooted in biological fact makes someone wrong or right, but morally right/wrong are not meaningless or pointless distinctions. Even if you're a hard determinist, I doubt if someone held a gun up to your head you'd be all "WELL, YOU KNOW, MIGHT MAKES RIGHT." Not every facet of existence can be rationalized. Much of it is absurd or irrational. If you could grasp that, you would probably get laid a lot more often.
You've provided a weak response to abstract cognitive morality and have not even addressed the ethics of care. There is no such thing as "undeniable evidence" for anything, but there is such a thing as sufficient evidence. Whether the value of human life is "socially constructed" or can be reduced to chemical reactions, neither makes it any less real.
Morality is a chemical construct of the mind? How can you even proof that "with undeniable evidence"? Do you have a method of receiving discrete sensory data? Because no other known being in the universe gives the appearance of the ability to do so. Everything is shaped by your biology and everything is shaped by language and everything is shaped by economic reality, etc. You can argue for the absolute or supreme nature of any of them, but that doesn't do you much good. You can claim that altruism is an evolved biological advantage, but you can't prove that the correlation between moral and biological development translates into proof of causation.
>>450764
>objectively observable
Go read Hume you fucking idiot.
>>450787
>It's written into our genes so my way is right
>stop thinking about it
>>450764
I don't see the evidence that suffering is bad. In fact, humanity is the direct product of 3 to 4 billion years of suffering and struggle, through environmental stressors affecting changes on organisms throughout time. Do you think humanity would continue to progress with true peace, with no suffering? It is in the struggle that we grow stronger and progress. Your assumption that suffering is undesirable is subjective.
You make an assumption in your evidence, that suffering is undesirable and you use the word 'bad', one of the most subjective of all human terms besides the idea of 'good'. The mere fact that others have perspectives differing from yours is all the proof that is necessary to show that it is subjective. The relationship between interactions of atoms is observable and the foundation of those relationships between elements will not change whether or not humanity observes them. (inb4 muh quantum mechanics) You can dispute all you want that H2O is not a polar molecule, but that doesn't make it not true. Undesirability changes based on culture, on what society at the that time considers the 'norm'. Throughout time what is considered undesirable has changed based on human perspective. It was once considered the norm for a human being to be bought and sold. It is now considered undesirable. A person who grows up in a developed nation may see stealing as an undesirable action, whereas an orphan in a underdeveloped nation may see stealing as the only means to survival. Very simple examples, that very clearly show that what is undesirable, what is 'bad', is highly subjective.
Essentially if playing semantics can change the definition of an idea, than it is not objective. Objectivity stems from observable concepts that are not dependent on humanity's perspective. Undesirability, suffering, bad and good are without a doubt, dependent on perspective.
TL;DR This anon is up on his soap box.
>>450828
>i'm a mental midget who thinks morality is about swinging your dick around because i cant mature past seeing the other as my enemy
too bad so sad
>>450827
Hume conceded all morality still is ultimately derived from an actually felt sentiment or intuition, is the fact suffering is experienced subjectively mean it does not exist? what does that say about your thoughts, then, you fucking idiot?
>>450891
>I don't see the evidence that suffering is bad. In fact, humanity is the direct product of 3 to 4 billion years of suffering and struggle, through environmental stressors affecting changes on organisms throughout time. Do you think humanity would continue to progress with true peace, with no suffering? It is in the struggle that we grow stronger and progress. Your assumption that suffering is undesirable is subjective.
>I don't think suffering is bad
>because muh evolution
What a pampered, coddled little faggot you are. And that absolutist bullshit spiel. The modality of a truth does not disprove truth, any more than the modality of the color disproves the idea of light. Disgusting. Go back to whatever Marxist cat lady lounge you crawled out of.
>>450913
>is the fact suffering is experienced subjectively mean it does not exist? what does that say about your thoughts, then, you fucking idiot?
It says that I can tell the difference between subjective and objective.
I made no comment on ontologically grounding universal moralities. But since I must: the only ontological ground for a universal morality is a universally self-inspecting ontological subject, a corporate subjectivity that acts as a subjectivity in an ontological sense.
Your, or Hume's ontology is not such, and the union or common ground of all individually derived ontological moralities is not equivalent to a corporate ontological reflection.
Also "Buddha's" ontological studies, or Heidegger's for that matter, indicate that while suffering may exist for some, it is not a constant, and moreover the ending of suffering doesn't require morality, because suffering is the result of ontological orientations not actions in the social world.
Go fuck yourself to sleep.
>>444492
>He believes that there is such a thing as universal morality
>He believes the world cares about him
>>450764
>Your babby's first relativism worldview is just a chemical construct of your mind too, so who gives a shit what you say.
But that's the point anon, there is no reason to care. Another person's suffering is another person's problem I couldn't give a shit about. All that matters is my ascension in standing by accumulating wealth and power. Eggs that have to get cracked and scrambled on my way up will, because there is no point to care about them to begin with. Everything has the same sending, so I will pursue the most pleasurable existence I can, whatever the cost to the things around me.
>>450787
If somebody held a gun to my head, I'd be lying and telling the same subjective bullshit about something being "bad" that is preached to us all in the west. That wouldn't make it true, and it wouldn't mean that I would actually believe any of the bullshit I was spouting.
>>450995
you're maliciously autistic.
>>450913
That doesn't invalidate anything I said.
>>451005
No, I just simply overcome the bullshit I was raised on when I need to for maximum success or pleasure.
>>451011
your idea of morality is some shit you'd see a final fantasy character spout. "hurr durr fuck you dad killing for pleasure isn't wrong hurr durr" go back to /v/
>>451033
I have opinions on what's right, and you probably do, too. Look up what the word objective means before you reply.
>>450941
I'm assuming that's all you read, and decided to cherry pick that for your disappointingly unimaginative ad hominem reply.
You state subjective opinions as if they are fact. Did you get that from your philosophy professor at college, that a modality of a truth does not disprove a truth? Do you always take the first thing you are told as the truth?
Your very idea of truth strikes me as naive. The idea of truth is in itself subjective, because what is considered to be 'true' also changes based on an individual's perspective.
Your simplistic conclusions are incorrect, I do not think suffering is bad because of evolution. Suffering is not inherently 'good' or 'bad' because the very concepts are made up by humanity. Suffering is a label given to an experience that humans have in common. Whether that is 'good' or 'bad' is dependent on who is answering the question. The very definition of subjective.
It may be beyond your ability, but you did not answer my question in regard to suffering. Do you think humanity would continue to progress without suffering, without struggle? My subjective opinion is that is would not. What is your subjective opinion on the matter? Can you actually back it up with reason? Without struggle and strain there is no reason to seek something better, humanity would stagnate. I personally find Marxism to be the opposite of what humanity should seek. Inequality breeds discontent, and it is through that discontent that much of humanity has been motivated. Great things have been occurred in the name of achieving equilibrium, but equilibrium will never be reached.
>>444496
Who says they cant be?
>>447084
(citation needed)
>Francis Schaeffer
