Moral relativism is cancer on our society.
>>68160922
tru
Morality is largely subjective and no amount of butthurt bitching will change that.
>>68162405
>raping babies is considered good in some cultures
>>68162528
Yeah you know how you disagree with that and they think it's fine? That itself makes morality subjective. I seriously don't understand how people pass the age of 16 without fully grasping that morality is almost entirely derived from your specific culture. There is no right and wrong, there is only us and them.
>>68162528
go ahead and offer an objective proof of why raping babies is morally wrong, and I'll side with you.
Look, there's nothing wrong with admitting that your morality is subjective. Just because something is subjective doesn't mean we need to abandon it. A subjective view can be backed up by lots of valid reasoning -- it simply can't rest on objective axioms.
>>68162876
<<<the point
<<<your head
no cultures consider raping babies good.
>>68163108
why is raping babies morally acceptable.
>>68162876
couldn't be more wrong.
>>68163108
>harm is subjective
you're retarded
>>68163443
>no cultures consider raping babies good.
There are a few where raping outgroup babies is not really frowned upon or discouraged. Africa and Asia are fucked up. Even if you were correct, I said largely. I've specified that it's not entirely subjective, but it is largely subjective.
>>68163513
Explain your reasoning fuckstick.
>morals
>objective
It's really just amateur philosophy.
Almost no morality is subjective.
However, that doesn't mean that "whatever I believe is right because I say so."
>>68163443
burden of proof, bucko
>no cultures consider raping babies good.
Aborigines are pretty close
>>68163513
nice argument
>>68164068
If one single thing is morally objective then moral subjectivity wholly is wrong.
>>68163443
>no cultures consider raping babies good.
Aren't there some African cultures that do this to get rid of AIDS or something?
>>68160922
true
>>68160922
You're right.
>>68164323
Yeah if you're a simple brained dickhole. Morality ranges from the morality of stabbing toddlers to whether it's cool to fuck before you get married.
>>68164550
If one thing is morally objective then a thing to set the morality is required.
>>68164362
no they fuck goats.
morals are not literally objective but at some point a society does need to stand up for its morals or it will just be overrun by other societies that don't have such a relativist view
>>68164781
Killing babies is widely seen as wrong because your instincts tell you it is. We're upright walking tribal wild apes, any higher feelings of right and wrong you have are all in your head.
I will give 10 bitcoins to the first person ITT to prove any moral statement objectively true.
>>68164864
I thought they did both?
>>68164978
ur a cunt
moral relativism is not an excuse to abandon morals
>>68160922
Determinism is cancer on our entire species
>>68164973
Was the instinct not set?
>>68165134
What do you mean set?
Morality can be made effectively objective within a community. But at the end of the day it is objective.
You should read about the kinds of things Captain Cook encountered when he interacted with those tribes.
Infanticide as a means of birth control and cannibalism.
>>68164978
I fucked ur mum
>>68165077
Seems to be for these fedoras here
The burden of right and wrong is too heavy for their childish hedonistic shoulders
They will never get around to creating any "subjective morality". It's not fun enough
>>68165279
I mean set by God and the reason there is any discernment between what is morally right and morally wrong.
>>68163443
>no cultures consider raping babies good.
Some Africans believe that it gets rid of AIDS.
>>68165460
>someone says 2+2=5
>therefore it is not wrong
>>68165303
>Morality can be made effectively objective within a community.
That sentence directly contradicts itself.
>>68165389
No you fuck it's a instinctive behavior because if you thought killing babies was fine you'd end up killing your own genetic line and sabotaging everything that your DNA created.
>>68165387
Just because I accept subjective morality doesn't mean I don't have morals you retard.
>>68164973
Whether something is right or wrong isn't decided by feelings. It is decided by reason.
Killing a baby could be considered wrong for a variety of reasons. Taking away autonomy, destroying the innocent, harming one's own species, causing harm to the family of the baby, preventing the baby from finding any happiness.
If you value happiness, autonomy, protecting the weak, or the survival of one's species, killing a baby for the sake of killing a baby is wrong. Values are subjective, but morality, and the principles behind it, is not.
>>68165601
we were talking about raping babies. you changed it to killing. Humans have the instinct because it was set by God. A lot of animals do not and eat their young. Why is there instinct against raping babies? Seems like that's not instinct, just something we all know for some reason ie. objective law.
>>68165601
It doesn't matter what you believe is right or wrong nigger
All someone else has to do to shut you down is have a different opinion
>>68165601
See? The fact that you give reason to an instinctive behavior shows that morality is objective. You value the survival of your species so therefore killing a baby for the sake of it is wrong. Unless you add different factors, then killing the baby is still wrong.
ideals
>>68165564
Why do lebbitors make dumb posts like this?
all philosophy is a fabrication
>>68165990
If some nigger in Africa sincerely though raping a baby for pleasure was morally acceptable behavior that doesn't mean all of morality is subjective it means he incorrectly believes that what he is doing is acceptable. Just like if the same nigger sincerely believed 2+2=5. Sincere belief does not make it anymore correct.
Moral relativism leads to pic related.
>>68165627
>Whether something is right or wrong isn't decided by feelings. It is decided by reason.
>Values are subjective, but morality, and the principles behind it, is not.
If values are subjective then what is right or wrong is obviously decided by feelings.
reminder that the only real difference between right wing moralists and the morality-legislating, finger-wagging, speech-stifling retards in the "progressive" left is which brand of morals you want to shove down everyone's throats
anything other than amoral conservative pragmatism will be the death of the white race.
>>68166318
no it leads to pic related
>people arguing over morals, relativism, objective, and subjective without even elucidating their terms of use
All of you need to shut up and stop playing games.
>>68162528
>>raping babies is considered good in some cultures
Raping them after they leave the womb is somehow deplorable and dismember them and killing them inside the womb is alright.
Why is everything especially horrible when a man gets off on it? If abortion doctors had erections while dismembered feti somehow it would be less acceptable.
Randians are at stage 2.
>>68166384
Feelings are evolutionary mechanisms, developed in conjunction with objective reality
The whole objective/subjective dichotomy is post-1700s bullshit
>>68165627
You literally just described a subjective perspective.
>>68165845
This is an evolutionary behavior, it is not magic. No animals will eat their young unless there are desperate circumstances that jeopardize survival of the parents.There are some species that maybe the weak will be eaten, but generally killing one's own young is avoided across species.The instinct that tells you not to hurt, kill or rape babies is the same instinct. Your brain makes you feel negative emotions when you see babies being severely harmed and it's not learned.
>>68165846
Welcome to life you dumbass.
>>68165911
I said it's MOSTLY subjective.
>>68166767
>Feelings are evolutionary mechanisms, developed in conjunction with objective reality
But those feeling are learned. We learn how we feel about things from our parents, teachers, peers, ...
>>68166896
>I said it's MOSTLY subjective.
How in God's name did you quantify this child?
>>68166485
Both of those built a cult of personality around themselves. That's the exact opposite of what atheism is supposed to be.
Not to mention that both also enforced marxist/communist dogma, which is very much a religion.
>>68166767
As long as two people can have differing feelings about the same objective fact, the dichotomy is not just valuable but absolutely necessary to make.
>>68162405
So...what now...you might be right, but it also brings you into a position where you literally, never, ever can say that a culture is bullshit because they allow rape/beheadings/etc. because all that the adherents of that culture have to say is
>muh subjective morality
you're relativising your own culture, allowing barbaric cultures to exist whilst they shouldn't.
>>68167047
>implying you cannot feel anger, shame, happiness, love without being told to
are you stupid?
>>68167047
We learn which things we feel about. We don't learn what we can or cannot feel, and in what particular way
Assuming one undergoes a typical healthy post-Agricultural revolution development they will feel according to what and how their blood feels
>>68160922
Relativism in general is a cancer on society
>>68167143
Then one is not grasping the same fact as objectively as the other. Don't be stuck in the same mindset that is reaching levels of absurdity currently in the West
>>68167054
There are some morals that are essentially universal, most of them aren't. This is very simple, get your shit together.
>>68167047
>there are people alive who are this fucking ignorant about how their own mind works
>there are people who believe in a blank slate
Jesus christ man do you need assistance in daily life?
>>68164978
still waiting. No one even wants to try?
>>68164978
Jerking off is okay go try it. It feels great bro.
>>68164170
leaf spotted. you have to go back. cya in 8 hours.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dIEemKcy-4E
>>68167874
No one can because morality is subjective by nature. If you think morality is objective I instantly assume you're an idiot.
>>68160922
“The moment one begins thinking about morality in terms of well-being, it becomes remarkably easy to discern a moral hierarchy across human societies.”
I love Moral Landscape because it provides the exact framework we need to fight relativism. Some cultures are garbage and here's why we can say that: The Book.
>>68167603
Who can decide what is the more objective interpretation of reality?
>>68167631
Cross-cultural ("universal") is not the same as objective child
Each race is grasping a chunk of objective reality according to their genetic capability, which has solidified from exposure to their environment
The cumulation of such cultural perspectives being the sum of human nature
Thankfully our race's blood runs in a more advanced way, particular from the others
>>68167631
>There are some morals that are essentially universal
which?
>>68168222
Define 'well-being'
>>68166485
>>68168059
If morality is subjective then killing a baby can be both right and wrong depending on who says it. Something can't be both wrong and right at the same time.
>>68168343
Don't kill your babies, don't behead your mom, don't hurt your loved ones, some basic ingrained ideas of fairness. It really doesn't extend much further than that if at all.
>>68168426
Yeah no shit, your point?
>>68168343
>[U]niversal morality can be defined with reference to the negative end of the spectrum of conscious experience … [Imagine] a state of the universe in which everyone suffers as much as he or she (or it) possibly can. If you think we cannot say this would be “bad,” then I don’t know what you could mean by the word “bad” (and I don’t think you know what you could mean by it either). Once we conceive of “the worst possible misery for everyone,” then we can talk about taking incremental steps toward this abyss … I am saying that a universe in which all conscious beings suffer the worst possible misery is worse than a universe in which they experience well-being. This is all we need to talk about “moral truth” in the context of science. Once we admit that the extremes of absolute misery and absolute flourishing … are different and dependent on facts about the universe, then we have admitted that there are right and wrong answers to questions of morality.
>No value/disvalue (good/bad) exists in a world permanently devoid of conscious creatures.
>Therefore, All value/disvalue that exists in the world is value/disvalue to (good/bad for) conscious creatures.
>A state S of the world in which every conscious creature is maximally miserable is bad.
>Therefore, A state T of the world that replaces at least some of the misery in S with the experience of well-being is better than S.
>Therefore, Increases/decreases in the well-being of conscious creatures fully determine which states of the world are morally better/worse.
>Facts about the natural world, science’s domain of inquiry, fully determine increases/decreases in the well-being of conscious creatures.
>Therefore, Facts about the natural world, science’s domain of inquiry, fully determine which states of the world are morally better/worse.
>>68168246
It is absurd to assume all the white race's technological and scientific developments have happened in absence of their philosophical and moral development
Once cannot (and has not been) be removed from the other, except by intention
I would use that as a margin of separation
>>68168499
Is harming people unfair?
>>68168713
Hurting your loved ones for no reason is pretty universally seen as unfair. It is a grey area anywhere beyond that.
>>68168426
>Something can't be both wrong and right at the same time.
Only if right and wrong are objective properties of certain actions.
You can't prove that by simply claiming that it is true.
>>68168549
If morality is subjective then you are saying that things can be both right and wrong at the same time. If someone said stealing for survival is right and another said it is wrong they can't both be correct. Those two things are mutually exclusive.
>>68168897
They can both be correct, that's what subjective means you fucking retard. I am genuinely amazed that people can't wrap their heads around this.
>>68160922
Morals are cancer in our society. it's because it would be "immoral" that we have to care for the disabled, it's because it would be "immoral" that science must be held back it's because it would be "immoral" that refugees can flood our nations,
>>68167317
>>68167631
Of course you can feel emotions without being told how to feel.
If someone takes your dinner you are angry
If you lose your favorite tool you feel sad.
If you break group rules you feel ashamed
It you see someone you are attracted to you feel love.
I'm not talking about feelings in these base scenarios. I'm talking about how you feel about things like baby rape. I don't know how I'd feel if I saw a baby raped actually but I know some places it happens and nothing happens.
In cases where people like to sit around and judge the actions of others and make up ways to feel about things that don't necessarily involve them we have the feeling that constitute morality and those feeling are completely learned.
>>68168629
Two white people, even neighbours, can just as easily disagree with one another as John Smith and some nigger from the darkest depths of the Congo.
Of these two white people, who has the more objective interpretation of reality?
>>68168587
>If you think we cannot say this would be “bad,” then I don’t know what you could mean by the word “bad”
shoddy argument. This implies equivalence between "(morally) bad" and "situations that a 'normal' human being would avoid."
It's basically a fancier way of stating: "YOU DON'T THINK THAT SUFFERING IS MORALLY BAD? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?"
>>68169104
You have instincts anon. Instincts are emotional responses to specific stimuli that you are born with. If you care about someone and see them hurt, you will get negative feelings. No one has to tell you to feel bad, you just will.
>>68163443
i have just the meme
>>68164978
by claiming that morality is subjective implies that "there is no objective truth". that is a paradox, as "no objective truth" is in itself an objective truth. therefore for subjectivity to exist there must be objective truth. btfo give me 10 bitcoins
>>68169376
Lol get back to your philosophy 102 homework.
>>68168999
Well if they are describing the same circumstance, they cannot. How can something be both true and untrue at the same time, describing the same circumstance?
>>68168999
Also your response is basically,
>ARE YOU KIDDING ME?
>>68164978
Op is a Faggot
>>68169376
>claiming that morality is subjective implies that "there is no objective truth"
How does that follow? It only implies that there is no objective moral truth.
That claim does not attempt to be an objective moral truth.
>>68169524
Because it's two perspectives.You fundamentally misunderstand what subjective even means you hopeless fuck.
>>68169524
what is schrodinger's cat?
>>68169119
I'm talking about morality at a racial level.
If you want to differentiate individual white people in their morality. Look at how well individuals of particular white ethnicities fit their deductions of right and wrong
Their cultures are a product of their blood struggling for near millennia to survive. Their morals are a product of their biological evolution in a concrete objective (And harsh) reality
>>68169783
Then the claim is false, meaning that objective truth does exist.
Also the a priori bullshit is literal cancer, please die.
>>68169173
Do you think that the word bad would at least apply to every conscious creature suffering as much as possible? The moral part comes with how those people make choices to crawl out of that hole of suffering.
Harris' point is that people/cultures that are less able to traverse to high points on the moral landscape are objectively less moral.
It's a book length discussion, not exactly fit to consume in parts, but i hope that clears up some
>>68170034
a thought experiment only applicable to quantum physics
>>68169936
If two people observed an apple falling and one of them said it fell and the other said it didn't, one person would be wrong. Them having different perspectives doesn't change one of them being wrong. If one agrees that falling means heading towards the earth then the apple fell. People agree what falling means, so therefore that apple is falling. People agree that fairness is a value, so therefore being fair is something people can agree is moral.
Likewise two people observing the same moral predicament and disagreeing would follow a similar principle. One would have to be wrong.
>>68170034
Not applicable because we can observe behaviors.
>>68170240
That makes literally no sense. I obviously accept that objective truth exists.
One objective truth is that objective moral truth does not exist.
>>68160922
You mean Marxism, which seeks to use such false beliefs in order to undermine existing traditions.
>>68170423
>Do you think that the word bad would at least apply to every conscious creature suffering as much as possible?
Not in an objective sense, no. The essence of this argument is: "well, everyone suffering seems pretty undesirable, so let's call that 'bad'." It's irreducibly arbitrary.
>>68170613
You are missing the point. The issue is not about one person being right and the other person being wrong. It's about our fundamental inability to select criteria for judging who is right and who is wrong.
>>68170613
I swear to god you're fucking retarded dude.
>>68171040
>our fundamental inability to select criteria for judging who is right and who is wrong
Why do you keep assuming everyone else is autistic?
>>68170903
>one objective truth is that objective moral truth does not exist
[citation needed]
>>68170613
That's because an apple is a real thing, but fairness is just something humans made up to make survival easier. Like a dream it does not exist in the real world, but only in our minds.
>>68170981
THEY ARE PART OF PROBLEM! WE MUST EXTERMINATE!
God damn, I am eating some good popcorn chicken I got from my local Popeye's. I wish they had more Popeye's in Los Angeles... :(
>murder is bad
>but murdering jews is good
well /pol/?
>>68171366
murder != lawful execution
>>68171198
>the burden of proof is on those who claim something does not exist
I am of course willing to look at any evidence that points to the opposite, but I have yet to see any.
And as long as that is the case I have no more reason to believe in objective moral truth than I have to believe in you being Barack Obama.
>>68169376
not really. I do not see "there is no objective truth" as truth -- I take it on faith. I freely admit that my most central beliefs are grounded in faith, not reason. I encourage others to do the same.
>>68171258
Wanna know what else exists in our minds only? Pain. Does that mean it isn't real? No.
You are essentially arguing that concepts aren't real.
>>68171172
Then refute me faggot. If I am a retard, then you are a double retard.
>>68171040
Suffering is a pretty good criteria for morality. It is something everyone barring the defected feel and harm can be estimated. Not perfectly, but we can estimate harm pretty well.
>>68171786
To better elaborate on my first point, everything exists in our minds. What would exist if we didn't have our minds? Our brain takes the outside world and turns it into useful information.
>>68160922
YOU'RE A FUCKING RETARD
YOU'RE ALL RETARDED SHIT
THERE IS NO OBJECTIVISM
ATTEMPTS AT OBJECTIVISM SUCH AS MORAL OR CULTURAL OBJECTIVISM ARE THE PHILOSOPHICAL UNDERPINNINGS OF GLOBALISM AND UNIVERSALISM
AS IF ALL HUMANITY CAN BE JUDGED BY THE SAME METRICS
MORAL/CULTURAL OBJECTIVISM IS THE CAPITALIST/BOURGEOIS VERSION OF LEFTIST UNIVERSALISM BECAUSE THEY BOTH SEEK TO CATEGORIZE ALL CULTURES INTO ONE UNIVERSAL NET
>>68172293
You can still be utilitarian and disagree with globalism. Globalism is a means to undermine the power individuals have by making them replaceable. This would create a large amount of harm, larger than any benefit of globalism. Therefore globalism shouldn't be supported by a utilitarian metric.
>>68171786
But even pain, which is certainly one or two layers of abstraction closer to reality than "fairness", is subjective. At least with pain you have certain receptors that cause a certain feeling when they are stimulated. Fairness has nothing of the sort, so it is even more subjective than pain.
And that it is subjective is all I'm arguing.
>>68172671
Fairness is certainly less observable than pain, but that doesn't imply subjectivity. Good morality is decided by reasons. The best reasons are the ones that have the strongest arguments.
Pain should be the metric for morality though because it is closer to objectivity than fairness.
>>68160922
Well, you're onto something. That's more than 99% of /pol/ can say.
>>68172522
NIGGA WHAT DOES ANY OF THAT HAVE TO DO WITH UTILITARIANISM?
UTILITARIANISM IS FUCKING GAY ANYWAY
READ ANY NEW SCIENTIFIC ATTEMPT AT UNDERSTANDING SOCIETY
http://www.necsi.edu/projects/yaneer/Civilization.html
THIS IS UNADULTERATED UTILITARIANISM
ITS LIKE A "HARD SCIENCE" VERSION OF SOCIOLOGY
AND IT SUCKS
THIS IS WHAT ADORNO TALKED ABOUT WHEN HE SAW THE RISE OF "SCIENTISM" REPLACING FAITH
AT SOME POINT UTILITARIANISM CROSSES OVER TO TOTALITARIANISM
>>68173063
Pain is worthless as a metric for morality.
>Someone spits in your face: You feel no physical pain, so it can't be wrong
>Someone drugs and rapes you: You feel no physical pain, so it can't be wrong
>Someone kills you with carbon monoxide: You feel no physical pain, so it can't be wrong.
In fact in the last case you never feel pain ever again, so it might actually be a moral imperative to gas everyone.
>>68169352
>. If you care about someone and see them hurt, you will get negative feelings.
But I would call this morality. Morality isn't "hey you stabbed my mom, I'm gonna kill you."
Morality is "hey x killed ys mom so x should pay z restitution and spend f number of years in prison."
>>68173398
Utilitarianism is based around the aggregate utility. The moral action is the one that promotes the most happiness. So if you can argue that globalism will not produce the most happiness, or produce more suffering than happiness, you don't have to support it.
Your research has nothing to do with utilitarianism. Only to do with the idea of a global society. That is sociology.
>>68162405
>retarded shit atheists say
Morality is defined by God, end of discussion.
>>68173850
I am not referring solely to physical pain, but all sorts of pain. Someone spitting in your face would be immoral because it is degrading. Someone drugging and raping you, beyond the risk of physical harm, stds and what not, reduces someone's ability to feel safe (lowers happiness) and also gives a feeling of helplessness (lowers happiness).
Someone killing you with carbon monoxide would be wrong because it removes your ability to be happy and would probably bring pain to those who care about you.
>>68174200
NICE REPEATING INTEGERS
>>68174808
T-Thanks
>>68174988
YET AGAIN?
KEK IS WITH YOU
>>68174527
>because it is degrading
You know, I can actually see how you can talk yourself out of the other ones if you ignore questions like: "Which is more important: Promoting happiness or preventing suffering?"
But what is and isn't degrading is highly subjective and there's no way you can convince me otherwise. And a subjective metric for morality is acceptable of course.
>>68175117
Degradation is subjective. We have to go by the likely consequences of our actions. We can't know exactly how our actions will affect others, but we should try.
The answer to the promoting happiness or preventing suffering depends on how much happiness or suffering. If a bunch of cops took nude photos of a rape victim, published them online, and then masturbated to them that would probably not be worth the happiness because if the victim of the rape found out he or she would most likely be devastated for the rest of his or her life.
