Morality doesn't evolve over time, social norms do.

[Deleted member 4612]

If you think morality evolves over time, then you can't say "if something is wrong then it was always wrong". For example, in the past, people would punish their children with beatings. Nowadays, people would say that is evil. They'd say "that's wrong and barbaric". Well, if that is the case, then it was always wrong, and morality didn't actually evolve, because that action would have always been wrong. The only thing that "evolved" was the social norms of the time period.

I know this is water is wet to a lot of people here, just felt like stating it.

 

[Deleted member 2403]

Great thread bro

 

[Deleted member 4612]

Great thread bro

 

[Deleted member 5969]

Morality is objective
Wrong is wrong right is right
Saying "morality is non existent" is saying there is right and wrong

 

[Deleted member 2403]

I made that gif

 

[Deleted member 4612]

Morality is objective
Wrong is wrong right is right
Saying "morality is non existent" is saying there is right and wrong

who said morality is non existent?

the point i was trying to make with this thread, was that some people say "morality evolves over time". when it doesn't

 

[Deleted member 4797]

True morality is timeless because its based on logic, which is also timeless.

 

[Deleted member 12303]

True morality is timeless because its based on logic, which is also timeless.

whats "logical" can also be just an opinion objective morality does not exist

 

[Deleted member 5969]

whats "logical" can also be just an opinion objective morality does not exist

Morality is objective
Wrong is wrong right is right
Saying "morality is non existent" is saying there is right and wrong

 

[Deleted member 4797]

whats "logical" can also be just an opinion objective morality does not exist

Nah logical in the sense you build a morality to maximise incentive for people to be good and work as team, its the most logical thing to do for everybody's benefit and is founded on logical principles everybody can agree on

 

[Deleted member 3043]

whats "logical" can also be just an opinion objective morality does not exist

"logic" doesn't exist much for morality. It's cope. People would agree on minimal things may be like not lying or robbing. But for the rest? It's impossible to come to an agreement even if all use their "logic", enough to create a whole set of laws able to make a society working.
While objective morality once you find the most rational position and belief, can't be modified or change much because it's rely on God and his explicit rules.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

what fgt? @Toth's thot

 

[Deleted member 6997]

what fgt? @Toth's thot

Sweet streeter

 

[Deleted member 12303]

"logic" doesn't exist much for morality. It's cope. People would agree on minimal things may be like not lying or robbing. But for the rest? It's impossible to come to an agreement even if all use their "logic", enough to create a whole set of laws able to make a society working.
While objective morality once you find the most rational position and belief, can't be modified or change much because it's rely on God and his explicit rules.

yeah that's basically what I believe but i don't wanna sound like a religion coper cause they get shit on this forum

 

[Deleted member 3043]

yeah that's basically what I believe but i don't wanna sound like a religion coper cause they get shit on this forum

? i debunked every single atheist and scientist coper, so much that they all left or spamm dnr posts. people here claim iq but don't even know basics.

 

[Deleted member 12303]

? i debunked every single atheist and scientist coper, so much that they all left or spamm dnr posts. people here claim iq but don't even know basics.

science isn't cope but i agree with you on everything else

 

[Deleted member 3043]

btw shit thread op, didn't even read the thread, but the title seems non sensical. what you call moral, what you call social norms?

 

[Gengar’s Ghost]

pinkwell moment

 

[Gengar’s Ghost]

btw shit thread op, didn't even read the thread, but the title seems non sensical. what you call moral, what you call social norms?

no its a good thread actually, he is saying what people consider normal/good and abnormal/bad changes overtime

 

[Deleted member 3043]

science isn't cope but i agree with you on everything else

scientist!= science.
Scientistism is basically the belief that science leads to the truth, and isn't a belief on its own. While when you study a little bit of logic and epistemology you see that science is a belief as everything else.
Doesn't mean it's false, it's just a necessity to put ignorant at their places, since everything is a belief in this world.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

no its a good thread actually, he is saying what people consider normal/good and abnormal/bad changes overtime

I didn't read tbh just the title, and moral and social norms can be the same or different depending on what we mean by morals, so it's very bad formulated.

 

[Deleted member 4612]

btw shit thread op, didn't even read the thread, but the title seems non sensical. what you call moral, what you call social norms?

if you didnt even read you cant say its dumb

i gave an example of an action btw, so if you read you would understand

I didn't read tbh just the title, and moral and social norms can be the same or different depending on what we mean by morals, so it's very bad formulated.

cope

 

[Gengar’s Ghost]

I didn't read tbh just the title, and moral and social norms can be the same or different depending on what we mean by morals, so it's very bad formulated.

hes talking from a western perspective so that means western morals. decades ago homosexuality was seen as bad, now it is seen as good. centuries ago religion was seen as good, now it is seen as bad. etc

 

[Deleted member 3043]

If you think morality evolves over time

Depends what you mean by moral.
Objective morality? Never.
Natural law? Yes
Subjective morality ? Yes

Nowadays, people would say that is evil

Your example is subjective morality. Subjective morality evolves depending on places, times, society, and individuals.
It's nothing to care about.

 

[Deleted member 6403]

People don't beat their kids anymore?

 

[Deleted member 3043]

if you didnt even read you cant say its dumb

i gave an example of an action btw, so if you read you would understand

cope

I said it's dumb based on your use of words in the title, that you were confusing yourself. I shouldn't've been this harsh but i'm tired a bit.
I know what you mean but you used a wrong terminology.
So what you want to mean?
That subjective morality does evolve? Yes it's by definition evolving and meaningless.

 

[Deleted member 9787]

social constructs

 

[Deleted member 4612]

I said it's dumb based on your use of words in the title, that you were confusing yourself. I shouldn't've been this harsh but i'm tired a bit.
I know what you mean but you used a wrong terminology.
So what you want to mean?
That subjective morality does evolve? Yes it's by definition evolving and meaningless.

well its particularly the cultural morality, which is social norms, thats what i meant.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

hes talking from a western perspective so that means western morals. decades ago homosexuality was seen as bad, now it is seen as good. centuries ago religion was seen as good, now it is seen as bad. etc

If we use subjective morality, the sole key we've got is consequentialism. Else it's a fight of 1 subjective morality vs another and none can be right or wrong, so it's pointless.
While objective morality is superior and don't change, and subjective morality can't be opposed to it.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

well its particularly the cultural morality, which is social norms, thats what i meant.

What would you be able to say?
Here i'll help you : It's about 2 subjective moralities.
One said beat your kids if they act bad. One says it's evil if you do so.
Who is wrong ? Who is right?

 

[Gengar’s Ghost]

If we use subjective morality, the sole key we've got is consequentialism. Else it's a fight of 1 subjective morality vs another and none can be right or wrong, so it's pointless.
While objective morality is superior and don't change, and subjective morality can't be opposed to it.

societal morality IS subjective morality.

 

[Deleted member 2403]

Life is about hapiness and i love you all.

 

[Deleted member 4612]

What would you be able to say?
Here i'll help you : It's about 2 subjective moralities.
One said beat your kids if they act bad. One says it's evil if you do so.
Who is wrong ? Who is right?

i mean thats kinda what im getting at. the cultural morality of different time periods would say different things.

 

[Deleted member 3043]

societal morality IS subjective morality.

Depends if it's the application of objective morality. A religious society relying on God for its laws, hence objective morality don't lead to subjective morality.

 

[Gengar’s Ghost]

Depends if it's the application of objective morality. A religious society relying on God for its laws, hence objective morality don't lead to subjective morality.

you cant turn objectivity into subjectivity, that defeats the purpose of objectivity. remember the posts on this forum must be seen from a western, atheistic perspective and NOT facts (islamic values, morals, etc)

 

[Deleted member 3043]

i mean thats kinda what im getting at. the cultural morality of different time periods would say different things.

And i'm telling you simply that you can't say any of these is right or wrong beside using one tool :
Consequentialism = the consequence of such deed.
For example alchohol is bad from a subjective morality point of view because it leads to little good and lots of bad and addiction and deaths.

That beeing said, it's not enough, because lots of laws, or situations don't lead to different consequentialism - pros and cons different.
So the sole way to reach a set of laws and morality that EVERYONE accepts, is to look for what is the most rational claim about life. If it happens to be a religious claim, about the unicity of God, then, you follow it.
It has a whole set of rules, that are given by God. So instead of beeing subjective, it become objective, because it rely ultimately on God, that is known to be all knowing, and thus knowing what is GOOD and what is BAD, instead of the morality of a particular individual.
And the morality won't change. And you wouldn't have anymore these issue of evolutive morality and confrontation between old and new societies.

Does it makes sense?

 

[Deleted member 3043]

you cant turn objectivity into subjectivity, that defeats the purpose of objectivity. remember the posts on this forum must be seen from a western, atheistic perspective and NOT facts (islamic values, morals, etc)

That's why well definining words are a necessity at first.

 

[Gengar’s Ghost]

That's why well definining words are a necessity at first.

true but i think theres a certain level of understanding thats expected of others in this place tbh

 

[Deleted member 3043]

true but i think theres a certain level of understanding thats expected of others in this place tbh

I always have very technical definition of terms, different than the confusion of normal people because i think a lot with myself and look for them afterward, so i'm sometimes a bit harsh when i see a confusion that in my mind i've resolved, in others.

 

[Gengar’s Ghost]

I always have very technical definition of terms, different than the confusion of normal people because i think a lot with myself and look for them afterward, so i'm sometimes a bit harsh when i see a confusion that in my mind i've resolved, in others.

yeah i see everything from an islamic perspective BUT i can understand that a person who isnt islamic will view things differently. take europe for example, people here like religious freedom which includes atheism, that is ok but atheism shit wouldnt fly in our countries..see what i am trying to say?

 

[Deleted member 4612]

And i'm telling you simply that you can't say any of these is right or wrong beside using one tool :
Consequentialism = the consequence of such deed.
For example alchohol is bad from a subjective morality point of view because it leads to little good and lots of bad and addiction and deaths.

That beeing said, it's not enough, because lots of laws, or situations don't lead to different consequentialism - pros and cons different.
So the sole way to reach a set of laws and morality that EVERYONE accepts, is to look for what is the most rational claim about life. If it happens to be a religious claim, about the unicity of God, then, you follow it.
It has a whole set of rules, that are given by God. So instead of beeing subjective, it become objective, because it rely ultimately on God, that is known to be all knowing, and thus knowing what is GOOD and what is BAD, instead of the morality of a particular individual.
And the morality won't change. And you wouldn't have anymore these issue of evolutive morality and confrontation between old and new societies.

Does it makes sense?

yeah if there is an all knowing god morality therefore becomes objective if its comes from him, gotcha

 

[Deleted member 3043]

yeah if there is an all knowing god morality therefore becomes objective if its comes from him, gotcha

Sorry if i was mean. Not my purpose, but people tend to disagree on average when you show them proper argument because of arrogance or ignorance and i'm naturally lacking patience. I'm not saying i know a lot, but the basics are a necessity imo.

 

[Squirtoutmabooty]

yeah if there is an all knowing god morality therefore becomes objective if its comes from him, gotcha

Morality coming from the metaphysical is virtually the only way for morality to be objective, ironically enough

 

[Deleted member 12002]

You hit the nail on the head. People are so arrogant.

I'm glad I was beaten as a kid. Without a doubt I would have ended up in prison or something if I hadn't been.