morality is objective

[theRetard]

For example in western society, monogamy is regarded as normative and therefore moral where as polygamy is seen as immoral and non normative. In middle eastern cultures polygamy is seen as normal. Circumcision is seen as not only moral but as a moral duty in jewish culture where as in some european cultures it’s regarded as immoral. There are dozens of examples like this. Morality usually arises from duty and responsibility to the group.

well but how does this related to my take?

 

[sub5mumbaifinalboss]

why?

Morality is a concept created by men and varies according to beliefs and values

 

[CorinthianLOX]

well but how does this related to my take?

I just explained to you that morality arises from different groups and cultures which are inherently different therefore we can make the conclusion that morality is not universal thus there is no so-called ’’objective’’ morality

 

[CorinthianLOX]

@InanimatePragmatist rape his ass

 

[theRetard]

Morality is a concept created by men and varies according to beliefs and values

morality was discovered instead of created. and doesn't varies to beliefs and values, because if it does, then you can say that varying of beliefs is evil. But it is a contradiction.

I just explained to you that morality arises from different groups and cultures which are inherently different therefore we can make the conclusion that morality is not universal thus there is no so-called ’’objective’’ morality

well but said that if in a society is it morally good to act immoral. it is contradictory so it is not the truth. then it means that morals is not dependent on the society at all or it depends but, for example some of societies are immoral

 

[CorinthianLOX]

.

well but said that if in a society is it morally good to act immoral. it is contradictory so it is not the truth. then it means that morals is not dependent on the society at all or it depends but, for example some of societies are immoral

How is it contradictory? You haven’t presented a single argument to prove your claim.

 

[sub5mumbaifinalboss]

morality was discovered instead of created. and doesn't varies to beliefs and values, because if it does, then you can say that varying of beliefs is evil. But it is a contradiction.

well but said that if in a society is it morally good to act immoral. it is contradictory so it is not the truth. then it means that morals is not dependent on the society at all or it depends but, for example some of societies are immoral

To begin with, morality is a concept created by humans to regulate coexistence with others; it is made by society; it does not exist in nature.

Morality is completely subjective, depending on values and beliefs. For example, in some beliefs and religions, eating certain foods is considered completely immoral and a sin. However, in other beliefs, no one cares and it is seen as something completely normal and moral

 

[mrdouchebag]

even if it was made by society it doesn't mean it is subjective, it's other way around actually

You have to compromise your self interests, at least to some extent, in order to be part of a group, whether small or big. Not doing so will lead to exclusion and you will be ostracized and isolated, which is not good generally for the individual. People can survive in isolation sometimes, but rarely if ever thrive in it. The benefits you acquire from being part of the group outweigh the cons from compromising his self interests to some extent. Even psychopaths prefer to live among people.

Of course different groups might have different codes, rules and laws. But there will always be something forced upon you that will have to adhere to which will constrain your behavior, meaning you will not be able to act exactly how you want all the time, unless you don't care about the consequences and potential exclusion.

I think a lot of what's good and what's bad is also inherently linked to biology and the genes. People have evolved and adapted to live among other people, because that maximizes chances of survival and reproduction, which comes down to ingrained inherited patterns and behaviors. It's the whole "high inhib" vs "low inhib" meme. Societies with higher inhib people on average are more likely to be cooperative, productive, thrive and prosper, outpacing other lower inhib societies.

However, even in the "civilized world", you can never completely eliminate the internal drive to act out of self interest. A cornered animal, in this case a cornered human, will act on his most basic instincts when shit hits the fan, and will in most cases be capable of committing the most vile deeds imaginable, especially if his survival, or that of his offsprings, is at stake. The laws, rules and codes he adhered by become irrelevant. What is right and what is wrong also becomes irrelevant. He'd do what it takes to survive and come out victorious.

 

[theRetard]

How is it contradictory? You haven’t presented a single argument to prove your claim.

1: if moral rightness and wrongness are determined solely by belief of each society
2. if some society claims that acting immoral is good
3. then immorality is morality
is this actually this hard to understand

 

[CorinthianLOX]

1: if moral rightness and wrongness are determined solely by belief of each society
2. if some society claims that acting immoral is good
3. then immorality is morality
is this actually this hard to understand

So you're saying that morality is not fixed?

 

[theRetard]

To begin with, morality is a concept created by humans to regulate coexistence with others; it is made by society; it does not exist in nature.

Morality is completely subjective, depending on values and beliefs. For example, in some beliefs and religions, eating certain foods is considered completely immoral and a sin. However, in other beliefs, no one cares and it is seen as something completely normal and moral

then how did we coexisted before someone invented morality? and if morality is completely subjective, then this statement is subjective too, which is a contradiction

 

[theRetard]

So you're saying that morality is not fixed?

no, i say that it is fixed

 

[CorinthianLOX]

no, i say that it is fixed

How can it be fixed if you say immorality is morality and morality is morality at the same time? You literally proved my point that morality is not universal and only applies to people who belong to the same group.

 

[theRetard]

You have to compromise your self interests, at least to some extent, in order to be part of a group, whether small or big. Not doing so will lead to exclusion and you will be ostracized and isolated, which is not good generally for the individual. People can survive in isolation sometimes, but rarely if ever thrive in it. The benefits you acquire from being part of the group outweigh the cons from compromising his self interests to some extent. Even psychopaths prefer to live among people.

Of course different groups might have different codes, rules and laws. But there will always be something forced upon you that will have to adhere to which will constrain your behavior, meaning you will not be able to act exactly how you want all the time, unless you don't care about the consequences and potential exclusion.

I think a lot of what's good and what's bad is also inherently linked to biology and the genes. People have evolved and adapted to live among other people, because that maximizes chances of survival and reproduction, which comes down to ingrained inherited patterns and behaviors. It's the whole "high inhib" vs "low inhib" meme. Societies with higher inhib people on average are more likely to be cooperative, productive, thrive and prosper, outpacing other lower inhib societies.

However, even in the "civilized world", you can never completely eliminate the internal drive to act out of self interest. A cornered animal, in this case a cornered human, will act on his most basic instincts when shit hits the fan, and will in most cases be capable of committing the most vile deeds imaginable, especially if his survival, or that of his offsprings, is at stake. The laws, rules and codes he adhered by become irrelevant. What is right and what is wrong also becomes irrelevant. He'd do what it takes to survive and come out victorious.

i've read it all. a nice essay but how it does disprove that morality is objective?

 

[theRetard]

How can it be fixed if you say immorality is morality and morality is morality at the same time? You literally proved my point that morality is not universal and only applies to people who belong to the same group.

no, I showed you that moral relativism leads to contradiction that immorality could be moral in some society. And therefore moral relativism is wrong. Moral universalism is the truth

 

[CorinthianLOX]

no, I showed you that moral relativism leads to contradiction that immorality could be moral in some society. And therefore moral relativism is wrong. Moral universalism is the truth

Different cultures and societies don't act similarly. How is morality universal?

 

[theRetard]

Different cultures and society don't act similarly. How is morality universal?

it's because some societies are immoral. morality is universal because it's not dependent on societies at all

 

[CorinthianLOX]

it's because some societies are immoral. morality is universal because it's not dependent on societies at all

How do you evaluate a society's morality?

 

[ILikeNihari123]

title

True

 

[theRetard]

How do you evaluate a society's morality?

by examining how society’s actions violate the well-being, natural law, human rights etc

 

[CorinthianLOX]

by examining how society’s actions violate the well-being, natural law, human rights etc

what are human rights? what is well-being? etc etc these are very subjective things indeed. For example was nazi germany an immoral society because they got rid of parasites in their country? Or is israel a moral country for killing palestinians?

 

[theRetard]

what are human rights? what is well-being? etc etc these are very subjective things indeed. For example was nazi germany an immoral society because they got rid of parasites in their country? Or is israel a moral country for killing palestinians?

why do you think they are subjective?

 

[Latinolooksmaxxer]

inceldom is objective

 

[sub5mumbaifinalboss]

then how did we coexisted before someone invented morality? and if morality is completely subjective, then this statement is subjective too, which is a contradiction

Before humans invented morality, life was guided mainly by instinct and survival, not by ideas of “good” or “evil.” Early humans acted based on what was useful or harmful, not what was “right” or “wrong”

As language and social awareness evolved, humans began creating rules and values to maintain cooperation and trust within groups. That’s when morality appeared not as instinct, but as a social invention to help societies function better

And morality is subjective because it varies according to more beliefs, don't try to complicate your life with moral relativism because you won't get anywhere, it's a broader debate

 

[CorinthianLOX]

why do you think they are subjective?

Because people look at things from a different angle and are biased towards their own groups and identities. Another good example: the russia ukraine war. Both sides think that they are objectively in the right and therefore more moral than the enemy.

 

[CorinthianLOX]

Before humans invented morality, life was guided mainly by instinct and survival, not by ideas of “good” or “evil.” Early humans acted based on what was useful or harmful, not what was “right” or “wrong”

As language and social awareness evolved, humans began creating rules and values to maintain cooperation and trust within groups. That’s when morality appeared not as instinct, but as a social invention to help societies function better

And morality is subjective because it varies according to more beliefs, don't try to complicate your life with moral relativism because you won't get anywhere, it's a broader debate

100% correct

 

[theRetard]

Before humans invented morality, life was guided mainly by instinct and survival, not by ideas of “good” or “evil.” Early humans acted based on what was useful or harmful, not what was “right” or “wrong”

As language and social awareness evolved, humans began creating rules and values to maintain cooperation and trust within groups. That’s when morality appeared not as instinct, but as a social invention to help societies function better

And morality is subjective because it varies according to more beliefs, don't try to complicate your life with moral relativism because you won't get anywhere, it's a broader debate

what is useful and harmful is also a moral law, just in pragmatic way. if the end is survival or flourishing that's already a teleological good which is a moral concept

100% correct

100% incorrect

 

[theRetard]

Because people look at things from a different angle and are biased towards their own groups and identities. Another good example: the russia ukraine war. Both sides think that they are objectively in the right and therefore more moral than the enemy.

no, it's because one of them (or both) is immoral. but stays in delusion that it is moral

 

[theRetard]

inceldom is objective

why don't you like this?

 

[eyewideshut]

If morality were objective, disagreement wouldn’t feel so human.

 

[theRetard]

If morality were objective, disagreement wouldn’t feel so human.

why?

 

[Klasik616]

why do you think they are subjective?

The main subjectivist of morality I know is Kant and Hume, even though Kant claims universalism it still depends on the individual and his will. Hume and postmodernists are the most morality subjectivists because they claim all is about feelings not rational laws.

 

[eyewideshut]

why?

Because if it were truly objective, morality would be as constant as gravity, not rewritten by every generation.

 

[Kiril Velev]

 

[CorinthianLOX]

no, it's because one of them (or both) is immoral. but stays in delusion that it is moral

If we dig up to both arguments we find that their arguments arise from group identity or herd morality.

 

[CorinthianLOX]

Because if it were truly objective, morality would be as constant as gravity, not rewritten by every generation.

true as well

 

[theRetard]

The main subjectivist of morality I know is Kant and Hume, even though Kant claims universalism it still depends on the individual and his will. Hume and postmodernists are the most morality subjectivists because they claim all is about feelings not rational laws.

Kant's deontology is objective in his own system

 

[mrdouchebag]

Because if it were truly objective, morality would be as constant as gravity, not rewritten by every generation.

From what I understand his argument is that it is exactly a constant like gravity, but it's just that people misinterpret it. However, we have no clue who gets it right, who gets it wrong, and to what extent.

 

[sub5mumbaifinalboss]

what is useful and harmful is also a moral law, just in pragmatic way. if the end is survival or flourishing that's already a teleological good which is a moral concept

100% incorrect

Arguing about whether morality is objective or subjective often doesn’t make sense, because it depends on what we mean by ‘morality.’ Social rules and beliefs are subjective, but actions that promote survival or flourishing can be seen as objectively ‘good’ in a practical sense. Mixing these two concepts just creates confusion

 

[theRetard]

The main subjectivist of morality I know is Kant and Hume, even though Kant claims universalism it still depends on the individual and his will. Hume and postmodernists are the most morality subjectivists because they claim all is about feelings not rational laws.

then postmodernists and hume (if he is an emotivist) are wrong because if it is about feeling then i might feel that this statement lies

 

[Klasik616]

Kant's deontology is objective in his own system

The trascendental subject is the "intersubjectivity" that Kant couldn't imagine. When it comes to act morally or inmorally it's a rational decision made by the phenomenal subject (in the world). He tries to avoid problems by saying that time and space are trascendental forms and not phenomemic, which is funny cus morality will always be social. His deontology is basically moral idealism. His main problem is believing that there's just one subject, when you say there's two or more this moral problem vanish.

 

[theRetard]

morality would be as constant as gravity, not rewritten by every generation.

how does this disprove that it is objective?

 

[eyewideshut]

how does this disprove that it is objective?

If something changes with culture, it isn’t objective, it’s consensus in disguise.
Don't respond, your name fits.

 

[theRetard]

Arguing about whether morality is objective or subjective often doesn’t make sense, because it depends on what we mean by ‘morality.’ Social rules and beliefs are subjective, but actions that promote survival or flourishing can be seen as objectively ‘good’ in a practical sense. Mixing these two concepts just creates confusion

by morality i mean good and evil. Social rules aren't subjective because they exist independently from you

 

[theRetard]

If something changes with culture, it isn’t objective, it’s consensus in disguise.
Don't respond, your name fits.

so why morality changes with culture? i think it doesn't

 

[Klasik616]

so why morality changes with culture? i think it doesn't

Also you have to choose which culture. So which morality changes and how. Just saying it depends is not a definition, that's a lazy answer. There has to be some ideas that support these cultures, the answer is most of the time religion. But there are different religions so that's main issue. Every religion has their own history and this is where the beliefs come from.

 

[theRetard]

The trascendental subject is the "intersubjectivity" that Kant couldn't imagine. When it comes to act morally or inmorally it's a rational decision made by the phenomenal subject (in the world). He tries to avoid problems by saying that time and space are trascendental forms and not phenomemic, which is funny cus morality will always be social. His deontology is basically moral idealism. His main problem is believing that there's just one subject, when you say there's two or more this moral problem vanish.

no, time is trascedent instead of trascendental (different things). Also even if morality only social (i don't agree with that), then it already objectively exists

 

[NinjaRG9]

well i quite agree with your takes on gay marriages

Does this mean you are for or against gay marriage?

also tag me in your threads pls

 

[Klasik616]

no, time is trascedent instead of trascendental (different things). Also even if morality only social (i don't agree with that), then it already objectively exists

Obviously exists but I disagree with the source. The source of morality is not outside the phenomemic world (Kant), or the phenomemic world has natural laws (Schelling). The second route goes better with post hegelian philosophies. Christians believe the source of morality is in God.

 

[theRetard]

Obviously exists but I disagree with the source. The source of morality is not outside the phenomemic world (Kant), or the phenomemic world has natural laws (Schelling). The second route goes better with post hegelian philosophies. Christians believe the source of morality is in God.

why doesn't source of morality exists outside of phenomenological world? for christians it does