Objective morality doesn’t exist

[ey88]

Try to prove me wrong

 

[future slavic chad]

define objecitve nigga, if money can "exist" so can morality

 

[Sub5kang]

Monkey attack baby monkey, monkey is in big wrong

 

[Sub5kang]

 

[ey88]

define objecitve nigga, if money can "exist" so can morality

Objective morality means there are definite right and wrongs

 

[ey88]

Monkey attack baby monkey, monkey is in big wrong

Why is that wrong?

 

[future slavic chad]

Objective morality means there are definite right and wrongs

defined by who?

 

[Sub5kang]

Why is that wrong?

Because monkey had no reason to attack poor defense less baby monkey unprovoked, big monkey is evil and should spend time reflecting on his cruel ways and rehabilitate himself into nice big monkey

 

[ey88]

defined by who?

Bro I literally said it doesn’t exist

 

[future slavic chad]

morality CAN exist even if its defined by humans, just like money can exist because we want it to and it benefts us. You can observe morality by for example not being greedy and thats not nothing, therefore it CAN and probably should exist. it does not have to be an object to be observable and we can define it our selves

 

[izegream]

Try to prove me wrong

Water son

 

[ey88]

morality CAN exist even if its defined by humans, just like money can exist because we want it to and it benefts us. You can observe morality by for example not being greedy and thats not nothing, therefore it CAN and probably should exist. it does not have to be an object to be observable and we can define it our selves

If it needs to be created by humans then it isn’t objective and doesn’t exist

 

[future slavic chad]

no theres no morality in the fabric of the universe but why would we need that anyway?

 

[future slavic chad]

If it needs to be created by humans then it isn’t objective and doesn’t exist

ok and? go live in mexico then with no morals and get your head blown off

 

[ey88]

ok and? go live in mexico then with no morals and get your head blown off

You just proved it doesn’t exist, by that logic something is only bad if you it causes yourself harm

 

[future slavic chad]

You just proved it doesn’t exist, by that logic something is only bad if you it causes yourself harm

its irrelevant if it exists as an actual material law. money doesnt exist but we rarely question if its objective or not.

 

[stevielake]

does morality exist?

 

[ey88]

does morality exist?

No

 

[Klasik616]

If it needs to be created by humans then it isn’t objective and doesn’t exist

Then don't put morality onto humans but all beings. The whole idea of a morality is that is not relative because morals don't add anything to the subject: saying A is good or bad doesn't change A. Morality has to be a type of imperative, some sort of law but as humans have freedom we don't have to follow every law because we can deal with the consequences of ignoring morals, which sometimes ends up killing us.

For example abortion cannot be "good" in USA and "bad" in Kenya, the action must be moral or inmoral no matter what. The whole discussion about ethics ends up in a debate, the reason for this debate are human values. If we have values then we should treat every being as a subject of morality, otherwise we would not be moral (like animals). As for who creates the moral law, I would say it's "the agreement" between humans. We have to study what type of being this agreement is that makes us to live together.

 

[FaceandBBC]

Morality won't grow the bones in my face.

 

[noodlelover]

If it needs to be created by humans then it isn’t objective and doesn’t exist

Laws, Money, Language, Countries, economies, Meme complexes, Moral frameworks.

Not perfectly objective, but definitive enough that they effect the real world.

I see these all as evolving organisms that effect people's lives. If you ignore them, then they will destroy you.

A moral framework is the same as a virus, it's a self replicating, evolving, spreading set of information that effects the host, but also other hosts so it set's up game-theory type scenarios that compel compliance with it with rewards and punishments.

 

[future slavic chad]

Laws, Money, Language, Countries, economies, Meme complexes, Moral frameworks.

Not perfectly objective, but definitive enough that they effect the real world.

I see these all as evolving organisms that effect people's lives. If you ignore them, then they will destroy you.

exactly op is so low iq he needs something to be objective to matter, like a rock existing jfl

 

[noodlelover]

exactly op is so low iq he needs something to be objective to matter, like a rock existing jfl

Op is smart imho.

Most people believe in objective morality, as in there is a clear right and wrong independent of culture and time. Both religious people and non-religious people generally believe this.

Religious people live under the delusion that morality has been steadily getting worse decade by decade. And Non-religious people mostly live under the delusion that morality has been steadily getting better, decade by decade.

Both are perspective illusions that over-value the moral frame work they are immersed in as some type of "true north".

Op has every right to point out that morality is not objective in this way, I just like arguing everything that has anything to do with philosophy or religion.

 

[future slavic chad]

Op is smart imho.

Most people believe in objective morality, as in there is a clear right and wrong independent of culture and time. Both religious people and non-religious people generally believe this.

Religious people live under the delusion that morality has been steadily getting worse decade by decade. And Non-religious people mostly live under the delusion that morality has been steadily getting better, decade by decade.

Both are perspective illusions that over-value the moral frame work they are immersed in as some type of "true north".

Op has every right to point out that morality is not objective in this way, I just like arguing everything that has anything to do with philosophy or religion.

no op is a midwit

 

[ey88]

exactly op is so low iq he needs something to be objective to matter, like a rock existing jfl

I don’t think you understand what morality is

 

[Krisis]

Morality exists because it has to. And just because something doesn't exist in physical space the same way, say, metal does, that doesn't mean it doesn't exist, obviously.

The crucial fact to acknowledge is that our minds are limited. Therefore, our morality is limited, too. In other words, there are constraints on what can be viewed as either moral or immoral.

Yes, different societies tend to have different moral systems, but as mentioned, there is a limit on how much deviation there can be.

If you look at the history of the most powerful nation ever, the United States, you will find all sorts of horrible examples of immorality that were normalized--even today you can find examples that people concern themselves with. But over time, things improve. And they don't improve because authoritative figures want things to improve (they want to maintain their power, after all), they improve because the majority keys in on things that need to change.

You couldn't actually live if there wasn't some objective way of determining what is moral; you can only really talk about such a world in an abstract sense like this.

 

[future slavic chad]

I don’t think you understand what morality is

morality is me not fucking your mother right now, you should be grateful

 

[iblamechico]

Morality won't grow the bones in my face.

Morality won't stop me from slapping spiders off of oblivious senior citizens buttocks

 

[ey88]

Morality exists because it has to

Why does it have to exist?

 

[Lord Shadow]

Why does it have to exist?

Because reality is what stands whether you believe it or not. Ethics are an attempt at systematically determining what is "best" to do. Humans have certain things in commonality, both in respect to their values and ultimate reactions, and are the agents in "moral" situations. While rules cannot cover all situations, principles can. Thus, accounting for individual differences, ethical systems based on reality can, in principle, be constructed. This amounts to principles on how best to behave in life.

 

[Krisis]

Why does it have to exist?

I mentioned it in my comment. You just couldn't exist in a world without it. Our brains are wired towards it.

 

[ey88]

Because reality is what stands whether you believe it or not. Ethics are an attempt at systematically determining what is "best" to do. Humans have certain things in commonality, both in respect to their values and ultimate reactions, and are the agents in "moral" situations. While rules cannot cover all situations, principles can. Thus, accounting for individual differences, ethical systems based on reality can, in principle, be constructed. This amounts to principles on how best to behave in life.

Sounds like you are saying morals don’t actually exist, they are forced upon by society

 

[ey88]

I mentioned it in my comment. You just couldn't exist in a world without it. Our brains are wired towards it.

This doesn’t make sense, why could you not exist in a world without morality?

 

[iblamechico]

"moral" exists. It's just not objective. It exists like the concept of democracy does.

 

[ey88]

"moral" exists. It's just not objective. It exists like the concept of democracy does.

What makes something good or bad?

 

[Krisis]

This doesn’t make sense, why could you not exist in a world without morality?

Well, my argument is that we are biologically predisposed to it. Our brains are limited, which means our morality is limited. You couldn't actually exist as a human being who exists outside of the realm of morality; you'd run into an existential conundrum.

But to be honest with you, I'm not much of a philosopher, so I suggest you actually look into some books on this if you are truly curious and want legitimate answers from people whose job it is to think about this stuff.

 

[iblamechico]

What makes something good or bad?

For me, something is good when it's beneficial. Anything else are "bad". That's my moral though.

 

[ey88]

For me, something is good when it's beneficial. Anything else are "bad". That's my moral though.

So then killing somebody and stealing all of their money is good

 

[iblamechico]

So then killing somebody and stealing all of their money is good

Nah, that wouldn't be beneficial for the dead guy. Beneficial for all is what I meant.

That's my moral though.

 

[noobs]

So then killing somebody and stealing all of their money is good

Yes as long as you profit

 

[King Solomon]

Proving morality is fixed for all humans is quite simple. The best example would be to use children before they've been brainwashed of any ideology or taught anything on what the parents or teachers believe to be right or wrong. Then subject them to immoral things like stealing their toys, hurting them, killing their animals, starving them, trial as many bad things as you can do to them over the duration of the study. There reactions are all going to be negative to being subjected to these things. Then in your other group of young children you'd do only good or moral things to them, sharing, playing, feeding them great food, hugging them

Without exception the group that is being subjected to bad things is going to have negative reactions to these bad things being done to them and the opposite is going to happen to the group that's experiencing the good things being done to them.


Thus, this proves without a shadow of a doubt that objective reality is our current reality because these children haven't been brainwashed ideology and even though they may do negative things to others without displaying reactions, they'll likely always hate that same negative thing being done to them. This is evidence for them realizing no matter what the negative or immoral thing is they'll always know it's wrong because they do not like it being done to them.

Now you'll try and prove your beliefs with some contradictory examples of morality like if a killer asks you where your family is to kill them and in order to save the family you have to lie which is deemed as immoral. So you'll conclude this equates to a subjective morality reality. NOT SO FAST:

1.) Relativism is when right and wrong depend on or are relative to the person
2.) Moral decimas based on circumstances like the example I gave, always demonstrate objectivism, not subjectivism.
3.) If we ought to save our family from the killer then morality is objective and not subjective.

The AshkeNAZI's killing millions of people aka Genocide with their Vaccines is immoral because they have a moral obligation to disobey an immoral order. There's a moral law a standard that's written in all human hearts and minds then there's an international law below that. The only qay to adjudicate between these 2 laws (Ashkenazis and the one's being subjected to AshkeNAZI genocide) is to say the one's being genocided, their laq is closer to God's natural laq.

There must be a standard beyond. This doesn't mean everyone is going to agree or behave according to that standard but we can Identify when a person or culture goes wrong because they deviate from the standard of God's nature. Therefore, the moral law or moral argument doesn't depend on everyone being moral or depend on everyone agreeing what is moral. All the moral law is saying is if there's one thing morally right out there and one thing morally wrong, there has to be a GOD. So if it's wrong to torture or kill babies for fun God exists, if it's right to love babies, GOD exists.

I'm guessing you're trying to use a subjective reality to prove your atheist belief system. In the end if one is created from an accident and generated from random processes aka evolution and not intelligent design which is directed then y should one trust in anything they think? An objective reality requires a moral law giver

A legitimate response (not necessarily correct) doesn't include a strawman argument, Ad hominem, obfuscation, deflection, any other logical fallacy, dumb meme or GIF, filibuster, 0, cope, dnr, etc). Any response like these or similar to these responses and or no response at all automatically concedes the OP's original argument and this thread is officially finished.

Game Set Match

I'll sign autographs later folks.

Jesus is KING of Kings

 

[King Solomon]

For me, something is good when it's beneficial. Anything else are "bad". That's my moral though.

That's quite possibly the most hypocritical take on .org currently. You're simply justifying immorality if it benefits you therefore it's moral in your paradigm. I'm guessing this is a troll attempt for laughs.

 

[iblamechico]

That's quite possibly the most hypocritical take on .org currently. You're simply justifying immorality if it benefits you therefore it's moral in your paradigm. I'm guessing this is a troll attempt for laughs.

Yeah obviously there was a lot missing there, it was intended to be an example on the subjectiveness of morality is all.

 

[King Solomon]

Yeah obviously there was a lot missing there, it was intended to be an example on the subjectiveness of morality is all.

Ok, at least that's better than being insane or a troll then.

I debunked this belief in my previous post though.

 

[(In)CelibatePsycho2]

Try to prove me wrong

Every argument I’ve heard for morality not being objective has boiled down to “different people disagree on morality”. This is obviously a retarded argument, because I can just as easily say that It’s subjective if the earth is round or not because different people disagree on the shape of the earth.

Either morality doesn’t exist or there is an objective morality. The fact that opinions exist is irrelevant.

 

[mogtivism]

Try to prove me wrong

Morality is fake + gay.

I do what interests myself personally and then if I have to, I justify it using “muh morals”.

I assume most operate in the same way