How can moral ever be objective??

I like the purple color and he likes green, so which is moral, chirstcucks?

Moral is based value, and value is based personal likes and interests. It can not ever be totally objective, otherwise it can't be called "moral", it'll be only a set of rules.

People following the so-called "God's moral" are in fact only following the moral of somebody else, and it doesnt come from their heart. That's why religious people are cucks.

Who can define value anyway? Only intellectual beings like us can define value based on our own opinions and needs, and yes we can sometimes reach a high consensus, but we can never say moral can be objective. Otherwise, we'll all be living in machine.

Checkmate theists.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=dIEemKcy-4E
youtube.com/watch?v=Tp1eZdtkdQM
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Proof is all around you, now religious dogma I understand your disdain.

Stop masturbating

What did he mean by this?
Make me.

done

It can't, but there's certain things like minimizing harm and maximizing happiness that we can try for. It doesn't have to be objective but a civ can find something that works for them.

That's why we have religion, as a form of deontology based ethics. A set of generally agreed rules for a moral and ethical society

Now this is incoherent bullshit.

Values are fundamental to our nature and morals are a function of necessity. God is an accretion of the ultimate survival characteristics.

Back to the drawing board dum dum.

>babby's first class on metaphysical thought

If you have the option to kill someone and not kill someone. which one would you pick?

If you're not a fucking edgy retard you be inclined to not to kill someone 100% of the time.

Thats called having "morals" theres no relativity to it, its not subjective, its not objective, it simply exists. You ever stopped to ask yourself why do you have a third voice in your head that instinctively knows whats the right thing to do in any situation is, even when you act out doing the wrong thing? It's called morality.

>Moral is based value
That's where materialists fail. There are metaphysical laws that must underlie morality if it is to exist at all.

Ayn Rand
>inb4 1 post by this ID

San Harris is an atheist that makes a pretty good argument for objective morals

>muh holy voice in brain.
No, everything can be rationalized, and we are not slaves to our nature.
I can decide if that person deserves to be killed or not, but if I don't have enough information I would just choose to use my experience and some instincts, which is simply not to kill him.

Hahahahaha. He got absolutely wrecked by Craig of all people.

You didn't prove him wrong, actually, you proved him right.

>if you're not a fucking edgy retard etc.

That's right, buddy, different people have differente morals = morality is subjective

Not 100% of the time, but most of the time. And when people have urges to kill they can control themselves. It's people that can't control their urges that become murders

Prof. Peterson is good with this. In one of his vids he makes a good case for religion as an ethical force for good regardless of its objective truth.

So a soldier can't control himself? What about hitmen?

It's not only people with urges, you can genuinely believe it's right to kill another human being for whatever reason. There are people that in my opinion should die and I would kill them if I could get away with it.

Objectively morality i think can be summed up with two tenets:
You ought not murder and you ought not to steal what isn't yours.

This is the basics of what law is founded and one does not need religion or a deity to explain why it is objectively good. IF you believe its ok to murder someone then you should be wary that your time might come soon. And IF you think its ok to steal someone's property then you too cannot complain if your goods are taken from you.

okay buddy, if everything can be rationalized, then explain why irrationality exists? Do you see how stupid you sound?

>morality is subjective

Good one, wheres the ancap balls when you need em.

>implying an irrational behaviour cannot be rationally explained


And if you don't think morality is subjective, feel free to prove me wrong. I am no anarchist though.

Then the same logic of thought can be applied to you. So you're okay with killing someone based on a set of arbitrary morals special to you.

Different people have different morals right?? yea try and convince me that a serial killer is justified in his own morals, because its subjective. And if you tell me otherwise, then you do hold some standard of morality, in which you btfo your own argument.

Soldiers and hitmen are paid to kill, but they still have to control the urge to kill people that they aren't paid to kill.

What I meant by "rationalized" is "reasoned", from a scientific stand of view
And that is not called objective. What if some people want their time to come soon? Can you blame them?

What I meant, is you can of course argue about my moral being wrong with reason and facts, not because of some "holy beings" out there

I have my own set of morals and other people have their own.

A serial killer can believe he is justified, I don't believe he is.

What's so hard to grasp? Recognizing subjectivity doesn't imply the absence of forming your own judgement, it actually implies the presence of your own judgement of other people's actions.

1. If morals are subjective, then we should expect people to recognize that actions which they are inclined to think of as "wrong" are only wrong from their point of view.
2. But invariably, people view wrongs against themselves as actions that are really wrong.
3. Therefore moral values are objective and not subjective.

If moral values are subjective, then moral codes cannot exist, but that is a fallacy in itself, because everyone holds a standard to practically everything. And if there are morals, then there must be objective standard by which to judge one code better than another. Therefore absolute morality does exist.

>one does not need religion or a deity to explain why it is objectively good.

yeah you do because i dont see a reason to share my place on earth with scum like yourself

youtube.com/watch?v=dIEemKcy-4E

Lie, a Polish mafia hitman called "Iceman"(google it) often killed random people in his free time.

Also, your answer is not relevant, you are the one who claimed people kill because of urges, I was merely proving that there can be other reasons.

The name of an overrated author is not an argument. What's your explanation for why two different cultures can both be happy but with different morals?

>objective standard by which to judge one code better than another
Define "better". That's all I gotta say.
You still dont seem to understand my point.

Spider-man sold his marriage to the devil.

> I don't believe he is.

So you do hold a standard, but you deny that any one standard is better than another. So you'd hold the argument that even though you think the serial killer is wrong in his deeds, it doesn't matter because its all subjective. Thats called being weak

So if you are capable of doing something about a wrong action that another person you believe is taking, but you let it slide, because of the subjectivity argument, what will you do when these other actions start personally affecting you? Will you maintain the subjective argument then, or will you finally start to care about morals?

>assisted suicide=murder
its your life if you want to an hero. not that hard to figure you can choose how you want to an hero if you're incapable of doing it yourself. its an act of compassion and mercy.

what are you going to do about it pussy

explain how I do need a religion to tell me what is good and evil.

As a fellow atheist, I just want to say that I am embarrassed to be included in the same category as someone as stupid as you. If you managed to graduate high school, someone fucked up. Your English is almost as bad as your argument. The implicit assumptions, the baseless leaps of logic, the blatant fallacies. You are a fucking disgrace to humanity, and you should probably be shot as soon as possible so that you don't pollute the gene pool with your spawn.

The experience of good and bad from conscience is like the the experience of light and dark from our eyes. Our personal experience is subjective but it can be validated when compared to the perception of others in a repeatable setting.

Morality is objective AF desu.

>It is objectively true that Sarah hates apples.

>It is objectively true that James loves apples.
See how "subjective" truths (food preferences) actually reduce to objective truths.

It is a myth that subjective truths exist. You simply can't find one that doesn't reduce to an objective truth.

They don't contradict each other, they exist in parallel.

If you come to the conclusion that theft or murder is bad, then the logical implication of this is that some morals are objective. That's basic logic

Your conclusions don't logically follow the premises.

>1) If morals are subjective, then we should expect people to recognize that actions which they are inclined to think of as "wrong" are only wrong from their point of view.

Some people do this, others are convinced their own set of morals is universal somehow and act accordingly, others like me recognize the subjectivity but try to enforce their own set of rules anyway because it makes me feel better.

>2) But invariably, people view wrongs against themselves as actions that are really wrong.

Doesn't prove morality is objective. And only some people do this.

>3) Therefore moral values are objective and not subjective.

Deadly wrong. You are saying that morality is objective because the perception of some people is that their morality is universal and because they act on this belief.


>If moral values are subjective, then moral codes cannot exist, but that is a fallacy in itself, because everyone holds a standard to practically everything. And if there are morals, then there must be objective standard by which to judge one code better than another. Therefore absolute morality does exist.

If personal tastes are subjective, than a list of what I like or don't like cannot exist? What kind of logic is this?


>but that is a fallacy in itself, because everyone holds a standard to practically everything

Yes, they have standards that are very often different.


> And if there are morals, then there must be objective standard by which to judge one code better than another. Therefore absolute morality does exist.

>there are different personal tastes
>this means that there must be an objective standard by which to judge one taste better than another

Not really

dont hurt me
I never said there was such thing as "subjective truth"
moral ≠ truth, it's just a way of thinking, and you can of course say the chemical reaction in the brains is true, but moral as man-made concept simply shouldn't and can't be universal

>If you have the option to kill someone and not kill someone. which one would you pick?
Depends a lot on who it is I have the option to kill, doesn't it?

Dude, how about you spend some decades studying history, philosophy, theology and psychology before thinking you know something about that topic?

Where did I write that "it doesn't matter"?

Do I really have to explain to you why human beings tend to consider their own ideas better than those of others and often act according to this belief?

This does not contradict the subjectivity of morality.

Special pleading much? How did you get to God here?

>I like the purple color and he likes green, so which is moral, chirstcucks?
Not everything has to do with morality you absolute retard.

It depends what you mean by morals. First of all almost everyone has SOME level of agreement and if you think the isn't true, tell me you'd do nothing if someone invaded your home and started raping, cutting up, and eating your wife/mother/children. Don't lie faggot. When it comes to objective morals more broadly though, I think most people give a shitty answer of just right and wrong. Morals are a series of social contacts that ideally are formulated based off past experience and history from observing behaviors and consequences. Pretty much every culture makes stealing tabboo pretty damn quick because that's a good behavior to discourage. Sure there's no "OBJECTIVE" reason it just IS right or wrong, but there's objective consequences where people have to take tons of counter measures against the entire world around them to make sure they get to keep their shit. A social contract adopted by enough people where they then agree to carry out punishment as a community to stand against that behavior just made living around then exponentially easier and provides security. Morals in that regard are very real, might change minutely between cultures but have an objective rudimentary purpose of providing social security and cooperation and are incredibly important and when they break down in times of social unrest life becomes exponentially more dangerous.

When? Give me some snippets.

This is like a retarded game of intellectual masturbation. Using rhetoric doesn't give subjectivity or objectivity any more inherent meaning.

Moral law objectively exists in every single person.

From CS lewis
"You will probably feel two desires—one a desire to give help (due to your herd instinct), the other a desire to keep out of danger (due to the instinct for self-preservation). But you will find inside you, in addition to these two impulses, a third thing which tells you that you ought to follow the impulse to help, and suppress the impulse to run away. Now this thing that judges between two instincts, that decides which should be encouraged, cannot itself be either of them" es. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same. And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than it naturally is?"

Putting aside the emotional argument, it is metaphysically sound. and if you ask for proof you cant prove things of a non physical nature with physical means, but doesn't mean that they are not any less true.

If a scale morality exists, then by default, there must be a gold standard. Like anything with good and bad, there are objective ways to determine whats better and whats worse.

Suprised this hasnt been posted yet

It actually does. It follows the same logic of, say, deciding to kill someone or not, and they are all based on personal likes and opinions. You may argue that the preference of colors are more related to instincts, but after all they all come from your brain and free will.

wow because fedora themed non-arguments are few and far between can't miss this one!

>You will probably feel two desires—one a desire to give help
He hasn't been around real human beings much, has he? Good writer though.

>be psychopath
>don't feel the desire to help nor the desire to run away
>just enjoy the death of another human being

C.S. Lewis is wrong, buddy.

And I agree that morality exists in most human beings if not in every single one of them, how could I claim subjectivity of morality if human beings didn't have morality?

But how can you say that morality is objective? If you can't prove it phsyicially or by any other means, why do you believe it in first place?

childishly comparing the concept of God to other purposely fictional creatures is not an argument either, mouthbreather

You are only trying to prove the objective existence of logical thinking and personal preference. And the nature of moral in your brain is 100% physical, not some "divine" being that we dont know of.

Like I said, the essence of moral is that it is a man-made concept, and one of its nature is that it can not be objective.

because the non physical actually exists, the conversation that we're having is living proof of that. It is a concept that philosophical materialism will never grasp.

No even psychopaths know what they're doing is wrong, they just don't care. Doesn't mean that they aren't breaking the highest moral code, if one was to believe in one.

too much left brain thinking will always keep your right brain in an permanent enigma, because reality cannot be defined by material means, yet it still exists. So if you cant quantifiably mathmatize reality, it doesn't exist? how stupid does that sound? you cant break down thought and morals with a methodology designed to suck numbers out of solids liquids and gasses.

Pic related.

You are a lost cause buddy, keep believing.

Irredeemable.
>muh holy reality
Why do you people keep deluding yourselves? Is that really fun?
Look what you've become, you cant even comprehend what it means by right and wrong.
Right and wrong by definition are made by us. Humans, as far as we're concerned.
And science will eventually prove your conciousness some day, do you refuse to accept the truth?

God is good.

I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of making such statements when you yourself base your beliefs on faith alone.

This is the problem with modern day "Scientism"
You can never be justified on holding a study or a scientific consensus as a true belief. You've not spent time evaluating the methodology to gather the select data. You have not compiled the artificats yourself to compose the raw data. You did not study any of the statistical analysis or reasoning of why one method was selected over another. And finally you did not verify the inferential integrity of the data gathered for the stated conclusion.

In other words, In order for you to accept the conclusion of a study as a true belief, you would have to make the claim that you agree with every single methodology, decision, assumption, computation and inference leading to the conclusion. In essence, in order to accept this study as true, you are doing it so on faith, and testimony alone.

>vid related
youtube.com/watch?v=Tp1eZdtkdQM

readSaying that modern science is the ONLY possible path to knowledge is absolutely bannas level retarded. It is useful, but science being used synonymous with truth is that of a religious nature. Science is only concerned with things that can be reduced to numbers. Therefore, if truth exists outside of arbitrary system, science is not concerned with it. Thats why we call you fedoras, because you don't find fault with your own subjective reasoning.