Moral is objective. Not thinking so is the root of degeneracy

Moral is objective. Not thinking so is the root of degeneracy.

Yes, and? You've literally made no argument.

morality is NOT objective

No such thing as objective morals, m8.

It's the axiom, that's why.

> Eternal Law is subjective
> Harmony is subjective
> Nature is subjective

If it's objective, define it

You're implying that morality has a universal truth aspect to it. What you are failing to recognize is that human nature is excepting to these standards, not accepting.

The real question here is "How do I govern an amoral people while maintaining moral law and principles?"

This is something that history has answered repeatedly, and civics fails to implement properly. A system that rewards morality and punishes amorality doesn't work. A system that encourages morality and excommunicates amorality also doesn't work.

A system that encourages/rewards morality, as well as provides an avenue with high payment (taxation?) to engage in amorality without consequence has never been tried.

>Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind.

Kant was the fucking man, head professor of philosophy at University of Berlin at age 23. Nigga

I Kant agree with you here.

Even if we can't define it, it doesn't mean that it's subjective

>moral is objective

What did he mean by this?

Some moralities are certainly superior to others from a civilizational standpoint, but most people don't know what is truly best for them and follow base urges blindly, unless they're guided by the hand of those higher minded than them.

Also, deontological ethics a shit, virtue ethics the best.

What this guy said, he argued popular ethics in a sense that that the object after the fact of action is totally useless to the motivating factor or belief behind an action and when it comes to ethics, actions and morals are ethical in universal and preconceived well based, mostly entrenched, popular manifestations and nuances not being applicable. If I remember correctly.

Pardon my total disregard of grammar lol

Duty is what lead wise man to act and believe Well. Duty is what discern Good from Evil morality or ethics.

> Define something timeless

You can't m8

If you can't define what you speak of, then it's worthless to talk about it.

You've only defined duty and, maybe, obligation to follow morals, but not morals being objective.

Eitherway, morals aren't entirely objective/subjective; either ends up being tautological.

Natural, not timeless.

Morality is definitely objective, and it's natural law. Any action that brings harm upon another sentient being is in violation with the natural law or morality, i.e. immoral. In contrast, any action that does not bring harm upon another sentient being is moral, or in accordance with natural law.

Nihilism is jewry.

>Murder and assault
is wrong because it is initiation of violence. It is not wrong to kill someone in self defense and it is not murder if one do so, i.e. it is only murder if you initiate the violence yourself.

>Rape
is wrong because it is the forceful initiation of sex with someone that does not want to engage in sexual action with the initiator.

>Theft
is wrong because you take something that belongs to someone else.

>Coercion
is wrong because you force someone to do something that they don’t want to do.

>Lying
is wrong because it is stealing and/or hiding the truth from someone.

Committing any of the above stated acts is a violation of natural law and thus immoral.

Thus there is objective morality.

Prove it faggit

I think objective morality is based off of logical consistency, and that this is undeniable

if we can notdefine it nobody knows exactly whats moral and not thus the concept of objective morality becomes irrelevant.

How are imaginary rules natural?

Natural Law is the discovery channel - i.e. nihilism.

The jews aren't nihilists retard, they believe in all kinds of retarded shit

morality doent exist in the first place.

morality, the set of reasoned principles which define 'correct' or 'good' behavior, exists a priori (literally in the first place) as a result of the fact that we are human beings with self awareness, capable of critical thinking and self awareness, who take actions as a result of reasoned though.

>Morality is relative
>Hey but you can't kill me or rob me!!!!!

Only in civilized human cultures, yes. Degenerates are essentially animals who cannot integrate with civilization, thus should fuck off.

...

By that logic a lion eating a gazelle is immoral

> A system that encourages/rewards morality, as well as provides an avenue with high payment (taxation?) to engage in amorality without consequence has never been tried.


Isn't the higher payment a "punishment"? Even if we agree it not a punishment it seems too crazy to allow someone to murder someone else just cause they had a few extra shekels they willing to part with.

take your spooks and leave

fuck off spooks this is now a based Stirner thread

...

Is there objective good and evil then?

morality might be objective but humans can only see it and express it subjectively. that is why a higher principle (god or gods) is needed to direct man in the direction of the Good.

subjective/objective distinction is degeneracy
to most people's minds, moral subjectivism is just the view that morals are "personal preferences" (can't be right or wrong, can't be argued for, can't be binding on others, etc.)
by that logic, "moral objectivism" covers the enormous heterogeneous mass of views that don't agree with that insane nihilistic conception, making the term useless
"personal preference" is itself an epistemically and ethically weird concept of recent invention, and mostly political in its function

some theorists try to give stricter senses to "subjective" and "objective", but ultimately the distinction is rooted in outdated Cartesian metaphysics and just needs to be discarded wholesale

just treat moral claims like any other claims

Kant came pretty close to establishing an objective system of morals, but then Schopenhauer and Benjamin Constant blew him the fuck out.

...

wops aren't white

This. Also, at the end of the day different cultures and ethnicities will always develop different moral values based on different factors and there's no way of enforcing a universal moral code, especially with something as tenuous as "rationality"

>denies existence of ethics
>implicitly praises and recommends intellectualism, independence, and freethinking as ways of life
>lol oops

moral nihilism is just what's hiding underneath the libcucks' relativism and subjectivism
you are more bluepilled than the liberals, because whereas they are confused and in denial about their nihilism, you have swallowed that blue pill eagerly like it was a big tasty black cock

So eating meat, hunting, and fishing are all immoral and unnatural? Also, "harm" is way too vague

Natural for the sustainability of a society/individual.

Queering virulent fags aren't an ingredient for a working society.

They push nihilism for the goyim. While they keep their society healthy.

Ideology is just a tool of mass control to have "intellectual" imbeciles react and feel the way they want.

My morality is objective because I say so. Checkmate, Christcucks.

>lying
This can be seen as morally wrong in many cases, but what about the classic problem of lying to a murderer in order to protect their potential victim? Also, would you argue that telling kids about Santa is immoral because it's technically hiding the truth from them?

Kant wrote a great piece about why the question of "should we lie to a murderer about his victim's location in order to protect the victim?". Basically, the question is ill-formed and nonsense, and in every case where we formulate a well-formed question about the situation with the murderer, it turns out the best thing to do would still be not to lie.

Why?

Morality is subjective

Morality is a man-made concept that is defined by the society you live in; it is subjective. There is nothing called morality in nature. You cannot observe morality or test it in a laboratory. There is no absolute "morality."

Many religious fanatics have tried to prove that morality is an absolute, just like God is real. They have even developed philosophies to prove it, e.G., metaphysics, and epistemology, which use meaningless circular propositions to prove their points. They use word games to prove their points. Both assume that knowledge, morality, Good and Evil exist 'a priori'.

What does 'a priori' mean: 'a priori' knowledge, in Western philosophy since the time of Immanuel Kant, knowledge that is independent of all particular experiences, as opposed to a posteriori knowledge, which derives from experience. The Latin phrases a priori (“from what is before”) and a posteriori (“from what is after”) were used in philosophy originally to distinguish between arguments from causes and arguments from effects.

Even murdering or killing humans is not an absolute; it is societal, e.G., killing in war is OK, killing someone attacking you with deadly force where you are in fear of your life is OK.

I'm going to make the argument that morality is subjective in so far as it comes it about, which makes it look virtually like a "personal preference"

Now there are subjectivists who will puss out and say you can't argue morality, but they never understood Nietzsche then

If someone is a Utilitarian and another a Deontologist, they could certainly argue their points as long as they understand that what each person believes is a essential concern (or moralization) of something that their moral philosophies are concerned with

Basically it means moral arguments become a concern over things somewhat tangential to morality itself, if that makes sense

>empiricism this naive
>social constructivism
>using philosophy to express anti-philosophy
>literal newatheism

the purest distilled liberal scientistic degeneracy imaginable
kill yourself IMMEDIATELY

>Not thinking so is the root of degeneracy.
Doesn't make it true though
Just because it's undesirable doesn't mean it's not true
Morality doesn't exist
It's an unfortunate fact
So go out and be degenerate
You might as well be
If you don't you'll die anyway and there's no prize at the end for being a moralfag
Get off your high horse
Morality isn't objective, there's no evidence for morality, you're wrong

...

>mentions natural law
>brings up harm
ffs

There comes a point where morality can be said to be based on the objective repercussions of immoral acts. I'm pretty sure a lot of the degenerates these day's aren't ready for the hell they are going to face.

Not an argument.
I'm too intelligent, fellow user.

>muh freedumb and independence of thought
this cuck is even worse than the typical liberal

wrong pic lol

lol, you said nothing above

Are you implying that morality is natural?

Since our lifes have sense only in their relations with others (If we don't, we'd be without An identity), than is our natural sense of Duty, that makes us create interdependence between individuals, the ruler of what is Good and what is not. Giving up on our limitless freedom, we can give sense to our lifes by respecting our duties towards who we love.
(I'd really like to be more clear, but I'm Mario, so not enough English for good philosophy).

>Natural Law
Animals do the same.
Dont kill me.
Dont steal my stuff and territory.
Dont take my mate.
Very natural.

I know for a fact you did not write 4-5 paragraphs of embarrassingly historically and philosophically ignorant tryhardery as bait, so even with as baity a response as you just gave me, I know you are sincere, and I know what an embarrassment that is for you

that's the preamble, now answer me this (should be simple for you with your superior rational atheistic science-mindedness):
>how is what I said not an argument?

That was a good argument. But that empiric fag is too busy saying nothing.

You are right that morality does not exist in nature. This does not mean that there is no absolute morality or objective morality. For example, numeration systems are a human construct but you can still look at a basket of eggs and determine the number of eggs in the basket objectively so long as you except the rules of the numeration system.

Your claim that something cannot be objectively determined because it does not exist in nature is a misdirection.

You also claim that objective morality doesn't exist because moral codes vary from society to society, an observation which doesn't illuminate anything about the existence or non existence of an objective morality.

All in all, the claim of objective morality's nonexistence is an objective claim about the nature of morality. When you look at it this way, the argument which denies an objective morality is incoherent and meaningless.

I agree with the first half but take umbrage with the rest

Their arguments are not circular, sure as hell can't say that about Kantians at least

And your argument regarding the societal nature of morality is a mistake in thinking

Societies develop morality, true

But they can do so because they are human beings with their own mind, the creation of morality is down to whether or not human beings create it and not "society"

For example, if we agree that morality is subjective then in order for morality to be societal we would have to then discount the subjectivity of the individual and I doubt anyone would do that

The reality of our world is such that subjective individuals can create their own morality, because morality is a human invention by individuals who happen to live in a society

I think the argument that societies have differing moralities is meant to point out the subjective nature of morality

Or at least that it is a human invention, not something that we could argue is an objective thing

Put it this way, if you want to demolish that argument you would have to make an argument as to why whatever objective or absolute morality you follow or would argue for is legitimate and the others are not

Humans can "invent" objective things because They share a priori some forms/traits that are innate in them that make every Human analize the same thing in the same way. Math for example can be objective because all Humans are born with the form of time and space.

No, its not relevant. The observation that different societies have different moral values does not necessitate the nonexistence of an objective morality. Its a descriptive claim about ethics.

Going back to my example, different societies have different numeration systems as well. This says nothing about the capabilities, incapabilities of these systems, nor the objective nature of their subject matter.

No one actually thinks that morality is subjective, which I illustrated in my last post. Its an incoherent claim.

If there is no objective morality then there is no morality at all. If it's subject to interpretation, then I can interpret it any way I please.

Thus, while there may not be an objective morality, we should at least pretend that some rules are objectively correct. Such as "do not murder" and "do not steal", but it's ultimately a sham unless you subscribe to the idea of an objective morality. And if you do, how would you determine what is "objectively moral"?

I agree that observation doesn't necessitate the non-existance of an objective morality, but it doesn't mean those moralities aren't legitimate in some way

Can you elaborate a bit on the incoherent claim part?

And for clarification, I'm arguing there is subjectivity because it doesn't seem like we have an absolute metric or observable scientific thing to approach

What would be the objective way to analyze morality?

Categorical imperative maybe?

Also, when you don't subscribe to an objective morality, what's stopping you from doing ANYTHING? It's merely a social contract that keeps us from devouring our civilization.

Kant said that. I quite agree with him, but nowadays I think we can say our drives are irrational and harder to understand. For sure a society is healthy when man can be responsable and engage prosperous relationships, and is something greater than social and moral differences that makes this possible.
(Bad English)

>metaphysics, and epistemology, which use meaningless circular propositions to prove their points.
Oh yes, some of the most important fields of philosophy are utterly meaningless just because some christfag triggered you on a soviet thermostat calibration forum.

I originally said that the claim that there is no objective morality is incoherent because:

> The claim of objective morality's nonexistence is an objective claim about the nature of morality. When you look at it this way, the argument which denies an objective morality is incoherent and meaningless.

When a person says there is no objective morality, they are saying that a set of objective moral principles does not exist. In doing so, they have made an objective determination about morality. Its a contradiction, its just incoherent and meaningless. When a person says "morality is subjective" they aren't saying anything.

Objective morality would be a totalitarian system applicable to any situation, omniapplicable if you will. This like any omni-property is logically inconsistent. Therefore morality cannot be objective.

Assuming morality is objective, where do we find it? Do you have evidence to prove the source is absolutely trustworthy?

You're making a category error I think

You can make objective statements about subjective things

For example I think rocky road ice cream is great

Thats a subjective statement, but if someone were to look at me and my joy while eating that ice cream they could say "user likes rocky road ice cream"

Yes, and Objectivism has the best objectification of it.

You know how the monkeys prune each other for bugs and how if one monkey gets a free ride and doesn't return the favor the other monkeys all ostracize the one that broke the order? That shits natural. No one came and influenced the monkeys that's how things ought to be that's how they naturally think its fair

Make an argument dumbass.

acctually the opposite is the case.

Accepting subjective morality lets superior morality prevail against bullshit morality.
If we wouldnt have an institution protecting faggots, there wouldnt be any degeneracy.

>it seems too crazy to allow someone to murder someone else just cause they had a few extra shekels they willing to part with.
Well, sensibly, there has to be limits. I wasn't going that far down the recesses of black heart individuals; just someone that wants to smoke the occasional joint, or fuck a willing and clean prostitute.

"I think rocky road ice cream is great" is not a subjective statement. Its objectively true or false depending on if you are lying or not. Thats why someone else can objectively say "user likes rocky road ice cream" and be right or wrong.

Its also not a subjective statement to say "rocky road ice cream is great". Whoa! A bold claim right? But think about it... what are we saying when we say "rocky road ice cream is great?". The subjectivity comes from the fact that people will supposedly all have different ideas of what "great" is. This just means that the word 'great' is meaningless in this context. If we define 'great' as meaning, "nourishing" for example, then we can objectively determine if rocky road ice cream is great or not. We can clarify greatness as much as needed to turn "rocky road ice cream is great" into a matter of objective determination.

this is acctualy a non-argument.
You are building upon "we dont know"

This doesn't mean that everyone has the same opinion about rocky road ice cream, it doesn't deny that people have different preferences. Thats why the fact that people have different opinions on rocky road ice cream is not evidence that its "greatness" is a matter of objectivity, so long as the word great actually has meaning in this context: a commonly understood meaning.

What makes it superior morality? For all we know, the degenerate morality is superior and we are deceived and thus their superior numbers shall prevail.

Morality is a dimension of human existence that arises from our free-will, which exists as long as reason has the capacity of creating a will that is a law to itself, granting the individual with power and freedom, therefore, responsibility.

It's a necessity of reason.

My point was even if morality was objective, it doesn't really help. I don't even believe in objective morality to begin with.

The morality that is more suited to propagation will win out, just like with genes. It's all down to memes and their evolution.

Superior morality physicly survives.
Thats how you know its superior, that is why we need to change or the muzzies will remove us.

I walways wonder if people really understand what they're talking about when they discuss about subjetivism vs objectivism.

Can someone SHOW ME an example of subject that isn't an object at the same time?

Morality is only objective if you follow a religion. Something at least seems objectively right or wrong because a book tells you and it's supposed to be a holy book written by those in the know of what a God or Gods want(s).

Morality is objective in the sense that it doesn't exist

Demonstrating objective morality could win you a Nobel Prize.

You will never do it, though, because it's literally impossible.

Oh damn I'm a dumbass. Meant to reply to this guy.

>Can someone SHOW ME an example of subject that isn't an object at the same time?
What do you mean "show me"?

it is objective if its valid from all points of view
it is subjective if its valid for the individual

moral is subjective for example, because noone has to agree with you.
Scientific facts are objective, as they can be proven by expiriments and calculations.

I believe in natural law, witch is objective.
you cannot argue against, might is right, physical damage to a body may kill you etc.

There's no higher power that will strike you with lightning for acting immoral, but that doesn't mean morality isn't important. Things like rape and murder ought to be considered objectively wrong, but morality isn't objective all the time.