Is Morality Objective or Subjective?

I know there are arguments for both and i'm very tired right now so most of the sites that give their versions of "brief" summaries on both sides aren't too attractive. I know the argument for objectivity goes something like "blah blah people would think Hitler was right in killing innocents, or people would think that rape is alright" but there are people that believe both are morally right, what am I missing pol?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_axioms
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Morality is a scam meant to domesticate you and make you easier to rule. Love thy neighbor, pray for those who persecute you, doesn't that just scream stockholm syndrome? That is the mentality of slaves. A society free of morals is a society free of the Jew.

First you have to set axioms. Then you have to make logical conclusions based on those axioms. Your moral system needs to be logically consistant.

Its basically math. Is math subjective because you use axioms? I dont think so.

Objectively subjective. In that it's obviously subjective. Morals have no basis in reality unless you establish a deity or some sort of enforced cosmic order.

relativism is a sneaky way of deriding social mores.

>Objectively subjective. In that it's obviously subjective. Morals have no basis in reality unless you establish a deity or some sort of enforced cosmic order.

> Money has no basis in reality unless you establish a deity or some sort of enforced cosmic order.


moron

>Objectively subjective would just be plain subjective....next

>Christianity let us conquer people!
Who cares? The sun is still finite.

This! Morality is objective... it is like Logos - an order of the universe you can figure our with consciousness and rationality.

Then let's have a thought experiment. Prove to me that murder is objectively bad.

fun fact:

when Jesus spoke of the inheritance of the "kingdom of heaven" he was usually speaking of actual space travel.

t. unmoral barbarian.

All suns are finite. Everything that your eyes can see is going to be destroyed. The same goes for everything that the eyes of all of your descendants will ever see.

If there's any lack of clarity/certainty about the universality of morals, then they should not be considered in a perfect code of laws. I think America should only concern itself with laws protecting people's life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness which has more to do with ethics.

because if people are murdering each other, theres also a good chance of being murdered yourself.

also theres the entire dichotomy of pain = bad.

Morality is inherently subjective because its basis lies in our emotions. But I think that it's useful to study normative ethics, and to try and come up with an objective measurement for whether or not certain actions are immoral.

and?

if everything is so pointless kill yourself right now?

I'll donate some sleep meds. :)

Morality is subjective, but a society that views morality as subjective will fall into decay, chaos, and decadence.

Leaders understand this, most people are not intelligent enough to bear with the realities of the world around them, so the Good|Bad dichotmy is created and enforced, or else people would be able to see the human in everyone, and that leads to chaos.

It's a needed thing, and the only thing capable of rising white birth rates past our biological rates, all the way to 3rd world levels.

Look at school even, the "science dogma" is just another good|bad dichotomy, because people aren't truly ready to comprehend how little they understand about the universe, but that doesn't mean we have a duty to wake them up.

It's a sad truth, but these people need to be kept brainwashed or societies cannot function or operate.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_axioms
Prove to me that any of these is objectivly right.
You can't, but you would still say that they are.

>Morality is inherently objective because its basis lies in our interactions

fixed that for you kiddo

Morality as we know it is memes creates by our biological needs and group dynamics.

Most of morality is well founded and helps us to work as a team, but do not be slave to memes, be master of them.

Morality is objective, thoughts and feelings about morality are subjective.
Same as maths.

>It's objectively bad because it activates my pain receptors.
The fact that you don't like something doesn't make it objectively bad. The man who murders you surely wouldn't call it bad. Furthermore: Am I to believe that you condone murder so long as it doesn't cause murders to become common? A murderer staying safe makes his murder just? Nonsense.

Don't move the goal posts, faggot. You called me a moron for calling morality subjective absent divine intervention. Did you have any real reason for doing so, or are you just an airhead?

I don't see your point. Murder is objectively bad because you think that some axioms are objectively right? That's a non sequitur.

Starting to feel a little spooky in here...

people that believe in subjective morality are likely godless edgelords and/or teenagers

What I mean is that the fundamental manner in which you decide something is right or wrong is how you feel. Before anything else, you know that murdering someone is wrong because the thought of murdering someone doesn't sit well with you. Stealing is wrong because we have an intrinsic desire not to steal.

Yes, morals are a product of our interactions, but only because our interactions are strong dictators for how we feel.

Don't get me wrong; I totally think that we can formulate an objective standard for moral measurements, and I think there's a lot that can be gained by treating morality as if it were an objective field of thought. Acting as if morals are just a matter of aesthetics forces you to neglect any analysis on the morals of a particular culture or group of people, which implies a neglect of any advocacy for social progress. But there's a distinction between laws of morals and laws of physics in that the laws of physics can be empirically measured, whereas the laws of morals can only be emotively measured.

>I don't see your point
Yea, thats what i tought.
For every explanation i give you, you could ask "why is that?" till a point where we are at a statement that i can't further explain. An axiom.

But you have to understand what an axiom is.
Im not saying that my set of axioms for my moral system is right, but i say there IS a right set of axioms.

>The fact that you don't like something doesn't make it objectively bad. The man who murders you surely wouldn't call it bad. Furthermore: Am I to believe that you condone murder so long as it doesn't cause murders to become common? A murderer staying safe makes his murder just? Nonsense.

define bad.

go ahead. you will learn something youngn :)

>Don't move the goal posts, faggot. You called me a moron for calling morality subjective absent divine intervention. Did you have any real reason for doing so, or are you just an airhead?

I stopped arguing with you the minute it became obvious you dont know what subjective or objective actually mean.

>you know that murdering someone is wrong because the thought of murdering someone doesn't sit well with you. Stealing is wrong because we have an intrinsic desire not to steal.

it's not a matter of "feels"

it's a hard-wired instinct against doing what is wrong for human survival

there's nothing more objective than that

>What I mean is that the fundamental manner in which you decide something is right or wrong is how you feel. Before anything else, you know that murdering someone is wrong because the thought of murdering someone doesn't sit well with you. Stealing is wrong because we have an intrinsic desire not to steal.

you are missing the big picture. it doesnt matter what either person "feels" its what works or doesnt work towards keeping a society functioning and its inhabitants alive. The entire basis of empiricism and biology itself.

to clarify.

dead = bad.

alive = good.

You have no objective definition of "right" yet you think that there's a set of objectively "right" axioms? You're missing the point entirely. I didn't ask for your feelings. You called morality objective, so either prove it or start saying "hopefully objective" in the future.

>godless
yes, you cant have objective morality without god

lol pragmatist-mind

pic unrelated

>I-I-I just STOPPED trying to win the argument!
>I-I-I-I-I just don't even WANT to prove my point...
Then kindly stop shitposting and vacate the thread so that people with interesting ideas can converse in peace, bimbo.

The cake is a lie.

Ultimately everything is subjective because the objective world only arises after analysis. Initially everything is subjective, but then we analyze it and abstract it and make it objective. For example, you feel that something is wrong. That feeling is subjective. You then codify that feeling into a set of rules. That's objective. Both are aspects of morality but the former must be primary.

If you're asking whether morality exists beyond human subjects then yes. Many organisms have evolved altruism. When evolution reinvents something over and over again, this implies some constraint in the natural law outside biology.

the butt hurt on that red-hind must be visible from space :)

What is wrong for human survival does not equal what is objectively wrong. Animals would love for humans to be exterminated. We'd stop building cities over their natural habitats. It's only a matter of circumstance that you idolize the proliferation of human flesh. If you weren't a human, you wouldn't feel the same way at all.

god is nature.

Okay, I can get behind that rationale. So basically, morals can be objectively measured by applying the objective facts and observations made in evolutionary biology, sociology, and psychology. Because our intrinsic sense of morals are a product of biology and evolution, those morals therefore have an objective basis and we can reach objective conclusions by studying it.

Thanks for the insight; I very much like this way of looking at it.

more that edgelords who believe subjective morality are simply more likely to be fedora tipping atheists

religion helps but it's not the basis for morality

You really don't get my point and i still don't think you get what an axiom is.
As i said, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_axioms
Is a list of axioms, that are most likely objectively right. To claim that they are not would be ridiculous.
Same for moral axioms. There are most likely objective ones, i can't prove that (in fact, its impossible to prove that), but its very likely and thats why its reasonable to say that moral is objective.

i've devised a solution to this problem:

my morality is my morality, therefore it is correct, therefore your morality is wrong, therefore you will need to torture or kill me to overwrite my morality.

or in other words, my morality is correct because i say so.

Morality is subjective, but I would like to see my morals forced on other people regardless because it is better than letting them act like retarded, monstrous pseudo monkeys.

You shouldn't thank the man for telling you nonsense. What significance does your biology and evolutionary history have on the universe? Absolutely none. It's relative. The "objectively" moral conclusions that you reach like that would have little to no meaning to other species. Furthermore, it would fall flat when talking about things like rape. Is rape justified? After all, it boosts reproduction.

If it's impossible to prove something then it isn't objective. You're missing the forest for the trees.

Morality is just socially acceptable behavior. Being socially acceptable is necessary to prosper in a group and humans are group animals. We generally do better with other humans around us.

This is objective. If you can prove that a moral behavior is necessary to be socially acceptable then it's objective for practical reasons.

Cold blooded murder is immoral.

if chance struck the earth with an asteroid that wiped out nothing but human life there would be nothing morally right or wrong about it, and the animals left here wouldn't give two shits

judgements of morality only apply to beings with conscience and the ability to act independently

If you don't understand that reality is nihilistic without God, then you don't understand God.

It's really a gray area. If the gains outweigh the costs of doing something (for example, killing somebody who was robbing your house), it can be justified. Some people would think the person should have been shot (good) and others would think it was a massive overreaction (bad). So it really depends on the person. Dunno if I'm making any sense, I'm pretty tired

"the mud wrestlers want rain and the sun-bathers want sun"
> using morality, solve this problem

spoiler: you can't, because you're using the wrong tool in the wrong fucking place

It is intersubjective.

There are three categories of reality:
1. Subjective (you and I can see)
2. Intersubjective (language, money, morality)
3. Objective (atoms, stars)

You need to be thinking to make moral choices. Of course it wouldn't be moral or immoral if a rock hit us.

The end justifies the means

morality is subjective in that it has more to do with our social evolutionary environment than some universal constant
even animals express some basic morals they just can't dress it up with philosophical phrases to jack themselves off

you can still judge the morals of different tribes based on how their societies turned out as a result of those morals, and some are obviously superior to others as guidelines for human interaction
I guess in this way you could say certain morals are objective but I don't think that really suits the typical meaning of the word, and we definitely have a lot of superfluous morals that weren't necessary for our success and aren't all shared by the few other successful tribes on the planet

punishment and justice can be morals too
not everything is atheist hippie jesus

Animals tending to be dumb does not overturn my point. Say that two intelligent alien races were trying to coexist. Would it be better for one to annihilate the other? What if that "other" were us? What if that "other" were them? It's subjective, not objective.

Read philosophy, scum. Morality built empires

Once and for all, because monkey boy is so retarded and kikel'd, god is ALL MOVEMENT (vibration, heat, light, etc.) and the devil is ALL STILLNESS (no vibration, coldness, inanima)

We're talking about whether or not morality is objective. There's no gain that is objectively good.

I justify the ends and the means.

Men built empires.

Just because human morals are irrelevant to other species that aren't humans doesn't mean that they're not objective. Just because they're only significant in the context of human behavior doesn't render morals subjective.

As for the rape question, if it's not some evolutionary drive that causes us to be disgusted by the act of rape, then what do you think causes it? If rape boosts reproduction and is therefore good for our society as a whole, then why would we be driven to reprimand it? Wouldn't you think that it would make more sense that there's a more nuanced reason for why rape is wrong to us? Maybe it has something to do with the fact that humans largely evolved to be raised by a mother and a father, and that pregnancy through rape disturbs the likelihood of that happening. Or maybe there's another reason behind it. No matter what the case, I think it has to be evolution that prompted our dismissal of whether or not rape is wrong.

Increased order?

Its impossible to prove anything. Thats not the point. To claim that anything is objective needs abstract thinking.

I try to make it easier for you.
Lets say theres an apple in front of you. You can see it, touch it, taste it, whatever. Could you say that to 100% its an apple? No, because its possible that your senses are dull.
But to claim that its not an apple would be completly irrantional

How would that be objectively good? Even if it absolutely benefits humanity, the benefit of humanity is not objectively good.

I know right and wrong. The forest don't give a shit though.

Based Prophet of Kek describes morality objectively.

Watch Peterson lectures, sort yourself out.

And those men had to become moral in order to built those empires, god damn how isn't this the first connection you make?

With a high degree of certainty you could claim it's an apple.


When we stop trusting our senses and minds then why anything? We have to assume our senses and minds function correctly or we can just give up.

So mine work. When I see an apple, that is objectively an apple. If you don't trust your senses that is your choice.

>It's subjective

the views on the conditions are subjective

the ultimate goal is survival, so whatever choice members of a given race make that benefit their race's survival are the morally right choices

Seriously take a moment to define some key terms in your argument. What is murder first of all?
If there are good things and bad things, what makes something good?

>It's impossible to prove anything
>But morality is objective
If you contradict yourself so easily, why do you still argue? You have no point. You talk of axioms, but you keep trying to prove a conclusion by debunking it at step one.

Men are born moral.

If morals are just socially acceptable behavior, then that kind of renders morals subjective. It means that depending on the society you're in, different things can be right or wrong. Throwing homosexuals off of buildings might be right in the Middle East, but it's wrong in Western nations.

It also means that we can determine what's right and wrong just by surveying the people, and that there's no such thing as social progress since nothing's actually "progressing" -- collective morals are just changing. I don't know about you, but this just doesn't seem to be the case to me.

I guess shit is pointless then.

If you put a God outside you get an inamovible truth so an absolute morallty.

Erase God and you get absolute relativism.

People get to decide what is good or bad.
>Why is something bad
>why is fire hot

Because we say so.

it's awwright

Yes, it does render them subjective. Something that is not universally true is not objective.

>People don't tend to like rape
>So rape is objectively bad
Was the Earth objectively flat back when everybody believed it to be so? Were honor killings objectively justified? Was feudalism objectively right? People can be conditioned to like or hate things. Considering, in addition, that there are many rapists throughout humanity, how can you say that we all hate it? Do rapists not count as humans? That's a no-true-scotsman fallacy.

Objective. But the human mind can never know it.

How are you defining "objectivity?" You seem to be following a very strict definition that's unattainable by pretty much anything.

You put too much faith into mankind. Morality is a learned concept, the only "morals" a man has fresh out of the womb is getting as many things as possible without harming himself.

Those guys are bandits and rebels.what they are doing is not socially acceptable.

Does that include rape, genocide, assassination, slavery, and so on? What a meaningless "moral system."

Morality is mostly genetic.

Google "The Poison of Subjectivism PDF CS Lewis" and read the PDF essay by Lewis. If that doesn't convince you that morality is objective you are clueless, retarded, or so hardened with sin that you are a lost cause.

How about you first take a moment to actually understand what I'm arguing for? I'm not arguing that anything is objectively good. I'm obviously taking up the position that any definition of "good" that my opponent posits would wind up being relative.

You're giving the game away , Satan.

even if there is an objective morality one can only see it trough his perceptions so whatever the response it's practically subjective.
Morals are ideas not objects. Ideas can't be object ive

Both and neither.

It's okay to kill when your country tells you to do it ;)

Yeah I agree that a lot of it is instinct.

I don't like the Heaven story. I'd rather just die and for everything to go black.

What do you think why the word "objective" exists? Nothing is certain, but by engaging in a conversation you already accepted to take things as certain even tho they are not.
You completly lack in understanding of the subject.

Take the dictionary definition of "objectivity." The reason that it seems unattainable is because it is. Nothing is objective except for 1=1, 2=2, and so on.

God is objective morality you idiot. God is a spirit beyond our comprehension who created us and subsequently morality.

morality is a social construct, there is nothing biological about it.

Being able to learn morality is mostly genetic.