Why do you make value judgements when all value judgements are baseless an cannot be judged objectively?

Why do you make value judgements when all value judgements are baseless an cannot be judged objectively?

Why not admit that all of what you believe in is rather your arbitrary preference given to you by the culture in which you grew up in and the body in which you inhabit?

Why do you waste so much time trying to justify what you believe in on rational grounds when none of what you believe in is grounded in rational thought?

>objectively
Stopped reading there.

lemme smash

You probably misread what I said. I did not claim that what my post said was objective, I claimed that you cannot judge a value in an objective way. If I am wrong about this and you understood me correctly then you are not worth talking to.

capitalism is objectively superior to communism. the real world gives credence to that. also meritocracy is objectively better than aristocracy, and secularism is objectively better than religious fundamentalism

What measure are you using to determine whether one thing is "superior" or "better" than the other?

Moral relativism is the shit. Only once you see that morality only creates a them/us juxtaposition are you truly redpilled.

Congratulations

You have attained weed smoking teenage philosopher status

You DONT really have to listen to your dad amd go to bed before midnight. You CAN eat ice cream for dinner. Nothing is real.

Next stage: adulthood/neo-traditionalism

>all value judgements are baseless an cannot be judged objectively

Do you have an argument in support of this claim? Because you've not justified it in your post.

I have never claimed what I believe in is based or grounded in "rational" thought. It is precisely based on my experiences, that's why it's real and valid to ME, regardless of what others think of it.

>all value judgements are baseless an cannot be judged objectively

That right there is a value judgement.

human technological advancement and living standards are better under capitalism than communism. compare western europe vs USSR and eastern europe, or japan/south korea vs north korea,maoist china

the measure i use is utilitarianism and technological advancement. if it enhances society's success, improves people's health and prosperity, enhances our understanding and control of the universe, if it alleviates mass suffering, it is good

meritoracy is objectlevly better than non-meritocratic. meritocratic societies have better and more dynamic economies, corrupt and hereditary societies are less innovate, and its people are less well off, which makes sense if u don't give smart people the chance and recognition they deserve. secular societies are also better than hyper religious societies. the embrace of secularism and science put the west ahead of the rest of the world. even now, we see secular societies endowed with less sectarian conflict and endowed with more innovation and better living standards

I meant value judgements within the realm of morality, so it's not a value judgement in that sense.

Value judgements arise out of power relationships and good is used to describe those in power. Since those in power change all of the time and different types of people are in power simultaneously in separate places such value judgements are relative and are strictly nominal.

Those measures are arbitrarily being used. There is no objective reason for using those as measures to determine whether or not something is better than something else.

>doing what is most beneficial for society and humanity is not objective

ok mate. its not arbitrary, its rooted in consequentialism. they're like rules of the universe, u can prove them correct. arbitrary would be me making a normative statement, without any proof or justification why it is the case. e.g we should make everyone equal. that wouldn't be objective,as there is no reasoning behind that to do so.

Consequentialism is strictly anthropocentric. It is entirely arbitrary to focus on humans.

no it's not. it's ingrained in humans to work towards preserving and aiding the human race. ever heard of the selfish gene? its not arbitrary, its the moral code of the natural world itself, endowed on us by the mysteries of the universe. creation's will made manifest

It is arbitrary for you to give importance to what is ingrained in humans. As I said before, it's strictly anthropocentric. There is no objective reason to give that the focus of attention in these matters.

anthropocentrism isn't arbitrary, its reason itself. you are human, so you work towards serving the collective u are part of. at this point u r basically denying reason is even a thing. u claim no-one's world view is built upon reason, but u haven't even defined what it is, thereby creating an unwinnable argument as u fail to define the basic crux of your argument, reason

I would love to rape Ivanka. If you catch my drift.

You've state utility is somehow the ultimate goal, which is subjective in itself. Taking a human life to harvest organs is utilitarian, so that, according to you, should be an objective goal.

There's no objective reason to give attention in any matters if you're using those standards. Everything will fade away and return to the way it once was.

indeed it is. if u aren't gonna be using it, it may as well be taken so someone else can. compulsory organ harvesting for the deceased and criminals on death row

Why not for anyone? Criminals often have genetic flaws and organs abused by a life of degeneracy. The organs of must use would come from the young and healthy.

because the young and healthy hold intrinsic value within a society

criminals live are largely unworthy. they are a detriment to themselves and society. as we are working on an anthropocentric utilitarian framework here, it should be abundantly clear why

Take time to digest what I said in my past posts because none of what you have said is getting around that at all. Also I agree with this part of what said:
>You've state utility is somehow the ultimate goal, which is subjective in itself.

not every criminal would have worthy organs, but if they do and are about to be executed or are in prison for life, they're organs may as well be requisitioned for society's benefit

Yes, as potential organ donors. If they are not breeding and perpetuating the species or creating something that eases or promotes that end, then using the very criterion of utility they should be used as fertile ground for organs to be distributed to those willing and able to endeavor for the species

seeing as u still fail to define objectively or reason, i'll do it myself. objective values stem form what can be proven to work for the benefit of society or humanity. trying to argue with u is trying to hold slime, as u fail to define what reason of objectivism is, u can always claim my ideas aren't objective or rational

Unworthy of what? Perhaps they breed well and we're endeavored in perpetuating the species, your earlier stated highest criterion. They are arrested for tax evasion, but a NEET who is sterile gets the criminals organs?
Try again.

if a criminal is on death row they did a hell of alot worse than tax evasion. they'd have to be guilty of murder, pedophilia or rape, or be an enemy of the state. u don't just execute people for breaking the law in all cases

That is not objective. Objective facts are a priori facts. Are the Neumenon rather than phenomenon. The thing in itself, rather than how sensuous experience defines it.
Read moar.

Again you are just repeating yourself without addressing the point I made.

>objective values stem form what can be proven to work for the benefit of society or humanity
That is your position and you have offered no explanation of why your measure is not arbitrary.

I don't know if you've read what I said here but this is relevant to our discussion:
>Value judgements arise out of power relationships and good is used to describe those in power. Since those in power change all of the time and different types of people are in power simultaneously in separate places such value judgements are relative and are strictly nominal.

humans live and exist independent of a moral or cultural frameworks. a human starving or a society crumbling is not an abstract concept of the mind, its an objective reality with real world consequences

That would spark contention within a society if the government starts deciding who should be killed and who shouldn't be. Societies that do not, in a broad sense, perpetuate the values of those living within the society are not affective at sustaining maximum utility.

The possibility that you will be harvested for organs if you do nothing for society will either insentivise you to do more than nothing or fight against the one who established that rule.

many value judgement might arise from power relations, that does not mean an objective truth does not exist. the objective is determined with historical proof and comparison of what works most effectively in achieving societal goals and maximizing welfare

>Opinion is subjective therefore you shouldn't have an opinion
This is the dumbest shit I've ever heard and this type of thinking is responsible for the decline in values in the west. Just because belief is subjective doesn't mean that you should accept anything. Regardless of subjectivity we still have preferences on how we want to live and how we believe we should progress. Not having any beliefs is not knowing how to live, and on a societal level, is society not being able to come to a consensus, which equals chaos. If people in society don't have beliefs then either chaos will emerge (which can be seen now in society) or a more dominant tribe will decide for you (which can also be seen in society). People try to justify things for two reasons, because they want to test their ideas, and because they have an idea they want others to agree with. For example I am responding to you right now because of the second reason, cause that was some serious shitpost you just made.

>tl;dr yes culture shapes our beliefs, beliefs are necessary on an individual level and societal level. Just because it's subjective does not mean it isn't necessary. People justify it out of interest or because they want people to agree.

You've conflated from criminal to death row. Stop goal post moving. Either ALL criminals get this treatment or death row inmates. You stated the one earlier, now shifted to this criterion. It shows a weak argument.

Consequences for who? Those involved, nothing more. The weakness of individuals are the strength of the collective, so stating one group starving or another society collapsing as bad is subjective. To some it may not be

>Why do you waste so much time trying to justify what you believe in on rational grounds when none of what you believe in is grounded in rational thought?

Rational thought (at least for humans) falls in line with the perpetuation of information (within genes), the best way for humans to do so would be to establish societies based around general utility.

If you say that is anthropocentric then you are disregarding what rational thought for humans is, in which case you are disregarding the importance of existence. In that case, what's the point of anything? You're arguing semantics.

Because I think life is better than death, surviving and thriving is better than dying and decay, flourishment is better than not.
If you don't agree with this, we cannot share the same space, and you should kys

>when none of what you believe in is grounded in rational thought?
In this sentence you judged value of what you subjectively believe others believe. So why do you do the same thing you asking?

typical western mindset. no room for nuance, only universals. criminals are punished accordingly to the degree of their transgressions. small transgressions are punished less as the individual still has a chance to be reintegrated into society to be useful. but for serious transgressions there is no reintegration, only death

>being a post modernist

when it undermines the long term prosperity and survival of the human race its objectively bad. the consequences inevitably reverberate, especially if a whole society is burning. that wasted human potential and accrued human knowledge in that society burning up, failing to benefit humanity

Let me remind you that this talk originated with you claiming certain things are better than other things I am pointing this out because what I have been saying in these last several posts have only been about questioning whether or not you have an objective measure for your claims that something is better or superior to another thing.
My original post said that these sort of beliefs are based on arbitrary preferences and I have been arguing that with you in relation to what you said about human affairs.
You attempted to explain how focusing on human affairs is not arbitrary in a very half-assed way and did not get around the central point I was making that you have no real reason to look to how humans are impacted as a measure for whether or not something is better than something else.
One could look say that communism is better than capitalism because it is a system which has the most potential to rid the earth of humans and that is good because humans are a parasite on planet earth.
That is just another example of an arbitrary measure that could be used to decide which of two things are better. It is as groundless as the one you are using.

You are misunderstanding what I said. I basically said that beliefs arise out of non rational tendencies in humans so it is silly to attempt to justify them on a rational basis. People have preferences for things and those preferences were not rationally decided on so any justification claiming so is just a rationalization.

>waste time trying to justify what you believe in on rational grounds

>none of what you believe in is grounded in rational thought

oh look, OP is a nigger who broke my fragile world mind-world with his clever-speak

I am not sure what you are trying to say in this post but you should read this in case you misunderstood what I meant: >You are misunderstanding what I said. I basically said that beliefs arise out of non rational tendencies in humans so it is silly to attempt to justify them on a rational basis. People have preferences for things and those preferences were not rationally decided on so any justification claiming so is just a rationalization.

You people who are trying to argue against the notion that morals are subjective are silly. The real retort is that civilization was created specifically on pretenses of cooperation and non-hostility, so people who don't fall in line with this can either go out into the woods or get shot. Their choice.

Then you're simply arguing against human fallibility.

First of all, lets assume we have at least some of the same basic goals: To have sufficient resources to live comfortably, to be able to have a family, enjoy some luxuries etc.

Now there will be different societal models which can achieve this to a varying degree of success. However there are also clearly many which will not work, so they can be judged to be inferior.

Contrary to what leftists believe, a society isn't just for ed by its laws, but also, if not primarily, by its culture. People should choose to have children, to not litter, steal or commit crimes etc.

Whilst for any one individual person it might be logical to not have children, or to just drop his rubbish on the floor etc., if everyone does it we have a problem. That's why having a system of values is important. These values may seem illogical if viewed on their own, and like they encourage people to act against their own self interest, but if held by most people in society will allow for a safe and prosperous nation to exist.

So whilst you can criticise individual elements of our cultures, clearly overall they work quite well. A society without values will not work nearly as well, and whilst you will have less "illogical" things to criticise in their attitude it is illogical to have given up your values in the first place

why would i believe in you

>lets assume we have at least some of the same basic goals: To have sufficient resources to live comfortably, to be able to have a family, enjoy some luxuries etc.
There is no reason to assume that. Those goals are completely arbitrary and there is no reason for advocating them.

People have instincts, and the vast majority of people will have fairly similar instincts.

At the very least, most people want to continue living, avoid pain and overexertion, have enough food, shelter, sex etc.

The remainder of the argument will be fairly similar to my original post, in that you would want to build a society which can achieve that

The basis of meaning is to ensure life of yourself and your kin, and to ensure the perpetual survival and advancement of your lineage over time.

Are you making the case that those goals are not arbitrary, meaning there is a real reason to advocate those specific goals instead of other ones, due to the fact that most people agree with those goals?

What do you mean by "basis of meaning"?

Some people do terrible things out of instinct, like rape or murder. Why should instinct be some gold standard that justifies your behavior?

Because some of us are empaths and can judge objectively, user.

That's not the basis of meaning. You wouldn't say that the life of bacteria is meaningful just because it tries to survive.

how we go about determining value.

>My judgments are objective because my feelings produce the best results
You're the most arbitrary of all. One who calls for standards without regard for standards.

>my feelings

Are irrelevant.

Judgement is based on the motives of the actor.

are you and your kin bacteria?

Did you just admit that your "meaning" stems from the subjectivity of being yourself? If you're going to change the goals, warn me first.

Maybe I phrased it poorly, "base needs" or something may have been better. That aside, the reason murder is not allowed is because it goes against most peoples interests, and allowing murder, theft, rape etc would not allow for a stable society to exist

In a way everything is arbitrary, another type of creature may require other things, and even simply other people may want other things. However all living things have needs, there really isn't any deeper reason to that than the ones who fo not have any wants or are not fulfilling them not surviving and passing on their genes.

What I'm saying is that if I want something, and so do most other people, it makes sense for us to cooperate in a way which achieves as many of these goals as possible

Didn't you say that you can judge objectively because you're an "empath"? You can't just turn around and say that your feelings are irrelevant. Feelings were the basis for your argument.

>Why do you waste so much time trying to justify what you believe in on rational grounds when none of what you believe in is grounded in rational thought?

I said my feelings are irrelevant.

You implied that they have any bearing of judgement.

They don't.

>when none of what you believe in is grounded in rational thought?

And that's where you're wrong, just because your tiny female brain isn't capable of processing rationality doesn't mean there's no rational thought behind my ideas.

efficiency, maximization of freedom, and general social health.

you're not as intelligent as you think you are

Why should bulk majorities decide the whole of human behavior? Do you know how many people murder? It's not less than 10% of the population. You use a Nazi flag. Do you think that Nazism should be banned because it's unpopular? Besides: Everything has a base need. Even bacteria have base needs. Are antibiotics immoral?

/thread
OP:
>"why does the world exist in my head and im the only one figuring it out"

this is the only sensible answer to this mental masturbation drivel

Why are you contradicting yourself so easily? You can't just turn around and start saying the opposite of what you were initially saying. Admit that you were wrong.

I.E: right now, you're being willfully obtuse, arguing for the sake of arguing. My feelings have nothing to do with that.

It is and I don't try to justify it. But here's the thing:

My preferences > everyone else's preferences

nothing about my argument has changed, you just seem to have a hard time understanding. It is not subjective but it takes into account our subjective perspective of the world.

In short: any dermination that you make that is more accurate to how reality is, the greater your chance of survival. The least accurate you are, the lesser that chance is.

>le everything is arbitrary

you can't be over the age of 18

I knew what you were thinking, OP.

It's okay if you don't understand the machinations, but you must understand that they exist.

>not less than 10%
Woops. That's obviously not true. I meant the total number of people in prison, but even that's less than 10%.

she is a fascist

I use the nazi flag because the other flags are lame, I'm not actually a nazi

That aside, I am not arguing that there is an objective morality. I am saying that society will be shaped by what most people want, and that values are useful in achieving that. Again, it is not that most people should decide for everyone, but in praxis they will do so. And if a few people want to pursue actions which harm the majority then that minority may be jailed, killed or otherwise neutralised.

And it's most definitely under 10% of the population who committ murder, at least in the west

You're unwilling to admit that you said something wrong because you have your head up your ass. Just say "I didn't mean to say that. My mistake." You started out by saying that you can judge objectively because you have empathy, which grounded your argument in terms of emotion. Now you're trying to forget that you ever brought up emotion because you realize how subjective it is. If you want to change the terms of your argument then first admit that you made a mistake.

Post-Modern relativism has failed, miserably. Evidence always trumps theory, and even on strickly biological grounds of reproduction, Marxism is sterile. Bare rationality has only succeeded in slowly suffocating as it cuts off it's own oxygen supply. Your disdain for Christ, Christian Religion, tradition, family and Nation is appalling.

Those of us not so deluded by this inane intellectual garbal will inherit the earth, we are the strong, we are the courageous and masterful and honorable. We have no use for you, you have cast yourself by alignment with moral relativism into the outer dark.

There is nothing more to be discussed with a man that gouge's out his own eyes and claims he can see.

Fuck off.

Sincerely, the West.

Why do you assume what believe in? I don't believe in shit. I only see the shit that happens in front of me. and I'll be gone in a minute anyway. I don't try to make sense of this shit.

It's worse to have a nonfunctional morality that you try to impress upon people. Bulk majorities are meaningless. A long time ago the majority of physicians would have tried to treat you with leeches. A long time ago there were more people outside of civilization than within it.

I should add: The reason our crime rates are so low in the west, is because we consider crimes to warrant punishment, also focus on the practical aspect of rehabilitation and of course also simply have a culture in which crime is (generally) looked down upon. Hell, may people will hand in a wallet if they find it. That isn't logical, but because people do it that further lowers the amount of crime and issues with lost IDs, bank cards etc.

Now that I know what I meant can you tell me how you came to that conclusion?

Your explanation boiled down to "it makes sense" to act on what the majority wants. Sorry but that just isn't a proper explanation.

Explain how those are not arbitrary measures.

I'm just pointing out that that isn't op.

I didn't say anything wrong, user.

Your world view is wrong, and you're unable to come to terms with it.

You made this thread with your assumptions in tow. Empaths feel what other people feel. They are able to segregate what another person feels versus what they feel about a situation.

It really isn't that hard to understand. It doesn't have anything to do with their feelings. It has to do with the feelings of the actor being judged.

God isn't a fool. His existence predates yours. God resided in abject nothingness until the universe was created. If you don't realize that God would agree that without Him there is nihilism, then you're insulting His intelligence. You're saying that God can't bear to think about what might otherwise be. You're implying that God just tried not to think about things before He created the universe.

>worse

By what standard? You argue against a moral framework, but are using one yourself

Majorities are not irellevant, if the majority condones crime, has a poor attitude to work etc. this will lead to poverty and everyone will suffer

Also, for the majority of human history the majority of people were part of some tribe which had values and rules. It doesn't have to fit your idea of a civilisation for the argument to apply

The fact that you don't even realize that I'm not the OP proves that you aren't very smart. The fact that you are currently turning to an argument derived from emotion in order to respond to my accusation that your argument is derived from emotion further proves that you aren't very smart.

What exactly is wrong with that? You seem to want to argue against there being some intrinsically right values, but I'm not arguing for that position.

This entire retard's argument summed up:
>MMMUH ARBITRARY VALUE

Stop responding to this bait thread or sage.

That's a circular argument because you're imagining that the majority's definition of "crime" is not arbitrary. Deriving strength from majority rules is a terrible practice. A society needs order in order to be effective. When civilization shifted to stone walls, tribes stopped being the standard for civilization.

I'm arguing that it is baseless to judge societal models using the measure of how well it is successful in obtaining the goals you are advocating.

Without a higher power assigning value to things and saying "respect this or I roast your soul over a fire fueled by your own corpse", there is no value and nothing to derive purpose and proper use from. There is NOTHING.

In the atheist world, you are either a nihilist or completely accept your self determination, the validity of your will, and the invalidity of the "objective". All things are subjective, relative to the observer, even supposedly hard facts like measurements. That more than one person agrees on the definition of a centimeter is quite an achievement, when measuring your penis as "5cm long".

Pick one if you don't want to kill yourself in the future:

>Why
>because God says so

>Why
>because I think so.

I don't try to justify my fundamental values with reason. I assert them, like everyone does, only most are not conscious of being the source of valuation.

It is not "arbitrary". There is no unique soul that came before my own culture and my own body. It is not an injustice that I was born this way, and some other another way.
>Value judgements arise out of power relationships and good is used to describe those in power. Since those in power change all of the time and different types of people are in power simultaneously in separate places such value judgements are relative and are strictly nominal.
Straight up wrong. Usually evil is used to describe those in power, by those not in power.

The fact that value judgements are assertions doesn't stop us from asserting our own values. We don't need objective morality. The so-called arbitrariness of judgement is not an issue.

Values are useful, arbitrary or not. If they're all arbitrary it's a non-argument against any type of value as it applies to them all. The question then is, to be useless or not. I'd rather choose not.