Is morality relative?

Is morality relative?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=xwOCmJevigw
youtu.be/QmHXYhpEDfM
twitter.com/SFWRedditGifs

no

Are phat asses relative?

What the fuck does that mean, "is morality relative"?

Wanna know the answer? Same answer as this question:

Have we had this faggy dick up the ass thread before?

Yes Pinocchio, now clean your room.

BRRAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAP, IMAGINE A WORLD WITHOUT MONEY AND WOMEN DIDN*T GO AFTER YOUR WALLET. JUST BEAUTIFUL

yes, absolutely

morality is defined by whatever is good for society. however true morality is unattainable according to game theory because we all act selfishly instead of out of the good of society.

thus the optimal strategy is for people to pretend to be moral while exploiting behind the scenes, and that's exactly what the wealthiest and most powerful do (like Hillary Clinton, for example). As a society we must realize this and become much more vigilant and stricter towards cheaters who exploit while maintaining a moral facade.

To anyone that matters, yes.

BBBRRAAAAAAAAAAAAPPP

>Is morality relative?
Some elements of morality are informed by culture. But some things, like aversion to murder, are found in all human cultures.

We all know the answer, since morality is dictated by social stricture and in order to harm our fellow men we have to participate in society at least somewhat. The question lies in whether the pleasure of a sin is worth the consequence that will come. (Generally not.)

Basically, yes. Just like the majority of other things in this world.

Are you? morality doesn't come from outside forces it's up to you to decide. Either you think it's a good idea to go along with societal norms or you don't. Ultimately the decision is up to you.

Only if you understand that "relative" doesn't mean "arbitrary".

Morality is driven a set of social instincts which help human beings thrive as groups. That which advances collective well being is objectively moral, however because reality is complex it can be hard to predict what actions will lead to the improvement or maintenance of your group's well being. As a result different people will have their own perspectives on what course of action is the morally correct one. Those differences in perspective make morality seem "relative", but it is is still based in the objective reality that some actions will advance your group's well being and others will harm it.

Objective

Partially.

But so is everything.

only if youre a nigger

sure

Dont lose your stripes. You need them to blend in with the herd

No.
Yes.
Depends on the society you're asking.

Perhaps the best thing that can be said is that it's human.
Btw that ass has been inflated.

No, but moral things can be deemed immoral and vice versa. This is when revolt is necessary to correct the twisted paradigms. As is now.

Yes if you're a degenerate, no if you believe in God.

Absolutely not.

youtube.com/watch?v=xwOCmJevigw

Morality is rooted in advancing the collective well being.

You suggest that there is an objective moral choice (ie the one that advances the collective well being the most), but because we do not know what that is, different peoples interpretations of the most moral action lead to a false appearance of moral subjectivity.

I would ask, isn't human well being by itself by itself a subjective concept. Each of us defines what it means to have a good life on our own. What it means to live well is a personal decision.

No, morality stems from human nature.

Now the true redpill is that since different races evolved in different environments, their conception of morality differs.

Of course

Hi newfags. Thank you for your interest in our community. Please read the rules. Please lurk the archives. Please learn what shareblue is and how you can distinguish illegitimate content from legitimate contribution. For example, OP has posted a completely random pic of a girl to get attention, then he has asked a contextless and unanswerably broad question. Then he probably left and started three more one-line writing prompt one-posts. OP is a spammer, not a contributor, and we do not reply to spammers. We ignore them, report them, or type "sage" (pr. sah-gay) in the options field.

babies first philosophy video!!!

I'm so happy for you. However, don't you think that we wouldn't still be having this discussion if Kant really had it all figured out centuries ago?

According to Deontology, morals are universal and therefore not relative, if you cannot universalise your action to always be "good" it is not moral, therefore actions that can be universalised are morals and always will be. This doesn't always work howeverin instances such as 'white lies'.

Then there's Utilitarianism which attempts to say that morals aren't relative but can basically be used to justify any action and shoots its own point in the foot for it's trouble.

And then there is virtue theory which again basically gets shot in the foot by cultural shifting of morals. e.g aztecs thought it was fine and dandy to sacrifice humans whilst we currently deem that as bad.

tl;dr morals are entirely relative but some argue they aren't because its beneficial to society when they're not.

some call this Ethics and not morality but they in real world experience they equate the same thing

Think about it for all of 30 seconds.

>Nothing is objective

If that statement is true, then it's an objective statement.

Relativism is a logical fallacy.

and here, you'll see what we call "thredmom" - thredmoms are humongous faggots, and you should treat them as you would your biological mother - with disdain, disrespect, disregard, and frequent inappropriate contact to her fat cock

what about the aztecs? didn't they murder the fuck out of people?

When and how does saying morality is relative imply that everything is relative?

Morality is for pussies

the entire point of civilization/rule of law is that you don't walk around killing people willy-nilly, user

aztecs were a tribe that sacrificed people for religious purposes, it's not like they did it whenever they felt like it

True, in fact murder was wrong in Aztec society

No that's a logical fallacy dumb fuck

Yes, because we are inherently selfish and can't admit when we're wrong.

/thread

yes
/thread

and yes I get to /thread my own post

As Socrates noted, universal ethics is the logical conclusion.

If ethics are relative, then ethics don't matter at all

>is morality relative?
No

No
>However, don't you think that we wouldn't still be having this discussion if Kant really had it all figured out centuries ago?
Philosophy isn't a religion, there's no consensus. People are going to talk about philosophical concepts for all of time.

>Is morality relative?

The short answer is No.

lol no

Yes but we must pretend that no.

why?

if we can argue about it, then it is relative.
No one can argue against the fact the first three digits of Pi are 3.14 because its not relative. That can never shift no matter how cogent your argument.
Morality can be argued over because its nature is relative otherwise we would have reached a consensus by now and would no longer be arguing about it therefore it is relative.

Because we will be in a world of shit without it.

Means there is no such thing as right and wrong, it's just your opinion.

Yes.

Individually - yes
In totality - no

morality is only relative when you're talking about society vs society. within those societies morality isn't relative at all

fpbp

No, it is engraved in every human being to some degree

But is that the moral thing to do

Yes. The only moral that doesn't change is self preservation.

Yes

Dear lord that's one juicy ass. I swear to Osiris I will lay with her.

Seriously though, why is it that only pornstars appear to have bodies like that? Is it the camera angle or editing? There are plenty of nice assed women out there. But none come close to this. She even has the girl next door face to go with it.

How do you measure morality if it is objective?

that's a good take on it.

I often ponder this. What is manipulation, power and what we deem "evil" is actually the holy law of the universe.
Strength through violence and manipulation is undoubtedly the most effective tools to gain power over others, thus the most efficient tools of evolution.
The very same system "god" supposedly created.
We've been lied to and weakened with false religions telling us to avoid evil at all costs and make ourselves be "good" while the true "elite" and most powerful and successful people on Earth thrive in the advantages of the true holy law of power in the universe.
We've been brainwashed to view "evil" as bad.

No with that a face.

youtu.be/QmHXYhpEDfM

Just because it's hard to figure out doesn't mean it's relative retard.

Yes of course. Comes from the country that flipped morals 180 degrees 4 time in the 100 years.

>like aversion to murder
Murder of people from alien tribe were acceptable in all human cultures and glorified to the skies in many.
>scalps

I would argue that it is divine revelation from natures God

Confucius called it the Mandate of Heaven
The Hebrews called it Gods commandments
Christians call it Gods moral law
Buddhist call it the 8 fold path

Some call it natural law

We can see traces of it in all human beings
And we know that we have broken it at some point

yes with the rejection of drugs, tobacco and alcohol

penis weanus ofcourse

>That can never shift no matter how cogent your argument.
Easy peasy. Make a law that Pi is 3 and kill everone who says otherwise. Pi is 3 objectively know.
>but muh math
You are a smart kid, make new math with Pi=3 as axiom or you will go to the stake. Grotesque idiotic impossibility ? Well how about geocentric model and astronomy based on that? It even worked for practical purposes lol.

Non effective? Yes. But will it work? yes it will. And new truth is objective now. As no observers observing that Pi =/= 3 exist.

...

Her face is gross but that ass is phat.

A better question is whether it's better for society to believe that morality is relative or whether it's objective and universal. If it's not, then you're having to weight believing in truth over usefulness, and at that point I'd want to know what the value of truth is such that it ought to be pursued and pushed even when it is not useful.

Why would you go to a Soviet Commie, while searching for God?

No

My biggest goal in life is to smell a woman's asshole.

>better
Usefulness for many. Truth for the few.

What if two collectives are at odds? What's moral then?

How do you prove God to Communist firing squad?

Morality is based on natural law. hth

to rednecks, yes

If they were an honest Communist they would be closer to God than you, liar, purveyor of fake quotes.

Yes. Absolutely. Morality is not written down on some stones by God. Even if it was how does that make it objective? It's just what that god believes personally. Morality is relative and thus is basically arbitrary. You decide if murder is actually wrong. If you kill a murderer is that wrong? He's murdered people but so have you if you decide to kill him. Innocence and guilt can be tossed around like a ball. So can right and wrong. It's all relative. It's all arbitrary. But in the end we as a society decide what's moral based on what we think is best for the collective.

in ancient greece and rome and arab countries to this day practice pedophilia in a complete normalized way, so yeah I would say morality is relative

That's actually very interesting. We as humans tend to praise those who believe in truth as a principle but we never stop to think about the practical purpose of truth. I think standing on the truth of relative morality to be not only right but even practical. It can help us understand the motives of a group from their perspective thus we will not unfairly persecute that group for their misdeeds. And that can stop reverse from happening to us. If we don't have an understanding that can lead to miscommunication which can lead to all sorts of problems.

US practiced pedophilia too (legally), and weed drug was legal too.

Dude you're not even discussing whether or not morality is relative. You're just saying that we should create moral laws and if anyone disagrees then we kill them. Enforcing your morality doesn't make it objective it just makes you a dick.

Depends on your perspective

>You're just saying that we should create moral laws and if anyone disagrees then we kill them. Enforcing your morality doesn't make it objective it just makes you a dick.
Well if only carriers of my morals left, how aren't they objective? Who would argue them? Everyone agrees with them.

>Mortality is just an opinion
Yeah, you can't die if you don't believe in it.
Whenever I see dumb comments with my flag here, I am reminded that the US isn't as educated as I wished it were.

If everyone agrees that rocks are alive it doesn't actually mean rocks are alive. Agreement doesn't equal objectivity.

If a murderer thinks it's okay to commit murder, and you don't, who's to say who's right? It's all "relative". If you argue that it is inherently wrong, then by what absolute standard of morality are you drawing from? That's hypocritical. If all morality is subjective, then there is no objective standard. tl;dr morality is objective.

>Agreement doesn't equal objectivity.
>says Democracy
You probably forgot that you country flipped opinion 180 degress on many many many things about what is right and whats is not in your society. Just by agreement of majority.

Well, since people are able to have different morals, I'd say it can't be objective

Morality among other things is that voice in you're head fella. Some have It and some don't. The trick is figuring out why you don't just kill for the hell of it or pinch a little kid in the face for fun...Think. Hear that voice...What's it saying...

You know God exists

Not written on stones
But written in our conscience

I don't see how that's relevant.