Prove to me that morality is in any way objective

Prove to me that morality is in any way objective.

Oh that's right, you can't.

Stay cucked, my property.

If morality isn't what ensure your property remains your, then what does it.

What else but moral enact the respect of your property?

We need more Stirner threads

Read some Crime and Punishment.

Nationality is our invention to keep you chimps at bay with bananas you call fiat currency.

Categorical imperative describes the concept of morality very well.

There is already a Striner thread going on, fuck off to there

Also
>Mental masturbation is not politics related

>>Mental masturbation is not politics related
Wait, I thought politic was nothing else but that.

Morality is subjective because it's based on culture.

If you dont think there's any meaning to life why dont you just kill yourself?

/lit/ here.

I will actually do this if you respond to me without your flag. Smashing your shit will be the most pleasurable moment of my night.

go on then, you look like you need it

Only retarded believers believe in objective morality.

Read the Bible.

Very well, but before we proceed I should ask you a few questions, just to establish first principles so that we make no mistakes.

The first: do you think we should address the question of whether or not morality is subjective or objective? Yes or no will suffice.

geddin gud bedder than bzzin bad

Crime and punishment is literally a story about how spooks ruin perfect crime

>benign moral because it's apparently "just right thing to do"
Wew lads

It isn't but we need it to ensure the existence of our (or any) society.

Why would I care about existence of ""our"" society?

>perfect crime
>slaughtered an innocent woman in cold blood

no

>innocent

The pawnbrokers sister was entirely innocent.

>innocent
Nice spook. Self interest is all there is

>Objective
You mean Absolute Vs Relative argument you fucking brainlet nigger.

Well I suppose that's too complicated a question for a Stirnerfag so let's jump to the second question.

If we are going to actually ask if morality is objective, ought we to ask the question seriously. Should you, dear brainlet, actually ask the question honestly?

If the answer is no then, a fortiori, we are not bound to the result, and the question is meaningless since you do not believe that logic exists or is necessary. You are under no obligation to accept the conclusions of any logical thought. So if you think that 2+2=10, which is factually incorrect, you are still not wrong to do so because intellectual honesty is not necessary.

But do you believe that? Think 2+2=6 right now and believe it. Do it now. Believe something that you know to be untrue.

I submit to you, Stirner-reader, that you cannot do this. You cannot do it because we have just discovered an Objective moral duty--a duty without the fulfilment of which you literally cannot be sane: Intellectual Honesty.

Morality is the understanding of Right and Wrong. Moral Insanity is the inability to understand Right and Wrong. There is no functional distinction between factual correctness and moral correctness. THEREFORE, the fact that it is impossible to be correct without being Honest is evidence of at least one objective (which is to say, not dependent on perspective) moral law.

One is enough to disprove your thesis. There is at least one absolute moral law without obedience to which you are not sane.

Why don't you go and and commit crimes for your benefit then? What are you a coward?

because you would be the first one to die, you fat basement dwelling neckbeard piece of shit.

pic related. its op.

It doesn't matter if you care about it or not. You're an integral part of it. You are obliged to play certain games and if you won't you'll end up being a miserable outcast or a criminal

Yes, I know. I was just fucking around as per usual on Sup Forums but in all seriousness that book is a masterpiece

>reddit spacing

Only a dictator would assume a universal morality. Moralities, like cultures, are manifold. And many are incompatible and should not be mixed.

>Inept argumentation in defense of a bad philosopher

Stirner was a hack. Go back to the Greeks, pleb.

>user raises a valid argument which is irrefutable
>HUR DUR THE SPACING I WIN THE ARGUMENT XD
Kill yourself

Biologically and evolutionary, it is to a certain point.

If all humans did was kill each other, we wouldn't survive, for example.

Holy shit.

End your life

This.

Stirner knew it wasn't within human nature to wake up and start killing people, its illogical.

Nice, it's refreshing to see something other than
>no u nigger

But the quantum mechanical nature of reality would suggest that universal Truths do not exist at a foundational level.

1+1=2 is a cute example, but the building blocks of reality are binary quanta, which are unknowable. Those then combine to form your 1's and 2's much higher up the structural ladder.

>should
cool spook, my dude

Thinks like possessions and whatnot are also biological

If someone steals your food that you need to survive, then you'll get it back up to killing the person because it's your survival at stake.

It's why we have a dislike for thieves.

Society, whether a big city or small tribal village, gets along because it's in the interest of the group and species; our species has a biological drive to survive ad replicate, and whatever benefits that will be part of our moral makeup.

The best tool to measure morality is by success.

Define success.

But this is not a spook. No no, there is nothing external at all about this postulate--I have asked you if you, internally, yourself, believe that you should believe things that you know to be true. Do you believe that it is okay to believe things that are not true?

If so, then, as I have said, a fortiori you do not believe that spooks are wrong, or that there is any legitimacy in bringing them up. Your entire argument is submission to my will--you are agreeing with me by even attempting to argue rationally, no matter how bad you are at it.

Every attempt you make to reason your way out of this is simply further submission to my argument. You are even now demonstrating that you are INCAPABLE of violating the moral law of honesty.

Rationality is the divination of truth through reason alone. 1+1=2 does not become any less true rationally simply because our universe may or may not be more complex than originally thought. The means by which you study that universe (empirical science) are themselves based in Rationality. If you dismiss Rationalism you dismiss your entire means by which to make any sort of argument. Thus, de facto, you agree with me.

There exists an objectively best method to achieve any goal. Having at least a semi morally sound worldview is needed for humans to survive.

Maximization of potential life goals and our ability to accomplish them.

>raping and killing people who have not done you any misfortune "because you can"

What is good is power, and the feeling that power is increasing. I can't prove slave moraltiy to you, for I am not a slave.

A billion men cannot be wrong.

There you go Sup Forums. I owed you one favor, so I proved that morality is objective. Can you please stop nuking /sffg/ now? I'm seriously just trying to talk about how much I hate Patrick Rothfuss and I'm tripping over you guys in there.

Heil Hitler or whatever it is we do here.

Society, whether a big city or small tribal village, gets along because it's in the interest of the group and species; our species has a biological drive to survive ad replicate, and whatever benefits that will be part of our moral makeup.

This.
And, in different scenarios there are different paths of survival, which will mostly contain the same core elements that guarantee the mainteinance of the individual and the group through time, but will greatly differ in the ways of achieving it.
Therefore, the moral values established in a certain culture might not be appliacable to another.

Cheers, /lit/ nigger

2+2=4 is only logically honest insofar as it is an indication that said person understands mathematics. Mathematics, like everything else, is dependent on world knowledge which is based on experience. It doesn't define morality.

Perhaps you can have no meaning to life and yet still prefer to live over death

if there is no morality than you just kill yourself because your life is meaningless atheist

Is the USA or Syria more successful?

This is one of the dumbest posts on Sup Forums in many months.
>hurr you don't think 2+2=6 therefore morality is objective
How stupid do you have to be to present an argument like this? Even a first year high school student could do better.

Depends on the criteria. Subjective.

No!

Mathematics is a philosophy, derived through reason. Euclid proved this--do you think he actually took a line and subdivided it 10,000 times to see if points A and B ever met? Or that Pythagoras actually found a bunch of giant stone triangles and measured them to figure out his theorem? Maths, Geometries, these things are not contingent on weltken. Theoretically speaking you could literally be a brain in a jar without any senses and still derive the concept of numbers because the tools are all there.

Every form of logic that we have today is derived from this basic understanding of Aristotelian Rationalism.

No. We study the world through the lens of empiricism not rationalism. Rationalism is factually wrong.

No. We study the world through the lens of empiricism not rationalism. Rationalism is factually wrong. Mathematics is based on empiricism, not rationalism.

>Oh that's right, you can't.
you know how many things there are that aren't proven, but that are true, or of critical importance

jesus why do I waste my time on you trolls. Stay stupid theres nothing I can do for you

Life doesn't need meaning. What meaning does a fungus have for living? None. It just is. Meaning is a meme. It's not objective, it's not necessary for life to exist and it's not a reason for existing.

I can wait for the day all rationalists are hung from lampposts.

Your inability to comprehend the substance of my argument should be embarrassing to you. The example I have given is not relevant. In fact, the real example is the question of whether or not this discussion, in its entirety, ought to be addressed honestly, X+X=2X is merely a simplification for brainlets like yourself and EVEN THEN you are incapable of grasping it?

This is the point: If you cannot be correct without being honest, then honesty is an objective moral duty, in the literal (which is to say the only legitimate) sense of the word. You cannot be correct without being honest. Morality is literally the set of rules governing what is correct and what is incorrect.

Empiricism is a RATIONAL discipline, brainlet, it is CONTINGENT on Rational precepts. If Rationalism goes, Empiricism goes. These are not independent concepts but rather iterations of the same tradition. Jesus Christ, what is your complaint? What are you actually trying to say, that it is impossible to discern facts without physically finding them in the material world? What then if your senses are deceived? What if the question the answer to which you seek is purely theoretical?

It is possible to derive truth through reason. We KNOW this to be true because we've already done it. What the hell is your problem? How difficult is it to accept that truth exists and can be found without banging rocks together like a monkey?

dank memes

At the moment, we cannot, you're right.
Should morality now be irrelevant, I'm getting the impression by the position of property this was intended to deny the importance of morality.

Let's assume we know without doubt morality is made up, it's relative, can it being so still benefit a person/persons/society. It's like rules or law afterall.

Would we care to say since our laws are based on nothing but our agreement to follow them, be nothing but insignificant? of course not, they regardless of them being objective, suit cooperation and unity.

Morality is a natural form of this process. I'd argue since the nature of our human environment is structure in such a way, our biology too, that morality is a natural process that would be unlikely to not develop and is therefor not just nonsense, perhaps it's like mathematics, in the sense it finding logic in patterns that best suit our society/group and even if it's contained, and subject to change with new information, i.e (wrong looking outside in) It's still in its contained way, truth.

So yeah slavery eventually is just reasonably impractical.

How can you objectively say that morality is subjective?

Your argument was very easy to comprehend. And easy to dismiss because it fails to meet even the bare minimum standards of a real argument. You have a below average IQ and sadly you think you're smart because you post on /lit/, one of the dumbest boards on the internet.

S P O O K E D
The only morality is our collective interest

Your last assertion is false. The truth cannot be found without knocking two rocks together like a monkey.

Oh yes, Sup Forums is such a more intellectual board, you have the best memes, let me deploy one by reminding you that what you just attempted ineptly to employ was a rhetorical device and was thus
NOT
AN
ARGUMENT.

/Lit/, I posted an oswald spengler thread on your board and on Sup Forums. I literally got a better esoteric shitpost-discussion on Sup Forums. Your board is about as intellectual as reddit

I disagree. And you do as well--since the position you are taking here is one of unabridged Empiricism, which itself relies on Rational underpinnings for its foundation.

Need I explain how this is true?

>le pepe

Morality is objective because our morals have been objectively conditioned by tptb.

Yes I know, we're terrible, the place is full of pseuds. I go there to talk about fantasy novels because nobody there actually cares about philosophy, they care about memes. If you want to talk philosophy you pretty much have to go to another board and find someone arguing about it there.

And here we stand.

Often, You see most humans getting into a battle of wits as opposed to actually exploring the topic, it appears most are more concerned with displaying superiority here then having a conversation.

Neither board is smart. But you are even more dumb than the low average around here. Your idiotically childish argument held no water to any rational thinker.

How hard is it to just type the fucking argument, Jesus Christ.

Well, Sup Forums is not much better either. Sup Forums was never for serious discussion but at least the iq was high and people would get philosophical references. Since trump it hasn't been the same.
Shame cripplechan is such a shit website.

Well, every place has its gems, Sup Forums included. The chimpout threads were fun even when I was still a total lib. The Michael Brown nonsense was about what zipped it up for me.

There are still fun threads indeed

You first.
>durrr 2+2=6
That's not an argument. That's just retarded. Even you being a low IQ subhuman have to know that your "argument" didn't hold any water.

But that wasn't the argument. 2+2=6 was an example of a logically incorrect premise. Are you saying that 2+2=6 is not logically incorrect? If so, show your work.

Or do you agree with the larger argument? If so, on what points do you differ?

And you never demonstrated how OP's premise is illogical. You just used a strawman and made yourself look retarded. You also never should have mentioned being from /lit/. That was really tipping your fedora.

are you non-violent, Sup Forums?
If you claim this you are a lying coward.
We all know, whatever your ideology is, that if it goes on like this for another 15 years we will all be forced choose mass murder and mass violence. But it will also force us to discover ourselves again.
We have been too wealthy to know what we are really capable of.

(This is a /Euro/thread american redditfags pls stay out)

The Holly Bible.
Get cucked atheists. You would all act like complete chimps without it.

Violence is unavoidable in any competitive environment. The only hope we have is that the violence happens in non-violent arenas - like the stock market.

But that is wrong. I very clearly illustrated that there is at least one objective moral duty--intellectual honesty. The existence of one objective moral law invalidates OP's premise.

There was no strawman involved, nor did I make myself look retarded. You are simply insulting me because you cannot argue against me. Then again, if you even attempted to argue against me you would be de-facto accepting the legitimacy of my argument, so I suppose it's understandable that you would simply admit defeat and resort to insults instead, but that doesn't change the facts.

>claiming others dont grasp the argument
>literally not understanding something objective (math) vs something subjective (opinions)

Indeed, we institutionalise and control violence in government. To use violence against those who would use violence against others and to use violence for the greater good. You know the thing

But what if a new group which makes up a new plurality want to overturn these institutions to use govermental and non-governmental violence for their tribal gain. This is what faces us in the future.

Who is talking about opinions? What do opinions have to do with anything?

Clearly that isn't an objective morality since religious zealots ignore intellectual honesty as a matter of course. Intellectual honesty is rare and hardly considered moral.

Rationalists grasps onto the idea that mathematics is somehow rational. It's hilarious.

Opinions regarding politics, for example. Or morals. Makes it subjective.

Seems like a theist notion to me.

Reason adjusts observation, not vice versa.

Question: Why do people get so pissed when you say morality is subjective. I mean, it's still important and useful, just like laws, marriage and every other untangible concept.

People who think that it is indeed subjective aren't egoistic nihilists who don't give a shit. It's just that morality is a human invention so shit works better.