Is morality objective?

Is morality objective?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=uiO_ZT5bSqk
reasonablefaith.org/moral
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Is post quality objective?
Probably not, but that doesn't matter to me.

Yes

if it's based on Human nature, yes

Of course. It's an evolved trait.

Yes

in a subjective world?

it is ontologically subjective

Iff it is dictated by an objective being.

only to gods with omniscience. it is subject to perspective.

Fuck off zealots Morality is not a real trait. People make moral choices based due to nurture not genetics

Yep

Yes to an extent but theres still wiggle room debate. For example if you abducted and tortured someone non stop for no reason, that is objectively morally wrong, but thing get wierd when tackle issues like africa, is it morally wrong to let the Africans starve to death en mass until their numbers become sustainable and the suffering ends, or it morally wrong to help them with food aid ect, allowing the problem to balloon and prolong the suffering for many generations

It is the most humane thing to cut the aid
No joke, we have been competing for resources for thousands of years, surplus men either went into self-exile and formed colonies or died of starvation
If they can make it out alive and form a coherent civilization, good for them, if they go back to some futuristic version of the stone age, so be it!

once circumstances have been set, yes

yes, morality is all about survival.
If everyone did the thing in question, would survival be harmed or helped?
What if no one did the thing in question?
For example, homosexuality would wipe out humanity in one generation.
Murder, the same.
Having 8 kids apiece? Moral as fuck.

By definition, morality is subjective, as it refers to the norms of a society. However, we often use the term "morality" to refer to the concept of good/evil, which is conceptually objective. Doing whatever brings one hedonistic pleasure, without regard for the well-being of others, and especially cultivating an attitude of deriving pleasure from hurting others, is evil. There is still relativity, there, but it's not so subjective as morality. Of course, as noted by a previous poster, the only true objectivity would be a perspective of omniscience.

I don't really care either way.
>checkmate morality

Yes.

Morality is only subjective to retards.

Morality is objective and unchanged for millions of years.

No
Might makes right

>would survival be harmed or helped?
whose survival?

Yes, killing animals is fun but for cuck Americans it's ''cruel''

No. Unless you're some awe-inspiring intellectual from the 19th century, you get your morality from social pressure and religion.

That isn't to say there isn't any correct answer in regards to morality within a nation/society, it's just that without the above two factors it's impossible to maintain.

No. God makes right. EFFing heretic

>No. God makes right.
Because God is all powerful

Read Kant

That's the only stumbling point. I think you have to just say humanity, since if you break it down by race then there's an argument for subrace.
But by the same token if you just say humanity...why not just life in general?

No. God is JUST. BTW God isn't actually all powerful. That's a false doctrine.

>Morality is only subjective to retards. Morality is objective and unchanged for millions of years.

Says the retard from his subjective, retarded perspective. Homo sapiens didn't even exist millions of years ago. Morality has changed immensely over time, and is vastly different between cultures.

>to just say humanity,
So accepting living in a cuck box is moral so we can fit more people on the planet

God has the ability to judge man
Without that his views on morality would not matter
>God isn't actually all powerful. That's a false doctrine.
Show me where in the bible

If it makes the species more likely to survive, yes.
You have to remember Mazlow's hierarchy. The most vital is base survival followed by community/family/friends/ and finally, least important, the rights of the individual.

>My doctrine is right and yours is wrong because I said so.

No, it's dependent upon your culture, which is sculpted by your ethnicity, environment, and genetics.

While no culture might not be "objectively" superior, certain civilizations develop lifestyles that other people find attractive and want to immigrate to.

Yes, and all morality is simply this: race is God. Higher races need to control the lower-grade races for the sake of humanity. This is why Whites are superior to all other races, Whites literally invented freedom.

Basic philosophical dillemas disprove objective morality

Freedom is Jewish.
Read the Protocols of Zion.
Real whitne people got it right, monarchy. Fuck the individual, rigid moral/power structure.

This, in my opinion, is the Jewish mentality. I believe that we should stay ethnically homogeneous but should treat other nations with respect when possible.

We should be pragmatic realists, but not lose our ideals or sense of morality and justice.

youtube.com/watch?v=uiO_ZT5bSqk

They also prove that philosophers would go to any lenght in order to prove or disprove a theorem, not the most moral of the individuals.

No, it's a spook

You either are a faggot or not.

Shut up.

Name one.

No.

No.
Moral sentiments are rooted in the emotion disgust. Objects or behaviors we consider disgusting or profane are labeled as "immoral."
However, what is disgusting varies according to the person judging the moral issue, thus it is subjective.

Math is objective, but if you don't know how to do algebra your answers will be wrong.

How can you tell if something is objectively moral or not
Why are there more than one moral philosophies then?

If it helps the species thrive, it's moral.
if it hurts the species, it's immoral.
>Why are there more than one moral philosophies then?
Why are there so many different answers to complex math questions? People can be wrong.

>If it helps the species thrive, it's moral.
Define 'helping' or 'harming' the species
Also that the species needs to continues is your subjective opinion

>People can be wrong.
oke then which one is right

The trolley dilemma

Moral laws and obligations are as objective as other natural laws like gravity.

reasonablefaith.org/moral

1. If God does not exist, objective moral values and duties do not exist
2. Objective moral values and duties do exist
3. Therefore, God exists

Morality is muh feels, or muh opinions based on muh feels. Nothing more.

Whoever doesn't realise this is going to get played by the tribe.

You pick the option that kills less people because the least important need on Mazlow's Hierarchy is the indivual's sense of accomplishment.
I'm not familiar with the variation pictured though, what happens if the one guy pulls the lever?

>on Mazlow's Hierarchy
What makes this objective?

Least important my fee fees because if the community shuns me, my fee fees don't matter.
Middle tier is the community/family, their fee fees don't matter if they're all dead.
most important is survival, food, water, etc

so is stealing moral, if you need something to survive?

No because you are an individual and you don't mean shit compared to the larger group. You fulfilled your need to survive by jeopardizing the group and thus should be punished if not killed outright.

You didn't answer how its objective

Shunned individual dies.
Community that puts anything above survival dies.
Dead people can't achieve any needs and so are in the wrong when they take a moral action that causes their death.

Why do you need to survive?

what if there's 2 groups. one steals the other's supply of food for the winter. group 1 views it as morally right, whereas the 2nd views it as immoral? which is correct?

would you protest against murder?

If my death causes two people to live, then my death is morally good.
Example: A serial killer getting executed before he can end more lives.
Group 2 since if every group stole food to survive during winter instead of saving their own, the whole race would be fucked.

Lol no

What is or is not moral is determined by what is good and what is evil. What is good is what promotes health. A healthy you, a healthy family, a healthy society.

Moral philosophy is just trying to find what peramiters create a healthy world. We do this through experience, logic, rationality, self constraint and mastery.

Using feelings to derive moral truth is like giving a sick man heroin instead of antibiotics. It'll feed the delusion for a minute, but death is around the corner.

>If my death causes two people to live, then my death is morally good.
How is this objective and not just your opinion?
>Example: A serial killer getting executed before he can end more lives.
So if ten people are coming to kill your family of 5 it is wrong to kill them

Two people are better than one.
No, those ten people are willing to kill five people for apparently no reason. What's to say they won't repeat this action? It's your moral duty to kill them before they end more lives or at least deter them from trying again by killing as many as you can.

So then one person can kill another person for no reason and it's moral as long as that person won't be shit?

That's a dumb meme

>for apparently no reason.
to take my land
>What's to say they won't repeat this action?
What if we can say for sure that they will not

If the person being killed is damaging to the extent that they will cause at least one person to not exist, they need to be killed.
For example, let's take a sodomite who bangs dudes every weekend and gets hiv. He'll spread that disease to at least one other person and thus cause their deaths. For this reason, the Bible, not modern day society is morally correct when it says to kill sodomites.
Adulterers and fornicators too should also be killed.

It is not necessary to kill you or your family to take your land. But if we somehow knew with 100% certainty that these 10 men were only going to kill five people (which I doubt) in this extreme circumstance you should be killed.
However, I'm struggling to come up with a real world example of such a thing.
Still, if those 10 men are going on to reproduce people who will be moral themselves, you should take one for the team.

Okay but what if that gayboi doesn't know and also he's the guy that cures cancer

We'll just have to wait for the next guy to cure cancer. It's not worth letting all the sodomites live just in case one of them happens to cure cancer.

How do you know whether or not someone will 'cause at least one person to not exist?' If you kill a random person for no reason and it just so happens that he is a future serial killer, does that morally justify the killing?

Like if you can with 100% accuracy tell that the guy you hit with your car was going to be a serial killer? Yeah you shouldn't be punished for killing him.
But since we can't know that manslaughter should= a death sentence. Not just to prevent that individual from killing people by mistake, but to make others more careful.
If you can't be a good example, be a warning.

Who or what is holding you to this objective morality if it exists?

"Ha there's no God I can do whatever I want!
I'm going to bang all these chicks and do drugs!"
Flashforward a few years and the guy has stds, a drug addiction, and probably envies the dead. This is how this generation failed so hard, they ignored the Bible and numerous other moral tales.
"Professing themselves to be wise; they became fools"

I actually agree that we need religion in this sense but by no means does that make any of it "objective" in any sense of the word.

That's just the Kike brainwashing. They fool people into putting individual liberty above all else when it should be the opposite. You kill the sodomite before he can spread aids and rape kids. You kill the adulterer before he can destroy marriage. You kill the fornicator before he can create bastard children that will grow up to be thieves and murderers.

No objective morality. If you think there is then you don't know what objective/subjective means and you are basically a fuckn retard.

Assalam Aleikum. Yes. Allah (swt) made us all with a moral compass, but a lot of people choose to ignore it in favor of hedonism.