Is morality subjective? What do you view as "moral"?

Is morality subjective? What do you view as "moral"?

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/jjYQ48t4C8U
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Making sure to bottom out.

Explain?

Morality is universal, because God says so.

Which god? Each culture has their different interpretations of higher beings

There's only one true God. And I'm a Templar idiot, so guess which one it is.

>I'm a templar

It is objective in that all moralities aim at the good. It is subjective in that all moralities have different concepts of the good. Don't fall for the duality jew.

This. Morality is not just a personal/social construct - it is natural law

If it is natural and universal that it is demonstrated in all aspects of nature and the universe. Do rocks have morality?

Do you think killing you is subjective?

than it is demonstrated*

If morality is subjective then morality is subjective morality is objectively true. Hence the humorous irony of the SJW/Muslim dynamic.

One is either dead or not dead. How can death be subjective?

daily reminder that might makes right

Well, as a autistic fuck that actually has a masters in philo, I must demand a definition of morality. Moral, in my mind, means action, equal to the word ethics/ethos/ethical.

OP needs to put his head on a literal chopping block and tell us if morality is subjective.

So the Allies were right in WW2. Got it. Also people who hurt children. Groovy.

nice slide, slick. If I am coming at you with a sword, are you going to just throw your hands up and say, "well, fuck... my life is subjective anyways. Just fuck my shit up!"

>So the Allies were right in WW2.
It doest matter
If you cant defend your rights they dont exist

Idk that's why I started this thread in the first place

Saying morality is subjective is an absolute statement. Nothing is subjective, all is absolute. Nobody is stupid enough to actually believe in subjective morality, they just pretend is true so they can do what they want.

Excellent, so the white race has no right to self preservation as they are powerless against the sands of time and trend of interbreeding. Huh, what's all the fuss then?

I subjectively think you're wrong.

its both subjective AND objective, yep.

People often say that morality is subjective, but they fail to realize that they are ONLY say that because they want to say that, in other words, everyone on the planet will ONLY do what they WANT to do. Everyone is an egoist in this measure. If everyone is something, then morality becomes objective.

>no right to self preservation
No its just nobody is going to do it for you

It is effectively about balancing out the kindness you should show to those around you and those with which you interract, with the ideals you have for securing the happiness of all living things.

For instance, not allowing Islam into your country is seen as evil by Liberals because their morality is unbalanced.

Creating ethnostates is seen as evil despite the fact that it would, in the longer term, secure significantly more happiness for all of those that inhabit the earth etc.

Yes.

Morality is saging shill threads

But my statement is either right or wrong. Just because you think its wrong doesn't make it wrong. It just is right or wrong. It's right by the way.

That is subjective.

It's that it's not going to happen at all because the white race is weak in the face of the overwhelming strength of being a minority as well as trends towards inbreeding. Racemixing is strong and ethnopreservation is weak, therefore (according to might = right) ethnopreservation is immoral, is wrong, and those that pursue it are degenerates

Morals are relative.

the final redpilll

"morality is a spook"

Pearl Jam said it best: I know I was born, I know I will die, the in between is mine

You should know if you are being an asshole or not, to chose to penetrate said asshole is my bad decision to take. Can I live with the consequences and not feel like Hillary Clinton...probably not

How is philo a shill thread? Are you out of your depth and feel your penis shrinking?

once you decide on the basis of your morality the rest is not subjective

It certainly seems to be.
People will think it's perfectly fine to set a pedophile on fire and wonder how they're being immoral.
People are fucking dumb. Hypocrites too.

nonsense.

So, is that subjective or not?

Precisely. You think it's right, and I think it's wrong. So given this would you say morality is subjective or objective?

its not that simple

How so? What do you mean by subjectivity and objectivity?

Is there a sane situation that you can imagine where child torture and rape could ever be condoned/justified?

If it brings pleasure to the practitioner then I can see them finding it quite good, if their morality is based around that.

If nobody does anything about it

>rape this child or i kill these other ten children

Subjective is a feeling unverified and cannot be verified by others. "I feel like that is wrong." is subjective until the wrongness can be verified.

Burgers don't even understand that mutilating the genitals of an infant boy is immoral.

Therefore, speaking to Burgers about morality is futile.

Why is it immoral?

HERE IT Sup Forumstards:

If I say that all morality is subjective, and some agree, then is becomes objecctive. AND, If I say that all is subjective and some disagree, then it becomes objective.

Confused? Well, we all agree that the answer would benefit everyone if we could answer it, thus morality is objective.

YOUR WELCOME!

It doesnt matter if I think its right or you think its wrong. It IS one of those two options. I think its right - in fact I know its right. Like I said, by making a statement that morality is subjective you just made an objective statement of truth trying to disprove the very thing you inadvertently just proved true.

>we all agree
I dont

yet you are here. Seems like you are lying

>, by making a statement that morality is subjective you just made an objective statemen
But its not a statement about morality

I like to argue

Morality is a (((social construct))) that changes with time, basically by opinions spreading through the masses. This is why something that is considered "immoral" now could be considered "moral" in the history of the same society or even just elsewhere in the world.

which is precluded by a need to know, not for the sake of. nice try

Someone agreeing or disagreeing doesnt make something "objective". people agree that the world is flat but that doesnt make it an objective you FUCKING IDIOT

I disagree. Subjectivity and Objectivity don't have to do with consensus. Multiple subjects disagreeing does not become objectivity. Subjectivity has to do with internal conception and objectivity has to do with external reality. If 5 blind men grasp an elephant from different parts they may say that an elephant is whatever they're grasping (a tail, etc). Even if they all grasped the same part, it would still be subjective, and they would still be wrong (they all grasp the tail and say "an elephant is long and skinny") Objectivity is the physical reality of what an elephant is. So objectivity is not a consensus among subjects.

Im aware of that. That is a false analogy

multiple subjects agreeing* does not become objectivity

the reality is that we would benefit from an answer.

Jordan Peterson had explained it's subjective to postmodernists. That's part of their problem.

Even though I'm an atheist, I believe we need to take Jordan Peterson's advice and adhere to Christian values youtu.be/jjYQ48t4C8U

If we don't adhere to Christian values, than we usually don't actually have concrete values: look at porn, support open relationships, adultery isn't that big of a deal.

That means it can take years for you to run around fucking up your life and you have to figure out why. some people can make a lot of mistakes and never figure out why they are fucking everything up.

I wish I had the resources to start a Jordan B Peterson church where everyone could focus on living the most mentally healthy life possible based on Christian values. They're the best anyone has come up with.

Even if we were wrong?

Is it morally okay to want a domme to peg my ass?

"Morality" only arises in the context of society and survival. If there only existed one person on earth, everything he did would essentially be "moral".

Since there's nothing objective about how society should conduct itself, and society exists only through the continuation of its constituent parts (each individual human), then morality must necessarily be subjective.

its nonexistent and anyone who posts on Sup Forums but hasn’t read N’s Genealogy of Morals is a faggot

what do i need to know?

You make claims, but maintain that all is subjective. Why?

this thread would benefit from a correct answer to whether or not morality is subjective.

Let's say there is such a thing as an objective morality, just in theory, does a person ignoring it, being ignorant of it, or not liking the fact it exists discredit it AKA make morality then subjective?

Being forced to do something once doesn't make the act in on itself something considered good

>all is subjective.
Logic isn't

>this thread would benefit
that you opinion
>whether or not morality is subjective.
it is

This is a false sentence.

?

>And I'm a Templar idiot

A well placed comma would have gone a long way for you there.

logic fails. There are many examples of logic failing.

to say something is just my opinion is a measure of mental constipation. It is like saying "All is relative" but that is a contradiction. You merely try to shut down the conversation, not go up the dialectic ladder. It is not my opinion. IT IS OBJECTIVE

Not this thread; it's just a principle

either it is or it isnt
It cant be both
when

That's a very interesting thought experiment, and fine digits for such a thing.
Okay, I'll play along and say no because I'm interested in where you take this. No, it being objective, subjectivity could not discredit it.

I don't maintain that "all is subjective".

Certain emergent phemomena that arise from human interaction and the continuation of society are, without a doubt, to me, entirely subjective. To say otherwise is to say that the form society must take is objective.

>Is morality subjective?
Honor killings are moral in 3rd world shitholes, so yes.

I guess your post gave us another one

Morality could be subjective but it also may be objective. There could be a majority belief among the population as to what is morally correct. For instance, you could say that apologising when you knock into some while walking on a quiet street is a majority moral belief, because it’s pretty obvious that whoever knocks into a person walking alone on the street should apoligise because they are careless and need to watch where they are walking. It may be a moral subjective belief that the person who was careless, doesn't really give a fuck if they knock into somebody else; morally they believe that you can knock into someone on the street, because it is unlikely that you are going to injure them. I think this kind of person has dangerous moral beliefs. You could apply the same ideas to a more crowded and faster moving intersection. The expectation of a person stopping and apologising might be lowered simply because everyone knows that there is a greater possibility of being accidentally knocked by someone else. Essentially, you could knock someone slightly and not apoligise because the majority moral belief is that is the risk we take in crowds. Even then, if that were the belief in a busy crowd, a person who is moving without any care for the other people around him, will eventually draw the condemnation of some people in the crowd who have the subjective moral belief that you cannot be an asshole in a crowd. Those few people are the ones who are the first to say something when there is an imminent fight on a train, because subjectively they believe that both the safety of the people fighting and continued objective moral condemnation of fighting on public transport, is more important to society then their own safety and contrary subjective moral beliefs. Also, I think it is important to consider the difference of opinion that people may have as to what constitutes a dangerous subjective moral belief. I think out morals are fucked, pic fun and related.

that is why logic fails. And, either/or is only two choices, which is a fallacy.

>when
"The sentence is false"

Wrong, logic is deductive and thus subjective.

Morality is also subjective too. Morality has constantly evolved over for millennias. All different cultures have different moral values, thus it's not an inherent instinctual thing all humans have in common.

The people saying morality is objective are the usually the ones that adhere to dogmatic beliefs and have an IQ below 70.

>And, either/or is only two choices,
what is?

Golden Rule nigger, kindergarten is all you truly need to function in a society.

Yes. I believe culture is not relative. I think culture is objective, such that, cultures are distictly better than others.

...

Either/or fallacy

"Either you are with us, or you are against us."
This sentence is a fallacy.

"Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"

So if I kicked you in the face, you would forgive me because that's what you would want me to do for you?

now you're just throwing in new words like "culture".

You have no basis and are approaching this thread with an obvious agenda

LOOK OUT HE'S GOT AN AGENDA!!!!

Poor guy.

OK. Replace culture with society. I have no problem with that.
Some societies are better than others.

Morality is an observable natural law provided by God.

Why does the noble man sacrifice his life for his friend or stranger? This is the penultimate kind of morality for mankind. The closest replication of the sacrifice provided by Jesus we will ever be capable of.

You example requires faith, which some may not have. I may respect what you say, but objectivity does not require that, nor faith.