Morality

Is morality relative or objective?

Well if were going purely on a need to live basis, its subjective.

Relative you fucking nog.

Objective because the Good is one and only. Relative because people think whatever the fuck they want to think.

Allah is a pig

Neither. Morality does not exist.

It is relative, but because of this is it irreverent. I wish it were objective.

Someone's taking the cuck quiz, kek

FUCK YOU OP YOU GAVE ME A MINI EPILEPTIC SEIZURE

FUCK YOU OP YOU GAVE ME A MINI EPILEPTIC SEIZURE

FUCK YOU OP YOU GAVE ME A MINI EPILEPTIC SEIZURE

Morality is man-made.

That Pepe hurts to look at. Oh my God I feel ill I just threw up.

O b j e c t i v e .
You're going to be judged for every single thing you do *inevitably* and by a standard you are existentially bound by. You can cry and moan all you want.

What is immoral and why is relative. Everyone knows murder is wrong but what is murder? You could say any killing of another human being is wrong but most recognize there is justifiable homicide. And the Jains say killing anything, ever, is wrong.

Neither, it's subjective in the sense that it's 'muh feels' and nothing else.

It's relative because it changes from person to person but the actual outcome is objective.

My bad

Objective you twats. It's a product of human interactions and constantly up for debate, but there are identifiable moral principles that allow for civilization and individuals to function and compromise.

Non-existant, without sentient there'd be no opinion on the universe. Nothing matters because only those with minds can comprehend whether or not something "matters". Sight is merely light bouncing off of objects, sound is a movement of air. Objects are only bonds of atoms in unique ways, as is life. There is no anything.

We must survive and conquer until otherwise notified.

Objective, grounded upon God, who is Goodness Itself, conformed to our nature, whereby what is good is what causes us to flourish toward the ends of loving God and the Other, and what is bad is what corrupts such efforts toward these ends.

These then are the two points that I wanted to make. First, that human beings, all over the earth, have this curious idea that they ought to behave in a certain way, and cannot really get rid of it. Secondly, that they do not in fact behave in that way. They know the Law of Nature; they break it.
These two facts are the foundation of all clear thinking about ourselves and the universe we live in.

I have met people who exaggerate the differences, because they have not distinguished between differences of morality and differences of belief about facts.
For example, one man said to me, "Three hundred years ago people in England were putting witches to death. Was that what you call the Rule of Human Nature or Right Conduct?" But surely the reason we do not execute witches is that we do not believe there are such things.
If we did – if we really thought that there were people going about who had sold themselves to the devil and received supernatural powers from him in return and were using these powers to kill their neighbours or drive them mad or bring bad weather, surely we would all agree that if anyone deserved the death penalty, then these filthy quislings did.
There is no difference of moral principle here: the difference is simply about matter of fact.

This is also true however, but why must we function, and why must we build civilization?
Why even live?

Sure. Come up with a positive spin to the complete destruction of the universe using your feels.

Objectively, why's it bad?

`Tis not contrary to reason to prefer the destruction of the whole world to the scratching of my finger.

All reasoned decisions are based ultimately on value-judgements, wherein people choose to hold one thing as more desirable as opposed to other things. People make these judgments due to a formal or informal table of values, whereby some objects or concepts are deemed better then others.

These tables of values rank things by their desirability, often having many or even most of the items on the table desirable purely for the sake of some item higher up on the table that it serves as a means towards.

From these facts, an objective ethic can be created. Simple declare your highest values, then create the most efficient means to those values realization, and you have an Objective Morality. Your values are true and your actions are the most efficient possible means to their realization.

Here's the clutch. You cannot, under any circumstances, or through any means, prove that your highest values are preferable to any other person's. No morality is so strong that it cannot resist someone saying that they just do not care.

Aquinas' morality is beautiful, but if someone doesn't care about happiness, it has no hold on him. Its logic depends on that axiom.

The utilitarian morality? It can be defeated just by saying that you care more about whats good for you than whats good for the group. What will you do if someone says that? Call him "evil"? That does not prove your morality, it simply proves you value using that person more then he values being used.

The morality of virtues is only useful if you desire the traits and goals of those virtues.

In short, every moral system thus devised no matter how elegant, precise, or rooted in nature, is ultimately founded on the arbitrary final desires of rational agents, and it cannot be otherwise.

If someone does not care about what your value-system is trying to accomplish, you have no possible argument to convince him that he should, because "Should" is a moral word predicated upon him valuing what you're selling.

It's bad for everything that exists, because it stops existence. There is no possible good from nothing.

But the destruction of the world still means other things continue existing elsewhere. The destruction of everything is nothing positive for anyone or anything.

This question is the reason for all human conflict.

Hmm

what you overlook is that human's have fixed natures and so objective standards flow from that fact. people certainly can choose things that are ultimately to their own detriment, hence why ethics is even a subject, but that still does not invalidate objective morality, just as a blind man doesn't reduce a beautiful sunset to a futility.

There is no such thing as a fixed nature. There is no such thing as 'essence'. The only thing that actually exists is actual phenomena. "Essence" and "Nature" are merely intellectual and semantic constructs our minds impose on the world for the sake of organization and bookkeeping.

Second of all, even if I were to grant you that an objective psychological or biological nature existed, my argument still holds. My entire argument is that all value systems are ultimately axiomatic at the base level, and your value system rests on the axiom of "That which is Natural ought be obeyed". Your entire morality rests on that point, and it can be dismissed simply by me saying "I don't care about that which is natural"

Lastly, the entire concept of a moral system being objective is nonsensical. What does it even mean for a morality to be "objective"?

If it means the morality is consistent with itself, then there are dozens of objective moralities.

If it means the morality is rooted in some facet of Nature, then there there are dozens of objective moralities. Utilitarianism, Virtue Ethics, and Nietzchean Master Morality can all claim to be rooted in "nature" and be right.

If it means that the morality is universally known of, then there is no objective morality. Despite C.S. Lewis' claims to the contrary, if a universally known morality existed, the field of ethics would not exist.

If it means that the morality is universally enforced, than no such morality exists. And even if you posit an omnipotent God to enforce the morality, this puts your objective morality on the level of realpolitik, which while a pragmatic justification, is not an intellectually satisfying one.

Check out my free book, Universally Preferable Behavior at www.freedomainradio.com/free and discover the truth about morality.

There is no possible bad from nothing either.

In fact some make the argument that non-existence is superior since it causes no harm. Look into Benatar's Better Never to Have Been for example.

ITT: things that cannot be proven