/lit/ - Literature

>>11129915
"Subjective morality" is like a religion that doesn't believe itself to be true

>>11129990
Every religion knows its not true at the top, only the chumplings believe it.

MORALITY RANKING (PROVE ME WRONG)
Useable-tier:
>morality (at least believed to be) backed up by some all-seeing entity/force
At best useful for rhetorics-tier:
>morality which claims to be objective but isn't backed up by anything
Literally why-tier:
>subjective morality

>>11129990
sorry, brainlets not allowed in this thread. if you cannot wrap your mind around why moral nihilism allows for the possibility of intersubjective moral systems, including dialectics between them, there is no hope for you

>>11130015
no brainlets rule goes for you too. shoo shoo, spooky ethics noob

>>11130037
They're by definition not moral systems, they're just pragmatic agreements that will be broken when circumstances allow it

>>11130052
>saying spooky
>still believes in ethics

>>11130055
leave this thread and abstain from participating in an threads about morality, read nietzsche and dont return until you understand his view on morality. you can read newer thinkers for extra credit but this is foundational

>>11130015
subjective morality functions if you only apply it to yourself and back it up by objective facts

>>11130069
>um haven't you read Nietzsche?

Sorry, we discuss adult thinkers on this board

>>11130069
>Nietzsche

>>11130083

>>11129915
> "objective"
There's no such thing, unless you bring God into the picture.

>>11130093
Nice selfie bro

>>11129915
>objective/subjective dichotomy

>>11130095
Nope. Morality is just another subject. If math, science and so on make sense (in an objective sense) without god, and basically nobody but morons dispute that, then objecgive morality too is perfectly fine without a god.

Subjective moraltiy
>You should do this
>Why?
>Uh dunno lol

>>11130097
>talks about being adult
>uses the word "selfie"

>>11130106
>Subjective moraltiy
>You should do this
>>Why?
>For the will of my power

>>11130104
*blocks your ought*

>>11130117
Not morality

>>11130122
subjective morality that applies to oneself

>>11130125
Nope

>>11130118
There's been a lot of philosophy after Hume. You should read MacIntyre's objection to the is-ought gap.

>>11130118
Look, if you had one shot
one opportunity
to destroy objective ethics forever
in one moment
would you capture it?
or just let it slip?

>>11130133
>There's been a lot of philosophy after Hume.

A lot of shit. If you're going to cite someone let it be Kant or Heidegger not some brainlet literal who

>>11130130
nice reactionary comment, slavebro.

>>11130140
Top slavery is needing to tell yourself your own whim is imperative

>>11130139
If you don't even know MacIntyre is, you're not even remotely informed enough on the topic to talk about it.

>>11130134
And yet the most popular stance on ethics among professional philosophers is moral realism.
Why is that, if hume's argument was so successful?

>>11130153
If you say so, forgotten nobody

>Nietzsche is for kids i read about it on reddit XDDDDD
>so can you formulate with which part of his philosophy you do not agree and why
>uuuuuuuuhhhhhhhhhh hmmmmm i-i-its f-for k-kids?? a-and nazi?..

>>11130161
>professional philosophers

>>11130162
He's literally thaught in every ethics class.

>>11130164
>Nietzsche

>>11130104
>If math, science and so on make sense (in an objective sense) without god,
Nope, they don't.
>and basically nobody but morons dispute that
Morons and smart people who dare to look behind curtain, that is.

>>11130090
Söyböys would get a panic attack if they read Nietzsche.

>>11130168
>I, some pseud on 4chan, know more about philosophy than people who study it and write it for a living, hear me roar!

>>11130171
>ethics class.

Brainlet fun time. Even then you're wrong

>>11130179
True though. Its only to be expected the hand picked bugmen of academia don't go around questioning morality in front of their patrons

>>11130189
But plenty of them do that. Just, not a majority.

>moral fact

>>11130216
read durkheim

>>11130220
(((durkheim)))

>>11130179
A friendly tip: "professional" means doing something for money. Thus, a "professional philosopher" is a guy who earns his living philosophizing.

If you think about this for even 15 seconds, you'd realize that it's a contradiction in terms. If you're getting paid to philosophize, you're automatically in a conflict of interest that invalidates your attempts at speaking the truth.

>>11130250
Don't forget getting laid

>>11130002
Reddit

Everyone is yelling about morals being objective when they never have been
Religions, while having many similarities, still have differing views on morality. Different societies have different morals and taboos. It’s always been subjective.

This thread is the most autistic bickering I've seen on this board
>inb4 you haven't been here long enough
I have and this is the worst

>>11130288
This is dumb. If you believed God literally handed down the objective truth on morality then it is legitimate to claim it to be objective even if other people are simply wrong

>>11130288
but in those societies and religions, their morals are understood to be objective. A Christian wouldn't see heathens committing what they consider Evil and just say to themselves "oh, in their moral system they are doing Good, let's leave them then". It is similar in our current society; we are "tolerate" of the Other insofar as they are similar to our ideas and morals. That is why the terror of Islamic-fascisms abroad, or perceived discriminations in the domestic sphere are outright evil and repulsive to the very same people who preach tolerance. We are tolerant only of similarity; true alterity is revolting to us.

>>11130318
This, relatitivists are perfectly happy to accept other moralities until someone skips ahead of them in a queue

>>11130161
>And yet the most popular stance on ethics among professional philosophers
is Rawls, who is a brainlet that rivals even Rand's idiocy

>>11130090
>Neitzsche is onions
The insults of frogposters have lost all meaning

>>11130396
Nietzshce is the definition of a reddit philosopher
>feels > reals
>militant fedora tipper
>thinks virtue signalling is an argument

He is the direct predecessor to the worst forms of identity politics and SJWs. If you want to see Nietzsche's legacy look at Judith Butler

>>11130300
Well if you believe in god you’re idealistic so you would think anything against you is wrong
>>11130318
>>11130349
That because of perspective. If morals were objective we’d be forced to follow them no matter what. The law of gravity is objective and no matter what we do we constantly follow it. Morals don’t exist in the natural world

>>11130415
>That because of perspective. If morals were objective we’d be forced to follow them no matter what.

Only given complete understanding you fucking retard. People make wrong decisions all the time based on ignorance

>>11130015
A better one would by an objective morality by reason, not some all seeing entity or force

>>11130415
>If morals were objective we’d be forced to follow them no matter what
No, objective morality just implies a universal standard against which an action is judged. Morality itself indicates a choice, that human beings have the capacity to act in accordance to what morality dictates is good or evil. Gravity doesn't imply the same obligation or choice because it is an aspect of physics.
>Morals don’t exist in the natural world
It depends what system you follow. There are systems which certainly understand the natural world in moral terms.

>>11130422
A complete understanding doesn’t make science come into fruition
>>11130449
If there was a universal standard then there would be at least one rule every ideology follows. But even murder is allowed in certain religions

>>11130471
>A complete understanding doesn’t make science come into fruition
The fuck is this dude trying to say

>>11130476
We have to follow the objective laws of the universe no matter what. >>11130449 says there is a choice thought, but if it was objective we’d have at least 1 constantly shared traits between moral systems

>>11130178
Basedboys ARE Nietzsche
They'd have a heart attack reading Kant
>>11130411
This

>>11130427
This falls into the second tier, i.e. not backed up by anything.

>>11130471
>>11130488
You don't understand what I am trying to say. Moral systems are objective for their followers. It is something through which your action is filtered. They, the followers of these moral systems, don't understand them to be subjective. Like in our current society, there is an idea of "universal human rights". This is an idea that implies a certain set of objective morals. We don't think of other people in other countries not having these rights just because they have never heard of them, or because they subscribe to another system, and so on. To say "morals have always been subjective" is anachronistic and implies that all followers of moral systems have believed that morals are subjective.
Equating Moral Law to the laws of physics is a poor comparison because the latter is an invariable set of relationships between bodies whereas the former is an system of values that humans are obligated to maintain and follow.

>>11130519
No it is backed up by logic and reason. Placing an all seeing entity behind morality by definition leads to a tier. How do mortals get this morality from this all seeing entity? Of course by a person who alleges he has received a revelation or some divine bestowment, or in the form of plato's philosopher kings.

>>11130535
I guess my comparison with physics does seem drastic, but simply say “these people think it’s the truth means it’s the truth” is dumb. Obviously you can believe that something is god given and die defending that idea, but that doesn’t make it true. People can be wrong about what’s true and what’s not, but what’s good and bad is based off of the person’s emotions. Morals are just opinions people have, and although they are certainly entitled to them, their opinions can never be facts.

>>11130535
>literally implying his own meanings to "objective" and "subjective"

>>11130581

>>11130411
you make a valid argument for totalitarianism

>>11130535
>objective for
wow

>*Hits blunt*

>>11130569
>Morals are just opinions people have, and although they are certainly entitled to them, their opinions can never be facts.
I think many people say this, yet very few people actual evince such a belief in practice. Going back to the topic of universal human rights, I think a good many people would argue that these are inarguable inscriptions on the human subject. For our current ethical ideology, totalitarianism forms an inarguable and unimaginable evil, and so on. So even those who say morality is completely subjective are regulated by an implicit idea of an objective morality. To say morals do not form a truth is disingenuous, at least without attaching to the statement anything else that builds from the point.

>>11130588
>implying totalitarianism needs to be argued for

>morality is derived from nature

>>11130625
Even if you like something it doesn’t make it true
Totalitarians think they’re the shit, not some evil. It’s like how art is subjective

>>11130535
They might think them to be objective but that doesn't make them actually objective

>>11130535
>Moral systems are objective for their followers

>>11130756
so they aren´t objective

>>11130564
Yahweh/Radamanthys/Karma etc. all give me a reason not to do something immoral.
"Logic and reason" don't, unless you insist that doing something immoral is always necessarily contrary to my subjective interest. But that's not the morality that you "logic and reason"-fags tend to cook up.

>>11130730
>>11130752
Then is anything ever objective? Even things like our physics now are found to be incomplete, inadequate, and merely simple models that require us to believe and trust in them. Anything that has a semblance of truth from the perspective that you are speaking in appears so far out of reach, and out of our capacity to understand it, that we are living entirely in falsity. What is actually objective, to you?

>>11130415
>If morals were objective we'd be forced to follow them no matter what
Stop posting any time

>>11130782
The real is revealed through negative space in our failed attempts to represent reality itself.

>>11130807
And that break from established knowledge serves as the medium for which Truth enters; fidelity towards that truth is a universal ethics that is nevertheless unique to that truth-event.

>>11130826

>>11130236
(((Kys)))

>rationally derived moral good

How the fuck did my thread get so many replies.

>>11130411
Nietzsche's legacy was the entire 20th century.

>>11130898
You put a frog in the OP

>>11130901
Exactly

>>11129915
im collecting rare pepes, i have over 4100 pepes (1,3gb) and i wanted to inform you, that i just stole yours, have a nice day

Morals are local, contingent, constantly debated and ever-changing. There is nothing universal or objective about them. You'd have to be a stoned teenager not to have noticed the movement and shifting on our supposedly "objective" moral and legal stances even over the last decade. Societal morals lack much coherence or logic at the best of times:
"Prostitution is wrong! Unless you film it and market the video. Then it's porn acting."
"Murder is wrong! Unless somebody somewhere decided we're at war."
And so on. Obviously the examples are flawed and debatable, but that's the point. There isn't any "objective moral maxim" you can spout that isn't riddled with exceptions and hasn't been loudly contradicted, often by the same society, often claiming the authority of the same deity.

ελληνιkό αλφάβητο

>>11130930
>Morals are local, contingent

Then they're not morals, they're just spooky bullshit

>>11130935
That's all that "morals" are. There are literally none that fill the criteria of being universal or objective. Morals are just "whatever tends to trigger our empathy and compassion, or piss off the tribe or cause problems, and therefore should be discouraged." That doesn't mean some of them aren't sensible, mostly logical, etc. But that's as far as it can go without religion.

>>11130930
You are making an argument against objective morality on the basis of consensus. It doesn't matter what people think is and is not moral, what is moral is so regardless of its acknowledgment as such. From this it follows that it doesn't matter if "society" contradicts itself on a particular moral issue. Of course, this isn't the only argument against your position but it's the best one as it debunks your criticism even by granting you all of your premises.

I don't actually believe in objective morality by the way, but your argument is not a good one. Focus instead on the impossibility of evaluating a moral axiom's truth value.

>>11130941
>That's all that "morals" are.
Proof?

>>11130069
lmao fuck off retard

>>11130250
Cringe.

>hear from other boards that /lit/ is the last board with intelligent discussion left
>first thread I hop into is this
laffin

>>11131022
If morality doesn't depend on any consensus or authority, how is it knowable? How could anyone ever be sure they were following the "one true objectively correct" morality? At least religion pretends to have criteria for identification. But yes, morals can't be evaluated for truth because what the fuck are the criteria and who decides?

>>11131031
I already provided "proof," as far as one can for a negative claim. There are no objective or universal morals because nobody can name one. Morality is all about what other humans think about someone’s actions: that's why evolution programmed vague moral senses into us. Remove that subjective human opinion and the result is nonsensical.

>Ought

lol moralist fucken shits

>>11131147

You can apply the exact same arguments to argue there is no objective reality whatsoever. We're largely agreed that there is something like objective reality out there, independent from our own experience or thoughts, right? Yet our convictions about this reality are largely dependent on frameworks provided to us by scientists, whose conclusions are based on methods which are based on consensus and authority. Science is merely the collection of the most refined models we have to approximate knowledge of this objective reality. Yet despite the fact that every x amount of years, paradigms get turned upside down and the validity of sciences truth claims and models get questioned (Feyerabend and others), we still assume objective reality and truth to exist, right?

>>11131147
>I already provided "proof,"

No you didn't

>>11131147
> At least religion pretends to have criteria for identification.
All morals derive from religion

>>11131412

>>11131424
it is not wrong in any way.

>>11131432
It is though. Morals derive from the family

>>11131444

>>11131454

>>11131412

>>11131391
>we still assume objective reality and truth to exist, right?

>>11130318
Moral subjectivism doesn't mandate that you should tolerate "other morals", that's contradictory. If you have a moral system, even one you believe because of personal/communal reasons, and someone does something that is immoral under your system, you are as justified in objecting as you'd be by not objecting. Probably more, since your moral system would demand (at least tacitly) calling out immoral actions.

>>11131412
pic related is you

>>11131412
>All morals derive from religion

>>11131412
LOL

>>11131424
>>11131478
>>11131492
>>11131500
>>11131503
Damn, that totally changed my perspective, thanks guys.

>>11131391
Realists about the external world have much better arguments than moral realists, though. Moral realists who are also naturalists defeat themselves without even beginning, as well. What kind of existence do moral truths have? Because it is certainly nothing like a physical existence.