/lit/ - Literature

>>11139995
>Is morality subjective?
That is an enormous question and I doubt there is an objective answer to it.

>>11139995
It's debatable, but in my opinion yes it's subjective

>>11139995
There are "metamoral" "bases" upon which "moral theories" are built. The selection and application of any subset of these principles is necessarily subjective.

Short prose on morality? Lol

>>11140169
become strong enough to defeat abstract concepts like strength

>>11141839
not as abstract as you think

>>11139995
>research on morality
lol nigga just like think about it nigga

>>11139995
I had a long talk with my mother for a few hours about this. We branched off to many topics, but I formulated an opinion about morality that satisfied parts of my desire for a collective purpose. I'm probably not going to explain it very well, I'm still in the works of trying to figure it out, but if you recommend any books that might also share the same view, I'll be sure to pick them up.

I believe morality to be completely objective. When we talk about morality we likely bring up instances of subjectivity like killing another person or stealing. I don't believe this is deep enough to be considered a moral law, instead it is something else. Morality must be explained as a basic perception of any given situation, and the most basic method of thinking about it for me is saying something along the lines of,

"The desire for a fair exchange"

In every moral instance that I've thought about so far, an exchange is at the heart of them all. Every decision we make, seems to come down to this desire of fairness. Fairness of course is subjective, but this is where the tricky part comes in. The morality is not whether something is or is not fair, but rather that it must meet your measurement of fairness. This way, everyone's moral values are the same. "The exchange must be seen as fair for it to be good" If it isn't fair, it is deemed evil.

The subjectivity plays about when we actually measure it. Take for example the killing of another person. I had a conversation with a friend about whether they believed it was right or wrong to kill a person, and they said that it depended on the situation. You could stop here and say that this moral question must be subjective, but I don't believe it is. Instead, I asked the question of what situation would it be ok? They responded that if they were a multiple offense rapist, a child molester, or a mass murderer. I took that into question, and I thought to myself, "Well the base thing that we both agree on is that to take a life, there must be a sufficient reason." They said yes to this, and this is where I believe the moral sits.

The objective moral that we all agree on is, "in order for an action to be morally good, it must be a fair exchange." We all strive for the same thing, fairness in the world. Nazis who murdered millions of people believed their enemies to be lower than them, like rodents making up an infestation. In their minds, the exchange was justified. Their fair trade requirement was met. Depending on your views today, you may think it was immoral. Your fair trade requirement for this instance is not met, thus it is evil. That's the subjectivity, but not the actual moral value.

We all share the same moral value, we are all measuring the same thing. Am I full of shit?

>>11142331
>The desire for a fair exchange
can just be reduced down to "rational self-interest" if you're willing to allow subjective determination of what is fair or not. Why not consider anything that is good for me to be "fair" and anything that harms me to be "unfair", if fairness is subjectively determined? At which point, if I have no obligation to treat others in any certain way other than the manner in which I want to treat them, whence comes morality?
You made an attempt, friend.

>>11139995
Then immorality is also subjetive lol

>>11140169
>in my opinion yes it's subjective
lmao i dont why i laughed at this

>>11139995
It is but it shouldn't be.

>>11142579
why are you presenting yourself in such a way

>>11142808
thought that was bill murray but its just pajeet

Without a God, yes

Morality is just an abstraction that maps onto feefees developed through natural selection, so yes it's subjective.

>>11139995
define morality, if it is just what people consider "right" or "wrong", then yes it's subjective

there is no such thing as objectivity. its a concept we invented to cope with the extremely blurry lens we are forced to view life through.

>>11143034
>there is objectively no such thing as objectivity

>>11139995
No because it obviously transcends the individual.

>>11142331
Hmm. I can think of lots of common morals that I can't apply to your measure at all. "Homosexuality is immoral, because..."?

>>11139995
The existence of laws and legislation that differ radically between countries is pretty solid proof that morality is subjective.

>>11140154
>I doubt there is an objective answer to it.
Then wouldn't it be relative?

>>11143246
i...i think you're proving my point, thanks

What would an objective moral code even look like, OP? We live in a universe dominated by incompleteness.

>>11143352
you have to be 18 to post here

>>11139995
It wouldn't be morality if it was subjective. It's either objective or nothing at all.

morality is subjective. 99% of people are immoral and only follow rules because of law.

To think secular humanism would work is to ignore how many dumb people there are.

>>11143573
>how many dumb people
>implying smart people don't have higher rates of social cheating
>implying the strong aren't guileful
lol you have yet to exercise the puny christian conception of the swift and noble from your crowded sanctum you call an altar to the Mind

Morality is objective
Every society that doesn't follow certaint moral rules will degenerate and die out or conquered.
There is no example of a society that allowed theft and murder (among the members of that society).

>>11143545
Lost.

>>11144286
That's quite a leap in logic.

>>11140493
should anglo saxon philosophers be allowed to get published?

>>11139995
No.

Consider:

A nation of cannibals ritually consume their first-born.

Is there an objective argument against this behaviour?

Yes. They are consuming the healthiest children of every generation.

If you accept moral relativity, you must necessarily accept that this behaviour is OK.

You do, because you aren't a complete fucking degenerate, thus we can establish the reality of objective moral standards.

The point is not to be so arrogant as to imagine oneself capable of defining what is right, rather instead we falsify, defining what is wrong, and thereby work backwards to a functional moral standard.

>>11144765
You don't*

fuck.

>>11144765
>''x behaviour doesn't sound very palatable does it?''
>''and also, if you approve of it you're degenerate/evil/wicked/immoral''
>''it follows that morality can be determined objectively, or I wouldn't be able to say these things with such certainty''

How old are you?

>>11139995
OP here. Thank you for your responses everyone, you have given me quite an array of perspectives and that is exactly what I needed.

FOLLOW UP question: In an 'ideal global utopia' (interpret that as you will) would it be best to uphold morality as an objective principle? or should its situational subjectivity always be taught as a primary axiom?

>>11139995
No, moral realism is probably true.
There are two main arguments in favor of anti-realist theories:

- some kind of argument from queerness
- some kind of argument from moral disagreement

They both fail, for different reasons. The first one is that there's nothing particularly queer about morality that couldn't also be said to belong to, say, rationality or epistemology. The second fails because it overestimates the amount of moral disagreement by not realizing the fact that most moral disagreement is around non-moral properties of the subject that is debated.

>>11144765
>They are consuming the healthiest children of every generation.

So? Subjective. Assume their 'objective morals' is that their god will destroy every one of the cannibals, healthy or otherwise, if they don't ritually consume the child.

>>11144800
The average person's "ideal global utopia" would teach that the objective truth of morality is that its situational subjectivity should always be taught as a primary axiom.

In other words, the U.N. has an objective moral obligation to attack any country which codifies a system of morality that doesn't preach subjectivism.

It's really not tremendously far away from where we are now.

In the "real utopia", morality would be upheld and enforced objectively, yes.

>>11144840
>western nations aren't theocracies therefore its morals are subjectivistic

>>11144840
In other words, the U.N. has an objective moral obligation to attack any country which codifies a system of morality that doesn't preach subjectivism.
Lol wut?

>>11144856
>>11144846
Where there is liberalism there is subjectivism. In other words, the U.N. has an absolute moral obligation to attack any country that isn't liberal in the name of humanitarianism.

>>11144894
>I don't like it therefore it's subjectistic
I tip my hijab to you, good habibi.

>>11144846
Morality that isn't derived from fixed metaphysical principles is inherently subjective. Theocracy is priests having power, organizing the rules of society according to religious principles isn't theocracy. It's the norm of human history.

>>11139995
Yes, it is a form of brainwashing.
Certaint groups try to impose it on you in order to manipulate you into doing what is convinient for them.
Do what ever you want anon!
Rape, murder, theft, are the most beautifull and patrician things in this world.

>>11144765
Sorry, that's pathetic. When you have to say folks who disagree with your morals are "degenerates," you have no argument. Even your example depends on seeing the growth of this nation's population at a certain rate as being "objectively" good, but that's just localized contingent bullshit. Other nations would probably be happy to hear that these motherfuckers were limiting their own growth. And your argument isn't moral at all, it's practical. I could point out that not having solar panels on all roofs is financially dumb, but that doesn't make it a moral issue.

>>11139995
>check em
what morals are you trying to convey in that prose?

you are worhless to me
therefore I should kill you
but the state is blackmailing me with incarceration
this is opression

>>11144765
Are you this guy?

>>11145951
Hi Sam

>X is bad
>I disagree

that was easy