/lit/ - Literature

You proved yourself wrong.

>>12252047
You have no philosophy. You have a baseless claim founded on naïveté. Go to reddit where you belong.

>>12252047
And yet, that claim itself is objective, right? Therefore you placed a subjective position in an objective casing, which refutes logic in itself. As the anons >>12252052 and >>12252053 have said, it is to Reddit you must return. There you will receive a great audience, whose equally-naive members will agree with your position without ever questioning whether the logic behind it is valid. They think that they decide truth, and anyone who denies them of this right is a tyrant. Yet no being is above the Law, which the spiritually-minded know of and seek to know more of each day. They are the humble, who do not consider themselves to know truth, but do consider there to be such a Truth to know OF.

Tell me OP, is loving others subjectively better than hating them, or is it objectively so? Are the products of love, therefore, objectively better than those born from hate, or merely subjectively so?

>>12252102
nothing is subjective. everything is objective, even what you think is subjective.

btfo.

>>12252102
I'm mainly playing devil's advocate with this thread but I thought it interesting to see what people thought about morality. I do believe that love is a more moral thing to have for a person than hate, however I think we always need to know how that love is taken by that person and whether it really is a good thing for them or for others.

>>12252102
pure objectivity is the void, and a construct of subjectivity. might as well ask if the benefits of a nutritious diet are "objective" or "subjective", it's these inane language games that do everything in their power to obfuscate the fact of the benefits in the first place and turn you into a parrot pseud

you're a pseud

>there are people on this board that believe in objective morality
this board has really gone to shit I miss pre-2016 /lit/

>>12252047
Objectivity is objectively impossible, heh...
w-wait a minute... no... oh god... oh fcukkk..

>>12252157
They grew up.

>>12252160
I never said what i said with objectivity in mind, I said it as a subjective opinion, you brainlets.

>>12252169
and left apparently

>>12252171
>brainlet using the brainlet meme

>>12252169
and went to reddit where they belong

>>12252160
“Objective morality is impossible” isn’t a moral claim though
Also logical negations don’t have being per de, they only exist in the mind. So the claim “objective morality is impossible” is a subjective ontological claim

>>12252047
Why does people get offended with this claim?

>>12252175
No.
>>12252172
Only a few.

>>12252184
because uhh... hurr..... re..dddiiittt.. AAAAHHHHH

>>12252184
Because it basically makes life meaningless for a lot of people if it's true.

>>12252184
Because they are too afraid to admit that they are wrong

>>12252184
Muh empathy
Muh g*d
Muh human decency

>>12252149
"Pure objectivity is a void, a construct of subjectivity"

Is this objectively true, or only subjectively so? If the latter, I can ignore it outright and continue my day having not learned of anything at all. If objectively true, it refutes the very claim it contains, and therefore makes no statement at all.

If you wish to play the game of "who's the pseud", ensure you know your opponent.

And I think we will soon see who here is the "pseud", anon.

Lastly, you speak of "language games", and I'll throw you a crumb of my wisdom here by telling you that the terms "truth" and "objective" are themselves synonyms, different terms given to a single reality.

GOOD = something that decreases pain or bad things and increase happiness and sense of welbeing.

BAD = something that creates negative consequences for well being.

Extrapolate that to Good and bad that makes the equation match to the most of society (good is something that makes the most people happy or feel good, and bad is something that causes the most something negative).

This is like greeks 101.

read more.

>>12252189
No.
>>12252194
You got that backwards.
The subjectivists find their beliefs untenable, warped or defective if morality is objective. That is why they get so upset in threads such as this.
The adherents of objective morality are not incensed right now.
>>12252205
Why?
>>12252220
t. fell for the Stirner memes
____________________________
I believe most of the replies to this post are the same individual because despite there being 5 posts since it, the number of posters has only jumped from 11 to 12. The alternative is even worse for them because it would mean these individuals are highly invested in the thread, proving my second reply contained thereabove in this post

>>12252242
You speak of what is subjective as if it is something you shouldn't care about or something you can't learn from. Is the teachings of Balzac and Nietzsche not subjective as well?

>>12252047
There is objective morality, but people are flawed, so not everyone perceives the objective truth.

This is the only position free from contradictions.

When AI eventually has god-like intelligence it will objectively judge the morality of every human and decide if they deserve heaven or hell.(Which it will also create)

>>12252160
Based. I have been trying to enlighten these little minds, but they sadly cannot see past their egos. If they understood the fact that all claims must obey logic, regardless of content, they would realize the absurdity of such positions. This website really is trash, though, and I'd never expect moral-rogues to believe in objective morality in the first place, by the nature of their own manners of living.

The only reason to believe subjectivity is awesome and interesting is if you are an freshman anthropologist that literally feels anything is interesting

at the bottom of all sciences there is god

>>12252248

Overindulgence of the plesures is commonly considered good while living in deprivation seen as bad, yet Socrates saw and lived by the inverse.

Now who was right?

>>12252261
Then what is this objective morality? And who is to say it isn't just your (or someone else's) standpoint on what is good and what if that is not objective morality. Morality can not be objective because what we see as good and bad changes from person to person and culture to culture. If one dies, Tibetan culture would see it as morally good and righteous to leave the body out in the open to be eaten and rot, while a Norse Dane would see that as evil and disrespectful to his name. Everything we see as good or bad is based upon what culture we were born into believes is good and evil. Morality is not objective and universal. Even the "God-given" morality standards are products of Judeo-European ideologies that carried on into the Enlightenment and into modern America. There is no universal Moral compass, because if there was, we would be following it and what is defined as evil wouldn't happen as often as evil happens to every moral compass in the world today.

>>12252248

>following rational ethics in 2018
>deontologism, consequentalism, utilitarianism in 2018

the 2018 is the year of the spirit anon, you need to surrender to Jesus and then your heart will be focused on loving the right things, then you will be able to be a deontologist and at the same time be a consequentalist

>>12252300
what I wrote doesn't imply hedonism.

happyness can be found is asceticism.

You can't prove that claim so I wouldn't make it because it's a matter of faith.

Rather say that objective morality may be possible, but so far nobody has discovered whether or not it is or what it would be if it was.

But yes, philosophy and ethics is just fucking pointless "muh opinions" garbage. The problem is that the people who realise this end up leaving the field, so the only philosophers who remain are the ones who think they're doing something important. This assumptions goes unchallenged because they all believe it, and so they sit around huffing their farts in ivory towers while the world passes them by.

>>12252319
>You can't prove that claim
And yet, you just did.

>>12252319
spoken like a true blue collar

>there are people on this board that aren't non-cognitivists

I pity the stupid.

>>12252331
I'm an executive, actually (though not of a huge company, so it's not that grand a title).

After a certain point you have to put away childish things and go to work.

>>12252256
No, subjective matters can certainly have plenty of value to them. There is much to learn about life from artists of all walks, for example, and of whatever worldview they present.

But when you are speaking of Reality pure, discussing something that is not intended to be personal and individual like Nietzche's work, a reflection of merely their own soul and its specific worldview, but something definitive and universal, then you have to honor logic and cannot merely parade along with intrinsic-violations to your own claims. That is the difference between an artist, which I classify Nietzche as (regardless of what he thought himself to be), and a philosopher. The former presents their own worldviews as Truth, while the latter seeks only that Truth becomes their worldview. Both of these are fine, but only in their respective contexts. A Shakespeare isn't a Plato, and shouldn't be seen as such either, else it will dishonor both of their achievements.

>>12252335
>strawmanning because he was BTFO'd earlier

>>12252335
why do you make the normative claim that non-cognitivism is true?

>>12252350
I am not OP

>>12252350
Are you retarded? I am simple expressing the feeling that you are an imbecile. Not my fault you are too spooked for sentient discussion

>>12252301
There can exist areas wherein subjectivity is permitted, that is to say, where two different approaches to something are both equally moral, but nowhere does this now mean that all morality is subjective. As I already asked above, is loving others objectively or subjectively better than hating them? And therefore, by extension, actions born of love objectively or subjectively better than those born from hate?

And no, you can ignore any religious texts, since to understand any outward book one must have the concepts firstly within their own soul, and therefore the outward text can only be companion to inward knowledge already held, which can be reflected on for themselves. Christ might have spoken brilliant sayings about forgiveness and love, which all of us mere mortals can certainly learn from and strive to implement, but even to one who hasn't the words of Christ still has access to these realities, and the innate understanding of them thereof, needing no intermediary to teach them of these. And lastly ignore the Old Testament, we certainly don't any "jealous God" to hand down objective commandments to a small tribe that has since taken over the world, which following only leaves us slaves. Lastly, do not mistake the fact of a behavior happening as making it "moral". Humans may behave exactly as they wish, from millenia ago to now, but the fact of something happening, or its prevalence, does not in any way make it moral. The entire world may have practised slavery once, yet, does that make it more moral compared to if only one culture had, or even none?

Instead of spending your time debating matters of morals, why not simply reflect first on what Love even is? What is it, where does it come from, why do we possess it, and what does it signify?

These are the questions to meditate on, you won't benefit by losing yourself in arguments involving people disagreeing of certain practises being better or worse than another, and thereby, in a stroke of shortsightedness, declaring the entire edifice of morality to be obselete. Apply the same contemplation to the concepts of Goodness, Justice and anything else. Nothing we speak of is new, Plato already said it all 2500 years ago. That all men may think differently of what is Just, but to even think so all people must hold the identical conception of what Justice is. And he felt, then, that one must spend their life in contemplating these Ideals, thereby coming to see them more and more clearly, this process being the recollection of knowledge, which would then inform the knower's decisions in life, as they'd know more and more of what the true Ideal consists of. And I agree with him completely, though I am Hindu and so am also of that branch, wherein I hold the ascetic, spiritual exercises to be what allows oneself to see these Forms more clearly, for they are the ultimate essences which Atman consists of, and can see clearer proportional to how much of one's ego can be dissolved.

>>12252397
>too spooked

>>12252248
>Objective morality is correct because these subjective claims are true. Fuck this place.

>>12252323
Absolutely based. If you aren't a logician, learn logic first before speaking on anything. Then become spiritual and understand yourself as Atman, and the logic in you as being based in the Divine Law of things. Then realize that all is objective, and it is merely up to each individual to eliminate as much of their ego as possible to see the objective truths for themselves, and to then embody them in their behaviors. It is the desires of the individual which present a conflict to achieving a state of objective morality, indeed it is the existence of the "individual" itself that is the ultimate source of out problems. For if all had shed their sense of selfhood, all would function as one soul, acting through an innumerable population of bodies.

Yikes! Modern """philosophy""" btfo! We ancients again, muhf*cka! We out here, bruh, I stay strapped knowing my own soul, these degenerate capitalist-rationalists ain't taking this Atman with them my dude, I STAY remembering my own nature as Divine, miss me with that avidyā sh*t, you know?

Which axioms you use to evaluate the meaning and truth of phenomena is grounded in which values you hold. To not have objective morality is to not have any beliefs at all.

>>12252261
My position as well.

>>12252323
"You can't prove that claim" as in you, specifically, the human being, are incapable of proving that claim.

Not as in the claim itself is incapable of being proven.

Morality is universally subjective, but personally objective
*dabs in maxims*

>>12252448
If what you say about loving someone being better than hating someone is true, would it still apply if that person was a person of hatred and one who had "wronged" many?

A serial killer murders a baby for the pleasure of it. However, if the baby had not been murdered, it would have grown up to kill thousands of people. Is the serial killer’s murder objectively moral, since it’s objectively true that the murder improved the world?

>>12252753

Reason is the biggest deceiver, anyone who has battled addictions know about this, you may try to solve that riddle through reason and it may make you proud, but in real life you aren't even able to help that poor elder who is barely walking carrying some heavy bags because your heart is somewhere else

Love is through the heart, love other people as souls, the premise of morality through reason is inherently wrong, Jesus is the answer

>>12252826
I was only making the point that objective morality might be inaccessible by our reasoning capabilities, though it may still exist. Suppose the baby’s mother knows the future if the baby survives. Does she kill the baby, and save thousands?

>>12252826
What if their soul is inherently "evil" by your definition, and what would classify their soul as evil? Following that, Would love count as a morally good thing to do? If it does than would it mean that there is a defined moral compass, and would loving their soul be good even if their soul evil?

>>12252102
>Tell me OP, is loving others subjectively better than hating them, or is it objectively so? Are the products of love, therefore, objectively better than those born from hate, or merely subjectively so?
Hate can accomplish great things. With fury and anger great leaders have crushed their enemies. Hate destroys and love builds again. Both are needed to create. And that's just my subjective but also redpilled opinion. It doesn't have to be objective, as long as it's redpilled.

>>12252849
Just for clarification people this person is not OP

>>12252853

Good words, Good deeds, Good work

A soul evil is a hardened heart, it's the heart that has lived through evil and got used to it, the only way to have a good soul is to make your heart warm, compassion and trust, you have to become naive to become good, there is no other way, if you trust people you will see good in people and you will help them, if you have a hard heart everyone will seem suspicious and everyone will seem that they deserve evil

>>12252047
>Objective Morality is Impossible
Yes, congratulations. You’re a couple centuries late, but yay. Anyone who argues in favor of objectively morality doesn’t have a leg to stand on. They all start from loaded premises. None of the have an a respond to the Is-Ought problem. The only moving us to action of any kind is will, which is by definition subjective.

>>12252895
And yet, you just proved yourself wrong.

>>12252889
How would good words be defined? How would good deeds be defined? How would good work be defined? Those are all blanket statements. If you have to use the word good, it doesn't explain what is good.

>>12252694
Assuming I read your question correctly, then yes. Love is always better than hate, in any and all circumstances. This doesn't mean, by the way, that self-defense doesn't have its place, but if you're asking me of essences, then yes, Love is always superior to hate. There is never, not even a single case, wherein hatred is good in-itself. If one has an enemy who has wronged you or continues to, then correct their wrong dispassionately, without resorting to hating them.

And again, spend time reflecting on Love itself. What is it? Why is it? Is it merely a human construct? Animals definitely seem to possess it. Dogs, cats, and other pets of all kinds seem to show love to their owners and to eachother, assuming we aren't incorrectly reading their behaviors as love when they're actually something else to them. And yet, in their expression, it certainly resembles Love to us. So it is seemingly universal? Continue your reflection with this fact in mind. And proceed on.

Broke: You have heard that it was said, 'Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.'

Woke: But I say to you, Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.

>>12252858
Disagree on your stance regarding hate, but I damn agree that all positions rest on the degree to which they are redpilled. I just think Love is greatest of all redpills, and the greatest redpill is therefore pink uWu

>>12252852

Objective morality exist but we would go mad by searching for it, that's why gnosticism is wrong, the endgoal of gnosticism is madness, we aren't meant to understand everything, hypersubjectivity appears when we try to understand morality in an all encompassing way, the only thing we can is to train our heart into having faith in the good

>>12252903

we can't reason our way through it, you need to have understanding, it's like getting off an addiction, reason will try to deceive you into any reason to get again addicted, only understanding with a pure heart can dissolve an addiction through sheer faith

>>12252924
But is love morally good or beyond morality?

>>12252902
Leave them, friend. Let them gain some life experience, see more, learn more, and eventually come to better understand the nature of this reality. Also, many of them confuse ethics for morality. Morality refers purely to the abstract realities involved, while ethics is limited by the physical environment and its present constraints.

>>12252931
Faith has no standing in an argument based in reason.

Why should there be order dictating how one should behave? It’s all due to convenience. If we lived according to our passions, little to anything would get done and a state of constant conflict would characterize our lives. This isnt fun for most people. Yet, considering current circumstances, we understand that most people tend to adhere to the rules in order to avoid conflict and when external consequences are not always possible, morality puts consciousness in charge of carrying out its own punishment. So if we accept that the average joe will be good boy and society can freely function even with some kinks in the system, what personal point is there in following any imperative? If we freed ourselves of such consciousness, what can a morality incapable of external consequence do? Why shouldn’t i cheat if it doesn’t make me feel bad. Why shouldn’t i kill or steal if i know im not going to get caught? Morality can only ever work if we accept its grounds. For example, considering Christianity, if a person doesn’t care about eternal damnation, why possible reason is there to act according to God’s laws? If one doesn’t care about prison, what power does civil law have? Morality is a syntax, nothing else. It loses its meaning if the subject doesn’t speak its language.

>>12252952

But ironically faith is the most powerful thing to change your own being and how you relate to the world, reason can't even begin to touch it

You can even reason your way into many conclusions without realizing it all comes to having faith in a certain idol/image/idea

If there is no God or divine scripture that sets an objective morality then no. As dostoevsky said 'all things are permitted'.

Pure practical, scientific reason takes us nowhere near 'morality'.

>>12252945
Love is the Law itself, as I see it. Even Goodness I consider to be beneath Love, which is a layer above it. Goodness is morally good (obvious), but Love is beyond even morality. Just my views, and I need to reflect on them more.

>>12252902
Ah yes, the non argument. Well done. Im sure you feel very moral saying nothing with haughty airs.

>>12252047
God exists

>>12252980

For example you can have faith on an idol called "Women", "Money", "Status", "Power", "Ascetism", "Your self" and reason will search any way to deceive yourself into that it's the ultimate truth

Put your faith into which is the ultimate good and let reason run it's course alone

There’s no universal ethic.

>>12252980
Then obvious reasonable conclusion from that is not to have faith in anything (even your own knowledge). What point is there in a having an established faith the reasoning behind is already predetermined. You christcucks are hilarious. You can’t trust yourself so you trust in some made up mythology that some other idiot came up with even though you already accepted that people can’t know nuthin’.

>>12253032
>Then obvious reasonable conclusion from that is not to have faith in anything
How did you reach this conclusion?

>>12253011
>>12252902

>>12252052
>>12252102
the idea is that once its said, the presupposition that it and all responses to it are subjective is a given. he never said it was objective and if it was objective it would imply that it can be ignored and that other more convincing systems can be established but that they too can be ignored. It requires the vaguest amount of self awareness and philosophical intuition.

>>12253032

You can put many reasons but everybody has faith in something, even the most basic hedonism has faith on pleasure, anyone who wnats to grasp another breath of air has at least faith on life or hedonism

if you really really had faith on nothing, you would just simply kill yourself not even emotionally invested into it

>>12252895
You don't understand the very logic which you speak in. If you read any of the responses above, you'd understand the Reddit-level error you're making. But, as with Redditors, you already think you're completely correct and have no need to even reflect further on your position.

>>12253045
>You can even reason your way into many conclusions without realizing it all comes to having faith in a certain idol/image/idea
If our reasoning is ultimately dependent on a kind faith, then we understand that our reasoning isn’t inherently rationally grounded. So if from here you decided “oh, let me dictate my life in faith alone” you have still fallen victim to a rationalization, itself not rationally grounded, but on some kind of faith (this faith can be said to underlie whatever conscious faith you accepted). And if you can’t trust your reason in general then why should you trust this reasoning, woukd it too not be based on some faith outside of itself? By distrusting reason, you’ve made your claim to faith impossible.

>>12253082
Two extremes: reason alone, and no reason at all. We need both reason and faith.

>>12252753
Alright, this implicates a far-different question regarding Fate and Time and realms far beyond what we speak of here. It is contrived, and does not speak honestly about the reality we actually live in. Killing any baby is wrong in itself, and if the same baby later grows up to murder many, then those actions are wrong as well. Both are errors in behavior. Let's not bring the fantastical into conversations devoted to the practical, the surreal in conversations of the real, wherein people can see other's future destinies and things similar.

>>12253068
>you’ve made an error, but i wont mention cause that would be Reddit
You absolutist are on fire today with your non-arguments
I’ll ask only as a formality, because I know that you in fact don’t know what you’re talking about. But what’s error in logic, huh? Strict logic doesnt make action possible. Do go from the facts to a prescription we require some kind of will to egg us into action. Motivations are inherently irrational. One can claim theres a logic to them (sociobiological, conditioning, survival, development, etc.), but this logic is just the outcome of material happenings, not of metaphysical truths. As rational thinkers, we can clearly see this. We know ultimately, it is our choice to adhere to a conscious morality or simply let whatever material (biological or social) circumstance determine it for me. There is no objective morality, only material circumstance rationalized metaphysically. Read Hume, Kant, Stiner, Nietzsche and get back to me.

Strength, courage, mastery, and honor are objectively virtuous.

>>12253098
Faith is not necessary. You dont need belief in order to accept premises and axioms. You can do these arbitrarily according to your goals and conditions. This is what we do as biological beings anyway. If you want to built rocket ships then you accept the rules and axiomsof science and math that have proven to be capable for this goal. If you want to be happy, you accept the axioms and rules of whatever system appears to you to work. If you want society to work, then you accept whatever rules appears to make it work and adjust them according to reason. Faith isn’t necessarily unless your scare of being left alone with mind.

>>12253134
Faith isn’t necessary* unless your scare of being left alone with your* mind.

I don’t have faith in reason. I simply use it cause so far it’s proven to be a reliable tool. I can make the unintelligible intelligible and achieve whatever goals are prescribed by my will. I dare not challenge my will because there’s no possibke way to do so. I can will what i want, but i cant will my will.

>>12252465
Stay seething anytime. Still haven't explained why reality owes us a factual moral system.

>>12253134
Reason confuses you, leaving you in a never-ending storm to find your way. You think you’ve figured everything out, then a week later you doubt yourself. Faith is what strengthens the will and keeps you fixed in place. And if we should have faith in anything, it should be the greatest possible thing, that is, God.

>>12252979
this

>>12253199

So much this

>>12253004
So what you're saying is that everyone's ultimate goal and subsequent moral compass is different. In which case that's exactly what ive been saying

>>12253113
I have read them, and am thoroughly unimpressed. Nietzche I won't even address because he was no philosopher at all, merely a sickly poet who lent himself to diagnosing what he in his culture. Stirner, again, I assume you are jesting by even mentioning. Regarding Hume, there is no "is/ought" problem, no duality, only an "ought" which must become the "is". The only reason we have the concept of "ideal" at all, and strive to strive towards it, is because there is such a concept indeed of reality, which we are meant to bring ourselves to see. The fact that people behave irrationally does not mean that objective morality can't exist, it means you need to investigate into the nature of the soul behaving, and inquire as to why it performs any behaviors at all. Why are people good to others, in the first place? Why are people loving at all? What causes someone to hurt another person? Why do some exemplify selfishness, and others generosity? Look at all these realities and try and put them together under a single unified theory. If we can determine the basis for the error-behaviors, then we can help work to end them too.

And no, sociobiology, conditioning, survival or any other terms of modernity do not in any way refute the metaphysical ideals of Goodness, Beauty, Justice and whatever else, and of their universality and eternality. Or that of Love, which I've mentioned earlier. You haven't responded to my question at the start of this thread, wherein I ask whether loving others is objectively or subjectively better than hating or harming them? Tell me, if you follow those "philosophers" you mentioned, and truly hold to their positions, do you truly believe that hurting a person is just the same as loving them, in moral quality? Is the serial murderer as great, or even greater, than the loving saint? If you disagree, then you have just laid an objective ground, and the only position of the people in this thread arguing for objectivity is that the entire system is objective, and not merely one or the other little claims here and there. None of us are claiming to even know what exactly perfect, objective morality resembles, but simply that it exists. And my position is that it can be better seen through one devoting themselves to the spiritual life. Look through my comments above to get a better grasp of my perspective. And once again, to remind everyone in this thread, ALL claims must honor logic, and therefore OP's claim, Hume's claims, Nietzche's claims, and the rest of the subjectivists in this thread, all fall apart and reveal themselves to be substanceless.

>>12253213

But there is a ultimate moral compass which happens to appear once you have faith on the thing that can't be idolized, that's God, and God's love, that's why all idols become nothing under God

And that's why the two fundamental commands of God during all history are two, Love God and Love your neighbour as yourself

If you love God only, you get zealous worship, you become alone in the world, this is gnosticism

If you love your neighbours as yourself, and don't love God, you only worship the flesh and you forget about the boundaries, this is pantheism

>>12253167
What "reality", silly? Everything you know of you know of through yourself. You are the reality you speak of. It's 2-0-1-9 (basically) and people still haven't realized the concept of Nondualism, unbelievable, really. Where else does anything exist, but in you?

>>12253236
But the """utlimate""" moral compass of God is just based on Judeo-European ideals and traditions, as many other cultures see the laws and rules laid out in the Bible and Talmud as evil or strange. All people and all cultures have different subjective moral compasses. There is no one right morality.

>>12253199
>And if we should have faith in anything, it should be the greatest possible thing, that is, God.
This is a dead end, anon. There’s nothing you can say because ultimately you faith is unfounded and is irrational. You’re the one who became confused and simply gave up on the task of understading. Your God has done nothing and shows nothing of himself. My reason is self-evident, it can tell you why you believe in God, where your idea of God first appeared in history, who first believed it, what does it take to make someone lose or gain faith, etc. etc. Reason created your God and your world. You have zero power of over your life meanwhile I can control mine. There’s nothing about this of inherent meaning or worth.

But i know this, and you just have to believe it, but apparently that’s good enough for you.

>>12253270
The rules aren’t so arbitrary as you imagine. Remember that the Christian moral system is meant to improve us spiritually, and not necessarily politically. Consider homosexuality, a very controversial subject associated with Christian morality. Why is this so bad? Simply because it shows you favor pleasures of the flesh rather than that of the spirit. This simple idea helps you in infinite situations, and gives us such sins as lust, greed, gluttony, etc.

>>12253270

The old testament is filled with laws and it's a overreaching history about how the jews got corrupted by following blindly the laws

There is forgery too but also some gems that show the real message of God, there is even the real philosophy behind Love on some passages and some rules laid that probably were done by jews in that era and others that were divine inspired by how they foreshadow Christ in the NT

Then New testament comes and through the revelation of the personal faith and the warm heart all old testament starts having sense, it's not random that Christ says the pharisees became corrupted by following blindly the written laws.

You can just say Christ was the first anarchist, but it's missing the point, Anarchist always ends in the blindspot where you follow yourself, the only way to break this dynamic is through following faith in God, like Tolstoy did in his Christian anarchism, that way you have a polarity in which you can keep growing.

Now, I don't endorse any particular view of christianity, but just putting your faith in God and God's love for humans is a extreme leap of faith that will break your heart and break your blind faith in modernity and it will surely change your life for the better

>>12253324
Wouldn't homosexuality still be pleasures of the spirit or are you saying homosexuals can't love?

>>12253225
>The only reason we have the concept of "ideal" at all, and strive to strive towards it, is because there is such a concept indeed of reality, which we are meant to bring ourselves to see.
Unfounded metaphysical claim.

>The fact that people behave irrationally does not mean that objective morality can't exist, it means you need to investigate into the nature of the soul behaving, and inquire as to why it performs any behaviors at all.
But i mentioned severla of these takes. Sociobiology, psychology of the kind you prefer, sociology, etc. etc. Metaphysical claims as to what the will wants are a dime a dozen. What worth do they have apart from organizing the world from the top-down. Idealism only demonstrate that our minds are as responsible for the world we live in as the actual material in it. This is what that “sickly poet” pointed out so astutely. Science, or better out, empirical falsifiable research is the only means to gather the data necessary so that we can where we actually lie in regards to the big metaphysical questions which exists solely in our mind and not in the world.

>Look at all these realities and try and put them together under a single unified theory. If we can determine the basis for the error-behaviors, then we can help work to end them too.
Im a psych graduated anon. I have many answers to all of these questions none of which point to the metaphysical existence of morality.

>And no, sociobiology, conditioning, survival or any other terms of modernity do not in any way refute the metaphysical ideals of Goodness, Beauty, Justice and whatever else, and of their universality and eternality
Yes they do, anon. These are only labels, corruptions of language to human experience. None of these things exists outside our minds. We can, as the idealist show, get rid of these by accepting our material condition. Love can be anything, anything we want, with one limit: that others are capable of understanding what we mean by it.

>>12253355
Science, or better out, empirical falsifiable research is the only means to gather the data necessary so that we can figure* where we actually lie in regards to the big metaphysical questions which exists solely in our mind and not in the world.

>>12253341
You can love another man without having sexual activity with him. It’s no coincidence that people who indulge in pleasurable activities, such as homosexuality, have a lesser chance of being spiritual people.

>>12253341

This is my personal view but, sin is following pleasures of the flesh and giving to desire, desire is never emptying so you will always be tempted for more, in this case homosexuality is bad if the homosexual gives in the flesh and only thinks about sex and pleasure, genuine love between homosexual is pure because they both see themselves as souls and it's more deep than just pleasure seeking

In this way even heterosexual relationships can degrade themselves to pleasure seeking relationships, the main thing is love to each other as souls rather than flesh, that's what separates good relationships and sin-driven relationships, if you live in sin your heart will be tempted more and more, and some kind of spiritual illness you will develop

However, it's impossible to legislate with this in mind, how you can even start putting laws about this, so in my view Christianity can't be political intended but only existentially experienced by what happens in my life and who i met, I wouldn't be a politician if i were a Christian because it would be extremely hard to do

>>12253366
Oh God, you (on the basis of this position, and not personally) are truly insufferable. Go follow Sam Harris and his ilk, you will have a large family there, all of whom are merely the blind followers of a system whose limitations they refuse to accept, or simply can't see in the first place.

>>12253390

It's even more difficult when we realize that our flesh kinda likes crazy girls in the case of men, and crazy men in the case of women, there has to be a conscious effort about realizing what is the flesh and what is from the soul

It may sound crazy but I bet anyone who has fought against an addiction knows exactly what i mean

>>12253297
I would rather have faith, and be wrong, than not have faith, and be right. That’s the difference between me and you.

>>12252047
Proof is impossible

>>12253390
But sin is simply in this case what Judeo-Christian culture dictates as wrong while other cultures like ancient greek culture saw homosexuality as another form of love.

>>12253391
>Oh God, you (on the basis of this position, and not personally) are truly insufferable
Oh nice, so when you lack a strong argument you simply deflect it. Makes sense since you’re defending religion.

>Go follow Sam Harris and his ilk, you will have a large family there, all of whom are merely the blind followers of a system whose limitations they refuse to accept, or simply can't see in the first place.
Harris is a charlatan and you seem tk believe im a positivist or “scientisist”. Newsflash anon, im not. And I don’t have to be to call you out on your stupidity. Remember that Kant defended science to the higheste in even in his attempt to create room for faith and Metaphysics in human knowledge. But if anything has ever been made clear throught history and philosophy, it’s ine thing anon: everything built on faith eventually crumbles. Where is your God, you don’t know and the only thing you have is a reason to believe. Which is, im afraid to tell you, still depended on human reason and all the material conditions that make It possible.

>>12253412
>I would rather have faith, and be wrong, than not have faith, and be right. That’s the difference between me and you.

Yeah, that’s clear to everyone. Im glad you’re aware of it.

>>12253053
Nope, what you're saying is that "humans can't make objective statements", which itself cannot be said by any human since it is an objective statement, thereby collapsing. Anything which a human subject says, therefore, must be compared on a standard of objectivity. It really isn't difficult to grasp this kind of logic, seriously. Takes a few minutes of reflection, at most.

>>12253419
The Christian idea of sin can be summarized as whatever separates you from God. It’s not arbitrary

There is no morality...

>>12253419

Not quite true, because society is just the ethical perspective where you just care about how sustainable society is as large, meanwhile your view is based on your faith in Love and God's Love which can be anything that happens to be now or in 20 years more, which is truly existential and evolving

as an example, usury is accepted nowadays because it lets society do more than it's intended to do with the hope it will paid in the future, but in a personal christian way it can be bad because of how you see greed.

Try to practice being empathetic with a knowledge of what is desire and what is spiritual, force yourself, and see the results in a week or two, you will see what i mean

You will probably see that christianity also have many interesting philosophical things that seem naive but actually are there to avoid blockends that other religions guide you towards.

>>12252047
Morality is an outgrowth of the inkling of freedom i.e. the potential for spiritual realization of a given subject so the claim of objectice morality doesnt make any sense. Morality could only be objective if there are limits to knowledge like kant proposed or if there is a god that has the universal morality inscribed into his being. Bot of these claims are metaphysical nonsense you cant prove anyways. There is, for the keen seeker of truth, a much more evident and reasonable explanation.
True morality is something that arises out of individual freedom i.e. a given subject living by his or her free will. Morality is not given by society, although shaped and way to many times lastly hindered and crippled by it. Morality is also not something given by nature or god as universal laws that are the same for everyone. In fact morality arises out of the individual that follows his or her intuition in the seeking of spiritual truth and unfolding.
Read some Steiner you absolute pleb...

>>12253355
What on Earth is your argument, from sociobiology, biology and psychology? Not a single one of these disciplines can make any sort of metaphysical claims, they can only observe what they observe and then speak on what they have seen. If they have seen people murdering others, does that mean they can now claim it to be acceptable? Does the existence into serial killers validate their actions? They cannot construct universal truths by merely observing behaviors,, since the behaviors do not "give" to you any truths, merely information. I don't think you have the slightest understanding that we are ultimately making judgements, and that you choosing "science" to be your source of answers is a judgement which the method of science itself cannot give to you, but you must make on your own.

>These are just labels
Ah, a Wittgensteinen as well. Yes, you're right Beauty isn't a thing, just a label. Where does it come from, and why is it used at all, and in the contexts it is? Because it's just a GAME, of course, no more. Greek statues aren't beautiful because Beauty is a thing, but because we invented a word for no reason and all arbitrarily now use it to describe the same phenomena.

>Love can be anything we want
Oh, sure, certainly. Again, it doesn't have an innate meaning that corresponds to an objextive, universal reality, no, it's just another element of the game we play. If I murder you and your children, I can say it was an act of love, and the police should certainly understand that it was so, since love is "whatever we mean it to mean".

I'm not defending "religion", either, but the existence of metaphysical universals.

>In our minds
Where else is anything? Oh, wait, you don't realize that all of this is inside your consciousness, still believing in some separation between "mind" and "reality", my mistake.

>>12253417
You can't prove this claim either, so once again it collapses. Take the objectivitypill. Proof proves itself, and for any mention of the term we are using a self-proven reality, which proves itself by its very nature, else we couldn't even use the term "proof", or deny it's existence.

>>12252102
What does a sentence being objectively or subjectively true even mean. If being objectively true means being true for everybody, then obviously his sentence and any polemical sentence isn't, as it doesn't have everybody's recognition. But I think you use "objectively true" in the sense that a sentence that is so is somehow true for everybody even though it doesn't have everybody's recognition; maybe we do better saying an "objectively true" sentence is a sentence that OUGHT to be recognized, a sentence to which everybody OUGHT to assent. But then the problem only assumes another form: what does this "ought" even mean? Isn't the meaninglessness of an absolute ought that is being asserted at all?
So, when you ask if his sentence is objectively true, you're actually asking whether there's any 'absolute ought' compelling us to believe there's no such thing. And that's just going around in circles.

>>12253522
>Greek statues aren't beautiful because Beauty is a thing, but because we invented a word for no reason and all arbitrarily now use it to describe the same phenomena.
Not him, but they are regarded as “beautiful” because the have certain traits that are associated with fertility and physical health, such as being tall, symmetrical, having unblemished skin, and so on. You will probably dismiss this for being too materialistic or whatever, but I don’t doubt that have probably used the fine-tuned universe argument more then once, which would make it hypocritical to ignore a basic biological answer.

>>12252248
Some people enjoy pain though

Since no individuals can exist on their own but have to be born from a father and a mother, and those parents in turn have to come from their parents, there has to be a first cause from which all living beings come and that we call God.

Since all individuals are subject to God at all times then the objective morality is to always satisfy God and never satisfy our bodies or senses.

Objective morality established on heaven and earth, op forever BTFO

>>12252047
without god, sure

>>12254041
write a book

You’re absolutely correct OP.

>>12253976
It's not "merely materialistic", but simply incorrect. If your claim is that "factors of physical fitness produce the phenomena of Beauty", then your hypothesis is already completely disproven by existence of Beauty in innumerable other realms not involving this "physical fitness" which you and the other evolutionists have projected. The beauty of poetry, tell me wherein its "physical fitness" lies? Shakespeare's plays are beautiful for their physical fitness? Mathematics is beautiful because of its physical fitness? Music is beautiful because of its physical fitness? Architecture is beautiful because of its physical fitness? Clothing because of its physical fitness?

I have studied Beauty enough to tell you I fully understood what it is, and what produces it. But I will not give you this knowledge, but simply tell you to maybe lean a little-less on a group of modern materalists who only desire to keep their own, present theories propped up rather than identify the true nature of this reality, which existed long-before the modern era of scientism and will continue to long-after.

And no, I'm not arguing for "le fine-tuned universe", since I don't use the meme-speak which forms modern, scientific parlance. Spirituality is my endeavour, and has given me whatever understanding I have, that has allowed me to see through the absurdities of modern scientism permanently. Again, I won't elaborate this to you properly, for it is best for you to go on the journey of independent reflection that I myself did.

>>12254041
>call the first cause "god"
>oh p.s.btw god also is a humanoid character who experiences things like wants and desires
lol

>>12254099
God just wants to exist. God could not perceive Himself as clearly without our longing after Him.

>>12254113
"cool story, bro"

>>12252047
Annnnd refuted. https://www.theobjectivestandard.com/2010/12/the-beauty-of-ayn-rands-ethics/

>>12254132
go back

>>12254089
There are people that literally can’t enjoy music, as in cannot find any enjoyment in listening to music despite actually understanding it, all because their brains are fundamentally wired in a particular way that keeps them from being able to, and there is evidence that something similar might happen to other “realms”. Of course, you are a irrationalist mystic, something mocked by Plato himself, so honestly just do anything you want, it won’t matter.

>>12254346
Fantastic argument. "A few people can't enjoy music", so this now means that, um, uh, I guess, uh, Beauty, uh, doesn't exist, and certainly isn't something which is universally mentioned of in all the realms I brought up, across millenia, but is actually only that of your hypothesis of it responding to "physical fitness".

With just two arguments, that of "physical fitness" and "a few people don't appreciate music", you have rendered my whole position, about Beauty being found in plenty of sectors beyond physical bodies, moot. I am defeated now, and I withdraw my earlier arguments, since you've shown me to be an "irrational mystic", and have completely refuted the entirety of my claims. Thank you for the wisdom, me and my irrational, mystical self will be on our way now.

>>12254426
Good to see that mystic wannabes are still the joke of the intelectual world. Even fucking Sam Harris is better then this shit.

>>12252047
It's not impossible

It would just have to involve a supernatural source that exist outside of us as well as within us that guides us all the same way

>>12252858
The better and more obvious example is that self hatred provides the fundamental tool for self improvement and eternal contentment lends itself only to stagnation

>>12254484
Beauty is not found anywhere beyond physically-fit human subjects.

It is not found in landscapes, not found in music, not found in poetry, not found in plays, not found in mathematics, not found in architecture, not found in language, not found in clothing, not found in interior design, not found on non-human creatures, or anywhere else. It is solely produced by sight of physically-fit humans, hence the reason for Greek sculptures being seen as beautiful, and nothing else in reality ever receiving the label.

I am a mystic-wannabe, and you have refuted my entire argument successfully.

>>12254524
Not the other anon, but why does your label of 'beauty' apply to all of those things? The emotion I feel when seeing someone I am attracted to is not remotely the same as the one I feel when I see a great play or read a good book or watch a sunset or go for a swim - they are all distinct, and yet you speak of beauty as some edifying universal concept that unifies these experiences when it clearly isn't and doesn't.

>>12254551
Sexual attraction isn’t based on just beauty, though. A human can be beautiful while not causing you to be sexually attracted to him/her, unless you’re a horny, pansexual, pedophile

>>12254551
Beauty is an "emotion", is it? Wow, neat. Here I am, thinking it something different than anger, sadness, happiness, and otherwise, but you've proven me wrong, just like the other anon did.

Yesterday, after a fit of anger, I calmed down and felt an episode of beauty that lasted a few hours, but then I went to bed and the next morning I woke up feeling happy.

I was looking at some Renaissance art the other day. At first I felt angry while staring at the paintings, but then I came to feel a bit of beauty too, but then after some time I had some sadness in sight of it, and then finally felt jealousy by the end.

I'm so grateful for the education I'm receiving in this thread. Every anon is helping enlighten a "irrational, wanna-be mystic" like myself on the true nature of things I once thought I understood. I used to think Beauty was a transcendent ideal found in many realms of reality, from mathematics to art to biological species and more, but now know it's just what happens when you see "physical fitness on a human". I used to think it wasn't in the same tier as that of the emotions, which are inwardly produced and not automatically brought by outward objects the way beauty is, but now I know, that beauty is just another emotion like anger, sadness, happiness and the rest of them.

Thanks anons, this dumb mystic feels he's finally learnt enough and doesn't want his brain to explode, so I'm going to abandon the thread now and contemplate these new understandings you've given to me!

Is this really news?

We can't know the thing in itself, and proving anything to establish objectivity requires taking a leap to establish an axiom.

You can however create a cohesive moral system based on an assumed axiom.

I've never been able to understand why objectivity is required for morality.

>>12254869
>thing in itself
Oh, sorry, we're still pretending Kant's ramblings have value. I thought we were done with that by 2018, but it seems we aren't. My mistake, carry on.

>>12254962
Not everything he said was correct, but he was right about that fundamental epistemological limitation.

>>12252500
Shoot yourself in the foot anon and tell me if the pain you feel is really that subjective :^) Pain is something that expresses its self more objectivly in nature then any pseud bull shit lmao.

>>12254989
But pain is quite subjective, a hurt that could debilitate one person may not even bother another.

>>12255006
But is it a "hurt"? Or is it just the same as pleasure, happiness, beauty, bliss, or any other feeling? Is "hurt" an objective term?

>>12255006
Thats because of the physical differences between each entity going through pain.

>>12255025
Since it's a term that deals primarily with a subjective phenomenology, I'd say it's not an objective term, Injury is a fairly objective term, but hurt itself is simply a description of the subjective experience associated with being injured. One would potentially come up with an objective description of pain by putting it in mechanistic terms, but how that pain was interpreted as a subjective hurt wouldn't be objective.

>>12255035
If you're going to go with an explanation of subjective interpretation of sense information like that, completely ignoring any distinction between mind and body (not entirely unreasonable, but I would contend too simplistic) then there is no such thing as subjective experience, only objective neurological activity.

>>12252157

you realize majority of all the great thinkers and philosophers actually believed in objective morality

>>12252753
>consequentialist ethics

>>12255057
Everything is subjective, meaning, "inside a subject". Materialists are braindead. Everything is experienced from a subjective perspective, including the "mechanistic phenomena" or "neurological activity" which the materilidiots like to speak of as being "objective", despite being entirely "subjective" simultaneously.

>>12255078
I agree, the divide between subjective and objective is spurious. Everything can only be experienced subjectively, but even subjective experience is objective neurological behaviour. But the divide is useful in language to establish certain epistemological boundaries.

>>12255057
>>12255077
Listen retards, subjective experience exists as an emergent property of all the unique differences between all neurological structures (as none of them are the same).

>>12255123
I didn't say it doesn't exist.

>>12252047
considering a god dosent exist there is no objective anything

>>12252047
>>12252985
>>12253199
>>12254078

God is not necessary for objective morality.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SiJnCQuPiuo

>>12252047
Morality is to broad a generalization.

>>12252266
implying Kaczynski gang will let that happen

>>12255070
what is this, an election?

>>12252335
What's your answer to the negation problem and Frege-Geach?

>>12252047
>objective morality
Nice abstract concept you've got there, too bad it means nothing and so taking a stand about it is ridiculous.

>>12255712

> >there are people on this board that believe in objective morality
this board has really gone to shit I miss pre-2016 /lit/

u made it sound like only dumbasses believed in objective morality when the opposite is true

The image speaks for itself

>>12252047
Since objective morality is impossible I'm under no obligation to admit being wrong about objective morality, so your point is moot and your challenge empty.
Since however You made an extraordinary claim, wich requires extraordinary evidence, thou shalt now have to demonstrate that your philosophy is right.
Given your premises, obviously, We still won't have to take your argument seriously.

>>12254989
google image search darkness in my heart

>>12252047
well Christianity exists so it is obviously possible

>>12256997
That's just evading the problem: >>12253920

>>12254989
What difference would it make whether his pain is objective or subjective? When I'm in pain the only thing about it that matters to me is that I'm in pain.

Any moral calculus is based on a set of axioms. Any system of axioms cannot be both consistent and complete. By complete we mean it is applicable to all cases. Therefore, we are posed with the possibility of no possible objective morality, because "objective" - we suppose - would satisfy completeness and consistency. To adopt such a conclusion would be self-refuting however, as any action, any language is dependent upon fundamental laws such as the law of non-contradiction. Because, as anyone should know, to deny morality is in effect to deny truth, and thus logic is tied up in this whole problem. You can't divorce logic, metaphysics, and ethics from one another, as the west has tried to do. Any ethical claim is a metaphysical one and vice versa.

The better answer to the problem posed by Godel is that we should no longer judge systems based on consistency or completeness, but rather on coherence. This, truly, is what *the* objective morality is: coherence. It simply is not explained in the classical terms we usually use to justify systems, because it isn't just a system, but a system of systems.

Any denial of an ethical system *is* an ethical system, otherwise we wouldn't be having this whole conversation. Similarly, the denial of a metaphysics is a metaphysics in itself.

Once you've realized *the* objective morality is the case, only then is the veil lifted from your soul. Only then can you see that those who deny morality do so because they violate morality, and they need to intellectually justify their degenerate and fallen state. No one who truly comprehends *the* objective morality can continue to live as they personally see fit without undergoing some serious discomfort. Once you understand the psychological element, then *the* objective morality is not merely a system, but a personal encounter between the Logos and oneself. The rules given in revelation to man are merely a tutor and guidepost to the real and fulfilled execution of the objective morality in oneself.

>>12252047
You have to give an argument first, anon, or else I have no idea where to start.

>>12252266
Jesus Christ this is retarded

>>12253133
Excellent arguement

>>12257235
Let's see if I have understood.
Any action is based on a set of axioms or fundamental laws, therefore we need a set of moral axioms in order to do any moral calculus. This set can't be both complete and consistent, and it doesn't really need to satisfy such criteria: rather it has to be coherent. To say that we can get away with objective morality, is to say we can have actions not based on fundamental laws, and that is impossible, because we always rely, for instance, in the law of non-contradiction: which means, in denying objective morality, one is denying truth and logic itself. In other words, you can't deny objective morality without denying every other form of "objectivity". But the act of denying objectivity is itself an action based on fundamental laws, so in the end the denial of an ethical system is an ethical system, the denial of a metaphysical system is a metaphysical system, and so on.

>>12252047
>prove my love for wisdom wrong

>>12257235
Cont -> >>12257384

Now, my critique.
If every action is based on a set of axioms, then obviously it isn't always the case that we do so consciously: actually, the rule is that we do so subconsciously, in an instinctive or affective way. Which means the laws regulating such subconscious actions can't be rational — unless you absurdly expands the idea of "rationality" so as to render it meaningless —, such laws have to be rather affective or instinctive, anyway "natural", in a way that we end up following them without having to do any conscious effort. Now, the subconscious or natural laws most friendly to rational expression are the most general, and therefore least satisfactory to particular situations. In order to be perfectly rational, then, we would have to be able to reduce every particular situation we happen to be in to some general form of situation, a "case", to which form we would readily find the moral axiom or maxim made to it. But obviously the concrete and particular situations we find ourselves aren't *only* that which, in them, we are able to reduce to general cases; also our concrete and particular evaluations aren't only what we can reduce to some moral axiom or maxim. There's much, much in our own minds, bodies, souls, whatever you wish to call them, on one hand, and in our lives and circumstances, on the other, beyond our rational comprehension. So, indeed, rational laws are indispensable to rational subjects, the question, however, is that such rational subjects are only a very superficial and even artificial part of who we really are. If objectivity has any value, it's a pragmatical one, and a very limited one: you can't act rationally without being coherent. It's limited because we just don't always act or even can act rationally: there are moments in our lives we can't help but act "blindly", which is not the same thing as "randomly" or without any criteria, for, as Pascal says, the heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing.
So, if you don't have such a pragmatical value in mind while defending objectivity, when such a notion becomes some sort of dogmatical tool, then it ceases to be some indispensable resource of communication, and starts being a strategy of actually evading it, of completely dismissing anyone's opinion in an artificial way, as we can see in this thread.

Hey guys, OP here. Just saying im really proud that this thread could grow to the size it has. I hope we can continue to have philosophical debates here. This is what I wanted when I started this thread.

>>12252053
Great counter argument, you convinced me

>>12257390
I am led to believe that the constant practice of virtue, or the disciplined maintenance of said axioms, ingrain the reaction to perception with reason, or rationality.
Such, as I observe, was the way Socrates lived his life. In his abituation to a rational life, he could live free of his passions and true to his perceived truth.
Then to adress the matter of objectivity. I am inclined to believe that Truth as objective, eternal, is recognized when the human behaviour is put to scrutiny. There are beliefs that are general in regard to what is evil and what is good, which come intuitively, and the practice of them will result in things that are good or evil as felt by humans.

>>12257534
I agree, "ethics" is basically the art of creating a second nature from the "first", and reason is first of all our artistic or technical faculty. The problem is when ethics, along with reason, goes awry and both become dogmatical, as I said. We lose sight of the first nature, and start trying to neglect such nature in order to see things only as "right" or "wrong", without trying to first understand the pre-rational whys and hows, that is, without first trying to understand it from a more affective or natural perspective. In such a situation we can only give rise to endless and fruitless chatter.

>>12257572
Very well said.

...are you people stupid?
Say there is a universal morality, meaning A is distinguished as good, B is distinguished as bad, and that this has always been the case.
scenario 1) God
god it thus subject to "rating" by the universal morality. Meaning, he is the subject of a higher force. Contradiction. by definition god can alter this Morality, therefore it is fluid and not objective.
scenario 2) infinite existence
Where the hell would this morality come from in this case? and what does it effect? absolutely nothing. if objective Morality just exists, independent of god, it is powerless, and therefore meaningless, and therefore equivalent to subjective morality. Otherwise we just go back to scenario 1.

>>12257743
Just adding: even though I usually side with the "There's no objective morality" stance, I try to actually understand what is in play when people adhere to the opposite stance, that is, I try to understand in what sense can "objective morality" be said to be true, to what effective force/power/whatever can such a stance be referred. For instance, when antiobjectivity is actually only the preaching of absolute indifference and "laissez-aller", I'm completely against such stance. So I don't like to simply "contradict" or "refute" other people's view as if everything was only a matter of logic, without first being a matter of actual things in play and in conflict. Skeptics usually end up being as dogmatical as the dogmatics they criticize: they're simply "negative dogmatics".

>>12252157
>>12252169
>>12252175
True. Whole anti-modernism meme is perpetuated by zoomers who were laughed at through Facebook during middle school.

>>12257954
God is the Good himself. The Good is intrinsically identifiable as the Good. This is a brainlet argument, always has been.

>>12258170
Until God comes down from the heavens and says what is good and what is bad, that's an idiotic statement. And it all depends on what God you believe in, which also implies that there is an intrinsically correct answer to the question on if God(s) is real and which religion is correct, which is impossible to define and is based entirely upon faith.