/lit/ - Literature

>>14102165
Too bad arabs are nearly as retarded as Africans. These shitskins need to be deported en masse.

try after virtue by macintyre

>>14102360
>secular
>macintyre

try again

>>14102184
Deported? No. Disposed of.

>>14102165
The realizatio n that morality is invented rather than discovered doesn't change the fact that it is a useful tool for organizing society, or that we have empathy hardwired in our ways of thinking. The argument that if there is no objective morality we should drop our subjective moralities as well is a non-sequitur.

>>14102646
Be silent racist subhuman

>>14102640
lol funnily enough that text is about moving away from the old christian dogmatic framework of normative ethics to a revival of secular ancient virtue ethics, despite him being a christian

so no i do not need to try again

>>14102184
>>14102646

>>14102790
Show me a person who actually lives and acts like morality is subjective rather than objective then. I've never seen a single person actually live according to the understanding that morality is a subjective preference rather than objective right and wrong

>>14102932
based post

>>14102932
Most people don't even understand clearly the philosophical question as to whether morality is based on reason or emotion, so I'm not sure what your point is here.

>>14102841
this is a 45 iq understanding of what he argues for lmao. He thinks that a distinctly CATHOLIC virtue ethics does the best at suceeding on its own terms. He argues that we should move away from the fragmented unsystematic vaguely christian system we have now. A much better example of what OP asked for would be “On What Matters” by Parfit

>>14102997
People abhor killing (ceteris paribus) because they think it’s wrong. Not because they’re a subjective expressivist. You’re right that people don’t have sophisticated moral views, but you fail to explain them.

>>14102997
My point is the kind of people who claim that it's an objective truth that morality is subjective opinion are often the first to criticize actions or policies as being objectively good or bad. It's pointless. If you believe that morality is simply a utilitarian tool for social cohesion then don't be a hypocrite and waggle the finger at China harvesting organs from prisoners.

The truth should be something that changes your behavior and actions since the entire point of knowing the truth is so we can utilize it to better ourselves and our circumstances through greater understanding. It's telling then that people who claim morality is purely subjective tend to be the most preachy moralists when it comes to arguing about their brand of politics or beliefs. Almost as if they don't really believe it to begin with and that the claim that morality is subjective opinion is just a get out of dodge way of avoiding the messy implications of an objective morality within a purely materialistic worldview.

The same criticism works for all the people who claim that free will doesn't exist. You don't get your cake and eat it too. If you think something is true, act like it, don't use it as a shield to avoid having to address the issue.

>>14103017
200 iq post tbqh

>>14103017
>If you believe that morality is simply a utilitarian tool for social cohesion then don't be a hypocrite and waggle the finger at China harvesting organs from prisoners.
But their own morality (reaction to China's organ harvesting) is a utilitarian tool to further their own interests. Just because your morality is subjective does not mean you can not criticize any other morality.

>>14103028
>But their own morality (reaction to China's organ harvesting) is a utilitarian tool to further their own interests
Explain how it is directly in their interests that a person on the other side of the world doesn't get their organs harvested. This is a huge stretch. What happens to individuals on the other side of the world has not even the most tangential relevance to you at all. In fact they don't even argue that it does. People who want to stop Chinas organ harvesting claim that it needs to be stopped because it is morally wrong. In other words they're treating their subjective opinions as if they were objective fact.

>Just because your morality is subjective does not mean you can not criticize any other morality.
Sure, I agree. We can have a robust debate on the issue about what moral values are important. The problem is that in the subjectivists eyes no matter how compelling your argument it is never objectively right. It's like having an argument over what the top 5 movies of all time are. You can make compelling arguments but there simply is no correct answer.

Which is a problem because most subjectivists act like there is a correct answer and that other people should be beholden to their personal view of what that correct answer is. If morals are subjective then China has as much right to enforce what they believe to be right as you do in your life. The moment you start criticising China for being objectively wrong is the moment you step away from moral subjectivism and move into implying moral objectivity.

China doesn't give a shit about what your favorite movie is or what your personal views of the morality of their actions are. Critiquing them is a waste of time because it's an argument with no correct answer.

>>14103011
I am still not sure what your argument is. I agree that emotivism (I think that's what you mean by "expressivism") is a wrong theory about the MEANING of moral statements. Yes the way ordinary language about morality is structured implies a realist understanding of ethics. I just maintain that this is false.

>>14103017
>y-you can't just kick my ass, that's a fallacy!

Nerd, aesthetics are subjective, doesn't mean I can't support taking a wrecking ball to your hideous architecture

>>14103017
>My point is the kind of people who claim that it's an objective truth that morality is subjective opinion are often the first to criticize actions or policies as being objectively good or bad. It's pointless. If you believe that morality is simply a utilitarian tool for social cohesion then don't be a hypocrite and waggle the finger at China harvesting organs from prisoners.

This is utterly confused, and it's based on a misunderstanding of both what moral anti-realism is and the distinction between the ontological and epistemological meanings of 'subjective'. The metaethical view that morality is ontologically subjective means: there are no such thing as moral qualities in the objects themselves, we call things good or bad based on the feelings they evoke on us (pleasant or unpleasant). But that doesn't mean you lose the motivation to act according to your morality, much like realizing that the fact that you prefer pizza to sandwitches is subjective doesn't make you liking you pizzas less. And of course the fact that morality is ontologically subjective is not incompatible with choosing a moral system of your liking and then making epistemically objective statements about whether certain actions are right or wrong according to said system

Elementary metaethics, my dear Watson

>>14103115
>much like realizing that the fact that you prefer pizza to sandwitches is subjective doesn't make you liking you pizzas less
Going on a crusade to stop all people eating sandwiches because of your personal revulsion to them is irrational. Moral subjectivists cannot by definition prescribe their own personal moral views as binding on others. But almost all of them act like they can.

Every single person acts like a moral realist because moral realism is true. The claim that morality is subjective is just materialists claiming something that they cannot back up through their actions to avoid the messy questions that follow up from acknowledging moral realism.

Your point only works if we're discussing someone who has put no thought into morality at all, in that case pure emotivism probably is what people work on instinctually. A person who is actually considering morality from a philosophical perspective though, and who ostensibly intellectually assents to the idea that there exists no objective morality should, if they're being honest, use that view to inform the rest of their positions. But they don't. They claim morals are subjective and then inform all of their moral positions as if morality was objective.

>>14103051
>People who want to stop Chinas organ harvesting claim that it needs to be stopped because it is morally wrong. In other words they're treating their subjective opinions as if they were objective fact.
It's in their subjective interest (their support of American liberalism) to critique China at every given opportunity in order to uphold their own subjective morality. American liberalism's global virtue signalling (think human rights) is the greatest colonizing force the planet has ever seen. You're right that it's hypocritical, but that doesn't matter. It's all about power.

>>14103134
>Going on a crusade to stop all people eating sandwiches because of your personal revulsion to them is irrational.

Yes, but the fact that other people like Sandwiches provokes if not indifference, at most a slight distaste to the pizza-purist. On the other hand, learning that somebody shot a mosque in Christchurch is likely to provoke a much stronger feeling of outrage and indignation - it's called empathy. Of course, you are quite right that moral feelings are stronger relative to how the situation they refer to personally affects us. Many people would agree that it is morally good to help starving children in Africa, but how many activists are down there working to change the situation? But this is not a defect of moral anti-realism since it is a human tendency that affects everybody regardless of their views on metaethics.