/lit/ - Literature

>>18506989
No

There is no morality. But some things are inherently wrong like being a bigot or rape.

>>18506989
Over time the structure of this reality will reveal itself to us if we keep observing it and through this observation we will observe only one truth and one ethics. Currently we don't have the full truth but to say ethics is subjective would mean that the universe itself is subjective.

>>18506989
Ethics/morals are biological. Evolutionary.

They're not exactly subjective, but more like relative. And like any evolutionary trait they exist as a spectrum.

>>18507046
Go back

>>18507049
Right and wrong comes from morality. If there is no morality, there is no wrong, much less an inherent wrong.

>>18507049
> self refuting statement
I assume this is bait

>>18506989
When we ask the world, the world stays silent. What is the meaning of life then?

>>18507049
Those two statements aren't compatible. I'm an atheist, but when Dostoyevsky said "If there is no God anything is lawful" I agree. If there's nothing divine or beyond us governing or dictating law then everything is just made up. Now, I buy into what I call traditional morality because we all have to live together so might as well minimize the suffering we impose on one another, but nothing is 'bad' or 'wrong'. Nothing is 'good' or 'right' either, everything just 'is'.

>>18507350
>Those two statements aren't compatible. I'm an atheist, but when Dostoyevsky said "If there is no God anything is lawful" I agree. If there's nothing divine or beyond us governing or dictating law then everything is just made up. Now, I buy into what I call traditional morality because we all have to live together so might as well minimize the suffering we impose on one another, but nothing is 'bad' or 'wrong'. Nothing is 'good' or 'right' either, everything just 'is

>>18507350
I agree.

>>18507350
When god commands good things, that implies that morality is both objective and that it exists outside of god. The difference between a religion and a state is whethor a bearded man occupies the clouds or the podium.

>>18507350
I suppose this would still be the case, even with God. After all, God is a subject, right? What we would be deeming "permitted" would be nothing more than the will of God, and because it's a will, it's also subjective. Unless you think that God is equivalent to nature or to existence itself, but this would imply in God not being a being.

>>18507387
God commands things because they are good, or the things are good because God commands it?

The first option implies something outside of God, to which God would be subservient to. This doesn't seem compatible with the concept that most religions have of God being supreme and omnipresent. On the other hand, the second option seems to imply >>18507406

Yes. moral naturalism is absurd and objectively true normative statements are an impossibility unless you create a new epistemology specifically for moral claims, which seems incredibly ad hoc. "thou shalt not kill" isn't a statement that has a possible truth value, it's a statement of will. Even if a God existed to issue statements like "thou shalt not kill," this would change nothing. It would be incredibly foolish to contradict God in this circumstance, but it wouldn't make it objectively true that you should not kill people.

why couldn't an objective reality simply not provide moral content? a perfect knowledge of all that is would still fail to provide objective knowledge of what ought to be

stop reading sam harris and start reading kant. A valid moral law commands absolutely or not at all. evolution and science can only ever provide you with descriptions, not prescriptions.

Benevolence (Kindness and Compassion) is Goodness.
But it most be Most apt.
How do you argue with this? You do not like it when people are unkind to you. To do otherwise than love is to be a hypocrite or admit your logical error.

>>18507456
easy, you can just disagree that it's objectively true that you shouldn't do something to someone else that you don't want done to you. This isn't hypocrisy if I don't teach this.

>>18507456
you could also just disagree with your premise that making a logical error or being hypocritical is somehow prohibited by the nature of reality

>>18507456
>logical error
there's no logical error there because the descriptive fact that you don't like something does not entail the normative fact that it shouldn't be done

>>18507341
2nded

>>18507049
I've literally had a girlfriend tell me this

>>18506989
Yes, because morals only concern subjects, those who perceive the objective world.
Remove subjects, and moral questions go away, because there is no one to ask them.

>>18507049
Then that's objective morality. :3

>>18507387
Don't make me bring out Aquinas anon

>>18507350
this is just pure cowardice. morality isn't real but you're too weak to live life as if it isn't, so you just arbitrarily accept what everyone else already believes? what's even the point of your atheism then if you pretend as if God exists?

>>18507639
The point of atheism is that it is true, not that it is useful or good to believe. Just true.

>>18507658
it's so true that you can't even own up to the horrifying implications of it and just retreat into a psuedo-religious lifestyle anyways, just like nietzsche correctly criticized people for doing. you're all cowards

>>18507483
>>18507529

I am going to give the same response to both.

If you yourself do not like things being done to you against your will, then you should not do the same to others. "I dislike when people act unkind but it is okay if I myself act unkind" is a naturally incoherent opinion. Is it okay to be unkind or not?

>>18507714
the perception of other people as the same category as your own is also subjective. If one simply consider oneself above other people, like we do to animals, there's no inconsistency in disliking something done to you while simultaneously doing this same thing to other humans.

>>18507762
Obviously there is such a thing as logical moral judgements of human behavior.
How should else one feel about the act itself ?
To engage in unjustifiable specifications seems to be an example of bias.

Why do people keep worrying about morality? Just do what you want bro.

>>18506989
Morality is made of passive habits, ie sloth.

>>18507690
You got it backwards. The lifestyle is a natural one dictated by evolution.

If you actually compare that lifestyle to the stated beliefs of any religious person you will see they clash horribly.

Despite the fact that their religion tells them to live a certain way they can't overcome evolution.

It is the religious who retreat into a psuedo-naturalistic lifestyle.

>>18507714
>"I dislike when people act unkind but it is okay if I myself act unkind" is a naturally incoherent opinion
i don't know what you mean by "naturally" incoherent but it's not logically incoherent. the former clause is a descriptive proposition and the latter is a normative one. even the two normative propositions "one ought not act unkind to me" and "it is not the case that one ought not act unkind towards others" aren't logically incoherent

>>18507639
>morality isn't real but you're too weak to live life as if it isn't, so you just arbitrarily accept what everyone else already believes?
Yes.jpg
I don't want to spend my life in jail.

>>18506989
in some cases yes but I think most people aside from the truly morally depraved don't want to fuck kids no?

>>18506989
cannibalism, murder, rape, and exploitation are excusable in many societies but only if the victim is an outsider to the tribe. betraying a citizen is "objectively" wrong

When/if science cracks the problem of consciousness, an objective scientific morality will become entirely possible.

All things subjective are based upon an end result, turning the subjective into the objective. Moral or immoral; good or bad; virtue or vice—these things emerge as a consequence of an end result, desired or not. As you can see, truth is binary.

>>18506989
Yes. However, thousands of years of social programming have created what we refer to as "the collective conscious" or sometimes simply "consciousness," a process of tempering the perspective of the many into a uniform-appearing, commonly shared mass perspective, which the many confuse with "objectivity," and anyone whose perspective is dominated by this collective hysteria will find it impossible to realize their own state of consciousness as originating from their own unique perspective.

There is nothing "inherently good or bad" or "inherently right or wrong" outside of the subject that dictates these things.

>>18506989
The truth is that this is not an easy question to answer, although there is a lot of money to be made by giving people an easy answer.

>>18507049
>theres no morality BUT you NEED to be nice to le niggerino

>>18506989
Does the moral system work? Is it applicable, does it take hold, does it spread and cause the civilization that holds it to thrive and spread and turn?

Like everything else, morals are subject to selection, those that work survive and thrive, those that do not are abandoned. The "natural ethics/moral system" has already been deduced, and you're living it.

Some things are objectively bad like rape or wanting murder.

But some are subjective and nuanced, where who may be in the wrong is totally your POV

>>18506989
No. Read Rothbard.

>>18510955
top kek

>>18507279
The correct answer, which is why it will be ignored

>>18506989
There is a category of "undesirable" things for an individual. To say I find pain undesirable is an objective fact. It is also a fact that individuals will seek out desirable things and avoid undesirable things. Ethics and morals are just a construct to better facilitate that, and because a lot of what is desirable and undesirable overlap for most people, most people agree to certain basic precepts. Whether that makes those precepts objective or not is essentially semantics. Also, since we evolved in social settings, things like a sense of fairness arose out of group selection, so if something like fairness is real enough to cause some groups to survive while others in-fight themselves into non-existence, does "fairness" become an objective concept arbitrated by group success? A lot of the objective/subjective arguments boil down to the fact that objective reality will cause certain "subjective" choices to result in non-existence while other choices will result in continued existence and flourishing.

This thread was moved to >>>/his/11407231