/lit/ - Literature

Looks like I have to feed the troll. Please, sir, elucidate your opinion for these forthright gentlemen scholars.

>>5472717
If you dont even bother making any effort to make any valid points that reinforce your opinion or at the very least challenge mine Im not going to take anything you say seriously.

>>5472738
>murdering is ok if you think it is

>>5472738
Point of this post being bait. OP just put forth a subject for discussion and expected us to just dispute amongst ourselves about a controversial topic. Makes you wish that people put more effort into trying to incite an interesting debate.

>>5472717
Check mydibs

>>5472717
Why is it that being an atheist and believing in subjective morality are bad things now? It seems this fedora meme intends to make fun of anyone who strays from typical societal norms but 4chan is made up of many of those people. Is that the point?

>>5472749
4chan is a Christian imageboard.

If morality is truly subjective, upon what foundation could any sort of human society be erected? What platform could subjectivity be for the large and imposing edifice of human society.

>>5472751

>>5472749
Because some people want that, some want you to think that there are people out there like that and hate them just like they do. Over all you shouldn't let yourself be affected by what people in the internetland do.

>>5472753
Pure, unadulterated violence and the submissive lemmings who follow the violent

>>5472753
probably the foundation of laws decided by powerful people and enforced by police

>>5472753
Laws.

>>5472770
History has shown us that systems such as these are always doomed to decay and failure.

>>5472776
What are laws based on?

>>5472780
subjective moralities of the powerful

>>5472753
>If morality is truly subjective, upon what foundation could any sort of human society be erected?

The laws given to man by God.

>>5472753
Thought experiment: you're having dinner with your lover but their bitchy mother, whom you detest with an unbridled ardour, is also at the dinner table. An incident occurs and the location where you are dining at is suddenly an inferno. You only have enough time to save one from either your lover, whom you love absolutely, or their bitchy mother, whom you cannot stand.

If morality were objective then this would be an easy question to answer.

>>5472786
What if your lover begged you to save their mother?

>>5472784

>>5472777
What do you speak of? Every society is ruled by violence. If a government does not exert violence over its subjects they do not obey its laws.

>>5472790
Exactly! it just proves my point. If morality were subjective then being in that position wouldn't be too much of a problem.

>>5472797
Not exactly violence. A form of punishment, which denotes power over others, is enough. Hence, prison.

>>5472790
I save him anyway and then tell him the dead mom said the same.

>>5472786
If morality were objective than the clear answer would be to save your lover purely for the reason that the mother has less of a life to live and has already contributed to the world with children.

>>5472741

>implying people who think morality is subjective have to submit to your foolish objective-morality language like "action-x is ok"
>implying the idea of objective goodness or badness can be coherently elucidated

fucking faggot

>>5472807
Prisoners don't just waltz into their cells freely, they're forced into them at gunpoint. The exertion of power is violence.

>>5472818
But, it's not objective.

>>5472826
True but the concept of prison instills fear in citizens which is enough for most people.

I know morality is subjective because I once believed that something was immoral that I now believe is moral

and that's my argument

>>5472837
Yes it is.

>>5472844
Oh? And how so?

>>5472852
How is it not?

>>5472855
That's what you have to prove to me.

>>5472792
Brave try at taking our meme, but there's a reason for why that meme exists which prevents you from using it www.psychologytoday.com/blog/psyched/201205/does-autism-lead-atheism.

>>5472863
>our meme
>our
/r/atheism or /r/cringe?

>>5472863
>there are multiple papers about this
I was thinking that it was impresive that /lit/ had finished a novel when the guys were writing papers all along.

>>5472861
That's what you have to prove to me.

>>5472874
That's not how it works, friendo. You're making a positive claim, therefore you have to contrive an argument to back it up.

>>5472867
It's a registered trademark of /r/circlejerk.

See nickbeardshow.com.

>>5472717
>implying it isn't.
what is right for the lion is wrong for the antelope.

>>5472883
In this case both of you should present an evidence, since both arguments are positive. If none of you want to talk about it, great, just stop posting because you don't want to talk about it.

>>5472902
How can you represent evidence when discussing abstract ideals? Also, >>5472786 was my argument for morality being subjective.

>>5472909
You cement your case and/or quote other authors who have done the same through pages and pages and books and books. You example was lazy as fuck because you wanted to apply an hypothetical scenario but you didn't even cover the possible outcomes it might have or take in consideration different points of view. That's not an argumentation, I would suggest reading Kant but I guess any rethoric book could be a good start.

>>5472800
it doesn't prove your point, because morality is a foundation of most modern religions, and regardless of a person's personal views in most situations the person in question will follow those rules.

beyond that,consider this.
if you were of ancient Rome or the middle east would you even consider the mother even if begged?

If morality is objective, what is our method of discovering moral truths?

>>5472753

Contractualism, beatch.

>>5472786

If you assume value pluralism you can have objective morality whilst accepting that not every moral question can be answered.

Without a Supreme Being, morality is merely a human construct - that is to say, one cannot be "good" if no God exists.

>>5472717
...and subjectivity is subjective. What else?

>>5472947

The answer depends on the ethic theory you subscribe to. If you subscribe some kind of virtue ethics, you justify moral claims by appealing to a conception of human flourishing. If you subscribe utilitarianism, you justify them by showing that they led to the best consequences. If you're a kantian, you appeal to some form of rational deliberation.

>>5473158
If morality were objective, there'd be no need for you to subscribe to any competing theory but The Only True One.

>>5472753
>If morality is truly subjective, upon what foundation could any sort of human society be erected?
practicality, consensus, oppression.

>>5473460
Disagreement doesn't imply that there's not a fact of the matter.

>>5472926
I wasn't even offered different points of view? So, how does that work? Not so big on philosophy, just entered this thread because it interested me.

Anyway, it's not, 'cementing', anything with just quotations and citations. It's still an abstract quality, it's still philosophy so therefore it is still just an opinion.

>>5472942
Ah, crap, I wanted to say, 'objective', on that post. You're proving my point. If morality were objective then it would make no difference if I were an ancient Roman or from the Middle East because my decision would be the same every time I think of this scenario.

>>5473118
Looking up, 'value-pluralism'; as a concept it is akin to doublethink since you could perceive two conflicting things to be of equal correctness. But, if your point is that saving either the mother or your lover are both equally correct morally and that it all depends on the circumstances of the situation when it happens, then you have a good point.

>>5472721
>soul

>>5472751
I loled.

>>5472818
>contributed to the world with children

lol

>>5472717
>gravity is just a scientific agreement.

>>5472717

It is subjective in fact, but it should be universal ideally

>>5472753
the platform that created every human society is common interest, everyone has selfish desires that can only be satisfied by grouping with other people in the same case to acquire the strength necessary to satisfy those selfish desires, to guarantee that the group won't disintegrate itself because of internal conflicts morality and laws need to be created for the purpose of keeping the group united and peaceful.

>>5473685
I've argued about the gravity theory with a seven year old he did't understand that you accelerate as you fall.

>>5473612
>being baited by a picture calling out bait

Morality isn't subjective, that's just something not very intelligent that people say.

I'm sorry but all I read here is bullshit after bullshit, /lit/ should perhaps avoid replying to troll threads? Also discussing morality takes more than an imageboard post, I think /lit/ is best suited for literature discussion only?

I thought morality was objectively determined within given conditions. Aren't all of our conceptions derived from the observation of phenomena? That would make morality the result of an investigation of social phenomena.

If we require for our support and safety a community of a given size and level of development, morality is the system of behavior that facilitates the maintenance and possible expansion of that community and those conditions. Whatever would tend to compromise that system would be immoral. This also explains the existence of moral dilemma when differing levels of social organization conflict with one another upon material grounds or any level of organization with the individual need.

Hume's guillotine isn't a problem here, so far as I can see. If we take "is" as the world of phenomena, and "is-for-us" as the phenomena that we can observe, "is-for-us" becomes "ought" by the application of our observations to social practice--this latter being necessarily material.

>>5474727
I don't know, do you think that?

Well morality is a purely metaphysical concept, so of course it's subjective, mister fedora.

>>5472749
>subjective morality
>not shit
Whoa pleb alert

>>5474803
It's "subjective" until you come face to face with it. Then you can't deny that it's real. Just because you aren't currently experiencing it doesn't mean it's not there.

If I rape your mother, would you consider that act morally wrong, or is it okay because my sense of morality is subjective?

>>5472770
Hobbes go to bed. You're wrong.

>>5472818
>Utilitarianism
Get that pleb shit outta here

>>5472841
Someone who believes in objective morality would just say that you were mistaken on what you believed to be moral. It would do nothing to affect what is objectively moral.

>>5473460
That's not true. There are different roads one can take to reach the same destination. Just as different philosophies can arrive at the same truth.

>>5474816
That's not how morality works. Morality is subjective because no act is inherently right or wrong. We just called them so because the right things make people feel good but the wrong things make people feel like shit. Morality is just a perspective of what is right or wrong hence it is subjective.

>>5474836
Except there are certain actions which we can say are generally considered right or wrong. That implies certain acts are inherently moral or immoral, outside of subjective understanding.

>>5474840
But, it is because we consider them right or wrong. Besides, different societies might actually find the things one society considers as immoral to be moral (eugenics could be a good example).

>>5474850
You didn't understand my post. I was trying to point out that the reason we feel certain actions are right or wrong is because they are objectively immoral. The fact that different cultures disagree on certain actions doesn't disprove that since as each person has a subjective understanding of the objective they can be wrong. If individuals can be wrong then so can groups/communities.

>>5474859
True but the supposed objectivity of the perception that, for instance, murder is wrong was attained by conventionality. There was a consensus that murder was wrong and there you go! killing people is considered wrong. You aren't thinking objectively though. You're saying that a community is wrong because it thinks that an immoral thing is actually moral but I am pretty sure that that same community thinks that the other community, which thinks that the former community is wrong, is also wrong. It works both ways.

>>5474836

It does not follow from the observation that no act in itself is right or wrong that "rightness" and "wrongness" are not objectively determined.

>>5474840

It does not follow from general opinion that the act itself is right or wrong. The question is why general opinion swings one way or the other regarding certain acts and why those acts can have their "rightness" or "wrongness" negated under certain circumstances.

>>5474850

*Why* do we generally see one as right and the other as wrong?

>>5474859

"Subjective understanding of the objective" is literally just subjective, which was his point.

- - -

All of you have already unconsciously agreed that morality is objectively determined why attempting to objectively determine its origins. The whole discussion is rooted in semantics.

Even if you asserted a subjectively determined morality, the subject would develop moral sentiments from his observations and experience--in a word, objectively. The only exception possible is the case of heredity, and no one would deny that certain unsocial acts are experienced negatively by the subject. The do not "feel" right, which can be accounted to the long course of human evolution being a long course of the evolution of humans as a more or less interdependent society. However, developing morality for the subject by such objective "feelings" would still be the formulation of morality objectively.

>>5474741
I indeed do, a book can be discussed but we're all wasting time here imho.

>>5474911
Feelings are not objective, dude.

>>5472841
>maths is subjective because I once believed 1+1=3 was correct but I now believe it is incorrect

>>5474925

Feelings are the action and reaction of chemicals in your brain. This is an objective perception for the individual. You can observe these same actions and reactions in the brain of another person, and that is equally objective.

The analysis is objective even if the experience is subjective.

>>5472753

These.
>>5472776
>>5473113

So what if rules regarding behavior are human constructions? Does it make them less real?

The truth is that there isn't a stone object floating around the universe with the words "do not murder" etched into it.

Well, do you need an object for morality to be actualized? Or could morality be actualized in behaviors, gestures... in a word, culture?

What's the prevalent moral gesture? Is it to be at peace with one another? Does this become part of the spirit of culture?

Could it be that there are some essentially preferable states, like peace, concord? If these things by and large preferable, we will be sure to carry them out in our culture.

But people have different preferences, hence, subjectivity. And they'll construct their "laws of behavior" around those preferences, goals, projects. One bad apple spoils the batch.

The application of reason leads us to realize that our individual projects are inferior to the whole. Vanity holds back this realization.

If we bring subjectivity to its extreme, what's the result? Vanity. There is a spirit of rampant vanity masquerading as "individualism" in our culture. "Don't judge me! Who are you to say how to live my life? Well, that's just YOUR opinion."

The cycle continues.

>>5474965
That goes against every definition of, 'subjective'.

>>5474836
So again, if I put a gun to your head and make you watch me rape your mom, is that right or wrong?

It's easy to pretend like morality doesn't exist when you're not currently experiencing it. It's like asking if a tree makes a sound when nobody's around to hear it.

Yes, it makes a sound, and yes morality exists. It might take an extreme situation like a gun to your head to make you realize it, but if you're face to face with it, it's undeniable.

>>5474970
>existing in the mind; belonging to the thinking subject rather than to the object of thought (opposed to objective).

In this case, the chemical reactions to sense-perceptions are being examined objectively. The actual experience is subjective; I feel disgust towards the act of rape. The investigation of the causes of my disgust is objective analysis; I recognize that heredity and conditions impose upon me "wrongness" of rape. From this point we can examine what in society and in evolution objectifies the "wrongness" of rape.

>>5474984
Emotion has nothing to do with it. How can you even do any philosophy if you're still stuck in the stone ages?

>This disagrees with fundamental moral virtues because muh feelings

>>5475056
>He tries to trivialize emotions when they're the defining factor of the human experience

Almost all of our interactions are communicated non verbally. Emotion is how we derive meaning from our experiences as humans. Without emotion, there would be no philosophy.

>>5475095
Is curiosity an emotion, or a heuristic? Think on that.

>>5475108
It's obviously an emotion. It's too abstract to be anything else. We experience it from the time we're born.

>>5475124
Please. It's a classic motivation-and-reward neurological model. Uncertainty causes fear, and removing this is a logical response to an emotional one.

>>5475129
Humans are completely governed by irrational forces. Logic will always be counter intuitive to the human experience.

You're being willfully ignorant if you really believe that curiosity is fueled by fear of uncertainty. A child's curiosity is not a catalyst to remove fear.

>>5475144
The difficulty of maintaining a philosophical viewpoint has no correlation with its truth.

Just because humanity consists of imperfect actors does not mean there are no perfect actions.

>my morality is right
toppest kek

I bet you think WW2 was fought to save the Jews

>>5475144
>A child's curiosity is not a catalyst to remove fear.

You're correct - much more significant is the mechanism that promotes novelty with pleasure. One need only glance at society to see this is indisputable.

>>5475150
This is when we get into a conversation about whether perfection can even exist or not.

>>5474965
>Feelings are the action and reaction of chemicals in your brain.
The fact that fMRIs picks up glowing phenomena of innumerable brains does not give you the license to proclaim (without a sound argument), and does not necessarily follow, that feelings are reducible to neurobiological states of affairs. Until you convincingly demonstrate how psychological predicates such as "is angry", "is blissful" etc. coincide with the physical descriptions of behavior and relations of neurons: No, they are not.

Until you tell us what you *mean* by 'objective', you're talking air. Analyzed by whom? How many analyses by how many analysts? Is it alright that a set of analysts differ in their expertise, their interpretation, their notions of 'objectiveness'?

>>5475284
pick up*

>>5474883
At that point you're just arguing over whether or not objective reality can be known.

>>5475298
This is how every post modern conversation seems to end

>>5475336
I blame the Enlightenment

>>5474969
>The truth is that there isn't a stone object floating around the universe with the words "do not murder" etched into it.

>>5472717
/lit/ is really shitty now, fuck

>>5475298
How? He's still talking about morals, which are socially formulated.

>>5474827
>he's not a utilitarianist

The morality of a specific act is objective, where as morality and ethics as a whole are by nature subjective.

>>5474641
But that's wrong.