/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13447728]

Does objective morality exist?

[Anonymous No.13447734]

yes, next question.

[Anonymous No.13447738]

>>13447734
How can you prove it?

[Anonymous No.13447755]

>>13447738
yes, next question.

[Anonymous No.13447758]

>>13447728
yes and no

[Anonymous No.13447763]

>>13447755
How do I know what's right and wrong?

[Anonymous No.13447767]

>>13447728
yes

[Anonymous No.13447777]

without the belief in a ultimate authority (i.e. God) objective morality is not possible

[Anonymous No.13447788]

>>13447728
No
t. rich politician/businessman/celebrity acting out master morality

[Anonymous No.13447826]

>>13447728
No. Morality is all subjective and based around the culture that it originates from. There may be common themes but that doesn't necessarily mean that it is objective. Objective implies that it is quantifiable. How would one state that morality can be objective?

[Anonymous No.13447840]

>>13447738
why should anyone prove it? why should anyone be truthful or logical?

the idea that we ought to be logical is already a moral injunction. And a correct one.
Anyone who values the truth values objective morality, i.e once we know the truth we OUGHT to follow it.

[Anonymous No.13447843]

>>13447826
Stealing is considered immoral in all moral codes in all societies, at least stealing from members of your in-group. Same goes for murder.

[Anonymous No.13447848]

>>13447840
holy shit, imagine being this much of a retard
all your premises are bullshit

[Anonymous No.13447854]

>>13447843
What's considered theft and murder varies wildly, though. Murder is "unjustified killing", whether or not killing is justified is highly subjective.

Is taking the spoils of war theft? Is executing a 'traitor' murder?

[Anonymous No.13447858]

>>13447848
his premises are tautologically correct.

[Anonymous No.13447863]

>>13447854
As i said it is wrong only if you do it to members of the in~group

[Anonymous No.13447875]

>>13447728
I believe one can objectively assemble a moral code (assuming it's based on a human perspective), however likely not in any human language. If any law of morality must first be interpreted before it's understood, it's fallible.

[Anonymous No.13448062]

>>13447843
>Stealing is considered immoral in all moral codes
What about in the moral codes of thieves?

>Same goes for murder.
What about in the moral codes of murderers?

[Anonymous No.13448101]

Yes, because the Word of God is infallible truth, thus if God is infallible, loving, and full of mercy as well as having qualities of Justice, than he is the objective plumb-line or truth, that divides right from wrong. I.e. The Word of God being the 10 commandments and Christ's deity as God and one as himself (The Trinity of the Godhead).

Subjective morality caves to the sin of man and leads everything to anarchy. I.e.

>Murder is subjective to different groups of people
>Stealing is subjective to different groups of people
>Adultery is subjective to different groups of people
>etc..etc..

There can only be one truth.

[Anonymous No.13448116]

>>13448062
>moral codes of thieves
Their moral code is to not steal from each other aka the in-group.

[Anonymous No.13448126]

>>13448116
Their thievery must be morally sanctioned by their own codes as well, unless they live and die with guilt like Dostoevsky's An Honest Thief, but we both know not all thieves feel guilty about any of their thievery.

[Anonymous No.13448139]

>>13447728
If I don't like it, it's objectively wrong. And that's a fact

[Anonymous No.13448147]

>>13447840
this

[Anonymous No.13448151]

>>13448139
True, but to be more precise, every perspective has an "inside" and "outside" and a perspective is the resulting effect of both sides. A perspective's "inside" and "outside" are fact for the perspective.

[Anonymous No.13448157]

>>13447777
Explain

[Anonymous No.13448167]

>>13448151
that sounds gay, and I hate fags

[Anonymous No.13448173]

>>13447848
This is what fear sounds like

[Anonymous No.13448174]

>>13447840
This

[Anonymous No.13448179]

yes but we cant define it

[Anonymous No.13448230]

>>13448126
As i said it is only wrong if you do it to your tribe, there is nothing wrong in raping, killing or stealing in some random chinese village.

[Anonymous No.13448262]

>>13447728
Yes, but objective ≠ universal.

Also, do we really need to have this thread every week?

[Anonymous No.13448428]

>>13448101
Prove that the word is infallible without circular reasoning

[Anonymous No.13448450]

>>13447840
>Anyone who values the truth
Truth is only tautology.

>once we know the truth we OUGHT to follow it.
You can know any tautology including ones you cannot follow. The only languages humans have invented to give logically and tautologically true statements are mathematics and computer programming languages. Every Hausdorff second-countable regular space is metrizable. How do I follow this?

[Anonymous No.13448467]

>>13448450
>tautology
What do you mean when you use this word

[Anonymous No.13448548]

>>13447728
Uh yea? Might is right.

[Anonymous No.13448554]

>>13447728
define your terms

[Anonymous No.13448566]

>>13448467
I'm being strict. If I take a truth here to mean something universally true, not a particular proposition trying to cohere to some fixed and definite "real". In this case a logical and universal truth is a tautology, see Wittgenstein.

Adopting other adaptations of truth other than those tautologically true because of their axiomatic logic, is something else. It's contextually conditioned and not universal. You can adopt a definition of truth like that but nonsense like >>13448101 is just childish. This anon is proclaiming the necessary and sufficient conditions of his definition of "true" and then pretending it's universally and logical true (there can only be one truth) beyond those conditions that he personally chose.

[Anonymous No.13448599]

>>13447728
The most moral action is simply that which benefits you the most. Without God, morality is in a sense subjective, because the same actions might not be applicable to everyone in a given situation. However, that doesn’t mean people always know what’s best for them. So morality would be subjective, but still “beyond” us in a way. But with God, morality is objective, as everyone will benefit by following God’s moral laws. This view that the right is what is good for you, and the wrong is what is and for you, makes much more sense than >>13447840
who doesn’t even know what morality is or why one should follow it. It’s all vague nonsense.

[Anonymous No.13448605]

>>13447788
>we wuz yoobuhmensh n shiet
cringe

[Anonymous No.13448629]

no, the concept of morality is spiritually puerile

[Anonymous No.13448691]

>>13447728

Morality can only be "objective", that is to say Aeonic. Morality in the "secular", "humanist", or "relative" sense is no Morality at all, but merely a play of expedience. Even if the means and end are "good", incidentally, I maintain there is no such thing, like children not working, it is still immoral because it is fundamentally a cynical wager from the outside in that still treats their identity as a nuisance it merely begrudgingly works around rather than acknowledge as a principle. And, moreover, it is only ostensibly "good", and actually only provides them one "good" in order to further exploit them through other means, in this particular case mandatory institutionalization, morbid prolonging of childhood, parents' explicit child fetish, etc.

>does anyone actually profit then? who?

Yaldabaoth.

[Anonymous No.13448764]

>>13448566
You’re essentially saying the same thing as him. All words fall back on other words, no matter how “logically” you want to describe them.

>The only languages humans have invented to give logically and tautologically true statements are mathematics and computer programming languages.

Lmao. Meaning isn’t dependent on its vehicle let alone one specific kind. We will continue to interpret reality how we choose and there’s nothing anyone can do about it. That’s what it means to be free, or likewise, the same thing, freedom is how meaning comes to be.

[Anonymous No.13448776]

>>13448764
So what about morality?

[Anonymous No.13448818]

>>13448776
I agree with Kant that morals are a kind of sense and that moral intelligence is the greatest kind of intelligence. But where I disagree with Kant is that it belongs beyond the realm of explanation. I think Hegel really did break that wall and found something through phenomenology that goes to the heart of “the dialectic” Or Tao or whatever

[Anonymous No.13448862]

>>13447840
Imagine being this fucking stupid
I value truth because it's in my nature to do so, just like I value the taste of chocolate or doing deadlifts, doesn't mean there's any objective values behind anything

[Anonymous No.13448871]

>>13447863
So murder and thievery are not objectively wrong, it’s who you do it to that matters.

[Anonymous No.13448878]

>>13448818
>morals are a kind of sense
So this is the power of 18th century Western philosophy

[Anonymous No.13448886]

>>13448862
>nature isn’t objective

Geez where do you come off calling other people stupid anon

[Anonymous No.13448911]

>>13448878
The tldr version yes. Also Kant’s moral philosophy remains the gold standard after these centuries boyo

[Anonymous No.13448920]

>>13448911
Plato’s moral philosophy was superior to Kant’s.

[Anonymous No.13448935]

>>13447728
Yes, we are made in the image of God. All actions are morally good, because God intended them to happen, wants them to happen. We are the players on his stage. This is true objective morality, humanity cannot refute the greatness of the material God.

[Anonymous No.13448973]

>>13448920
Plato didn’t have a moral philosophy but just for shits tell me what you think it is

[Anonymous No.13449005]

>>13448599
why has this post got no replies? it makes the most sense imo.

>morality is subjective
>it's whatever action is best for the subject
>the subject doesn't always know what's best for himself

[Anonymous No.13449016]

>>13448973
Cultivating the good within yourself and becoming virtuous, increasing your wisdom and seeking benefit in the best way possible. It’s all about self-improvement. Kant’s morality is blind and ignores the obvious. You can hardly describe what it is.

[MKULTRA CHAD: SUPERCHRIST PONT(...) No.13449057]

>>13447777
lol
god is untirely unnecessary.
if I take your shit, you have less shit and are unhappy.
its like practically math.

[Anonymous No.13449063]

>>13447728
objectivity-subjectivity is a spook
existence-non-existence is a spook

[Anonymous No.13449074]

>>13449005
They simply don’t want to believe it. All their lives they’ve been simply told what to do and what not to do, out of this grand notion of morality and manners, etc. But they’ve never been told that the reason they should act this way is because it benefits them. Over time, they’re made to believe that the self isn’t relevant to moral acts, that we should do certain actions just because it’s “the right thing to do.” It’s a lifelong illusion, just like living your whole life never questioning your own free will. They have no argument, but they hate the idea that morality simply consists of self-benefit.

[Anonymous No.13449122]

>>13448886
Based retard
I'm talking about nature in purely descriptive terms, there's no objective normative facts involved

[Anonymous No.13449146]

>>13447728
I haven't seen Objective Morality walking around, so I'd say no

[Anonymous No.13449256]

>>13447728
We intuit it, so yes.

[Anonymous No.13449327]

>>13447840
basado

[Anonymous No.13449396]

>>13448691

Engage, cowards.

[Anonymous No.13449409]

>>13447848
It's what many philosophers actually believe; Frege, Kant, Hegel, Brandom. Logic tells us how we ought to think, so the laws of logic are fundamentally normative. If you're having a rational discussion with another person you're tacitly binding yourself to basic normative laws of rational discourse. If normativity isn't objective it's at least intersubjective.

[Anonymous No.13449449]

Maybe, but we believe it does, and we will act as if our actions are justified beyond ourselves.
We also as s species need to believe so, but this goes deeper: belief precedes knowledge, if one shouldn't even say that there is no pure knowledge, everything is in relation to belief if not being pure belief. We can make facts based on axioms, but axioms will forever be beliefs based on an inherently anthropocentric existence.

[Anonymous No.13449629]

Objectively no