/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15560121]

Are morals subjective?

[Anonymous No.15560123]

inb4 this thread turns into a shit show.

[Anonymous No.15560134]

Is this thread garbage?

[Anonymous No.15560161]

>>15560121
People would like to believe otherwise but yes, morals tend to depend on the individual in question.

[Anonymous No.15560173]

if there's such thing as morality, it's objective
if it's not objective then it literally doesn't exist in any intelligible sense whatsoever
these are the two defensible positions and anyone trying to take the middle road with any flavor of "it's real but subjective somehow" should be smothered in his sleep

[Anonymous No.15560179]

>>15560121
>morals
no such thing
>subjective
this word has no coherent meaning

[Anonymous No.15560181]

>>15560121
Morals are retroactive.

[Anonymous No.15560184]

>>15560121
It’s objectively subjective. Sometimes the subject is God

[Anonymous No.15560208]

Depends which moral system you adhere to.

[Anonymous No.15560217]

>>15560121
No

[Anonymous No.15560218]

>>15560121
My morals were bestowed upon me by society’s highest bidders

[Anonymous No.15560248]

Morals are not subjective. The idea that they is a heinous poisonous lie.

[Anonymous No.15560263]

Morality is a spook.

[Anonymous No.15560313]

>>15560248
Cool opinion

[Anonymous No.15560314]

>>15560161
I partially agree. There are objectively applicable morals and subjective morals.

[Anonymous No.15560332]

>>15560184
The debate tends to be between objectivity and relativity, but I'd argue that morals are flexible, akin to some kind of rubber tube; There are absolutes on both ends - things we know to be fixed as 'good' and 'evil' - but in the middle it's flexible based on circumstance and context.

[Anonymous No.15560412]

>>15560332
The issue seems to be that even those ridged ends tend to suffer from the same issues and ambiguities that those in middle do unless they are reduced to very vague categories like don’t do evil and obey God.

[Anonymous No.15560421]

>>15560123
>the OP is not a shit show already

[Anonymous No.15560430]

Every appeal to objective moral properties can be easily explained away as a mistaken causal explanation of the feelings of comfort or discomfort certain sights cause to us, and moral realists should get in the habit of explaining in precislely what entities moral statements cash out, and the epistemical processes by which we arrive at them, instead of the "but how could you say raping children is not wrong!" rhetorical devices they seem so fond of.

[Anonymous No.15560431]

>Morality it imposed by God
Objective
>Morality it imposed by nature
Subjective

[Anonymous No.15560458]

>>15560431
>nature is subjective
lol

[Anonymous No.15560877]

>>15560431
Lol, what?

[Anonymous No.15560904]

>>15560121
They're subjected to this dick.

[Anonymous No.15560958]

>>15560161
How exactly?

[Anonymous No.15561004]

>>15560179
Subjective means relating to a subject, e.g. a human being. In this context, subjective morality means that the truth-values of moral claims correspond to some part of individual subjective existence, rather than to, for example God, nature, or pure reason, all of which would instead constitute an objective morality.

[Anonymous No.15561009]

>>15561004
individual subjective experience*, not existence
Forgive me, am phoneposting

[Anonymous No.15561109]

Yes and no. Objective morality exists in some sense (as God exists, God is Good, Love, etc.) but not in some grand sense as a multitude of rules that must be followed but rather that morals stem from conforming to the image of Christ and that divine love in specific contexts.

[Anonymous No.15561133]

>>15560121
No, they are objective. Both nihilists and Christians will deny this though.