Is Morality Objective?

[Anonymous No.17353951]

I was wondering if moral statements were truth apt or not and if so how you would be able to tell what is good or bad? Would we use the categorical imperative, act utilitarianism, rule utilitarianism, or maybe just error theory and we have no way of knowing even if there are objectove moral truths. To me this seems like it couldn't be the case as how would you ground the morality to the point it isnt rejectable?
As utilitarianism runs into the issue that I can even beg the question whether or not happiness/euphoria is the same as good. If it was good wouldn't we just naturally understand the two as the same without arguement? But we don't as we can think of many potentially pleasurable situations, or net happy occasions, that would seem bad like fucking a corpse or five guys slapping and kicking unconscious person for their own sadistic joy. Also with the categorical imperative I see no reason to believe it as objective truth rather then the arbitary creation of Kant. Lying for example seems pretty justified in alot of situations.
To me I think emotivism makes the most sense as afterall morality differs from culture to culture and there is nothing to ground any morality as objectively true as far as I can see. Moral statements seem to be an result of personal hurrah or boo.
But what do you guys think? Also, are there any good books that go over all the different moral philosophies? And, if you want to talk on VC or in a discord text channel feel free to join my discord sKgx3esa

[Anonymous No.17354017]

[5] "'Kamma should be known. The cause by which kamma comes into play should be known. The diversity in kamma should be known. The result of kamma should be known. The cessation of kamma should be known. The path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be known.' Thus it has been said. In reference to what was it said?

"Intention, I tell you, is kamma. Intending, one does kamma by way of body, speech, & intellect.

"And what is the cause by which kamma comes into play? Contact is the cause by which kamma comes into play.

"And what is the diversity in kamma? There is kamma to be experienced in hell, kamma to be experienced in the realm of common animals, kamma to be experienced in the realm of the hungry shades, kamma to be experienced in the human world, kamma to be experienced in the world of the devas. This is called the diversity in kamma.

"And what is the result of kamma? The result of kamma is of three sorts, I tell you: that which arises right here & now, that which arises later [in this lifetime], and that which arises following that. This is called the result of kamma.

"And what is the cessation of kamma? From the cessation of contact is the cessation of kamma; and just this noble eightfold path — right view, right resolve, right speech, right action, right livelihood, right effort, right mindfulness, right concentration — is the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma.

"Now when a disciple of the noble ones discerns kamma in this way, the cause by which kamma comes into play in this way, the diversity of kamma in this way, the result of kamma in this way, the cessation of kamma in this way, & the path of practice leading to the cessation of kamma in this way, then he discerns this penetrative holy life as the cessation of kamma.

"'Kamma should be known. The cause by which kamma comes into play... The diversity in kamma... The result of kamma... The cessation of kamma... The path of practice for the cessation of kamma should be known.' Thus it has been said, and in reference to this was it said.

[Anonymous No.17354178]

Obviously not. Morality is just, "what is best for our survival as a group". It developed in humans as we evolved and is different from one group of people to the other because what may be good for your group, may be bad for another. The truth is understanding it's okay for us to have different morals because we have different desires based on our differences, and so it is okay to kill each other over them.

[Anonymous No.17354235]

>>17354178
Nope. Not true.

[Anonymous No.17354246]

>>17353951
Yeah, this question, which has troubled the human heart for all time, will surely be solved on 4chan today. Finally.

[Anonymous No.17354267]

>>17354235
K well humans have already lived thousands upon thousands of years with different morals than yourself. I doubt your views are any more valid than theirs. Unless you have some evidence?

[Anonymous No.17354297]

>>17354178
>if I define morality as something that isn't actually morality, it turns out I have a glib answer to a complex question

[Anonymous No.17354337]

>>17353951
Frege-geach proves cognitivism
so that should narrow it down for you.

[Anonymous No.17354347]

>>17354246
>reddit quipping

[Anonymous No.17354424]

>>17354337
It really doesnt though as conditionals still work in non cognitivist thinking and language. When we use moral language we project our moral ideals onto the world as if they were truth apt. Even if it isnt truth apt we still behave like it is and so act and talk accordingly.

[Anonymous No.17354434]

>>17354297
It's not a complex question. We're apes with innate functions to work together to survive. What's so complex about that?

[Anonymous No.17354438]

>>17354424
if stealing is wrong then teaching my little brother to steal is wrong. Stealing is wrong. Thus, teaching my little brother to steal is wrong.

This doesn't make sense in a non-cognitivist model. If we translate this to emotivism then this comes out: If stealing boo then teaching my brother to steal boo. stealing boo. Thus, teaching my brother to steal boo. This doesn't make sense.

[Anonymous No.17354571]

>>17354434
Morals came from our culture though, we didn't evolve these rules. You are just projecting your own experiences onto the apes, lol.

[Anonymous No.17354581]

>>17354235
Why not?

[Anonymous No.17354591]

>>17354246
Never underestimate the power of weaponized autism. Remember the Haruhi Problem, for example.

[Anonymous No.17354598]

>>17354434
>We're apes with innate functions to work together to survive
But this is a thread about morality, not apes and their survival strategies. Unless you are begging the question by>>17354438
defining morality as an ape survival strategy, which is not how its normally defined, but does allow you a glib answer

[Anonymous No.17354656]

>>17354598
Morality is an ape survival strategy. We are apes.

[Anonymous No.17354678]

>>17353951
I have a somewhat contradictory view, moral statements are not truth-apt in themselves, but even so you must concede that people are expressing their interests, goals and so on with reference to an objective, external world. Really then, moral statements should be seen as probabilistic statements that arise naturally from goal-directed thinking.

[Anonymous No.17354724]

>>17354571
And where does our culture come from?

[Anonymous No.17354785]

>>17354438
It does make sense though if you consider the fact they're talking about their preferences in a quasi real way and as if their beliefs were objectively true even if it ultimately isn't. They make those assertions as a consequence of their preferences. I dont see how you're gonna use semantics to say morality objectively exists.

[Anonymous No.17354833]

>Is Morality Objective?
Yes.

[Anonymous No.17354929]

>>17353951
What do you mean by "objective"? Moral claims are value judgements, not truth judgements. That does not mean however that "murder is wrong" is a matter of taste such as "chocolate ice cream is the best." Adam Smith and Hume imo were on the right track with the theory of moral sentiments, this idea that moral judgements are essentially emotive rather than logical. The confusion stems from attempting to view morality as a calculus. Rather morality is like a "sixth sense" an intuitive social instinct and mirroring (empathy) that is ramified by cultural norms.

The underlying psychobiology that instills these instincts is objective, and can even be traced all the way down to genes and brain development. However there is also a flexibility to moral judgements, where two people can disagree whether a given act is wrong or right (abortion for instance.) But that is only because they are viewing and addressing the issue at hand from a different perspective, underscoring different aspects of the fact. They are essentially looking at different things, (seeing the same thing differently), they are both motivated by a shared moral sense.

[Anonymous No.17356132]

>Also with the categorical imperative I see no reason to believe it as objective truth rather then the arbitary creation of Kant
Arbitrary creations? In the second critique, in order to prove that the CI is the moral law, Kant gives a rigorous step-by-step argument. Which steps, in your opinion, fail to establish the CI?

[Jesus No.17356334]

>>17353951
buddha is stupid faggot.

[Anonymous No.17356468]

I would say that it’s objective.
Take a number, for example. For this example, we’ll use the number 4.
4 is real, universal, objective, but it can be expressed in different ways. It can be expressed as 3+1, as 2+2 or even as 8/2. Why can’t this same logic apply to morality or even to truth itself? It is objective, yet it is expressed differently by different people.