[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 134 KB, 1377x1078, 1382997311473.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4229155 No.4229155[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

daily reminder that moral relativism is the position embraced by manchildren who fear responsibility and seek to justify their degenerate lifestyle

>> No.4229159

That doesn't make it wrong.

>> No.4229167

How would one establish a morality with more validity than any other?

>> No.4229173

daily reminder that moral relativism's only place in the world of cute girls doing cute things

>> No.4229176
File: 9 KB, 480x360, athiest euphoria.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4229176

>>4229167
Start a religion amirite?

>> No.4229183
File: 63 KB, 1280x720, 1378329967205.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4229183

>>4229167
>There is no truth, everything is relative!
>..Is that true?
>No.
>So what you said is not true?
>Well, uh, I guess it is.
>So truth does exist, then?
>T-THE JEWS DID 9/11

>> No.4229187

>>4229183
That has very little to do with the question.

>> No.4229188
File: 52 KB, 512x512, 1360511053145.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4229188

>> No.4229190

>>4229183
Please just answer the question.

How would one establish a morality with more validity than any other?

>> No.4229193

>>4229183
Objectivity regarding truth and objectivity regarding morality are separate issues. Moral relativists believe that morality is subjective like green is a nicer color than orange. They still can believe in objective truths like the earth orbits the sun, helium is lighter than iron, and hip hop is a shit genre of music.

>> No.4229195
File: 227 KB, 1000x707, 1366418951364.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4229195

>>4229187
>>4229190
I just disproved relativism, pay attention.

>> No.4229196

>>4229190
>Expecting an answer from a weeaboo troll.

>> No.4229200
File: 53 KB, 172x274, 1379710058423.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4229200

What is the best moral position for NEETs?

>> No.4229201

>>4229193
>objective truths like the earth orbits the sun, helium is lighter than iron
>things observed and tested by humans using our senses
>objective

b8

>> No.4229202

>>4229195
I'm not concerned with moral relativism. I'm asking how one would establish a morality with more validity than any other? If you can't answer this question, you have to standard by which to judge moral relativism as inferior to any other arbitrarily assumed set of values.

>> No.4229207

OP, the quality of posts is extremely important to this community. Contributors are encouraged to provide high-quality images and informative comments.

>> No.4229208

>>4229193
>Moral relativists believe that morality is subjective like green is a nicer color than orange.
They never do really. They certainly like to think so, but most of them are more morally dogmatic than the average Christian.
They merely substitute the eternal values in lieu of political ones.

>> No.4229210
File: 936 KB, 430x242, 1376347326567.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4229210

>>4229200
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diogenes_of_Sinope

>>4229202
>moral relativism
>a set of values

2/10

>> No.4229211

>>4229195
Moral relativism is something entirely different than "nothing is true"

>> No.4229212

>>4229195
Moral relativism does not mean everything is relative you twit.

>> No.4229218

>>4229208
This.

They use moral relativism as justification to deconstruct morality they don't like and then replace is with wishy-washy "secular humanist" horseshit.

>> No.4229220

>>4229208
I don't give a shit about what a few moral relativists you happen to know believe. Moral relativity has nothing to do with denying the concept of truth.

>> No.4229216

Confirmed for shitposting, report and move on.

>> No.4229222

>>4229155
daily reminder that
>[philosophical position] is for [degenerate, fatties, jews, scum]
isn't an argument

stop replying

>> No.4229226

>>4229220
The notion of moral relativity relies upon denying the concept of objective truth existing even divorced from an individual.

>> No.4229227

ITT: ad hominem

>> No.4229228
File: 62 KB, 250x250, 1367987647995.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4229228

>>4229222
>I'm a failure at life
>Well it doesn't matter because nothing matters so I'm not really a failure

Modern moral relativism is youth culture personified. An extreme fear of responsibilities morality would bring, a relativist deems that nothing matters in order to justify being a friendless loser who has never touched a girl.

>> No.4229232

>>4229228
Which morality?

>> No.4229233

>>4229226
No it fucking doesn't. A moral relativist can still believe that 1+1 = 2 is an objective truth.

This is a troll thread I'm out.

>> No.4229234

>relativists getting told ITT

>> No.4229239

ITT: uneducated animefag thinks relativism means there aren't "truths" within frameworks

>> No.4229247

>>4229233
>1+1=2 is an objective truth
Actually that's just an axiom. Only it's physical counterpart is an objective truth.

>> No.4229249

>>4229239
>frameworks exist

proof?

>> No.4229251

>>4229228
That says nothing about moral relativism itself, though. Just that virgin teen moral relativists are virgin teens, wow who cares

>> No.4229258

>>4229247
Fine. One nitpicky twit plus one nitpicky twit equals 2 nitpicky twits.

>> No.4229259
File: 38 KB, 620x616, school shooter.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4229259

Pic related, a moral relativist. Believing that mass slaughter was in no way morally wrong, he murdered many people.

>> No.4229262

>>4229258
How do you know that's true? Are you using your subjective human senses?

>> No.4229264

>>4229249
Prove from within which framework? :^)

>> No.4229268

daily reminder that pics of anime girls is the position embraced by manchildren who fear responsibility and seek to justify their degenerate lifestyle

>> No.4229271
File: 189 KB, 629x691, 1342390511190.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4229271

>>4229268
>complaining about anime on an anime website

>> No.4229273
File: 1015 KB, 500x470, 1355445363986.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4229273

>>4229264
The transcendental values of Christianity?

>> No.4229272
File: 151 KB, 817x1000, Frans_Hals_-_Portret_van_René_Descartes.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4229272

>>4229262
Shouldn't you be giving somebody the dick right now?

>> No.4229279

>>4229259
Neat, anyway the only way for you to disprove moral relativism would be to prove a set of morals to be correct: go.

>> No.4229280

>>4229271
>complaining about moral relativism on a moral relativist website

>> No.4229281
File: 190 KB, 600x270, left-wrist-watch.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4229281

>>4229279
Moral relativism is just as much a moral position as any other moral position. Therefore it must be justified.

Prove it. I'll wait.

>> No.4229285

>>4229281
No set of morals can be in any situation proven to be correct against any other. Therefore, moral relativism. Your turn.

>> No.4229289

>>4229279
Stabbing your mother is bad because it makes your arm tired and makes your knife dirty.

Stealing from your neighbor is bad because that cheap asshole never had anything good to steal anyway.

Genocide is bad because those Jew cockroaches could survive, move to America, and start making shitty hollywood movies.

Checkmate cutfags.

>> No.4229290

>>4229285
>You can't prove something.
>Therefore it's objectively true that it doesn't exist.

I bet you wear a fedora and post on /r/atheism as well.

>> No.4229286

>>4229273
Christianity is the framework and it provides you with moral "truths".

>> No.4229291
File: 35 KB, 246x172, 1362827054381.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4229291

>>4229285
Define "prove" and "correct".

>> No.4229297

OP is objectively a retard. Thus objective truths exist.

>> No.4229298

>>4229290
What's better is that it's actually a formal logical fallacy, Loki's Wager.

>> No.4229299
File: 58 KB, 1280x720, 1382984914667.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4229299

>mfw there's always one high school dropout teenage loser whose philosophical knowledge includes reading passages of Nietzsche from wikipedia that tries to justify his life of constant failure with moral relativism

>> No.4229302

>>4229290
Prove that an invisible intangible midget isn't licking your ballsack right now. You can't? Well I guess we shouldn't assume that he isn't there then.

>> No.4229304

>>4229290
How could morals exist?
>>4229291
Your argument is "nothing can be true, not even this, so things are true" and your logic just doesn't follow.

>> No.4229305
File: 66 KB, 729x1014, reddit-alien.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4229305

>>4229302
>le teapot circling the sun xD

way to prove my point

>> No.4229309

>>4229305
Way to not disprove mine.

>> No.4229310

>>4229302
>Loki's Wager, a form of logical fallacy, is the unreasonable insistence that a concept cannot be defined, and therefore cannot be discussed.
>The fallacy's focus on over-specification makes it in some ways the opposite of hasty generalization and could be considered an extreme form of equivocation

>> No.4229322

I'm trying to wrap my head around this charlatan.

Basically, he thinks that because morality has no absolute validity, no mighty universal force to turn to, that moral axioms imposed on us by society don't exist?

>> No.4229321

>>4229302
>Prove that an invisible intangible midget isn't licking your ballsack right now. You can't? Well I guess we shouldn't assume that he isn't there then.

My assumption that there is not an invisible intangible midget licking my ballsack at present is not at all the same as sure and certain knowledge that there is not an invisible intangible midget licking my ballsack at the present moment. Of course, in the situation of the midget, it is only pedantic nitpicking to say that it's not objectively true that there is no ballsack-midget.

However, the situation is different when we are in a situation where the rules of science which allow us to make very good guesses at what is and is not possible or probable, to the point where we are basically certain about some things, do not apply. It's possible to say that, because we can't prove that there is a ballsack-midget, we can be fairly certain there isn't one because we have a system of science that gives us pretty definite knowledge of the material world and of what is and isn't fact. We do not have any such system of proof, disproof, fact, law, etc in the moral realm. Our system of making judgments about what is and is not true is much less developed; therefore, the distinction between "a reasonable assumption on which to act" and "sure and certain knowledge" is much more significant.

>> No.4229323

>>4229310
You can discuss it all you want but until some proof of it is shown we shouldn't assume it exists.

>> No.4229326

>>4229322
They exist, they're just relative.

>> No.4229332

>>4229330
and morality itself.

Therefore, moral relativism.

>> No.4229330

>>4229323
Sure enough, and the same is true for moral relativism.

>> No.4229333

>>4229322
Seems more like a criticism against the stance of relativism.

>> No.4229335

>>4229332
>Therefore, moral relativism.
Circular logic.

>> No.4229337

>>4229330
The debate is whether or not any moral code possesses more validity than any other. The absence of this proof of validity is the issue. Anyone arguing for the existence of an absolute moral code needs to prove why it is somehow more valid than any other. What is your moral code? I'm guessing you won't say.

>> No.4229338

>>4229335
Moral relativism is a product of the fact that even moral relativism can't be proven.

>> No.4229343

>>4229338
Moral relativism is a product of rationalization.

>> No.4229348

>>4229343
That too.

>> No.4229350

>>4229337
>The absence of this proof of validity is the issue.
Because there is no established framework the people here are working with to ascertain validity.
>Anyone arguing for the existence of an absolute moral code needs to prove why it is somehow more valid than any other.
Doesn't seem like anyone is arguing for an absolute moral code ITT merely people arguing against your equally futile notions of relative morals.
>What is your moral code? I'm guessing you won't say.
Rather irrelevant but i'm not surprised you wish to argue persons rather than ideas.

>> No.4229354

>>4229348
In the logical and most common form of the term.

>> No.4229359

>>4229350
If there is no absolute moral code then morals are relative. Why are you such a closet moral relativist? Why do you want to believe in Morality so badly? Is it because you're the friendless loser who's never touched a girl? And you need some kind of morality to not be such a faggot, because you are so weak? Let's hear it.

>> No.4229366

>>4229359
>If there is no absolute moral code then morals are relative.
One does not follow the other. The latter is little more than moral nihilism.
>Why are you such a closet moral relativist?
>Why do you want to believe in Morality so badly?
Why are you such a disingenuous retard?
Did OP hit a hedonist nerve?

>> No.4229377
File: 122 KB, 804x787, 1382921378438.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4229377

>>4229183
It's as true as anything else.

>> No.4229381

>>4229228
The only reason you object is to appear counter to the now all too popular counter-culture. You're meta pathetic.

>> No.4229390
File: 2 KB, 250x250, reaction constanza pixels.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4229390

>Anno Domini MMXIII
>not being a non-cognitivist/emotivist

>> No.4229407

>>4229390
mon negre

BOOO KILLING
BOOOOO