[ 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: 35 KB, 600x481, large.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4611264 No.4611264[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Morality is purely relative, subjective, and a construct. Right?

>> No.4611267

as is everything, thus what you are saying is meaningless
carry on with your stupid life

>> No.4611275

>>4611264

Wrong.

>> No.4611283

morality is a measure of submission to principles. After God spoke to man, these principles became a single standard.

>> No.4611286

>>4611264
yes.

that doesn't make it meaningless tho.

>> No.4611287

I've been on /lit/ for a week and already all I've ever seen are the same couple of threads.

>> No.4611288

no not really
suffering is bad
things that cause suffering are bad

>> No.4611291

>>4611288

much virtue in suffering. growth of character, etc.

>> No.4611293

>>4611264
moral relativity is autistic hugbox tier. What do you do when you meet a moral absolutist?

>> No.4611302

>morality
top lel
what is morality

>> No.4611304

>>4611293
>moral relativity is autistic hugbox tier

Why?

>> No.4611317

Logically, there is no such thing as morality.

>> No.4611327

>>4611288
CAN'T SPOOK ME

>> No.4611330

>>4611317

>logically

you can't prove or disprove the existence of anything with logic.

>> No.4611333

>>4611264
>relative
Does this mean which decision is the moral one is affected by context? If so, yes.
>subjective
No.
>a construct
Our understanding of morality is constructed, but that doesn't mean there's no objective morality. It just means we can be wrong sometimes.

>> No.4611334

>>4611330
>proving something
>without logic
m8.

>> No.4611338

>>4611317
And the award for the most redundant comment relating to the subject goes to..

>> No.4611340

/lit/ might be one of the worst boards on 4chan

>> No.4611343

>>4611340
Every board is the worst board on 4chan.

>> No.4611346

>>4611340
what are the good ones, out of curiosity

>> No.4611352

>>4611346
[r9k]
/g/
/mlp/
/hm/
/a/

>> No.4611353
File: 16 KB, 400x300, clue.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4611353

>>4611264

Yes, but when your 7 billion fellows are behaving as if it's fait accompli then you haven't got much choice.

>> No.4611354

Morality is dependent on the individual to the extent it is subjective (pure), or objective (abstracted)

>> No.4611357

>>4611340
You're probably right, /pol/ and stormfront did a bang up job.

>> No.4611359

>>4611334

>demonstrating anything about the world with a purely abstract system of rules regarding the valid relationship between concepts

>Hume's fork

eat me.

>> No.4611364

>>4611353
To be independent is the business of the very few; it is a privilege of the strong

>> No.4611366

>>4611357
inb4 defensive response

>> No.4611368

morality isn't absolute. context decides the rest. that's all that matters.

>> No.4611400

Do some of you really think there's no such thing as good or bad, right and wrong? I think books are destroying u

>> No.4611421

>>4611366
i wouldn't know of /pol/ if it weren't for you people being dramatic about it

>> No.4611430

>>4611421
I'm not >>4611357 but that's for being predictably butthurt.

>> No.4611434

>>4611430
>that's for
thanks for*

>> No.4611773

right

>> No.4611796

So is meaning itself, what's your point?

>> No.4611841

subjective or not is relevant only in the ivory tower. For a society to function we must draw a line in the sand of what to hold sacred, what to accept, what to reject.
The lack of inherent truth is not the prescription, merely the blank tapestry from which to create what should be.

Also, if we just drop over to Ethics....no ethics don't seem to be subjective....we know intuitively that suffering is bad. Ultilitarianism and deontological systems try to answer this problem and mitigate negatives about the world without invoking divine grounds for morality.

>> No.4611851

>>4611841
same poster.

I think an issue with moral and cultural relativism is that they are useful for ethnography and scientific observation as they help mitigate bias in the research but to assume this is an actual position within which we can operate within the world is naive and weak imo.

>> No.4611867

>>4611851
Cultural and moral relativism in the postmodern sense tends toward philosophical leftism, which is to say be conscious of power and try your best in life to ensure any power you exert over others is known to them and is consensual. This cannot possibly be perfectly achieved, but it can be striven for.

>> No.4611868

>>4611400
I believe the further we objectify morality, the 'harsher' reality becomes to those who have complex and intricate virtues.

Life becomes a pain to those who want to live, instead of die.

Of course this is my perspective. The greatest thing about human beings is that we are all on this earth together, we all have input into reality and shape it how we wish. Would you rather want reality shaped by the values of the past or the future? Now that truly is the question. If we are to progress, we need to realize cultural progression is more than just the meshing of existing cultures and the harkening back to previous time's ethics and morality(the worship of the bible by contemporaries). And cultural progression should also be beyond greed. But hopefully people realize this

>> No.4611870
File: 58 KB, 340x500, 1393491120783.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4611870

>>4611264

No one wants to be harmed. That's why rape and murder are wrong. To say morality doesn't exist, is to say harm doesn't exist. Harm is negative to the person who experiences it; therefore, harm is bad.

Moral nihilism and moral relativism are retarded. They ignore harm in the equation of morality and think morality is determined by culture or god when it's not. Morality is determined by harm.

morality coexists with a sentient being that's capable of being harmed. As long as that sentient being exists, there is morality.

>> No.4611873

>>4611870
You're just too worried about being harmed.

>> No.4611883

>>4611873

Everyone is worried about being harmed. If people weren't they wouldn't live long.

>> No.4611890

>>4611883
Death is a natural part of life. Embrace it when it comes, not for the spiritual afterlife, but for the physical one. Your carbon atoms will spread throughout the world.

>> No.4611909

>>4611264
If morality is a construct then it cannot be relative. If it is relative then it cannot be coherent. If it is subjective then it cannot be communicated.

Now only the notion of 'construct' is not immediately foolish. Verum esse ipsum factum. The truth has been constructed through the course of history and no man alone can alter it or change it. Do you want to know what morality is? Read the texts of those who made it and recognize your place in the order of things. Verum factum.

>> No.4611910

>>4611400
>u
Entire post is invalid

>> No.4611927

>>4611909
But anon, people didn't make morality, God did.

>> No.4611949

>>4611927
God made nature. Human nature qua nature is but a means to human society qua historical construction. It is the latter which we may understand. God created nature, so only He may know it. Man created society, so we may know it. It is our duty to know it.

>> No.4611964

I don't trust anyone who isn't a communist.

>> No.4612663

>>4611949
>God made nature
>implying humans didn't help shape nature until recently

>> No.4612674

>>4611909
>>4611927
>>4611949
>believing into God
*tips fedora*

>> No.4612684

>>4611264
No. There is an Universal and Absolute good.

>> No.4612688

>>4611264
>Morality is purely relative, subjective, and a construct. Right?

You say that like its a bad thing.

>> No.4612716
File: 82 KB, 468x240, becoming a god.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4612716

Absolutely.

>> No.4612737

>>4612716
>JRPG villains.png

>> No.4612755

Morality is relative, but not random. Because there's a sort of evolutionary selection on it, not completely genetic though. It's the set of rules helping people to cooperate, thus increasing the survival of the individual by increasing the survival of the herd. But the morality of the herd is almost always mediocre, because the weakest chain in that group mostly defines it.

>> No.4612764

'Construct' is just a construction of the mind on it's own.
Everything is relative to the subjective view of the person that he has constructed in his MIND.

>> No.4612766

>>4612716
>becoming a god
that'd be a good segue into Mormonism, actually

>> No.4612768 [DELETED] 
File: 46 KB, 227x199, 1389516245640.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4612768

>>4612716

>> No.4612773

>>4611264
Yes. That doesn't mean that it's wise to reject it all together though. Functioning as a human means relying on untruths. We can only handle truthfulness to a certain degree, after that we start to be dysfunctional. So we need to believe we are persons that have a continued existence through time with features and aspects and values and all that. We need some sort of narrative in our lives. An operating system if you will. This includes moral values. If course it is possible to live without explicitly adhering to certain moral values, but it's usually detrimental to the person who does so.

>> No.4612972

>>4611288
suffering leading to objective benefits is the basis of fitness

>> No.4612993

Scientific objectivity is purely relative, subjective, and a construct. Right?

>> No.4613006
File: 36 KB, 518x193, 1393527473103.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4613006

>>4612993
yes

>> No.4613009

>>4611264
No. It can be understood objectively, but no objective morals exist. There's a difference.

>> No.4613012

>>4613006
What kind of bullshitery and ambiguous image is that?

>> No.4613014

>>4612993
Yes, babie's first realization. Now how about your make an argument comparing relative and subjective systems to see if they're all equal

>> No.4613071
File: 36 KB, 281x423, moral-landscape1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4613071

Morality is objective. Lrn2science

>> No.4613079

>>4613071
Refuted through and through by contemporary ethicists/philosophers and most recently Dennett.

Quit pushing that infantile twaddle.

>> No.4613081

>>4613012
>>4613006
>Yes, babie's first realization.
>yes

Po-mo relativists, pls.

>> No.4613083

>>4613079
>Refuted through and through by contemporary ethicists/philosophers and most recently Dennett.

Awww, what did they do? Did they flail their arms and throw a tantrum? Did they cry? Did they use ad hominem insults?

>> No.4613095

>>4613083
>Awww, what did they do? Did they flail their arms and throw a tantrum? Did they cry? Did they use ad hominem insults?
No: that's exactly what YOU'RE doing right now.

I understand, the truth stings and is uncomfortable but you'll have to deal with it and live with it.

>> No.4613096

The meanings of words are purely relative, subjective, and a construct. Right?

>> No.4613104
File: 27 KB, 775x387, science-vs-philosofaggotry.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4613104

>>4613095
Do philosotards really believe their inane and baseless drivel could disprove scientific facts?

>> No.4613112

>>4613104
I had a feeling it was you. Still spouting that same-old, same-old?

You're boring me.

>> No.4613127

>>4613104
Do you even know what was meant by "The only thing I know is that I know nothing?"

Of course not, the purpose of that statement was to show the utter absurdity of claiming you can't know anything.

The thing is, we DO know, we simply can't know if what we know is objectively valid

There's a vast different in that though, and of course your retarded christfags try to make into a "since you can't know anything, you can't disprove GOD LOL" non sequitur

>> No.4613130
File: 10 KB, 261x195, 1393529262805.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4613130

>>4611264

do you lock your door at night, op?

>> No.4613135

>>4613104
Do sciencetards really believe their inane and baseless drivel could make philosophical arguments obsolete?

>> No.4613137

>>4613127
>Do you even know what was meant by "The only thing I know is that I know nothing?"

He was making a retarded pseudo-intellectual statement in order to impress the plebeians (<-- literal meaning of the word) by sounding deep and edgy. The claim is inane, empty and demonstrably nonsensical.

>> No.4613142

>>4613137
That's all Socrates ever did, you fucking idiot

>>4613135
Do christfags really believe their inane and baseless drivel could make philosophical arguments obsolete?

>> No.4613146

>>4613135
No, we don't need "belief". We have facts and logic.

>> No.4613164

>>4611264
>Morality is purely relative
Yes, if tigers dominated the world or lions or there were no humans morals would be different.

>subjective
Yes, or else it wouldn't exist, there's no place you can observe morality outside animal subjects.

>construct
Yes, our morals are constructed by us but artifice doesn't mean non-existence.

The closest thing you get to objective morals are the moral consensus of the society that surrounds you.

>> No.4613179

>>4613142
>That's all philosophers ever did.

fixed that for you

>> No.4613275

>>4613146

fedora is strong in this one.

And no, im not a christian,just a guy admitting that even logic has boundaries.

>> No.4613316

>>4611873
>>4611890

never seen something cringeworthy in my entire life

>> No.4613329
File: 7 KB, 368x368, 1391303211209.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4613329

>>4613071
>science
>objective morality

You shitheads are the reason it cannot be.

>> No.4613348
File: 19 KB, 432x432, template-philosoraptor.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4613348

>>4611890
>Death is a natural part of life. Embrace it when it comes, not for the spiritual afterlife, but for the physical one. Your carbon atoms will spread throughout the world.

If a man sends himself into space and explodes and his atoms disperse across the Universe in all directions, would that make him the most travelled person of all time?

>> No.4613360

>>4612755
This.

People need to stop thinking social construct are whimsical. At the end of the day, these layers of constructs are what makes us better than apes.

>> No.4613364

>>4613348
Yes of course. If by person you mean any configuration of carbon atoms and friends.

>> No.4613374

>>4613146
Define fact

>> No.4613407

>>4613374
Define define.

>> No.4613411

>>4613407
this is podracing,etc.

>> No.4613420

>>4613411
Why podrace?

>> No.4613421

>>4613275
Logic has no boundaries, without logic boundaries don't exist. If anything, logic is the only common assumption.

>> No.4613427
File: 46 KB, 500x329, shitposting.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4613427

>>4613411
>>4613420

>> No.4613429

>>4613421
What is the assumption of logic?

>> No.4613435

>>4613071
Don't you realize how ridiculous you sound when the cornerstones of science are the reason we stopped believing in dogma like having absolute morality beamed into our heads by God?

Unless you've isolated moral codes in DNA the best thing you have is sociology with a weak empirical foundation, and I know you mopes normally wouldn't consider that "true science".

>> No.4613448

>>4613164
This. Why do people keep posting?

>> No.4613455

>>4613429
That you can't have a contradiction.

>> No.4613462
File: 33 KB, 266x357, kant.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4613462

OP you are correct and this deluded cunt should've l2rnd into pyrrhonian skepticism before opening his piehole

huhahohe here's my elaborate ethical doctrine based exactly on what? what a joke!

>> No.4613475

>>4613455
Where can't you have a contradiction? In language? In signs or symbols? Or thoughts? Perception?

>> No.4613483

>>4613475
In logic...

>> No.4613492

>>4613483
Where can you look feel or touch a logic?

>> No.4613504

>>4613492
In a course offered by the math department. Philosophers are too scared to attend said course because they know they'd fail it due to their underdeveloped intelligene.

>> No.4613507

>>4613492
I'm pretty sure it's a physical process of the human brain, and probably of other organisms, too, so you'd have to get a complete understanding of how it works, which no one has.

>> No.4613511

>>4613504
I thought math was abstract signs and symbols, not physical entities? What does a logic look like?

>> No.4613516

>>4613507
So no one knows what a logic is?

>> No.4613520

>>4613516
I suppose not.

>> No.4613523
File: 21 KB, 207x165, one.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4613523

>>4613511
Symbols are physical entities

>> No.4613533

>>4613523
So logic is physical symbols?

>> No.4613543

>>4613533
Logic is male subjectivity.

>> No.4613546

Logic is a transcendental form of reasoning created by the phenomenology of subjectivity and the structures which allow for being and identity. It is neither math nor philosophy but the most sublime form of abstract contemplation.

>> No.4613611

>>4613462
I always thought it was based on the concept of utility

>> No.4613631
File: 197 KB, 480x458, 1342871137889.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4613631

>R: 108 / I: 12

lit, i am dis

>> No.4614344

>>4611288
well-being is good. not suffering is bad

>> No.4614365

>>4613543
Kill yourself

>> No.4614369

>>4613543
are you a troll

there are many great female mathematicians

>> No.4614416

>>4611333
what is the objective morality?

>> No.4614435

>>4611851
but moral relativism doesn't mean there isn't laws that a society and culture creates,
it is that those laws are not objective and applying them globally doesn't work

>> No.4614451

>>4613071
dumb. dumb speculation

>> No.4614512

>>4613071
>muh naturalistic fallacies
>muh appeal to probabilities
>muh shitty resolution functional MR machines
Sam Harris isn't a neuroscientist btw, he got a BA in philosophy and shekeled the UC system into giving him a Ph.D in a field he doesn't understand.

>> No.4614519

>>4614369
Name 3.

captcha: dickless she

>> No.4614524

>>4611264

Aren't specific conceptions of morality, like, totally built upon definite social relations in the given economic structures of a certain mode of production? You know, like, relative to one's real material needs and position in society or something.

>> No.4614583

morality is a construction
that doesn't mean there is no difference between solid constructions and weak constructions

>> No.4614586

no it's an objective construct

>> No.4614590

i'm not sure i care anymore