/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.4770604]

Is morality universal or relative?

[Anonymous No.4770631]

"morality" is too big of a concept to be classified as either imo

[Anonymous No.4770633]

relative until it becomes universal until it becomes irrelevant until it just is

[Anonymous No.4770636]

Is a dog the best example of unconditional love?

[Anonymous No.4770639]

morality is imaginary

[Anonymous No.4770645]

>>4770604
relative.

[Anonymous No.4770659]

>>4770645
i also think it is relative, depends on the way you examine the actions you take, as a response to the situation around you

[Anonymous No.4770664]

>>4770636
Depends on what you mean by love.
A dog will love you, so long as you fulfill what it preserves as your duties (basically, are you feeding it). If you fail on this level, the dog will eat you alive, but so long as you meet the minimum (an easy minimum in the modern society that hates to see animals suffer and buries corpses just a few feet beneath the dirt) then you've got a friend for life.
Nothing is unconditional, but a dog is as close as a boy can get. That's why dogs are how boys learn to have families, the first sentient object in their world that becomes women and children and etc, etc.

>>4770604
Everything is relative. Nothing (only) exists without comparison to other things which exist.
Everything which happens must be learned by the subjective reality of the individual. I used to own a dog, and now I am a cat person. My closest approach to objectivity says this is a moral failure on my part, because cats are better able to support themselves in emergencies.

[Anonymous No.4770674]

Universal. Next question.

[Anonymous No.4770702]

>>4770604
Both I bet we have some sense of natural morality wired into us. It's expression into social reality is relative though. It's complex and contradictory to common sense.

[Anonymous No.4771095]

>>4770674
ur a cheeky cunt m8.

[Anonymous No.4771101]

>>4770604
Relative.

[Anonymous No.4771103]

>>4770604
Universal if you're a solipsist, universally relative if you aren't.

[Anonymous No.4771106]

Its an abstract concept, retard.

You may as well be asking whether or not infinity is universal or relative.

If you have a problem with that, all you need to do is dethrone hard nihilism.

[Anonymous No.4771114]

It's relative, duh. Philosophy has already answered your question.

[Anonymous No.4771117]

Perception of morality is relative, just like perception of the world around you.
Just like the world around you, however, morality is either absolute or nonexistent. No point in following rules if you think their value is arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.4771118]

I'd argue that morality is universal, but the problem is, is that how we view morality is relative/subjective. Going back to Nietzsche's example of the tree, none of us can view the entire tree perfectly in our minds to the very last detail, we can only make a rough sketch of it. The same applies to morality, it's an abstract truth.

[Anonymous No.4771124]

>>4771118
How can morality be universal, do you think it's floating around outside of people somewhere. Are you some kind of Platonist?

[Anonymous No.4771168]

God, I love eurofag /lit/. You guys can start a morality thread without it immediately devolving into ">implying" "SCIENCE VS PHILOSOPHY" "muh constructs" "muh language games" ">the year of our lord >not being chaste have fun burning in hell for eternity, peasants"

You can actually pinpoint the moment the Americans start waking up, it's coming pretty soon here. Things usually start to get bad at around 11:00 AM central time.

[Anonymous No.4771169]

>>4771124
I'm not a platonist, but I lean towards the side of scepticism and absurdism. The truth is morality is absolute, but we cannot grasp it completely, thus making it relative. As for morality, it isn't some kind of a floating spaghetti monster, it is something fine-tuned in the universe.

[Anonymous No.4771174]

>>4771169
>leans towards scepticism
>unwarrantedly claims right and wrong transcend humanity and are spun into the fabric of being itself

[Anonymous No.4771187]

>>4771168
>le edgy britfag face
seriously dude get a hobby instead of posting about your hateboner for murrikans every day

[Anonymous No.4771196]

>>4771174
I'm sorry anon, but that's what I think.

[Anonymous No.4771209]

>>4771169

I think that this is a realistic and healthy way of looking at the nature of morality. It's not grandiose, in that you're about to preach about the universal duty of regarding others as ends in themselves or whatever, but it's adventurous enough to say, "look, there is this thing called morality, maybe there's something more to it than just human fancy."

[Anonymous No.4771216]

The existence of a moral system implies the existence of moral agents, because they are the only thing to which a moral system applies.

A moral system pre-existing moral agents is preposterous: since moral agents are the only beings capable of understanding morality, they are the only ones capable of promulgating morality.

Therefore, moral systems are created by moral agents.

This moral system is then applied by moral agents to everything.

The existence of a moral system created by moral agents is as close as we can get to a moral system inherent in the universe. As close to the truth of moral realism, so to speak.

Since moral agents exist within the universe, and the moral system only applies to them, and the moral system exists in the universe (by applying to beings existing in the universe (the moral agents)) the moral system is equivalent to an abstract moral law to which everything would be beholden.

In conclusion, the question of whether morality is universal or relative makes no difference. A relative morality is equivalent to universal morality.

Check my logic, /lit/

[Anonymous No.4771219]

>>4771209
This. I've been to both ends of the spectrum, hard absolutism, and nihilism. Both sides are detrimental to your health, and result with you in bitter tears and angers when someone proves you wrong. Absurdism is really the only justifiable approach to philosophy, science and maths are the only things we can 100% be sure of once proved via empirical means.

[Anonymous No.4771226]

Morality is relative

This argument has been solved by philosophers already, with almost universal acceptance. Also a better question with similar roots would be:

Regarding tolerance, does being tolerant of others culture and belief include being tolerant of others intolerance? I.e. being tolerant of people getting beheaded in Riyadh town square for sex out of wedlock or similar situations

[Anonymous No.4771231]

morality is not a real thing. everyone seems to agree morality regarding sex is a fake thing designed to play against our strongest desires and make us feel guilty and shameful. well, all morality is like that. the morality that says you shouldn't be invade countries and take their oil, manipulate the stock market, sell drugs, whatever. you're only mad about that because you aren't strong and clever enough to do it yourself so you take the slave position and hate the masters. but when you can get away with it. like pirating an ebook, you disregard your high morals and steal it. face it, morality is as bogus as god, it's just there to make you feel good and maybe put a little restraint on the strongest.

[Anonymous No.4771237]

>>4771226

Oh shit, problem's solved. Pack it up, boys. Now we just talk about the same thing in terms of how tolerant we should be of other people's behavior.

[Anonymous No.4771240]

>>4771219

I'm partial to virtue ethics myself, but I see what you mean about proving hard-and-fast the objective existence of morality.

[Anonymous No.4771313]

>>4771196
That's fine with me, but claiming scepticism and then putting forth a religious belief with no justification at all seems silly.

[Anonymous No.4771315]

>>4771237

>ebin sarcasm meme; i can't contribute so i lel at other ebin xD

[Anonymous No.4771325]

>>4770636
only if it's domesticated, trained and nurtured.
so on the whole, no. but occasionally, yes

[Anonymous No.4771328]

>>4771313
It's not religious in any way, it's something deductive. Absolute knowledge outside of empirical means is impossible for us.

[Anonymous No.4771332]

>>4771315

I'm just saying that it's bizarre to suggest that moral questions are solved by a declaration that it's all a matter of cultural tolerance.

[Anonymous No.4771340]

>Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are "good" (or right) and those that are "bad" (or wrong).

sounds like it rests on the faulty idea that only one way is 'good' and every decision's outcome doesn't depend on future decisions

[Anonymous No.4771344]

>>4771328
It is quite religious. You assert the existence of something you claim to be unknowable, which is a matter of faith.

What reasons do you have to believe morality exists outside the human mind?

[Anonymous No.4771348]

>>4771315
Enjoy your ban.

[Anonymous No.4771353]

>>4771344
What reason do I have to believe what my doctor is telling me in terms of medical advice is true? It's based on natural faith. If morality was just a construct in our heads, we would never have come this far in the world, and the human mind would be geared towards anarchy, but you see this is the exact opposite. Humanity is moved towards order/unity, we do not enjoy disorder.

[Anonymous No.4771395]

>>4771348

: ^ )

>>4771332

i was never suggesting that, i was presenting an alternate question that perhaps hasnt been beaten to death, like the morality one

[Anonymous No.4771400]

>>4771395
Go kill yourself you toxic fucking retard.

[Anonymous No.4771406]

>>4771353
We generally don't enjoy eating shit either, doesn't mean that 'thou shalt not eat shit' is an ethereal command written in the stars. Even if all of humanity would agree on certain things, which they don't, there still would be no proper ground to consider those things absolute. Seven billion subjectives don't make an objective.

Also, humanity is moving towards disintegration and extinction like everything else, so if you want to derive absolutes from generalised tendencies, you're in for a rough time.

[Anonymous No.4771422]

>>4770604
the concept of morality is universal, but the details are relative.

[Anonymous No.4771434]

>>4771400

[Anonymous No.4771436]

Morality is objective

If you were to argue against it, you implicitly agree that there is an objective truth which exists as the basis for error, otherwise there would be no point in you making an argument. If morality is relative, then there would be no point in arguing for it's relativity since you would have no basis to prove its relativity.

[Anonymous No.4771453]

>>4771436
It's perfectly possible to believe in objective truth without believing in objective morality.

[Anonymous No.4771463]

>>4771436
>absence of counterevidence is evidence

[Anonymous No.4771470]

>>4771463
>not understanding the axiomatic assumptions implicit in the act of making an argument

[Anonymous No.4771485]

>>4771470
It are your implicit assumptions that are flawed.

[Anonymous No.4771492]

>giving a fuck

[Anonymous No.4771494]

>>4771485
Elaborate?

[Anonymous No.4771500]

Even if morality were objective, what difference would it make?

>wow dude you're doing objectively wrong
>don't care lel
>it's wrong though
>so what?
>y-you're a baddie

[Anonymous No.4771497]

>>4771340
>depend on
>future

but time moves forward

[Anonymous No.4771501]

>>4771406
This is what I was arguing for from the beginning, we can understand that a moral universal exists, but it is impossible to grasp, thus making it relative due to the different details of the absolute morality we pick up.

Morality is rooted in being itself, morality is just acting according to a particular beings nature.

[Anonymous No.4771516]

>>4771494
Your assumption that absence of counterevidence constitutes enough ground to assume something as being the case.

Your assumption that subscribing to the possibility of objective truth implies also subscribing to the notion of objective morality.

Your assumption that subscribing to moral relativism implies also subscribing to epistemic relativism.

[Anonymous No.4771531]

>>4771501
>we can understand that a moral universal exists
You have yet to substantiate this claim except for your vague notion that people seem to like order. This is not sufficient. Even if I were to agree that all of humanity has a shared tendency towards order and unity, which I don't since I don't have any reason to do so, it would still not warrant a leap towards the conclusion that there is universal morality.

[Anonymous No.4771542]

>>4770604

Depends on what you want to achieve with your okcupid account.
For one-night-stands put "relative"
For long-term-dating put "universal"

[Anonymous No.4771551]

>>4771542

Best response in the thread.

[Anonymous No.4771556]

>>4771231
>morality is not a real thing

You lost me right there.

[Anonymous No.4771577]

>>4771103
>Universal if you're a solipsist
How so?

[Anonymous No.4771605]

universal and objective

Why are you posting this here and not on /sci/? Morality is a science question. With the advance of neuroscience morality became amenable to the scientific method and stopped being empty phiilosodrivel.

[Anonymous No.4771661]

>>4771516
My argument is not founded on the basis of an 'absence' of counter-evidence, but that that in order to argue against he existence of objective truth, one must refer to the existence of an objective truth in their argument.

Arguing that there is no such thing as an objective truth results in the conclusion that there is no such thing as truth, which is itself an objective truth about truth. Ultimately it is a self-defeating argument.

Thus if we are to posit the subject of objectivity onto morality, we must recognize the fact that morality deals with right and wrong action. The definition of 'right' necessitates an objective definition of what is to be considered 'right', as an action cannot be both right and wrong at the same time. This is applied similarly to what is to be defined as 'wrong' action as well.

Whatever actions we take fall into one of three categories: right, wrong, or neutral. Of course this is only in a general sense, as we cannot look at actions alone in a vacuum, they are largely dependent on the context in which they are taken (ie, grabbing a child out of harms way as opposed to grabbing a child in order to kidnap them).

The objectivity of morality does not mean that "X is always wrong" or "Y is always right", but rather that the basis of discerning morality is universal in the sense that it is derived from the metaphysical principle of self-ownership in relation to action. Either the actions we take are right or wrong and can be assessed through a moral framework, or there is no such thing as morality and our actions are absent from any moral criteria, but regardless of what it is, the objectivity of what constitutes morality is still present.

[Anonymous No.4771833]

>>4771661
>Thus if we are to posit the subject of objectivity onto morality
We aren't. That's merely you. There is no necessity to this.

>The definition of 'right' necessitates an objective definition of what is to be considered 'right', as an action cannot be both right and wrong at the same time. This is applied similarly to what is to be defined as 'wrong' action as well.
You're saying that in order for morality to be objective we must first assume it to be objective. This is not an argument in favour of that assumption but merely rephrasing it. Again, show the leap from assuming the possibility of objective truth necessarily leading to acceptance the notion of objective morality. This is necessary for your notion of objective morality to make sense.

[Anonymous No.4771924]

>>4771531
If It would be okay for me to juxtapose morality to math right now, I'll explain to you how the moral universal exists, albeit this is gonna be a half-assed analogy. A moral universal exists because of the humans ability to always seek truth in any matter, maths is a fine example of the human mind using reason and logic to come to proofs in mathematics. Take 2+2=4, this is mathematically sound because of the laws regarding arithmetic, however morality is different because it is not as concrete or properly laid out. The moral universal would probably be something like x+y=z. None of the values themselves are clear, and it is very vague as to what the actual answer can be, but it exists.

In summary, the human intellect has a disposition towards truth with regards to everything, it is within a human's realm of reason to seek knowledge, and to apply it. Fortunately, morality falls within the realm of reason, although we can only garner it haphazardly.

[Anonymous No.4771930]

>>4770604


yes

[Anonymous No.4771982]

>>4771216

Your conclusion doesn't follow. The only sense in which the moral law is "relative" is that it is only valid for moral agents, but that's trivially true.

Some of your premises are muddled. For instance
>A moral system pre-existing moral agents is preposterous: since moral agents are the only beings capable of understanding morality, they are the only ones capable of promulgating morality.

Organisms with a sufficiently sophisticated neural system are the only organisms capable of understanding the regularity of motion in celestial bodies with any degree of precision. But this does not mean that celestial bodies do not pre-exist these intelligent organisms.

So it does not follow that moral systems are "created" by moral agents.

You could say they are "discovered" by reason.

[Anonymous No.4772150]

>>4771924
You realise there's nothing universal about math and that it's just a human language operating with axioms that we have fabricated ourselves, right? Math is a tool with rules that we have made up, not something with inherent unchangeable natural laws. It's very helpful and empowering, like logic and such are as well, but thinking it's something outside of humanity is unwarranted.

You still haven't provided an argument for the existence universal morality except for more vague unsubstantiated claims. There is absolutely no demonstrable reason to assume that morality "falls within the realm of reason" and something already in place that can be inquired into any more than that we can discover traffic rules inherent to existence. The claim is completely groundless except for wishful thinking.

[Anonymous No.4772172]

There's no objective, but there is an inter-subjective.

[Anonymous No.4772175]

>>4772150

#shotsfired.

[Anonymous No.4772179]

Moral propositions don't actually exist, they're just language games.

[Anonymous No.4772184]

>>4772179

There's more to a human than language, bucko.

[Anonymous No.4772231]

this thread has taken a really weird direction

Just some thoughts:
>there is an external, objective, origin of morality
>but during the diffusion process into human beings it warps itself in various ways to each individual part
...
>all biological life originates from a last universal common ancestor (LUCA)
>therefore, at some point in time the pre-basis of morality in each human being derived from a single point
>is it not possible to trace this common tie into a shared common principle underpinning contemporary human morality?

[Anonymous No.4772240]

>>4772231
>>>/x/

[Anonymous No.4772259]

>>4772150
Not that anon, but

I don't think you are understanding what is meant by "universal." The moral law holds for all rational agents. That is a universal assertion, the range of the "universe" being "rational agents."

It does not matter if mathematical propositions are irrelevant if there is no intelligent being around to comprehend them. Likewise propositions with moral content. Their truth value is the same, regardless. The "rules" of logic are not arbitrary; they express necessary relationships.

>>4772179

You need to go back and re-read Wittgenstein.

[Anonymous No.4772293]

Morality is human.

[Anonymous No.4772308]

>>4772259
>You need to go back and re-read Wittgenstein
What did I miss in him?

[Anonymous No.4772333]

>>4771605
"Science is often a matter of philosophy in practice"
- Sam Harris, The Moral Landscape

[Anonymous No.4772344]

>>4772308

What does it even mean to say "moral propositions don't exist"?

Do you mean to say that they have no truth value? This seems to be W's position in the Tractatus, but he is not advocating for an absolute moral relativism. His position in the Investigations is a bit different. Conversations about morality are a certain kind of language game, but that does not mean that moral propositions don't exist. That's an incoherent judgment.

[Anonymous No.4772385]

>>4772240
LUCA is not a science fiction concept. It is the acknowledged fact that in accordance with evolution biological life descended from a single point.

Because of this, we have to be willing to admit that the cognitive machinery which produces morality in human beings descended from the rudiments that was LUCA. Or further up the evolutionary branch with the dawn of the sapiens, if you wish. But this is secondary to the point, which is that we can trace a shared origin of the biology from which moral thinking descends. For this reason, I say there is an external, objective, origin of morality. It is not the same as saying there is a objective morality - the origin would be something unrelated to actual moral thinking. But it exists.

[Anonymous No.4772410]

>>4770604
kant: yeah, but impossible to perfectly do out of duty
mill: depends, how happy are you and everyone else going to be?
plato: yeah, here's what it is

[Anonymous No.4772447]

>>4771497
>outcome

[Anonymous No.4772463]

>>4772259
>I don't think you are understanding what is meant by "universal." The moral law holds for all rational agents. That is a universal assertion, the range of the "universe" being "rational agents."
The very notion of "rational agents" is unwarranted to the point of needed serious and elaborate justification itself.

>It does not matter if mathematical propositions are irrelevant if there is no intelligent being around to comprehend them. Likewise propositions with moral content. Their truth value is the same, regardless.
Mathematical propositions are not only irrelevant of there is no intelligent being around to comprehend them, they are non-existent. Likewise propositions with moral content. The difference being that regarding mathematical propositions we are generally prepared to accept at least some form of consensus regarding their truth value and moral propositions do not and are even widely doubted to be truth-apt at all.

> The "rules" of logic are not arbitrary; they express necessary relationships.
The "rules" of logic are arbitrary because the only thing that necessitates them are they themselves. Nothing justifies logic outside of logic itself. These relationships within logic are only necessary only by its own axioms.

[Anonymous No.4772492]

>>4772150
I don't understand how you want me to prove something immaterial, materially. It's impossible, the best I can give you are analogies, and examples on it. As I said, the existence of morality is for a being to act according to its own nature, and not to another one. It would be immoral for a deer to act like a lion, and so on. If morality never existed universally, we wouldn't be able to grasp the concept of good, and evil, nor understand laws. You can argue and say good, and evil are constructs created by humans, but then you're falsifying it, because there would be no point in defining them in the first place if that was the case.

[Anonymous No.4772497]

>>4772492
this is...kind of stupid.

[Anonymous No.4772534]

>>4772492
>I don't understand how you want me to prove something immaterial, materially. It's impossible, the best I can give you are analogies, and examples on it.
You realise this thing started with me calling your position a religious one, which you denied, while you are now arguing in a way which is completely the domain of faith right?

>As I said, the existence of morality is for a being to act according to its own nature, and not to another one. It would be immoral for a deer to act like a lion, and so on.
This is nonsensical essentialism. The nature of a thing is per definition the way a thing is, and if a thing would act in a way 'not according to its nature', then your definition of its nature is wrong, not the way it acts. You would probably throw a platypus in jail for not existing in accordance to your preconceptions. I can't really stress enough how nonsensical this is.

>If morality never existed universally, we wouldn't be able to grasp the concept of good, and evil, nor understand laws. You can argue and say good, and evil are constructs created by humans, but then you're falsifying it, because there would be no point in defining them in the first place if that was the case.
Falsifying it would have no point from your perspective because it would interfere with your nonsensical beliefs. There is no reason why defining man made constructs would be pointless. Dictionaries aren't pointless, for example.

[Anonymous No.4772542]

>>4772497
nuh-uh.

Morality has to be universal for us in order to understand it is relative first. Think back to aristotle's idea of universals and particulars. In order for a human to first understand a universal, it must first embrace a particular. This same idea is substituted into morality, there exists a universal moral which we can not fully grasp, and we choose to embrace a particular of this. The only way I think we can maximize the good in us is through the will to power though.

[Anonymous No.4772559]

>>4770604
Fuck morality. Imma be the ubermensch #liveitup #moralitygotnothingonme #cray

[Anonymous No.4772667]

neither
there are ends which are superior to others on the basis of being a human being

[Anonymous No.4772683]

>>4772463

Insofar as humans are capable of giving themselves ends and reasons for obtaining those ends they can be considered rational agents. They do not need to be "perfectly" rational.

It is one thing to say that a mathematical proposition cannot be declared without some declarer, another thing to say that the relationship expressed by that proposition is not "real." Take the proposition "2 + 2 = 4". We could easily and coherently say that this expresses no "fact" about "the world." But we cannot deny the validity of the proposition itself, given we are using Base 10 and the Peano axioms. There are many aspects of mathematical logic that are arbitrary, but the relationships they express still hold necessarily. They are "facts of reason," which any being capable of reason would be able to discover and develop. This intuition is even clearer when dealing with categorical logics.

A moral principle which did not hold universally would not be a moral principle at all, merely opinion. "Morality" is either universal or it is nothing. It is incredibly easy to be a nihilist on this matter. The hard work of being a human being worthy of that title begins exactly in the recognition of this fact.

[Anonymous No.4772930]

>>4772683
>Insofar as humans are capable of giving themselves ends and reasons for obtaining those ends they can be considered rational agents. They do not need to be "perfectly" rational.
This is supposing that reason isn't merely a posteriori justification of ends. And that humans 'give themselves ends', which again is quite unwarranted and requires justification. Calling a person a rational agent might very well be calling a carpenter a hammer agent.

>It is one thing to say that a mathematical proposition cannot be declared without some declarer, another thing to say that the relationship expressed by that proposition is not "real." Take the proposition "2 + 2 = 4". We could easily and coherently say that this expresses no "fact" about "the world." But we cannot deny the validity of the proposition itself, given we are using Base 10 and the Peano axioms. There are many aspects of mathematical logic that are arbitrary, but the relationships they express still hold necessarily. They are "facts of reason," which any being capable of reason would be able to discover and develop. This intuition is even clearer when dealing with categorical logics.
They hold necessary only in regard to the rules declared by the producers of the system itself. Try to justify logic without the use of logic and do so in a non-arbitrary matter. Logic is both self-containing and self-defeating, and consistent only by paradox. It's a glorious thing but both limited and flawed.

>A moral principle which did not hold universally would not be a moral principle at all, merely opinion. "Morality" is either universal or it is nothing. It is incredibly easy to be a nihilist on this matter. The hard work of being a human being worthy of that title begins exactly in the recognition of this fact.
This definition of moral principle is quite arbitrary in itself. Why would you assume that morality can't be local or cultural or personal? Why would you cling to universal morality and declare other definitions unsound from the start? This declaration of yours might be a matter of taste, but if you want to sell it for factual you would have to elaborate beyond declaration.

[Anonymous No.4773005]

>>4770604
Is vision universal or relative? Touch? Taste?

I believe there are innate mechanisms in the brain that condition behaviour towards the sense of goodness established in the society it grows up in as a part of the larger social cognitive capabilities of mammals. In the same way there are areas waiting to sponge up grammatical rules and language, there are areas looking for what is good and bad. This is why babies are such shits.

You might say here "well then it's all relative since it depends on what's already there, which can be anything", but in the same way all languages have certain universalities, systems of morality probably do to.

[Anonymous No.4773279]

>>4772930

The problem with logic is, as you say, that it's systemic consistency cannot be demonstrated through a formal proof. Nor can it's domain be fully determined. However, the relationships that hold within a logical system may be demonstrated using the rules of the system itself. Further, it's limits may be "shown," if not proven. And again, logic need to be "real" for it to provide insight into as well as a means of demonstrating the validity of moral principles. Logic's internal consistency is sufficient for this.

Logic is not "self-defeating," nor is it founded upon a paradox. I have a feeling you have Godel's incompleteness theorems in mind. If so you have misunderstood what is entaled by them. Suffice it to say Godel himself was a mathematical platonist. Take that as you will.

I did not give a definition of any moral principle--they are not definitional, they require demonstration. I can only repeat that any supposed moral principle that is not universal is not actually a moral principle. Moral principles must be universal--this is an analytic truth. It is a matter of conceptual unpacking, not taste.

Decisions of morality are presupposed by a rational agent. Yes, it is required that that reason be more than a posteori justification. Some simple reflection on your part should reveal that this must, in fact, be the case for at least theoretical judgments.

[Anonymous No.4773366]

>>4773279
>The problem with logic is, as you say, that it's systemic consistency cannot be demonstrated through a formal proof. Nor can it's domain be fully determined. However, the relationships that hold within a logical system may be demonstrated using the rules of the system itself. Further, it's limits may be "shown," if not proven. And again, logic need to be "real" for it to provide insight into as well as a means of demonstrating the validity of moral principles. Logic's internal consistency is sufficient for this.
Logic is self defeating because it does not allow "I'm right because I'm right" as valid while that is its ultimate conclusion and therefore does not warrant moving beyond that which is futile because tautology is the best you'll get. Saying that logic's internal consistency is enough is like saying "the bible is the word of god because it says so in the bible." Logic is not sufficient from a logical point of view.

>Logic is not "self-defeating," nor is it founded upon a paradox
I state that it is. Refute me if you can.

>I did not give a definition of any moral principle--they are not definitional, they require demonstration. I can only repeat that any supposed moral principle that is not universal is not actually a moral principle. Moral principles must be universal--this is an analytic truth. It is a matter of conceptual unpacking, not taste.
There is absolutely no need for moral principles to be absolute beyond your desire and preference. I'm quite serious about this. Defend why it's a necessity.

>Decisions of morality are presupposed by a rational agent. Yes, it is required that that reason be more than a posteori justification. Some simple reflection on your part should reveal that this must, in fact, be the case for at least theoretical judgments.
I refute the validity of any moral judgement altogether since I've no plausible cause to assume it.

[Anonymous No.4773436]

>>4773366

You're starting to become silly, and not paying any attention to what I'm actually saying.

Again, logic's internal consistency is sufficient for the VALIDITY of propositions. We have recourse to second-order logics to prove the validity of first-order propositions. I am not about to reproduce these here, however, because I don't have the time nor the tools do so. I doubt you would understand what was being proven to you, anyway.

Again, that fundamental moral principles are universal is an ANALYTIC truth.

Your refusal to recognize moral truths is not evidence of their absence, just as the Catholic Church's refusal to accept the heliocentric model of the solar system was no evidence of a geocentric system.

[Anonymous No.4773452]

I've never really heard an argument for universal morality that isn't either completely religious, or "it just is". Are there any actual secular arguments for universal morality?

[Anonymous No.4773459]

>>4773452

Kantian ethics.

[Anonymous No.4773484]

>>4773452
Apply the notions of Chomsky's I-language and UG to morality.

[Anonymous No.4773493]

>>4773436
>You're starting to become silly, and not paying any attention to what I'm actually saying.
I'm paying close attention.

>Again, logic's internal consistency is sufficient for the VALIDITY of propositions.
I disagree. No system's internal consistency warrants its being taken for valid outside of that.

>We have recourse to second-order logics to prove the validity of first-order propositions. I am not about to reproduce these here, however, because I don't have the time nor the tools do so. I doubt you would understand what was being proven to you, anyway.
Cop-out accepted as such, regardless of the half-arsed insult.

>Again, that fundamental moral principles are universal is an ANALYTIC truth.
Declarations, no demonstrations, again. You realise this is the equivalent of shouting "I'M RIGHT" with no regard to anything whatsoever?

>Your refusal to recognize moral truths is not evidence of their absence, just as the Catholic Church's refusal to accept the heliocentric model of the solar system was no evidence of a geocentric system.
I never claimed it was. I was merely claiming it wasn't evidence of their existence.

[Anonymous No.4773560]

>>4773493

All bachelors are unmarried men. This is an analytic truth. It is true because the notion of "unmarried man" is contained within the concept of "a bachelor." You can dig your heels in and just claim that it isn't the case, but you'd be wrong. If a fundamental moral principle was anything less than universal it would just be an expression of preference or something along those lines. The foundational project of ethics is just in the exposition of universal principles and their entailment. Relativists disagree. Relativists are wrong.

You cannot step outside of logic to prove its invalidity. You cannot even formulate a cogent means of trying without recourse to the rules of logic themselves. Likewise, you cannot formulate any coherent and meaningful statement, including a mere expression of preference, without utilizing logical rules. Our conversation would be impossible without some logical underpinning to the sentences we are forming. In saying that "non system's internal consistency warrants its being take for valid outside of that" you are in effect claiming the impossibility of communication, and of thought itself.

[Anonymous No.4773645]

>>4770604
Is OP's faggotry universal or relative?

[Anonymous No.4773648]

>>4771169
You are one giant contradiction.

[Anonymous No.4773658]

Of course it's relative. You think if humans were wiped out there'd be any good and evil in the universe? It would just be rock and fire silently pirouetting around each other in space with minute clusters of things every few solar systems killing each other over and over again for all eternity.

We created morality, and when we're gone we'll take it with us.

[Anonymous No.4773700]

>>4773645
If you are referring to OP as the individual behind the post, it's relative to whether that individual holds the title of OP.

If you are talking about OPs in general, it is universal, as everyone knows, OP is ALWAYS a faggot.

[Anonymous No.4773712]

>>4773648
That is what absurdism is after all.

[Anonymous No.4773732]

If morality is universal doesn't there have to be something affirming it is right or wrong independent of the moral agent, which has to have absolute authority? How could something like that exist? Even if a God decreed it, wouldn't it just be relative to that Gods rational? What's affirming the Gods choice? If a God by definition has perfect rationality how can we ever affirm something actually is a God and not an imposter that appears to be God? Wouldn't we need something absolute source of knowing outside that God to confirm the Gods status as a true God?

Doesn't this leave us in an unending faith based argument? Seems ridiculous to me.

[Anonymous No.4773747]

>>4773712
Absurdism claims there is no inherent meaning in the universe that we are aware of. If you claim there is inherent meaning through universal morality, you are not an absurdist.

It's the same contradiction level as saying "yeah, I'm an atheist, except that I believe God exists".

[Anonymous No.4773752]

>>4773732

Logic

[Anonymous No.4773760]

>>4773752
What possible logic could affirm an absolute authority claiming universal morality independent of the moral agent.

[Anonymous No.4773844]

>>4773760

The agent is the legislator, the moral law is not independent of her.

[Anonymous No.4774335]

Universally relative