/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.6632397]

Why do some non-religious people think morality is objective?

[Anonymous No.6632421]

Who knows, anon. Maybe they haven't listened to their Carmen cassette tapes all the way through.

[Anonymous No.6632952]

>>6632397
Because they want it to be.

People generally have opinions based on muh feelings.

[Anonymous No.6632958]

>>6632397
Because they have read Kant and aren't fucking retarded.
Also objective is an incorrect term. You're looking for realism.

[Anonymous No.6632973]

>>6632397
Currently, there's two sets of morals. The substantial and based-religious morals or nihilistic relativism. There will always be certain grey areas in certain circumstances. However, at such point, the individual must step back to the substantial religious-based moral and not fall to the objective-moral darkness where, more or less, "anything goes".

[Anonymous No.6632978]

anybody who thinks so care too much what other ppl think
>muh fear of social leprosy

[Anonymous No.6632992]

>>6632973
>However, at such point, the individual must step back to the substantial religious-based moral
Why does it have to religious? Surely we can come to a better base to pivot to and from.

[Anonymous No.6633007]

>>6632992
I'm using 'religious' as a stern term to convey the type of moral. Religion has always been hand in hand with Order. A specific framework that the individual can always keep going back to, regardless of time and place. If that is not in place, then the individual has to make hasty decisions in the realm of relativism.

[Anonymous No.6633009]

>>6632958
>Kant
>the guy whose moral argument uses God
Bravo, faggot.

[Anonymous No.6633011]

>>6632958
>b-b-b-but muh synthetic a priori judgements

[Anonymous No.6633018]

>>6633009
LOL schoppy fags please leave. nothing that depressed manlet omega assblasted faggot said is true.

absolutely nothing

[Anonymous No.6633020]

>>6633018
>schoppy fag
How the fuck did you even deduct that I'm a schoppy fag? I hate Schopenhauer, his philosophy was shit, and he was shit.

[Anonymous No.6633026]

>>6633018
Not him, but that was affirmed by Hegel too. I've got the very quote before my eyes.

[Anonymous No.6633074]

>>6632397
OP, do you have the copy pasta about some poor siblings on Christmas morning which used to circulate around;it was about the simple things in life and something like that and was always accompanied by this picture.

[Anonymous No.6633210]

>>6633018
>>6633020
Georg pls go.

[Anonymous No.6633368]

>>6632397
Whatever happened to these people?

[Anonymous No.6633373]

>>6633368
Maybe they got murdered .

[Anonymous No.6633376]

>>6633368
They became a dank meme.

[Anonymous No.6633385]

>>6632397
Because it is. If morality isn't valid without appeal to divine authority, it isn't valid at all.

[Anonymous No.6633388]

>>6633368

They probably grew up to be unspoiled yet dry adults.

[Anonymous No.6633397]

>>6633385
>If morality isn't valid without appeal to divine authority, it isn't valid at all.

My subjective ethical framework is entirely semantic, but it has a valid internal consistency. As does yours. And together we are capable of forming an inter-subjective semantic framework of ethical values.

[Anonymous No.6633402]

>>6633009
Kant doesn't justify morality through god though, he uses god as a tool to connect morality and happiness, neither of which requires god on its own.

[Anonymous No.6633413]

>>6633397
Indeed, and in using reason to create a framework that is valid for everyone, we have an objective morality.

[Anonymous No.6633419]

>>6633397
>internal
Key word is internal. It's, still, self-validation -- circular reasoning, crutching on the belief that it's logical.

[Anonymous No.6633427]

>>6633368
I imagine they're probably normal, well rounded adults without too much drama in their lives.

[Anonymous No.6633443]

>>6633419
>Key word is internal. It's, still, self-validation -- circular reasoning, crutching on the belief that it's logical.
And? As long as my bayesian approach 'appears' coherent, that's all the justification I want. The same way I'm not going to dip my hand into a pan of boiling oil: I have a complex "internal" semantic framework set up to describe and process the perception of the action, and the result is a bayesian value of greater than 99% that it will really fucking hurt. Again, that's all I want, and I'm happy with it... and I won't be dipping my hand in the pan.

[Anonymous No.6633465]

>>6633443
Okay. But imagine that the pan is only there because of your approach and if we forsake it we could invent a flashy space alien cooking utensil that cant burn you if we touch it. Progress is for those who venture. But then again we could make something that blows up the whole kitchen, so ....

[Anonymous No.6633480]

>>6632397
Because divide command theory is just one of many theories representing moral realism?

[Anonymous No.6633482]

>>6633397
>My subjective ethical framework is entirely semantic
An ethical framework, whatever that's supposed to be, is never ever entirely subjective, nor can it be entirely semantic. What is it with analyticfags always assuming a cartesian subject as being able to account for much, if anything?

[Anonymous No.6633513]

>>6633482
>An ethical framework, whatever that's supposed to be,
Usually the old good/bad dichotomy, or the spectrum of good/bad.

>is never ever entirely subjective
I'm not sure of your angle on this one. Could you elaborate? I'm presuming you mean there are external factors influencing ones subjective model of reality, though I could be wrong.

>nor can it be entirely semantic
Ethics, and aesthetics too, are the application of a linguistic good/bad spectrum, and they exist exclusively in semantics. You can argue that a material event or action could be happening, but within that event is no inherent "badness." The badness is entirely within the semantic framework you describe the event with.

[Anonymous No.6633534]

>>6633368
>>6633373
>>6633376
>>6633388
>>6633427
Guy here who contacted Todd (the guy in the photo) and found out the story.

Pic related if you're interested.

[Anonymous No.6633536]

>>6632397
because they don't think before they form opinions and speak

[Anonymous No.6633577]

>>6633534
That's actually fantastic.

[Anonymous No.6633580]

>>6633513
That's a load of bullshit metapjysiscs right there. First of all, morality does not consist of a conceptual description of reality that can be either accurate or inaccurate, but rather of normative judgments and, more importantly, imperatives to act.
These judgments and imperatives do not assert themselves dispassionately, they wouldn't even take place without a passionate, almost somatic response.
Finally, calling a semantic framework subjective is pants on head retarded, how are you even expected to talk to people.

[Anonymous No.6633583]

>>6633577
Here's a photo of them and their kids.

[Anonymous No.6633586]

>>6632397
Well I am an atheist, but also a fascist and I believe that an objective morality should be established for the good of humanity.

This will be done by the Department of Culture and Morality.

[Anonymous No.6633589]

>>6633534
Well done for doing that. That image has been around so long.

[Anonymous No.6633601]

>>6633534
Just looked him up online. Seems like a normal dude. The story makes sense, too. This makes me happy.

[Anonymous No.6633609]

>>6633586
What is that good of humanity? The department hasn't been established yet, how will it know on what principles to operate?

[Sage No.6633614]

>>6633583
They look happy. Good for them.

[Anonymous No.6633640]

>>6632973

You forget that proponents of Eastern dialectic propound a relativism that is not nihilistic, simply because such relativism has been intrinsic to their worldview since time immemorial. Thus the death of god is no serious blow, it does not necessitate a total rejection of former values and descent into nihilism.

[Anonymous No.6633716]

>>6633534
>mfw I didn't feel anything

[Anonymous No.6633764]

>>6633601
I've lived overseas. Never once got the desire to buy my wife some Cap'n Cruch for Christmas.

[Anonymous No.6633869]

>>6633413

No

[Anonymous No.6633887]

>>6633580
>First of all, morality does not consist of a conceptual description of reality that can be either accurate or inaccurate,
This semantic accurate/inaccurate dichotomy was brought in by you, not me. If someone voices "boo to that act" as their subjective 'negative/bad' opinion of it, it is neither accurate/inaccurate external to whatever framework they are using. It can have internal accuracy at the subjective level, or the inter-subjective level if others are involved.

For example, that Papua New Guinea tribe that practiced ritual cannibalism (they would honor their dead by eating them) didn't view their acts as "wrong." The Harvard anthropologists did. Why? Because both had differing semantic frameworks regarding the act, influenced by various things. The Harvard side had a refined semantic model of biology which included the Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, and they had a framework influenced by their cultural/social history. Each individual anthropologist had a slightly different subjective perspective of the act, because they are different people, but the subjective and inter-subjective views of the anthropologists were obviously closer than the subjective and inter-subjective views of the tribal cannibals.

>but rather of normative judgments and, more importantly, imperatives to act.
Oughts? Try getting into structuralism/deconstructionism and other 'map is not the territory,' 'nothing outside the text' fields. Your opinions are not necessarily at odds with contemporary thought, you just need to understand semantics.

>These judgments and imperatives do not assert themselves dispassionately, they wouldn't even take place without a passionate, almost somatic response.
I think this discussion (and I'm honestly not trying to be offensive) is a little over your head. Nobody is arguing that anything material doesn't exist and *everything* is language, just that language is not the material it describes. There are no Aristotelian essences inside things, we overlay our semantic descriptions and form and refine semantic models.

[Anonymous No.6633930]

>>6633764
Depends. I live in Africa, and would be more happy to get a block of cheese than a television.

[Anonymous No.6634265]

>>6632397
Because utilitarian morality based on mutual rational self-interest is objective.

For instance, it's an absolute fact that prohibitions on murder and theft provide a measurable economic benefit to individuals that outweighs the benefit that they would gain from being able to kill and steal in a world where others also enjoyed that freedom.

[Anonymous No.6634286]

>>6632397
Because we are anonymous?

[Anonymous No.6634308]

>>6634265
Good bait

[Anonymous No.6634317]

>>6633930
Right, because you have nothing to plug the television into.

Move somewhere that isn't ridiculous.

[Anonymous No.6634363]

>>6633930

No, you'd sell the television and buy a lot more cheese, unless you live in the middle of the fucking desert that is.
And unless you were at an immediate risk of starvation you might as well keep the tv either way.

[Anonymous No.6634472]

>>6634265
But what is the objective basis for saying that maximizing utility is the goal of morality?

[Anonymous No.6634490]

>>6634472

Self preservation.

[Anonymous No.6634614]

>>6632397
You know that the vast majority of contemporary philosophers are moral realists, right?

[Anonymous No.6634931]

>>6633534

>in Israel

[Anonymous No.6635129]

>>6633583
most normcore ensemble i have ever seen

jerry would clap

[Anonymous No.6635152]

>>6632397
And why do some religious people believe that, without their God, life is pointless? This is terrible bait 0/10

[Anonymous No.6635176]

>>6633480
>realism
Not objective.

[Anonymous No.6635279]

>>6632397


Why do lefties deny objective moral superiority? Is it not proven by evolution and the death of the weak and the conquest of the strong?

[Anonymous No.6635293]

>>6632397
Teleology and virtue ethics

[Anonymous No.6636646]

I don't see how you could say some hideous like child rape is morally right. Makes no sense

[Anonymous No.6636652]

>>6632397
Cash rules everything around me, cream. Dollar, dollar bills, you all!

[Anonymous No.6636669]

>>6632397
It's actually a continuation of Christian thought. Christian thinkers believed that reason was a gift from God that could determine objective knowledge. They thought morality was an actual aspect of the universe. During the Enlightenment this thought was carried into the realm of secularism and people thought there was an objective way of doing everything. But now in the post-modern era we know that reason is only a tool (like science, it does not reflect how the world operates, but how humans conceive of it operating - it is projected onto the world), is not some sort of connection to an abstract "objective reality", and it tells us nothing about how to act. Morality is not out there somewhere, it is created from within us.

[Anonymous No.6636674]

>>6636669
Right, you just set yourself up for OP's unspoken punch line.

[Anonymous No.6636680]

>>6636674
I'll be waiting.

[Anonymous No.6636690]

>>6636680
The idea that morality is "created from within us" is the point OP's getting at. Christianity would say that God creates a standard or morality that's fixed, while your idea is that it just kind of exists because you said so.

[Anonymous No.6636699]

>>6636690
Well, I expounded his point.

[Anonymous No.6637092]

>>6635152
oh stop it

[Anonymous No.6637147]

>>6632397
>tfw you will never have a cute gf who is content with getting notebooks, some floppy disks, and a box of Cap N' Crunch for Christmas.

Eli, Eli, lama sabanchtani?

[Anonymous No.6637175]

>>6632952
>muh feelings.
>>6632978
>muh fear of social leprosy
>>6633011
>b-b-b-but muh synthetic a priori judgements

sure is /pol/-lingo in here

[Anonymous No.6637185]

>>6632397
narcissism

[Anonymous No.6637208]

>>6632397
Literally a militant atheist told me ''because I feel it inside me and everybody else does too''

[Anonymous No.6637210]

>>6632397
Because they are retards.

[Anonymous No.6638516]

>>6637175
yes, and?

[Anonymous No.6638627]

>>6633609
The good of humanity will be a compromise between progress, personal happiness, and societal stability. Kind of like a social contract theory.

The department will take a broad view of human life throughout the ages and take what is good and purge what is bad for the type of society that we are trying to create.