ITT: discuss morals

I didn't say it does.

I said no such thing

you did

...

Remove the penis from your brain and read it again.

if a concept exists it is no longer a concept. therefore you are saying that if something exists, objectively, outside the realm of an idea, then it is real

which clearly, morals aren't real on any plane of existence. be they physical or mental.

"The concept of a concept is in itself a concept"

morals are gaaaaaaaaay, degeneracy rules!!!!1

"Eat my hairy crusty asshole, fucktard" - Schaupenhauer (1894).

Nigger what? You mean to say "if there is a concept of something, and that thing exists, there is not a concept of it" Which is a retarded thing to say. You should say "no longer 'just' a concept."

there's only one rule that makes sense:

do unto others as they do unto you

That's a pretty definitive and objective thing to say, you hypocrite.

Good, then you won't have any objections to us killing all moral relativists.

You say that so objectively…

when some vague chinaman said, a white horse is not a horse he meant that the concept 'horse or horses' is not the same as the white horse in the stable. when you say ' I love horse cock' it's the concept you are referring to, not an individual horse cock. the first occupies your mind, the latter the empirical world. it boils down (philosophers have chewed this rag for centuries) to finding a definition of exist which includes both conceptual artifacts and tangible things.

As soon as you test whether a particular concept exists you have created it. Therefore all concepts exist.

spam

Then how did there get to be a term to refer to it by?

OP doesn't exist, that is why we call him faggot instead of by an actual name.

The pink unicorn does not exists

Let's all love Lain/Cracky

i'll just test the concept of a pile of loli in the hallway.

omfuckingg
so that's why he's dropped from the radar

figures a jew would declare that.

I didn't say you can create the thing that is conceived.

who?

The point is it exists AT LEAST conceptually. The conceptual is part of reality. And in western civilisation, abstract as it is in everything, from law to work to politics and the economy, it is a very significant part of social reality.

Do you expect "Moral Objectivity" to be some rock in the Sahara desert you can bang you sconce against?

so?

Morality develops in infanthood as part of our social evolution. This makes morality objectively real if we consider "real" to be whatever naturally exists. Nihilists BTFO.

This is what I think of when thinking of moral subjectivity, as those morals would inevitably change as a species evolves or its culture changes.

While moral objectivity is like beliving there is some stone tablets hidden away in the far 'corners' of the universe which dictates some unchanging morals standards that is and always will be the best morals.

true, but im keen to think our set of morals are objective, at least until they change :^)

It is a mistake to assume objectivity means fixed absolutes. Objectivity presupposes instead an external reality that is accessible to everyone. But it says nothing of fixed, eternal absolutes. This kind of external reality implies instead a great deal of relativism, since it deals with the practical coordination of multiple persons, and, being practical, it is also ephemeral, since it responds to current needs, usually attempting to select from the past to build on the future.

Also, I think that moral subjectivity is actually the most permanent aspect in human experience. Human experience itself, on the subjective level, remains essentially the same throughout the ages, although we translate ourselves in different forms, socially, through technologies and communication mediums that differ significantly from one age to another, or from one region to another. It is these differences that are objective: the human essence typically remains the same. Moral subjectivity is the stuff of religion and introspection, and the least apt for discussion, utilitarianism and "progress." It is encoded directly in our body and soul

Well obviously to SJWs larping as soviets such as you the only golden rule is 'muh consenting adulhts'

Moral objectivity is a reaction to the degradation due to moral subjectivity. In that, it becomes worthy, however false. The real answer is homogeneous, independent societies.

But this imply something supernatural. A moral reality that exists outside of humans despite humanity being made up of only humans.
This is the bit that just seems a bit impossible.

Altthough there is very arguablya almost moral objectivity within humans if you just look at the far ends of the spectrum.
Consider saying that all humans should be tortured as painfully as possible throughout their entire lives. This is something that (with the exclusion of select few lunatics) could be considered as morally objectivly wrong as possible

now that's a philosophy i can subscribe to

...

Not completely disagreeing, but this inevitable leads to clashes between those societies.

What if we found some tribe of people untouched by the outside world.
What if these people had the moral standards of slowly burning to death all babies born between sunset and sunrise due to some strange religious reasoning.
But internally the tribe, even the mothers of the dying babies were happy with the affairs and state of the tribe.

Would you consider it morally correct to leave the place alone if you had the possibility to create some sanctuary around it to prevent clashes of society?

I don't think I entirely understand what you mean.
You mean objectivity? I don't think so. It may imply something super-human. Why not? We are bits of a universe. Even life on earth sort of mimics patterns of stability that can be found in the functioning of the earth's atmosphere. So our principles of stability and equilibrium, as living beings, are analogously related to principles which are not exclusively human. But objectivity consists of systematically approaching and dealing with threats or problems, to regain equilibrium. It is difficult to ascertain what is objectively right. Maybe 'correct' would be a better word than 'right'. It presupposes analysis. Being practical, it is not so much about the 'right thing to do', but what the most likely efficient strategy is, as far as memory and thought have concluded.

I'm here presupposing, of course, that we invariably, and inherently, act as cybernetic beings, that is, that we always look for equilibrium.

I personally imagine I would leave them be.

Yup. The results of attempting to "fix" the society is the only clash in that scenario.

Morals exist as concepts. However, they can not be objective and evidence for this would be that it is impossible to explain why something is immoral while using pure logic and no emotions.

Prove me wrong

A syllogism for you:
1. I value life.
2. X wants to kill.
3. It is morally right for me to stop X from killing.

it does

lol i rekt you

Why is life valued universally to you?
What about people in pain, or incurable psychopaths that harm life?

Both true and false, there exists a sort of objective morality in humanoid (sourced: whites, nordic ayys) psyche, but it's not the christian neutered morals ofcourse, it might even be almost the opposite. But ofcourse, in other morality might be completely different, or not even existant as a concept.