Objective Morality

So i just changed my stance on Morality, always assuming that it was subjective and no one's good and bad was any better than anyone else.Although it hasn't really changed my religious out look (agnostic-atheist). Ironic thing is that is was a religious person that changed my perspective (Frank Turek) and a couple of books as well.

cool dude
cultural relativism is fallacious
but that doesn't make the case for divine commandment theory
Look up plato's euthyphro argument for a refutation

Congratulations. You have seen through one of many jewish tricks. I give you another one, beauty is also not subjective.

curious to see how you argue that one, user.

...

take the time and watch this and everything will become clear

another time

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAA HOLY FUCK THIS IS HORRIBLE

Look into anything shady or degenerate. After you drill down a few levels, the Cohens, Goldsteins, Rubins etc. pop up.

Didn't even watch it.
Why are you scared?

not an argument kid

Oh yes it is.
It's an hour long.
You didn't even attempt to watch it and went into a kneejerk reaction because it was posted by someone you disagree with.
You clearly don't intend to have any form of conversation and are here specifically to shit on anything that goes against your small minded narrative.

nice argument

Okay, I'm not giving you anymore (you)s.
Anyone who isn't a retard will have at least attempted to watch the video and form their own conclusion by the time they reach this point in your gay little derail attempt.
Have a nice day.

The euthyphro dilemma has actually evolved.

..should we tell him guys?
do you think he even knows?
that that's not an argument?

good post

Lain does not enjoy philosophy.

I don't like Euthyphro's dilemma as it doesn't account for the conflict between individual and group. Things that can be good from an individual standpoint could be evil from the standpoint of the group.

...

Morality is people's opinion on what's right or wrong. Given that different people may have different opinion on what's right or wrong morality is subjective.
I know this sentence is overused but "It's a social construct"

morality stems from consciousness which comes from matter.
Matter is objective.

this hasn't been proven yet
although physicalism is becoming more and more likely with neuroscience research, doctrines like dualism have not been discredited yet
also, physicalism/materialism doesn't necessitate that brain states/mental states/emotional states are all reduced to chemical composition in the body

You didn't say this, but I want to add that just because it's a "social construct" doesn't mean it's useless.
I also don't think it means it's necessarily arbitrary. For all the people who say "gender is a social construct", that doesn't mean it tends to fit certain trends or be based off of something concrete. It isn't by chance that most cultures have a "male" and a "female". I think the same thing could be said about morality.

Well if that's the case, what's the point of changing anything?

he is espousing views of some form of cultural relativism
he's not saying morality is useless

That's why I said "you didn't say this". It was pretty ambiguous on my part though.

fair enough m8

I believe that humans are innately attuned to the gravity of certain concepts, like death and suffering and sexual activity, among other things. It's mostly instinctual concepts like these whose moral implications are universally agreed upon. Most people agree that deliberate murder is wrong, even though various groups of people or individuals will commit acts of murder and then defend their behavior with reasoning and rationale. My point is that I believe that instinct born from a natural human evolution, or human understanding, collective consciousness, whatever you want to call it, is at least partially responsible for shaping what we know as morality.

Whether or not moral implications arise from God, or from instinct, or from the ruminations of the human mind over a myriad of subjects, I must ask; does it really matter? So long as we're mostly in agreement, and so long as there are practical solutions to potentially disastrous ethical scenarios, we ought to leave the philosophizing to the hippies. I do admit that there aren't always practical solutions to ethical dilemmas, but the world isn't perfect, that's just the way it is. I'm also not suggesting that humans should stop searching for answers in relation to ethical dilemmas. It's possible to find solutions without spending time wondering about the immaterial aspects.

Of course it matters. what you are suggesting is no different than collectivism. "If we all agree on it than its fine". Well there are plenty of problems with that. First there's nothing really to justify your moral code other than on a basis of agreement. Second just because a group of people believe in something doesn't make it right. Yall could agree on something that could destroy you society. Third, is it possible to know the truth without challenging it first? This is where the "matter" comes in. How are you suppose to get the best result if you aren't willing to look for a greater outcome.

I only just realized that picture is of a circumscised penis with glasses on, readng the Torah! It's very clever, isn't it?

Indeed. Quite kekable, indeed. I did so thus chuckle with some degree of merit involved.

What were you smoking? Good on you for quitting.

This is the common trap people find themselves in. I call this a trap for a reason.

Morality isn't just opinion. Most moral theories are based on rigorous logic, actually. Now there is disagreement on which moral theory is the best, but that does not mean it's subjective. The goal of ethics is to create a universal standard of behavior which generates a better world.
Glad you asked. Frankly, it refers to the world you would most prefer to live in. Simple, right?
Is it really? Sure, people prefer different things. But when you define a universal set of behaviors, you are just as bound to them as anyone else. Let me provide 3 major examples of ethical theories:

This is a consequentialist theory, meaning it determines right or wrong based on results. In this case, the goal is maximum happiness and minimum unhappiness. An act which results in maximum pleasure for as many people as possible and minimum pain for as few as possible is considered good. The major criticism of this theory comes from it's notion of a "greater good." Individuals often cannot perceive all the results of their actions, so they could be misguided in their approach and commit acts with terrible results in hopes of obtaining that greater good.

This is a deontological theory. It holds that there is no "greater good" and that the acts themselves are either good or bad. According to this theory, one must act as if they are the sole arbiters of morality and assume that their acts will be repeated by everyone else all the time. Essentially, it's an extension of the "golden rule" kids are taught in their youth. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." There's a bit more to it but that's the gist of it. The criticism of this theory is the opposite of the criticism of Utilitarianism: people are expected to always act according to it even if they know for a fact the results will be detrimental.

This is a form of egoism invented by Ayn Rand. Egoistic theories hold that everyone should always act in self interest. Ayn's contribution to this though has largely been in her criticism of other ethical theories. She posited that atrocities are the result of people enforcing their ethical standards on others and forgoing their own self interest. She thought that if everyone sought after what they thought was best for themselves, the only way bad actions could be made would be is if it directly benefited those committing them. In that case it would be in the best interest of others to stop whoever was committing said acts, thus making obscene acts work against the self interest of those who would otherwise commit them. Criticism of this largely surrounds the fact that it is somewhat inconsistent. It seeks to prevent atrocities, yet never explains why these atrocities are bad other than that they act against the interests of those being affected. If the interests of others is a factor in the morality of the situation, the theory isn't egoist at all.

There's many other theories out there, but those are the main entry level ones apart from shit like "Emotivism" which is basically "muh feels."

lol no

Read about depth psychology and stay the fuck away from freud, go with C. G. Jung instead. Morality, as most structures of human thought, are ingrained into our unconscious mind. Human minds work in certain ways, and that is in principle true for every human being, so our conception of the world and the way we structure thought and perceive the world is a shared expierence, ergo not subjective to the individual. To start with jungI recommend reading secondary literature that gives a broad overview of his work, there have been a few things written by his students that he personally signed of as sufficient and fitting.

Also I think reading about neurology and the human mind and psyche is imporant to understand our concept of the divine and universal. Personally I see it that way, either the human mind has it's basics in the material world, which gives our abstract thoughts a sort of real material, and therefore non realtive, character, or it isn't, which demands that it is, by definiton, a divine entity.


Beauty isn't subjective in that there is a biological foundation of what we perceive as beauty. But there really has to be a distinction between the beauty of human beings and living creatures, or the beauty of art in general. Our perception of art is based on harmony. In music for instance, harmony is the key criteria for beautiful music. If music isn't symphonic, we do not perceive it as pleasing and beautiful, no one does that, and if someone claim he does, he's a fucking edgy liar. In paintings we have things like the golden ration or general symmtry of the structure. All these things are universal.
As for other people, beauty isn't the same as attractivness, but the distinction is pretty spongy. Attractiveness has universal foundations, such as proportions of the body, some may find fat chicks attractive but only if their proportions aren't out of order, and symmetry of the face, which is pretty self explaining. Our primal brain influences these perceptions through a vast number of hormone reactions and the like, and since these often depend on the genetic and phsycial condition of the individual, or even their upbringing, the perception of beauty in people is subjective.

tl;dr
Art has rules, if not rules, art not pretty. Beauty in people is subjectiv to our primal brain cuz muh dick and muh childruns