Is morality objective?

There exists a belief that the world we inhabit contains inherent rights and wrongs, regardless of religion, personal beliefs, and the laws of men.

Does it?

No.

Well it's not subjective.

Yes, obviously.

objectively yes depending on the subjectivity of objective moral objectivity

Subjectively objective.

Well it's not subjective.

Yes, obviously.

How so?

Depends on the definition of morality.

Perhaps.

Subjectively objective.

i actually like that

because, like... even though it's objective, our interpretations of it are obviously gonna vary
which is why we debate

the nice thing about it is that the best ideas always come out on top in the end

Subjectively objective.

i actually like that

because, like... even though it's objective, our interpretations of it are obviously gonna vary
which is why we debate

the nice thing about it is that the best ideas always come out on top in the end

My job here is done.

to be serious, I think it's more of an evolutionary thing.

obviously we have quirks in the population but all "morals" are rooted in an effort to survive/thrive/minimize conflict. 

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Is health objective?

Yes, obviously.

How so?

The presence of negative sensation in the universe mandates that we curtail it. That which prevents the most negative sensation in the universe is, therefore, objectively good.

There's no way that could be anything else but good.

Is health objective?

I'd think that health is based in factual information, whereas morality is a human construct. Apples and oranges, so to speak.

Yes, obviously.

How so?

The presence of negative sensation in the universe mandates that we curtail it. That which prevents the most negative sensation in the universe is, therefore, objectively good.

There's no way that could be anything else but good.

I dunno, some people actually like that stuff.

Is health objective?

I'd think that health is based in factual information, whereas morality is a human construct. Apples and oranges, so to speak.

Not really; health is only objective because we have identified a sane definition for it. It has something to do with not being dead, or not vomiting all the time. The definition of health allows us to make objective conclusions about propositions relating to health, even if our expectations change over time.

The same is true of morality--identify the sane definition, and you have objective conclusions.

I dunno, some people actually like that stuff.

Some people are mentally ill. Either way, it was consensual, so that nullifies that point.

I dunno, some people actually like that stuff.

Hence it's not a negative sensation.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

At the end of the day, does it matter? Unless you believe in a afterlife that judges you based on your behavior here, being moral is just something you do to avoid incarceration and social shunning.

Speak for yourself.

I don't believe so, no.

I dunno, some people actually like that stuff.

Some people are mentally ill. Either way, it was consensual, so that nullifies that point.

I'm not sure how a mental illness nor consent would make any difference. The idea of 'abnormality' is subjective, and isn't murder objectively wrong regardless of the matter of consent? Or am I missing something here?

I dunno, some people actually like that stuff.

Hence it's not a negative sensation.

Just to clarify, what do we actually mean by 'negative sensation'?

Just to clarify, what do we actually mean by 'negative sensation'?

I'd say gratuitous suffering.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.

Well it's not subjective.

Yes, obviously.

How so?

Well let's clarify. There exist moral truths, but our interpretation of them is subjective.

Just to clarify, what do we actually mean by 'negative sensation'?

I'd say gratuitous suffering.

Alright.

Well it's not subjective.

Yes, obviously.

How so?

Well let's clarify. There exist moral truths, but our interpretation of them is subjective.

Defined by who or what?

EDIT: derp, double post

A hypothetical then, to draw some inspiration from "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas," let's say there is a person trapped in a state of perpetual suffering. You are given the choice between preventing this person's suffering or being rewarded for keeping him in his state of suffering.

You and I both don't think there is any afterlife or divine judge, in this scenario there is no risk of imprisonment, and no one would know of your choice. By letting this person suffer, you gain a net benefit for his suffering with no consequence attached to yourself.

I would end his suffering. No question.

This user has been blacklisted from posting on the forums. Until the blacklist is lifted, all posts made by this user have been hidden and require a Sep7agon^® SecondClass Premium Membership to view.