Can we all agree that if you think morality is objective, you're retarded?

Loaf | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Loaf
IP: Logged

3,722 posts
If You Are A False Don't Entry
There's no way to define virtue, and anything you do define will just be based on subjective cultural norms. Human beings obviously don't have inborn virtues, because any virtue that you try to state is a virtue is technically going to be imposed as a law. It's clear that not all human beings follow laws, because laws are arbitrary and man made and don't always coincide with human nature. If you think that morality is somehow objective, you are objectively a retard.


 
DAS B00T x2
| Cultural Appropriator
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: DAS B00T x2
IP: Logged

37,907 posts
This is not the greatest sig in the world, no. This is just a tribute.
Morality is a spook, yes, but society functions because groups of people all agree that certain spooks are worth holding on to or believing in. Therefore, it can be argued that it is human nature to subscribe to moral codes.


Stroud | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam: commodore_talon
ID: Stroud
IP: Logged

1,895 posts
ΜΕΓΑ ΤΟ ΤΗΣ ΘΑΛΆΣΣΗΣ ΚΡΆΤΟΣ

Да ли је то истина или се само шалиш?
lmao


Loaf | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Loaf
IP: Logged

3,722 posts
If You Are A False Don't Entry
Morality is a spook, yes, but society functions because groups of people all agree that certain spooks are worth holding on to or believing in. Therefore, it can be argued that it is human nature to subscribe to moral codes.
It's human nature to be tribalistic and fear the unknown. It does not follow that it's human nature to follow moral codes. For some people it may be part of tribalism to follow moral codes because the rest of their group is doing so; this is obviously not absolute, because not all people do. So the argument is irrelevant.
Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 01:30:32 PM by Loaf


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

48,284 posts
Other way around.

Morality is objective, and you're retarded if you don't see that.
Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 01:57:58 PM by Verbatim


Loaf | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Loaf
IP: Logged

3,722 posts
If You Are A False Don't Entry
Other way around.

Morality is objective, and you're retarded if you don't see that.
LMAO YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN WHY. THAT'S JUST AN DECLARATIVE STATEMENT. THE TRUE RETARD IS EXPOSED.


Genghis Khan | Heroic Unstoppable!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Karjala takaisin
IP: Logged

2,059 posts
 
Compassion is the enemy. Mercy defeats us.


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

48,284 posts
Other way around.

Morality is objective, and you're retarded if you don't see that.
LMAO YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN WHY. THAT'S JUST AN DECLARATIVE STATEMENT. THE TRUE RETARD IS EXPOSED.
Gratuitous suffering is objectively bad.

There is objectively a way to minimize suffering in the universe.

Anything that creates more suffering than it fixes is objectively bad, and anything that prevents more suffering than it creates is objectively good.

This is morality.


Loaf | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Loaf
IP: Logged

3,722 posts
If You Are A False Don't Entry
Other way around.

Morality is objective, and you're retarded if you don't see that.
LMAO YOU CAN'T EXPLAIN WHY. THAT'S JUST AN DECLARATIVE STATEMENT. THE TRUE RETARD IS EXPOSED.
Gratuitous suffering is objectively bad.

There is objectively a way to minimize suffering in the universe.

Anything that creates more suffering than it fixes is objectively bad, and anything that prevents more suffering than it creates is objectively good.

This is morality.
That's your own subjective opinion. There's no written law that proves that. Your subjective view of morality happens to be a view that I share, but it's not like physics where there's an objective answer to it.


i am karjala takaisin | Mythic Inconceivable!
 
more |
XBL: Niedopalek
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Ember
IP: Logged

9,190 posts
Ember used to be cool and funny

Now he's just gay
i just read the bible :)


Loaf | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Loaf
IP: Logged

3,722 posts
If You Are A False Don't Entry
i just read the bible :)
Yeah man, who needs the theory of evolution to understand biology? LMAO! Jesus is the way man :^)


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

48,284 posts
That's your own subjective opinion. There's no written law that proves that. Your subjective view of morality happens to be a view that I share, but it's not like physics where there's an objective answer to it.
and those are all declarative statements with nothing backing them up, which by your logic proves you're a retard or something


Loaf | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Loaf
IP: Logged

3,722 posts
If You Are A False Don't Entry
That's your own subjective opinion. There's no written law that proves that. Your subjective view of morality happens to be a view that I share, but it's not like physics where there's an objective answer to it.
and those are all declarative statements with nothing backing them up, which by your logic proves you're a retard or something
What? All you did was make a declarative statement, saying that that is what morality is, without proving using evidence why that's true. I can make a declarative statement if my goal is to declare a fact, which I did.


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

48,284 posts
without proving using evidence why that's true.
But I did.

I stated axiomatic facts of reality—facts that would make you either stupid or evil if you disagreed with them.

So you either think suffering is good, or there isn't a way to stop it/there's no point in trying, all of which are incorrect beliefs.
Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 02:50:35 PM by Verbatim


NotKiyo | Respected Posting Riot
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: JebBush
IP: Logged

537 posts
 
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.


Loaf | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Loaf
IP: Logged

3,722 posts
If You Are A False Don't Entry
without proving using evidence why that's true.
But I did.

I stated axiomatic facts of reality—facts that would make you either stupid or evil if you disagreed with them.

So you either think suffering is good, or there isn't a way to stop it/there's no point in trying, all of which are incorrect beliefs.
Well, the word "good" is also subjective, so you're just using subjective words to support a faux-objective argument. The words good and bad are entirely subjective, and you can only say that something is or isn't. Does murder kill people? Yes. This is the extent that one can go, before what you're saying becomes a matter of opinion.

That said, it doesn't make me stupid or a bad person, because subjectively I agree with you. We share the same opinion about morality. However, you can't say that morality can be proven, because it's not a thing. It's entirely a human fantasy.
Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 03:19:39 PM by Loaf


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

48,284 posts
without proving using evidence why that's true.
But I did.

I stated axiomatic facts of reality—facts that would make you either stupid or evil if you disagreed with them.

So you either think suffering is good, or there isn't a way to stop it/there's no point in trying, all of which are incorrect beliefs.
Well, the word "good" is also subjective, so you're just using subjective words to support a faux-objective argument.
Wrong. If I cut your arm off, it is an objective fact that it will be a negative experience for you. You will experience a negative sensation or a bad feeling. This is not an opinion.


Loaf | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Loaf
IP: Logged

3,722 posts
If You Are A False Don't Entry
without proving using evidence why that's true.
But I did.

I stated axiomatic facts of reality—facts that would make you either stupid or evil if you disagreed with them.

So you either think suffering is good, or there isn't a way to stop it/there's no point in trying, all of which are incorrect beliefs.
Well, the word "good" is also subjective, so you're just using subjective words to support a faux-objective argument.
Wrong. If I cut your arm off, it is an objective fact that it will be a negative experience for you. You will experience a negative sensation or a bad feeling. This is not an opinion.
What laws of the universe prove that this is what morality is? You say that morality is basically to limit suffering, a lot of societies don't agree on what this entails. Take Saudi Arabia or the united states, for instance. Two different countries with radically different ideas of what morality should look like. Morality is largely influenced by the culture you were brought up in. Your morality is informed by modern thinking in a first world country, so that is your perspective. However, just because you have this perspective, doesn't mean that there's any way to prove that this perspective is "right". That's just what you think morality is.


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

48,284 posts
without proving using evidence why that's true.
But I did.

I stated axiomatic facts of reality—facts that would make you either stupid or evil if you disagreed with them.

So you either think suffering is good, or there isn't a way to stop it/there's no point in trying, all of which are incorrect beliefs.
Well, the word "good" is also subjective, so you're just using subjective words to support a faux-objective argument.
Wrong. If I cut your arm off, it is an objective fact that it will be a negative experience for you. You will experience a negative sensation or a bad feeling. This is not an opinion.
What laws of the universe prove that this is what morality is?
The fact that we exist and the fact that pain is painful.
Quote
You say that morality is basically to limit suffering, a lot of societies don't agree on what this entails. Take Saudi Arabia or the united states, for instance.
That makes them objectively shit societies.

Two physicists may disagree on a controversial subject regarding the nature of the universe.

That doesn't make science subjective.


 
Jono
| Future Nostalgia
 
more |
XBL: HundredJono
PSN: HundredJono
Steam: hundredjono55
ID: Jono
IP: Logged

18,521 posts
Goodness gracious, great balls of lightning!
Can we all agree that you need to fucking kill yourself already


Loaf | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Loaf
IP: Logged

3,722 posts
If You Are A False Don't Entry
without proving using evidence why that's true.
But I did.

I stated axiomatic facts of reality—facts that would make you either stupid or evil if you disagreed with them.

So you either think suffering is good, or there isn't a way to stop it/there's no point in trying, all of which are incorrect beliefs.
Well, the word "good" is also subjective, so you're just using subjective words to support a faux-objective argument.
Wrong. If I cut your arm off, it is an objective fact that it will be a negative experience for you. You will experience a negative sensation or a bad feeling. This is not an opinion.
What laws of the universe prove that this is what morality is?
The fact that we exist and the fact that pain is painful.
Quote
You say that morality is basically to limit suffering, a lot of societies don't agree on what this entails. Take Saudi Arabia or the united states, for instance.
That makes them objectively shit societies.

Two physicists may disagree on a controversial subject regarding the nature of the universe.

That doesn't make science subjective.
Yeah okay, so scientists disagree, and that means that either one, or both of them are ignorant on the subject matter. However, if both of them are ignorant, on let's say, what morality is, then that wouldn't mean that there's necessarily an answer.

The fact that pain is real, is just a declarative statement, which doesn't prove that morality is objective. Pain is real, yes. You can say that is a fact. However, your societal upbringing is the only thing that can inform your view of morality. That is because you can't actually define what makes something moral, and what doesn't. Read the Meno socratic dialogs, you'll see your ignorant virginal ways.
Last Edit: September 22, 2017, 03:39:42 PM by Loaf


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

48,284 posts
The fact that pain is real, is just a declarative statement, which doesn't prove that morality is objective.
If we have the ability to stop the pain, and the pain isn't necessary to experience, then yes, that does basically prove that morality is objective. It establishes a very simple rules—don't hurt people, because it creates a negative sensation in the universe.

Nobody wants to feel pain for no reason, not even masochists. It is immoral to cause that which no reasonable person would want to experience.

If you agree, then there's no point in saying morality is subjective, because you're undermining your entire philosophy. If morality is subjective, then there wouldn't be a point in discussing morality at all, because everybody is apparently free to have their own interpretations. This is obviously bullshit. We debate morality because some people's interpretations are better than others, objectively, and those are the ones that have to triumph over the shit interpretations. That's our goal.

There is no other sensible or functional goal, in terms of having a suffering-free existence on earth.


Loaf | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Loaf
IP: Logged

3,722 posts
If You Are A False Don't Entry
The fact that pain is real, is just a declarative statement, which doesn't prove that morality is objective.
If we have the ability to stop the pain, and the pain isn't necessary to experience, then yes, that does basically prove that morality is objective. It establishes a very simple rules—don't hurt people, because it creates a negative sensation in the universe.

Nobody wants to feel pain for no reason, not even masochists. It is immoral to cause that which no reasonable person would want to experience.

If you agree, then there's no point in saying morality is subjective, because you're undermining your entire philosophy. If morality is subjective, then there wouldn't be a point in discussing morality at all, because everybody is apparently free to have their own interpretations. This is obviously bullshit. We debate morality because some people's interpretations are better than others, objectively, and those are the ones that have to triumph over the shit interpretations. That's our goal.

There is no other sensible or functional goal, in terms of having a suffering-free existence on earth.
No, if we have the ability to stop pain, then it proves that you want to stop pain. It doesn't prove that there's an objective "reason" for that. It just proves that it serves your own self interest, which of course makes this objective. If I were to say, there is a keyboard in front of me, then that keyboard would exist as a tangible indivisible object. Opinion is divisible, it can be two different things derived from the same idea. That is what makes it an opinion, not a fact.

I'm not undermining my philosophy. If I was undermining my philosophy, I would be saying that morality can somehow be taught. However, I'm saying that morality is subjective. No, it's not obviously bullshit that people can have their own interpretations of morality. Once again, if there's a debate with two parties, then one or both of the parties are ignorant in order for there to be a meaningful disagreement. We are both ignorant of what morality is, and I say that I am ignorant in the sense that I don't know what objective morality is, because there can't be an objective morality.


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

48,284 posts
No, if we have the ability to stop pain, then it proves that you want to stop pain. It doesn't prove that there's an objective "reason" for that.
Pain is bad.

Nobody sane says pain is good. If they think pain is good, we should probably either talk them out of it or kill them (painlessly, of course).


Loaf | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Loaf
IP: Logged

3,722 posts
If You Are A False Don't Entry
No, if we have the ability to stop pain, then it proves that you want to stop pain. It doesn't prove that there's an objective "reason" for that.
Pain is bad.

Nobody sane says pain is good. If they think pain is good, we should probably either talk them out of it or kill them (painlessly, of course).
You see, I knew that you didn't have sympathy for the devil. Your perspective on eliminating those who harm others from society undermines your own perspective, that we should try to minimize pain. Those who don't fit into the system that we've devised feel pain too. The question isn't whether or not we should feel sympathy for these people though, which I think we should. The question is whether or not you can ever implement rules which will unify and govern all of humanity. You think that your declarative statement on pain being objective, somehow coincides with the idea of morality being objective, but you conflate the two.

The fact is, that because morality is just opinion, you will never be able to convince all the people who don't share the same point of view, because there is no way to argue from an objective stance that this is truly what morality is. There is too much grey area and nuance to the human condition to possibly fit all of morality into a nice little box that we can call morality. You're saying that morality is objective, but if it were then we would not have so many political ideologies, and human beings would live together peacefully.
Last Edit: September 23, 2017, 11:58:40 AM by Loaf


 
Verbatim
| Komm, süßer Tod
 
more |
XBL:
PSN: Verbatim-1
Steam: Jaco230
ID: Verbatim
IP: Logged

48,284 posts
Your perspective on eliminating those who harm others from society undermines your own perspective, that we should try to minimize pain.
False—killing a serial killer before he's able to murder the 20 people he's holding hostage saves 20 people and kills one. That is a minimization of suffering, even if he was bluffing the entire time.

"Minimize" does not mean "completely get rid of" because that's not feasible. Sometimes you have to pick between two poisons, but the obvious choice EVERY SINGLE TIME will be the vial that contains the least poison, because that's the vial that will induce the least amount of suffering. It's the least worst option, AKA the only correct one.

Quote
Those who don't fit into the system that we've devised feel pain too.
Right, and killing them will surely put them out of that misery. No one sane wants bad people to suffer either. We just need them out of our society, because we're better off without them and they're better off without us.

Quote
The fact is, that because morality is just opinion, you will never be able to convince all the people who don't share the same point of view
That's not even true of regular opinions, like with music. I can convince someone that a song is good or has good qualities, and with a little bit of reasoning and explanation, I might even be able to turn them on to it. Same with movies and video games. It's not always easy, but it's possible. People do change their minds, and sometimes we can change each other's minds.

Same goes with morality, and that doesn't mean it's subjective. I thought veganism was fucking stupid and a waste of time ten years ago—now I'm a vegan and I've influenced nearly 20 other people to become vegans as well.

Quote
There is too much grey area and nuance to the human condition to possibly fit all of morality into a nice little box that we can call morality.
Says you. This just sounds like you're saying "it's too hard, we're too stupid."

Maybe you're too stupid, so it's too hard for you. But that's a personal problem. I find moral questions very easy to answer with nuance. For example, most of the time, murder isn't okay. Sometimes murder is okay because it's better than letting a serial rapist live.
Quote
You're saying that morality is objective, but if it were then we would not have so many political ideologies, and human beings would live together peacefully.
Not true—again, scientists have debates on shit all the time because they disagree with each other all the time. There are all kinds of conflicting hypotheses on all sorts of things. That doesn't mean science is subjective.


Loaf | Legendary Invincible!
 
more |
XBL:
PSN:
Steam:
ID: Loaf
IP: Logged

3,722 posts
If You Are A False Don't Entry
False—killing a serial killer before he's able to murder the 20 people he's holding hostage saves 20 people and kills one. That is a minimization of suffering, even if he was bluffing the entire time.

"Minimize" does not mean "completely get rid of" because that's not feasible. Sometimes you have to pick between two poisons, but the obvious choice EVERY SINGLE TIME will be the vial that contains the least poison, because that's the vial that will induce the least amount of suffering. It's the least worst option, AKA the only correct one.
Yes, it would minimize suffering. It wouldn't handle the problem that there are people who are hardwired naturally to hurt and misbehave. Let's set that aside for the moment, because it's irrelevant. What is relevant is whether or not morality is subjective or objective. While I think that truly minimizing suffering, would have to entail some truly elaborate plan to not hurt those who hurt others, but to also protect those who others want to hurt. This to me would be ideal, but it doesn't change the fact that it's just an opinion, whether or not people should be hurt.

You will not convince others simply by declaring that pain is real. Your whole position is based on the idea that you could, technically convince all of the world that there should be one moral idea that they should all follow. Human beings are not like sheep, they're not easy to herd, and when they are we call that religion. Religion, is obviously not the absolute morality you are looking for. Only religious people truly feel that morality is objective, because they feel that there is one authority figure that divines it, and so it's absolute. Individual morality, cannot be absolute, it is subjective.

Quote
Right, and killing them will surely put them out of that misery. No one sane wants bad people to suffer either. We just need them out of our society, because we're better off without them and they're better off without us.
And they're better off without us. You contradict yourself. The justice system is unfortunate, because it can't account for all human behavior in it's rigid, socially defined constructs.

Quote
That's not even true of regular opinions, like with music. I can convince someone that a song is good or has good qualities, and with a little bit of reasoning and explanation, I might even be able to turn them on to it. Same with movies and video games. It's not always easy, but it's possible. People do change their minds, and sometimes we can change each other's minds.

Same goes with morality, and that doesn't mean it's subjective. I thought veganism was fucking stupid and a waste of time ten years ago—now I'm a vegan and I've influenced nearly 20 other people to become vegans as well.
Songs are a perfect example of something which is subjective though. That example is just bad. You're saying there's an objective reason why a song is good, that's nonsense. You influenced a bunch of people to be vegan? LMAO! Okay, then you converted them to your opinion. You should work in a church, because you're obviously good at proselytizing, however specious your actual words are.

Quote
Says you. This just sounds like you're saying "it's too hard, we're too stupid."

Maybe you're too stupid, so it's too hard for you. But that's a personal problem. I find moral questions very easy to answer with nuance. For example, most of the time, murder isn't okay. Sometimes murder is okay because it's better than letting a serial rapist live.
Ad hominems are not helpful. It is actually the opposite of what I'm saying. It is stupid to always look for easily definable binaries. That is what the human brain is conditioned to do though, you simply can't handle too much grey area.

Quote
Not true—again, scientists have debates on shit all the time because they disagree with each other all the time. There are all kinds of conflicting hypotheses on all sorts of things. That doesn't mean science is subjective.
Science is the search for objective truth. Even then, science can't always find objective truth. Regardless, you assume that there is an objective truth to morality, even though morality can't be taught. If morality was teachable, then we'd obviously have a lot of very good men, and be able to identify why they are good men and teach others to be good men like them. We don't though, no such teachers exist.