Do you think there is objective morality?

Mechanically objective, but not totally objective.

It is objective that there is no such thing as morality

Oh really, display your proof

...

Proof of the existance of morality is yet to be presented, so the burden of it is not on me.

It's a logical consequence of reality.

/pol/fags need not apply

there definitely is but it's like uh really hard to figure out

but /pol/fags love morals, it's like their whole thing

>might is right
>morals

/pol/aks constantly bitch about those in power

No, but there is a good deal of biological compulsion and emotional disposition towards certain sets of behaviour.

Only because they want to be in power themselves. Morality is a pretext.

Objectivity is a red herring imo

Think of a conversation. Action and reaction. Now think of a leader who points to a rock and says 'this rock shall be the center of the city we will begin building immediately' - everyone looks at the rock and grunts their assent. (This is how dialectic becomes material). The rock 'speaks' to the leader, the leader publishes his decision, the group looks at the rock- 'the center of the yet to be constructed city' it *says*- and they agree. Back and forth, back and forth, with accruing results, some perhaps disasterous. Just keep its initial meaning of 'dialogue' in mind, and youll be fine at first. It can be used VERY subtly and takes some getting used. It concerns a rhythm of rational thinking different than logic, which is a third person phenomenon. Dialectic concerns persons 1 and 2 (with things, e.g. ideas, substituted for actual persons often).

misread that as "dianetics" and honestly that would have been superior

>so the burden of it is not on me.

It is when you claim it to be objectively false you fucking retard

Yes objective morality exists but humans reject it because people are inherently evil.

why should there?

>yellowstone erupts, leads to a chain reaction of volcanic activity, kills all humans who can perceive "morality"

wtf nature is evil now because human life is inherently valuable and it's immoral to kill all of them?! the objective morality meme is pure navel gazing. it's time to put this christfag embarrassment into the ground.

it's conceptually impossible due to the nature of humanity itself

Sounds like divine command theory.

Claim x being false is the null hypothesis if no motivation nor evidence can be presented in favor of x being true, not something that needs to be argued for. Every moral realism so far has been a pile of shit, so anti-realism wins by default.

Yep

Prove the burden is on us then brainlet. Jesus christ are you a middle schooler?

I think the closer we come to doing away with presupposed ideological power structures and hierarchies, and replacing those systems with ordered knowledge of the universe as best our subjective senses can objectively understand it, the greater a base we will have for the foundations of objective systems of logic and the ethics we derive from that logic.

Asking if there is any totally moral event and/or value at all is a better first attempt at questioning morality, is it not? Is there something which is right (or wrong) for *everyone*, or even the *whole* of existence? Is there such a thing as primordial moral action? That would either settle your question for good in case of positive answer or give strong indications in case of negative answer. Because without universal morality, a moral saying could then never be absolute, even if it was independent of the person saying it, e.g killing might be bad independently of whoever claims it, but it might still not be bad *everywhere* for all time, and that could cast a strong doubt on its objective nature as well.

>logic
>objective
Fuck off, Harristard

Logic is inherently objective, its a self correcting concept. If an axiom of logic previously accepted as true is found to be untrue, it is discarded and all previous proofs adjusted accordingly.

In that same post I make the allowance that our senses, which we use to discern logic, are limited to subjectivity and can only come within a certain bounds of objectivity, but that doesn't change my point.

Also, haven't read Harris.

That's not a liberal thing, that's human nature

But we can lay out a moral axiom without naming a specific course of action or hypothetical scenario; this was the approach of the Stoics during Epictetus' age.
Foregoing the usual system of endless proofs and checks of moral conundrums, they instead worked top-down with the basic axiom that what is Good is to live in best accordance with nature, and then left it to the individual to discern his course of actions in any situation, with some basic example situations to demonstrate how one might discern what action is best aligned with nature.

>it's inherently objective
False. You have no clue what you are talking about. This is what happens when STEMspergs wander into the bog.
>hurr durr its le objective like le science
Science isn't objective. Correction is not objective.
Stoicism is literally the worst possible ideology. Please end yrself

No it isn't, reactionaries expect people to be dirtbags. Liberals hypocritically demand moral complience.

Morality is a human construct, so of course there is no objectivity.

Still doesn't prove it to be objectively false which requires it to be displayed as an a-priori necessity.

is it... objectively a red herring?

It absolutely is human nature to reward deferential behavior from a position of power

Morality is a white concept.

That there are objectively good and bad is a common sense proposition.

To change common sense beliefs you need some pretty heavy good reason or evidence.

Also, taking r e a l l y seriously axiological nihilism, brings to some conclusions, that, imo, counts as a kind of practical reductio of it: it's not something you can't live with.

There's no making values.

I don't get what that may mean. Or, subjective values. That's like having a subjective god, namely being a subject that believes in god. If god doesn't exist, well, you are just wrong.You're not making god by just believe in him.

Mutatis mutandis, a subject believing in, or feeling, or whatever, values, if there are no value out there, is just wrong and, rationally, he should just stop believing or feeling or having whatever mental subjective attitude is engaging in that fails to relate to good and bad.

Now, if nothing matters, there's no reason for any action. Killing yourself or not killing yourself. You can't choose values, there ain't any, in that case one is just under an axiological hallucination.

I don't want to live in a world like that of the axiological nihilist. No human can. The common sense view stands.

Two people have a conversation in which they attempt to get to the truth, using reasoned arguments and logic to eliminate incorrect or false hypotheses.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialectic

>ideological power structures and hierarchies
Those are part and parcel to being human, user.

its a good question come explore it with us

discord gg/c37NwyB

By God, this thread is chock full of deluded post-modern degenerate NIHILISTS. How can you look at the world around you and not realize that it is not just by chance that it exists, that some kind of higher power conceived it and that this higher power is the same which rules over our very lives? How far up your ass must you be to think that your actions have no effect in the grand scheme and that all of it is meaningless? How deceived by the Enemy must you be to think that man can live without law and that it all trickles down to a savage struggle between men?

Wake up and repent while you still can. I urge every one in this thread to seek salvation in the words of the Lord. The end is nigh and I advise you to stop seeking answer in the deceitful babble of puppets of Satan, who dare to call themselves philosophers (Nietzsche, for example), I urge you to seek knowledge from the Bible, from the word of the LORD. It's truthful, it was inspired by God himself.

May the Lord lead you all to salvation.

You are a mental slave who worships the enemy of your people. Free yourself.

And you are a retard who reads Nietzsche.

*tips fedora*

>trying to argue against nihilists with metaphysical logic instead of corporeal ethics which dissuade noncontextual behaviors

You're both fucking morons. What happened to this board

Bad syllogism.

Do you even know what you mean by higher power? Is it not just a sound byte that you repeat because you are lazy?

Even if we assume you mean something factual when you say higher power, that in no way correctly implies that it the higher power is god. It is always even more unlikely that it is your particular version of a god.

First paragraph is stellar, but you failed at sharing either inspiration or purpose. You have my pity and I pray you find salvation.

Dialectics, in the Marxist sense, is just a 19th century way of saying ‘to understand society we need to understand it as a complex system’.

It’s an early and imprecise way of expressing things like feedback loops, phase changes, epiphenomena, and emergence.

No but it's intersubjective to some extent

>interactionalism is 'imprecise'
In what way. You do realize that the statement "stuff happens when there are a multitude of things" is just a simple causal proposition, right?

>absolutely
>human nature
can't let you do that.

Dialectic is a fancy word for compromise aka truth via committee

>False. You have no clue what you are talking about.

Do tell, why is logic not inherently objective?

>God built the world specifically so young children get raped and butchered
sounds good Aquinas see you at mass

I dont care about your talk of morality and would prefer someone who understands dialectics talk about why it is superior to formal logic

As someone who has studied formal logic and has only read Plato's dialectics, I dont understand where its even coming from

haha i posted le smart man LOGIC FTW!!!!

>Dialectic is a fancy word for compromise

If youre the user who said

>False. You have no clue what you are talking about.

Do you have an answer or not?

Everything good in life categorically requires everything bad in life. Just because you don't believe in God doesn't mean that you get to escape its underlying logic--that evil becomes good.

There can be. If society defines it explicitly or implicitly then it exists just as strongly as any physical object.

>t. butthurt barista
Science is to matter what religion/spirituality/philo are to qualia. You're goddamn right my engineering degree qualifies me to investigate that.

I think its funny that so many on this board present formal logic as if its for autistic babies

When in reality they just cant compute the proofs, or even worse, are scared of the symbols they dont recognize

High quality brainletry

>Do you think there is objective morality?

Generally, yes. It must be so as there is no coherent way to understand meaning-making and zero reason to suppose existential nihilism.

Wrong, sperg.

>objective systems of logic and the ethics we derive from that logic.

How can you derive ethical ends from logic?

There are a number of different logics depending on your metaphysical assumptions. This isn't even a continental idea. Once you STUDY formal logic you will understand the variety of modal logics, dialetheism, etc.

This thread is chock full of deluded reactionary degenerate DOGMATISTS. How can you look at the world around you and not realize that it exists by just by chance that it exists, that impersonal forces such as abiogenesis and evolution created self perpetuating systems and complexity? How far up your ass must you be to think that your actions have an effect on the grand scheme of things and that it is was created by created by an Superpowerful being of whom bears a human image and gender? How deceived by the fear must you be to think that man cannot live without a dogmatic and slavish obedience to laws derived by illiterate men from over 2000 years ago

Wake up and liberate yourself while you still can. I urge every one in this thread to seek the shining light of critical thought and reason. You laugh at cargo cultists and pagans whilst Christians have battered you down with talk that the end is nigh for over 2000 years. I advise you to stop seeking answer in the comforting but false babble of puppets of superstition, who dare to call themselves philosophers (Anselm, for example), I urge you to seek knowledge and not from second hand stories of oral traditions created by anonymous authors but from empirical and testable observations.

it is for autistic babies, and your weak pejoratives aren't going to change that

cant even infer in formal logic................
it's useless!

>It must be so as there is no coherent way to understand meaning-making

Of course there is things such as evolutionary psychology and the subjective experience applied to complex experiences and traditions.

Objective reasoning runs into far greater issues of incoherence.

Yes, kindness, spite, generosity, greed, nurturing, debilitating. We all know the difference.

You merely know A logic which is objective, there are many, including paraconsistent ones that would make your pleb brain objectively explode

Isnt paraconsistent logic goal post shifting?

It's like saying I know this is wrong, but what is wrong really?

*tips fedora*

>who dare to call themselves philosophers

Have you ever read the bible?

Faith is the opposite of logic, one is a construct of man and the other is a belief that man is a construct.

I swear sometimes it seems like there a webmd for atheism I dont know about.