My impression is that most philosophers agree that morality is objective. Why...

My impression is that most philosophers agree that morality is objective. Why? What good arguments are there that anything is objective, let alone morality?

Other urls found in this thread:

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027714002054
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

that's because going from a standpoint that morality is objective is the only way you will reach some actual conclusions and solutions

subjective morality guided philosophy are fun memes

You're wrong. The reason you have that impression is that you spend too much time on /llt/. Lots of people believe morality is subjective, much more than you think.

But, with people who believe in God, objective morality is a sort of hope, so you're going to find a lot of moral objectivists on Veeky Forums.

Unfortunately the stupid retard Sam Harris probably browses or phoneposts because I see some stupid shit about biological moral objectivism from time to time. Don't pay attention to that shit. Okay, user? Okay.

Most philosophers are moral realist.

Most philosophers are disgusting moralizers.
Not a good reason. kys

Lol

Anything subjective may be defined into a objective statement.

An argument could be that humans are all the same and we want the same things.

Would be cool if the people were in the loop.

biology is objective ergo morality is objective

>most philosophers

If you are thinking about the quantity and not the reasoning you are already beyond saving, OP.

It doesn't matter how many say views, it's what the view is that matters, and philosophers have argued for innumerous morality systems.

>It doesn't matter how many say views, it's what the view is that matters
That would be ideal. But whether you are inclined to believe a view is "correct" will be influenced by the interactions you have had with other people. There comes a point in any argument where you just stop and say "yeah, that makes sense" and move on. The only reason you say "yeah, that makes sense" at that point is because other people you've interacted with tend to agree. You use subtle and unsubtle social cues to filter out the "incorrect" axioms from the "correct" axioms. Point being, quantity is not an unreasonable measure what's "correct," if we must agree that *something* has to be correct.

No, it couldn't.
Biology isn't objective.
>reasoning
Fuck off to plebbit

Because you're kinda illiterate.

Your premises are stupid. Most philosophers don't believe that. Most philosophers believe that morality theoretically could or should be objective. Incredibly-few believe that human ethics are. Also you're demonstrating an inability to separate ethics and morality, by posing the question. And that's also annoying.

>Biology isn't objective.
>this is what non-scientists actually believe.
I don't know why I stumbled into Veeky Forums. Every day I despair for humanity. I'm going back to Veeky Forums.

ABDUCTION

>you're demonstrating an inability to separate ethics and morality
Only insofar as I don't know the definitions you prefer for these words. I'm sure I'm capable of differentiating them conceptually.

>Biology isn't objective.
retard

It's genuinely not. There are two big problems:
1. That random chance has a huge influence, and the common understanding of "objective" boils down to "following rules outside those within human invention"
and
2. The belief that categories are meaningful outside the arbitrary rules imposed on them by human beings

Biology is sorta-objective.. But not in any way that we commonly mean, when we call something "objective." Species exist as a result of complex, historical instances. It's not deterministic. It's also not random. We genuinely don't have a good word for it. Also? The idea of things like "organs" and "species" is kinda not congruent with the reality that exists around us. These are artificial distinctions that don't exist. Go through the genealogical history of any species. You can't pick the "this animal is species A, and his son is species B." It's not that simple. The borders are very fuzzy. But we get the benefit of a very narrow perspective, so we don't have to pick which father/son combo separated the two, by species.

Only those who believe in God can reasonably believe morality is objective.

Sorry: wasn't trying to be the "holy than thou 'cuz I know something you don't but I won't tell you what" guy.

Morality is "how do we answer a question?" Ethics is "how do we build a framework from which to answer questions?" Either one can be objective. But morality is super-specific in its objectivity. "How should we react when I could push button A to save a baby who is innocent and button B to kill all murderers, if I have to push one of those buttons?" Approach is morally, and you get exactly that answer to exactly that question. And that's kinda easy. Approach it ethically and you have to define how to ever act in all situations possible, to justify why the right answer in this situation is the good one.

Why?

Because otherwise you ultimately rely on brute-fact claims, and annoying-ass nominalists believe that brute-facts are insufficient. Because they're brutally dumb and annoying.

someone should throw you in a pit with Black Mambas we will see how subjective your need for antivenom is

Well, does he wanna live or die? Kinda depends on the answer. Subjective-as-fuck. Your mind? Blown.

?

>humans are all the same
>we want the same things
psh

>kill five niggers or kill a woman
This is tough

You're wrong. The reason you have that impression is that you spend too much time on Veeky Forums. Lots of people believe morality is objective, much more than you think.

But, with people who don't believe in God, subjective morality is a sort of hope, so you're going to find a lot of moral subjectivists on Veeky Forums.

Unfortunately the stupid retard Richard Joyce probably browses or phoneposts so I see some stupud shit about moral nihilism from time to time. Don't pay attention to that shit. Okay, user? Okay.

>Three men vs one woman
real tough.

It's not, actually. It just lacks context.

Unless the woman is the only woman in the world, or harming her does some great harm to the species that you are unaware of? You choose to kill fewer people through action than inaction. But only if the lever is in front of you and you are fully-aware of the scenario. Otherwise, you choose to kill more people through inaction by intentional ignorance than fewer people through action.

It isn't actually a hard problem. None of us, put in the situation, would have difficulty with it. The problem is that the drawing lacks a context, so it's really a psychological question, because it asks you to interpret the picture and develop your own context. How close was I to the lever? Did I know what would happen if I pulled it? How much time did I have to make the decision? Do I know any of the people? How many other people are there? Will my action have legal consequences, or do I believe that my action might have consequences? What might those consequences be? How long do I have to consider the consequences?

It's a stupid picture, because it doesn't answer any of the questions that, ultimately, make it a super-easy choice.

Congratulations. You have just shown that both of your posts are meaningless.

What? Why would you pass up the opportunity to kill 5 black people?

>You choose to kill fewer people
Hold on, why would I want to do that

Because you're an objectively(TM) good person :^)

Don't cut yourself with that edge, boys. But you would. Put six strangers in front of you and say "kill one or kill five" and you'll choose one, if there is zero other information about the scenario than that.

>Put six strangers in front of you and say "kill one or kill five" and you'll choose one
There is literally no guarantee that's the case. There are people who take pleasure in killing others and would choose to kill more people than less if they could. There is no reason to believe that I or the other user are not such a person, except that you've been surrounded in you life by people who are the opposite.

True. I assumed the question was posed without context such as "is the person being asked a total fucking psycho?"

You make a good argument for why it's a fucking stupid picture. Which I already pointed out back in , but whatevs.

No, that has nothing to do with what user was talking about samefriend. He was just referring that the biological aspect was objective, you don't understand what biological means do you?

*unsheats katana*

*unsheathes katana*

You have added context. There's a lurking premise in your claim that is based on nothing.

You are pretending to interpret user's comment to be a hypothetical based solely on the need for the body to survive. But that isn't contained within the hypothetical that you're responding to. You made that part up. My interpretation of it as a question about whether the person wishes to survive, and yours as an interpretation of whether or not the body of the person is capable of survival, are both totally subjective.

tldr: you're dumb and wrong.

Let me have my dumb fun.
>Put six strangers in front of you and say "kill one or kill five" and you'll choose one
Not equivalent to the trolley problem. The point isn't whether you can compare one life with five, it's in the (possible) difference between killing and letting die.

Moral relatavism is easily debunked and it's like lesson one in intro classes

If you can get away from a logical argument with the relativism handwave, u can't have real discussions. But there is room for subjectivity, but only in interpretation

How many times are you going to post that image?

Morality is based on affect.

I know what's good and what's evil because I know.

What's wrong with that image?

>Not equivalent to the trolley problem. The point isn't whether you can compare one life with five, it's in the (possible) difference between killing and letting die.
Based solely on the context you're inventing and applying to it. Look at the picture. Even the question of "which track does the trolly go on, if you don't pull the lever" isn't answered by it.

>If you can get away from a logical argument with the relativism handwave, u can't have real discussions
Oh no! I can't have "real discussions" (whatever that means). Moral relativism BTFO!!

nothing

Or is there? I guess it depends on our perspective.

Ok.

STOP POSTING THAT FUCKING FROG HOLY SHIT

Ok. Are you happy now bro? I can't stop the others from posting it though, they might do it just to annoy you now.

Oh look, the sperg doesn't know what objectivity is. End yourself, /pol/tard.
Illiterate

I need antivenom. Ergo it is subjective. Are you autistic?

That's not a debunking, you absolute retard.

It's factual that your body needs antivenom to survive in certain circumstances. That is the biological fact on it. Not arguable; not subjective.

What do you mean by "survive"? Certainly you would be "surviving" at least a little while after getting injected with antivenom. But you wouldn't "survive" indefinitely even if you didn't get injected with antivenom. So where's the cutoff point? How long do you need to live to count as having "survived"?

>TrolleyProblem.jpg
>1 white woman or 5 niggers
I think the joke went over your head, user.

his example was bad, but you don't understand what biological means clearly. For example, if you understand what objective means, and you understand what biological means, then it is a biological fact that a disease can directly kill somebody, same with venom.

The conundrum deepens.

The nigger would be raping the tied up white girl as the other fiver niggers die. Next question!

...

What is the race of the second lever-man?

he's latino

...

The five niggers still die, and the nigger and spic fight over who gets to rape the white girl.

>wikipedia definitions
Nope. Go back to plebbit.
Objects do not have needs, subjects have needs.
Biologically kys please, you STEMsperg retard

No the white girl gets killed too.

Are you retarded?

...

The plot thickens.

That's because it's a cartoon representation of the problem you mongoloid. The problem clearly states what way the trolley will go. Semantic games are sophistry.

>come on guys everyone is really a utilitarian they just are
>anyone who says they disagree with me is lying, ok I won the argument
Wish I could pull a lever and kill you right now

I think that was the point, tardo.

heh

Never go full postmodernism. Categories are spooks but they are true becuase they are useful and match up with reality. Go read some pragmatic epistomology.

>they are true becuase they are useful
This is such a pathetic cop-out

Utilitarianism is correct. There is literally no argument against killing less people instead of more people.

>are spooks but they are true
Uhhhh

>they are true becuase they are useful and match up with reality
I'm pretty sure this isn't what pragmatism states. But I could be wrong.

Have you cared at all to research and learn or are you sticking to guns you've carried your whole life?

sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0010027714002054

daily reminder that utilitarians are sociopaths

>Also?
>>>/reddit/

People who think there is no objective morality are self selected out of acadmia

There is literally no argument against killing more people instead of less

>Illiterate
monkey head

My impression is Utilitarianism can be cuckoldry, thanks to that cuck meme a few months back.

>comes home
>sees black dude fucking wife
>feels sad
>realizes that the happiness of two people is better than that of just one
>feels good and walks away

Pragmatism is post-modern you fucking moron.
Reality doesn't exist.
Go read any fucking epistemology you fucking maggot.

What? State your question clearly or stop wasting your superior's time you stupid fuck.

this is the basis for cuck logic usually if you ask them why. they also have autogynophilia and are aroused by women being pleasured in their vicinity.