There is more than one "objective" morality system. As you have to pick one, you pick by taste, your choice is subjective.
Even if it wasn't, you can claim that you didn't pick by taste, but by reason, there's disagreement about which "objective" system is the "real" one. You can't settle this the way you settle disputes in science. There's no experiment which can prove one of you is wrong, and the other is objectively right.
Therefore, everyone is subjectivist. Everyone that doesn't admit this is a hypocrite who is using objectivism to make people do what he wants them to do, when they don't want to do it.
Because it's easier to manipulate others by saying "This is what is objectively right / this is a (moral) fact / something that I didn't decide" etc. than saying "I think you should do this because I think this is right / right for you."
Objectivism is just a dangerous mask for subjectivism
babby's first metaethical thoughts
>more than one objective morality system
lol
>as you have to pick one, pick by taste
lol, you are compelled to abide by it once you discover it, and if you don't you become a hypocrite and you know this and cognitive and spiritual dissonance emerge
>you can claim that you didn't pick by taste, but by reason, there's disagreement about which "objective" system is the "real" one. You can't settle this the way you settle disputes in science.
the fact that you can argue something doesn't invalidate it, since anything can be argued, mathematicians argue over definitions of numbers and simple operators. Science has the problem of induction inherent to it.
>Everyone that doesn't admit this is a hypocrite who is using objectivism to make people do what he wants them to do
there's no such thing as hypocrisy in the subjectivist aka relativist system of thought because it never arrives at any truth or determination about anything, it is simply wallowing in skepticism, so you can't know what you're talking about by definition
There is no objectively right moral system. But that doesn't mean all moral systems are equal.
Once you pick some criteria to judge moral systems on, then you can compare them quantitatively. Your stupid made up subjective moral system is not on par with the naturally grown moral systems that are established around the world in terms of producing functional societies. If you think that people should respect your made up morals to the same degree as they respect for instance the western christian enlightenment tradition, just because "everything is subjective, lol" then you are a fool who should hang himself in a closet. Because you are a danger to yourself and your surroundings.
I remember watching a video by Chomsky where he heavily implied that modern academia was intentionally focusing on subjectivity as a valid form of thinking as opposed to stressing the objectivity of things. By doing so they keep people confused self interested and vacuous.
Did you all really think you were smart enough to come to the same conclusion as everyone as verbatim. Lol.
The only people I have ever heard of argue against striving for objectivity have all been wingnut loonies who were too dumb and lazy to even try to conceal, if not suppress, their biases.
>Haha don't you brainlets know everything is political? Now stop complaing about me trying to derail every single conversation we hold about how terrible Drumpf/Killary is.
This kind of person, basically.
Obviously your opinion that everything is subjective is truly objective.
here, let me prove that objectivism is wrong:
>There is more than one "objective" morality system
step 1: assume that objectivism is wrong
step 2: QED
A lot of these argument hinge on a superficial view of subjectivism. What if I'm a subjectivist, and it pleases me to help others, even strangers? It's then in my interests to help them. Subjectivism doesn't necessary or automatically make people self-interested.
I think it is actually the objectivists the ones who are hiding their biases, not the subjectivists. The latter are honest about them. You can have a 100% logically sound moral system, but why should I or anyone adopt it? Why should I care? Why do I care about functional societies? You could say, it will fuck YOU up -- congrats, you just proved my point. Or you could say, because of other people, you shouldn't hurt them or whatever, it's not fair to them etc. But it against proves my point that it boils down to me, if I don't care about others, I shouldn't and won't adopt that objective-collectivist system.
Care comes before systems. There's no motivation otherwise.
I think it's possible to adopt a collectivist system of morals on an object/normative level, but the meta level of subjectivism is inescapable.
Also, subjectivism doesn't imo mean that everything is then equally unimportant or that nothing matters or something like that. What is important to me, is important. What is important to other can also be important to me (because I agree with them, share values, we are close friends or family, but even strangers because I don't want hardship to anyone who didn't deserve it).
>There is more than one "objective" morality system. As you have to pick one, you pick by taste, your choice is subjective.
no. you just think objective means subjective. "objectivists" act in ways that they do not want to because they know they should. because on an innate sense of right and wrong -- human consciousness.
so you think I'm a hypocrite? the key difference you should note is that my "morality" demands things of me. it demands that i have self-control in order to do the most good I am capable of, the self-control to act or not act. you are quick to label people as hypocrites because you've never seen and/or cannot recognize integrity in people. westerners turned reactionary from their falling out with christianity always sound like OP. what you are expressing is a world-weariness. all you can see is the exploitation of others through deception and duplicity, not the alignment of man with his spirit. furthermore if you actually bothered to study "spiritual" texts you'd find that they all point to the same principles.
Good post
Good "Good post" post.
There is one objective moral system. That is the point. There are multiple concepts as to what that moral system might be. You cannot say with any assurance that you have found it. But the point is you avoid the idea of “lol do what u wanna do bro”.
>“lol do what u wanna do bro"
Prove that this is objectively false.
Prove what is objectively false?
Imagine caring about this type of shit lol
Subjectivism isn't “lol do what u wanna do bro." There's still the conflict between short-term goals and long-term goals. Obviously you should go for long-term ones, and that's the part that stops you to do whatever. Also, if you as a subjectivist care about someone else's goal that conflicts with yours, you might not do what you want (although this is admittedly still doing what I want, just roundabout).
Tbh, as the OP, I'm starting to think this also, why am I crazy to care about this, what does it matter even, who cares.
unnecessary post
>Do I want to starve to death
>No
>Am I more valuable than other people (such that me starving to death would matter in some way, but them starving to death wouldn’t
>No
>It must matter if other people starve to death
So, any action which leads to people starving (more generally, other people starving, is wrong or at least hypocritical).
I've encountered this line of thinking from a kantian once. I think I could argue out of, but I'm not sure even I'm that much of a scumbag. But let's play devil's advocate:
>Am I more valuable than other people (such that me starving to death would matter in some way, but them starving to death wouldn’t
I am more valuable to myself than other people are valuable to myself.
Also, the notion that some people are more valuable than others and that their deaths matter presuppose a system which calculates their values. Usually utilitarian systems. But what if you operate on a egoist system? It's probably the best argument yet, but it doesn't seem like it's set in stone either. I might agree with you, but that still presupposed *I* *agree* which is, again, subjectivism.
Actually, it is. Since the only empirical entity that actually exists in reality that contains ethical judgements are human brains, and each one has different notions of it, would mean subjectivism is objectively true.
Unnecessary "unnecessary post" post
Your points 2 and 3 aren't remotely objective.
The idea of a moral system in itself is subjective. We define words like "good" and "bad" because we are biologically hardwired to create categorizations separating the actions that are desirable for our own lives from the undesirable. An objective moral system implies that actions within the system, which only occur and can only be codified in terms that are subjective, are objectively true in all cases. By codifying these terms you are inevitably creating a sort of linguistic pair of "goggles" in order to see morality correctly. But these goggles can only be used by subjects in the system, and everything that each subject will see through the goggles will always be at least somewhat different in some way. The system can't use these goggles. It would be like saying that one of your gut bacteria is acting "morally" for killing another immoral gut bacteria.
How can there be more than one objective system of morality when God gave the power of loosing and binding to St Peter alone? Whatever the Magisterium of the Catholic Church declares to be moral is moral.
There we go.