Accidentally let slip in a Philosophy class that I don't believe in an objective morality or at least I don't think we...

>accidentally let slip in a Philosophy class that I don't believe in an objective morality or at least I don't think we can currently tell that there is an objective morality
>proceed to get a few snickers and a few looks of disgust
Did I make a mistake Veeky Forums?

You clear don't practice what you preach

>Philosophy class
user...

Nah, they're just being cunts.
Academia has fads where people all pretend you HAVE to believe in X or Y but it's ultimately still the same "b-because we want it so" bullshit as always.

The professor wanted me to take it, I couldn't really say no, could I?
Just to correct the OP, my personal beliefs are that I don't think we currently have the means to determine if there is an objective morality/what that morality is. I said as much in response to someone saying there had to a be an objective morality.
You're right though; personal bias prevents me from practicing what I preach, since I trend towards not believing in an objective reality, but it's not a belief that I would not change in the face of compelling evidence to the contrary. So the stronger of the two beliefs is the skepticism, while the weaker is the result of personal biases.

If chaos theory is false than everything is objective. Sorry.

Morality is an immaterial concept, how does chaos theory have anything at all to do with this?

And if it was a definite object it doesn't mean we can observe everything about it objectively. Do not the limitations of our form restrict us? Subjectivity of morality is the understanding of morality gained through personal experience. If no man can have a complete experience of human interaction, how then can anyone lay claim to an objective morality?

Common morality comes from the similarity between our human experiences. The wide majority will agree that murder is immoral because they fear death, value innocent life, etc. for example.

The idea of a common morality is desirable, but even if humanity would all come together and agree on a set of moral guidelines, it would be incomplete.

Imagine a Venn diagram with billions of circles, and a small amorphous patch where 90% of the circles overlap. This form would represent the common ground, but not in any way a complete set of objective morals, This isn't to say morals don't or shouldn't exist, just that differences in how you were raised will change people's perception of what morality is - and people should be aware of the divide before assuming they cannot err in their beliefs.

I imagine many people see morality as something to be 'discovered,' in that it exists in a spiritual sense, like a conscience, and with study and logical deduction and extrapolation we can extract moral truth. That's not something I can really argue against.

Stick to what you find to be true. Argue it to the best of your ability. Don't let those cunts tell you what to think.

If something is objectively right or wrong shouldn't there then also be objectively existing enforcer of such morality? And if said enforcer is sentient then the objective morality doesn't actually exist as it's just enforced as the enforcer wills? I mean god has changed his mind in the books so it's kind of hard to speak of objective good and evil.

Morality is in the domain of intuition, not of intelligence. It is beyond objectivity, reason and science. If you go into yourself you can find out what the right things to do are.
This is a position that will be widely ridiculed because we live in an age of reason and intuition is something confined to tarot readings and new age religion.

>Morality is intuitive
Really?
Let's drop 400 babies in pods then when they are 4 having had no human contact drop them in the middle of a jungle.

I don't either. Though I don't think its actually rationally possible.

Though the last time I discussed it here I ended up with an user arguing semantics.

Pretty sure I do. But I have a feeling we might not agree on what that looks like.

What's wrong with Philosophy?

Wank.

Like you said though, you saw us coming.

What's first year like buddy?

If you didn't realize this at 9, you should probably kill yourself.

You seem to be victim of a category error. Intuition =|= instinct

They were laughing at you because you're probably an idiotic undergrad with a poorly thought out metaethics, like most people on this website.

>If chaos theory is false

This is why you pay attention when the science teacher explains the different ways the word theory is used

>If no man can have a complete experience of human interaction, how then can anyone lay claim to an objective morality?
Rather than thinking of this as some complete set of true normative claims or an adequate set of laws to govern the interactions of all sentient beings, think of 'objective' morality as being the simple concept of morality or process of moral activity purely as an object of consciousness; that is, objective morality is present any time that a sentient being pauses to make a moral judgment or perceives one and encounters morality.
You're asking for something that nobody is prepared to offer and which isn't satisfying anyway, objective morality is present in a sincere, weary smile. It isn't a set of rules to be handed down to you as if you were supposed to know every fact about morality by rote, rather than to behave morally by instinct.

No, what you said is accurate. It's impossible to know whether or not anyone is ever being true in what they say. There is a very high probability of a general morality, don't kill, don't steal, don't rape, etc. but humans have broke these constantly throughout history.

Moral error theory is far from "poorly thought metaethics". While a minority view in the academia, it is still respected.

thank you for the reply. I was not so much offering a vision of morality as it is as i was - in my head - refuting the idea of people speaking of objective morality in situations like the OP's.

That is to say, the idea of a socially imposed morality being the highest desirable form of conscience - from an purely materialistic academic setting. I find the divide of purely rejecting all but the physical, yet strongly feeling as if there is a clear and all-encompassing moral guideline in their lives, incredulous. I have met many people who are firmly atheistic, yet have a seemingly unfounded sense of self-assurance in their morals, and in their ability to instantly be able to choose the morally preferable choice in any situation. Likewise, the common practice of treating the commonly understood social morality in their community as the final form of morality, and pinnacle of human history.

I do consider myself religious but i think that in a purely secular discussion asserting that an objective morality can exist - and even more so, already exists and is known to the person in its complete form - sounds like a load of pretentious shit.

I wasn't really saying this at anyone in this thread, just posting my thoughts i suppose

Error theory as it's presented by philosophers =/= average mouthbreather in a phil101 class or on Veeky Forums

the whole objective/subjective morality debate rests on a notion of truth that is basically statements gain truth value by corresponding (either correctly or incorrectly) to the external world

this is wrong

also it's confusing. what does 'morals are subjective' even mean? that no moral statement has a truth value? or that people have different ideas on what is right and wrong? all moral statements are false because the "right/wrong" doesn't correspond to anything?

and what does 'morals are objective' actually mean? I suppose people think it means moral statements correspond to something external in reality which when the correspondence happens makes that statement true. for example "killing innocent babies is wrong" is true because a god exists and that statement corresponds to the external moral fact the god created

the whole debate is confused. we need to all shed ourselves from this notion that truth is correspondence between our statements and the external world.

how about we just start really simply. without bining in right/wrong or subjective/objective i think we can skirt it by all agreeing that there are some things that should not be done. right?

I think most people can agree to that. then the morality debate just comes down to exactly what are those things people should not do. and so we debate about that

all this talk of truth value and statements and bla bla is a sort of red herring. it doesn't really have anything to do with morality. morality is essentially political, it comes down to behaviour and actions between people

Why are there so many atheists adamant that morality is objective?

>I think we can skirt it by all agreeing that there are some things that should not be done. right?

Objectively, no I disagree.

A means is to an end. Without that end the means is irrelevant, therefore there are only 'some things that should not be done' to achieve some subjective goal.