Is morality objective?

If it was completely isolated groups of humans would form the same morals, but they don't.
Very basic things like murder and theft are generally universal but even that is stretched with ritualistic sacrifice and such.

That's not an avocation is practicing moral relativism in your daily life and public policy, but in a scientific sense it is relative.

wrong, different cultures and people have had different ways of explaining biology, or physics, or astronomy, but those are still objective

Biology, physics, and astronomy have nothing to do with morals.

Reminder: there's a reason debate clubs limit the number of points you can bring up, and certainly don't expect you to watch hours of film.

Make the point yourself, or fuck off.

But human behavior is a product of human biology, so human morality focuses on human issues such as calorie distribution, safety, intellectual and speech rules in society.
But if there was another race of nonhumans who had different biologists or psychologies they might have different morality that reflected their physiology. For instance if there was a race of aliens that were immortal and did not reproduce, their morality would not include things like rape or starvation.
Therefore morality is not objective since it depends completely on the biology of the moral agent.

I recommend it. His philosophy is actually quite nuanced.

> Implying any human concept can be objective

Logic is really only good for understanding logic.

His philosophy is basically just Objectivism. It isn't really nuanced at all. It just says "anything not of your own ego/self interest is a spook". You can't really be nuanced when all you do is disregard everything that has nothing to do with your self interest. It's just flat out rejecting and denying those other things.

His philosophy bears nothing in common with objectivism; even his understanding of egoism is completely different, and never touted as a moral maxim (or tied into a moral maxim). His main point isn't "fuck you, I got mine" it's that the ideas you hold dear should ultimately serve you (assuming you value personal autonomy), not the other way around, and that you should (assuming you value self-honesty) acknowledge that any decision you make or value you hold ultimately rests with you, as there is no a higher essence guiding them. There's a reason he's considered to be an influence on existentialism.

>It's just flat out rejecting and denying those other things.

While he does reject and deny those things (though he's not actually against morals or existential purpose, as he explains in Stirner's Critics), he doesn't just jam his fingers in his ears and sing. He points out that even the most secular and demystified of these ideas is ultimately without basis in reality, and is not actually something of substance.

If you did actually read his book, (assuming you're not the first guy who said he never had) you did a terrible fucking job of it.

>their morality would not include things like rape or starvation
so what? Let's say those aliens have no digestive system. that doesn't mean biologists can state facts about human digestion. Or that biology is no longer an objective discipline

>His philosophy is basically just Objectivism

Yeah, you definitely didn't read Stirner.

Yeah but their MORALITY will be different.

/thread

again, so what?
If their physiology makes it so they have different moral considerations, then so be it.
Just as they probably have different biological facts than we would have, they may have different moral facts. The only important consideration would be if there was a situation in which both organisms had a similar moral problem. For example if both organisms felt pain and valued their life, then killing either of them would be morally wrong. Just as if both organisms used saltatory conduction, we could state some biological facts about both organisms.

maybe human or rationalist morality

but absolute morality seems disjoint or independent of those although they often align.

Doesn't that only prove the universality of Due Process as a concept? Like sure ritual sacrifice might be legal in some culture but even then it's only the priest class that can do it and it involves selecting someone (often a prisoner of war) to do it. Joe Sixpack can't just murder another Joe Sixpack and have zero repercussions. Joe might get killed by a priest who's angry there's no rain but that's because he's speaking from a place of authority within the society.

No. Morality is ultimately baseless. It doesn't represent anything that actually exists outside of our minds.

the real question is: why would one be moral? does morality reward in the afterlife those who don't profit from immorality in this life?

>If it was completely isolated groups of humans would form the same morals, but they don't.
For the nth time, this objection is idiotic
>if the cause of volcanism was objective, completely isolated groups of human would form the same hypothesis, but they don't
I-D-I-O-T-I-C

>I called someone stupid online and didn't establish a counterargument now I feel smart!

Are you illiterate?
My post is 4 lines, one of which (the third) explains why it's a shitty argument. Being unable to understand 25% of what is written is pretty bad, user.

2 of your lines called someone idiotic
None of your lines were a counterargument.
None of your brain cells are functioning.

The reason why science can be empirically measured and established and not morality is because things can be measured through data in science. With morality, the only way to measure it is through feels, which doesn't have a damn SI unit. No two people on earth feel exactly the same way about what's right and wrong. Morality has no measurable standard, therefore there is no objectibe way to say another person's set of moralso is incorrect.

Forgot pic

>With morality, the only way to measure it is through feels
>I'm already going to assume there is no way to objectively assess the morality of something so that I can prove morality can not be objective, this is totally not circular logic guys
wow

//Thread

No.

But there are inherent truths among human societies. For example, most humans don't wish to do harm to others intentionally. We don't like to murder, steal, lie, etc. However, the more different we are from groups, the more indifferent we live, and we collectively not care when things like the holocaust happens, or that an entire race is enslaved. You could say "It's wrong to murder" and be right 99.9% of the time, and you could say "It's wrong to steal" and be right 95% of the time; and you could say "It's wrong to lie" and be right 75% of the time. But when you start to get down to things like cultural norms, laws, like drinking while driving, or smoking in public places, or allowing a child to make the decision to transition gender; those are the things that really matter, because there's no physical law or natural law that could ever account for those things, not even logic and reasoning.

Morality is a form of communication; that's all it is. It's like territoriality or body language. People with social and learning disorders often have problems learning right from wrong. People lacking empathy, without that ability to connect emotionally, learn the social cues, but the social cues are vestigial to them.

You could say "Logic and reasoning would dictate that a life of hard work, love, and intelligence would lead to a more fruitful and progressive life", but there is only justification when you actively imply one. Without justification, being a "good citizen" isn't really a reward in itself, neither is it moral.

>make a statement
>proceed to contradict himself
>proceed to contradict that contradiction
>claims that disabled people can't know right from wrong despite saying morality is not objective
Tripfags are a mistake

>can't know
Mostly can't know

That obvious fact doesn't change the validity of that guy's post as a comparison or analogy.

>Mostly can't know
>mostly
Where's the limit? Why's the limit?

Cont'd

There are two kinds of Moral relativism:

>Politically correct moral relativism
Politics is the art of compromise. It is literally built on the idea that one group should compromise with another group, in a way that mutually benefits or a way that is mutually less harmful. The moral relativism of politics is so normalized, that we're used to watching our own language to make sure we didn't misgender someone, say something racist, or call something gay. And while we're so forced into this behavior, even though it consumes us and makes us feel bad, and often depressed, we lash out against other people who externally express what we internally feel. Politically correct moral relativists exists because they think that political correctness is sociologically important.

>Tribal/Feudal moral relativism:
A child follows his mother, and his mother follows her husband; her husband follows the clan chief, and the clan chief follows the king/lord; the lord follows the gods, and the gods follow nature. This is the way it has been for thousands of years. There's no compulsion in association; we're not forced to tolerate other groups of people. And because there's no emphasis on progress, we live happily with our surroundings and environment, nothing more, nothing less. Our main justification is our morals relative to our people. Our only living compromise with law should be to the law of the divine order; though we have morals for our survival, it's better to die moral than to live immoral.

Those two kinds of moral relativism aren't fundamentally different in their origins?

If there was an answer to that then my ethics class would be less than half as long as it is.

Not a contradiction.

The inherent truth is that it's preferable not to sin. Though not generally preferable, it can be desirable given the right circumstances. Stealing from a rich doctor to give medicine to a poor woman. Murdering someone who lives an immoral life. Lying to the authorities to protect a loved one. As I said, morality is a form of communication; it depends on the relationship and the context; that's something that an objective law couldn't account for.

It's mutually beneficial that if I do something for you, that you do something for me; likewise, It's mutually beneficial to do to others as I would have them do for myself. But that doesn't mean it's justified. There is no justification. Justification is an idea based on a relationship, hence a social construct.

They're extremely different.
One is completely backwards.

A political way of thinking makes a relationship from compromise; the relationship then becomes the gold standard of society's expectations, its morals (political correctness), its territory (capitalism, private ownership, and government ownership), its leadership (democracy), and its citizenship (immigration and naturalization).

Conversely, a tribal way of thinking will only compromise under the authority of an already existing relationship. The emphasis isn't on the compromise, but the relationship itself. The morals are based solely on the relationship, as they should be.

Why don't you fuck make a point by yourself and then get into debating? The only thing you seem able to do is shitposting. Fuck off.
As for the thread, the argument "People have different morals therefore there is no objective morality" is a non-sequitur. For me the only way of putting in question the idea of objective morality is by an examination of our concepts of values, rights and duties.
[spoiler]And as for Lewis, he hasn't debunked shit[/spoiler]

failed spoilers, kek.
Veeky Forums doesn't allow it?

I actually don't see a necessary disagreement between Stirner and Kantian morality.

>The inherent truth is that it's preferable not to sin.
No it isn't? If morality isn't objective as you so claim then sinning doesn't become sinning when it suddenly be desirable.

Plus you are thinking objectivity as if it were an agreed subjectivities. You are not being internally consistent

>be me
>don't think morality is objective
>don't believe in cultural relativism

I'm in a dilly of a pickle, Veeky Forums

Under stirner you can do whatever you want. If following kantian ethics makes you happy go ahead. Stirner is more about rejecting outside values that dont hold any meaning to yourself and dont make you happy or give you any benefit.

Well, maybe we can work out a position for you.

How do you feel about this quote,

>The principle of cultural relativity does not mean that because the members of some savage tribe are allowed to behave in a certain way that this fact gives intellectual warrant for such behavior in all groups. Cultural relativity means, on the contrary, that the appropriateness of any positive or negative custom must be evaluated with regard to how this habit fits with other group habits. Having several wives makes economic sense among herders, not among hunters. While breeding a healthy skepticism as to the eternity of any value prized by a particular people, anthropology does not as a matter of theory deny the existence of moral absolutes. Rather, the use of the comparative method provides a scientific means of discovering such absolutes. If all surviving societies have found it necessary to impose some of the same restrictions upon the behavior of their members, this makes a strong argument that these aspects of the moral code are indispensable.

How? Kantian morality is absolute, you have a duty "just because". For Stirner there is no such a thing as an absolute duty (and that is what "categorical imperative" means).

The question that you need to ask yourself first is what are each of these "societal morals" based on and do those societal morals change?

no, the dude with the bigger gun decides the rules.
you can believe it´s "wrong" to impose your will by force, but it doesn´t matter because you are dead

By "Sin" I mean "transgression against law", whether that be God's law or Man's law.

Any objective form of "morality" is a compromise between two groups of people; that's not objective morality, that's POLITICS. Ayn Rand, for example, believes in individual freedom as long as man believes in the non-aggression principle, that is the freedom of speech, freedom to own private property, freedom to bear arms, etc, as long as those freedoms don't violate the non-aggression principle. Do you know what that is? It's an amoral compromise. Likewise, God tells us to obey the commandments and seek salvation, despite whether those commandments feel "right", literally putting Christian brother against heathen brother, for the sake of a belief. We're forcefed religion and politics, and we normalize it and join parties and sects that standardize and normalize those kinds of sick behaviors.

The only thing close to an objective morality is a religion or political view that maximizes moral interest. Think of it like a religion or political affiliation that emphasizes language, not that it constantly deconstructs the language (like modern English is today), but makes it as contextless as possible, that the context given to the language depends on the people and the relationships who use the language.

To reiterate, a theoretical "objective morality" isn't to maximize communication through compromise (political law), but to maximize communication through stable, sustainable and healthy human relationships. (The rule of honour)

Either it is objective, or it does not exist.

ok then apply logic to this.

let's say there is a massive famine and food is rationed by income
is it moral for somebody starving and poor to steal food from somebody rich and fat?

>Social consturcts do not exist

>don't do unto others what you don't want others to do unto you

Objective morality there,rooted in empathy and self preservation, Anything else is a cultural only thing, therefore prone to change over time

>but i have to Kill him or he was gonna kill me
checkmate atheist

Self preservation

Act of killing is bad, the killer know this because if he gets killed then it's indeed bad, but he has to do it otherwise he gets killed

When killing stops being a bad thing?

cuck

No, it's subjective. Subjective to what God wants.

Me fucking your mom, is that a good or bad thing?

>the killer know this because if he gets killed then it's indeed bad
That doesn't make any sense.

Its not entirely subjective. There are groundworks that aren't objective but heavily influence our subjective morality.

You have to be dead to know that your own dead is a bad thing?

I don't really get what the term objective is meant to mean in the context of morals desu, because morals require a subject.

Objectivity by definition removes subjectivity, so unless you're going to argue that rocks have ethics, I don't get the point of your question OP.

it means independent of minds, so that even if there were no minds to think about morality, some action like killing would still be morally wrong

Well that sounds completely incoherent to me.

objective/subjective distinction is a meme
>do some moral views have better reasons or arguments for them than others?
yes
>are some moral views wise and others dumb?
yes
>are some moral views true and others false?
yes
>is there an observable physical moral substance or force that is present in all good things and absent from all evil things?
no

why

Because it makes zero sense to talk about killing being wrong in a universe that doesn't have minds.

Maybe

>"even if there were no minds to think about morality, some action like killing would still be morally wrong" is completely incoherent because it makes zero sense to talk about killing being wrong in a universe that doesn't have minds.
>P is incoherent because P makes no sense
you are a fuckwit and a dumbfuck
do you know this

Take some fact about the human digestive system. If all humans dissapear, this fact is still true; biology is still objective

Take any moral fact that currently applies. If all minds suddenly dissapear, this fact is still true.

The only problem is your (mis)understanding of objectivity

Morals aren't facts.

The only thing objectively true about morals is that all humans have them.

What kind of "moral fact" are you talking about: a descriptive or a "normative fact" (what does this even mean?)? Could you give an example of an objective moral fact?