"morality is objective"

Doesn't sound very objective then.

>people who bleat "morality is subjective" every time they get called out for doing shitty things
i don't know a single case of someone who did this. how many mass murdering psychopaths were well-versed in The Ego and Its Own?

I do agree that we should have morality. on a societal level punishing "immoral" acts like murder is in the collective interest of everyone in that society. however, this isn't enough to truly justify morality on an individual level, even once we agree on which things should be punished by the collective. the best outcome for any individual is that everyone around them follows this moral code while they break it in secret. of course with good enough policing you can counter this by making the chances of being caught too high, though in practical terms you can never catch every crime.

Autism. The inability to recognize nuance and shades of grey is a common symptom.

Unironically autism.

no, it's basically like saying

If you cannot see that "For every natural number x, x = x" then you are not rational

only retards think 1+1 is obviously 2

I'm not talking about actual violent criminals, dude. Unless they're philosophy undergrads, when people parrot "morality is subjective", 99% of the time it's in an online debate and not real life - so I'm talking about the kinds of people who go on Veeky Forums, basically. It's not a defense psychopaths use to justify murder, it's a shield people use to avoid taking responsibility for boring old everyday shitty behavior.

>the best outcome

This is subjective.

For many people, the best outcome is a simple life of virtue.

>technology and mass surveillance making it more and more possible to enforce group morality at all times

This is an issue you really only find among analytics and it basically comes down to the fact that they're proud of not actually knowing anything. It's commonly held that continental philosophy is associated with the social sciences and analytic philosophy is associated with the "hard" sciences but analytic philosophers outside of obvious subsets like philosophy of science basically have zero interaction with science as it actually stands. When they say they're in accordance with natural science what they mean is that they have a fetishistic sort of belief in a kind of "rigor", where as long as your writing is 'clear', 'syntactically valid', etc. it doesn't matter if it's banal, unproductive, or just either ignores or contradicts empirical evidence. It all goes back to G.E. Moore and his dumb shit about his hands.

Which is why you see ridiculous stuff like in the OP. as long as you can form a logically valid argument (p, p>q; tf. q) then you don't have to actually give evidence for your premises because analytics only care about their aesthetic understanding of rigor.

Do you want me to murder you?

No.

no, actually an argument. I have never seen people in reality or in context make the argument 'why is morality contradictory.'

Why do people do it here? It is/was it autism?

This is reality.

Really? Exploring other cultures might help you then, in a non-ironic, literal sense. Or just reading history.

>It's because people confuse "objective" with "intersubjective." Morality may not be truly objective but there's still a basic set of moral precepts that almost everybody agrees with - everybody you're ever going to run into, anyway. Sure, there are people with truly alien value systems living in tribal backwaters out there, but come the fuck on, you're never going to debate morality with any of them.

t. liberal after the fall of positivism

>different cultures and scientists used to believe different stuff about the nature of physics / the law of physics, therefore physics is subjective

good one, user

Maybe it's because you only associate with brainlets of a like kind.

But I disagree with them.

Offline, then.

Is it because you are concerned about possible repercussions of people who do in fact have morality?

Really makes you think as to why we've got it. Almost like a group collective response desu

>Diversity = strength of argument
Nice false compromise bro

Good argument.
>inb4 poe's law

You could justify executing people for blasphemy in the same manner.

Because they don't know anything about moral philosophy and take things like that for granted?

that's exactly why I'm saying that you're assumption of their motivations is wrong: you have no idea because the only people who say it nowadays do so anonymously.

Our innate sense of morality is derived from evolutionary psychology. It's partially what's good for the species as a whole and what's good for us as individuals. A species that goes around murdering, raping, and stealing will likely be less successful than one with a sense of empathy.

>Our innate sense of morality
>Our

& Humanities with another quality (not really) thread

Morality is ultimately arbitrary and therefore should not constrain a person's behavior when determining alternatives and executing plans.

>clarifying your sarcasm with a parenthetical statement

>Our
Yes our

Your reply is the equivalent of a downsie say ">our" after someone mentions "our sense of rationality"

Got any evidence for your sweeping claim?

Obviously it's going to be different from person to person. But if you could measure the average, our species would show at least a semblance of empathy to others of our kind. If we didn't it is unlikely we would be here.

Why should I be concerned with the average?

Yes, because in the same way that logic is intuitive to the vast majority of people, morality is intuitive to the vast majority of people.

I'm just saying that when people talk about morality, that that's generally what they mean.

Yeah sorry I wasn't sure brainlets like you were able to recognize it so I had to be sure. Next time I'll humor you and pretend like you'd be smart enough to recognize it .

So morality is just what the average roughly feels?

Picture that as the center around which morality revolves.

How do you explain large groups behaving both illogically and immorally in the past?

>How do you explain large groups behaving both illogically and immorally in the past?
They were convinced it was moral

How do you know that's not happening to you in your life?

Lack of thought / lack of rigorous understanding of logics or moral philosophy

I believe that it is moral to defend oneself against people trying to harm you. If jews, as a whole, were actively trying to destroy the aryan race, then what the nazis did could be justified. I believe the nazis thought that the jews were trying to destroy them, in that sense they were "defending themselves." They had the same mindframe as I do, just on a larger scale.

Modern people have strong tendency to treat human rights like moral values as well, and modern people usually think human rights are objective.

But we're the ones who figured it all out?

I wasn't thinking specifically of the Holocaust.

I'm using that as an example of a group of people acting immorally in the past.

But your argument was specific to that example.
How was slavery defending oneself? Unless you're going to extend any individual gain to be defending oneself.

You're not even gonna argue in favor of your position? Just go nuh-uuh?

We have definitely made moral progress, but there are still unresolved issues (like abortion, animal rights etc), and obviously many people still hold onto immoral views

How do you distinguish unresolved issues and your own immoral beliefs?

In the case of slavery I don't know if anyone thought of it as moral, rather they didn't think it was immoral, because they thought they enslaved were subhuman. This isn't all slavery, I don't know about all of those examples. But I think when a group of normal people do bad things they've been convinced that what they are doing will lead to something good, like a utopia, or saving a population from damnation.

Because we're born with that programming
Don't worry sjws are working hard because the programming also includes strange sexualities.

You were born knowing murder is wrong?

If this was true then people wouldn't be arguing.

Based on the rational arguments in favour and arguments against a moral position

If there are good arguments both ways then I would consider the moral issue unresolved

Yes, just like all children.

But we've determined that people aren't very good at doing what you're describing.

I find it interesting that people who think humans have no innate morality can think that while sociopaths act distinctly from those who aren't sociopaths.

People in general are not good at almost anything (math logic physics chemistry) so that's why it's important to have people like professional philosophers that are rigorous in their analysis of moral arguments.

>people like professional philosophers that are rigorous
How can I trust a group who are majority moral realists yet reject aesthetic and gastronomic realism?

>Again, obviously it's technically true - art really is subjective,

this isn't obvious at all and the fact that you assume it is just shows how shit at grasping the basic argument you are

>aesthetic and gastronomic realism
These are debated issues and there are many on both sides

But moral realism is more heavily weighted. Why?
Feels like they want to control people's behavior.

this is just straight up untrue

people think they'er are objective right/wrong actions and it is this objective 'thing' to which our actions either correlate to or don't

which is why when we look back in time and see tings like the inquistion and witch buring etc, we think that what they did was wrong. it was morally wron then and it is morally wrong now

we don't say oh well it was seen as okay back then so I guess it was moral then but not now.

the holocaust doesn't become okay because the average nazi thought it was

morality is objective

put it this way, what is the difference between the two statements:
>That woman is 32 years old
>killling that woman is wrong

the two statements have the same structure. x is y. so tell me why is one an objective right/wrong statement and the other is supposedly some wishy washy maybe it's right in this time period/cuture maybe it's wrong, it's based on averages, it's relative bla blla

it makes no sense. both statements are statements of fact. they are either true or false.

just because we cannot touch with our hands that which our moral statements correlate to, doesn't mean it doesn't exist

Hello r/askphilosophy. I'm guessing this is you.

reddit.com/r/askphilosophy/comments/321abt/if_you_are_a_moral_realist_are_you_also_by_the/

>put it this way, what is the difference between the two statements:
One is an opinion.

No.

>Murder, rape and theft are all seen as immoral.
Hi, my name is Chagatai/Olaf//Ulfric/Mehmet/Yasuke/Igor/etc..

It has a better consensus because it is studied more. I guess this is because philosophers don't pick their field of study out of a hat; more are interested in moral questions than whether Chinese food is better than thai

>How can I trust a group who are majority moral realists yet reject aesthetic and gastronomic realism?
Because they are different things and the arguments that try to show they are all the same are not that sound.

>more are interested in moral questions than whether Chinese food is better than thai
Because they want to control people.

>Yes, just like all children.
You mean the same kids that are known to torture animals sometimes(some of them), bully each other, and need adults to teach them to share and not act like little shits?

Of course, they don't do stuff like murder, but still...

Because almost every single moral nihilist doesn't have any argument in favor of their position, they just raise very shitty objections towards moral realism. What people do then is point out that there are things that everyone think is wrong and if you disagree with it, social shame is hopefully going to shut you up so we don't have to listen to your claptrap.

>le evil conspiracy

Who said conspiracy? It's individual desires aligning.

well...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murder_of_James_Bulger

>m8 it's not a conspiracy, I'm just saying that these guys are going into a socially irrelevant field in order to exert their non-existent power on society as a whole
lmao

>What people do then is point out that there are things that everyone think is wrong
But this isn't true.
>and if you disagree with it, social shame is hopefully going to shut you up so we don't have to listen to your claptrap.
Might as well save time and start the "argument" with that user.

So I guess that's also why OP made a thread on this topic rather than on aesthetic philosophy?

It's simply the manifestation of their core personality which is to tell others how to act.
If they were had different interests, talents, intelligence etc they might become a financier or a psychologist or a police officer.

>But this isn't true
But it is true.

No it isn't.

Wow, psychologizing away a position, woooow

It is, you just need to restrict the statement enough and you can apply it to every society.
For example "killing someone is wrong" might not be considered evil everywhere but something like "killing in cold blood someone of your same social status just because you wanted to see him die" is considered to be evil by everyone.

You said everyone not every society.
You also assume there are no two societies with disjoint moral sets.

I said every society as in "every individual composing those societies".

>You mean the same kids that are known to do things propers of devils that normal humans would do only by accident?

Yes, we're mixed with devils, glad you noticed.

But that's not true.

Of course it is, who exactly doesn't agree with a statement like the one I said earlier?