Take ethics class

>Take ethics class
>Teacher is a universalist
Why are quixotic ideals so favored in academia? Is the baseline assumption that all cultures and ethnic folk are all exactly the same and ought to be treated the same popular because of all that weed people have been smoking?

If someone is a hypocrite in their actions against others, they can't escape it. It is objective in that sense.

>they can't escape it.
No? People can change certain aspects of their lifestyle if they so choose

Yes, but whether they ARE being a hypocrite is a matter of your own opinion.

You're also presuming that breaking the Golden Rule can never be ethically permissable, which is fairly childish.

>Do unto others as you would have done unto yourself
But other people aren't me?

No it's not, it's a matter of the subjects psychology. If they don't want people to lie to them, they shouldn't tell lies. If they do, they are a hypocrite. You realize words in our language do have an actual meaning don't you?

Let me guess. What is moral is what is best for """""humanity""""" right?

What about World War Two? According to the Golden Rule fighting it would have been completely unjustified. Yet, if it was not fought millions would have died.

In ethical dilemmas, the golden rule takes priority.

Yes, I think that war is immoral, but it is a necessary evil. A rational evil which is justified.

>take ethics class
>christfag arguing with the teacher every day

Define "lying".

According to Clinton's logic he wasn't lying when he said "I did not have sexual relations with that woman".

And that is where moral absolutism and the golden rule breaks down, it is dependent on individual, subjective logic.

As for your rather bizarre point on the meanings of words, so what? Words are wind. Homer thought the seas were "wine dark", we think they're blue. Who are we to say we are right and all others aren't?

It was 100% unjustified. Especially the invasion of Germany , had Hitler had his way h would've just migrated all the jews to Israel and kept the 1/4 mischlings in Germany... he literally warned people that if Germany were invaded before he could resettle the Jews he had a certain other solution in mind...

Why should it?

There you go. Breaking the Golden rule can be ethically permissable, and so it cannot be used as the be all and end all of all morality.

Lying is knowingly telling falsehoods.
If Clinton meant he didn't have sex with her, I guess he wasn't lying. But if he knew sexual relationships included oral sex in that definition then he was lying.

>Take ethics class
>Morality is universal and absolute
>gender roles are subjective
>Also fuck white people

So there we are. Now we're having to get into matters of opinion about what, exactly, "sexual relations" are. We see the golden rule is not an objective, logical measuring tool, it's based upon fundamentally subjective assumptions.

Like I said, it's dependent on the subject's state, but it is an objective measurement of such.

Nobody thinks gender's subjective, they argue it's a social construct.

>I-it's an objective measure of the subjective!

Give up, son.

by the support of reason, homie. being right about something isnt the same thing as claiming ownership of whats right. anyone can be right, its a matter of representing whats right.

What, there's no difference between truth and error? Same thing. How can you claim I am objectively wrong if it's a matter of opinion.

Social constructivism is a post modernist concept. Post modernist are hardcore subjectivists... their argument is that Gender roles are a social construct based an ad antiquitatem therefore anyone's personal gender indentification is true.

Aren't only a minority of philosophers relativists?

>your logic is only your own
This is not true.

In the Anglo sphere most academics are analytic philisophers who reject post modernism. On paper at least, I've had a very different experience t b h

Be honest OP, have you read Kant?
No, his wikipedia article doesn't dount.

It's this becoming a pasta now?

I don't, because I know you're too stubborn to understand that you're wrong. It's why you came here looking for validation after you lost your argument with the teacher.

I deal with this by being secure in my own opinion and reasoning, instead of needing my opinion to be the truth from which all others deviate.

The "truth" is a highly subjective thing.

Prove it.

>What is wrong with my generation??

Your species is being tortured, damned, and genocided by the gods for their treason - and it's exactly what you deserve for murdering God and committing genocide in his name.

> Then many will fall away,[c] and they will betray one another and hate one another. And many false prophets will arise and lead many astray. And because of the increase of lawlessness, the love of many will grow cold. But the one who endures to the end will be saved.

youtube.com/watch?v=HQjOcL6yMlI

even if you can you should quit if you're a philosophy major

Why should it surprise you that modern day post-imperial westerners choose the ethics that permit the most, restrict the least and excuse just about anything with minimal brainpower?

>If you have to choose between one evil and another, I'd rather not choose at all.
>If you have to choose
>I'd rather not choose at all
???
Inaction is an action in of itself m8.
Did you not like the taster session for A2 Philosophy and Ethics or are you shit posting the most basic of ethical arguments: deontology vs teleology?

What a coincidence that the people against morality are the ones that have a terrible, often sociopathic, behavior

>nazis
>debating civilizedly

you have to go back m´lad

ha I wish

Morality is subjective

Stirner stands no chance against Kant

>What is wrong with my generation??

There is absolutely nothing to imply ownership or any necessary relationship between language and the user of language. Whatever you signify, and whatever relationship you signify between what you signify and another thing you signify, can just as similarly be signified by any other person. When I point at a thing and say "This thing is here", this is ultimately and absolutely true for everyone. Me being me does nothing to change anything about whether or not the thing is there. We would actually need evidence to prove that logic and reason has anything whatsoever to do with the user of logic and reason than evidence to prove the opposite; the opposite is utterly self-evident.

>ethics class
That was your first mistake

>What a coincidence that the people against morality are the ones that have a terrible, often sociopathic, behavior

Whenever I see someone posting Stirner, the first thing I have in mind is: "that poor soul is miserable, I hope that he/she/it can get better later in life and can stop using antidepressants".

>hypothetical universe in which no life evolves
>somehow there is still an absolute "morality" that exists somehow

lol absolutists

Wait, who would've died exactly if no war was waged?

Morality applies to living beings with free will. You are fucking stupid if you think your argument proves anything.

it's objectively wrong to rape and kill a young girl just because you feel like it

anyone who disagrees with this truth is a psycho

you're not a psycho, are you?

So, it must not be absolute then, since it depends on life existing, genius.

>it's objectively wrong to rape and kill a young girl just because you feel like it
what if she's super hot and i'm really horny though
see? really makes ya think...

If I was a barbarian horse nomad and I saw a QT young Slav or Goth to take as a concubine, why not?

>"dogs are mammals"
>there's a hypotethical universe where life didn't develop
>therefore, it is wrong to say that dogs are mammals
Your logic is shit.

Yeah, but how would it make you feel if you were raped? Can't you see that it's wrong? Back to the golden rule...

>dogs are mammals according to this subjective subjective classification system we have agreed upon
>rape is immoral according to this subjective classification system we have agreed upon
thanks for proving my point.

>evil is evil
Imagine how different and simple the world must be if you have such a limited mind. Being stupid is a blessing.

So everything is subjective and we can't really kno nuffin? Thanks, Aristotle.

>If you have to choose between one evil and another, I'd rather not choose at all.
That's life... Everyone and everything lives on the proverbial blood of others, either directly or indirectly. Every moment you've been alive, someone else somewhere has suffered for. With every breath you take, you instill some degree of suffering the world.

And moral relativism doesn't mean there is no definition of good and evil, it merely acknowledges that each group creates its own definitions, and one may not agree with the other. If your society's moral code conflicts with another, then form your perspective, you are right, and they are wrong, and you are duty bound to act accordingly. Only moral objectivists believe that there's some universal morality and with enough reasoning we can all come to a single agreement, thus we must treat all cultures as equals, regardless of how distasteful they are, and reason with them towards a mutual understanding. Moral relativism acknowledges this may not be possible, that the only solutions may indeed be enforcement of one culture's beliefs over another, and thus there is no need for universal "acceptance". But I suppose that's just the sort of doublespeak we have running through our society today, where these two positions are often thought to each be exactly the opposite of what they really are.

There are patterns and those are not subjective. What a mammal is, is based on a pattern, not because we think or feel mammals should look a certain way.

You can also try to use patterns for moral, which is what we mostly do. The most used one would be something along the lines of Kant or the "golden rule", do onto others as you want them to do onto you".

Are there really people who think that there is something like objective moral? You can easily create scenarios where you have to break any rule made. Or would you argue that a police officer shooting a hostage-taker goes to hell for eternity? Why don't you have these simple thoughts on your own?

the creature that we are calling a "mammal" has objective characteristics, but our system by which we differentiate "mammals" from other groups is an arbitrary level of difference in characteristics

Are you starting to get it?

Still obviously wrong.

Good and bad only exist in the mind.

Therefore, they are by definition subjective, and can be whatever you want them to be.

VAE VICTUS
Morality is arbitrary. Only strength and weakness determine right or wrong.

lol what about taking defenseless women as concubines shows strength?

You killed all the other males defending them.

ITT : People fail to realize that perhaps there is a God and his divine commands are objective.

Explain how it is wrong?
He might have a lot of offspring, he might enjoy it, in the end he dies like everyone else and all his actions will be forgotten over time.
Christianity even defends rape in parts and if you "regret" it at the end of your life you're all fine.

Real question is what if two brothers rape a woman, one dies the next day and never regrets his actions because he still has the sweet smell of her pussy on his hands. The other one lives a long life, as he grows old and has children on his own he realizes that what he did as a young man was wrong and he truly regrets it.
One goes to hell for eternity the other one goes to heaven for eternity?

Two actions completely distinct from one another. Killing other males with equal intent in killing you might show strength, in so far as strength manifests itself in physical prowess, but the subsequent action of taking the women shows no such strength.

If a bird steals a bag of chips. Does it deserve the same jail time as a human?

I considered it but it seemed implausible.

How is it not wrong? You're denying the agency of another for the sake of your own. By all standards thats a moral infringement. It's wrong to do it today in America, it's wrong to do it 1200 years ago in Mongolia.

Whether or not its wrong has nothing to do with the perpetrator's reaction to it, nor does it have anything to do with whether or not it is "forgotten", your judgments are entirely dominated by your conceptions of time and space.

It does technically take some degree of strength to hold down a struggling victim during the rape.

Like I implied before, strength is not just physical.

It shows the strength to fulfill your desires. All those hot, young girls you see daily. We both know that what you want is to just grab their tits and fuck them from behind. Yet, all we do is quickly looking, always hoping we are not spotted so to not be a creep. They wear the shortest shorts and the deepest cleavage because they know you desire them and they want to taunt you, but because of society and what you deem right you don't act upon your desire.

Kill her husband and brothers and father and take her as a prize.

You simply want and you take and you remove the obstacles in the way of your object of desire. I don't see what "showing" has to do with anything. In 3 generations both of us will be dead, except I would have fathered 20 children and her family's male line would be exterminated. I removed sexual competitors and proved my evolutionary fitness. I don't see what's so hard to grasp. The moment you pick up the sword, you realize that words are arbitrary, it literally does not matter what you are fighting for, because if you kill the other man, you are now the only opinion.

>Or would you argue that a police officer shooting a hostage-taker goes to hell for eternity?
No, I'm not religious. Shooting a hostage taker, however, is immoral (as far as I see).
>Why don't you have these simple thoughts on your own?
I do have those thoughts you pompous cretin.

The rest of your post really has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. I was attacking your/some other user's bad logic that leads to total skepticism. You say nothing about that and don't clearly prove anything.

>It's wrong to do it today in America, it's wrong to do it 1200 years ago in Mongolia
>It was okay to do it 1200 years ago in Mongolia, it's okay to do it today in America

>By all standards
No, and I'm pretty sure raping women (of other tribes) was an okay thing for a longer time than it is seen as a bad thing. (though that is only an assumption)
>your judgments are entirely dominated by your conceptions of time and space
Not sure what you are trying to say here.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not a rapist. But your perception of what is wrong or right is coined by society and nothing else. For a long time gays would be killed or shamed, nowadays they are cheered on.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

>I'm pretty sure raping women (of other tribes) was an okay thing for a longer time than it is seen as a bad thing.

>your perception of what is wrong or right is coined by society and nothing else

That's fucking ludicrous, im talking about a system of morality that applies to all societies, you literally say that other societies thought it was ok to rape women so that means it was ok to them, but MY system of morality is only culturally predicated???? I feel dizzy

Well, my bad. I don't really understand the conversation you had beforehand and only replied to your last post, thinking you are arguing for moral absolutism.

Let me ask you a few questions.
Can a woman be raped by her husband?
In a rape, who is the injured party? Her family or her person?
Do children know what they are doing? At what age? Is it okay for children to go to war?

Again, i'm not talking about how rape is "seen" across cultures. On a moral scale, i'm talking about what rape IS. My argument is that it doesnt matter what the law of the land is, rape is objectively wrong. Doesn't matter if its a primitive tribe that practices rape regularly, or is some assailant in a american society in 2017. The argument that other societies in the past saw rape as alright is not sufficient, because it doesnt fucking matter what they thought or how they saw rape.

Then you claim that a system of morality i'm talking about is only culturally conditioned, but then argue against it by alluding to culturally conditioned understandings of rape. Are you mental?

There is a certain pattern of behaviors and morals that a society must follow in order to become more advanced. If they do not follow these patterns, eventually, societies that do follow them will advance past them and might end up with power over them. This would indicate there is a type of 'social natural selection' that is at the basis of morals.
'Don't kill your neighbor' and 'don't steal' wasn't just pulled from someones ass one day, it was observed that allowing those behaviors to continue left your society in a worse state than those who did not allow that behavior.
Now you have to ask, why is that the case? It certainly isn't because of anything we did. No human decided that murder and theft would have the negative consequences that it does. The only explanation is that some rule, or combination of rules, of our universe makes it so.
A 'Universal Morality' if you will.

Yes, a woman can be raped by her husband. Certain circumstances, even within the confines of a legal marriage as defined by today's society, can dictate a certain sexual exchange as rape.

Her person is the primary injured party, morally speaking. Although that's an oddly legal, and therefore cultural, framework. But sure.

That is a loaded af question. What constitutes "knowing" what you're doing for even an adult? Adults are necessarily responsible for their children.

This is another whacko fucking question. Children are utterly incapable of engaging in a broad political conflict, by both cultural and absolute standards. The question is gibberish.

>morality is a spook
This is a smart answer

>Then you claim that a system of morality i'm talking about is only culturally conditioned
yes

>but then argue against it by alluding to culturally conditioned understandings of rape
I don't know what that means nor how I implied that.
I believe that rape is only wrong if you perceive it as wrong, if someone else rapes a woman I also see it as wrong because I perceive it as wrong. I can't even imagine what an absolute moral system would look like desu.

America is based on theft and murder, the land was taken by force from people. The only thing that matters in nature is being fit enough to survive, being a nice guy does not necessarily mean you do great.

>America is based on theft and murder, the land was taken by force from people

My calm wasn't about how groups treat other groups, but how they treat people that are a part of their group. I think optimal way of treating outside groups is a much more advanced study that we probably don't even have a good grasp of today.

>being a nice guy does not necessarily mean you do great
I didn't argue that. My claim was that societies that allow people to do things like kill, rape and steal from each other will perform worse than those that do not and that this indicates there is some underlying principle at work that is not determined by human fiat.

This. The question is intra-group theft and murder. Conquering and plundering other group's shit doesn't prevent your own group from flourishing, hell it usually helps.

But doing that shit within your own society makes it impossible to actually produce anything, so you collapse.

Someone else, with equal validity, can say:
>A woman is not a legal person. Therefore she cannot be raped.
>A woman must be subservient to her man and give him sexual access to procreate.
Therefore she cannot be raped by her husband.
>A woman can be raped, if the man she is having sex with is not her husband.

>A woman's rape is an affront to her family's honor.
Read the story of Dinah in the Bible. She didn't get raped at all. She had premarital sex with a Canaanite prince and her brothers took vengeance and slaughtered the town, because he was sexually brazen with her.

>Children should know never to disobey the dear Leader.
>If a child tortures and murders another child or even an adult, they aren't liable.
>Children can go to war, grooming the mounts, fletching new arrows, tending the herd that will feed the warrior horde, and defend the camp if necessary.

Every single answer you've is noticeably tainted by your Western post-modern liberal values. There are civilizations and cultures that have flourished which have expounded some of these principles. In fact, some of these statements would not have seem outlandish a few decades ago in the same Western society you grew up in.

Moral relativism is practical in the real world.

>I don't know what that means nor how I implied that.
When you alluded to other tribes seeing rape as okay as an historical fact that objects to the idea of objective morality. That is an example of a culturally conditioned understanding of rape.

Can you not entertain the idea that some people can be wrong in their sensibilities? Even the ones that they settle into passively? I'll answer that for you: you CAN entertain the idea, because you entertain it for me and my conception of the morality of rape. Just because some people at one time were cool with rape does not obliterate the idea the all the people in history who thought rape was chill were all equally and completely wrong, and the idea that rape is objectively wrong across all time and space does not conflict with that.