"Objective morality exists, for example murder is wrong"

>Do unto others as you would have them do unto you
>Why
>Because if you don't work with me , I will tie you up, rape you in front of your mother, then behead you to the tune of my favorite nasheed. Do you want that?
Makes sense to me.

Well, most people suffer from post traumatic stress after witnessing or committing murder, so no you really can't profit from it unless you have a severe lack of empathy.

murder is wrong by definition
it's called deductive logic
also you're an idiot

How much is PTSD worth? I'd take 500k with it.

>most people suffer from post traumatic stress after witnessing or committing murder
What's your source for "most" people?

>How much does it cost
Most of your soul.

Studies done on soldiers, basic understanding of anti-social personality disorder.

Where is that? I'd trade it in a heartbeat, but I can't find it.

Everything that lives doesn't want to get murdered this doesn't mean that they wouldn't murder something themselves.

Again with this shitty thread? Fuck off, psychopath.

Also we shouldn't be using the word murder. We should be using the word kill

>if you don't agree with popular morality you're mentally ill
This seems like a cop out.
>murder is wrong by definition
That's not very convincing.

Kant's categorical imperative already argued excellently that objective morality is real and that it's a logical conclusion, not based on appeals to God or subjective opinion.
Objective morality is the logical position. Thinking that morality is subjective is the emotional position
>wah wah everyone's opinions are equal morality is a social cultural construct you bigot wah wah

you obviously don't know what "by definition" means
try learning something before you speak anime sperg lord

>>wah wah everyone's opinions are equal morality is a social cultural construct you bigot wah wah
Nobody said this.

If you don't believe in anything,mlosing your souls means being tormented by guilt, being unable to sleep (and when you can oh boy, enjoy those nightmares) and a great deal of psychotic events. It fucks you up.
Also

I'm pretty sure that at this price you would have to kill a president, or someone as relevant as him.

These behaviours show up way before your first mature thought about morality. I can assure you that the most problematic and cold-hearted individuals you can find showed those signs in their infancy.

t. Have worked in prisons (therapist assistant)

It's wrong even on a practical sense.
Would you rather live in a society were murder is O.K. for whatever reason people can make up in their minds or one were its frowned upon and therefore less likely to happen?

Ants own part of their success to the fact that they dont have to fight among themselves, only external threats.

an excellent argument doesn't mean its true
Kant's argument has problems in that it repeats itself
while i also agree with Kant his moral system falls short in certain cases
I don't disagree with your point but i do with how you presented it

Why would killing someone torment you and make you unable to sleep?
Maybe for highly empathic people.

What incentive is there to follow Kant's morality versus any other morality constructed logically?
Why is his the correct one?

>Why would killing someone torment you and make you unable to sleep?
Almost everyone is programmed this way, and in very few situations one has enough occasions to get used to it. War is one of those situations, and even then more often than not it's extremely taxing on the soldiers' psyche.

>Maybe for highly empathic people.
You don't know from the start if you can handle it. It's a coin toss, and if it fails you're going to live a Hell-ish life.

Humans have killed each other for thousands of years, just now they get PTSD from it? It used to be considered sport.

What evidence do you have for this?

Nobody said it in this thread, I'm just strawmanning my opposition before they can counterargue. it's the gist of the "morality is subjective" argument. "Everyone has different views so who's to say? How can you prove one view is wrong and another right for something like that? All cultures and times have had different views and religions have different views so how can you say one is right?" Well just understand the categorical imperative and you got it. Morality was solved 200 years ago.

I can even disprove moral relativism with a proof by induction: assume moral relativism is true. Well, that is itself an objective statement - the objective morality is that all morality is subjective. This however is a contradiction, and thus moral relativism can not be true. Therefor, some form of objective morality is true.
Note that that proof does not say which moral code is true, just that there must be some moral code that is true that is not relativism.

I believe it's estimated around 1% of people are psychopaths and if empathy is a spectrum there's going to be a fair bit more who would be relatively unfazed by taking a life.
At the very least I doubt everyone would be waking up in cold sweats racked with guilt for years.

People used to buy tickets to watch executions. Ancient people were all psychopats.

So you would tell the murderer the truth?

Or is everyone a pussy today? What's more likely?

The pussies are just more outspoken.

As I've said, I've worked for 12 years now in some pretty fucked up Southern Italian prisons. Take it with a grain of salt, it's all anecdotal.

I wouldn't say that this applies to everyone, but I would still say that it applies to too many people for you to take this risk. To some of the people I've met this applied for way less extreme crimes, such as beatings and robbing.

Killing someone and watching someone die are completely different things that are processed phisiologicalky and psychologically in extremely different manners. Think about the difference between throwing a real punch (which is something that stays in your experience for a few days) and watching a boxing match.

Humans have started diagnosing PTSD in soldiers fairly recently, the bulk of the first reaearches come from WWI, and through that bulk we arrived to the contemporary notion of this mental illness.
It's like asking if we're turning autistic: no, people just didn't diagnose it in the past.

Moral conscience you psychopath, normal guys must mentally dehumanize someone to callously murder them where as soulless monsters like you can kill someone while staring at paint.

I disagree, man existed just fine without the labels of mental illness. They have become excuses for being mental wrecks.

I feel like most of the stress would be from fear of getting caught and punished.

Again, you can spot a sociopath when he is 3 or 4, in special cases even when he is 2. It goes far beyond the ideas someone matures in his lifetime: these tendencies are often programmed into your behaviour from your first infancy.

Then war-related PTSD would not be present in soldiers who knew that they were fighting a just war (for example French soldiers defending Paris from the Germans dueing WWI).
From what I've seen, the simple act of experiencing the act of killing from your point od view is enough to fuck up with most people brains, and for most people getting used to it is simply impossible.

Psychopaths are cancer they ruin order in society, the concept of law was made by human civilizations to deal with these pieces of shit.

*murders you

There's far more stressors present in war than simply the act of killing.

>Again, you can spot a sociopath when he is 3 or 4, in special cases even when he is 2
What evidence do you have for this?

Then why did Axis soldiers who were involved with the execution of prisoners/undesirables experience PTSD? They weren't in any danger and believed themselves to be morally justified in their actions

You can get PTSD from a brawl, someone stabbing you, by watching a beloved one die, etc., war is just the context in which research started.

Just conversations with the therapists I've worked with. I'm going to work in 1 hour, so I might ask them some sources on it later on and post them here.

Because they knew they were going to get caught and tried for war crimes.
Whenever they find one of those old concentration camp guards who snuck away they seem to be doing fine.

I would appreciate that

Why is order to be desired?

>Because they knew they were going to get caught and tried for war crimes.
We are talking about the very first days of the war. Executions in Poland were already an hassle.

he's talking about objective morality though
that's where the other guy made a mistake

the only objective morality is perfect judgement at the hands of God

kek

I really don't understand this shit either. For an entirely different reason though.

Almost no one except weird pacifists thinks killing in self defense or in wartime is wrong. 'Murder' is just illegal killing. Why do people act like the state and it's laws are somehow infallible? Like, yeah, I get that I'm weird in thinking all authority is by definition illegitimate, but does almost everyone else assume law is /that fucking great/?

>disagreeing with someone who's job it is to know and deal with this because you wan't to be a killah so bad

fuck off

psychopaths are actually desired if they can keep their urges in because they make the best CEO's/executives

>psychology

This,its like we're seeing this thread every week now.
Its basically that everyone agrees to not do a thing you wouldn't want to happen to yourself, so badically a social contract to keep an evil away from society.

what are you, a STEM fag? fuck off
people who imply psychology isn't a real science are fucking brainlets jesus christ

>giving in to spooks

Not an argument

how's this for an argument:
you have no fucking incentive to hurt another human being therefor you musn't, if you try, you will get ass raped since the majority will support that person

i get the feeling you're kinda primalistic so i'll put it this way

humans have tried and refined the art of putting wild dogs and dangerous animals down so if you resemble their behaviour, they'll take you down aswell

right of the strongest

Oh nice we have another edgy autist here.

>j-just ignore the replication crisis

>you have no fucking incentive to hurt another human being
Profit, pleasure, curiosity, etc.
> if you try, you will get ass raped since the majority will support that person
"my morality is objective because if you don't do what I say we'll kill you"
bravo

one incident means the whole branch of science is all goofs and gafs? nice logic

>not seeing how this is a very new branch of science

i never said it was objective
but it might aswell be, because if you disagree and go hogwild ... we'll kill you

If you value your own life it follows you should value other lives, unless you'd like to explain why you're a special snowflake.

anyways i'm off to school
got a test about animal behaviour

imprinting and stuff.

>field wide failure of studies
>one incident

So slavery was moral?

morality is subjective, and no it wasn't because the majority of slaves was against it along with north america

if it was moral britain wouldnt have abolished it

If youre a dangerous outlier in society you have to get fixed or removed I don't see how this is illogical.

>So capitalism was moral?
>"morality is subjective, and no it wasn't because the majority of wage slaves were against it along with the pan African union
>"if it was moral the Federated States of Europe wouldnt have abolished it"

1. Your definition of best is dependent on the maximizing of shareholder value as being the main goal. Having a sociopath in charge will not be particularly beneficial to most stakeholders of a company, whether they be lower level employees or the local community
2. For every sociopath who goes on to become a CEO there are roughly 6 who go on to become convicted criminals. I don't think 'enhanced' corporate performance makes this a worthwhile ratio for society (t. jon ronson)

>For every sociopath who goes on to become a CEO there are roughly 6 who go on to become convicted criminals
Source: your ass.

the proportion of CEOs to convicted criminals is far less than 1/6 in general, why do you believe it is much different for sociopaths

is this something you really need to pour over statistics to prove

So you admit to making up the number 6?

Just because I personally wouldn't do something doesn't make it wrong.

>If you value your own life it follows you should value other lives
No, it doesn't.

>unless you'd like to explain why you're a special snowflake.
Nothing special about me, I also expect others to value their own lives more than mine.

not , just saying

Google says 1800 CEOs and over 8 million criminals in jail/prison/parole (not including those who served their time), so there are at least 4444 (8000000/1800) criminals per CEO in the general population.

If the proportion among sociopaths is at least 6, this would mean it is a whopping 741 times smaller which can't possibly true.

I don't know where got the 6 figure from. Getting back to the point, there certainly are many more sociopath criminals than sociopath CEOs.

Perhaps he should have said that instead of making up an obviously fictional figure.
Besides the fact that sociopaths can be more than just CEO or criminal.

>there certainly are many more sociopath criminals than sociopath CEOs.

In absolute terms sure but as a proportion, maybe not. Around half of all criminals are sociopathic, I'd be surprised if the proportion of sociopath CEOs was lower than that.

>implying capitalists have morals
if they even have some they have few. you can not have morals

Even if any god were real, no, that wouldn't be enough.

Which means there's no objective morality.

>would you really kill someone even if there was no consequence?
I would if I thought they deserved it.

I doubt I'd ever kill someone for money even if I was assured that there were no consequences, but there's quite a list of people (mostly politicians from many different countries) I would be more than happy to torture to death if given the opportunity.

ITT: op wants to look like a cold hearted badass

Killing isn't objectively right or wrong, but it's not beneficial for weaklings like OP to live in a society indiffernet to killing

OP would be killed straight away

Go live in some lawless African shithole then if you think civilised people and laws aren't so great

Oh wait. You'd get your shit pushed in by dindus with AK's

>that wouldn't be enough.
If we are talking the Christian God here, isn't he literal truth, justice, and good incarnate? If he says it's wrong, would that make it objectively wrong?

Christians say yes, I say no.

Morality would still be subjective, we would just be using the subjective standards of one particular deity. Being "justice and good incarnate" when you define what justice and good means is little more than inflating your own ego and imposing your values on others (which, if the Christian god existed, he could very easily do because he's also omnipotent).

>Everything that lives doesn't want to get murdered

There are people who are murdering themselves

>Killing isn't objectively right or wrong
t. brainlet with no understanding of the law or war

>that means there's no objective morality
sheesh it's not like i've been saying that for the past 9,000 posts

also God is real you fucking dipshit

indeed.
God is neutral for he is too intelligent for ideology. his word is perfect judgement so it can't be debated.

since he's neutral and infinitely intelligent = perfect judgement = always objective truth

Stop making this fucking thread you retard

truth is, there is no good or evil. But it's invented to explain what is beneficial for society and what isn't, for dummies.

Only smart people realize that it's not good for them if murdering is accepted since it would put themselves at risk.

Jesus existed and was a smart one. God or not but he was a smart one.

>that wouldn't be enough.
then nothing will convince you short of torture. Words are wasted on those who reject God, your place will be in a cell into you repent

>convincing with torture
Yeah, you can fuck off with that medieval mindset.

Because you seem to have trouble comprehending what I've said, I'll make it simpler for you.

God deciding morality wouldn't be enough to make that morality objective. God revealing himself would be more than enough for me to believe he existed, because I'm not a hack who denies evidence like many Christians in the US.

But the Christian god doesn't exist, which is why there's no evidence of him to convince me that he does.

why dont you look at any murder scene and trial and tell me whether or not its justified then. Show me a convicted murderer who wasn't objectively (which means independent of the your own ideas or senses or empirical evidence) immoral (meaning a lack of acting in faith of God). If you are so free-minded, when God literally decides what is and isn't moral.