Ie, in favor of a universal or absolute Good

ie, in favor of a universal or absolute Good

no meme arguments, hit me with your biggest guns.

>Easy mode: no direct religious texts or theologians
>Medium mode: no Platonists/Neoplatonists
>Hard mode: no Kantians
>Dante Must Die mode: no constructivists

not having autism

a man perceives the universal good according to how evolved his soul is. that's pretty much it.

this triggers the numale

not an argument

couldn't care less nigger, go outside and live your life

Who is this sermon demon?

>how evolved his soul is

Not being bad.

Bad people disagree with me.

This will hurt bad people.

>haha nothing is anything whoa man so this is the power of hedonistic abandon masquerading as a """""philosophy""""""

the good is self-justifying in the face of precisely the lack of any strictly rational justification, that's why it's the "ought" to the "is" you fucking goober

utilitarianism

Well first I want to know what the argument for moral relativism is.

>haha nothing is anything
Stirner doesn't make any such claim. He does however ridicule attaching one's self to fabricated abstractions with no basis in reality like the supposed spiritual evolution of a soul.

lol stop trying to sound smart dude, you've read stirner and no other philosophers, I can tell, you're a pseud.

not an argument

lol good one you showed him

>if I just cite this philosopher's views on my opponent's stance that will count as an argument r-right

like I give a fuck about schooling some redditor who just binged school of life

hahaha

still not an argument

lol

There is literally zero way to justify the idea of a "universal good" that isn't "I like this set of morality, and other people in my society do, too, so that means everybody understands this."

The amount of change in what constitutes "good" that's happened since Rome, the number of competing philosophies in our current era which each having completely different versions of "good" and "bad", and the variance in religions across the world and across history attest to the fact that these are relative terms.

The only barebones thing most peoples agree on is that murder is bad because we're all scared of death, but even that's an iffy one, some societies were okay with killing somebody for being annoying.

Believing in a "universal good" is a sure sign of cultural myopia, and likely just means you haven't read enough or talked to enough people.

When will we ever be in a time period where helping the group you're a part of and playing to your own strengths isn't good?

>health doesn't exist because cultures have different nutritional standards
>Believing in a "universal good" is a sure sign of cultural myopia, and likely just means you haven't read enough or talked to enough people.

L M A O

universal good exists because...?

because I don't have autism and can see through superficial cultural differences to the universal moral interests that dictate them

What are the universal moral interests you're referring to?

Nigga you're almost certain to find thousands of people who disagree with your proposed "moral interests"

>people disagreeing about nutrition means health isn't a thing

go the fuck outside already and interact with human beings

Health is a thing. You won't find that everyone cares about it.

>universal morals definitely exist but i cant articulate what exactly they are in any certain terms just go outside :)

because they're deficient and/or subhuman. something the first philosophers weren't afraid to say unlike you pussies. my diet got refuted by honey boo boo, whoa, so this is the power of philosophical discussion on Veeky Forums

>they don't agree with my moral interests so they're in my own poorly defined arbitrary category of "deficient" or "subhuman"
get a grip

hahahahah the absolute STATE of fucking numales

...

If that's another thing philosophers you read weren't "afraid to say" I'd suggest reading better philosophers

>9th grade kid likes Trump
So?

I don't really think that we could ever find an absolute good as we can never prove that it's absolute, but I think that there is an absolute good out there

Health is a FACT, dictated by our constitution. We are talking about MORAL.

Looks like Yvonne Strahovski

>hahaha

This fucking guy.

4/10 - autists can have morality.
4/10 - too simple but correct.
7/10 - proof in the action.
9/10 - argument of negation. I dig it.
6/10 - healthy skeptics but too ambivalent.
Yes.
1/10 - stirner is a hack. Just read Nietzsche.

There is no moral relativism, only opinions.

Without God, there is no objective basis for morality; not for good and evil, not coming down from above, and not being enforced from above.

Just opinions.

Don't see why any "mode" has to exclude the Platonists. The teachings of Plato and Aristotle elucidate a correct account of morality, and that morality is objective.

Also, neo-platonism is something entirely different and should be given a new label. For example, you could call it something uninspiring and dull like "Plotinism". That name, Plotinism, really captures how everyone in that category is a total brainlet who helped drive western civilization into a new dark age.

Failures like Trump because they're failing due to a bad father

Thoughts?

>no constructivists

whats the matter

afraid we're going to break your little worldview?

Kierkegaard

Next time make this hard.

Yes.

Please kill yourself.

Pleberson filter, and no lazy intellectuals.
0/10. You failed easy mode. He was a theologian. Go start over with the greeks.

>theologian
No he wasn't. His works lie outside the discipline of theology and his work on mans inability to comprehend the absolute is commonly considered existential philosophy. If he wasn't a philosopher the next most credible description is shit poster.

Yes he was, in addition to being a philosopher. Read anything on Christian Existentialism or just search it.

neither is what you posted.

Without a transcendent standard of absolute good there can be no evil. Some actions are morally better than others and this is proof of the existence of evil so there must be a standard.

The best morals to have are those that lead to a happy healthy society and a happy, healthy individual in the long-term.
What these morals are can vary to some extent, but there are some universals.

*can vary to some extent based on culture

whoa....so this is the power of pol posters..... epic.
i can tell that highschools in america are teaching their students philosophy properly

There is only one absolute good: Power.

Power is the ultimate value, the one that makes all other values possible. Those that follow their Will to Power, through discipline and sacrifice, get to enforce their values onto the rest of humanity, by force or by imitation.

People naturally seek to emulate what is strong, and associate this with "good". This is what we call Master Morality. From this the conquered.or weak build their own morality based on that of their masters, but adapted to their situation. This is what we call Slave Morality.

In an ideal state, Master morality rules and Slave morality copies and adapts. But when society is in flux sometimes this order may be reversed, leading to war and the imposicion of a new master morality, that of the victors.

This explains, for example, the evolution of a religion as complex as Christianity. When Judaism was created, the Jews were rulers of their land. Thus the Old Testament is a violent, bloody tale of conquest and subjugation, where entire cities were razed by an angry God bent ln vengeance. Master morality as its finest.

When Christianity emerged, the Jews were a conquered people, oppressed subjects of the Roman Empire, thus the New Testament speaks about forgiveness and turning the other cheek. God is a forgiving God who exists to provide confort to the righteous, sick and poor. Slave morality at its finest.

As powerful European kingdoms adopted Christianity, again the powerful elements of conquest, Jesus as the mighty Conquering Lion of Judah rather than the meek Lamb of God, were emphasized, leading to the Cruzades.

an argument against moral relativism isnt necessarily and argument for god
the best ones tend not to be cause to bring god in usually requires a logical jump you thats very difficult to qualify

We currently believe the Old Testament to be the self justifying prattle of a slave society that had two brief and failed flourescences of self governance.

>quoting someone without using quotations
way to try to seem smart. I bet you don't even understand Nietzche.

>I bet you are wrong
>Can't tell you why hurrrrr
I haven't directly quoted anything.
Just ranting away from my knowledge.

Do you have anything useful to contribute?

>knowledge

There is no way an absolute good independent of time can exist. Values and sensibilities change over time and at some point they violate an previously established universal good. A universal good is thus bound by time, always in flux.

In that respect, what we should establish as a universal good must find its foundation with regards to the current time, its values, and etc.

The problem with cultural relativism is the question of where we would draw the line. As another user pointed out, many agree that murder is bad but some far off societies don't see the act the same way. Should we really tolerate such societies? There's such a thing as too much tolerance.

Thus, a universal good is something that is imperative while still relevant to our time. A universal good should be established because we need a universal good, else we tolerate chaos in favour of cultural relativism. We'd be bystanders letting animals be while we say "hey, it's part of their culture."

t. pseud
it's kind of kantian but i gave it my best try

Change is the fundamental nature of all things, an unchanging morality is neither unchanging nor moral. Instead a moral compass should be developed, which points in the direction towards what is valuable and meaningful, like human well-being, the value of life, and shared existence. Situations and choices are made using this compass, guided by general rules but not dictated by them. A quest is determined by one's questions, and so it is in the exploration of moral questions and questions in general where true wisdom moral and otherwise will be found.

platitude

ITT: nothing but platitudes