Morality doesn't exist

Did you just not read the dubz

>do not provide any arguments whatsoever
>expect arguments in return
Quality thread

The burden of proof is on those who claim that morality exists

"no"

You're right, it isn't wrong for your parents to consider shooting you in the head when they found out how much of a retarded faggot they are but they decided it was wrong so they pussied out.

>Morality exists, there is an objective right or wrong
>What, that makes no sense. There is no objective right or wrong
>HURURRRR PROVE IT

Yes it does because God exists.

Morality is about as real as honour, love or trust. It exists in individuals, and is subjective.

Good album desu

>It appears to exist in individuals and seems subjective

ftfy

if morality doesn't exist then why do cities exist?

If morality doesn't exist then why do we have the market place?

Morality is a function of the human organism and a part of our evolutionary heritage. It's about as real as a non phisical phenomenon can get.
>inb4 if smthg is not physical it does not exist
So I guess swarms of birds or buffalo herds are not real either, they are just a bunch of individual animals going in the same direction and behaving the same way.

if something is not physical it does not exist
>So I guess swarms of birds or buffalo herds are not real either
these are physical things

it is an illusion, people believe and act as if it does exist. however it does not

Morality exist as relational values. Although no morality exist outside of relational scope, thus there is no inherent morality. When given the context such a thing, a sole thing, doesn't exist, the only possibility left is a morality that exist as a relational value.

The fact that there are people who actually think this makes me loathe the moment Khruschev pussied out from nuking US.

Why should anybody be bothered to convince yet another edgelord from millions? It's better and more useful just to bash your head it and claim "welp, no moralz XDDD".

>oh fuck i cant come up with an argument
>i know, ill just insult him
>heh, works every time

>it is an illusion, people believe and act as if it does exist. however it does not

yet this illusion produces very real and tangible products
like cities
and marketplaces
and hospitals
and theme parks

and if you knew anything about morality the three main thingies are
means:what do we have?
ends:what are we trying to accomplish?
intentions:how do we want it done?

means:tools like hammers, nails, bricks, scapels, syringes etc...
ends:warfare for land, reosurces, what have you
the only thing that isn't tangible is our intentions, at least until we can put it down on paper.
Then it becomes a plan.

I submit though that either everything must be an illusion then. Or the only thing that may be illusory is intentions, yet Descartes established the cogito. So you can only doubt the intentions of others. Where sitrner comes in where we deny all other intentions except our own.
Then everything becomes morality.
Or if you accept that matierialism is true then I would say that anything that isn't matierial like concepts of truth, justice, love, beauty etc... is morality. Or what we can call morality.

>yet this illusion produces very real and tangible products
>like cities
>and marketplaces
>and hospitals
>and theme parks

morality does none of this
people do

OP makes me wanna listen to The xx

people do this because they are moral agents.

proof?

Whether or not something is right or wrong depends on the victim. Things that are wrong are so because they cause suffering. Without intimate knowledge of the person your dealing with, you don't know how they will feel. The old adage treat others as you would like to be treated, doesn't hold up when two people are fundamentally different. Like stealing from a Buddhist who doesn't believe in material possessions.

>Things that are wrong are so because they cause suffering.

this might cause someone to be upset and negatively impact their life, but that does not make it "wrong"
id like you to explain why it would

Human civilization

The African American community is suffering more now then they did under slavery. This dosent make slavery more moral

Not relevant

Absolute morality*

>Morality not exist
>What, that makes no sense. There is objective right and wrong.
>HURRR DURR PROVE IT

>Morality doesn't exist
Perhaps not, but if you want to live in a society you'll have to abide by set morality standards.

If you want people to argue against you try making an actual argument to respond to instead of just two statements.

>Everithing is relative
>Except relativism
>kek

The arguments in favor of moral anti-realism are bad.
The arguments in favor of moral realism are decent
We should prefer the position that has better arguments for it.
Therefore we should prefer moral realism.

if you mention [ANYTHING], it exists. if not just merely as an empty set with that name.

>Not understanding emergence

guess nations are a meme too?

"inherently" is a stupid, pointless word

That there's good and evil seems to me to be the common sense position. Deviating from common sense requires some really good reason (e.g.: some scientifical confirmation). So, I think the burden of proof is on the moral anti-realist.

The only answer in this thread that makes any sense is the only one without any (You)s.

Morality does exist tho it most likely is subjective. Things might be inherently right or wrong depending on if there is a God and depending on his/hers/its opinion on the matter.

>What, that makes no sense. There is no objective right or wrong
Thats just a long way of saying "no". You are on the same line as the first guy. Your job is to provide more proof/better than him.

Morality objectively exists.
The definition of a moral act is subjective.
OP is a faggot.

By posting his comment your made a decision that the universe where you made this decision is better than the universe where you didn't make this decision. You're a hypocrite, my man.

>Morality objectively exists

The idea of it exists, you mean

thank you

mutual self-interest

>You are the literal cancer that is killing modernity.
creating*

If nothing can be right or wrong how can you assert that you're right or wrong?

Faggot

That’s a semantic argument. There is a difference between morally right or wrong and factually right or wrong in general. There are plenty of languages which distinguish between factually right and morally right with different words. The question is whether moral rightness is a kind of factual rightness or not.

Human behaviour can be understood as the interaction between the organism and the environment. Any attribution made to the behaviour it is and interpretation relative to the context. Morality isn't anywhere, it's an attribution made.

what did he mean by this?

That is a great album, despite /mu/ shitting on it for some reason

The first is false, the second is true.

Morality does exist
Nothing is inherently right or wrong
I decide

That was my thread

>Morality doesn't exist
>Nothing is inherently right or wrong

As animals you are governed by natural law like all animals.

As animals with souls you are governed by divine law like all souls.

youtube.com/watch?v=e_bed7QTaUI