Can we develop objective morality without god and religion

What does that got to do with morality?

Our "evolution" is females engineering us to be their slaves through sexual selection.

You can't develop an objective morality WITH God. All you can do is come up with a subjective one and develop obscurifications to hide the fact.

what is this schizophrenic shit and whos spamming it all over?!

+1

>humans
>capable of objectivity

Stop pretending to be objective. You aren't.

objective morality is objectively a absurd idea, but most of all its unnecessary and wrong, and as such its something to fight against

objectively people are amoral as all chaotic systems fundamentaly are, there can be no overarching system of morals and ethics, each situation, each set up, each group and each system should and does assume a ethics specific to its own circumstances, goals and needs, based on what works in the long run, what has desired effects repeatedly, and there is no other logical criteria, and the basis of this change from instance to instance

people should fight over what they percieve as right or desirable, no one should get the upper hand for long enough to effectively impose morals on others, and if this does happen people should fight that too

all such ideas are attemps to pacify existence, to secure a lasting victory of one side or the other, to mortify life trough control and constraint, the very idea is morbid, avoidant, negating, a attempt to escape the process

there is no escaping the process

>what is this schizophrenic shit and whos spamming it all over?!

Denial is a powerful drug - keep at it - maybe it will change what is real.

youtube.com/watch?v=YVtj66vqm1w

denial of what ?

>denial of what ?

That which is evident. Such as the fact that God is real.

youtube.com/watch?v=VTrMpWb7JSI

Would you say the same about marxists!

Because you sound like a Marxist hypocrite

what does 'marxist' mean to you user?

I guess you are right! But how could civilization survive without us pretending? All I am saying is that if we need to develop a morality for the survival of the western society we should use Science.

Well, a lot of Marxist use your mindset, but act as if Marx is a prophet, and quote him like he is Jesus. They act as if Marx could have never made a mistake.

which mindset is that user?

are you american?

No, I was born in Iran, but I live in Australia now.

Behavioural science has proved an evolutionary set of morals and accepted behaviours for some time now. They found the same set of basic rules to be true for most species of social living primates, including humans.
Apparently living in social groups and evolving over millions of years in said groups also evolved a behavioural pattern that is beneficial to the groups survival. That might be the reason why basic morals in almost all world religions are exactly the same.

I mean that you believe that morality cannot be objective. But they act like Marxism is a fact. Let's be honest without an objective morality you can't argue for Marx teaching.

Well, I understand that, but modern SJWs are going completely against evolution.

Nothing immutable, which is as good as saying No.

Same goes for right wing and religious types, all the hypocrites will tell you they invented morals.
That doesn't change the fact that this same moral patterns can be measured independently in experiments with adults and children from different cultures and show up the same way with Chimpanzees.

I don't deny that, and I am not white myself, but I see more objectivity in the Alt-right then in the Religious right.

Not really. We hold power but we have to earn that power through courage, valor, intelligence, etc...

Your words sound like the words of a man who would lose that competition.

You really think natural morals and evolutionary behaviour has anything to do with political world view?

If you don't believe in tribalism I think there is something wrong with you. You cannot act as if wanting only northern European around you is not related to our evolution. There is nothing more evolutionary then in ingroup.

>then
*than

Sorry

I think you didn't even understand the basics I just told you.
Things like "Don't steal" or "One good turn deserves another" seem to be universal for humans and regulate human behavior.

And all you try is to find another excuse for supremacy or ethno-nationalism, like you are not even interested in human nature or evolutionary morals, you just start with a fixed idea and find some arguments that fit you. That's just unscientific and stupid.

God you people are morons. Venus figurines were the equivalent of porno for all we know. All we know is that they had them, it does not mean that they worshiped women and had them lead tribes or something.

They had little figurines with giant tits, asses and pusys. It's entirely possible that they just used them to rub one out while away from their girls hunting mammoths.

>What is law

You can keep your hunter gatherer morality, but in order to run a modern society you need to tack on a utilitarian philosophy with it.

Racism was universal. I think anybody would argue with that stealing and not killing is not universal, but Jesus Christ you just ignored tribalism. I am not bananas with this idea. I am an Iranian living in Australia. Even Karl Marx was a racist. He hated non-norther European with his snobbish remarks about them.

No, we are talking about how in Traditional societies women don't work and are protected. That's how rich people live. Look at Saudi Arabia the females stay home. Is that because there is an evolutionary reaction to protect women.

I don't think anybody would argue the counter of not killing and not stealing are universal*

They gathered and made clothes and baskets. They did work.

And raised children.

Not killing and stealing in your group is universal.

If your moral depends on God then it isn't objective to begin with.

>men
>we hold power
You don't hold shit, you're a biological android designed to serve the eternal cunt and your sentimental flowery language changes nothing about it.

Yes but that's why we don't want them to work, but come on. Raising children is not backbreaking work. I have a lot of baby cousins, and I take care of them for days at a times, and its the most enjoyable thing.

So is tribalism!

You completely ignored the part that they gathered plants, made baskets and clothes all day.

I agree. You really care about 120 to 150 people, everything else is just up in the air.

They got the easy jobs. Even rich brats have to do something. All I am saying is that women are basically like spoiled men. Sometimes I get this vibe myself.

Of course they got the easier jobs, men are way more capable of fighting and hunting, so they took those jobs because they were physically capable of doing them.

im not arguing for marxs teaching, even if its mostly accurate, dude analised things made some abrstarcts, saw how things work and based a critique on it, that far hes correct, the rest was history, wich is usualy a nightmare

the 'marxists' youre alluding to today are something strange compared to marxists from say 1950is or 1920is, most of their stuff has nothing to do with marx, they are based on postmarxists like marcuse and deconstructionism

ironically most of them are the exemplary definition of marcuses one-dimensional man, entire identities constructed by corporate facilitated mass media and alienated from anything authentic by layers and layers of comodified, endlesly customisable shit

other than theists and harris types they are the prime promotors of objective morality today because they must have a underlying basis for all the guilttrippy, puritanical, holier than thour crap they push on people, and so they are exemplary of what objective morality realy stands for, its a question of systemic controll, that their version of it is based on relativising and deconstructivist negations of this and that makes no difference, the wordplays are irrelevant, just like newatheists they take a stance they logicaly defend meaning they assume its objective, and moral, thus objectively moral

every situation and every instance has conditions and contingencies wich dictate the ethics necessary, this is often highly problematic, even if there are usualy basic constants like reciprocity, mutual interest, protection of life etc... none of this guarantees, not just in the sense that guarnacies are rarely secure, but in the sensse that the desired outcome itself negates the posibility, that everione will be happy about a given outcome, or that everione will agree or that no one will get hurt or discriminated, or indeed that there isnt, in a thousand different ways and forms, a concrete and basic need to discriminate or hurt, or kill, from situation to situation

in fact since conflict, agression and pain are integral to life, to the point that violence is a function corresponding to a basic need, any discourse that, calling uppon objective morality, tries to do away with these, is morbid, cannot into bioethics, and so cannot be other than immoral

any discourse that, alomg with this, does not percieve, appreciate and accept the selfevident multiplicity of qualities and quantities and potentials, weather biological, cultural or moral or other, is equaly blind, imposing and ultimately immoral

that all life exists as multiplicities, that these are largely based on qualitative, quantitative and other differences and that these are the fundamentals of all conflict as well as all cooperation cannot be negated

none of this can be escaped, life cannot be pacified, conflict cannot end, discrimination cannot be done away with, such notions are pure necrophilia

Croods have a good system of right/wrong. Just remember to have an 'honest' record keeper (no pun intended)

>Can we develop objective morality without god and religion.

'Sup.

you mean crooks?

Though to be fair Confucius isn't unique. A lot of pagans have their moralities separate from religion.

Consider the case of Greeks. Really, how can you base your morality on religion when your religion pretty much shows the Gods were fickle manchildren?

Among some pagan people, morality was heavily based on social philosophy and human interaction.

that never ever ever happened

Those women with light hair and eyes shouldnt be there, fuckinf LARPers, their ancestor were the ones that destroyed greeces

>Consider the case of Greeks. Really, how can you base your morality on religion when your religion pretty much shows the Gods were fickle manchildren

thats the problem, gods are reality, reality is fucked, hence the need to develop ethics, but things change, conditions change, outcomes needed shift, so you can only have universal ethics in vague, general, meta terms, concretely you do shit that works, or if you cant do that you do what feels right

in some sense its like there is a meta-ethic beyond morality, but this one is inhuman

its made of simple banal, unapologetic things, like do not go against that which works, do not expect positive outcomes, go with the flow, what feeds grows etc etc...

none of that helps with morality, but its the sort of truth beyond truth that gods represent, and thats why gods are inhuman bastards, but in some sense thats whats holy, something holy dosent have to be moral, no one asks you