Try to prove that objective morality exists without a spiritual or religious background

>wahhhhh
get over yourself
he practices what he preaches. The Law is doing what he says, it is morality.

Let me try:

Assume: Morality comes from intuition

Lemma: To intuit is to understand without conscious reasoning (definition of intuition)
Then: Intuition is innate human ability
Lemma: Human abilities are the result of genetic variation over time (Theory of Evolution & Natural selection)
Then: Intuition being an innate human ability is a genetic adaptation
Lemma: Genes have a material basis in reality and are empirically observed
Then: Intuition has a material basis in reality
Then: Morals have a material basis in reality

All you have to do now is prove that Ethical Intuitionism is logically consistent.

If morals were an intuition there would be no discussion because all men would have the same morality. This is manifestly not the case, men have a wide divergence of philosophies.
This user's view is correct.

I'm saying that a morality that isn't "functional" in the sense I defined above, is basically incoherent. Saying something is bad just because it is, is meaningless. It doesn't make sense to say that something is "just objectively bad". It requires context. The context for most ancient peoples was the desire to prosper, please the gods, or attain enlightenment. Certain actions were conducive to those goals and so they performed those actions. Objective morality says that are somethings that you shouldn't do "just because" irrespective of whatever goals you have.

>If morals were an intuition there would be no discussion because all men would have the same morality. This is manifestly not the case, men have a wide divergence of philosophies.

Men also have a wide divergence of genetics, which makes your statement consistent with the hypothesis I just laid out.

Even the spiritual and religious have to pull a fast one here.

>this subjective being called god is the best, so we'll say that their morality is objective! problem solved

Consistent, but also useless. Staying that moral values are genetically inherited is not only an unproven position, it also doesn't allow for moral reform or society-wide moral systems.

I like your argument so much I want to have sex with it.

The contrapositive is also unproven though.
>it also doesn't allow for moral reform or society-wide moral systems.
Why would that matter?

It sounds like you are speaking similar to Socrates when you say that morality is innate, though you are saying it is genetic, and that it doesn't come from the soul. Interesting. So do perhaps believe that potential knowledge about all things is genetic as well?
I think I get what you're saying. What do you think about things being preserved for their own intrinsic value- like a painting? Do you think it is immoral to destroy it, even if the artist has been dead for a long time?

>It sounds like you are speaking similar to Socrates when you say that morality is innate, though you are saying it is genetic, and that it doesn't come from the soul. Interesting. So do perhaps believe that potential knowledge about all things is genetic as well?
Could be the case that the intellectual processes required to find knowledge are based in genetics. I wouldn't claim that the knowledge itself can be intuited independent of the reality/environment that the intuition takes place in.

th-thanks
"l'art pour l'art" is a decadent European concept. Art should, and does, and did historically serve many explicit (as opposed to unconscious) purposes. A lot of ancient and medieval architecture was based on numerology and sacred geometry, for example. Beautiful art also promotes psychological well being. It's also a way for illiterate people to appreciate the stories, traditions, and myths of their culture. As for destroying art, I'm against it precisely because I believe art serves a profound purpose.

I also agree that it has an important purpose, as does nature in a similar way. I'm sure there are some, but I cannot think of any ancient religious doctrines that explicitly condemn the destruction of art or nature, especially popular western ones. Creating art has rarely offered any spiritual reward outside of religious pieces, and destroying it has rarely offered punishment.

>“I was taught to ascribe the origin of my blood and name to Polish noblemen who were called Niëtzky and left their home and nobleness about a hundred years ago, finally yielding to unbearable suppression: they were Protestants."
- Nachlass, Sommer 1882 21 [2]

>"my ancestors were Polish noblemen, even my grandfather's mother was Polish"
- letter to Heinrich von Stein, December 1882

>"My ancestors were Polish noblemen (Niëzky); it seems that the type is well preserved in spite of three German "mothers"
- letter to Georg Brandes, 10 April 1888

>"I thank Heaven, that in all of my instincts I am a Pole and nobody else."
- letter to Meta von Salis, 29 December 1888

>"And yet my ancestors were Polish noblemen: it is owing to them that I have so much race instinct in my blood, who knows? perhaps even the liberum veto."
- Ecce homo, chapter 3 (Warum ich so weise bin)

>"I am enough Polish, to give away all the music of the world just in exchange for Chopin."
- Ecce homo, chapter 4 (Warum ich so klug bin)

>"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood.”
- Nietzsche Contra Democracy by Fredrick Appel, page 114

>“Germany is a great nation only because its people have so much Polish blood in their veins. [...]
>”I am proud of my Polish descent."
- The Philosophy of Friedrich Nietzsche by H. L. Mencken, page 6

>Creating art has rarely offered any spiritual reward outside of religious pieces
Well most art, in most places, for most of human history had a religious or traditional context in which it was embedded. The Western European renaissance was the beginning of a movement away from that, and probably if it wasn't for Europe's eventual technological and military superiority over the rest of the world it would have been considered a more-or-less insignificant idiosyncrasy in world history. Given the current state of Western dominance, the importance of Renaissance art is blown out of proportion, imo. Imo, the art of that period and later European art had a tendency toward too much "showiness" for lack of a better word.

Przepraszam, my name is Pan Fredryk Niëzky.

I’m a 38 year old German filozof (philosopher for you obcokrajowcy) of Polish descent. I write books, compose music daily, and spend my days perfecting my art while reading superior Polish Romantic literature (Mickiewicz, Goszczyński, Mochnacki etc.).
I train with my szabla and perfect my Polish cross cutting art every day. This superior weapon is ideal for both horseback and on-foot fighting, allowing for faster and swifter combination of strikes, and combined with Polish technique is vastly superior to any other cold weapon on earth.

I speak Polish fluently, both Greater and Lesser Polish dialect, and I write fluently as well. I know everything about Polish history and their Sarmatian code, which I follow 100%.

When I get my Polish visa, I am moving to Warsaw to attend a prestigious university to learn more about their magnificent culture. I hope I can become a professor at University of Warsaw or a music composer!

I own several żupan and kontusz, which I wear around town. I want to get used to wearing them before I move to Poland, so I can fit in easier. I bow to my elders and seniors and speak Polish as often as I can.

Dankę and wish me luck in Poland!

If I stab a baby to death in front of you, will you get mad?

but user Morality is subjective

and spiritual and religious explanations are worthless anyway.

>and spiritual and religious explanations are worthless anyway.
worth is a subjective property, a value judgement

Is genocide morally okay under any circumstances?

more like confused. And it depends on context. Is the baby intellectually/physically disabled beyond hope?

If I rape your mother then tear off her skin will you be mad?

>If you are angered when I violate your subjective interpretation of morality it means morality is objective

Spinoza did a pretty good job.

really? brief summary?

even with God, I never saw how that makes it any more objective. Like he made the universe, sure, still, why should I objectively care about his opinion on morality? I mean, I know there are practical reasons of avoiding punishment, but that's not morality. He's just another subjective opinion, with a lot of power to make his opinion relevant. But it's no more objective than mine

this man gets it

god's existence or nonexistence has no bearing whatsoever on this question

We are created in God's image.

It doesn't exist with a spiritual or religious background either

Would you feel "bad" for killing a human if you grew up in the jungle with apes? Probably not. The Sentinelese definitely wouldn't have morals even similar to civilised people, but maybe that's because they may have IQ's of 50 too.

t. anarkid who read stirner's wikipedia page once

Maybe if you're a burger

Yeah thats true. A lot of country get killed by their own citizens first like in the middle east, but in countries where many crimes aren't violent or cannibalistic The Law deals with them personally.

It is always ok

yes
there's no reason why it's wrong

how is that relevant

In the Old testament, God generates order out of chaos. As a result he states, man and women are made in my image.

Well what does God mean by that?

First of all, he dignifies the human soul. But the retribution of dignity is based on a psychological and ontological reality. That reality is what the individual consciousness confronts is equivalent in some sense to the chaos God originally generated into order.

That's what consciousness does, it creates the potential of being. It takes unformed potential and makes it manifest.

Each human being has the choice about which direct that potential will manifest itself, but not about whenever that manifestation will take place. It takes place no matter what. Which is why the moral obligation of existence is incumbent on our being.

>without a spiritual or religious background
but that's the point of the moral argument, nigga.

>t. christ fag

Hello Jordan Peterson

>christfag

Why did you post Nietzsche with that question OP?

the language here is pretty dense so Im not really sure what you're talking about, but it seems like you're arguing for the innateness for morality, not the objectivity of it. That wouldn't be the same thing. Hypothetically, if God created us all with an identical morality, he could have created us with a different morality, or none at all, if he chose. And so it is still subjective

>Morals have a material basis in reality
No shit. Everything that can affect reality must necessarily have a material basis in reality. But this doesn't tell you anything about the objective truth value.

*yawn* Platonism already does this. Try reading the works of Plato and Aristotle some time.

no it doesnt

It does, actually. Aristotle was right to posit the unmoved movers prior to the self moved movers, and those entities are the fundamental source of morality. I fail to see how those entities require some spirituali or religious background, unless those terms are diluted to a meaningless degree.

Morality is basically a guideline to a stable, productive society

i just wanted to trick you into summing it up instead of having to read a book. Next time just do that instead of just mentioning the book

as for the idea itself, im not sure how that would make it objective
>and those entities are the fundamental source of morality
why? Just because they were first?

You don't need to trick me, I explain it all the time when someone is interested. Until further discussion is needed, I think it's fair to just identify a group or text.

It's objective because it's independent of opinion.

I distinguished the unmoved movers and self moved movers to indicate that when I said platonist, I was including Aristotle and actually adopting some of his teachings that may differ or go beyond what is found strictly in Plato's texts.

The unmoved movers are not first, they are just prior (I mean superior/more fundamental in the hierarchy of existence rather than a strictly chronological reference) when compared to self moved movers. Being is more fundamental.

They are the fundamental source of morality because they are the source of the irresistible morality, the various forces that cause the changes we observe (and that we are subject to). The inferior morality is from self moved movers like ourselves.
>and those entities are the fundamental source of morality
why? Just because they were first?

Ignore the last two lines, I cut and pasted your post into the body of mine and deleted as I went; I forgot to remove the last bit.