>morality is subjective
Then by knowing that, you should understand that criticizing another's moral opinion with your own would contradict your position
>but it is MY moral opinion that their ideal is incorrect
And why do you think that your opinion is better than theirs?
>because it was how I was raised
Why did your guardian raise you in that way?
ect..
Tried not to strawman, but can someone give me some more sides or arguments to this problem? Brainlet btw
One way to attack it is to point out that even if it's subjective, and you think your opinion is the right one, it doesn't mean it isn't worth discussing with other people why x is better than y. Even if the moral "basis" is completely arbitrary, you and another person may share the same basis while having different experiences and knowledge leading to different moral positions.
Two people can be hedonists yet have different opinions on why their way to enjoy life is the best.
you can also attack them for being a fedora and not realizing morality comes from God
>You can attack them for saying morality is subjective by saying morality is subjective
hurrrr durrr
If two people come to an agreement, then do they then find a third, then a fourth and so on until their becomes a total agreement?
This implies that God created the law, which makes it arbitrary. If God actually IS the law or the morality came before God, then it isn't arbitrary.
>>morality is subjective
sure, but my metamoral standards are objective and can be applied universally to all beings and throughout space and time :^)
>And why do you think that your opinion is better than theirs?
Because my own beliefs are better than everyone else's until you can prove that my beliefs are lacking.
Relativism is asserted absolutely, and yet it has no justification for doing so, so why can't I assert an absolute standard by which to judge reality and be just as valid? And if both are equally valid, why wouldn't I assert my values, unless I believe my values are weak and cannot stand up to comparison with others?
>And why do you think that your opinion is better than theirs?
Because my opinion benefits me more than yours does
Morality aims at maximal objective utility, but it is ultimately based in the subject. Therefore a functional morality reconciles objective aims with subjective desires.
>Morality aims at maximal objective utility
speak for yourself
What the fuck does that pseudo scientific Myers Briggs claptrap have to do with anything, or, for that matter, that idiotic circle? Philosophy is not morality, neither is metaphysics, etc.
It has nothing to do with it, I just like posting unrelated pictures to trigger spergs like yourself
I like posting pictures that are just tangentially related.
[spoiler]me too, but don't tell that guy[/spoiler]
The problem is that we don't know for sure what morality God has, sure we have people claiming to know but that's all.
"My morality is objectively true because it came from God" is not a very strong argument unless you are preaching to the choir.
The Truth is in the New Testament. Prove me wrong, pro-tip, you can't.
Are all christians on Veeky Forums that obnoxious?
Here are my morals
Do not kill for pleasure unless its an animal and dont torture the animal you are killing
Do not lie to people you trust
Do not forgive your lover for cheating on you
Do not terrorize others physically
Do not steal
Do not fuck children
Do not be gay at all
Do not be tranny
Do not disrespect your religion
Do not fuck before marriage unless you are a man
How can morality be objective unless you assume that the universe is anthropocentric?
I mean, I can get the notion of a morality relative to all of humanity instead of individuals or human groups but why would it be more important than the "morality" of another animal species and more probably (because you could say that animals have not enough reason to be really moral) the ones of possible other sapient species?
Unless there is indeed an objective morality but in that case is it likely to be largely inhuman or even impossible for us to follow, I guess there could be probably several evolutionnary paths leading to sapience but they are not likely to be all equally adapted to the objective morality
...
Subjective doesn't mean relative.
>Do not fuck before marriage unless you are a man
And who, pray tell, are these unmarried men meant to fuck?
Morality being subjective doesn't preclude it from having justification, or meaningful content.
"lol it's subjective tho" is the Hallmark of brainlet discourse
Morality being subjective doesn't preclude it from having justification, or meaningful content.
"lol it's subjective tho" is the Hallmark of brainlet discourse
Other men. As you know, if the balls don't touch it's not gay, and even if they do all you have to do is say 'no homo' and you're golden. Farm animals are a classic choice as well.
This.
>And who, pray tell, are these unmarried men meant to fuck?
this guy gets it. it's pol retarded logic.
just like mgtow .
>I hate how women are materialistic whores!
>my solution is to treat them like the materialist whores they are!
who cares about morality under the laws of the land? it won’t matter as the laws will judge you subjectively under jurors and such. morality regarding situations where the law doesn’t come into play is a moot point since who cares if the law ain’t even caring
Well, I meant subjective in a relative sense. I know a subjective opinion can be false, but I was insinuating that subjective moral opinions can be argued to be true for each individual.
Of course subjective moral beliefs can have truth behind them, but a disagreeing statement made from another point of view implies that one is true and another is false (or more true than the other statement, at any rate) As there exists some extent of a contradiction, both cannot be equally true.
>knowledge of a moral truth isn't intrinsically valuable
>being good is only valuable if you are on trial by your peers
There's your problem. Also, a good court system tries to apply an objective sense of Justice. Opinion slips through the cracks, of course, but a fair trial is considered a human right in most countries.
Morality being subjective doesn't preclude it from having justification or meaningful content.
"lol it's subjective tho" is the Hallmark of brainlet discourse.
??
Women of course.
So, since it is morally wrong for unmarried women to bang im assuming youre suggesting that unmarried men bang married women
I am not convinced your moral theory is a recipie for a successful society
...
No they bang women who are not married, if you fuck someone's wife you get your head cut off and your wife too.
>it is morally wrong for unmarried women to have sex
>unmarried men should have sex with unmarried women
I am beginning to think youre not really thinking this one through
>Subjective in a relative sense
This is not enough to be considered as the moral subject. Virtually all philosophers agree, and those who disagree never think morality (in the usual sense) is important anyway (i.e. Nietzsche). There are all kinds of conceptions regarding subjectivity; immanent subject, transcendental, dialectic etc. All would require significant rethinking of how we view ethics.
I personally think the Kantian deontology as reliable enough. Sure there are lots of problems with it (probably debunked too), but it's still a good starting point.
Also, the discussion might be more productive if you all speak in a more abstract manner, just saying.
But morality IS objective. The heavens anchor our worldviews to reality.
Why bother being moral just on faith that youre right?
>based socrates even thinks the social contract is a spook
hardcore
Checked, but that quote has nothing to do with the social contract. He is condemning subjective morality, not the idea that the government and the people have obligations to one another.
yes
You're confusing normative moral relativism with subjective morality.
Remember this one easy rhyme. Might makes right.
my morals:
do not kill
do not steal
do not fuck children, goes without saying but ok, lets just put this out there
do not be a tranny
get married(with the opposite sex obviously, duh) and have children(mandatory paternity test to make sure the male is not being cheated)
respect religion, culture, tradition, family, elders
the rest is flexible for me, like you want to fuck other people on the side? ok fine, but dont impregnate or get impregnated with other people, you wanna be a faggot on the side? fine go ahead, but dont attack the morals of the nation, etc.
basically you just need to stick to the basic elements that need to keep civilization going, this is your tax, this is your contribution, the rest of your life is yours and you can do whatever you want, same principles apply to your personal life really, if you can drink without being a homeless drunkard, do it, if you can party without turning into a crack whore then go ahead, you can do anything you want as long as you can keep your life in order and not let whatever you're doing consume you
ofc morality is subjective. That can be proven any time with any example of opposing morals.
>its okay to kill murderers
>its not okay
morality itself is based on religious concept of evil and good which makes it very illogical. evil and good don't exist either in universal manner. It's subjective position to say that a flood killing thousands of people is evil or flood killing thousands of horrible people is good.
Everything is driven by peoples motivations. Everything has a cause and consequences. 'evil and good' are formed by the fact that if it aligns with the mans motivation. If you want food and someone doesn't give you food he is evil and if someone gives you food he is good.
Morality doesn't exist
Nothing is right or wrong
morality isn't subjective.
Not everything is relative
fucking post modernists
well to be real, it does have a word allocated for it so it does mean something, even if its superficial or not. There is just misunderstanding about the meaning of it.
Unicorns also have a word allocated for them, but they do not exist either
But they do. How would you otherwise have an image of an unicorn in your head? It doesn't have to be a physical thing for to it to exist. Morality isn't a physical entity either.
If it is not physical it does not exist, however the idea of it does. It is an illusion.
hmh... Take number 1 for example. Does it exist? No? It isn't a physical thing so it doesn't exists right? yet you can do the most incredible things with number 1.
You might think that it is physical because you can write it down on a paper.
Number 1 isn't any different from an unicorn. You can also draw an unicorn to a paper.
We can use non physical things like numbers to understand things about the physical world yes, however the number itself is not physical, non-existent.
This is similar with morality, we can use the idea or concept of it to come to conclusions about our world and how we think we should act in it, however morality itself is still non-existent.
I guess we have differing ideas of the word 'exists' then. You see to me, it doesn't have to be physical, because fuck what the hell does that even mean? it itself is an idea so you can shape it subjectively, but i still think it exists. It exists in my brain as cells.
i just find your definition a bit selfconflicting thats all even if i cant really put it into words.
fucking impossible to tell there is something wrong with your logic because we have differing views on the whole basis of logic itself.
To me exists means that it IS. But if you say that exists is something that IS physical. What is IS?
...
>The problem is that we don't know for sure what morality God has
it is literally in a book of natural and moral law
>hurr durr you mean le bibul
kys nigger I mean open your goddamn eyeballs