There are no objective moral truths

>HAHA RELATIVISTS BTFO xDD
Wow dude, ur like Kant or sth xD

I can make a claim without claiming that my claim is an objective truth, faggot.

"No moral belief is true because it's impossible to objetively measure morality" is not a moral statement. Are you dumb?

>Wow dude, ur like Kant or sth xD
If you get triggered this fast you should stay away from philosophy. Friendly tip.

>I can make a claim without claiming that my claim is an objective truth, faggot.
In that case you aren't defending MR and I have no reason to argue with you?

>"No moral belief is true because it's impossible to objetively measure morality" is not a moral statement.
Correct, it's shitty unexamined metaethics.

Then why the fuck you pretend it intends to be an objective moral truth?

>tries to refute moral relativism with a strawman consisting of two sentences
>tells other they're not fit for philosophy

>All of these nu-males trying to save their feelings based, cuck philosophy
>All of these cucks running from logic like sheep running from a wolf

Nice meme-picture breh, can I take it home?

Um.... no it's mine? Find your own memes.

im not saying this is true but it is logically valid

if i have a blue car and every other car in the world is a color other than blue then the statement

"there are no blue cars in the world except this one"

is true

That's not a moral truth.

It's a very nice meme picture, man. Please. I like it a lot.

excpt donald trump

of course not lol

I gave a textbook refutation of vanilla moral relativism. Give the justification I asked for and make it MR 2.0 if you want (Protip: not that difficult) but please no neckbeardisms.

>Then why the fuck you pretend it intends
I don't pretend it to be anything. It was your post, not mine.

ITT lack of differentiation

>Moral relativism may be any of several philosophical positions concerned with the differences in moral judgments across different people and cultures. Descriptive moral relativism holds only that some people do in fact disagree about what is moral; meta-ethical moral relativism holds that in such disagreements, nobody is objectively right or wrong; and normative moral relativism holds that because nobody is right or wrong, we ought to tolerate the behavior of others even when we disagree about the morality of it.

Arguement against descriptive MR: There's a common theme to be found in every culture aroudn the world, every culture believes torturing babies is wrong blabla. Practice obfuscates very similar if not same intentions.

Argument against meta-ethical MR: (In the realm of practical ethics) so what? Back to your ivory tower.

Argument against normative MR: See OP.

>That there are no objective truths. (Moral) relativism is self contradictory without justifying its "privilege".
>Related: "All moral beliefs are equally true". So my belief that I am right and you are wrong makes you wrong, which the relativist has to accept to be true.
Tbe belief that I am right and you are wrong is not a moral one.
Also, moral relativism doesn't state that all moral beliefs are simultaneously true, but that there is not way of measuring how true or false moral statements are.

>unironically analytic

>"A writer who says that there are no truths, or that all truth is 'merely relative,' is asking you not to believe him. So don't."

Fucking Scruton, although I admit that's one of his better truisms.

>Tbe belief that I am right and you are wrong is not a moral one.
I don't know how to interpret this.

1. From the vantage point of metaethical MR?
2. No right and wrong in morals intrinsically? Just good and bad?
3. Or did you just sperg out on me for saying "you are wrong" instead of "your moral beliefs are wrong"?

>Also, moral relativism doesn't state that all moral beliefs are simultaneously true, but that there is not way of measuring how true or false moral statements are.
Which would be metaethical MR. I get that you are trying to make me argue metaethics but I'm not gonna lel.

Yes.
Living a virtuous life is what separates good people from trash people.

There's literally nothing wrong with this you ugly untermensch.

/pol/ needs to leave Veeky Forums. This is meant to be an intellectual board, not a board for smug young contradictory edgemen.

Fuck, I'm just saying that even if I, as a moral relativist, stated that all moral beliefs are equally true or valid (which I don't, and I don't think nobody really does) I wouldn't have to admit as true your statement of "You are wrong, there are particular moral statements that are true and exclude others from being so" because that isn't a moral statement. It certainly is implied by the sole affirmation of any moral statement, but it is not one itself.

Hijacking thread sorta, what are some moral questions that are actually relevant to an intelligent person?

Obviously you pull the lever except if it's a friend or relative.
Obviously you are pro-choice.

..

Holy fuck this is a new low.

>Obviously
>intelligent person
Is this bait?

Also you don't pull the lever because then you have killed someone, but by not intervening, you allow the event to occur as a bystander.

>"You are wrong, there are particular moral statements that are true and exclude others from being so" because that isn't a moral statement.
If you want to argue with me you're going to have to get off your meta horse. I agreed the first time around that's not a moral statement. What IS a moral statement is me saying your morals are wrong (backwards, perverted).

Now, a moral relativist making moral statements says "There is no objective truth/nobody can be said to be right or wrong because..." (insert your previous post) "and therefore we should..".

I can still take the first part of that sentence "There is no objective truth/nobody can be said to be right or wrong because..." and answer, respectively

>except this one
>except me

(Addendum: And with that btfo moral relativism.)

Not really, it's cookie cutter refutation of moral relativism.

Thread has gone on for long enough, This "except this one" argument is taught in every serious ethics 101 course to undermine vanilla moral relativism.

(The majority of professional philosophers are moral realists btw.)

>killing babies is 'intelligent'.

Ho boy.

>giving birth is 'intelligent'

Ho boy.

>letting the world decay due to increasingly dysgenic reproductive patterns because you're too self-concerned to reproduce is 'intelligent'.

Ho boy.

Everyone dies, so it's not a big deal.

You define "baby" the way Trump defines "sacrifice."

>if I'm a pedant it's not murder!

It's hilarious how we get amateur hour at the county court every time someone tries to justify why they're cool with killing people.

>saying ">letting the world decay due to increasingly dysgenic reproductive patterns because you're too self-concerned to reproduce is 'intelligent'.\n\nHo boy." is' intelligent'

Ho boy.

>people

Relativists BTFO.

>an infinite 'not uh' recursion when I'm completely blown out by carefully presented facts and figures because I have no other way out of this mess I created by being incomprehensibly stupid is intelligent

Ho boy.

>retards, the unconscious and people who are currently in non-REM sleep aren't people

This is literally your argument.

Now, a moral relativist making moral statements says "There is no objective truth/nobody can be said to be right or wrong because..." (insert your previous post) "and therefore we should..".
>"and therefore we should..".
No he doesn't.

>you're just calling me retarded because I'm to smart for you

Wew boy.

>people who are currently in non-REM sleep aren't people

Only if you kill them without waking them up.

Thanks for not disagreeing about the definition of "baby."

I'll accept we're murdering embryos, if that parlance excites you.

No.

>I'm not for killing babies! That's ridiculous! I'm for the killing of entities that aren't arbitrarily analogous to babies but exist proximal to their semantic development, largely so I can avoid the emotional and social baggage of being a baby killer. Hey, who wants to kills some babies? I mean... errr... 'embryonic non-individuals'

further proof that reading is for fags

>killing babies is 'intelligent'.
All women who do not want babby would make terrible mothers
Having a non-terrible mother is vital to healthy psychological development of babby
Babby with psychological trauma is kinda fucked up also there is no shortage of turbospergs and psychopaths on this planet already
Woman does not want babby
-----
Woman should be given the right to abort

My preference to live in a society where mass killings aren't socially acceptable takes precedence over whatever social benefits can be gleaned from them. Obviously, killing undesirable people would benefit society in many ways. I don't want to live in that society.

>muh feels

Preferences are the literal basis for any reasonable theory of morality, yes. Sometimes a combination of preferences and outcomes, because references can be flawed.

You sound calm, even-headed and rational.

I am inclined to consider maybe agreeing with your point of view.

Man you're either a complete braindead retard or a really goddamn dedicated shitposter.

It's a lesser sin, that's for sure.

Saves trips to the confession booth.

Excellent.

Though I don't really consider not wanting other people to die a 'point of view'. That seems a little dismissive.

Should we celebrate Conception days rather than Birthdays?

No butts, that's exactly what he does. I see you still don't want to leave your metaethics ivory tower. For the n+1-th time, I never attempted to refute metaethical moral relativism. I am talking about practical moral relativism. And that includes an "ought" whether you like it or not.

Your reply doesn't even attempt to refute what I've been trying to do all along by the way. You are still in the dark.

Read this again my friend.

>I can still take the first part of that sentence "There is no objective truth/nobody can be said to be right or wrong because..." and answer, respectively
>>except this one
>>except me

Nice ad hominem.

>samefag geta the dubs
every time

Celebrate whatever arbitrary days you want. There are some problems with identifying the actual day of conception, though, so you might run into some social hurdles. A several pound shit isn't flopping out of a vagina in my ideal conception.

>doesn't want to kill people
>wants to force mothers to give birth regardless of medical risks

If we're talking about people being responsible with sex, it's not that hard to be able to have control over a date of conception.

Birthdays are now meaningless.

>My preference to live in a society where mass killings aren't socially acceptable takes precedence over whatever social benefits can be gleaned from them.
So your intellectual "feels" should take precedence over lifelong trauma of babby worldwide?

>I don't want to live in that society.
I don't want to live closer than two continents to you to be honest, sicko.

>moves the discussion to 'choose between these two lives! you can't, can you? haha!' in order to make a compelling rhetorical point

Actually, I can easily choose between two lives. The difference is that life is generally more valuable than whatever other social benefits you can bring up. Obliviating a person should be seen as extremely costly.

>The difference is that life is generally more valuable than whatever other social benefits you can bring up.

This is too specific.

>conception always happens the same day you had sex
Do you think day-after-pills are abortion pills too?

>Obliviating a person should be seen as extremely costly.

Now masturbation is bad. As well as a woman not using her body to have continual consecutive conceptions.

This is out of respect to *life* itself.

lol moralfags

Babies arnt people

Seriously, what 'meaning' did you think birthdays have?

As for conception, if you think someone is getting pregnant because you cummed in them one time, you've got a rude awakening in store for you when you start actually having sex.

>I can easily choose between two lives.
Why do you choose the embryo then? Maybe you hate women?
>person

>Preferences are the literal basis for any reasonable theory of morality, yes. Sometimes a combination of preferences and outcomes, because references can be flawed.
Is that really how it is? How would you back this up?

The situation is not analogous because you're arbitrarily claiming that life is only valuable if the person is currently a conscious entity.

If a person is sleeping, what value do they hold to you? They will shortly become conscious again, so was their value in their potential to go from the unconscious to the conscious state in a timely matter? If the person was a vegetable, what value as a human would they have?

The baby has value not because they are a conscious, feeling individual, but because, sans intervention to the contrary, they would become a fully grown, conscious and healthy person in 18 years.

As for whether or not a person is morally culpable if they choose to not have kids, that's actually merits possible discussion, but generally, complex and diversionary claims like that don't make much sense to me.
>why do you choose the embryo then

Who said I would?

>hate women

lol

Look up preference utilitarianism.

A birthday celebration is a reason for holiday, it is for the person and says, "We are glad you entered this word." The prerequisite being able to breath on its own, basically.

Can you elaborate on this?

See preference utilitarianism, but my basis is less 'everything is arbitrary becos were all unique lol' and more 'we're all more or less the same and have extremely similar preferences for genetic reasons'.

>Who said I would?
Weren't you against abortion?

I'm against abortion, but I'm okay with killing a person in order to save another person.

So, now masturbation is okay and a woman not using her body as a vessel to allow individual consciouses to experience life in the world is okay.

I need a list of all possibilities with "yes"s and "no"s stat!

>because you're arbitrarily claiming that life is only valuable if the person is currently a conscious entity
No they didn't.
>utilitarianism
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA spotted the redditor ays you manbaby

This definition of intervention is dubious. Is an external force aborting a fetus intervention? Is an external force feeding a baby intervention?

Being "against" abortion is funny when you have no control over anyone's abortions.

What a waste of time.

>Preferences are the literal basis for any reasonable theory of morality
>Look up preference utilitarianism.

And here I thought I'd hear an interesting metaethical theory. Instead it's just some freshman saying "my camp is the best".

>sans intervention to the contrary, they would become a fully grown, conscious and healthy person in 18 years
Wrong they'd die if no one fed them.
Well abortion does save some people.

Anyone would die if no one fed them.

What are you talking about, I can beat my daughter if she doesn't carry my baby to term just fine

Not someone that can feed themselves, fuckface

Punching the uterus isn't a successful way to commit an abortion, so you're fine.

However, if she is still functional, she can still make a trip to Planned Parenthood.

You may have to hobble her.

>This definition of intervention is dubious

Not really.

The opportunity cost doesn't justify the act, especially when you consider that a person who is pregnant can nearly always have reasonably expected to be pregnant.

Yes, being pregnant is uncomfortable, but this discomfort seems slight in response to the importance people place on life.

The entire discussion of 'intervention' and whether or not a fetus is a baby or an entity is entirely a semantic deflection. Significant energy is now invested in a fertilized egg becoming a conscious human, with a (admittedly 'unfair') duty to investment that doesn't justify termination in my estimation.

You could argue that it's all pointless and life is meaningless if you were to be very stringent on making the distinction between the potential person and the person. In my estimation, we can only do and moralize what we can reasonably model. Worrying about masturbating into a tissue instead of a vagina seems excessive, whereas deciding to terminate a baby or fetus because they require external care seems pretty clear cut.