Morality is subjective

wtf

>morality is

came here to post this

Schopenhauer made any talk about Hegel superfluous.

>descriptively
Yea, obviously history shows us that.

>prescriptively
No.

holy shit

Everything is subjective because the process by which we interpret the external world is subjective

>Art is subjective
>Literature is subjective

>Morality is cognitive

>discussing morality

>verb to be

>all (emphasis) morality is universal

So why is it not OP? I'd like to hear your case here instead of the philosophical equivalent of memeing

>not knowing how to use language

>the concept of objectivity in general

>theory

Not as impressive on a board as slow as Veeky Forums

It's funny, I once had a discussion with a British policeman about whether he thought his job was objectively just and he made this exact face.

The Morality that matters should not be subjective to the single individual, but subjective the a whole society of individuals.

>math is subjective

>Subjectivity is objective reality

if morality could in any way be objective, it seems intuitive to think, that there would also then be morality which is not objective (and when we say, is objective, we mean, is true, which also just gets difficult)

Consider every nations variety of code of law (morality)

If there was an absolutely objectively true timeless morality (for conscious being)

I feel compelled to say, I do not think it would be a billion pages long:

Subjectivity, free will, is the producer of action:

Morality is a governor, limiter of action. If any objectively true timeless etc. morality did exist, I doubt it would be a code of conduct of how one ought act every pico second (though moral codes do that, just semi non actively, for instance, if murder was eternally truly immoral, every pico second I am not murdering, the moral is determining my action, even if its entirely passive and I dont need to think about it: but there are so many various potential actions a person can take, from birth to death, when to lift my arm up, when to spin around, what direction to walk and how fast, what color shoes to wear, what hat to wear, what I want to study, what I day dream about, what food to eat (moral topic!?!?!), how much I should cover my body with cloth, what type of cloth, etc. etc.

That we can presume if any objective absolute true morality did exist, it would not contain these non passive, dictations, of absolutely the only appropriately moral way, to spend every pico second (because then there would be no such thing as free will... and the argument can be made, what would morality being objectively true even matter any way etc. )

So, this leaves room, for people to invent their own morality, and laws, so if there was objective morality, there also would be 'subjective morality' which would be, everything else that people do. Or, if people just wanted to make laws, that were not contained in the objective morality (that did not contradict it)

Would those be true? Is the only meaning of true, objectively true? And is that which is objectively true necessarily that which is beyond human (invention)?

a man made law that was not contained in hypothetical objective morality, would 'truly exist objectively', but it would not be contained in the (hypothetical) objective morality,

That would be called the subjective morality i.e. I dont like carrots, noone in my village can grow carrots. A real law, that can have a real effect on real history, we would likely agree likely would not be in a possible objective true morality:... but would it be "wrong"...? That is what I was trying to get at, all this, to suggest, likely, if objective morality was possible at all to exist, that would not suggest that subjective morality would also not exist (just that it would be possible for subjective morality to contradict objective morality... and unfortunately, if there is no judge, jury and executioner, there is no whats better to say, criminal or prisoner