Mfw I get laughed out of class for telling the class that morals are objective

mein n word

Technology has long gone from being a means to an end to being an end in and of itself. The only problems technology solves - with, of course, a few exceptions - are those it creates. Technology is not an answer to the big questions but a distraction from them. But technology can't go on forever, because it always needs something new, it requires constant growth.

Why would technological advancements end all human conflicts, all moral dilemmas?

>mfw I get laughed out of class for telling the class that morals are objective

Did you just tell them or did you actually explain it?

You should have said that ethics are objective, that's easier to defend as a point.

>mfw I get laughed out of class for telling the class that morals are objective

Good.

Now, that sad thing is that those who laughed you out of the class are probably not courageous enough to create their own values, getting them from on high instead (teachers, modern Western Liberal Democracy, etc).

How is technology going to solve innately human moral dilemmas?

He thinks that morals exist independently of humanity, which is something beyond autism.

Try and write a more pretentious sentence; you don't come across as quite enough of a wanker

>tfw you're german and understood that sentence the first time reading it

The 10 commandments were given by God, user.

Morals depends on God.

>mfw I get laughed out of class for telling the class that Earth isn't a sphere

As some contemporary philosophers point out, people confuse not being able to make PERFECTE judgements about human values with not having any standard at all - a.e. everything in the world is only true on average, which is completely different from not having any objective truth.

>tfw you realise verbosity isn't the same thing as comprehensibility.

We can all understand what the user means. What is criticised is the style

>There can't be any human conflict if there are no humans

Why do so many Germans always think they're so smart when they're entirely missing the point, and also feel the need to announce that they're German?

He was criticizing
>as per
>said existence
It's not that no one understands it, Klaus. It's that it reads like a porn-addicted grad student smelled too many of David Foster Wallace's farts right before he started his essay on existentialism.

>still believing in the subjective-objective distinction

please.

>"bad style"

In the German language (and I guess in many more languages that are more complex on a syntactical level than English) sentences like the one above are completely okay and not automatically pretentious.

Did you ever read Virgil, Ovid or Cicero in Latin? It's pretty much the same. No need to be upset at all.

Yeah, a similar argument can be made about the existence of God. Atheism is still a belief system.

I don't understand how you can think morals are objective without misunderstanding the word "objective".

I dunno. What makes you think it can't?

Objectivity is a spook

>u can't proov it won't so we'll just have to wait and see xDDDDD
What makes you think me eating four boxes of dry Reeses Puffs won't cause women to become attracted to me?

>The only problems technology solves are the ones it creates.
Says the guy who's never suffered from smallpox, malaria, polio, yellow fever, dengue fever, Asiatic cholera, or bubonic plague.

morals being objective vs. subjective is an inappropriately framed question, and your professor should be fired if he imposed it onto your class. The only true questions are a) does x act hurt y individual/group of individuals, and b) given the answer to a), is this act then permissible/encouraged to accomplish some goal z. Moral questions then become much simpler to approach and don't fall victim to arbitrary feelings and groundless attributions of 'right' and 'wrong'

The concept of spooks are a spook.

that's not what objectivity means, shlomo

Probably not, but tell me why technology can't solve "innately" human dilemmas. Silly analogies aren't an argument.

aren't ethics by definition subjective? Is ethics not the comparison of competing moral axioms?

cant morals be proved through socratic logic?

Nice misquote. First of all, I was talking about technological development today. This is clear from my first sentence. Second of all, you left out the part where I admit that there are exceptions to this. But the vast majority of the "technology" in the widest sense that gets produced today is simply driven by consumerism.

I will continue to feed you food analogies like I feed myself cinnabun combo meals.

btfo

It's not a question of syntax, friend. It's a matter of throwing around unnecessary and ill-chosen phrases. It's a matter of the superfluous betraying a cringy motive of ingratiation in the writer.
Also, I know enough latin to know it's far more compact than English. I don't think you even could write a sentence like that in latin. Can't speak for German though.

Who draws these and why

Although it is credit to your english comprehension that you can succesfully wade through that kind of shit. Congrats.

I think they're pretty funny

And if it helps I can re-write his sentence to illuatrate what I mean: "our question of the existence of moral truths is a sort of existence."

“And in that day […] [Gnosis] is in danger of becoming a burden to all men. Therefore, it will be despised - the beautiful world of God, the incomparable work, the energy that possesses goodness, the man-formed vision. Darkness will be preferred to light, and death will be preferred to life. No one will gaze into heaven. And the pious man will be counted as insane, and the impious man will be honored as wise. The man who is afraid will be considered as strong. And the good man will be punished like a criminal.
And concerning the soul, and the things of the soul, and the things of immortality, along with the rest of what I have said to you- not only will they be considered ridiculous, but they will also be thought of as vanity. But believe me (when I say) that people of this kind will be endangered by the ultimate danger to their soul.” - Asclepius, a Nag Hammadi text

>logic does not prove, nor is it objective.

This is almost signs of the Apocalypse stuff, Jesus.

False

>tfw to smart to read