Believing in objective morality

>believing in pure subjectivity

What, then, is the subjectivity interpreting? Another subjectivity? But what is that subjectivity interpreting? Another subjectivity, and so on and so on ... But you can't have an infinite regress, and here we find God, the uninterpretted interpreter.

That's an invalid question, because no such thing can happen. Objectivity doesn't exist. An object does not live.

You'd still need to bridge the is/ought gap

REEEE

WE NEED TO PRETEND OBJECTIGE MORALITY EXISTS! HOW ELSE COULD WE JUSTIFY THE ACADEMIA CITATION CIRCLE JERK AND BOOK SALES IF WE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT THERE ARE INFINITELY MANY POSSIBLE OPINIONS!

SHUT UP! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEREREE

Morality is either objective* or it's... useless.

*in the sense that it's [perceived to be] shared by others

>pseudo-emotivist brainlets are THIS mad

>*categoricalimperatives behind you*
eh..... kid..

...

>if morality is not objective it must be subjective
wew

We can but likely aren't

Morality is universal AND subjective.

Recommend me some books on it then thread

Of course morality isn't objective. In our natural state, there IS no morality. We've constructed it - it's a social contract that allows us to leave peacefully together. We agree to certain rules because they're in our mutual interest.

Eat a dick, Hobbes. Rousseau was right about everything. Except maybe when he abandoned his children.

I've not read Rousseau. He wrote about the social contract too, right?

Anyway you haven't given me any reasons why Hobbes is wrong. Because you can't. Because he's right about everything.

Wait what?

this.

when will edgy teenagers understand that we (humanity) cannot escape the subjectivity of our own experience, thus it constitutes an effective objectivity. It is irrelevant to experience whether what it experiences can be validated "objectively"

sometimes when I'm bored or banned from all the fun boards I come to Veeky Forums and post a picture of a smug frog with
>objective morality
next to a meme arrow just like that. It never fails to reach bump limit. you could also just post a picture of marx, you probably dont need any text the spergs on this board do the work for you

>But you can't have an infinite regress
says who?
also, said regress isn't necessarily vicious

i don't know if morality is objective but it sure is pointless.

have you read any other social contract theorists besides Hobbes?

please don't tell me you've only read Hobbes.

What kind of hard drives do you think this god server is packing ?

Morality can't ever be objective or subjective in the same way Law can't you dumbass.

>morality can't be objective
>morality can't be subjective either
then what the heck is it?

Those rules are devised from the way our society operates. They exists because they are supported by logic. We follow morality not because of fells, but because being moral is the most logical course of action in our society, thus making morality objective.

It doesn't try to describe reality so it's neither objective nor subjective.

There is no morality without a subjective goal, but the way to most effectively achieve that goal can probably be objectively determined.

Morality is no -ism, though.

I said this in the last thread

The major assumption here is "objective" means unchanging and absolute.
An objective morality is context sensitive, on a case by case basis.
Becuase things change.
When morality gets too generalized and sweeping its easy for false postives and for people to fall between the cracks.

wut? explain

Can some people here please post some actual books on the matter at hand?

>Logic
>Objective
Its just patterns we perceive, nothing more.