/lit/ - Literature

It's objectively horseshit.

Morality denies subjectivity a priori.

>>14998455
Explain your answer. I don't agree.

>>14998391
No. The Aztecs sacrificing babies and humans by the thousands would not be vindicated due to "haha it's cool tho, they're just different :)"

>>14998391
No, morality is just a form of rationality.

No. Morality is the worthiness of happiness. I would say 99% of people can agree on what leads to happiness and what leads to sadness. If you act with the intention of creating the former, you are moral and vice versa.

>>14998391
I don't think a normative system can exist when every rule is different depending on who you ask.

>>14998391
Yes, because it isn't real

>>14998524
Yes. If Europeans had had the same cultural features as Aztecs had i wouldn't have been much of a problem. Let's just think about historical phenomenons like the killings carried on by the inquisition. They are both religious and politic rituals involving death. You are just justifying that morality does exist because of a certain conflict of mere values between cultures.

Morality doesn't actually exist.

>>14998517
If morality concerns what is right then it must be objective, because if it's subjective it makes the concept of morality hollow and pointless. Why bother doing what is right if you don't even believe what is right really exists? That is why true morality is impossible without the enforcement of religion.

>>14998391
talking about morality in terms of subjectivity or objectivity only complicates things. Morality is a "non-all" multiplicity. It is impossible to have a perfect/objective system in which every possible action is prescribed a moral value, but at the same time, morality is not wholly relative. So what you have is a system that is constantly being amended or revised, with new rules, exceptions and adjustments being perpetually added so it can be as fair and accomodating as possible. This also feeds into the justice system, in which exceptional court cases with rulings that have never before been made can then be referred to retroactively in dictating how we approach similar cases in the future.

>>14998528

If it is a form of rationality, why aren't people born morally correct?

>>14998572
Lol european christians were fucking evil, too. Don't judge me you don't know me faggot

>>14998581
Because what you think it's right it's a concept created by yourself from social learning and personal experience. You can do what is right for you.

>>14998606
I didn't judge you bro, just mentioned an example to explain my point.

>>14998582
This is based infected boi

>>14998391
Matters how you play the word game and how you define morality. If you believe that all humans are determined beings and we live in a materialist universe and that right is cognoscent with truth, then morality is an objective imparitive within the mind theoretically. However practically as we are the perceived and thus the receivers of the subject then it is subjective. If you believe in an idealistic notion it can vary from subjective to objective. And the categorical impartive can be objective in a self contained manor.

>>14998589
Same reason they aren't born rational.

>>14998658
So people that aren't morally correct are irrational? Then people who commit crimes l must be irrational in any case, isn't it?

>>14998404
>giggle gas cartridges
uhhhh hello, based department? What do you mean this is the Bellview department of neurology and I "have sevete neuropathy and should take B12"? Sorry, wrong number, I'm looking for the BASED department. *click*

Is subjectivity moral?

>>14998672
No, that's not how it works. If I think smoking is healthy, that is an irrational belief. If I think, rationally, that smoking is unhealthy, yet I continue to smoke, that is weakness of the will.

>>14998581
>That is why true morality is impossible without the enforcement of religion.
Then morality is enforced, not objective, and rooted in human feelings and desires.

Do go on... It entertains me to no end to hear brainlets discuss morality

>>14998400
Doubly so for people like you lol

>midwits arguing ITT about whether morality is subjective or objective when this dichotomy only obfuscates the problem further

>>14998728
>Stating that egoism is innate when the concept of egoism is a subjective human construct
ok

>>14998690
How can you tall a person is rational and the other one is not? You are only basing you judgments on your subjective moral.

>>14998728
>tabula rasa
fucking dropped

>>14998734
how do I know if I'm a midwit or just not well read

I think Im smarter than everyone which is classic midwit, once in awhile I'll read a post on /lit/ and think I'm not as smart as I thought I was. Otherwise, walking around at college everyone seems like a fucking idiot

>>14998615
My bad. I think I get your point but it seems to me evil is done by all cultures therefore it must come from some objective source

>>14998722
It's enforced by divine authority, it has nothing to do with man.

Anyone else just kind of think objective morality exists but cant figure out why

>>14998391
Your morality is dependent on your memory, which is dependent on how you model the world, which is dependent on the language(s) you use to interpret it, which is dependent on your genes. So yes.

>>14998391
no

>>14998581
When people talk about objective vs subjective morality, it usually refers to objectively (or subjectively) the same within humanity, or even wider.

>>14998835
It does but you have to be in connection to higher force beyond false ego identity. Most people have no spiritual insight or practice so they cannot tap into it

>>14998831
>It's enforced by divine authority
Citation needed

>>14998581
>If morality concerns what is right then it must be objective
Not when what is right is different for you and me.

>>14998903
Im going to read the Bible this quarantine. I have all of these religious views but no actual belief which is sad to me

>>14998945
>>14998946
This is your mind on atheism, if man is the measure of all things morality is impossible.

>>14999063
Man as measure of all things is a Renaissance (ie Christian) concept tho

>>14998524
What the mexicas did with sacrifice is not very different from what countries who rely heavily in they military do with soldiers i.e. having them die and then come back almost santified for it.
Also, you probably are already used to the practices of your culture that may seem barbaric to others. Native australians when they first had contact with the british were terrified of the way newcomers treated their own people, specially of the fact that they killed and hanged their own people in such barbaric ways.

>>14998761
No, I am basing my judgments on objective medical research.

>>14999063
We are each of us God living in our domain; "man" is an outdated concept. Morality is still possible because it is not "man" who is the measure of "all things," but God of his kingdom. Take the Stirnerpill.

>>14998581
Morality has always been that way.
If you consider it hollow and worthless because of that, then maybe morals aren't for you.

>>14999063
Prove that:
A) Theism is true
B) Moral realism necessitates theism

You have 1 hour

>>14995871
>hard work is soi
Wrong, faggot.

>>14999103
Sorry that still doesn't vindicate either cultures. Two wrongs don't make a right.

>>14998582
The subject of good and evil is surely a precious one. It is obvious that the individual latches on to such ideas because they must produce utilitarian corollaries - the man clings to the state for the same reason. From this, though, we can see that such concepts are necessarily contrivances made by those who possess sapience: to act in accordance to that which is good is to act with premeditated intention. If good happens as a consequence, good can stem from that which is evil and then we must ask the question: is that which is good - and morality in general - a social construct that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number? It would appear that your thesis implies that morality is socially constructed; however, as an action must either be good or bad and action precedes consequence a priori it follows that that which stems from X is neither X nor can it have the morality previously ascribed to X by virtue of having occurred. Since that which occurs in consequence isn't necessarily an action, one must apply different criteria for analysis: ethical. I hazard to say that what you speak of is ethics - norms based - rather than morality.

From this we can see that morality cannot be that which we call a social construct to secure the greatest happiness for the greatest number - if that was the case, then morality itself could be circumvented and ignored (an amoral act) to secure it. Morality exists independent of hedonistic calculations but is paradoxical in nature insofar as its creation within the mind of humans spawned that which humans have no control over. There exists objective morality for every action, and it has already been established whether we recognize it or not.

The more interesting question is whether morality is intrinsically relegated to thought

>>14998582
What's with this infection stuff. Should I even be replying to this anon? I might get Corona virus...

>>14998391
http://esotericawakening.com/is-dharma-fluid

>>14998831
>It's enforced by divine authority
How so?
>it has nothing to do with man.
Then why would I submit to it?

>>15000312
On the right are five men squabbling over what they think constitutes truth. On the left is an entire people devoted to the perfection of a supreme being utterly convinced that His truth is final.

>>14998391
no

read kant

>>14998391
is this about a book? no? then fuck off back to /x/.

>>15000328
The five men end up inventing all the modern sciences and philosophy itself while the devoted people spend millennia co-opting said inventions as their own and killing non-believers. Just to finish your story there.

r8

>>15000312
How is gravity enforced? And why would your choice to "submit" to it or not affect any aspect of the truthful reality of gravity?

yes

>>14998391
if God exists, then morality is necessarily objective.

God exists.

>>15000758
Which god exists and what's the evidence for the existence?

>>15000792
I didn't like his mystery works.

>>15000729
This

Club Tropical Excellent will be ground zero for Beach Club Nationalism

>>14998391
Yes morality is subjective, and in precisely the same way one’s preference for chocolate ice cream or Pink Floyd is subjective: namely, that any truth of the matter is only so in reference to an element of individual subjective experience. If I say I like chocolate ice cream what I have said is true, because I feel pleasure when I eat it. And, furthermore, it is subjectively true, because the pleasure it references and which makes it true belongs to my subjective experience alone.
In exactly the same way, if I were to see an innocent person murdered, I would certainly say that the action was immoral, but I couldn’t possibly describing anything other than a subjective sentiment.
It’s important to note, however, that this being the case doesn’t preclude the possibility of rational discourse about what is moral or good. Such discourse is conducted all the time over other indisputably subjective topics such as art, and valuable insights are still made, simply because humans tend to be similar to each other and have similar subjective reactions to the same stimuli.

>>14998391
>Is morality subjective?
Yes.

>>14998391
No
>>14999785
Is that Codreanu in the background?

>>15000432
>It's a bit disappointing due to the high number of unfinished storylines with few choices, but there are some stories that are pretty good.
I have never found a story that wasnt just unfinished bullshit
Give me one where there are actual choices, please. I'm serious, I want to enjoy this site but so much unfinished bullshit ruins it constantly.

I believe that violence against other human beings is always objectively wrong. All the anon's on this site are my brothers, despite any nasty remarks I might have made in the past, it would be a grave sin for me to take the life of another anon. One day our soul will leave the body, and we will have to account for the violence inflicted upon one another.

>>14998690
>I smoke
>smoking is pleasurable
>smoking is also unhealthy
>is the immediate pleasure I receive from smoking subjectively worth the potential long-term risks to my health?
>if yes, continue to smoke
>if no, quit smoking
Either decision is perfectly rational, and the choice of either will ultimately be determined by subjective preference.

>>15001338

I don't mean to do the leftist deconstruction of concepts but what does he mean by white, Nordic only?

If his end goal is martial imperialism how does he think we're going to deal with the mass of nuclear weapons? Does he think we can reach his ideal without nuclear catastrophe?

>>15001323
i dont fully agree with him but Ive read the first 10 pages "herr i was only pretending to be retarded" is retarded. also hes not the one selling a book for 15 bucks a pop.

>>15000537
>brazilian intellectuals
uh... yeah...

>>15000758
if God exists morality is objective, for us. For him, it's whatever he wants it to be hence subjective
>>15001208
nonsense, the big man seems to like a good old scrap every now and then. I'm not actually religious but it never ceases to amaze me just how many people come away thinking God wants you to be a simp, he is the biggest Chad ever, fuck look at the first couple of commandments

>>15001295
You sound like someone who has taken too many undergraduate economics classes. There are no such things as "preferences". There are motives, and there are hedonic states. The one drives behavior, and the other provides the basis for well-being.

Where do I start with Guenon brothers? I see him so often on /lit/.. I am finally ready to receive his wisdom...

>>15000595
Trying to become a literature professor is foolish. It is a status game with an enormous crowd of entrants. Even if you win, the amount of energy, careerism, politics, and bullshit you need to put into it will outweigh the reward. Like any "dream", you will also realise - along the way, and if you succeed - that your idea of what it means to be a literature professor was a fantasy... and it didn't even turn out to be what you really wanted. Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

If you lose, and fail to become a professor after years of following through with graduate school and doing a PhD... you will have wasted a lot of your life. You might have incurred large amounts of debt in the process. You would have given up so many opportunities and so much time pursuing this one occupation.

Here are some redpills, OP

>The most secure and available job that is actually literary is "high school english teacher".
>If you want to become a writer, don't go to school. Find a way to support yourself, then write and publish works of fiction with a long term view (5 to 10 years) of building a writing career. No one is going to hold your hand or show you the way to becoming a writer. There are few shortcuts. Never buy any courses or books from anyone whose name or status as an author you don't recognise or respect. Do not do any university courses that do not emphasise writing and publishing as the sole aim.
>Don't waste your time pursuing a PhD in literature. Your time would be better spent building something scalable that will actually give you something in return - such as a Youtube channel, a podcast, a blog, a body of fiction stories, a twitter or instagram account, essays, short stories, and novels. In academia, you are focusing on the esteem of a small network of your peers... you are arguing and critiquing and engaging in politics and philosophy to gain or lose ephemeral intellectual status. If you want to be rewarded with money, fame, or an interesting career... then focus on what you want and focus on what other people (audiences) want at scale. People, not peers. Act, don't argue.

>>14998728
>people are generally amoral
finally you people admit it

>>15000705
Gravity isn't enforced. Whether I believe gravity exists or not doesn't change the fact that gravity will always have an effect on me. Regardless of belief it remains objectively true, it doesn't change from person to person, I cannot pick a particular gravity that suits my needs better. Animals are affected by gravity too; do you feel animals follow an objective morality, huh?

>>14999770
>is that which is good - and morality in general - a social construct that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number? It would appear that your thesis implies that morality is socially constructed
Not necessarily. I am not advocating for a utilitarian approach. I would distinguish between morality as social construction, and morality as
a kind of scientific paradigm which is perpetually revised and optimised over time. I think most scientists would agree that this approach does not mean that science itself is a social construct. I think it would be unwise for our definition of morality to remain fixed, static or unchanging, as it would fail to reflect or adequately address the ethical questions of the present. I personally believe without this process, all humans will naturally tend towards amorality, egoism and darwinian competition.

Ethics takes conscious work if we want to have a definition of morality that is functional, and not simply dogmatic; we cannot take for granted that morality would exist independently of "hedonistic calculations", because those calculations are precisely the work towards implementing an ethical system that is justified by objectivity. Objectivity should be the end goal, but to settle on or claim we have at last reached it would be incredibly risky. My argument is grounded on a principle of scientific objectivity, rather than utilitarian relativity, IE. It is definitive and objective, but only up until the point in which certain cases may prove its current implementation to be inadequate. Think of it like testing the security of a network– you think it is impenetrable, until only the most talented hacker challenges its firewalls, and through this process learn exactly what the weak points are, and where improvements must be made to its defences. Morality should be about determining those finer gradients and closer approximations of objectivity, and "updating" the network accordingly. You are right, there is "objective" morality for every action, but to assume that the moral nature of said action is immediately and transparently visible to all humans is, I think, optimistic.

>>14998391

Yes, in the sense that the Self is true.

>>15001172
>Is that Codreanu in the background?
yes

>>14998391
No. There's no situation where strength is bad. There's no situation where will power is bad. Weakness is immoral.

>>15002538
Why don't you go cry about it to an iddle widdle horsie :'(

>>14998391
Absolutely.

>>15002494
Based greenfren

>>14998946
if the right thing for me and you would be the same, morality would be universal
if there was a right thing for me and for you, but it was different, morality would be objective
if there were only perspectives on what is right, morality would be subjective.

>>14998391
>Is morality
Yes

>>14998391
Is color subjective?

>>14998524
how does it prove moral is not subjective? the Aztecs had different moral values than you do

>>15004215
is it not?

>>14998391

the question of morals require a being that asks the questions. therefore some morals must be objective for the concept of morals to be applicable. morals are moral because the concept of morals allows for the continued applicability of itself, making it necessarily moral.

morals are technicaly objective, but the perfect position is not known, so subjective morals try to approximate it.

>>15004665
imagine if the Universe is filled with alien civilizations
do you think there is a moral perfect position for all of them?

>>14998391
Is justice subjective? What is justice but applied morality? If justice is subjective, can statements such as "criminals ought to be punished" be rightly dismissed as baseless opinion?

>>15004767
there is only "our" justice not a "perfect" justice

>>14998534
>happiness = good
dumb edonist

>>15004811
Do you ever feel guilt?

>>14998391
Why are you asking me?

>>14998391
>Is morality subjective?
What does 'subjective' mean here?

>>15004530
Aztecs believed that there was a sacrifice they made. It wasn't just for fun. They were buying time for all humans by making sure the sun could burn for some more.
So there is a clear indication of morality aligning with species/worldwide interest at heart. But the answers are subjective. Moral sense is akin to all other senses, it's not that the data is wrong or not really there or that there are no truly wrong ways to interpret sense data; we can identify the list of colors humans can see - some will be colorblind and some will be blind despite that.
So morality should work on same principles. It's not arbitrarily selected javascript values gotten from a random generator, but carefully cultivated evolutionary and cultural paradigms. I believe Dolphins, cats and dogs experience quite a few of the same moral principles we do.

>>15004565
Is snow white?

>>15004767
Justice is subjective, but morality isn't.

>>15005884
by convention yes
but no one can swap consciousness with the others to see how they see whiteness

>>15006227
I think we can assume that similar neurology gives rise to similar conscious experience.

>>14998391
No, but the path of truth is different for every person

>>15006271
I think so too. However, I would very much like to know why. Do these chemicals link locality to Platonic ideas and organize them by local standards, or do they simply produce the phenomena, or are they the phenomena itself?
This would be very important to decipher.

>>15006274
>true or false in relation to a subject
Aka subjective

>>14998391
No, read the Bible

>>14998391
it's objective