[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 1.08 MB, 2496x2496, [000003].jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2733230 No.2733230 [Reply] [Original]

I've always believed in moral absolutes. Please give me arguments against it so I can expand my perspective. Also, what do you personally believe?

>> No.2733235

No such thing, morals are subjective.

>> No.2733234

i'm a girl, btw

>> No.2733239

Ever heard of moral relativity? Morals are just human inventions that don't exist in reality.

Of course, everyone has a sense of what is and isn't moral, whether they like it or not.

>> No.2733240

>>2733235
Maybe ethics is a better word? Ethics aren't subjective. Right and wrong is objective.

>> No.2733243

>>2733235
This.

Morals are invented by humans, therefore are relative and subjective.

>> No.2733244 [DELETED] 

Moral absolutes can't work because there are varying circumstances in everything. It would be morally unsound to be morally absolute.

A man kills a man because he is afraid he's a burglar.
A man kills a man for sleeping with his wife.
A man kills a man to protect his daughter.

All three are manslaughter. Would you give all three the same punishments?

>> No.2733246

>>2733240
Nope. Ethics are invented by humans too. The Universe does not 'care' about them at all, so they also are subjective and relative.

>> No.2733247

>>2733240

Ethics is nothing more than occupation-specific morals that are even less universal than other forms of morality.

>> No.2733258

>>2733240
1)Right and wrong cannot be objective because they are not object of nature.
2) To state that right and wrong are you either have to show that there is no disagreement over them or that there is a way to setlle the disagreement proving who is right or wrong. Such a method does not exist.

>> No.2733260

Bunch of replies, so I'll just start making my argument and you guys can tear it apart.

I believe there has to be an objective "right and wrong," because, if it were subjective, who is anyone to impose his or her subjective ethics on another person?

So then do we go with majority rule? Majority rule allowed slavery, the holocaust, etc.

>> No.2733268

>>2733260
So your point is basically 'objective morality must exist because it would suck otherwise'?

>> No.2733269 [DELETED] 

>>2733260
But it also abolished it.

>> No.2733274

read any critique of Kant's categorical imperative. In fact don't even read a critique just read about it then apply to some scenarios and you'll see what moral absolutes are stupid.

>> No.2733276

>>2733260
Well people impose their ethics because it's convenient for them and have power.
The strongest imposes the rules that shape a society that benefits them.

Yours is a bad argument because you go from what is to what should be. You say "I don't like the consequences of reality so I'll change reality".

Basically you have to settle with the idea that society is based on a non-justifiable violence.

>> No.2733277

>>2733268
More like, if you don't believe in objective morality, then you can't appeal to morality at all.
>>2733269
yeah, true. my point is that it is fallible

>> No.2733278

>>2733260
And then majority rule banned slavery and denounced the holocaust.

Morals and ethnics come with time and place, and are therefore wildly relative and subjective. People 'impose' morals or ethics on others because that is how a civilised society works.

Ethics/morals condemn murder because that is how a civilised society must work; the Universe, however, does not 'give a shit' about who murders who or how many. Therefore, this moral -- all morals -- are subjective to humans and relative to them.

>> No.2733283
File: 18 KB, 640x360, gorgias.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2733283

>>2733230
> Also, what do you personally believe?

1.Nothing exists;
2.Even if something exists, nothing can be known about it; and
3,Even if something can be known about it, knowledge about it can't be communicated to others.
4.Even if it can be communicated, it cannot be understood.

I'm not proud of it.

>> No.2733288

>>2733283
This.

>> No.2733287

>>2733277
>More like, if you don't believe in objective morality, then you can't appeal to morality at all.

So? How is that an argument for the existence of objective morality?

>> No.2733286

>>2733277
Yeah you don't appeal to morality if you are a moral relativist.
Also it's pretty stupid to appeal to morality.
As Rorty said "when the secret police knocks at your door you are know going to convince them to leave you alone by arguing how moral absolutes exist".

>> No.2733293

Words are just cloaks under which we hide our daggers.

>> No.2733294

>>2733283

If nothing exists, what are we experiencing? It has to be something.

>> No.2733296

>>2733294
>we
>implying that the existence of more than one ego can be justified

laughingwhores.jpg

>> No.2733304

>>2733294
Maybe I don't have a conscience. Maybe I'm just a creation of your mind, or a puppet that only mimics human behavior but does not exist.
How do you know that other people are even human and not just very sophisticate hallucinations? How do you know that they have an interiority?

>> No.2733307

>>2733260
everything is subjective. what you see in front of you forming civilisations is the result of a complex process of conflict and resolution in INTERSUBJECTIVITY

you don't need objective views to have laws that are true for all. all you need is absolute views imposed and agreeable in different scenarios. this is all we have. and it's why the world is fully of argument, disruption, war, conflict and just general dissatisfaction. because with ethics you either pick one side over the other upsetting and marginalising most or you settle on a middle way consensus position that appeases no one but everyone can at least be content that one is preferenced. or more like both side revolt and one gains preferential treatment and the other side has to live and adapt or fight it.


it's really quite perplexing that people approach these abstract questions like 'what is morality' without a single clue, yet they've been actively pursuing and fighting for their moral position all their life.

>> No.2733309

>>2733304

I don't, but I am experiencing something, and therefore something has to exist. If nothing exists, then your logic is faulty, because it is based on something other than nothing.

>>2733296

True.

>> No.2733336

1. God/objective morality might not exist

2. Oh holy fuck I'm panicing now. That means ethics is a lie. there's no such thing. we can't base our views on anything. we better just descend into mass chaotically random rape and slaughter

3. Oh wait a minute. there was always doubt over god/objective morality. that means we were making those judgements regardless of the existence of god/objective morality. oh well, might as well keep doing that then.


That's the process. get over it. get back on with your life.

>> No.2733639
File: 94 KB, 720x960, potatobook.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2733639

bumping so this thread lasts untill I get home

>> No.2733720

>>2733230
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww&feature=player_detailpage#t=11s

>> No.2733742

>>2733336

I think the basis of Contemporary Morality, at least in Western Society, is based more on the stability of said Society than on God's Law.

>> No.2733774

>>2733336

Even if a god exist, that doesn't mean that objective morality exist. It just means that there is a being powerful enough to impose it's subjective morality on everyone else.

For an objective morality to exist, every single piece of matter, energy, and everything that exist would have to have a conscious and be able to agree on every possible scenario (of which there are infinitely many) whether or not it is right or wrong.

>> No.2733782
File: 19 KB, 460x403, i don't even, dat ass, question mark.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
2733782

>>2733774

>For an objective morality to exist, every single piece of matter, energy, and everything that exist would have to have a conscious and be able to agree on every possible scenario (of which there are infinitely many) whether or not it is right or wrong.

...What? No, I don't think pan-consciousness is the condition for objective morality to exist.

>> No.2733823

>>2733782

Well if there were even two conflicting viewpoints then both would be subjective as their would be no basis for holding one above the other. The argument could be made that only all conscious beings would be required for this.

Actually everything in existence has agreed to the laws of physics, so I guess that IS the objective morality.

>> No.2733838

Start with SEP articles related to morality. I did a quick search:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-anti-realism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-relativism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-cognitivism/

I probably read some more as well. Just a quick search.

Then read a couple of books on the topics that u liked in those articles.

I mostly liked error theory (= there are no moral truths). So i read:
Ethics: inventing right and wrong (JL Mackie)
The myth of morality (R Joyce)
The Terrible, Horrible, No Good, Very Bad Truth About Morality and What To Do About It. (Joshua D Greene)

The last one was the best.

>> No.2733842

>>2733823

I don't think objective morality means morality which everything ever always agrees is objectively moral. Do you really think people that advocate the idea of objective morality don't think there are people that disagree with them?

>> No.2733873

>>2733842

I understand that they know that, but even those who agree on the existence of an objective morality don't agree on what it is. Each bases it on their own subjective viewpoint. Without a basis for this objective morality to be founded in, how does any one person's viewpoint become any more or less valid than any other persons?