>I'm a subjective moralist. >Ok then explain why murder is bad. >...it...it just is okay!

>I'm a subjective moralist
>Ok then explain why murder is bad
>...it...it just is okay!

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

Tip Your Landlord Shirt $21.68

Shopping Cart Returner Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Its bad because big israelite in the sky say so?

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    your mistake is talking to relativists and materialists. They are basically golems. No sense of logic or reasoning, just atheist dogma

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Correct. Anyone who still believes moral subjectivism and metaphysical physicalism are unquestionably true, beyond the age of 25, is a lost cause.

      Its bad because big israelite in the sky say so?

      You do know there are other religions, right? You do know you can coherently be a moral realist while being an atheist, right? You've heard of Nagel, right?
      I guess you're on these guys' side:
      >Laurence Krauss
      >Steven Pinker
      >Yuval Noah Harari
      >David Silverman
      >Robert Sapolsky
      >Jerry Coyne
      >Sam Harris
      >Michael Shermer
      >Alex Rosenberg
      >Michael Ruse
      >Shelly Kagan
      >David Benatar
      >Rebecca Goldstein
      >Karl Marx
      >Sigmund Freud
      >Hannah Arendt
      >Jacques Derrida
      >Franz Kafka
      >Isaiah Berlin
      >Leonard Peikoff
      >Philip Roth
      >Isaac Asimov
      >Erich Fromm
      >Theodor Adorno

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Correct. Anyone who still believes moral subjectivism and metaphysical physicalism are unquestionably true, beyond the age of 25, is a lost cause.
        Why?

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >social contract
    >golden rule
    >it is what it is
    see? plenty of reasons

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Hypothetically

    Let me take away your life right now?

    No?

    Murder bad

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      It’s all fun playing with philosophy but put your self as the victim of it

      Pride is a sin for a reason

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >put your self as the victim of it

        Empathy is the main reason people murder.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Please expand on that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Please expand on that.
            Dam... You hurt the one I love, now I hurt you.....

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Firstly that's not necessaripy empathy, it's frustration potentially born of empathy.
            Secondly saying that's the main reason most murders happen is a leap. Most violent crime I know of is based on money issues more than personal grudges, and that's not even counting wars.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >empathy good

            yeah right.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Never said that. All I'm saying is that's a fallacious argument for WHY it's bad.

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    When is the risk that murder brings, worth a murder? I mean, look at it this way, if you don't murder anyone you are free to continue living, if you do murder, you might get caught. so why risk that?

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    What goes around comes around

    You murder your self

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I might be misunderstanding but if it's a subjective system then can't they just say murder is bad because they don't like it?

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If everyone murdered each other, eventually there would be one or less people alive. If everyone did not murder, everyone would die due to other reasons but there would be more than one. Therefore, murdering is bad.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    this guy was saying things similar to yuval noah harrari 13 years ago, except more elloquently

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    we live in a society

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    it's bad for me because it's not worth the cost. If I wanted to kill someone so bad that nightmares prison and ostracism seemed like a bargain there'd be nothing wrong with it

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Bad isn't real. It's a human construction

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      based

      giga based

      god is such a dumb cope

      just look at Muslim pigs lol

      unfathomably based

      you all are missing the point where merciless murder and brutality are essential pieces to lots of nature cycles, to FRICKING LIFE.

      Bad because humans think (over-think, by definition). Go back more than a few thousand years and you'll find that murder and brutality aren't that bad and absolutely necessary.

      Since a few thousand years ago, this has been the equivalent of the pronouns debate, turning into something ViLe and RePrEhEnSiBlE not long ago (compared to how fricking long we've been here/doing it)

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    god is such a dumb cope

    just look at Muslim pigs lol

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >explain why murder is bad
    >because I judge it to be
    This isnt hard. Same way you know things are good and bad. Same way God decides what is good and bad.
    A subject, a self, decides it is good or bad.
    If there was some objective thing doing this, then it would have power over God and thus God is irrelevant.
    Moral objectivists are the ultimate atheists.

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Context matters. If you kill some random innocent person minding your business people around you would probably not like that. If you shot some pedo you'd be arrested with modern laws but everyone wouldn't be mad with what you did.

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Murder isn't always bad.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >It is… to me
    Dumbass

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Whether murder is good or bad surely depends on the circumstance.

    In eras now bygone in human history, there were times when the ability to commit such an act was all the justification one needed to do so. Might did indeed make right at many points in our collective history, and indeed, still does today, in many dark corners of the world. "Right and wrong" is just another way of saying "winner and loser".

    Detach the core concept of murder from its legal definitions. Say murder is when one human kills another human, by effort and will. Truly accidental deaths do not count, only those whose perpetrators used direct force. Whether motivated by the interests of defense, revenge, politics, or pure psychotic rage, the intentional ending of a human's life shall be considered an instance of murder.

    It's easy to say that the world would be a better place if nobody ever killed anyone, but that isn't necessarily true for the individual who commits the murder.

    >Killing your rapist.
    >Killing some junkie who rushed you with a knife.
    >Killing your abusive stepdad moments before he takes a breadknife to your mother's throat.

    These are some circumstances in which murder has in fact a direct benefit toward the prosperity of mankind as a whole.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Is murder bad though?

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >why murder bad?
    Because murder interferes with free will.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >interferes with free will
      Why is that bad?

      Murder is bad because it destroys the idea that human life is precious.
      And when human life is no longer precious and murder is not off the table or seen as a taboo then all life is at risk and loses meaning.

      How can we interact with people or just gain protection and enilightenment by building a society if we all know that the other will kill us for no reason?

      >all life is at risk and loses meaning
      Why is that bad?

      You can keep asking this question until you get to the root.
      And the root will be arbitrary, subjective opinion.
      It is bad because I do not want it.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Why is that bad
        Why are you alive if life holds no meaning?

        Go have a nice day.
        Now.

        But you're here.
        Trying and failing to make some kind of point and failing even harder to create smoke screens of labryinthine bullshit to confuse and bedazzle.

        Subjective?
        Arbitrary?
        You don't want it?
        That' fricking moronic.
        Your will means nothing if you're asking why not to do it.
        You doubt your want so your will to do something has no power till you decide.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Why are you alive if life holds no meaning?
          Because I prefer it. Why is life having no meaning bad?
          >You don't want it?
          >That' fricking moronic.
          You have no other answer. Everything "objective" is just an opinion on what be the judging factor.
          But the act of judging itself is always subjective opinion.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            You're wrong.
            You objectively speaking don't want to die
            You objectively speaking find meaning in life
            You objectively speaking wish for things to be subjective so you need no morality.
            Do ast thou wilst? Correct?
            The morality of a parasitic pointless life.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            you go to church because your parents raised you that way
            you go to church with a community with shared values
            you go to church where a man in a tall hat stands over you and tells you what a piece of shit you are

            but no, you aren't subjectively moral... you're special.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I'm not christian.
            I practice or believe in no religion what so ever.
            I know there is absolutely nothing but darkness unending after death.
            I've seen it, I've felt it.

            You people are transparent.

            >posing as subjective moralist
            >views the world as black and white, void of context
            christcucks are really sending their best

            >satanic goat frickers playing pretend that anything posted has anything to do with the biblefricking israelite zombie worshippers.

            You people and your spineless religious squabbles.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You objectively speaking don't want to die
            And I subjectively judge this a good thing.
            >You objectively speaking find meaning in life
            No, actually, I dont. This life holds no meaning in it. I just dont want to end it.
            >Do ast thou wilst? Correct?
            No, not at all. there are plenty of times where what I desire I would judge to be bad.

            There are things and events. And you can objectively observe them. But to call any of it good or bad is a subject making an evaluation and projecting it outward.
            Good and bad only exist as subjective judgements externally placed on things and events.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >And I subjectively judge this a good thing.
            Judge = god
            You are the judge/god correct?
            Or are you a thinker who judges things objectively?
            If everything is subjective then everything is permittted based on what you want not what would be best.

            Sounding awful goatfricker there friend...

            >No, actually, I dont. This life holds no meaning in it. I just dont want to end it.
            So, objectively speaking.
            You find value in life and don't want to end it.
            Am I correct?

            >No, not at all. there are plenty of times where what I desire I would judge to be bad.
            So you made an objective judgement?

            >There are things and events. And you can objectively observe them. But to call any of it good or bad is a subject making an evaluation and projecting it outward.
            But bad and good are objective judgements and can't be made by us even though we are the judges of what we want in life.

            >Good and bad only exist as subjective judgements externally placed on things and events.
            I never said anything about good or bad my goatfricking friend.
            I said that murder leads to a devaluement of life and is objectively negative to the growth and stability of any society.

            But let's go even further.
            Pointless Murder is considered a negative and thus BAD in every single society to ever exist.

            The frick makes you think you know more then every human society to ever exist?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >If everything is subjective then everything is permittted based on what you want not what would be best.
            Subjectivity isn't based solely on base desires, it's based on perspective. Someone can think something counter to their desires is a better way, and that would be their subjective judgement on the matter because it's still based in their perspective.

            Merely detaching yourself from your base desires doesn't make your judgements objective in a philosophical sense, actual objectivity cannot be achieved by a person, people like judges just attempt to get as close as possible to it.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That's your subjective opinion correct?
            That no one can be objective so seeking objectivity is impossible.

            So don't try to be objective or have rules, just go by whatever? I'm not sure what you're saying here.

            We have laws and rules and ways of thinkign that are based on what has come before and what has worked and solid facts. I don't know what you're saying.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >So don't try to be objective or have rules, just go by whatever? I'm not sure what you're saying here.
            I'm not saying you shouldn't have rules. In my opinion you SHOULD have rules.
            But those rules will be based on subjective judgements on what is important/good/bad/valuable and those judgements will always be inherently subjective.
            >We have laws and rules and ways of thinkign that are based on what has come before and what has worked and solid facts. I don't know what you're saying.
            That doesn't make those judgements objective.
            You can observe that making murder illegal reduces the rate of murder, and if so that is an objective fact.
            You deciding that less murder is good and therefore you should legalize murder is a subjective judgement based on that objective fact.

            Values of what is good or bad are subjective. You can argue objectively that something will improve life. You can only argue subjectively that improving life is good, because what is good is subjective.

            I feel like our argument is less over actual morals and more over definition of these words.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You deciding that less murder is good and therefore you should legalize murder is a subjective
            Meant illegalize, frick.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I'm not saying you shouldn't have rules. In my opinion you SHOULD have rules.
            But only if they are based on whatever emotion you are feeling or an uninformed opinion.

            >But those rules will be based on subjective judgements on what is important/good/bad/valuable and those judgements will always be inherently subjective.
            Then laws shouldn't exist.

            >>We have laws and rules and ways of thinkign that are based on what has come before and what has worked and solid facts. I don't know what you're saying.
            >That doesn't make those judgements objective.
            Actually it does.

            >You can observe that making murder illegal reduces the rate of murder, and if so that is an objective fact.
            ok....

            >You deciding that less murder is good and therefore you should legalize murder is a subjective judgement based on that objective fact.
            So murder is okay as long as it's legal. Okay.

            >Values of what is good or bad are subjective. You can argue objectively that something will improve life. You can only argue subjectively that improving life is good, because what is good is subjective.
            Subjectivity ends where history and the need for stability and order begins

            >I feel like our argument is less over actual morals and more over definition of these words.

            Yeah...you created this "subjective morality" stuff a while ago and I've been telling you that subjective moralitty isn't actually morality at all.
            It's just you doing what the frick ever until you do something illegal or you do something illegal and get caught.

            is it safe to assume now you're just a sociopath without morality who tries to fit in?

            No. just lawful evil.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >But only if they are based on whatever emotion you are feeling or an uninformed opinion.
            No. They could be based on informed opinions, my point is them being informed doesn't make them objective.
            >Then laws shouldn't exist.
            You're the one saying laws shouldn't exist if they aren't objective, not me.
            >So murder is okay as long as it's legal. Okay.
            No, it's the reverse. The law existing is not what determines what is right or wrong morally, but one would hope the law is based on what is decided to be moral. If murder is judged to be okay it should be legal, if it is judged to not be okay it should be illegal.
            You keep mentioning laws but those aren't moral judgements. Those are things imposed upon the world in an attempt to make the world more in line with moral judgements. You also keep mentioning things being objective based on a consensus of the populace but that doesn't make something objective, it's just makes it the consensus.
            >Subjectivity ends where history and the need for stability and order begins
            No it doesn't, because the need for anything, including order and stability, is inherently subjective.

            If the majority of people in society subjectively judge that stability and order are good, then it will most likely be put into law and enforced. That doesn't make it objectively true that stability and order are good, it only makes it objectively true that stability and order will be enforced.

            A consensus does not make a judgement objective.

            Creating a law based off of a judgement does not make that judgement objective.

            Those two statements seem to be the crux of our disagreement.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >That no one can be objective so seeking objectivity is impossible.
            What you seek instead is consensus.
            I may not have an objective reason for saying stable society is good, but I dont need one find others who also think that and remove those that do not think that way.
            >have rules
            Laws are not morality, laws are codified and written down and can objectively observed.
            And laws can be good or bad. So simply the presence of laws is not an example of objective morality.

            Subjective morality means no morality.
            It literally just means you're a practicing sociopath, or lawful, and are pretending to follow morality of whatever place you are in to fit in.

            >Subjective morality means no morality.
            No it doesnt. It's an understanding that morality is the difference between objectively observing what is, and declaring your evaluation of how it ought to be.

            That people in power are evil and pieces of shit doesn't mean that objective laws can't exist.

            Laws based on feelings and opinions aren't laws.
            They are a tyranny of madness and one that would not last long.

            PS. No one cares about what one person feels or our opinion.
            It comes down to what has worked what will work and what the vast majority will live with easily and the least amount of stress.

            We can either live based on our own morality rules and laws, or live based on the morality rules and laws of others.
            Our own morality rules and laws can be as subjective and divorced from objective reality as we want.
            But when it comes up against a stronger will or the majority, how strong will that subjective morality be?

            [...]
            Yup

            >objective laws
            Do you see how you have moved the goalpost from good and bad, to laws?
            Laws can be objectively codified, and be subjectively judged good or bad.
            >But when it comes up against a stronger will or the majority, how strong will that subjective morality be?
            This is conceding the point that what you think is objective morality is simply a function of collective opinion.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Personal morality has nothing to do with a morality that is objective no matter what society you end up.
            Murder is bad. That's true in every society. Find one where it isn't.
            If that's not an objective moral truth then why not?

            >Laws are not morality, laws are codified and written down and can objectively observed.
            Morality isn't magic and lives in an either.
            Moral codes are codified and written down all over the place.

            >And laws can be good or bad. So simply the presence of laws is not an example of objective morality.
            If there were no laws judges or courts, then we would still say murder for no cause is objectively bad.

            >

            Subjective morality means no morality.


            It literally just means you're a practicing sociopath, or lawful, and are pretending to follow morality of whatever place you are in to fit in. (You)
            >No it doesnt. It's an understanding that morality is the difference between objectively observing what is, and declaring your evaluation of how it ought to be.
            So you're saying. Your morality only exists when it's favorable to you.
            So....you can say anything is moral or immoral with no actual rhyme or reason.

            >

            That people in power are evil and pieces of shit doesn't mean that objective laws can't exist.

            Laws based on feelings and opinions aren't laws.
            They are a tyranny of madness and one that would not last long.

            PS. No one cares about what one person feels or our opinion.
            It comes down to what has worked what will work and what the vast majority will live with easily and the least amount of stress.

            We can either live based on our own morality rules and laws, or live based on the morality rules and laws of others.
            Our own morality rules and laws can be as subjective and divorced from objective reality as we want.
            But when it comes up against a stronger will or the majority, how strong will that subjective morality be?

            [...]
            Yup (You)
            >Do you see how you have moved the goalpost from good and bad, to laws?

            >That people in power are evil and pieces of shit doesn't mean that objective laws can't exist.
            How did I move a goal post? I'm arguing against where you said that people in power exist and can do and say what they want.

            >Laws can be objectively codified, and be subjectively judged good or bad.

            Then you cut off a small piece of it and argue against something I never said.

            >>But when

            >This is conceding the point that what you think is objective morality is simply a function of collective opinion.

            So your morality, subjective morality, is whatever you feel like at the moment.
            But objective reality which can be judged by collective HISTORY not opinion FRICKING HISTORY AND HOW SOCIETY WORKS...
            ...
            Can you please define morality for me.
            What YOU think morality is, not your form f it, but what morality itself actually is.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >a morality that is objective
            You have not presented any. There isnt any. Morality is a subjective judgement.
            >If that's not an objective moral truth then why not?
            100% of all beings across all time could agree on a judgement, and that wouldnt make it objective.
            It would make it universally popular.
            >Moral codes are codified and written down all over the place.
            The codes are objective. And I can judge those codes as good or bad, because that judgement is subjective.
            >If there were no laws judges or courts, then we would still say murder for no cause is objectively bad.
            Correct - we would make that subjective judgement with or without the codes. That is why your attempt to switch to laws instead of morality is dishonest.
            >Your morality only exists when it's favorable to you.
            No. I can judge things I do bad. Morality exists when you can observe what is, and determine what it ought to be.
            >you can say anything is moral or immoral with no actual rhyme or reason.
            You COULD, but most people base them on deeper opinions - as this thread has been showing.
            Most people are LOGICALLY CONSISTENT, or want to be, in their judgements.
            Doesnt make the judgements objective.
            >How did I move a goal post?
            Trying to focus on laws instead of good and bad is moving the goalpost. As long as you stop trying to do that, then you arent moving it.
            >people in power exist and can do and say what they want
            This is objectively true.
            I think we both agree that it is bad.
            >So your morality, subjective morality, is whatever you feel like at the moment.
            No. You are confused and in error to think that subjective means inconsistent.
            Are there moments when you just - stop thinking murder is bad? Of course not, because you have a steady judgement that murder is bad, even though it could happen.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Could you give me your definition of morality
            Cause I don't understand what we're arguing about until I do.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I literally gave it in that post, and the next post, and several posts before that.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Objectivity can exist when it comes to human reason and judgement. Bacon isn't bacon because bacon is ham in canada.
            Nor does football exist because everyone else calls it soccer.

            Your argument against that is, nuh uh.

            Could you give me your definition of morality
            Cause I don't understand what we're arguing about until I do.

            NO YOU FRICKING DIDNT
            YOU SPENT AN HOUR TRYING TO TELL US THAT MURDER IS ONLY SUBJECTIVELY IMMORAL AND THEN WENT ON TO b***h ABOUT HOW IM FOCUSING ON LAWS AND THAT I SHOULD FOCUS ON GOOD AND EVIL WHICH YOU CALLED SUBJECTIVE IN THE FIRST PLACE

            I focused on net negatives and positives in society and completely walked away from questions of good and evil and am now demanding you define what morality is.

            You have at no point told us what morality actually means. Only that you aren't beholden to the strictest text book defintion of it.

            I'm not going to entertain this farce any longer until you start defining your OPINION on what we are actually discussing.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I focused on net negatives and positives in society and completely walked away from questions of good and evil and am now demanding you define what morality is.
            Not him but the literal definition of morality is principles that distinguish between good and evil. So if you're walking away from discussions of good and bad then you're walking away from discussions of morality and talking about something else, in this case law.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            STOP
            I didn't ask you shit.

            I asked them what THEIR definition is. You can frick off.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Dude you're both admitting the argument is over definition rather than actual ideology at this point. You know there's nothing of intellectual merit to gain from this conversation now. It's just a contest of which of you made the first semantical mistake at this point.
            Why continue?
            Let go, admit you may or may not be wrong, you will likely feel better.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Frick this.
            I take issue with the very idea that murder is not fundamentally evil and I will never ever allow anyone to say otherwise.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I take issue with the very idea that murder is not fundamentally evil
            Then why did you 'completely walk away from questions of good and evil' if that was what you actually cared about?
            You got into an argument that got skewed by semantics and both lost track of the points and as a result may have been wrong.

            You may have lost an argument on the internet. Anonymously. If that bothers you deeply you should probably reflect on why.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >I take issue with the very idea that murder is not fundamentally evil
            It isnt. Nothing has good or evil as an inherent trait. Murder happens. I judge that to be evil. So do you. So does God.
            But the evil exists as the judgement, not as anything in what is being judged.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Objectivity can exist when it comes to human reason and judgement.
            Any judgement of morality is going to come back to a subjective claim of what ought to be.
            As we have been showing you.
            >Bacon isn't bacon because bacon is ham in canada.
            >Nor does football exist because everyone else calls it soccer.
            This is not judgement, but labeling. Semantics.
            There are objectively ways to prepare a type of meat. You can call them as you like.
            the subjective judgement would be if it is yummy or yucky.
            There are objective ways to play a sport. You can call them as you like. You can also subjectively judge "that was a good game" or "that sport is boring".
            >I focused on net negatives and positives in society
            You pointed to two objective things: stability and growth.
            You then made a subjective judgement that these two things are good.
            >You have at no point told us what morality actually means.

            >You objectively speaking don't want to die
            And I subjectively judge this a good thing.
            >You objectively speaking find meaning in life
            No, actually, I dont. This life holds no meaning in it. I just dont want to end it.
            >Do ast thou wilst? Correct?
            No, not at all. there are plenty of times where what I desire I would judge to be bad.

            There are things and events. And you can objectively observe them. But to call any of it good or bad is a subject making an evaluation and projecting it outward.
            Good and bad only exist as subjective judgements externally placed on things and events.

            >There are things and events. And you can objectively observe them. But to call any of it good or bad is a subject making an evaluation and projecting it outward.
            >Good and bad only exist as subjective judgements externally placed on things and events.

            >Judge = god
            100% agree. God judges things good or bad. This is subjective, and there is no objective morality to counter His judgements.
            We, as sentient beings, can also judge things, but our judgements do not make reality like God's judgements.
            >If everything is subjective then everything is permittted
            Bullshit. The opinions of those with power are what make things permitted or not.
            Otherwise, you could NEVER see those with the power to permit as bad.
            Do you judge EVERYONE who can control you as good?
            Do you judge EVERYTHING God permits you to do as good?

            >what would be best
            Why is the best good?
            How do you determine "best"?
            These are subjective judgements.
            >objectively speaking, You find value
            Yes. You can objectively say that sentient beings evaluate things. Those evaluations are not objective, and are based on subjective determination of what to value, and what that value is.
            >So you made an objective judgement?
            No. Oxymoronic statement. Judgement is subjective.
            >I never said anything about good or bad
            I did. You responded to that direct topic.
            >Why is that bad
            >Why are you alive if life holds no meaning?
            Do you have trouble understanding that good and bad are the topic here?
            >murder leads to a devaluement of life
            Okay. Dont care to argue the point.
            >negative to the growth and stability of any society
            Why is that bad? You have made a subjective judgement = growth and stability are good.
            >considered a negative
            That's called a subjective judgement.
            Judgements are subjective, they cannot be objective.
            Objective are the things and events oberved.
            Subjective is evaluating those observed, objective, things and events.
            Murder happens.
            Stability and growth happen.
            These are observed, and then subjectively evaluated as good or bad, as positive or negative.

            >sentient beings evaluate things
            >Objective are the things and events oberved.
            >Subjective is evaluating those observed, objective, things and events.

            >That no one can be objective so seeking objectivity is impossible.
            What you seek instead is consensus.
            I may not have an objective reason for saying stable society is good, but I dont need one find others who also think that and remove those that do not think that way.
            >have rules
            Laws are not morality, laws are codified and written down and can objectively observed.
            And laws can be good or bad. So simply the presence of laws is not an example of objective morality.
            [...]
            >Subjective morality means no morality.
            No it doesnt. It's an understanding that morality is the difference between objectively observing what is, and declaring your evaluation of how it ought to be.
            [...]
            >objective laws
            Do you see how you have moved the goalpost from good and bad, to laws?
            Laws can be objectively codified, and be subjectively judged good or bad.
            >But when it comes up against a stronger will or the majority, how strong will that subjective morality be?
            This is conceding the point that what you think is objective morality is simply a function of collective opinion.

            >morality is the difference between objectively observing what is, and declaring your evaluation of how it ought to be.

            >a morality that is objective
            You have not presented any. There isnt any. Morality is a subjective judgement.
            >If that's not an objective moral truth then why not?
            100% of all beings across all time could agree on a judgement, and that wouldnt make it objective.
            It would make it universally popular.
            >Moral codes are codified and written down all over the place.
            The codes are objective. And I can judge those codes as good or bad, because that judgement is subjective.
            >If there were no laws judges or courts, then we would still say murder for no cause is objectively bad.
            Correct - we would make that subjective judgement with or without the codes. That is why your attempt to switch to laws instead of morality is dishonest.
            >Your morality only exists when it's favorable to you.
            No. I can judge things I do bad. Morality exists when you can observe what is, and determine what it ought to be.
            >you can say anything is moral or immoral with no actual rhyme or reason.
            You COULD, but most people base them on deeper opinions - as this thread has been showing.
            Most people are LOGICALLY CONSISTENT, or want to be, in their judgements.
            Doesnt make the judgements objective.
            >How did I move a goal post?
            Trying to focus on laws instead of good and bad is moving the goalpost. As long as you stop trying to do that, then you arent moving it.
            >people in power exist and can do and say what they want
            This is objectively true.
            I think we both agree that it is bad.
            >So your morality, subjective morality, is whatever you feel like at the moment.
            No. You are confused and in error to think that subjective means inconsistent.
            Are there moments when you just - stop thinking murder is bad? Of course not, because you have a steady judgement that murder is bad, even though it could happen.

            >Morality is a subjective judgement.

            >objective reality which can be judged
            Yes. Objective things can be subjectively judged.
            >not opinion FRICKING HISTORY AND HOW SOCIETY WORKS
            1 - calm down
            2 - history is not objective. Victors write the history books.
            3 - you are still reading that history, observing what is, and making judgements on it - declaring how it ought.
            >this civ was good, look how they did
            >I dont like how this civ did it, they are bad
            It's still subjective evaluation of objective events.
            >Can you please define morality for me.
            When a sentient being observes events and objects, and makes an evaluation of whether it is acceptable or not, whether it ought to be, or ought not to be.
            These opinions on a grandiose scale - when large groups do it and when it is such importance of value that it must be imposed upon others - we call that evaluation good and bad.

            I have been giving this to you the entire time. The only reason you need it again is because you are arguing with phantoms.

            >When a sentient being observes events and objects, and makes an evaluation of whether it is acceptable or not, whether it ought to be, or ought not to be.
            >These opinions on a grandiose scale - when large groups do it and when it is such importance of value that it must be imposed upon others - we call that evaluation good and bad.

            Those are all the times I gave you the definition. Learn to read a post.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Murder is bad. That's true in every society. Find one where it isn't.
            >If that's not an objective moral truth then why not?
            Jihad is good . Crusades were good. Inquisitions were good. For their own societies.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            So everyone just ran around murdering everyone around with no rhyme or reason?
            Shit
            They were metal as frick. How did they survive?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Reproduce fast, use blunt weapons so each murder takes a while, pray 5 times a day to space out the murders etc.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >objective reality which can be judged
            Yes. Objective things can be subjectively judged.
            >not opinion FRICKING HISTORY AND HOW SOCIETY WORKS
            1 - calm down
            2 - history is not objective. Victors write the history books.
            3 - you are still reading that history, observing what is, and making judgements on it - declaring how it ought.
            >this civ was good, look how they did
            >I dont like how this civ did it, they are bad
            It's still subjective evaluation of objective events.
            >Can you please define morality for me.
            When a sentient being observes events and objects, and makes an evaluation of whether it is acceptable or not, whether it ought to be, or ought not to be.
            These opinions on a grandiose scale - when large groups do it and when it is such importance of value that it must be imposed upon others - we call that evaluation good and bad.

            I have been giving this to you the entire time. The only reason you need it again is because you are arguing with phantoms.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Judge = god
            100% agree. God judges things good or bad. This is subjective, and there is no objective morality to counter His judgements.
            We, as sentient beings, can also judge things, but our judgements do not make reality like God's judgements.
            >If everything is subjective then everything is permittted
            Bullshit. The opinions of those with power are what make things permitted or not.
            Otherwise, you could NEVER see those with the power to permit as bad.
            Do you judge EVERYONE who can control you as good?
            Do you judge EVERYTHING God permits you to do as good?

            >what would be best
            Why is the best good?
            How do you determine "best"?
            These are subjective judgements.
            >objectively speaking, You find value
            Yes. You can objectively say that sentient beings evaluate things. Those evaluations are not objective, and are based on subjective determination of what to value, and what that value is.
            >So you made an objective judgement?
            No. Oxymoronic statement. Judgement is subjective.
            >I never said anything about good or bad
            I did. You responded to that direct topic.
            >Why is that bad
            >Why are you alive if life holds no meaning?
            Do you have trouble understanding that good and bad are the topic here?
            >murder leads to a devaluement of life
            Okay. Dont care to argue the point.
            >negative to the growth and stability of any society
            Why is that bad? You have made a subjective judgement = growth and stability are good.
            >considered a negative
            That's called a subjective judgement.
            Judgements are subjective, they cannot be objective.
            Objective are the things and events oberved.
            Subjective is evaluating those observed, objective, things and events.
            Murder happens.
            Stability and growth happen.
            These are observed, and then subjectively evaluated as good or bad, as positive or negative.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Samegay just wanting to remind that my calling out good and bad as subjective doesnt mean I am radically different in my judgements.
            I also think murder is bad. I also want growth and stability in society. These are things I judge good.
            I just now at the bottom of what I consider good and bad, and the reasons I say for my judgement, are subjective "this is what I think should be".
            100% of all beings across all time could agree on a judgement, and that wouldnt make it objective.
            It would make it universally popular.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            That people in power are evil and pieces of shit doesn't mean that objective laws can't exist.

            Laws based on feelings and opinions aren't laws.
            They are a tyranny of madness and one that would not last long.

            PS. No one cares about what one person feels or our opinion.
            It comes down to what has worked what will work and what the vast majority will live with easily and the least amount of stress.

            We can either live based on our own morality rules and laws, or live based on the morality rules and laws of others.
            Our own morality rules and laws can be as subjective and divorced from objective reality as we want.
            But when it comes up against a stronger will or the majority, how strong will that subjective morality be?

            are you talking from experience?

            Yup

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            is it safe to assume now you're just a sociopath without morality who tries to fit in?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >Do ast thou wilst? Correct?
            Projecting thelema/satanist shit onto the other anon just shows you're not even trying to understand their ideology before you argue against it. You came in assuming you knew the exact logic behind their values even though the concept of 'subjective moralist' is insanely vague and could be expressed in an enormous amount of different ways.

            I recommend you calm down and actually analyze people's arguments before trying to dismantle them.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            I understood their ideology perfectly and threw that out there to see whhere they were going and to test them. They failed spectacularly

            And you sitting there stating that I'm PROJECTING when I was quite honestly seeing if I was correct in my analysis screams that you are in fact partial to that theology and ideology and are very protective of it.

            Regardless, It's just basic b***h nothing matters so everything is permeited bullshit.

            The morality of a parasitic and hedonistic and blameless dindu nuffin types. It felt good and I wanted it so it's okay right?

            >Your will means nothing if you're asking why not to do it.
            They're asking as an excercise for their argument not because their uncertain of their will or desire. Get some sleep, your conflating shit improperly and not arguing well.

            Don't do that.

            Don't green text one portion of an argument and then argue with that out of context when anyone can go back and re-read the thread and see where things are going.
            It makes you look stupid and desperate.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >And you sitting there stating that I'm PROJECTING when I was quite honestly seeing if I was correct in my analysis screams that you are in fact partial to that theology and ideology and are very protective of it.
            I'm not. Although I just realized I misused the term projecting so I apologize, projecting would imply that you adhere to that theology which I assume you don't. I meant to say you were straw manning, not projecting.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >, projecting would imply that you adhere to that theology which I assume you don't. I meant to say you were straw manning, not projecting.

            NEITHER OF THOSE ARE CORRECT!
            You were right the first time, you just didn't know why you were right exactly.
            And no I'm not projecting.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >You were right the first time, you just didn't know why you were right exactly.
            Can you explain how I was right the first time because I'm a little lost now.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            No.
            Projection is you projecting what you feel or think onto others.
            Projection isn't you are of this entire thing so you also must be of this. It was part of freuds cultist gaslighting bullshit.
            Where he would say you are this and this and if you weren't you were merely repressing and if you say he's this he'll say you are projecting or as the children would say

            I KNOW YOU ARE BUT WHAT AM I!

            You said that you thought I was projecting, you are correct in your use of the term.
            But you are incorrect in that you used it at all.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Your will means nothing if you're asking why not to do it.
          They're asking as an excercise for their argument not because their uncertain of their will or desire. Get some sleep, your conflating shit improperly and not arguing well.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    People change their stance on this on a dime. There are two sides to a person; a chimp in a suit, and a chimp.
    The chimp in the suit will claim things like objective morality, and have a system of social rules. Be polite, thou shall not kill, thou shall not steal, treat your neighbor how you wish to be treated, etc.
    The chimp will take off the suit when they are under the influence of chimpery. Anger is the biggest one, next to inebriation.

    They may think something is unfair, they may see some perceived or objective injustice on themselves or others; this is when the chimp is free and full clearance is given. This is when people initiate fistfights or bully, or plot, or kill intentionally/unintentionally.
    Even good people are capable of some heinous shit.

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Murder is 'evil. because the government doesn't like or want any competition!

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Murder is bad because it destroys the idea that human life is precious.
    And when human life is no longer precious and murder is not off the table or seen as a taboo then all life is at risk and loses meaning.

    How can we interact with people or just gain protection and enilightenment by building a society if we all know that the other will kill us for no reason?

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    nice limp dick posting, what is bad subjectivist?

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >the belief that moral principles and values are dependent on individual opinions, personal beliefs, cultural norms, and societal contexts

    murder is bad because otherwise people would go around murdering people without consequence? great thread OP

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I'm not a subjective moralistic but here's my counter if I was one.

    Murder is bad because I know that others feel pain similarly to I, they feel trauma, their loved ones will feel the heartbreak. Murder is bad because it is deciding to stop someone else from living when they aren't ready and neither is their family. Murder is wrong because that person could be the smiling face that convinces the daughter of a scientist about to make a breakthrough, from killing herself and crippling the scientist through the trauma of knowing his daughter killed herself.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >I'm not a subjective moralistic
      yes you are. It's one of those terms with a loose wanky definition that could mean anything, and people use it to sound intelligent.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        To rephrase it better, I'm not a moron that believes myself to be holier than thou using made up labels to feel morally righteous over my peers.

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >posing as subjective moralist
    >views the world as black and white, void of context
    christcucks are really sending their best

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Relative moralism or whatever is for when a punishment is being awarded.
    Murder bad.
    But is murdering to protect someone as bad as murdering while trying to loot someone? Should they be punished equally?

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      morality doesn't exist, only retribution. It's why the wealthy can get away with literal murder.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Your life experiences are corrupting your views. Many old civilizations awarded worse punishments to people higher up.
        The manu smriti for examples punished the brahmins much more than kshyatriyas and in that order.

        And morality certainly exists but it need not be the highest principle a man is bound by. Some ignore it. Doesn't mean they don't know it. That's why even serial killers try to gain empathy by different means (bundy and porn for example). They know it. But are able to ignore it. Maybe even rewarded for that.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      That is not relative moralism.
      That is a moral system.
      Relative morality exists when comparing relative morality systems against each other.
      Not handing out allowances for evil acts in certain situations.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Ah i see. In that case morality becomes an extension of a culture. And what exactly that culture values. And compare them with the other culture. and in that case our own view gets skewed in favor of that system which values what we value.

        And subjective morality can be somewhat similar as well.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Subjective morality means no morality.
          It literally just means you're a practicing sociopath, or lawful, and are pretending to follow morality of whatever place you are in to fit in.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            are you talking from experience?

  29. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    would you accept that another simply wants to murder you just because they think it's okay to do it?
    would you see it as a bad or as a good thing to happen to you?

  30. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    We eat context and spit out reactions based on that context. Stop acting like shit happens in a vacuum morons

  31. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    To be honest, I don’t believe subjective morality is the problem. You could reconcile that problem by acknowledging disagreement as a natural outcome of it, and if someone tried to murder you, you would be logically consistent in stopping them. Plus, the likelihood of that happening anyways is low and people will do it regardless of opinions on morality.

    What I hate are physicalists who reject most metaphysics, who try to reconcile their philosophy with objective morality. Or who believe that morality is a socially constructed phenomena people should still abide by as if it were real. You seriously pull the rug from under yourself when your paradigm is a universe guided by mindless processes which are deterministic, yet non-teleological.

    >captcha: g4y

  32. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    New meme comin thru: I've hurt tummer therefore AYAM
    BRAHMASOYAN

  33. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Perception is the application of contrast based on context. homies think they can apply contrast based on context to remove the context. Silly

  34. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    There are reasons for every single atrocity, accident and mishap that occurs in this world, although hearing the explanation may sound more like an excuse or justification, like "you lost both legs in a car accident to learn what limitation feels like" or some bullshit, and you have to wonder if the angels can be sued for malpractice. They can't admit they're wrong though. Sounds like a personality flaw, but no, they literally can't admit they have done anything wrong. It's always "it's just you, every single that happens is just you from multiple perspectives, there's no one else to blame but you." Sounds like narcissistic personality disorder to me. How do you know they don't have personality problems. Does being above it all really make you above it all, really. Sounds like a form of soft tyranny.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *