Morality

[Andsed]

If morality is objective it should apply to all sentient species correct?

I do not know, as we haven't encountered these hypothetical species, but at a guess, I would say, yes.

Well then we can assume morality is subjective. We have proof here on Earth that someones morals are usually based off what culture they were born and raised in. And since any other hypothetical species would likely have very different cultures they would also have different morals than us.

[Jolthig]

I do not know, as we haven't encountered these hypothetical species, but at a guess, I would say, yes.

Well then we can assume morality is subjective. We have proof here on Earth that someones morals are usually based off what culture they were born and raised in. And since any other hypothetical species would likely have very different cultures they would also have different morals than us.

Which, like I said earlier, I don't necessarily deny this either.

[Andsed]

Well then we can assume morality is subjective. We have proof here on Earth that someones morals are usually based off what culture they were born and raised in. And since any other hypothetical species would likely have very different cultures they would also have different morals than us.

Which, like I said earlier, I don't necessarily deny this either.

Fair enough.

[Uxupox]

I do not know, as we haven't encountered these hypothetical species, but at a guess, I would say, yes.

Well then we can assume morality is subjective. We have proof here on Earth that someones morals are usually based off what culture they were born and raised in. And since any other hypothetical species would likely have very different cultures they would also have different morals than us.

And yet there are some imperatives that transcend even culture for indeed people look for excuses for actions such as selfishness, but not for selflessness and honesty, but not for dishonesty. What makes some of these concepts universal instead based on locality and its people. For many religious people of different faiths, that's why God or the Gods give an answer as a testament to morality. In the absence of such one must debase themselves to just rationally thinking that we are mere atoms sprung up by chance with worthless lives in which futures lies nothing but a mere legacy.

[Jolthig]

Well then we can assume morality is subjective. We have proof here on Earth that someones morals are usually based off what culture they were born and raised in. And since any other hypothetical species would likely have very different cultures they would also have different morals than us.

And yet there are some imperatives that transcend even culture for indeed people look for excuses for actions such as selfishness, but not for selflessness and honesty, but not for dishonesty. What makes some of these concepts universal instead based on locality and its people. For many religious people of different faiths, that's why God or the Gods give an answer as a testament to morality. In the absence of such one must debase themselves to just rationally thinking that we are mere atoms sprung up by chance with worthless lives in which futures lies nothing but a mere legacy.

I can agree that many religions have different views on the world. In my faith, only revelation can really prove that which religion has the true morals, which happens to be Islam. Otherwise, everything else is merely a hypothesis or theory for one's argument unless accompanied by revelation.

[Andsed]

Well then we can assume morality is subjective. We have proof here on Earth that someones morals are usually based off what culture they were born and raised in. And since any other hypothetical species would likely have very different cultures they would also have different morals than us.

And yet there are some imperatives that transcend even culture for indeed people look for excuses for actions such as selfishness, but not for selflessness and honesty, but not for dishonesty. What makes some of these concepts universal instead based on locality and its people. For many religious people of different faiths, that's why God or the Gods give an answer as a testament to morality. In the absence of such one must debase themselves to just rationally thinking that we are mere atoms sprung up by chance with worthless lives in which futures lies nothing but a mere legacy.

Your point being?

[United Muscovite Nations]

Bastard child perhaps.

Not exactly how I was going to respond but the basic gist of it. Religion felt a need to dominate philosophy because of the threat that it posed in terms of positing alternate morality and ethics.

Read Augustine and Aquinas and tell me that religion isn't a form of philosophy.

[United Muscovite Nations]

And yet there are some imperatives that transcend even culture for indeed people look for excuses for actions such as selfishness, but not for selflessness and honesty, but not for dishonesty. What makes some of these concepts universal instead based on locality and its people. For many religious people of different faiths, that's why God or the Gods give an answer as a testament to morality. In the absence of such one must debase themselves to just rationally thinking that we are mere atoms sprung up by chance with worthless lives in which futures lies nothing but a mere legacy.

Your point being?

I would say that if morality isn't objective, it can't be subjective either.

[Andsed]

Your point being?

I would say that if morality isn't objective, it can't be subjective either.

How so? Morality can´t be objective as that would suggest that one set of morality is true and correct which is simply not true. Morality being subjective makes sense as we all have different morals with a few similarity's.

[United Muscovite Nations]

I would say that if morality isn't objective, it can't be subjective either.

How so? Morality can´t be objective as that would suggest that one set of morality is true and correct which is simply not true. Morality being subjective makes sense as we all have different morals with a few similarity's.

Morality isn't based on opinion, it either exists or doesn't. So if it isn't objective, it just doesn't exist. What people think is right or wrong doesn't actually mean something is right or wrong.

[Andsed]

How so? Morality can´t be objective as that would suggest that one set of morality is true and correct which is simply not true. Morality being subjective makes sense as we all have different morals with a few similarity's.

Morality isn't based on opinion, it either exists or doesn't. So if it isn't objective, it just doesn't exist. What people think is right or wrong doesn't actually mean something is right or wrong.

Morality is your opinion. What you perceive as right or wrong it entirely your opinion. There is no real right or wrong things only things you see either as right or as wrong.

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

How so? Morality can´t be objective as that would suggest that one set of morality is true and correct which is simply not true. Morality being subjective makes sense as we all have different morals with a few similarity's.

Morality isn't based on opinion, it either exists or doesn't. So if it isn't objective, it just doesn't exist. What people think is right or wrong doesn't actually mean something is right or wrong.

Therefore subjective. "I like the color white" is completely arbitrary, I don't like it because a divine intervention told me so, I like it because my opinion/feeling says I like it (and a few social influences from movie etc).

Murder is wrong is exactly because society thinks its wrong. The Universe don't care if you have a rectangle moustache and want to get rid of all members of a particular group.

subjective
adjectivesub·jec·tive\səb-ˈjek-tiv\

philosophy : relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind
: based on feelings or opinions rather than facts

[United Muscovite Nations]

Morality isn't based on opinion, it either exists or doesn't. So if it isn't objective, it just doesn't exist. What people think is right or wrong doesn't actually mean something is right or wrong.

Morality is your opinion. What you perceive as right or wrong it entirely your opinion. There is no real right or wrong things only things you see either as right or as wrong.

If there's no real right or wrong, just say there's no morality. Moral philosophy isn't about describing opinions, it's trying to describe reality. If it's just opinion, and there are no facts, then it doesn't exist at all. That's just nihilism that doesn't want to admit that it's nihilism.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Morality isn't based on opinion, it either exists or doesn't. So if it isn't objective, it just doesn't exist. What people think is right or wrong doesn't actually mean something is right or wrong.

Therefore subjective. "I like the color white" is completely arbitrary, I don't like it because a divine intervention told me so, I like it because my opinion/feeling says I like it (and a few social influences from movie etc).

Murder is wrong is exactly because society thinks its wrong. The Universe don't care if you have a rectangle moustache and want to get rid of all members of a particular group.

subjective
adjectivesub·jec·tive\səb-ˈjek-tiv\

philosophy : relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind
: based on feelings or opinions rather than facts

Society thinking murder is wrong doesn't actually make it wrong.

[Andsed]

Morality is your opinion. What you perceive as right or wrong it entirely your opinion. There is no real right or wrong things only things you see either as right or as wrong.

If there's no real right or wrong, just say there's no morality. Moral philosophy isn't about describing opinions, it's trying to describe reality. If it's just opinion, and there are no facts, then it doesn't exist at all. That's just nihilism that doesn't want to admit that it's nihilism.

Okay fine morality is honestly not much more than a social construct and what we think is right or wrong. There is no real universal morality what you think is right or what you think is wrong is nothing more than your opinion. Also morality is not trying to describe ¨reality.¨ All morality is what we think is okay and what is not okay.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If there's no real right or wrong, just say there's no morality. Moral philosophy isn't about describing opinions, it's trying to describe reality. If it's just opinion, and there are no facts, then it doesn't exist at all. That's just nihilism that doesn't want to admit that it's nihilism.

Okay fine morality is honestly not much more than a social construct and what we think is right or wrong. There is no real universal morality what you think is right or what you think is wrong is nothing more than your opinion. Also morality is not trying to describe ¨reality.¨ All morality is what we think is okay and what is not okay.

That's your moral theory, but there are many moral theories that disagree.

The problem with moral subjectivism is that it means that society is incapable of injustice.

[Andsed]

Okay fine morality is honestly not much more than a social construct and what we think is right or wrong. There is no real universal morality what you think is right or what you think is wrong is nothing more than your opinion. Also morality is not trying to describe ¨reality.¨ All morality is what we think is okay and what is not okay.

That's your moral theory, but there are many moral theories that disagree.

The problem with moral subjectivism is that it means that society is incapable of injustice.

Well quite frankly everything we see as evil or awful could be viewed very differently from a different society.

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

Therefore subjective. "I like the color white" is completely arbitrary, I don't like it because a divine intervention told me so, I like it because my opinion/feeling says I like it (and a few social influences from movie etc).

Murder is wrong is exactly because society thinks its wrong. The Universe don't care if you have a rectangle moustache and want to get rid of all members of a particular group.

subjective
adjectivesub·jec·tive\səb-ˈjek-tiv\

philosophy : relating to the way a person experiences things in his or her own mind
: based on feelings or opinions rather than facts

Society thinking murder is wrong doesn't actually make it wrong.

"Wrong" only exist in society. Murder is wrong in society, but technically murder is not wrong in a cosmical sense as 99.99% of other carnivore/omnivore animal species from (pre)history would agree. Suddenly, ~10.000 years ago society arises where they have this rule among themselves of "don't murder".

[United Muscovite Nations]

That's your moral theory, but there are many moral theories that disagree.

The problem with moral subjectivism is that it means that society is incapable of injustice.

Well quite frankly everything we see as evil or awful could be viewed very differently from a different society.

Which is why, in moral subjectivism, there are no social injustices.

[Andsed]

Well quite frankly everything we see as evil or awful could be viewed very differently from a different society.

Which is why, in moral subjectivism, there are no social injustices.

Yeah which is a very likely reality in the universe with likely many different cultures and ideas of right and wrong.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Society thinking murder is wrong doesn't actually make it wrong.

"Wrong" only exist in society. Murder is wrong in society, but technically murder is not wrong in a cosmical sense as 99.99% of other carnivore/omnivore animal species from (pre)history would agree. Suddenly, ~10.000 years ago society arises where they have this rule among themselves of "don't murder".

And this rule is imposed on people who don't agree with it.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Which is why, in moral subjectivism, there are no social injustices.

Yeah which is a very likely reality in the universe with likely many different cultures and ideas of right and wrong.

So I take it you think the Holocaust was good, yes? German society carried it out, and because there are no social injustices, it must have been the right thing to do.

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

"Wrong" only exist in society. Murder is wrong in society, but technically murder is not wrong in a cosmical sense as 99.99% of other carnivore/omnivore animal species from (pre)history would agree. Suddenly, ~10.000 years ago society arises where they have this rule among themselves of "don't murder".

And this rule is imposed on people who don't agree with it.

So? A society that don't murder eachother have an evolutionary advantage against their counterparts, and spread/last longer. Example : us.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Another criticism of subjectivism: Society is an abstraction, it is incapable of opinions. All opinions are held by individuals, so the only way moral subjectivism can work is if every person is able to decide what is right and wrong.

[United Muscovite Nations]

And this rule is imposed on people who don't agree with it.

So? A society that don't murder eachother have an evolutionary advantage against their counterparts, and spread/last longer. Example : us.

Evolutionary advantage doesn't mean something is right or wrong.