Morality

[Andsed]

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.

It was wrong in our eyes with our morals and ideas of right and wrong and I´m not denying that but what I am arguing against is this nonsensical idea that there is one set of morals that is correct and that all sentient species follow. I like most other humans(which there are those few Nazis who celebrate the Holocaust) think the Holocaust was awful but to an culture with very different morals to our the Holocaust to them could not be anything all that bad.

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

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.

Evolutionary advantage means that some set of rules last longer than other set of rules.

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

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.

a) Cultural conformity, which can be very hostile and demanding and b) culture/morals can be changed anyways by determined groups.

[United Muscovite Nations]

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.

It was wrong in our eyes with our morals and ideas of right and wrong and I´m not denying that but what I am arguing against is this nonsensical idea that there is one set of morals that is correct and that all sentient species follow. I like most other humans(which there are those few Nazis who celebrate the Holocaust) think the Holocaust was awful but to an culture with very different morals to our the Holocaust to them could not be anything all that bad.

Then it wasn't wrong. What matters is the opinion at the time.

That's why I think moral subjectivism is ridiculous, it's an absolutely toothless moral theory that requires zero moral judgement.

[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.

a) Cultural conformity, which can be very hostile and demanding and b) culture/morals can be changed anyways by determined groups.

Culture is only created by individuals.

[Andsed]

It was wrong in our eyes with our morals and ideas of right and wrong and I´m not denying that but what I am arguing against is this nonsensical idea that there is one set of morals that is correct and that all sentient species follow. I like most other humans(which there are those few Nazis who celebrate the Holocaust) think the Holocaust was awful but to an culture with very different morals to our the Holocaust to them could not be anything all that bad.

Then it wasn't wrong. What matters is the opinion at the time.

That's why I think moral subjectivism is ridiculous, it's an absolutely toothless moral theory that requires zero moral judgement.

Moral subjectivity makes much more sense that moral objectivity. Look at humanity. Know what you will see. Different cultures with different morals. You will also see morals change over the course of history. Morality has always been what the opinion of society was at the time.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Then it wasn't wrong. What matters is the opinion at the time.

That's why I think moral subjectivism is ridiculous, it's an absolutely toothless moral theory that requires zero moral judgement.

Moral subjectivity makes much more sense that moral objectivity. Look at humanity. Know what you will see. Different cultures with different morals. You will also see morals change over the course of history. Morality has always been what the opinion of society was at the time.

It doesn't necessarily makes more sense, it seems like it makes more sense because it requires zero critical thinking to arrive at, precisely because it thinks you should always obey whatever moral authorities exist and whatever the crowd is doing. It requires no input from the user.

[Andsed]

Moral subjectivity makes much more sense that moral objectivity. Look at humanity. Know what you will see. Different cultures with different morals. You will also see morals change over the course of history. Morality has always been what the opinion of society was at the time.

It doesn't necessarily makes more sense, it seems like it makes more sense because it requires zero critical thinking to arrive at, precisely because it thinks you should always obey whatever moral authorities exist and whatever the crowd is doing. It requires no input from the user.

It makes more sense because that is how morality has always worked. Morality has always been simply what you think is moral at the time. It´s the reason why things like slavery have become despised. Morality is not a set of rules it is nothing more than what you think is right or wrong.

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

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.

Like ~90% of ancient empires commits genocide of some form. Nazi Germany is deemed wrong by society because it is opposed against humanity's goal (increase happiness) and society's goal (survive), as we become more globalized and the species more than ever needs to unite to prosper.

a) Cultural conformity, which can be very hostile and demanding and b) culture/morals can be changed anyways by determined groups.

Culture is only created by individuals.

A fuckton of individuals. And besides, if moral subjectivism means there's no right and wrong in a real sense, society still go around enforcing it. I'd like to know the last time you peed in a grocery store simply because "morality is subjective".

[United Muscovite Nations]

It doesn't necessarily makes more sense, it seems like it makes more sense because it requires zero critical thinking to arrive at, precisely because it thinks you should always obey whatever moral authorities exist and whatever the crowd is doing. It requires no input from the user.

It makes more sense because that is how morality has always worked. Morality has always been simply what you think is moral at the time. It´s the reason why things like slavery have become despised. Morality is not a set of rules it is nothing more than what you think is right or wrong.

Morality isn't a set of rules, you're right, but it is what is right or wrong, not opinions about what is right and wrong.

Like I said, I despise moral subjectivists because their theory mandates them to obey whatever is current in society. It must be an absurd life, because they have no ideological reason to support the government, but as long as the government has a high enough approval rating, not supporting the government would be morally wrong!

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

Moral subjectivity makes much more sense that moral objectivity. Look at humanity. Know what you will see. Different cultures with different morals. You will also see morals change over the course of history. Morality has always been what the opinion of society was at the time.

It doesn't necessarily makes more sense, it seems like it makes more sense because it requires zero critical thinking to arrive at, precisely because it thinks you should always obey whatever moral authorities exist and whatever the crowd is doing. It requires no input from the user.

Which is why the civilian-slaying village-pillaging woman-raping Crusaders is hailed as heroes by the people of the 12th century while 21th century views them as fucking jerks, figuratively and literally.

[United Muscovite Nations]

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.

Like ~90% of ancient empires commits genocide of some form. Nazi Germany is deemed wrong by society because it is opposed against humanity's goal (increase happiness) and society's goal (survive), as we become more globalized and the species more than ever needs to unite to prosper.

Culture is only created by individuals.

A fuckton of individuals. And besides, if moral subjectivism means there's no right and wrong in a real sense, society still go around enforcing it. I'd like to know the last time you peed in a grocery store simply because "morality is subjective".

And those genocides were wrong, regardless of whether the people at the time supported them.

That you're talking about "humanity's" goal is more proof that it's an abstraction. There is no "human society", there are local societies that all have different cultures.

[United Muscovite Nations]

It doesn't necessarily makes more sense, it seems like it makes more sense because it requires zero critical thinking to arrive at, precisely because it thinks you should always obey whatever moral authorities exist and whatever the crowd is doing. It requires no input from the user.

Which is why the civilian-slaying village-pillaging woman-raping Crusaders is hailed as heroes by the people of the 12th century while 21th century views them as fucking jerks, figuratively and literally.

Maybe because the people of the 12th century had evil opinions.

[Andsed]

It makes more sense because that is how morality has always worked. Morality has always been simply what you think is moral at the time. It´s the reason why things like slavery have become despised. Morality is not a set of rules it is nothing more than what you think is right or wrong.

Morality isn't a set of rules, you're right, but it is what is right or wrong, not opinions about what is right and wrong.

Like I said, I despise moral subjectivists because their theory mandates them to obey whatever is current in society. It must be an absurd life, because they have no ideological reason to support the government, but as long as the government has a high enough approval rating, not supporting the government would be morally wrong!

There is no real right or wrong only what you think is right or wrong. Morals are nothing more than what we think is right or wrong. It may have disturbing implications but I would rather deal with those implications than lie to myself about how our morals are objectively right and that other sentient life if they exist would also follow them.

Our morals have never been an objective set of rules that say what is right or wrong only what you think is right or wrong.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Morality isn't a set of rules, you're right, but it is what is right or wrong, not opinions about what is right and wrong.

Like I said, I despise moral subjectivists because their theory mandates them to obey whatever is current in society. It must be an absurd life, because they have no ideological reason to support the government, but as long as the government has a high enough approval rating, not supporting the government would be morally wrong!

There is no real right or wrong only what you think is right or wrong. Morals are nothing more than what we think is right or wrong. It may have disturbing implications but I would rather deal with those implications than lie to myself about how our morals are objectively right and that other sentient life if they exist would also follow them.

Our morals have never been an objective set of rules that say what is right or wrong only what you think is right or wrong.

Do you have political opinions that are contrary to the mainstream?

[El-Amin Caliphate]

Well as I stated are morals differ base on whatever culture we are born in raised in and since a true morality should reasonably apply to every one it is safe to to assume it does not exist. I mean realistically if we were to encounter any alien life they would have a very different culture and thus different morals which puts the idea of one set of true morals into serious doubt.

Yes, but also humans and aliens are two biologically different species if somehow they interacted, provided that they exist. For example, religion has always said man are the chosen recipients for religion as in the case of Islam.

Not really...

It doesn't necessarily makes more sense, it seems like it makes more sense because it requires zero critical thinking to arrive at, precisely because it thinks you should always obey whatever moral authorities exist and whatever the crowd is doing. It requires no input from the user.

Which is why the civilian-slaying village-pillaging woman-raping Crusaders is hailed as heroes by the people of the 12th century while 21th century views them as f*cking jerks, figuratively and literally.

Actually some people still glorify the crusades.

[Andsed]

There is no real right or wrong only what you think is right or wrong. Morals are nothing more than what we think is right or wrong. It may have disturbing implications but I would rather deal with those implications than lie to myself about how our morals are objectively right and that other sentient life if they exist would also follow them.

Our morals have never been an objective set of rules that say what is right or wrong only what you think is right or wrong.

Do you have political opinions that are contrary to the mainstream?

Yes because everyone has their own subjective opinion on what morals they think are right and wrong. These morals are shaped by society yes but at the end of the day our morals are our opinions.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Do you have political opinions that are contrary to the mainstream?

Yes because everyone has their own subjective opinion on what morals they think are right and wrong. These morals are shaped by society yes but at the end of the day our morals are our opinions.

So does everyone decide what is right and wrong, and these opinions are all on equal footing?

[Wunderstrafanstalt]

It makes more sense because that is how morality has always worked. Morality has always been simply what you think is moral at the time. It´s the reason why things like slavery have become despised. Morality is not a set of rules it is nothing more than what you think is right or wrong.

Morality isn't a set of rules, you're right, but it is what is right or wrong, not opinions about what is right and wrong.

Like I said, I despise moral subjectivists because their theory mandates them to obey whatever is current in society. It must be an absurd life, because they have no ideological reason to support the government, but as long as the government has a high enough approval rating, not supporting the government would be morally wrong!

Happens in almost every single absolute monarchy ~90% of history.

Like ~90% of ancient empires commits genocide of some form. Nazi Germany is deemed wrong by society because it is opposed against humanity's goal (increase happiness) and society's goal (survive), as we become more globalized and the species more than ever needs to unite to prosper.



A fuckton of individuals. And besides, if moral subjectivism means there's no right and wrong in a real sense, society still go around enforcing it. I'd like to know the last time you peed in a grocery store simply because "morality is subjective".

And those genocides were wrong, regardless of whether the people at the time supported them.

That you're talking about "humanity's" goal is more proof that it's an abstraction. There is no "human society", there are local societies that all have different cultures.

Yet apparently, society that don't support genocide lasts and prospers while society that do support genocide don't last in the current world order. Besides, it's not like everything we do today is moral either to the people in the future, as they will probably think how we treat industrially farmed animal, war on drugs, etc is both cruel and insane.

There is no real right or wrong only what you think is right or wrong. Morals are nothing more than what we think is right or wrong. It may have disturbing implications but I would rather deal with those implications than lie to myself about how our morals are objectively right and that other sentient life if they exist would also follow them.

Our morals have never been an objective set of rules that say what is right or wrong only what you think is right or wrong.

Do you have political opinions that are contrary to the mainstream?

I (subtly and secretly) support LGBT rights, abolition of the blasphemy law and implementation of a secular government in my IRL country. I am mega immoral here, and I'll be hypermega immoral 100 years ago.

[Yusseria]

Human emotion governed by human creations such as religion and political ideology.

[United Muscovite Nations]

Morality isn't a set of rules, you're right, but it is what is right or wrong, not opinions about what is right and wrong.

Like I said, I despise moral subjectivists because their theory mandates them to obey whatever is current in society. It must be an absurd life, because they have no ideological reason to support the government, but as long as the government has a high enough approval rating, not supporting the government would be morally wrong!

Happens in almost every single absolute monarchy ~90% of history.

And those genocides were wrong, regardless of whether the people at the time supported them.

That you're talking about "humanity's" goal is more proof that it's an abstraction. There is no "human society", there are local societies that all have different cultures.

1) Yet apparently, society that don't support genocide lasts and prospers while society that do support genocide don't last in the current world order. Besides, it's not like everything we do today is moral either to the people in the future, as they will probably think how we treat industrially farmed animal, war on drugs, etc is both cruel and insane.

Do you have political opinions that are contrary to the mainstream?

2) I (subtly and secretly) support LGBT rights, abolition of the blasphemy law and implementation of a secular government in my IRL country. I am mega immoral here, and I'll be hypermega immoral 100 years ago.

1) Whether a society lasts longer has nothing to do with whether what it did is right or wrong.

2) If what you do is immoral, how do you justify it?

[Andsed]

Yes because everyone has their own subjective opinion on what morals they think are right and wrong. These morals are shaped by society yes but at the end of the day our morals are our opinions.

So does everyone decide what is right and wrong, and these opinions are all on equal footing?

Yes everyone decides what they think is right or wrong and whether you think two opinions are equal depends on what you kind of person you are.

[United Muscovite Nations]

So does everyone decide what is right and wrong, and these opinions are all on equal footing?

Yes everyone decides what they think is right or wrong and whether you think two opinions are equal depends on what you kind of person you are.

If everyone decides what is right or wrong, how does that theory function? It's total chaos, and there's no action that is wrong.

[Andsed]

Yes everyone decides what they think is right or wrong and whether you think two opinions are equal depends on what you kind of person you are.

If everyone decides what is right or wrong, how does that theory function? It's total chaos, and there's no action that is wrong.

Everyone decides what they think is right or wrong. It works like this. Everyone decides what they think is right or wrong and there is usually a popular opinion based of the culture. Such as how most of us think that slavery was wrong but those in the past did not.

[United Muscovite Nations]

If everyone decides what is right or wrong, how does that theory function? It's total chaos, and there's no action that is wrong.

Everyone decides what they think is right or wrong. It works like this. Everyone decides what they think is right or wrong and there is usually a popular opinion such as how most of us think the Holocaust was wrong.

But what we think doesn't actually change what is right or wrong, so there's nothing that's really wrong.