There is no such thing as objective morality
ALL ACTS ARE, EITHER, GOOD, OR EVIL; GOOD ACTS ARE THOSE THAT CONFORM TO NATURAL LAW, AND TO DIVINE LAW; EVIL ACTS ARE THOSE THAT DEVIATE FROM NATURAL LAW, AND FROM DIVINE LAW; AN ACT CAN BE JUDGED AS GOOD, OR AS EVIL, BASED ON ITS CONSEQUENCES; MORALS ARE HABITUAL ACTS: MORALITY IS OBJECTIVELY QUALIFIABLE.
>>18400045That’s not something we can prove but most people will feel good and bad exists from their intuition.
>>18400045there is neither objective nor subjective, rather it is objective for our human species, not insects or god
>>18400045Just because you can't find the truth doesn't mean it isn't there.
>>18400202Just because you don't know I fucked your mom doesn't mean I didn't do it.
>>18400092You've explained why we feel morality, but not why it's true. Think of an alternate reality where humans evolved differently. There's no telling if our concepts on morality would be the same. If they are, then morality is objective. If not, then morality depends on contingency.
>>18400206>Think of an alternate reality
>>18400045Obviously.What's your next brilliant post?
>>18400045Then why do moral statements seem meaningful? >X ought to do Y>X is permitted to do Z>X is ought not to do W>X is permitted to not do V
>>18400226They are. They just don't mean what you seem to think they do.Moral advice can mean>what it would benefit you to do>what the state or other body will allow you to do>what I or another person would find pleasing for you to do
>>18400092I came to a similar conclusion, and further grounded it in human desire in accordance with reason, as well as the universality to consciously avoid involuntary suffering.>>18400226Also something I thought of. Certain moral justifications seem better substanitated than others, which necessitates the foundation of law, although the existence of law and the logical structure of morality can be seen as more testaments to the strength of the arguments itself, rather than confirming the existence of an objective moral substrate.Still, it's annoying when moral relativists begin criticizing reprehensible actions, like pedophilia, or preach that we should respect one another's beliefs, and get pissy when their boundaries are crossed.
>>18400236Are you an ethical emotivist? I disagree with this position but I need to gauge if this is what you're saying first. >>18400240I think ethics is just a framework we use for approximating objective morality, much in the same way science is a framework we use to approximate reality according to our models. In this way, morality is an abstraction similar to mathematics. I don't see why we shouldn't treat moral facts the same we treat mathematical facts.
>>18400247>Are you an ethical emotivist? I disagree with this position but I need to gauge if this is what you're saying first.Not exactly. I'm largely an Expressivist, but I also believe that there's value in classical virtue ethics (which centered on individual action for benefit of the same individual, the proper meaning of ethic) and ethical thought as applied to the State which can actually enforce ethics.
>>18400247>I think ethics is our way of approximating objective moralityI think the same, as it's socially constructed with the intent on maintaining social cohesion and peace, which is universal across cultures, and that suggests some degree of objectivity because of its inherent desirability. For example, nobody ultimately desires war, and those that do usually desire so due to an introduced structural defect that necessitates retaliation in order to keep itself maintained, like the reaction of soldiers developing bloodlust, or at least an impassioned sense of civic duty in the wake of 9/11.
>>18400206you dotn do the same things to repair the wheel on a car or a bike or a motorbike yet the oebjective is the same in all these cases. thats like saying theres no such thing as repairing a wheel because you dont do it the same way in thse cases, because the means change doesn't mean it doesnt accomplish the same goal. you re not arguing morality but how to achieve it, one part is bojective and one part is relative and both work together
>>18400250I don't particularly find any sort of expressivism satisfactory for our use of moral language though. It's much too reductionist in my opinion and leaves a pretty big explanatory gap. It's not that it can't be true on one level, but that it simply doesn't account for the entire aitia ("explanation") for moral discourse. This is why non-cognitivist still have a hard time resolving the Frege-Geach problem, because it seems it has difficulty accounting for this type of language, suggesting that it doesn't give us a full explanation about where morality statements really "come" from. You can reduce almost anything to attitudes, psychological states, emotions, or expressions, and yes I think that even includes mathematical statements which do elicit in us many types of attitudes or expressions. Replacing reasons with attitudes or expressions doesn't really explain much in my view, and it certainly doesn't follow that there isn't anything objective going on here.
>>18400262Nonsense. Moral realists can never actually explain what it means to ought to do something. It always comes down to having an evolutionary advantage, but there's no objective reason you ought to care about human evolution.
>he doesnt know about the word of God which was spoken through ancient jews which are God's chosen people.Those who bless Israel will be blessed and those who curse it, will be cursed.
>>18400284>is why non-cognitivist still have a hard time resolving the Frege-Geach problem, because it seems it has difficulty accounting for this type of language, suggesting that it doesn't give us a full explanation about where morality statements really "come" from Not really. The problem is resolved by such statements not expressing truth values.
>>18400262>you re not arguing morality but how to achieve itPeople often disagree on both the ends and the means. Two people could demand justice, where one thinks justice = death, and the other believes justice = rehabilitation.
The golden rule is pretty good.
>>18400045Morality is subjective because it deals entirely in the fate and choices and outcomes of subjects.
>It's not objective>Which is why we made words defining it.Lmao.
>>18400045objective morality is so real that God can't lie nor do bad things
ethic is the coming of age of morality:your decisions are based on your beliefs, not on tradition.people who act by morality are ethically underaged or plain manipulators or at.
>>18401668>or st*
