Unless people mean God = objective reality. Which we already have.reality is objective > reality contains all things, which includes minds > minds share an objective reality AKA God > objective morality exists and can be deduced on a particular situation basis.
>>25272203Ones you say that objective morality exists, monists and dualists have their foot in the door
>>25272203Moral statements don't express truths at all. They express emotions, commands, opinions/attitudes >Boo to torture!Just because everyone agrees on something doesn't make it true or "objective">We retards all think Filet-o-fish sammich is the McDonalds menu item for real menSee how that works?
>>25272212Objective morality would be true regardless if even no one agreed on it. it is mind independent.but minds are the only things morality effects and minds are also the only things that can deduce it.a thing being moral or not has nothing to do with what anyone says. it is more like 1+1=2 is true independent of people. it is just that you need a mind to reach this conclusion and build an instantiation of it in reality.consensus reality has nothing to do with morality, or reality it self for that matter. which is what you mistake for reality. you think consensus = reality.
>>25272203desu, is less than god is necesary and more so than the current understanding without God can't really have it.but like most cristians say it , because god is a very very strong reason and anquer for objective morality, in a sence that is double dipping in a specific goal of salvation, but also it being about how god is morality itself.also spiritualism can also help in getting an honest objective morality , their is in theory nothing stupid atheist from just saying that we can have an objective morality using SCIENCE! , but for some reason they tend to run from objective morality every chance they get. I think most philosophies about everything , could argue about an objective morality though
I love /lit/
>>25272220Nta but that’s all assuming objective morality exists. Prove it does. You can’t.
>>25272427Your mother bouncing on my cock is objectively immoral (we’re not married).
>>25272444
>>25272203Objectively speaking all morality is subjective
>>25272203>reality is objectiveWe really don't know that>UHHH BUT IT'S OBVIOUS!!!!1!So is God's love but that isn't an argument for anything either.
>>25272540God’s love is THE argument for our existence, anon. You’re only other options are Tikkun olam or apathy.
objective moral values exist and require a higher authority, which is typically identified as God
>>25272543Yes I know but that's completely unrelated to my point. Christ's promise of the resurrection is the only possible justification for reality.
>>25272555What I gathered from your comment was that reality is not objective, and God’s love is not an argument for anything. I addressed the second point. If that’s not what you were saying, what was it?
>>25272212Is that an analytic claim? In that case that's the wrong method. Or is it an empirical claim? In that case the research suggests that it's probably false.
>>25272567The second part was meant to mean (lol) that "it's obvious" isn't an argument for anything, and I picked one of my own instinctive beliefs which I assumed the other anon thought was ridiculous and clearly false as an example in order to bridge the intuition gap.
>>25272212>Just because everyone agrees on something doesn't make it true or "objective"Empirically speaking that's what objectivity *is*
>>25272574Thanks for helping me understand. I couldn’t tell how the irony was meant to cut, but I get it now.
>>25272203you've hazily reassembled ethical intuitionism from first principles. this is funny. you should read Michael Huemer, you'd get along with his work. picrel is a great defense of ethical intuitionism that you'd vibe with
>>25272584Thanks for asking, I don't think I'm a clear enough writer to keep using that strategy to be honest.
>>25272212They express commands, nothing else.
>>25272203it aint.bye.
>>25272886It is. Morality is subjective to each person. Each society has different morals. Each religion.
Given that there's a plurality of moral actions, there are a plurality of morals. A plurality is in conflict unless they are on harmony. God is simply the one unifying harmony of all morals + all beauties all virtues all wisdoms all rights all truths all etc.It wouldn't make sense to have conflicting morals or any conflicting good things. Ergo God is the peace between all genuine Goods.Ordinary monotheism leads to divine Command which is simply nihilism with extra steps. Because monotheism rejects a multiplicity of necessary things (regardless of whether they're personal or impersonal), true monotheism rejects God's Energies because they're honestly just impersonal deities at the end of the day.
>>25273136So im always ganna be a lower form cuz im ugly?
>>25273276Body reflects the soul. Soul is the unique essence that can transform to the better or to the worse, i.e. you can ascend or descend. You're ugly because you've lived an ugly life, whether in this or past ones. Ugly thoughts ugly facial expressions ugly face.
>>25273325>You're ugly because you've lived an ugly life, whether in this or past onesPlato believed in reincarnation?
God isn't necessary, all you need are objective moral truths. Platonism also has them, either actual old school Platonism or just the existence of abstract objects.And then there's also naturalist moral realism. There's probably more.
>>25273343>objective moral truthsExamples?
>>25273348It's wrong to torture babies just for fun.
>>25273348Homosexuality is wrong in all contexts and not good in any scenarios, there are no circumstances where sodomy is necessary.
>>25273333Yes..?
>>25273352That Wittgenstein thought it was a gotcha to proclaim there were no universally absolute morals makes one question implied genius.I can think of an endless list of absolute immoral actions.Inflicting permanent injuries on healthy children.The category of actions that cause harm to others when you had no emergency but solely did X arbitrarily (like compulsive liars or thieves). This set is infinite.
>>25273352Why? Is it better or worse to torture an adult for fun?
>>25273367>t.
>>25273367Something less bad is not more good.Something less good is not more bad.
>>25273375>i am aware of innate morals>no i cannot put into words why simething is moral or immoralWhat if killing a child saved two human lives?
>>25273367Not necessarily, they might be equally bad. It's just one example that at least on purely normative grounds almost everyone agrees with, and it prevents objections like: "What if the adult did something to deserve the torture, what if he's a terrorist that planted a bomb" and so on.But it seems like you are asking a question about epistemology, maybe it's hard to figure out what these facts are, my point is more that ontologically it makes sense for them to be abstract properties. It's like other non-empirical facts, like math. Is 2 + 2 = 4 because God prefers it to be that way? Or because he commanded it to be that way? At least conceptually it makes more sense that they are just abstract truths that don't depend on anyone's will.The same way objective moral truths could be just abstract truths.Once you introduce commands, wills and so on, you come closer and closer to subjectivist theories of morality (even if, for practical purposes, God would be a very special subjective appraiser) and if you don't talk about wills, commands and so on, what really is the difference between a God given morality and abstracta?
>>25273379Different qualifiers different actions.
>>25273382So killing a baby could be moral or immoral, depending on the situation? Sounds subjective.
>>25273390You might want to open up a dictionary of you think context is a synonym to subjective.
>>25273390A perfectly healthy baby who's the chilf of two genius level IQ models is worth a thousand yous.A down syndrome disabled baby is a mercy to abort.Since mere life is not an objective good, it is eudaimonia that is an objective good.
>>25273393Everyone agrees circumstances differ. The question is why one circumstance justifies killing and another doesn't. If the answer ultimately depends on human interpretation, values, or prioritization, then subjectivity has already entered the system.
>>25273399People disagree about moral questions, but people also disagree about physics. Does that mean there are no objective facts about physics?If moral realism is true, then some moral judgements are simply incorrect, one or more people in those disagreements are simply wrong.
>>25273405>If moral realism is true
>Why is the sun necessary for sunlight
>>25273407Yes, but you made it sound like disagreement was in conflict with it being true, but it isn't. I'm not claiming I have proven moral realism, I'm just saying that moral disagreement by itself isn't a defeater to moral realism, just like disagreement about dark matter isn't a defeater to scientific realism.
>>25273399already established that there are no contextual evils.Then you removed qualifiers and said "see there are always exceptions to [too broad category to be absolute]".Killing a [healthy] baby [for fun] =/= killing a baby.
>>25273411It isnt the onky source and sometimes fails to be a source of light
>>25273411The sun is necessary for SUN-light it's not necessary for light. The question is precisely if morality is like sunlight, or if morality is a different kind of light.
>>25273399>why one circumstance justifies killing and another doesn't.Because the mixture of different elements manifest tertium quids which themselves have differing values.Hydrogen and oxygen makes H20 or h202, the former is different from the latter even if both are technical water. The latter will kill you at top high doses (both will at extreme doses). But can clean your mouth at low doses.The whole world operates on contextuality.So to deny that morality exists because contexts changes relationships is to deny chemistry and all physical sciences.
>>25272212Nope, it is as obvious to me that torturing or killing innocent people to pass time is immoral just as its obvious to me that 2+2=4. Also your position is unbelievably cucked. If I rape, torture and kill your wife all you can say is (you may read this in a weak effeminate onions voice in your head): "uhhhmmm I would prefer that you should not do that!!!" but you can't say that there's anything wrong with me doing that.
>>25273417I would argue it's immortal to allow thousands to die because you want one person to live
>>25273431A genius whose thoughts will save billions is worth a thousand yous
>>25273430I can say that it's wrong, on a emotivist view saying that something is bad just is an expression of emotions, realists shouldn't presume to own moral language.And if moral language is an expression of emotions, that's almost the opposite of requiring me to be quiet. I can also kill you, nothing about emotivism is in any tension with using force.Moral laws themselves have never stopped anyone, at most the belief in objective morality has stopped people, never the thing itself. While I punch you, you can keep crying: "b-but what you are doing is OBJECTIVELY immoral!"
If you stay in sun too long you get sunburned and skin cancer, therefore staying sun at all is never good.Check mate moralistsThe depth of atheists' thought.
>>25273432Do do not believe this satement reflects morals that all people hold. One smart guy is worth more than thousands? Plus in your own scenario it's a baby so you do not know how smart.
>>25273439Casting evil injures the soul of the sinner, regardless of whether they're immediately aware of the double suffering they're causing. Even just having evil desires is a sign of torment and sickness of the soul.Just observe if any evil people are capable of true happiness, or if they only live in delusions of hedonism.
>>25273446Universalist morality (that all men are supposedly equal) is the root cause of moral paradoxes because we are obviously not equal and therefore obviously not of equal worth.
>>25273455If universalist morality isn't real then why are you srguing lime you are right and others are wrong?
>>25273455What i mean is, how did you determine your morals? Did you have any sort if guide?
>>25273458Universalism is not the synonym for objective, nor is subjective the antonym for deontological ethics.Deontology is retarded as is universalism.Plato, the father of objective goods, rejected universalism and deontology.
>>25273439Sorry, your fantasy picture just doesn't work. Moral language presupposes that when we say "that is wrong" we base it on something beyond the words. Pretending that suddenly all moral language discards this intention and is reducible to emotions is a story that you tell yourself without any basis in intuition or reasoning. Emotivism is incoherent since it denies a true meaning for moral language without any reason to give for it. For example: if I say that 1+1=2 and that this proposition points to a necessary truth, the emotivist has as little validity to say that moral language refers only to emotions as that this mathematical proposition refers to emotional statements. "haha yes 1+1=2, boo 1+1=3".
>>25273460Just because some people are insane and feel sure about the goodness of evils doesn't mean the heart isn't most of the time a good judge of good and evil.Your body cringing in pain from seeing islamists burning girls in cages is an infallible judge that that is always evil.
>>25273472Yeah but the faggots who are against them also kill people all the time and say it's collateral damage. Both sides in war justify "murder"Seems like all people agree murder is wrong, but we cannot agree on the definition for example. If i kill a man, it might be ok depending on if laws call it muder.
>>25273468How do you know that that's the primary function of moral language? There is actually real empirical data on this and so far it doesn't look like most people are moral realists, or that their statements are intended in a moral realist way.The grammar itself also doesn't settle this: "this food is good" do you mean objectively good? "Pizza is better than pasta" so it's objectively better? Are people gastronomic realists?
>>25273478War is sometimes good.Ending another's life is sometimes good.War crimes is never good.Dishonorable tactics are never justified.Modern warfare is never good in themselves but if the alternative is death of a race then extreme circumstances make otherwise evils into necessary evils.Still, burning girls in cages is in no possible world a necessary evil. And the death of millions of Salafi men is preferable from killing one innocent child.
>>25273481You realize, since individuals are objectively unique there are necessarily also objective morals truths only true for them alone since it is their unique good.Subjective doesn't mean individual it means arbitrary, that the person can change their lind about it for no reason.
>>25273488>War crimes is never good.Literally determined by groups of people just like a nations laws and differences can be arbitrary.
>>25273495>>25273481I.e. my means to eudaimonia is not identical to your means to eudaimonia.If you have an allergy to X then it's objectively bad for you.Because each person is themselves a qualifier that changes every relationship and so changes the nature of every thing.Again you autistically are incapable of understanding that context changes everything.
>>25273498Different natures different teloi.What's good for chinx is not good for finns.
>>25273495Not in contemporary analytic discourse at least, subjective there means stance-dependent, or you could also say dependent on values, attitudes, desires and so on.There could be an objective morality that's different for everyone under that definition, but only it doesn't depend on stances. Like if you have a certain fate that you don't choose yourself, and it comes with moral obligations just for you, that would be fine, but not if it depends on your stances.
>>25273505>Different natures, different teloi just means morality changes depending on culture, biology, circumstance, and social role. That's still contextual morality.Call it what you want.
>>25273506>contemporary analytic discourseThat's the problem. Those autists are retarded.Subjective means "arbitrary opinions not based in wisdom or good judgement", group can be subjective, a nation can be subjective. It doesn't mean individual.Since individuals are objectively different to various degrees and subjectively different, obviously there are things only true for you since they only affect you.All of salfism/Calvinism is a collective subjectivism.Subjective = not based on eternal truths.
>>25273511Ok, but your stances also aren't eternal truths, people's values do change, that's a simple empirical fact.Maybe we don't actually disagree that much on this, or maybe my posts look similar to some other anon. Context dependence would be fine by my/the analytic definition. It would be fine to say that some people can't eat peanuts, that's not their stance or desire, that's an objective fact about their bodies.Or that women maybe have other responsibilities than men, or that adults have other responsibilities than children.I also think the stance thing is consistent with earlier philosophy, e.g. the Euthyphro Dilemma: is the Good what the gods love? The love of the gods for some things would also be a stance/preference/desire/value etc.
>>25273525The gods are the goods and the gods love God.
>>25272203its never really made sense to me either and i can only imagine the preoccupation with deeming morality as the type of thing you could even discuss in ontical or ontological terms must come from people who are frustrated with the reality that there is nothing to be answered for
>>25273405there are no facts about physics (or at least we don't have access to any of them) we only have interpretations of phenomena
Natural law is what determines between good and bad. The reason why fake evolutionary anti-teleology is a problem is because it implies there's nothing "innate" about a human being's natural inclinations since everything exists in a permanent flux (including humans) anyways. It's only humans with a created, fundamental essence they carry with them that is able to properly define good and evil.
>>25273546Tranny
>>25273569>createdIs the antithesis to objective.The objective can only be uncreated which necessitates nondual polytheism (Platonism aka hierarchy of eternal truths).
>>25273574ok
>>25273634>>created>Is the antithesis to objective.I said they're ontologically fundamental. >The objective can only be uncreated which necessitates nondual polytheism (Platonism aka hierarchy of eternal truths).There is no such thing as morality or justice under nondualism.
>>25273757Created from nothing means it could have been created differently and is therefore arbitrary. Otherwise they're necessarily created and this "contradicts god's freedom". Ergo nothing created is objectively good or bad but only whatever God arbitrarily commands to be the case subjectively.
>>25273775>God>arbitraryStopped reading there.
>>25273823That's the definition of absolute freedom and absence of compulsion to whatever action it wills.God and Objective are the same thing, if it is objective it is not created, if it is created it is not objective.If it isn't arbitrary then God had no choice in emanating it, he necessarily begat it.If things are only good or evil because God freely willed that they ought to be so, then God could have freely created them to be the opposite of what they are.Monotheism leads to divine command and it leads to nihilism, therefore monotheism is nihilism.
>>25273840
>>25272220Balls.
>>25272203What is the source of morality according to you?
>>25272203Objective morality is still a farce whether one, zero, or infinite deities exist, because it's impossible to bridge logically from an "is" to an "ought." Also, every special claim the theists have on objective morality still relies on a secular premise. "You'll go to hell otherwise" = "you ought to act in your best interests." "God is reason, to deny him is inherently unreasonable" = "you ought to act reasonably." "God is your creator, you owe it to him to obey" = "you ought to obey those who've contributed to your existence." All of these ought are ultimately emotional rather than rational, and that's okay, but why try to treat emotional judgements as universal axioms that can be rationally deduced?
>>25273840>Monotheism leads to divine command and it leads to nihilism, therefore monotheism is nihilism.Nondualism leads to nihilism because morality does not exist.
>>25274413>Also, every special claim the theists have on objective morality still relies on a secular premise. Nice strawman, jidf. The premise of objective morality is teleological and nothing else.
>>25272203>objective morality exists>isn't goodness condensed into a wordRetard
>>25272203Well, unicorns and witches must exist. If they didn’t exist then how could you possibly explain why are some things unicorn-like and other things witch-like? I would be really sad if unicorns didn’t exist.Because these exist, we can deduce that there must be a fairy king that governs these magical creatures. It is self evident and necessarily true. You simply cannot have witches and unicorns without a fairy king, nor a fairy king without unicorns and witches.
>>25274430Aristotelian objective morality is teleological, but other claims to objective morality like Platonic and certain Christian arguments use other arguments.
>>25274425You don't need morality once you make contact with what they're talking about. What's good for everyone else is good for you and you act according to that. Which is why all of these enlightened people are communal hippies.
>>25274425Yes. Nondualism (as in substance monism) and monotheism are two sides of the same coin.Created natures are unreal, empty. Abrahamic ontology is quite close to Buddhism/Advaita views regarding creation— pre-eschaton creation is Maya.
>>25274413Even without a God, oughts could simply exist. The is/ought gap is not something to bridge, it's just a feature of classical logic.You just assume that the is is the thing you have to staet from, you can just start from the ought.
