Do you believe in objective morality? Explain your reasoning
>>85205929yeah I dodo i believe everyone can recognize or act itI do notbut I do infact believe in good and evil
>>85205929No. The universe has no morality. Mankind filters the universe through the lens of his morality. And mankind's morality is not objective, it's subjective.
Oh my god are we moralfagging orcas again???
>>85205929Kind of but I dunno for sure. I dont look at objective reality as a duality between good vs evil or bad. I just see it as optimal vs not optimal. What survives and what does not survive. In that sense, there is good and bad. I think humans all eventually arrive to the same conclusions about what benefits us. For example, most societies begin to have laws at some point. They may differ when it comes to which laws but that tells you that different living beings like to organize themselves. So being organized might be a trait that is optimal and beneficial to living creatures. I think recurring patterns in nature are the closest we get to objective reality. Water flows along the path of least resistance and all that. If humans and animals that cooperated with one another evolved to keep doing that and stayed alive as a species long enough to outlast others, it tells you cooperation is maybe a good thing.
>>85205929I believe in subjective immorality.
>>85206128This is the only sane response you'll find, great litmus test
I believe we don't hold set morals, the morals that we have are those that are in set to the survival of the species. You can observe the same kind of morality in other herd animals.
>>85205929I'm neutral on the subject. It could be >>85206128Or it could be that a "life-force" and "death-force" exist in tandem, as metaphysical poles encoded into reality, as represented by order and chaos. And we would call the life force "good" because that's what our nature is aligned with, though on the most fundamental I think even those are amoral vectors, like hot and cold, soft and hard
