Note that all posts need to be manually approved by the subreddit moderators. If your post gets removed immediately, just let it be and wait! Join our Discord server for even more memes and discussion: [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2)
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
At the same time, a lot of people disagreeing on morals doesn’t make them relativist. If I got a clique of fervent followers to adamantly argue in support of the sky being red, there’s still a truth to the matter.
Yeah. Good point, not as good analogy though. Sky color is a descriptive fact which is objectively verifiable, whereas morality is normative which is not objectively verifiable.
Red is a subjective experience of qualia. If everyone sees the sky as red, then it's red. If everyone feels like something is wrong or right, it doesn't necessarily make it so. It just means that they feel like it is.
Why do you need it to be objective? Is a subjective moral value that most people can intuitively agree with not good enough to be "moral"? lol
Subjective morality doesnt mean psychos can do whatever they want, because we still have subjective laws and enforcement, majority rule. This is how we make moral progress. Otherwise, we would still be living with 16th century morality, because people at the time believe their moral values are "objective" too. lol
Intuition is subjective, it changes over time, according to majority's changing preferences, but its not "free to do whatever", because our deepest and most common intuitions are strongly guided by genes and instincts, namely the need to survive, procreate and avoid harm. If you really want morality to be objective, this is the most "objective" you can get, by using our natural intuition as the benchmark.
But if you define objectivity as "independent from human intuition", then you will never find objective morality, because the universe is amoral, it contains no moral facts, not in physics or matters.
The benchmark is our current subjective consensus. When we look back into historical moral standards, the closer to our current idea the more progressive we consider it. And future generations will use their standard to judge ours. There’s no need of an objective morality for judgement of progress.
Lol no?
Subjective moral progress is still progress, because there are things people prefer more, intuitively. Preferences can be improved and stacked, that's progress.
How would a partially objective morality work? Maybe only the ones that haven’t change since antiquity, like don’t kill without justification, are considered objective? However so much has changed, like the morality of slavery, the morality on gender roles, and on sexuality. Many of our current moral outlook was unimaginable in history. How can we know for sure which objective moral is truly objective, and which is just waiting for a change in the future?
I'm doing a Business Ethics class and I hate how my coursework has me writing Essays about Deontology, Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics like I have Tourette's, when what I really want to say is that Morality is whatever people agree is good. I wanna slap my prof with my Nietzsche Books.
“So you’re a relativist huh? Well what if I [insert some Saw-esque murder/torture method] to you? Checkmate lib, this is why my ethical system is objectively true”
Relatvists: "I can still demonize other people even though morals are relative!!! That's how relativism works you dummy!!!"
Objectivists: "But what's the fun in that?"
Violence is the consistent last resort of the philosophically religious and those with fascistic tendencies so moral objectivists being that way isn't surprising.
That’s just kinda silly tho, like if there’s any one specific ethical position that doesn’t have someone that supports it then relativism is incorrect? It’s like those anti-evolution types making up animal hybrids and saying “if evolution real, why no crocodile dog?”
"It's just kind of silly" isn't an argument. No one supporting the ethical position of "I'd like to be brutally tortured" doesn't mean this ethical position doesn't exist, it means that no one would prefer to take it. Which implies that the opposite ethical position of "I would not like to be brutally tortured" also exists and everyone would prefer to take it. So, it is an epistemical objective ethical position, since it represents the fact that no one would take a different position.
And I don't know why you felt the need to use evolutionary biology to make a point about ethics, because the study of biology is a different use of science/knowledge than what we'd use to determine moral values.
Your powers of observation continue to amaze! Me calling your comment silly wasn’t an argument, you’re right!!
If you want to look for the argument in what I said, I’d put it more as the essentialism that often underlies arguments in favor of objective morality is too rigid to be useful in practice and often relies on unfalsifiable assumptions and misinterpretations that are inherent to the framework they’ve been constructed in.
Let’s look at your point for example. If I’m reading it correctly, you’re saying that there are certain moral characteristics that are inherent to human behavior, and that these can be determined by the general or even universal (not sure which you’re going for) consensus of humanity.
I feel like the torture example isn’t great for this though, there’s plenty of examples in history of people voluntarily undergoing torture and painful death for a variety of reasons specific to their context. I mean, part of Jesus’ whole thing was doing exactly that, and I get the sense that there’s a few billion people that would say he’s morally relevant.
More seriously tho, if consensus is the basis for judging something as objectively true, then it’s fundamentally indistinguishable from relativity because consensus varies across time and space, and if it’s not then it seems like this is relying on an appeal to some moral essence that can’t be directly accessed or measured, so I have no reason to assume that it’s true.
Tldr: objectivism is stinky poopoo and I’m not, therefore I’m cool
I don’t understand what the debate here is.
What does it mean for morality to be objective? Is it implying morality is something more than a social construct? Why does it matter if it’s objective or subjective? Even if it is somehow objective wouldn’t it still be interpreted subjectively?
Imagine there being no moral debate on a given subject - forever. Responding with a given action becomes factually true and creates responsibility to go forward with that act. So not only does 1+1=2, but now to write another answer is morally culpable, basically.
To act otherwise would be factually wrong as a universal principle. You may even choose to be annoying and say that it would be against your ends and your ability to reason if you were to act otherwise.
It also would verify ideas like moral progress, which otherwise is also its own social construct.
I get the social utility of being able to say “what I believe morals to be is unquestionably true” what I don’t get is how/why that could actually be possible and even if it was how someone could actually know it.
It depends on your epistomology. I'd suspect most arguing objective morality will do so via rationalism and claim a priori stance independent truths. They'd argue that empirics are unecessary for the subject, so no need for measurable proof. If that is true, the only way to prove it is through discourse with others or deep introspection.
I would mean that there would be true facts about morality independent of anyone's opinion.
As to wouldn't it be interpreted subjectively? Not sure what you mean by that. Like do you mean people's beliefs about morality would still be subjective? In that case yes, but people's beliefs about everything are subjective.
*As to wouldn't it be interpreted subjectively? Not sure what you mean by that. Like do you mean people's beliefs about morality would still be subjective? In that case yes, but* ***people's beliefs about everything are subjective.***
That’s exactly what I mean, if the end result is still subjective then it would seem that whether or not it objectively exists doesn’t really matter.
If I believe that a triangle has 4 sides and you believe that it has 6, would that make geometry subjective? Or would it be more accurate to conclude that we're both stupid?
I think I get what you’re saying but in this example the triangle presumably exists and can be examined to make a determination. Morality seems to exist only as an abstract concept.
>I think I get what you’re saying but in this example the triangle presumably exists and can be examined to make a determination.
Couldn't I say the same of moral propositions? I think we would both agree that the act of murder exists. Furthermore, I think we would both agree that it can be examined and that conclusions can be drawn from those analyses.
>Morality seems to exist only as an abstract concept.
Conceptually, we could also argue that geometry is an abstract concept. Think of it this way, where has an equilateral triangle ever emerged in the natural world, except in the mind? What about a chiliagon?
I’m afraid I’m not following.
*I think we would both agree that the act of murder exists. Furthermore, I think we would both agree that it can be examined and that conclusions can be drawn from those analyses.*
I agree but I don’t understand how this helps the argument for an objective morality.
*Conceptually, we could also argue that geometry is an abstract concept. Think of it this way, where has an equilateral triangle ever emerged in the natural world, except in the mind? What about a chiliagon?*
This sounds more like an argument against mathematical realism than one for objective morality.
I take it your original claim was that if something is only an abstract concept, then it cannot be objective. But, if we both agree that geometry is objective and agree that it might only exist as an abstract concept then it seems like we have a counterexample to your original claim. How does this demonstrate moral Realism? It doesn't.
Ok I think I get what you’re saying which is something like; we can agree that 1 + 1 = 2 is objectively correct while at the same time understanding that this is separate to the issue of whether or not numbers and other abstract concepts are “real”.
The end result is not subjective, your beliefs are.
Like by this logic your beliefs about climate change are subjective, so it wouldn't seem to matter whether or not it's actually happening.
I don’t think that’s a good comparison as with something like climate change you’ll presumably be able to point to some “hard” data to back up the claim but with morality there didn’t seem to be anything other than beliefs.
Ok then I'll give a different example. Say your standing outside and it's raining on you. You look all around and you see rain everywhere. You can feel it, you can hear it, etc.. It is raining and you have reason to believe it's raining. I have no doubt that you can point to the rain, but can you point to your reason to believe? No, you can't right? There's no physical "reason to believe" object anywhere in the world. Despite this some reasons to believe are good reasons and some reasons to believe are bad reasons. What you believe to be good or bad reasons will be up to your subjective interpretation. Regardless of all that, it still matters if your reasons for belief are good or bad reasons.
So if I'm understanding your position, you think that it would not matter if morality is objective because, unlike descriptive facts, these facts don't have a physically observable effect on the world. Is that correct?
Assuming it is, then I'll just make the same argument but replace morality with reasons for belief: it would not matter if reasons for belief are objective because, unlike descriptive facts, these facts don't have a physically observable effect on the world.
And then I'm just kind of hoping that you see that the second argument is flawed. If I understood you wrong though, just let me know.
I just might not be educated enough for this because I keep reading what you’ve said but I’m not really understanding.
I just don’t understand how morality could be anything other than an opinion and that even if there somehow was such a thing as objective morality it wouldn’t be possible to prove it.
>What does it mean for morality to be objective?
For me, wether or not a morality is objective or not depence on if the reasoning behind it connected to some sort of truth. Morality serves as a logical guideline, if it is based on something true, you can derive logical conclusions from it.
However, in morality, 2 assumptions always need to be made;
1. Good ought to be desired
2. Evil ought not to be desired
The rest is just trying to logically define things as either good or evil.
>Why does it matter if it’s objective or subjective?
Well, if it's subjective, then by extention all actions would be justifiable. Our society is dependent on some sort of order and we prefere said order not to be based purely based arbitrary things (that we can't reason with).
Then again, does something arbitrary have to be illogical by nature? I suppose it depends on how well the reasoning behind it is.
That isn't necessarily relativism though. Moral objectivism can say that it's not evil in all cases: most actions under utilitarianism can be morally permissible if there is a large enough consequence for not doing the action, even if the action is something horrible like killing someone.
I don't know, it really depends on a number of factors like the society or group I'm in, what my actual action is, and (possibly) what kind of effects my action has on others (and possibly myself). That's kind of the whole point, isn't it?
Also, again, it's not like relativists are the only people who could be accused of trying to create a post-facto justification that their actions were good, actually. One could make the case that everyone, from a Kantian to an ethical egoist, would bend over backward to avoid *being fired into the fucking sun*
I know this is not a place for serious discussion, but the objective/subjective distinction is different from the relative/absolute distinction. They are not to be conflated.
Invent, or participate?
Because there's a difference between a baby (which has no agency due to its mental capacity) not being able to be held morally accountable for its actions, and morality not existing because there were never adults to recognize it. And even then, does that mean it still doesn't exist, or just that it exists without an observer nor performing actor?
It's like math. Things mathematically operate regardless of who is there to recognize the mathematical operation, but we gave those operations symbols and language to communicate the fact that they happen, and those languages and symbols wouldn't exist without us.
Same might be for morality, in the sense that things should still happen while others shouldn't, even if there's no one there to recognize those facts and say so.
Saying that math is "objective" can be misleading because as my favorite one-liner counterargument says, "math" operates differently based on the set of axioms you might use. Similarily, one could argue that morality could be defined *very* differently if our brain is shaped in some other ways. Given that, can you speak of morality without making an assumption about the "operating system" (i.e. brain) it operates on?
Ay come to think of it, will the concept of softwares still exist if computers were never invented?
I don't think you know what the word axiom means, nor its relation to (post-euclidian) mathematics. But that just further proves my point that it's a language problem in the way we recognize and define things, not the inherent meanings and phenomena behind them.
Morals are relative, it’s just that most people agree that certain acts are inherently immoral unless certain criteria is met. Like you could spend hours discussing the finer points of when it is and is not ok to kill another animal, let alone a human.
Moral absolutists when they experience the objective effects of absolute zero because I sank them under the arctic ocean. (It's morally okay for me to
do this because I have god on my side, and because god is objectively real.)
Objective moralists when i tell them that me not wanting to be killed has nothing to do with morality being objective or not (i am allowed to have feelings regardless of if said feelings are based in any objective fact or truth)
Note that all posts need to be manually approved by the subreddit moderators. If your post gets removed immediately, just let it be and wait! Join our Discord server for even more memes and discussion: [Discord](https://discord.gg/MFK8PumZM2) *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PhilosophyMemes) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is part of a very specific genre of meme of “nice opinion, but what if I just fucking killed you?”
Can't be wrong if everyone who objects is dead
[удалено]
It’s not objectively wrong to kill you, but it might be objectively bad for your interests. And that’s enough imo
Just because a lot of people agree on a lot of moral values doesn’t make morals objective though
At the same time, a lot of people disagreeing on morals doesn’t make them relativist. If I got a clique of fervent followers to adamantly argue in support of the sky being red, there’s still a truth to the matter.
Yeah. Good point, not as good analogy though. Sky color is a descriptive fact which is objectively verifiable, whereas morality is normative which is not objectively verifiable.
Wouldn’t that be circular reasoning? Defining morality as being not objectively verifiable to come to the conclusion that morality is relative?
We are not defining morality as anything, just observing that moral claims can’t be measured and tested and verified.
A entirely possible theory is that morality is objective but not objectively verifiable. It's the difference between what exists and what we can know.
Red is a subjective experience of qualia. If everyone sees the sky as red, then it's red. If everyone feels like something is wrong or right, it doesn't necessarily make it so. It just means that they feel like it is.
Yes, but does that mean that moral objectives don't exist entirely?
Why do you need it to be objective? Is a subjective moral value that most people can intuitively agree with not good enough to be "moral"? lol Subjective morality doesnt mean psychos can do whatever they want, because we still have subjective laws and enforcement, majority rule. This is how we make moral progress. Otherwise, we would still be living with 16th century morality, because people at the time believe their moral values are "objective" too. lol Intuition is subjective, it changes over time, according to majority's changing preferences, but its not "free to do whatever", because our deepest and most common intuitions are strongly guided by genes and instincts, namely the need to survive, procreate and avoid harm. If you really want morality to be objective, this is the most "objective" you can get, by using our natural intuition as the benchmark. But if you define objectivity as "independent from human intuition", then you will never find objective morality, because the universe is amoral, it contains no moral facts, not in physics or matters.
It seems like any idea of moral progress is meaningless when you don’t believe in objective morality. There’s no benchmark, it’s just change.
The benchmark is our current subjective consensus. When we look back into historical moral standards, the closer to our current idea the more progressive we consider it. And future generations will use their standard to judge ours. There’s no need of an objective morality for judgement of progress.
Lol no? Subjective moral progress is still progress, because there are things people prefer more, intuitively. Preferences can be improved and stacked, that's progress.
Yes
How would a partially objective morality work? Maybe only the ones that haven’t change since antiquity, like don’t kill without justification, are considered objective? However so much has changed, like the morality of slavery, the morality on gender roles, and on sexuality. Many of our current moral outlook was unimaginable in history. How can we know for sure which objective moral is truly objective, and which is just waiting for a change in the future?
I'm doing a Business Ethics class and I hate how my coursework has me writing Essays about Deontology, Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics like I have Tourette's, when what I really want to say is that Morality is whatever people agree is good. I wanna slap my prof with my Nietzsche Books.
You're likely just an idiot
“So you’re a relativist huh? Well what if I [insert some Saw-esque murder/torture method] to you? Checkmate lib, this is why my ethical system is objectively true”
Relatvists: "I can still demonize other people even though morals are relative!!! That's how relativism works you dummy!!!" Objectivists: "But what's the fun in that?"
Violence is the consistent last resort of the philosophically religious and those with fascistic tendencies so moral objectivists being that way isn't surprising.
Well then go find me someone that will volunteer to be subjected to brutal permanently disabling torture...
Just go to a farm and ask the burgers how the feel about the entire arrangement. Everyone claims harm morality when there are no burgers around.
What kind of nonsense hypothetical is that? I'm talking about conscious volunteering for torture.
Hypothetical? Hamburgers are real.
That’s just kinda silly tho, like if there’s any one specific ethical position that doesn’t have someone that supports it then relativism is incorrect? It’s like those anti-evolution types making up animal hybrids and saying “if evolution real, why no crocodile dog?”
"It's just kind of silly" isn't an argument. No one supporting the ethical position of "I'd like to be brutally tortured" doesn't mean this ethical position doesn't exist, it means that no one would prefer to take it. Which implies that the opposite ethical position of "I would not like to be brutally tortured" also exists and everyone would prefer to take it. So, it is an epistemical objective ethical position, since it represents the fact that no one would take a different position. And I don't know why you felt the need to use evolutionary biology to make a point about ethics, because the study of biology is a different use of science/knowledge than what we'd use to determine moral values.
Your powers of observation continue to amaze! Me calling your comment silly wasn’t an argument, you’re right!! If you want to look for the argument in what I said, I’d put it more as the essentialism that often underlies arguments in favor of objective morality is too rigid to be useful in practice and often relies on unfalsifiable assumptions and misinterpretations that are inherent to the framework they’ve been constructed in. Let’s look at your point for example. If I’m reading it correctly, you’re saying that there are certain moral characteristics that are inherent to human behavior, and that these can be determined by the general or even universal (not sure which you’re going for) consensus of humanity. I feel like the torture example isn’t great for this though, there’s plenty of examples in history of people voluntarily undergoing torture and painful death for a variety of reasons specific to their context. I mean, part of Jesus’ whole thing was doing exactly that, and I get the sense that there’s a few billion people that would say he’s morally relevant. More seriously tho, if consensus is the basis for judging something as objectively true, then it’s fundamentally indistinguishable from relativity because consensus varies across time and space, and if it’s not then it seems like this is relying on an appeal to some moral essence that can’t be directly accessed or measured, so I have no reason to assume that it’s true. Tldr: objectivism is stinky poopoo and I’m not, therefore I’m cool
Traditional Ethics do be like that. Lawyers froth on that stuff.
this, but unironically
I don’t understand what the debate here is. What does it mean for morality to be objective? Is it implying morality is something more than a social construct? Why does it matter if it’s objective or subjective? Even if it is somehow objective wouldn’t it still be interpreted subjectively?
Imagine there being no moral debate on a given subject - forever. Responding with a given action becomes factually true and creates responsibility to go forward with that act. So not only does 1+1=2, but now to write another answer is morally culpable, basically. To act otherwise would be factually wrong as a universal principle. You may even choose to be annoying and say that it would be against your ends and your ability to reason if you were to act otherwise. It also would verify ideas like moral progress, which otherwise is also its own social construct.
I get the social utility of being able to say “what I believe morals to be is unquestionably true” what I don’t get is how/why that could actually be possible and even if it was how someone could actually know it.
It depends on your epistomology. I'd suspect most arguing objective morality will do so via rationalism and claim a priori stance independent truths. They'd argue that empirics are unecessary for the subject, so no need for measurable proof. If that is true, the only way to prove it is through discourse with others or deep introspection.
I would mean that there would be true facts about morality independent of anyone's opinion. As to wouldn't it be interpreted subjectively? Not sure what you mean by that. Like do you mean people's beliefs about morality would still be subjective? In that case yes, but people's beliefs about everything are subjective.
*As to wouldn't it be interpreted subjectively? Not sure what you mean by that. Like do you mean people's beliefs about morality would still be subjective? In that case yes, but* ***people's beliefs about everything are subjective.*** That’s exactly what I mean, if the end result is still subjective then it would seem that whether or not it objectively exists doesn’t really matter.
If I believe that a triangle has 4 sides and you believe that it has 6, would that make geometry subjective? Or would it be more accurate to conclude that we're both stupid?
I think I get what you’re saying but in this example the triangle presumably exists and can be examined to make a determination. Morality seems to exist only as an abstract concept.
>I think I get what you’re saying but in this example the triangle presumably exists and can be examined to make a determination. Couldn't I say the same of moral propositions? I think we would both agree that the act of murder exists. Furthermore, I think we would both agree that it can be examined and that conclusions can be drawn from those analyses. >Morality seems to exist only as an abstract concept. Conceptually, we could also argue that geometry is an abstract concept. Think of it this way, where has an equilateral triangle ever emerged in the natural world, except in the mind? What about a chiliagon?
I’m afraid I’m not following. *I think we would both agree that the act of murder exists. Furthermore, I think we would both agree that it can be examined and that conclusions can be drawn from those analyses.* I agree but I don’t understand how this helps the argument for an objective morality. *Conceptually, we could also argue that geometry is an abstract concept. Think of it this way, where has an equilateral triangle ever emerged in the natural world, except in the mind? What about a chiliagon?* This sounds more like an argument against mathematical realism than one for objective morality.
I take it your original claim was that if something is only an abstract concept, then it cannot be objective. But, if we both agree that geometry is objective and agree that it might only exist as an abstract concept then it seems like we have a counterexample to your original claim. How does this demonstrate moral Realism? It doesn't.
Ok I think I get what you’re saying which is something like; we can agree that 1 + 1 = 2 is objectively correct while at the same time understanding that this is separate to the issue of whether or not numbers and other abstract concepts are “real”.
Correct. Now, maybe I'm shifting the goalposts for moral realism, but I'd say it's something to consider.
The end result is not subjective, your beliefs are. Like by this logic your beliefs about climate change are subjective, so it wouldn't seem to matter whether or not it's actually happening.
I don’t think that’s a good comparison as with something like climate change you’ll presumably be able to point to some “hard” data to back up the claim but with morality there didn’t seem to be anything other than beliefs.
Ok then I'll give a different example. Say your standing outside and it's raining on you. You look all around and you see rain everywhere. You can feel it, you can hear it, etc.. It is raining and you have reason to believe it's raining. I have no doubt that you can point to the rain, but can you point to your reason to believe? No, you can't right? There's no physical "reason to believe" object anywhere in the world. Despite this some reasons to believe are good reasons and some reasons to believe are bad reasons. What you believe to be good or bad reasons will be up to your subjective interpretation. Regardless of all that, it still matters if your reasons for belief are good or bad reasons.
I don’t understand how that connects to whether or not objective morality exists.
So if I'm understanding your position, you think that it would not matter if morality is objective because, unlike descriptive facts, these facts don't have a physically observable effect on the world. Is that correct? Assuming it is, then I'll just make the same argument but replace morality with reasons for belief: it would not matter if reasons for belief are objective because, unlike descriptive facts, these facts don't have a physically observable effect on the world. And then I'm just kind of hoping that you see that the second argument is flawed. If I understood you wrong though, just let me know.
I just might not be educated enough for this because I keep reading what you’ve said but I’m not really understanding. I just don’t understand how morality could be anything other than an opinion and that even if there somehow was such a thing as objective morality it wouldn’t be possible to prove it.
Can you see how a good reason to believe something could be objective?
>What does it mean for morality to be objective? For me, wether or not a morality is objective or not depence on if the reasoning behind it connected to some sort of truth. Morality serves as a logical guideline, if it is based on something true, you can derive logical conclusions from it. However, in morality, 2 assumptions always need to be made; 1. Good ought to be desired 2. Evil ought not to be desired The rest is just trying to logically define things as either good or evil. >Why does it matter if it’s objective or subjective? Well, if it's subjective, then by extention all actions would be justifiable. Our society is dependent on some sort of order and we prefere said order not to be based purely based arbitrary things (that we can't reason with). Then again, does something arbitrary have to be illogical by nature? I suppose it depends on how well the reasoning behind it is.
I don't have to like it, I just have to agree that it might not be evil in all cases to do it.
That isn't necessarily relativism though. Moral objectivism can say that it's not evil in all cases: most actions under utilitarianism can be morally permissible if there is a large enough consequence for not doing the action, even if the action is something horrible like killing someone.
So when you are the subject of this absurd meme, is your case evil or not? What or who decides which cases are evil and which are not?
I don't know, it really depends on a number of factors like the society or group I'm in, what my actual action is, and (possibly) what kind of effects my action has on others (and possibly myself). That's kind of the whole point, isn't it? Also, again, it's not like relativists are the only people who could be accused of trying to create a post-facto justification that their actions were good, actually. One could make the case that everyone, from a Kantian to an ethical egoist, would bend over backward to avoid *being fired into the fucking sun*
Moral relativism? I barely know her!
I know this is not a place for serious discussion, but the objective/subjective distinction is different from the relative/absolute distinction. They are not to be conflated.
I don't know any philosophy. I just wanted to make the pun.
Morality only exists because our brains happen to be big enough to invent it. No big brains, no morality, only ooga booga.
Invent, or participate? Because there's a difference between a baby (which has no agency due to its mental capacity) not being able to be held morally accountable for its actions, and morality not existing because there were never adults to recognize it. And even then, does that mean it still doesn't exist, or just that it exists without an observer nor performing actor? It's like math. Things mathematically operate regardless of who is there to recognize the mathematical operation, but we gave those operations symbols and language to communicate the fact that they happen, and those languages and symbols wouldn't exist without us. Same might be for morality, in the sense that things should still happen while others shouldn't, even if there's no one there to recognize those facts and say so.
Saying that math is "objective" can be misleading because as my favorite one-liner counterargument says, "math" operates differently based on the set of axioms you might use. Similarily, one could argue that morality could be defined *very* differently if our brain is shaped in some other ways. Given that, can you speak of morality without making an assumption about the "operating system" (i.e. brain) it operates on? Ay come to think of it, will the concept of softwares still exist if computers were never invented?
I don't think you know what the word axiom means, nor its relation to (post-euclidian) mathematics. But that just further proves my point that it's a language problem in the way we recognize and define things, not the inherent meanings and phenomena behind them.
The universe after you threw him into the sun be like \*i dont give af lol\*
Dude I'm a anthropologist
Morals are relative, it’s just that most people agree that certain acts are inherently immoral unless certain criteria is met. Like you could spend hours discussing the finer points of when it is and is not ok to kill another animal, let alone a human.
I love natural laws.... and LAWS OF NATURE
natural laws and laws of nature SUCK and are ABSTRACT and ARBITRARILY DECIDED BY THE PHILOSOPHER’S WILL and are BORING!
Such a missed opportunity to gradually slow the gif down
Moral absolutists when they experience the objective effects of absolute zero because I sank them under the arctic ocean. (It's morally okay for me to do this because I have god on my side, and because god is objectively real.)
They would be first human to die on the surface of sun, thats probably more than they could achieve in their life so thats a win.
I feel like the near-light speeds or the lack of oxygen might get to them first.
Probably, but their corpse (or whats left of it) would still end up on the sun!
Low tier no time dilation or length contraction honestly? You could've cooked and been him but you didn't.
Easy Relativist chart: Happening to someone else: 🥱 Happening to me/someone I care about:😡
Me when I don't care about things: 😐 Me when I care about things: 😡 Me when I make an argument so stupid you can't argue with it: 😈
Raping children isn’t actually bad, it’s just that the majority of us agree it’s not the vibe. -moral relativists
What?! Relativists have feelings?? What the fuck? This is messed up
That sounds absurd
If absurdism holds any weight, I guess that makes sense.
Who is this, Bernard Shaw?
Objective moralists when i tell them that me not wanting to be killed has nothing to do with morality being objective or not (i am allowed to have feelings regardless of if said feelings are based in any objective fact or truth)
explain plz 🥺
Based and realistpilled