I used to think I was evil until I learned morality is subjective.

[Born2Die]

The normies hate this. It’s like poison telling them there is no such thing as good or bad. Is it a bad thing to like lolies? No. They can not objectively prove it since morality is subjective. Hahah.

 

[übertard]

Morality is objective and we are on the right side, most of us at least

 

[Born2Die]

Morality is objective and we are on the right side, most of us at least

Subjective*

 

[trying to ascend]

First, this isn’t necessarily an argument to completely refute the idea of moral relativism, but to raise doubts in it. And that is to point out that to hold onto moral relativism, one must accept that statements like “cruelty for its own sake is wrong,” “rape is wrong,” “genocide is wrong,” “compassion for others is a virtue,” and “parents have a duty to take care of their kids or put them in a position where they will be taken care of” are not true. In fact, moral relativism, to maintain consistency, must reject all these statements as these statements are asserting themselves to be universals because some other culture may, and in fact do, think things like rape and genocide and parents abandoning their children are moral goods. And I would argue this is not a desirable position to hold for anyone.

Second to address the common position that since societies have so many different moral positions, morality cannot be objective, I would say this conclusion does not follow from the premise. For example, you have the argument of whether or not God or gods exist. There is a plethora of differing opinions on the matter but that doesn’t mean there is no truth. Either there is/are God/gods or there isn’t, and either there is one God or many. These questions necessitate a true statement rather than a relativist response. Similarly, I would say this is true pertaining to morality. Simply because there’s disagreement on morality, does not mean the answer is that there are no moral truths. Perhaps the truths themselves are just difficult for cultures to ascertain through reason. Also, I would say there isn’t as much disagreement as one thinks, especially if we’re referring to moral values rather than the moral norms of society. For example, the philosopher James Rachels found that anthropologists discovered eskimos left unfit infants out in the snow. Now this is completely against the moral norms for most people in the west and east; however, the moral value behind this practice is shared by western and eastern societies. And that moral value is the preservation of human life. Given the harsh climate, taking care of every infant puts the family at risk of death and so they developed this practice. So while the moral practice is abhorrent, especially to us, they still share with us the same moral value. They simply manifested it differently given their differences in environment and rationale. Third, let’s presuppose that moral relativism is true. Say you have two individuals from different cultures interact with one another. One is a farmer who grows apples and the other is from a culture where they believe one cannot own the products of the earth. The one who believes you cannot own earthly products, believing it’s fair game due to cultural upbringing, takes an apple and eats it. The farmer sees this and they begin a dispute where the farmer is accusing the other of stealing and the other is saying one cannot own the products of the earth. Assuming moral relativism is true, both are correct. The farmer is correct in saying the other stole and the other is correct in that you cannot steal what is natural. But this agreement does nothing to absolve the issue and, to find a solution, some form of compromise (whether in favor of one of the individuals or split evenly) must be made. The same is true for every time there is a moral dispute and eventually you come to everything having a compromise. Essentially, even if relativism were true, societies would have to act as if it weren’t for cohesion and peace. Therefore, even if moral relativism were true, it would be completely impractical in the real world and only applicable in theory. And if it’s only applicable in theory, I question its validity. I have more I can say, but I’ll leave it here for now given the length.

 

[Born2Die]

Majority of people derive morality from the heard. Doesn’t make it the absolute truth

 

[theAnt]

Morality is objective

False

we are on the right side, most of us at least

true

 

[übertard]

Subjective*

*objective, any cultural differences in terms of morals just depend on how strictly each culture adheres to their inbuilt moral compass

 

[theAnt]

*objective, any cultural differences in terms of morals just depend on how strictly each culture adheres to their inbuilt moral compass

How can any moral be objective?

 

[HighTGymcel]

you are good the way you are

 

[foreveralone23]

I still think I’m a shitty person for being full of bitterness, anger and hate towards foids. I hope to one day wash that away. Feel nothing just be detached from feeling wrong and “evil” I guess

 

[Jmax]

Morality is mostly a tool for manipulation. It has no place for enlightened individuals outside of that end. When it comes to dealings with society, it is best to deny this publicly, and accept the lie.

 

[übertard]

How can any moral be objective?

Just take a look at every civilisation ever, every human has collectively agreed that stealing and killing and enslavement is wrong. Doesn’t mean that humans are capable of ignoring their morals on an industrial scale just to get what they want. Take a look at abortion, deep down all these foids know it is wrong, but they do it anyway because it benefits them short term.

 

[Oroborus]

First, this isn’t necessarily an argument to completely refute the idea of moral relativism, but to raise doubts in it. And that is to point out that to hold onto moral relativism, one must accept that statements like “cruelty for its own sake is wrong,” “rape is wrong,” “genocide is wrong,” “compassion for others is a virtue,” and “parents have a duty to take care of their kids or put them in a position where they will be taken care of” are not true. In fact, moral relativism, to maintain consistency, must reject all these statements as these statements are asserting themselves to be universals because some other culture may, and in fact do, think things like rape and genocide and parents abandoning their children are moral goods. And I would argue this is not a desirable position to hold for anyone.

Second to address the common position that since societies have so many different moral positions, morality cannot be objective, I would say this conclusion does not follow from the premise. For example, you have the argument of whether or not God or gods exist. There is a plethora of differing opinions on the matter but that doesn’t mean there is no truth. Either there is/are God/gods or there isn’t, and either there is one God or many. These questions necessitate a true statement rather than a relativist response. Similarly, I would say this is true pertaining to morality. Simply because there’s disagreement on morality, does not mean the answer is that there are no moral truths. Perhaps the truths themselves are just difficult for cultures to ascertain through reason. Also, I would say there isn’t as much disagreement as one thinks, especially if we’re referring to moral values rather than the moral norms of society. For example, the philosopher James Rachels found that anthropologists discovered eskimos left unfit infants out in the snow. Now this is completely against the moral norms for most people in the west and east; however, the moral value behind this practice is shared by western and eastern societies. And that moral value is the preservation of human life. Given the harsh climate, taking care of every infant puts the family at risk of death and so they developed this practice. So while the moral practice is abhorrent, especially to us, they still share with us the same moral value. They simply manifested it differently given their differences in environment and rationale. Third, let’s presuppose that moral relativism is true. Say you have two individuals from different cultures interact with one another. One is a farmer who grows apples and the other is from a culture where they believe one cannot own the products of the earth. The one who believes you cannot own earthly products, believing it’s fair game due to cultural upbringing, takes an apple and eats it. The farmer sees this and they begin a dispute where the farmer is accusing the other of stealing and the other is saying one cannot own the products of the earth. Assuming moral relativism is true, both are correct. The farmer is correct in saying the other stole and the other is correct in that you cannot steal what is natural. But this agreement does nothing to absolve the issue and, to find a solution, some form of compromise (whether in favor of one of the individuals or split evenly) must be made. The same is true for every time there is a moral dispute and eventually you come to everything having a compromise. Essentially, even if relativism were true, societies would have to act as if it weren’t for cohesion and peace. Therefore, even if moral relativism were true, it would be completely impractical in the real world and only applicable in theory. And if it’s only applicable in theory, I question its validity. I have more I can say, but I’ll leave it here for now given the length.

Keep writing essays

 

[trying to ascend]

Keep writing essays

I think you’re misunderstanding part of the core of moral relativism. Moral relativism doesn’t say that there’s no way to create morality. It’s not inconsistent for moral relativists to say “rape is bad” for example. What moral relativism recgonizes with that statement (and probably does a bad job of communicating) is that rape is bad because we believe it to be bad. The relevant people in the conversation have decided amongst themselves as a group/society/whatever that they don’t like rape. So they create a moral standard. But there’s nothing objective that determined that decision. They could have just as well decided to have a different orientation on rape if they wanted to. What inform those decisions, from a moral relativist perspective, are experience, power, and privilege. In this case, not many people have first hand experience with rape. But when we hear about it, we learn what it is, it’s not difficult to come to the conclusion, “oh wow, I don’t want that happening to me.” In a society, those things are discussed and eventually a moral standard is developed (although I’d argue morals are not explicitly discussed while the law is; morals are more implicitly communicated and shared through time). But there’s not rule in the universe that exists outside of our own experience of ourselves and each other that determines or even informs the decision of whether rape is good or bad. That goes for any other moral standard; there’s no universal/objective reason why our morality has to be one way and not the other. The universe, our world, nature will continue to do what it’s doing whether we accept murder, theft, rape, whatever. Because of that morality is relative to our own experiences; which is also why we see differences in moralities based on varying contexts of peoples’ experiences. That’s the moral relativist position.
Edit:
In your example about the question of the existence of god; you say the question necessitates an answer that is about truth and cannot allow for relativism. But you’re assuming that all people define god the same way. If I’m asked the question of whether or not god exists, the first thing I need to do is ask how I am supposed to define god. Because the relativist answer here is that there could be many gods or no gods at the same time depending on the context and perspective you’re looking at. If you’re coming from a Judeo-Christian background; you probably conceive god as a tangible, supernatural being that has a physical existence somewhere beyond our corporeal understanding of the cosmos. But if you’re coming from an indigenous American perspective, your understanding might be completely different. In which case those two perspectives might both be true at the same time while they might logically contend to be mutually exclusive. Here, the relativist argument is the only argument that actually makes sense in terms of finding truth because it recognizes peoples perceptions of reality and truth are different.
And if you want to take the god argument to its logical end, at least in the Judeo-Christian perspective, if god is supposed to be this grand supernatural being whose nature and form we cannot possibly understand or even fathom in our earthly, corporeal forms except when he decides to reveal himself to us, there’s no way to actually determine truth there. The definition of god, in this way, is not falsifiable. You are told god exists but he is defined as such that you cannot begin to understand his nature or existence. You just have to trust in it on faith, which is by definition, belief in something absent any (testable) evidence. So the very definition and concept of god cannot be examined or tested, it can’t be proven wrong; meaning it may only be assumed to be true. But that’s completely against how we do epistemology; we can’t understand something is true without it being falsifiable and being able to test that falsifiability.

 

[Deadgeneration]

Humans develop moral beliefs reflecting their own interests

 

[NorthernWind]

Just take a look at every civilisation ever, every human has collectively agreed that stealing and killing and enslavement is wrong.

Why many females reward thieves with sex then? Why men pressured to be killers ( cult of warrior )? Why slavery exists even now?

 

[übertard]

Why many females reward thieves with sex then? Why men pressured to be killers ( cult of warrior )? Why slavery exists even now?

They know it’s wrong but they do it anyway because it benefits them

 

[tulasdanslos]

I think you’re misunderstanding part of the core of moral relativism. Moral relativism doesn’t say that there’s no way to create morality. It’s not inconsistent for moral relativists to say “rape is bad” for example. What moral relativism recgonizes with that statement (and probably does a bad job of communicating) is that rape is bad because we believe it to be bad. The relevant people in the conversation have decided amongst themselves as a group/society/whatever that they don’t like rape. So they create a moral standard. But there’s nothing objective that determined that decision. They could have just as well decided to have a different orientation on rape if they wanted to. What inform those decisions, from a moral relativist perspective, are experience, power, and privilege. In this case, not many people have first hand experience with rape. But when we hear about it, we learn what it is, it’s not difficult to come to the conclusion, “oh wow, I don’t want that happening to me.” In a society, those things are discussed and eventually a moral standard is developed (although I’d argue morals are not explicitly discussed while the law is; morals are more implicitly communicated and shared through time). But there’s not rule in the universe that exists outside of our own experience of ourselves and each other that determines or even informs the decision of whether rape is good or bad. That goes for any other moral standard; there’s no universal/objective reason why our morality has to be one way and not the other. The universe, our world, nature will continue to do what it’s doing whether we accept murder, theft, rape, whatever. Because of that morality is relative to our own experiences; which is also why we see differences in moralities based on varying contexts of peoples’ experiences. That’s the moral relativist position.
Edit:
In your example about the question of the existence of god; you say the question necessitates an answer that is about truth and cannot allow for relativism. But you’re assuming that all people define god the same way. If I’m asked the question of whether or not god exists, the first thing I need to do is ask how I am supposed to define god. Because the relativist answer here is that there could be many gods or no gods at the same time depending on the context and perspective you’re looking at. If you’re coming from a Judeo-Christian background; you probably conceive god as a tangible, supernatural being that has a physical existence somewhere beyond our corporeal understanding of the cosmos. But if you’re coming from an indigenous American perspective, your understanding might be completely different. In which case those two perspectives might both be true at the same time while they might logically contend to be mutually exclusive. Here, the relativist argument is the only argument that actually makes sense in terms of finding truth because it recognizes peoples perceptions of reality and truth are different.
And if you want to take the god argument to its logical end, at least in the Judeo-Christian perspective, if god is supposed to be this grand supernatural being whose nature and form we cannot possibly understand or even fathom in our earthly, corporeal forms except when he decides to reveal himself to us, there’s no way to actually determine truth there. The definition of god, in this way, is not falsifiable. You are told god exists but he is defined as such that you cannot begin to understand his nature or existence. You just have to trust in it on faith, which is by definition, belief in something absent any (testable) evidence. So the very definition and concept of god cannot be examined or tested, it can’t be proven wrong; meaning it may only be assumed to be true. But that’s completely against how we do epistemology; we can’t understand something is true without it being falsifiable and being able to test that falsifiability.

That guy was mocking you bro JFLLLL you spergmog me

 

[Nikalas]

Is it a bad thing to like lolies? No.

Degenerate