Is morality objective or subjective?

This guy gets it.

Attached: IMG_1458.jpg (790x600, 65K)

The point of what we call "morals" is to create a strong society that can defeat others. There is no One True Moral Code, only slightly better and better ones.

races are not equal, so there can be no 'objective' morality that all races can abide by equally, only higher objective moralities, and lower ones.

So, here is an interesting example.

The right wing use the argument that homosexuality leads to a slippery slope from same sex marriage to pedophilia. They say, "never capitulate to the lefts demands, because they no amount of catering to their demands is ever good enough." The left counter this and say that homosexuals are an oppressed demographic and that they are simply asking for civil rights. Is the left correct, that the right wing a immoral because they want to deny people human rights? Once we start denying people human rights, isn't that a slippery slope to discrimination and bigotry?

(I don't want this thread to become about the faggots, this is a question about civil rights)

Attached: meindoggo.gif (383x320, 406K)

>There is no One True Moral Code
disagree.

some acts are just bad no matter how twisted you warp your morals to try and justify them

The weapon of choice for the egalitarians is the morality of sacrifice, a morality that coincides nicely with both Marxism and Christianity, though Egalitarians often display contempt for Christianity. The moral high ground is gained by personal sacrifice, be it of money, resources, mates, territory, children, or life itself. And, obviously, sacrifice is possible in only one direction - from those who have to those who do not have, no matter how honestly or ethically they acquired what they have. The morality of sacrifice is a weapon used by the have-nots to infuse the haves with guilt and induce them to abandon all that they have worked for; one does not have to be a cynic to realize that it is a morality that will be quickly abandoned when the have-nots become the haves.

Evolution offers no support for the morality of sacrifice, because sacrifice is adaptive only if it is likely to increase one’s alleles in future generations, which is not a sacrifice at all, but a necessity if one’s lineage is to avoid extinction. Although that is called “altruism” by biologists, it is in no way a sacrifice because it is a biological gain to the individual, not a loss. It is hardly a coincidence that Caucasians, who have a strong urge to cooperate with and help others, embraced Christianity, a religion that requires them to do exactly that. Thus, they receive moral kudos for doing what their genes urge them to do anyway, but for different reasons. Before modern times, those urges served them well in hunting, fighting off enemies, and creating civilizations. Altruism was strongly adaptive when nearly everyone one dealt with had most of the same alleles but, once the anti-racists mixed the races up, altruism became maladaptive as it lead Caucasians to sacrifice their own genetic interests for the benefit of those who did not share as many of their alleles and did not reciprocate.

yes denying human rights is a slippery slope.
but is marriage a human right?

morality by definition is objective you twat, otherwise we aren't talking about morality, this isn't even a valid question, delete this thread right now!

>but is marriage a human right?

I miss typed, I meant to use "civil rights". Replace all uses of "human rights" with civil rights. And, I don't know if marriage is a civil right. I don't know what a "civil right" is. Isn't a civil right a moral standard that must be upheld in a community?

Attached: 1513564611356.jpg (250x89, 4K)

would morality exist if conscious moral actors did not exist?

Morality is objective. It wouldn't matter if every person on earth thought murder was moral, it would still be immoral. Nihilism and Atheism go hand in hand. Your opinion doesn't matter more than what God says is good and evil.

It's objective and derived from the laws of physics. What is possible while allowing for survival in any given time/situation is a mitigating factor, however.

>The point of what we call "morals" is to create a strong society that can defeat others.
Sounds like something a psychopath or libertarian would say.

Morality is subjective. What's needed for society is to have compatible moral codes of each citizens (same is good, but not necessary. not requiring killing each other is good enough)

If over 2000 years of ethnic and cultural cleansing has proven anything it's that morals are subjective.

Attached: morality-man-57d655f9d203e.png (456x398, 128K)

There is objective morality, but it is hard for human beings to comprehend because our perception of sense phenomena is limited.
However with this limited sense phenomena we can determine RELATIVE ethics which fall somewhat in line with what we assume to be objective ethics. The basis of these are acts that provide no real benefit outside of mental satisfaction to atypical individuals; I.E. Necrophilia, Human Sacrifice, etc.

Human rights also do not exist outside of a social agreement made in the name of bettering the group as a whole (tribe, nation, "society" etc). The only truly "divine right" is the ability for an organism to die. Immortality is a curse and the fact people quest after it via transhumanism and other methods only shows how fallible we are.

Morals: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behaviour.

It is objective as it is a universal principle. If bashing a guys head with a rock is immoral in country X then it is also immoral in country Y

The location of the act is entirely irrelevant to the morality of the action.

If your country does something that another country deems is Immoral only one of you is right. Nothing can be simultaneously moral and immoral so we therefore know it is objective rather than a subjective idea.

So denying "civil rights" is only immoral in so far as it is not one of the moral codes put forth by god? That is if a "civil right" is not in the Bible, then it is not immoral to deny someone that right?

Attached: 1530007364652.jpg (800x800, 204K)

Wtf is a "civil right"? Gays think it's a civil right to force Christians to bake them cakes.

The non-aggressivlon principle seems like a pretty good objective moral framework

Morality is objective. It is the same regardless of situation, feelings, or events. Right is always right wrong is wrong. Making things grey rather than black and white is how parasites in society have survived and poisoned others so they can continue to do so.

I don't know what a "civil right" is. I think this user tried to answer but I can't figure out how it's different than saying "moral obligation".

Would denying women from a job simply because of their biology be immoral or denying her civil rights?

Attached: ancapistan.jpg (573x578, 42K)

Why do we have a jury of our peers then? Can't we just trust the judges to make the right decisions and throw those jury summons papers in the trash?

Attached: 1516561597961.png (720x509, 351K)

no because some people are immoral. you're missing his point.

Judges don't judge morality they judge legality.

Objective.
One thing people forget about the religious fag ways is that despite the fact that they believe in ghosts and fairies, their code of conduct actually serves purpose: altruism benefits society as a whole and humility protects the less fortunate and indigent from the hate caused by envy and sadness derived from the opulence of others.
Nothing of this matters now ofc. Be rich Chad, fuck a million bitches in plain sight on the most degenerate way possible and shoot all the plebs that come across (or better still, host a safari).
>Then some poorfag/robot/ay-atola gets in a truck and runs you over out of spite.

Oh god, a pilpul thread.

If morality is objective that means that there are objective moral constraints that can be logically defined, and I have an objective reason not to go around murdering people.

If morality is subjective this goes out the window and I have absolutely zero inclination to start hunting down people like you and cutting out your organs for Israel, you absolute fucking cuckolding enthusiast.

Attached: 1527291966175.jpg (1550x1600, 443K)

What is the point that I'm missing? If morality and ethics are black and white, why can't we just simply have a judge say guilty or not guilty. Why do we need a whole bunch of people to say guilty/not guilty.

Isn't that why things are legal/illegal? Because things are moral/immoral.

That which is moral is not always legal, that which is legal is not always moral.

> their code of conduct actually serves purpose: altruism benefits society

I agree.

because the judge could be immoral or corrupt.
the point you're missing is
>Morality is objective. It is the same regardless of situation, feelings, or events. Right is always right wrong is wrong.
which doesn't mean a person will be objective about a morality judgement if placed with one, because free will or whatever influenced their decision be it personal ethics or what their parents taught them, blah blah blah

Okay, for where do we get the idea that things should be legal or illegal then? I seem to have a mental block when I think theft, rape, murder, drug selling are illegal because they are immoral.

From the government.
People in a room get to decide.
The government in Australia taxes all tobacco so buying black market tobacco is illegal. However it is not immoral. Government/Laws ≠ Morality

Life's truths are objective.

Subjective to the culture of the host civilization.

Societal consensus. Whats legal is what society allows to be legal. There are places where rape is not illegal, nor is murder, or theft.

personal ethics and what their parents taught them doesn't seem very objective to me. How can people have different opinions about right always being right and wrong always being wrong if morality is objective? Isn't it defined somewhere and thus render their opinions irrelevant?

>Morality is objective. It is the same regardless of situation, feelings, or events. Right is always right wrong is wrong.

>Societal consensus. Whats legal is what society allows to be legal. There are places where rape is not illegal, nor is murder, or theft.

lol wut?
I'm out Jow Forums, super sleepy, thanks and have a good night!

Attached: 1515377743348.jpg (489x713, 185K)

Legality is not morality.

Subjective.

Categorical imperatives are not based on any real world referent. Only imterpretations, feelings, or preferences.

Hypothetical imperatives do hold weight however, and any functional civilization does need a clearly defined set of rules, and there are particular sets of rules that are more conducive to high living standards, high technology, high achievement, etc.

It is objective, since subjective is based in dominance, even though modern social studies might try to present it obliquely. The whole precedence of subjectivilty is rooted in the general animal kingdom, of which we should not be participating anymore. Most right AND left people, are subjective niggers.

Attached: Worse than second hand smoke, but current subjective ideas of "freedom" allow it to be pur (225x224, 6K)

>whose right is it to have a monoculture lawn?

Attached: Whose rights?.jpg (160x200, 10K)

>personal ethics and what their parents taught them doesn't seem very objective to me
you're right it's not and i didn't imply it, but somehow thats what you came away with.

people can have a difference of opinion about what is right and wrong. people can also act immorally and know theyre being immoral. that doesn't stop right from being right and wrong being wrong. their opinions don't matter.

you keep missing the basic point here and it's getting increasingly frustrating desu

>is this childs future, somehow, more important than the struggle of citizens?

Attached: replacement?.jpg (275x183, 7K)

Morals are not personally subjective, but they do change based on the circumstance (culture, situation, etc.).

As for a definition. The basic idea is that a society has morals while an individual has ethics; but in practice you can use the words rather interchangeably. The idea of either of them, can be approached from many different angles, but Jow Forums prefers the following.

"Morals are are a set of standards of behavior (primarily for individuals*) designed to maximise a societies long term success, especially when this is in opposition to its short term success."

The definition for ethics is identical but on an individual scale.

* Morals can govern the interactions of societies, and the interaction between a society and an individual.

At least that is the point of ethics. In reality is a cultural thing, so they are never perfect and it is possible to have backwards morals, that function to destroy and diminish at least before they are changed or the society or individual dies.

It doesn't just "facilitate" society. It's what makes it possible at all.

Social interaction is predicated on the fact that you can rely on other people to behave predictably, i.e. a way that lets you all survive, or at least keeps you from killing each other. Civilization takes that a step further, to where that predictable behavior turns into actual cooperation towards shared goals.

The countless behaviors (from don't shit in the street to don't take money from the till) CAN be enforced by an outside force, but it's usually very tenuous, takes a lot of energy and time, and you don't get much beyond minimal cooperation. In order for these things to work out long term, we evolved to enforce these social rules INTERNALLY. This is the origin of morality.

Different societies have different rules, possibly based on climate. It doesn't seem like a stretch to me that these different groups of people would therefore have different moralities... different thresholds for temptation before giving in to an immoral act, different liberties taken in social situations etc. Maybe even different base perceptions of what counts as "moral." Maybe in climates where food is plentiful, women and children are cheap, and violence is common, the only morality you really need is "don't piss off anyone bigger than you-- all else is fair game."

sort of how there is no True Justice
justice is just a tool of society
even if it is false

Also, morals can not be said to be objective except in a biological framework. Propositions like "It's immoral to eat babies" are often touted by moral objectivists as universal-- nobody would disagree, because it's always worse for everyone if eating babies were common.

OK, but what about many species of reptiles, including alligators and monitor lizards, where having babies is actually a (albeit inefficient) form of foraging? They release offspring to grow up eating things that are too small for the adults to bother with, growing into convenient meals in time.

Or cod fish-- in times of famine, the babies and juveniles make a great meal to provide the larger, more dominant, more reproductively powerful, adults a convenient food source. For them, younger members of the species are literally like a food storage.

It's not clear to me that a civilization, with its own entirely alien moral codes couldn't develop in such species.

But yes, as we are humans, our human morality is objective. There is no situation in which it is right for a human to eat its own offspring. Whether it's right to prohibit hypothetical reptilian aliens from doing the same is very much up for debate.

Also, the reason our morality puts a premium on reducing suffering is twofold: for one, it prevents costly, maybe violent social upheavals by lower classes, as each individual is driven to maximize their own success.

Secondly, we are goal-directed creatures. We need to know that what we are doing has meaning, or else we're likely to stop doing it. Maybe even reject life entirely. Religion can make some unrewarded self-sacrifice feasible, but it's imperfect unlike the bee's reaction to the pheromones of its queen-- there has to also be REAL rewards given as well. If the institutions don't support the individual's genetic line into the future, the individuals that are needed to constitute the institution will eventually abandon it once the lines that gave of themselves without question have died off.

Maybe that's what happened to us in WWI and WWII. We sent all our self-sacrificing warriors to die, and the people we have now are the descendants of the lazy shirking bastards that stayed behind.