94
95

In r/morbidquestions, angry person didn't understand what OP meant by "morals are made up" (reddit.com)

sunshinesan が 投稿

全 130 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]Generalno1 31 ポイント32 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Wow, Haven't seen someone act this bullheadedly in an argument before. Most of these guys aren't even being that rude to him.

I just don't really think you're thinking quite broadly enough

I bet you're a fuckboy idiot

[–]dood98998The Real Drama is in the SRD Comments 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (3子コメント)

That's edgy as fuck

[–]Paremo 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Sounds like something a fuckboi would say.

[–]Goroman86 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (21子コメント)

To be fair, OP is pretty peak r/iam14andthisisdeep, but damn dude, calm down.

[–]SpoopySkelemanдраматический комиссар 18 ポイント19 ポイント  (20子コメント)

Yeah, I feel like there's a pretty big difference between acknowledging that morality is a social construct and saying "morals are made up"

[–]hedgehog_ball 30 ポイント31 ポイント  (15子コメント)

Although 'acknowledging' suggests that this is a settled matter. As someone in the thread pointed out, this is far from settled in contemporary philosophy--lots of people working in ethics think there are universal moral truths, independent of social construction.

[–]SpoopySkelemanдраматический комиссар 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm a moral realist myself and think there are absolute moral truths, but I've never heard this argument before. I don't really understand how morality could be anything other than a social construct, given that it's pretty clearly something that's unique to human society. Is the argument that morality is part of human nature, or what?

[–]clabberton 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Admittedly I haven't gone terribly in depth on this, but the arguments I've seen usually conclude that morality is a blend. There are certainly some things that are socially-based, but there are some things that transcend culture. Bodily harm and theft seem to be the big ones (especially bodily harm/bodily integrity).

As for whether it's strictly a human thing, it depends. Animals do react negatively to things like stealing and hurting each other, though, so if you think that animals have consciousness then they could also be exhibiting baseline morality.

[–]jbert146 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

lots of people working in ethics think there are universal moral truths, independent of social construction.

Plus this is pretty fundamental to every major religion. So yeah, there are a lot of people who would argue this.

[–]SpoopySkelemanдраматический комиссар 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (0子コメント)

The argument over moral realism is independent of the argument over whether or not morality is a social construct though. You can believe there are absolute moral truths, and still believe that morality is a social construct

[–]bombos 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Most religious ethical universalists fall under the Divine Command Theory and because God is an objective truth so too are the morals God prescribes. Not a very good foundation for an ethical theory in my view, and certainly not in Socrates'/Kayne's either, when asking whether the gods love the pious because it is the pious, or whether the pious is pious only because it is loved by the gods.

Kant, though a devout Chrstian, also came up with a universalized moral framework that isn't based on DCT, the branch of deontological ethics. It's also possible to try and science our way into a moral code which many today would argue would be based on objective truths. I think this gets closer to an objective morality than the previous two theories but still falls short of an objective ethics.

For what it's worth I don't personally think there are universal moral truths.

[–]big_bearded_nerd 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

So yeah, there are a lot of people who would argue this.

I'm going to have to disagree with /u/hedgehog_ball. Many people might argue this, but every philosopher or philosophy student I've ever talked to disagrees. I only know this because I too feel like an objective ethical framework makes sense, but their very persuasive (if not over my head) arguments would suggest that I am wrong.

[–]SpookBustersDrama und Popcorn 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Last I checked, moral realism is the leading academic opinion in meta-ethics, at least according to the 2014 Philpapers survey.

I mean, people can believe what they want, but dismissing moral realism offhandedly is a very anti-intellectual position to take. Of course, I can't really expect that much nuance from the "but muh empiracal evidences" types.

[–]YahwehTheDevil 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

lots of people working in ethics think there are universal moral truths, independent of social construction

I've tried looking at these people's arguments in good faith, but I find them wholly unconvincing, and am worried that philosophers actually take them seriously. In no particular order, some of the more frequent arguments that I've come across are:

1) Disagreements over moral truths don't mean that moral truths don't exist. For instance, if I say it's right to kill and you say it's wrong to kill, we can't conclude that there's no right answer, just as disagreements over gravity has no bearing on what happens when you jump out a window. However, this also goes in the other direction: Disagreements over moral truths certainly do not imply that moral truths exist. I might say that vanilla is the best flavor and you say that chocolate is the best flavor, but there's simply no best flavor to begin with.

2) We should accept the way that things seem to be until we're provided with compelling evidence otherwise. In this case, it feels like theft, rape, and murder are wrong, so a priori, we should conclude that they're wrong. I'm totally on board with this -- every justification has to start somewhere -- but (at least on reddit) philosophers stop the argument here. That's disingenuous, because we have good reason to believe that morality evolved to foster cooperation so that we would survive and pass on our genes. This is contrary to the idea that morality really does exist somewhere out there.

3) If morality doesn't exist, then you have to accept some pretty heinous conclusions, like that it's simply a preference over whether or not children get raped and murdered. But, yes, I do believe that moral claims are simply preferences. In some cases, they're preferences that I believe so strongly in that I want others to adhere to them, like not to rape, but they're still preferences.

4) The majority of philosophers believe in moral truths, and you should trust those who have studied this more than you. This one comes up depressingly often, and I can't accept it because I have been continually underwhelmed by the actual arguments put forward.

I think that about sums it up. At this point, I feel like I must be the crazy man in the corner who can't see what so many philosophers believe are obvious truths. If anyone has any arguments for objective morality, I'm all ears, although I hope that you won't break my heart.

[–]SpookBustersDrama und Popcorn 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

That's disingenuous, because we have good reason to believe that morality evolved to foster cooperation so that we would survive and pass on our genes. This is contrary to the idea that morality really does exist somewhere out there.

Couldn't you make the argument that natural selection simply selected for (as one of its factors) the ability to track the objective moral truths of the universe, and that being able to track those moral truths incidentally helps to foster cooperation?

From my (self-admittedly very limited understanding of meta-ethics), the main arguments for moral realism seem to be that it is the intuitive base position and the alternative theories are riddled with more issues. I might be entirely off-base, though.

[–]YahwehTheDevil 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Couldn't you make the argument that natural selection simply selected for (as one of its factors) the ability to track the objective moral truths of the universe, and that being able to track those moral truths incidentally helps to foster cooperation?

I guess that's possible, but it seems like it's adding in an unnecessary explanatory factor. What's more likely: That natural selection chose whatever behaviors allowed a species to survive, or that our ancestors had some sort of divine access to a moral realm that we've never been able to detect?

the main arguments for moral realism seem to be that it is the intuitive base position and the alternative theories are riddled with more issues

I'd be interested in hearing these, although I wouldn't want you to defend a belief that you may not feel confident you can defend. The only one that comes to mind that I didn't mention above is the partners in crime argument that someone in here mentioned. In my limited understanding, it regresses until we conclude that we have to accept some things on faith, and then uses that to conclude that we must accept the existence of moral fact. I dislike this because, unlike things like gravity or germ theory, we have no way to test a moral claim like we could claim to test scientific facts that we're unsure about, so the whole thing seems to lack a definitive foundation.

[–]SpookBustersDrama und Popcorn 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'd recommend asking someone else about the topic if you want to go more in depth. I'm just a stupid undergrad and meta-ethics is not in my field of studies; I'd be a hypocrite if I spouted off about a topic I have a relatively shallow knowledge in.

I personally don't have any strong opinions on the matter, though my natural leanings are towards realism simply because I do not like the implications of antirealism; at the same time, I have not studied and thought upon the topic for long enough to have formed any definitive opinion on the matter. Perhaps I'll get around to it one day, but it's interesting to see metaethics brought up in SRD; this is a topic I'd expect to see in /r/badphilosophy, not here.

[–]YahwehTheDevil [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I appreciate your honesty and civil responses. It's a topic that I'm very interested in, and although at one point I wanted to believe in objective morality, none of the arguments have been able to convince me. Recently, someone told me to read a paper by Landau Shafer as a best-of-the-best defense, but I gave up after I strongly disagreed with the very first argument he presented. (In fact, I thought it was obvious where his argument fell apart, and his objection was something that I had considered years ago.)

As an aside, I really don't care for /r/badphil. They make fun of people who are trying to learn, and they ban anyone who asks questions. Apparently it collects a lot of grad students, PhDs, and professors in philosophy, and their bullying has given me a distaste for the field as a whole.

[–]tigerearskind of adorable, in a diseased, ineffectual sort of way 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Relying on the average person to have a working understanding of contemporary philosophy of ethics at an academic level would be akin to relying on the same people to be familiar with recent papers on quantum theory when they just want to microwave a burrito.

[–]hedgehog_ball [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Definitely. Not suggesting that everyone ought to have a working knowledge of contemporary philosophy, but it seemed like a worthwhile thing to point out to SpoopySkeleman in particular, since they seemed to have some familiarity with the topic. (Sorry if coming off terse--writing from phone in airport)

[–]quietdownlads 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vp5QabWeUUw

[–]FFinalFantasyForeverweeaboo sushi boat 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They may be making that point but just not articulately.

[–]koopinator2Actually the flair snaps in two [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Noob here, What's the difference between something being a social construct and something being made up?

[–]TrattativaStatoMafia [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Not really, no

[–]queenofthera 38 ポイント39 ポイント  (48子コメント)

Wow he's really flipping the table over this. If he's just sort of listen to people rather than shooting off playground insults he might actually get it. It's really not that hard a concept to grasp.

[–]-LOGALOG- 19 ポイント20 ポイント  (47子コメント)

Exactly. Subjective morality is not super complicated and some of those dudes did a pretty good job of breaking it down. Some people just have that "can't tell me nothin" attitude.

Edit: guys, I understand objective morality. I'm talking about the ideas here not my personal beliefs. Staaahp.

[–]TahmatoesEating out of the trashcan of ideological propaganda 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (1子コメント)

People don't understand what subjective means anymore. They just think it means "bad" or "low quality".

[–]SuitableDragonflyUnapologetic Grandstanding 15 ポイント16 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's part of the beep boop I am a robot who experiences no human emotions jerk, I think.

[–]ampersampthe abyss stares also 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (3子コメント)

The other guy was trying to socrates him into the pretty well supported outlook that there actually do exist objective moral truths. See this for a not so brief overview.

Here's a drastically simplified argument for moral realism:

  1. I have the intuition that everyone ought to avoid causing unnecessary suffering.
  2. When I mean that everyone ought to avoid causing unnecessary suffering, I am personally making a factual claim.
  3. My intuition of 1. provides at least some evidence that 1 may be true. Addendum: When dealing with philosophy, often intuitions are the best evidence we've got.
  4. If I have the intuition described in 1, 1 is a factual claim, and my intuition of 1 provides at least some evidence for 1, then there is some evidence of an objective moral fact.
  5. Therefore, there is some evidence of an objective moral fact.

Also, here's a survey of academic philosophers. You can Ctrl-F for "moral realism" and "cognitivism" to see what proportion of philosophers hold these views. You'll note that both views have >50% support. Of course, a view's popularity doesn't guarantee its truth. But Philosophers aren't dummies, so it does show that it's at least plausible.

[–]A_Dissident_Is_HereThe Eddie Vedder of Drama 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's also worth noting that in metaethics, moral realism refers to the ontological status of value properties. From there you can argue their metaphysical properties (are they reducible to natural properties or not, are they mental events, are they external but non natural properties of a specific type, etc).

For philosophers who pick moral realism of a distinctly non natural flavor, there's still plenty of room for relativism and subjectivism. The only objective "thing" for some of these thinkers is the external existence of some special value property which can't be reduced further. The correct interpretation of these properties and the normative demands they place on agents can be entirely contextual, culturally relative, or even subjective to the individual.

Though I will admit non natural moral realism is the odd man out in their return to moral objectivity. It's just what I did my graduate work on so I'm biased.

[–]AegeusUnlimited Bait Works 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

You lost me at #2. Isn't saying "everyone ought to..." an opinion, not a factual claim?

[–]senkichi [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

I approve of your use of Socrates as a verb. To Socrates.

[–]NatWilo 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Yeah but in my own experience, talking about it on Reddit is a good way to get screamed at and told you are a fucking idiot. Because there's a lot of people too stupid to think in anything other than black/white, good/bad, binary. Anything more nuanced confuses, and as a result also terrrifies, them.

[–]SchnectadyslimCuckhold. Cuckhold. Speak the Quean's English please. 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (3子コメント)

You are such a fucking idiot. Get out of here with your scary "nuance", whatever that is.

[–]NatWilo 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Thank you for that. I was hoping for exactly this reaction.

[–]SchnectadyslimCuckhold. Cuckhold. Speak the Quean's English please. 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Honestly I have a hard time even reading that as parody with everything I see anymore, and I fucking wrote it

[–]jokul 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (35子コメント)

Subjective morality is not super complicated

Lots of the reasons people give for morality being subjective are not particularly good.

Some people just have that "can't tell me nothin" attitude.

Considering most professionals believe there are objectively true moral statements, I think this is actually the other way around. Though this person may have been a bit unsavory, most people in there are not open to the idea of morality or instantly associate it with religiosity or something.

[–]WhiskeyOnASunday93 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Most professionals meaning professional philosophers? I'd say it's fairly split, especially between continental thinkers and analytical philosophers.

[–]jokul 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Certainly more even than most things, and not a consensus, but I am fairly certain realism is preferred by over 50% these days. Not necessarily an 80-20 split or anything.

[–]ratchild1 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (26子コメント)

I don't see how someone could argue that a certain moral viewpoint is objective, that seems so clearly stupid.

My main problem with moral objectivity is because it seems obvious to me that any moral statement could just be reversed and be considered true. What makes someone who says ' this is good' right and the person who says 'this is bad' wrong? Surely 'objectivity' is suggesting it can be tested and proved to be true? Tested how... ? It seems dangerous to me to suggest that someones moral opinion could be somehow converted to objective.

I don't know the ins and outs of what those professionals who believe there are true moral statements actually believe. I wouldn't be surprised if it can't or doesn't solve the problem I referenced, but does something more complicated. If it does attempt or claim to solve the problem I referenced I would likely find it to be a bunch of bullshit. People who claim that 'this is good, this bad' can be objectively true are objectively (because I an intuition that they are) far up their own ass.

[–]mrsamsa 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I don't see how someone could argue that a certain moral viewpoint is objective, that seems so clearly stupid.

I always like the way Daniel Dennett approaches these kinds of issues:

As I tell my undergraduate students, whenever they encounter in their required reading a claim or argument that seems just plain stupid, they should probably double check to make sure they are not misreading the “preposterous” passage in question. It is possible that they have uncovered a howling error that has somehow gone unnoticed by the profession for generations, but not very likely.

It's possible that the position is "clearly stupid" and that it's "obvious" that moral objectivity can't be true, but if it was so clear and so obvious, you'd think that some of the people dedicating their lives to studying and understanding these topics would have figured it out by now.

In other words, what are the odds that a random person on the internet with no background or education in the topic has answered a difficult question that experts have struggled with for millenia? And what are the odds that the answer turned out to be "clear" and "obvious", where the experts were all just morons?

Moral relativism might be true, but you're going to have to present stronger arguments. If you think these issues are "clear" and "obvious" then to me that just screams the fact that you don't understand even the foundations of the topic.

For example, just present your understanding of what you think the strongest argument for moral objectivism is (it's not too hard to find in the literature since it's the majority view among experts), and give some counter-arguments, along with the views of some critics in the field who you feel make good arguments.

[–]clabberton 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Studies I've heard of look at things like commonalities across cultures and how babies/small children react to scenarios. There are a few consensus issues that seem to emerge, pointing to the possibility that humans innately feel that things like unjustified assault or physical force are wrong.

Edit: To be clear, this is a type of testing, not a complete argument.

[–]ratchild1 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Still don't mean its objective. Could be its objective people don't like unjustified assault, but its wrongness or rightness? I just don't see it. Plus who lets babies decide our ethics? They don't even know how to just the toilet.

[–]TahmatoesEating out of the trashcan of ideological propaganda 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (3子コメント)

That's rather anthropocentric.

[–]a57782 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

I really don't think it's that great of an argument either. "Humans innately feel that things like unjustified assault or physical force are wrong." Now what constitutes unjustified? And babies and small children? They're understanding can be pretty hit and miss.

Edit: Additionally, children can be very kind and generous and they can be vicious little assholes. If we look to children than we have to come to terms with the fact that some children see nothing wrong with using force to take something from other children.

[–]clabberton 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well obviously it's not a complete argument - I was just answering the question of how you can test the idea. One way would be to look at disparate groups and those with little social programming and see if people seem to be consistently intuiting the same ideas of right and wrong. If so, that may indicate that those ideas are not individually subjective but innate in some way.

[–]phrstbrn 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (8子コメント)

I think you're missing the point of what objective morality is. Objective morality is the concept that there are universal facts about morality, and that we can test for them. It's not a statement about what those facts might be or that we know for with absolute certainty what they actually are. The facts about morality isn't the same thing as objective morality, or even saying that somebody's morality is objective.

[–]ratchild1 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Give me one 'universal fact' about morality and I will tell you the opposite and you cannot 'objectively' prove satisfyingly that I am wrong.

Even if these people are allowing for the vagueness of not knowing the answer out of the goodness of their hearts, who is deciding what these universal facts are? Who is deciding how they are tested? Would it seem possible that the people deciding these things were biased in their choices ? If we cannot gather with certainty what is morally true, why are people saying ''there are objectively true moral statements'' ?

Are they just saying that they exist but we don't know what they are?

Would it be a surprise to anyone when moral truths are discovered and they seem oddly very similar to Western ethics and just happen to not fit in line with a war based tribe who commit human sacrifices?

[–]phrstbrn 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (6子コメント)

Give me one 'universal fact' about morality and I will tell you the opposite and you cannot 'objectively' prove satisfyingly that I am wrong.

You're still missing the point. That's not how it works and the fact you're asking that question tells me you don't get it.

Are they just saying that they exist

Yes, it's the idea is that there are facts about morality, that they exist, and we can test for them. The facts of objective morality isn't the same thing as the facts of our observations.

Sorry, I'm not going to waste my time responding to the rest since your post is just a gish gallop.

[–]ratchild1 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (5子コメント)

You're still missing the point. That's not how it works and the fact you're asking that question tells me you don't get it.

Brilliant. Instead of explaining it to me, you just wave me off as not getting it. The take away from this for me and others who are possibly ignorant of what your saying will be that you are being arrogant. They will favour what I said, which may be just gish gallop. You have deprived society and the dear patrons of subreddit drama enlightenment to moral realism. Which potentially may be the truth! O lord.

Yes, it's the idea is that there are facts about morality, that they exist, and we can test for them.

Can you tell me a fact about morality? Just one? Pretty please? If I misunderstand what you mean about 'facts' or 'morality' or 'facts about morality' please define them. I do not get it.

[–]phrstbrn 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (4子コメント)

Sorry, I'm just going to go back a second and reword my original definition, because reading it could be confusing.

Objective morality is the idea that the is a truth about morality and that there are observed facts about these truths.

So if you take a any moralistic statement "is X moral?" then objective morality states that there is a universal truth value that can be assigned to it. It doesn't actually provide any mechanism for determining the actual value, just that one has to exist for any moral statement.

[–]ratchild1 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I can't even misunderstand you, your not saying much to support the statement. I understand this statement, ''Objective morality is the concept that there are universal facts about morality, and that we can test for them'' I find it stupid.

Now I don't know what spectrum of moral realism your on so you can't expect me to guess the rest. I understand this statement ''Objective morality is the idea that the is a truth about morality and that there are observed facts about these truths.'' I find it very vague. To me it reads like ''Objective dance criticism is the idea that there is a truth about dance and there are observed facts about these truths''. Does that look like a much better statement than ''Object dance criticism is the idea that dance criticism can be objective'' ?

It looks like a very roundabout way of saying the same thing. But its probably not. I don't know what lead people to come to that conclusion. I'm sure it is complicated enough to be difficult to prove wrong without admitting math isn't real or something. All I know for sure is, the only reason people focus on it (morality) is because its a popular subject for us humans to hold to a high standard. No ones trying to say we can observe facts from truths about rock music and calling it objective rock music. That wouldn't go down very well with rock music fans. In fact if you did try to bring objective rock music into light people would probably see it for what it is, which is, trying to make an opinion look like fact.

It reminds me of free will debates as of right now. Currently if you say free will is bullshit on philosophy threads, you have a good chance of someone attacking you with a large quantity of writing, that free will is real and I am the idiot for mistakenly assuming free will to be something it is not and free will is actually this very nuanced deep issue with a lot of questions that science can't quite answer yet. For the majority of people 'free will' means the shitty illogical one, for most people. Similarly, for most people, 'objective morality' means the shitty, easily put down version. The majority advocates for objective morality are not modern philosophers, they are the religious and nationalistic wackjobs.

Also, in your earlier post you said ''I think you're missing the point of what objective morality is. '' and no I wasn't, for your version of objective morality, or wherever you got it from wasn't the same objective morality I was decrying. The one I was decrying exists, plentifully in many ideologies and religions.

Objective opinions is the idea that there is a truth about an opinion and that there are observed facts about these truths.

I mean sure, yeah. But the words 'objective opinion' just kinda hang out there and still look and sound awful.

Objective morality, I'd wager, for most of humanity does not mean what you stated it means.

[–]YahwehTheDevil -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

What would a statement like "It is wrong to murder?" even mean?

It sounds like you're giving a Russell's teapot argument by saying that objective morality exists even though we can never know what it is. I don't find this terribly helpful. I, and I'd think many other people who look into the topic, want to see if morality is objective so that we can structure our lives around things that are right or wrong. But if we can't determine anything about it, it seems meaningless to talk about in the first place, in the same way that we no longer argue about how many angels can dance on the head of a pin.

[–]jokul 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (6子コメント)

My main problem with moral objectivity is because it seems obvious to me that any moral statement could just be reversed and be considered true. What makes someone who says ' this is good' right and the person who says 'this is bad' wrong?

You could do this for anything. You can reverse the true statement "Climate change is anthropogenic and real" to: "Climate change is imaginary" and lots of people consider it to be true, hell the POTUS thinks it's true. Most people who believe that objectively true moral statements exist probably believe you can acquire them through rational thinking, similar to how we discover mathematical theorems to be true.

Surely 'objectivity' is suggesting it can be tested and proved to be true?

I disagree, you can't test whether or not there are infinitely many primes but it is true that there are infinitely many primes. I don't think any mathematical knowledge can be acquired empirically and that the same is true of moral knowledge.

It seems dangerous to me to suggest that someones moral opinion could be somehow converted to objective.

Well, if objectively true moral statements exist, they weren't "converted" into being objective and it would be, by definition, the proper way by which people should act.

If it does attempt or claim to solve the problem I referenced I would likely find it to be a bunch of bullshit. People who claim that 'this is good, this bad' can be objectively true are far up their own ass.

I recommend going in with a more open mind. Here is one reason you might consider: If morality is subjective, then there is nothing actually wrong with Naziism or slavery. The states of affairs that result from those value systems are not actually preferably to any other state of affairs. All that is important is that people believe slavery and Naziism are good and therefore they are. Formally:

  1. Presume that whatever is moral is subject to group opinion.
  2. Slavery could (and has been) group opinion.
  3. Slavery could be morally permissible.
  4. But slavery is clearly not morally permissible.
  5. Therefore, morality is not subject to group opinion.

Anti-realists have objections in that 1 must also stipulate that whatever is moral must also be logically coherent along with potentially other objections, but you can at least start to see some of the problems with naive moral subjectivism here.

If you want another argument, you can take Cuneo's "Partners in Crime" argument:

  1. If moral facts do not exist, then epistemic facts (facts about what we can know) do not exist
  2. Epistemic facts do exist
  3. Therefore, moral facts do exist.

You might object to #1, but there are some good reasons to believe that's the case. You can read more about it here and here the second link gives some good reasons to believe #1.

[–]lash422plz recycle 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

It's entirely possible to prove that their are an infinite number of primes, primarily in that their definition they are an infinite set not a finite one. That argument isn't quite coherent

Also, while I and the vast majority of western society agree that both Nazism (one i) and slavery are morally wrong, there have been significant groups of people who believed that they were not morally wrong. Specifically, the Nazis and the vast majority of Han society for most of history, respectively.

I also reject the notion that an antirealist must say that morals must be logically coherent, that's nothing more than an imposed strawman to limit the number of arguments that they can have. If there is no moral objectivity, then there is no reason that mortality must be consistent.

Finally I disagree with the assertion that epistemic facts and moral facts are intrinsically bonded. The epistemic facts can be extant on their own, and it's a Jon sequitur to explicitly say that they cannot without any evidence.

[–]jokul 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's entirely possible to prove that their are an infinite number of primes, primarily in that their definition they are an infinite set not a finite one. That argument isn't quite coherent

Firstly, I said you can't test whether or not there are infinitely many primes. Secondly, the definition of a prime is that it has no positive divisors besides itself and 1. There is nothing in that definition that says there are infinitely many, even though you can mathematically prove that there must be.

I also reject the notion that an antirealist must say that morals must be logically coherent, that's nothing more than an imposed strawman to limit the number of arguments that they can have.

Most anti-realists are going to say that in order for something to be a moral system, it has to be coherent. I'm not saying literally everyone who believes morality is subjective.

Finally I disagree with the assertion that epistemic facts and moral facts are intrinsically bonded.

Nobody's saying they're bonded, they're saying that if you can generate a successful argument against one, you can use the same argument for the other. Therefore, if moral anti-realism is true, then if Cuneo's argument holds, epistemic anti-realism is also true: the young earth creationist is equally justified in their beliefs as a geologist.

[–]ratchild1 -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (3子コメント)

You could do this for anything. You can reverse the true statement "Climate change is anthropogenic and real" to: "Climate change is imaginary"

warning warning this is a huge rant filled with crap I might be right but only Jesus knows for sure

The foundation of science I'd wager is strong than the foundation of a moral viewpoint, simply because one can demonstrate the other as wrong. The fire-doesn't-burn-paper group, well, they just can't seem to win any science arguments for some reason. Quite easily, the opposing group simply burn a piece of paper in front of them.

The murder people group and its opposing side the don't-murder-people group never seem to have very interesting or satisfying arguments. Not just because the latter rarely survive the arguments technically, but because they disagree on the foundation of which the morals should be tests.

How do you prove that the foundation of a science is the best foundation? Results. Paper burns. You can still claim that the foundation of science is wrong and paper doesn't burn. You could even be right. There might be aliens controlling our minds to see hallucinations of paper burning when it shouldn't. The leap to paper-doesn't-burn is big and insane but possible.

How do you prove the foundation of a morality as the best foundations? ....Results? But by whos standard? Murder or non-murder? The leap to murder, the leap to non-murder don't appear insane or large. You can't demonstrate to a tribe of murdering warlords that murder is wrong like you can show them paper burns.

I don't think I argued my case well, but it frustrates me when people draw in our uncertain realities as an 'ah ha! but you don't know for sureeeeeeeeee!'. No I don't know if my eyes are real, for certain, or if 1+1=2. But it is universal (at least in my mind, if I'm a brain in a vat) that paper burns. IT is not universal that metal music is terrible or that you shouldn't eat pork or that you can't be gay or that you can't kill or can't commit suicide.

Where do moral realists draw the line and how is the line drawn? If moral statements are objective, why aren't similar statements, ones which are commonly thought as opinions also objective? Because its silly. IT comes off as silly to say that objectively, rock music is bad, objectively, soda is bad for you, objectively, being gay is good/bad, Technically rock music can damage your ears, soda can damage your teeth, if your gay your more likely to be a victim of gay-related attacks. Thats practically science. You can demonstrate that to people. What you can't, is whether it is a good or bad thing. IF anything, a moral realist should accept that if moral statements can be objective so to can similar ones, such as art. Why on earth not?

You could reverse the statement murder is wrong to murder is right and you would not be wrong. You would not be right, either. Person A, advocating for non-murder and Person B, advocating for the opposite would not be able to rationally argue morality as the foundations for how they decide their morals are fundamentally different. Both would say the other is wrong because it does not fit with their moral foundation. A moral foundation not built on science or rationality or logic but on tradition. I will add that even founding morals on science is stupid. You can spin science to mean just about anything in relation to humankind. Human suffering can be fixed most easily by killing everyone, say. The earth benefits the most from humans all dieing. So... kill everyone? Well hey, they aren't wrong ! But they aren't right either. Cause morals aint objective d

Lets say I advocate for murder. Please prove me wrong.

If morality is subjective, then there is nothing actually wrong with Naziism or slavery.

If morality is subjective than a neutral viewer of Nazism and Anti-Nazism would see difference but not that one is right and one is wrong. Would a true neutral party to both groups be able to conclude one is right and one is wrong? Hell no, the second they do they are no longer neutral because the subject is a subjective one. No one tries to claim their review of a film is objective truth for very similar reasons.

Im ranting and raving Im ranting and raving on reddit again, God save my soul. If he exists, but I can't prove that he doesn't so he might as well exist.

[–]jokul 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

To answer your question about how we discover moral truths without appealing to some sort of moral big-brother: I believe we do so through reason. Yes, you will have to accept some things to begin with and ultimately everything you believe is going to be based on some deep intuition: something you ultimately can't deny. Whether that be that our senses are accurate and give us knowledge about the world or that causing harm is generally less favorable than avoiding harm.

I don't think I argued my case well, but it frustrates me when people draw in our uncertain realities as an 'ah ha! but you don't know for sureeeeeeeeee!'

I apologize if I came off that way but I'm not attempting to appeal to some sort of "what if we're just a brain-in-a-jar?" scenario.

Lets say I advocate for murder. Please prove me wrong.

Depends on how you want to determine what's morally correct. Usually murder is the sort of thing that is at or near the base. But here are three different answers:

  1. Utilitarian: Murder is wrong because it causes more harm than good.
  2. Deontological: Murder is wrong because it violates a universal maxim which we much logically accept.
  3. Virtue Ethics: Murder is wrong because a good person would not kill needlessly.

Ultimately, I view your attitude towards "How can you possibly prove murder is wrong?" to be more or less equivalent to the criticism you just laid out about science and the alien hypothesis. The answer to anybody who takes those stances seriously and applies them to their everyday behavior is: "Have you gone fucking daft? Of fucking course our senses are generally reliable and of fucking course murder is wrong and of fucking course for all X, X = X!"

Would a true neutral party to both groups be able to conclude one is right and one is wrong?

I don't know why we'd leave this decision up to a neutral third party any more than we'd leave the decision about whether or not global warming is real to non-climate scientists but if they were willing to utilize some sort of ethical framework to evaluate naziism, pretty much everyone would probably say "Hell yes this is wrong".

[–]lash422plz recycle 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

True, most would say that Nazism is wrong, however the very argument that most people would and thus it is correct implies that mortality is a societal construct. This doesn't mean that morals are wrong, rather that there are no objective way to determine what is truly moral.

Just because most people say Nazism is wrong, doesn't make it an objective fact. I would like to agree with you about how it is wrong, but I do not say that this opinion is fact. Remember that during the height of the Nazis power in Germany, a majority of the population agreed with their tenets, even though after the war many claimed ignorance.

If another species contacted us from beyond earth, and shared their culture with us, would they be objectively wrong if their moral standards were radical different than our? If so, why? Because we say so? That just again implies that it is a societal construct.

[–]jokul 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Just because most people say Nazism is wrong, doesn't make it an objective fact.

Okay, then does most people agreeing that our senses are reliable and that we aren't being mind-controlled by aliens means that science is subjective too?

If another species contacted us from beyond earth, and shared their culture with us, would they be objectively wrong if their moral standards were radical different than our? If so, why? Because we say so?

What the right answer is depends on their values. There being objectively correct moral answers doesn't mean everybody and everything has to live the exact same life.

[–]NatWilo 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

It got really trendy to denounce moral relativism in the mid 2000's. I used to get shit on for it because I was a soldier and it was just 'so obvious' that I'd be a moral relativist, because it let me do those 'horrible things' for the government.

Seriously, this was thrown in my face with a regularity by lots of angry college students. Fuck me for having met a BUNCH of cultures with a BUNCH of different value sets, and deciding that maayybe morals aren't hard and fast. Of course it wasn't that. It was that I was lazy, and a tool, and letting the evil government convince me to do horrible things.

[–]ratchild1 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (1子コメント)

People who think that moral relativists lack morality don't understand moral relativity.

If moral relativists had no morals they wouldn't be good advocates for moral relativity. Its not a throwing away of your morality but an admittance that it cannot be holy, objective or the word of God. You can't prove that this or that is bad without starting from some kind of bias. I don't see how that is refutable. I'd love to see two people who believe in objective morals have a disagreement about a certain moral, I wonder how on earth they would come to find the 'objective' correct moral at the end. Easy answer is they wouldn't. The biggest advocates for moral realisms, religion, disagree so strongly with each other, most assume the other are going to their own version of hell for not following objective truths.
Objective truths proven only by some old guys 'intuition'.

Theres been no recent discoveries of objective morality in any labs as far as I am aware.

[–]daitoshi 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'd be interesting in reading about objectively moral statements

[–]never_a_crossword 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (0子コメント)

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/

[–]jokul 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

The "Partners in Crime" argument that you can read about in this topic was the one that convinced me that morality is objective. That, combined with arguments against my prior presumptions about why morality is subjective.

[–]rabotat 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Hey, you're the guy from the thread!

Even though I disagree with you, I must say you are good at debating, and it is obvious you have good understanding of philosophy. You presented clear, well spoken arguments.

[–]jokul 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I know just enough to get by and try to hold a coherent world view. I highly recommend learning philosophy at least casually if you're interested in challenging your existing frameworks of belief. I can't say I've read The Critique of Pure Reason or even received a formal education, but becoming familiar with these sorts of things really opened my mind and caused me to stop believing in things I thought I was certain of. Sometimes it's great just to hear somebody ask a question you never even considered: "Are numbers real?" Who thinks to ask that stuff? But philosophers have and I find it very rewarding to think about those sorts of things.

[–]-LOGALOG- 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I'm aware. I'm just pointing shit out, not saying anyone's correct or incorrect.

[–]OneFistOfIron 12 ポイント13 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Sounds pretty spooked to me

[–]GiveHerTheWorks 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Don't worry man, it's totally normal to get blindly angry at things you don't have the brain power to comprehend.

lol gg

[–]ClancHurankuThere is no joy in expounding on Reddit. 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

#roast3d

[–]ognitsWorthless, low-IQ disruptor 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (3子コメント)

I killed your entire family and raped them infront of you, spilled their blood on you, and made them tell them they hate you and resent you right before I suffocated them with razor covered dildos

I'm really confused about the order of events here

[–]ClancHurankuThere is no joy in expounding on Reddit. 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

No need to use logic when there's an argument going on

[–]Eran-of-ArcadiaCheesehead 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you're very, very lucky, they'll do it in that order.

[–]llamadude00 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

It's simple. He killed them until they died, tortured them, and killed them yet again.

[–]StileAndProfileDownvotes are digital. Immaturity is forever. 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Are you sure about that? Morals are made up person to person by brain structure and most people have basic morals derived from what people have had for millions of years. Lick my taint I guess I get what you're saying I'm gonna go blast my ass

Well, they can sure paint a picture with words.

[–]awesomepawsome 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Interesting. I agree morals are subjective and a social construct, but there does feel like there have to be some underlying "universal laws" that could be considered hard coded universal morals.

Like basically there are things that just wouldn't work, therefore they are almost like fundamental morals. Say what you want about the subjectivity of general murder being good or bad, but it just wouldn't work in a system where total indiscriminate murder was viewed as good and praised. Even in the kill or be killed world of animals, there are driving forces.

Like maybe you can give the hand to natural selection or something, that the brain structure that convinced an animal "yeah it's totally a good idea to kill and eat all my babies every chance I get" didn't pass that down and so "no there is something in my mind telling me I probably shouldn't eat all my babies, and maybe I'll even protect them" developed further. Which I guess you could call an "objective moral" if you wanted, because it's just something pretty objectively needed for the continuation of the species. Then you could extrapolate that out to some more advanced things for humans.

[–]daitoshi 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Exactly!

I think an 'Objective Moral' is just the drives that are hard-coded into most surviving animals: That is, the desire to survive and to avoid the things that will stop my survival. - Morals are just 'Survival' drives on a group scale instead of an individual scale.

[–]WhiskeyOnASunday93 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I see the point the guy was trying to make, but he painted quite the picture lol.

His argument would have been suited fine by the hypothetical, "What if I killed your whole family?"

[–]CVance1sick twisted social justice bullshit pleasure 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Everything's made up n***** stay woke

[–]SpikeCannonballBoxerShhhh... no logic, only memes now [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Just rewatched this episode this morning.

[–]SuitableDragonflyUnapologetic Grandstanding 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (32子コメント)

Honestly, morals being made up isn't morbid, it's much better than the alternative.

[–]jokul 11 ポイント12 ポイント  (31子コメント)

Why would that be? If morals were literally "made up" then what would be wrong with something like the holocaust and/or why should we do anything about those things?

[–]daitoshi 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (17子コメント)

The thing about morals is that THEY define what is right and wrong.

If the established set of morals says the holocaust is bad, then the holocaust is bad. That's what morals DO. They define right/wrong.

[–]jokul 7 ポイント8 ポイント  (16子コメント)

Yep, but if morals are made up, why not make up morals that say the holocaust is a good thing like the Germans circa 1930?

[–]daitoshi 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (15子コメント)

Because 'Morals' are the group consensus, not your personal opinion.

The general populous has to agree that the holocaust is a good thing, which is unlikely as it requires a complete reversal of current stances.

Germany circa 1930 had no friggin clue what horrors were going on in the concentration camps. They just thought the people were being contained - maybe made to do labor. The country at large had no clue the gas chambers and massive death and horrible things were going on until the big reveal at the end when the camps were freed. There's actually some cool sociological research done about how the atrocities happened due to information flow being strictly controlled, and hierarchies enforced. No one saw the 'big picture' - only their little sliver.

And even then, around that time the world-at-large agreed that treating homosexuals that way was morally fine, and did not acknowledge them as victims of the concentration camps, despite evidence. source

Morals change, based on the sum of public opinion.

[–]jokul 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (13子コメント)

Because 'Morals' are the group consensus, not your personal opinion.

And the group consensus back then was that the Jews were the source of all of Germany's ills. You also keep trying to preload a definition for what's moral, in this case that it's "the group consensus" but

Germany circa 1930 had no friggin clue what horrors were going on in the concentration camps.

Okay so maybe they didn't want to commit genocide but they were just fine with them being forcibly relocated. You can use the pre-war American south if you prefer another morally bankrupt society as our starting point.

And even then, around that time the world-at-large agreed that treating homosexuals that way was morally fine, and did not acknowledge them as victims of the concentration camps, despite evidence.

Yup, never disputed this. What people believe is true may not be true. Same for climate change, same for the Monty Hall problem, etc.

[–]daitoshi 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (12子コメント)

pre-war American south if you prefer another morally bankrupt society as our starting point.

Humans have owned slaves across the world for hundreds of thousands of years. While our current consensus is that 'Slavery is bad' - the history of human moral compasses disagrees.

Our current society is totally fine with forceful relocation. *wide gesture to all of those "Illegal Immigrants" being sent back to their "home country" despite having lived here peacefully for decades.

[–]jokul 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (8子コメント)

While our current consensus is that 'Slavery is bad' - the history of human moral compasses disagrees.

Once again, you don't seem to understand that "the way people behaved" and "the way people should have behaved" are different. I am not saying "nobody owned slaves back then" or "nobody thought owning slaves was good".

Our current society is totally fine with forceful relocation. *wide gesture to all of those "Illegal Immigrants" being sent back to their "home country" despite having lived here peacefully for decades.

Another indication that what people believe to be true has no bearing on what actually is true. I would bet most ethicists would disagree with the public on this issue, hell, I would argue that most people aren't even in favor of what is currently happening.

[–]daitoshi 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (7子コメント)

I see morals as Subjective, not Objective.

That, I think, is the core of our disagreement. We're just defining it in different ways.

I see morals as something that is a socially-defined set of rules, not a 'Universal Truth' applicable even to moss and atoms and energy fields.

[–]jokul 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (6子コメント)

I see morals as Subjective, not Objective.

If you define morality as you do, then yes they are definitely subjective.

I see morals as something that is a socially-defined set of rules, not a 'Universal Truth' applicable even to moss and atoms and energy fields.

Nobody thinks morality applies to nonsentient things like atoms. Regardless of how you decide to use it, morality is the way in which people should behave. You can come up with all sorts of objectively true statements about how you should behave in certain scenarios. Is your goal to win checkers? Well checkers has actually been solved so we know the best way to play checkers. Similarly, there can be objectively true moral statements. Saying "murder is bad" doesn't have to be fundamentally different from "deviating from the optimal checkers strategy is bad".

[–]Susanoo-no-Mikoto 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Humans have owned slaves across the world for hundreds of thousands of years. While our current consensus is that 'Slavery is bad' - the history of human moral compasses disagrees.

Actually what you usually see in slave-owning societies is that very few people actually believe the institution of slavery is good. Rather, it is usually considered something that is regrettable but inevitable, and moralizing about slavery usually consists of exhorting masters to be kind and slaves to be obedient. The attitude towards it is similar to the attitude towards death and warfare and disease.

Human moral intuitions are far less variable than you think they are.

[–]daitoshi 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

I'm curious to read any accounts that say as much - as far as I can remember, slave owners tended to view slaves as some sort of level of "less human" or hierarchically deserving of said position somehow,

[–]Susanoo-no-Mikoto 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (0子コメント)

some sort of level of "less human"

Which is an empirical, not a moral claim.

hierarchically deserving of said position somehow

Which is precisely my point, slavery in itself is understood to be a bad thing, so according to them there must be some reason why the slaves deserved it. Often the reason given is simply non-moral: "we defeated you, so deal with it."

Almost never in any account will you see people arguing that slavery is a good in itself, without qualification.

[–]TrattativaStatoMafia [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

/r/badphilosophy

[–]SuitableDragonflyUnapologetic Grandstanding 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (9子コメント)

They're not literally made up, I was just using OPs terminology. Just because they're socially constructed doesn't mean they're wrong.

[–]jokul 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (8子コメント)

If they're socially constructed though it means they could be wrong (if objectively true moral statements exist), which means that what is "actually morally acceptable" exists outside of what people believe is morally acceptable.

[–]SuitableDragonflyUnapologetic Grandstanding 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (5子コメント)

Well, yes, if you assume there is objective morality, than there is objective morality.

[–]jokul 5 ポイント6 ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm not assuming objective morality, I'm saying that the notion of a morality being "wrong" necessarily presumes objective moral standards. You introduced that term, not me.

[–]SuitableDragonflyUnapologetic Grandstanding 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Yes, but you didn't say "if you assume a moral system can be wrong, there has to be an objective morality", you said that if objective morality exists than objective morality exists. Did you accidentally copy-paste something wrong and not say what you were trying to say?

[–]jokul 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

you said that if objective morality exists than objective morality exists

I never said this. You said:

Just because they're socially constructed doesn't mean they're wrong.

When you said "wrong", that implies that they could be wrong. If morality is subjective, they can't be wrong since, by your prior reasoning, morality is whatever behavioral standards people socially construct.

[–]SuitableDragonflyUnapologetic Grandstanding 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Yes, I said that subjective moral systems can be wrong, and therefore you can conclude that there is an objective standard (sort of like there is an objective idea of a perfect circle, or a frictionless vacuum, or other such things). I am trying to work out if you said anything, or if you plan to.

[–]jokul 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I am trying to work out if you said anything, or if you plan to.

If you just said there's an objective standard by which we can judge moral systems, then that kind of says everything I needed to. That's the same as saying there exist at least some objectively true moral statements.

[–]NatWilo -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Well, yeah. Look it was perfectly moral to beat your wife at one time, or rape her. It was perfectly moral to own slaves. It was immoral for women to think for themselves for a LONG time, and in some places still is. And it's not just on women that our morals have shifted drastically over the centuries. Killing was moral in certain situations, it wasn't just 'right' it was a moral imperative. Racism. All kinds of things were moral for a very long time that 'most people' today agree are absolutely immoral.

And if you think a world where morals are constructs are depressing, imagine a world where breaking any of the Ten Commandments, for any reason, dooms you to an infinity of Hell. For reals.

[–]jokul 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well, yeah. Look it was perfectly moral to beat your wife at one time, or rape her. It was perfectly moral to own slaves. It was immoral for women to think for themselves for a LONG time, and in some places still is.

It was perfectly true that the world was flat (pre-Eratosthenes) but that doesn't mean it was actually so. Similarly, people can make mistakes about what is or is not permissible.

Killing was moral in certain situations, it wasn't just 'right' it was a moral imperative.

You can still argue killing is correct in certain situations and still believe morality is objective. Most people would probably argue that killing is okay in some circumstances.

And if you think a world where morals are constructs are depressing, imagine a world where breaking any of the Ten Commandments, for any reason, dooms you to an infinity of Hell. For reals.

I don't believe in god so I don't believe breaking the 10 commandments is going to have any lasting effect on your "soul" (which I dont' believe in either) nor do I think the 10 commandments are taken seriously as a moral theorem.

[–]YahwehTheDevil -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (2子コメント)

If morals were literally "made up" then what would be wrong with something like the holocaust and/or why should we do anything about those things?

Do you eat meat? Vegan activists believe that a modern-day Holocaust is happening right now.

What do they know – all these scholars, all these philosophers, all the leaders of the world? They have convinced themselves that man, the worst transgressor of all the species, is the crown of creation. All other creatures were created merely to provide him with food, pelts, to be tormented, exterminated. In relation to them, all people are Nazis; for the animals it is an eternal Treblinka

We like to point to slavery and the Holocaust and say that they were obviously wrong, but many of us are contributing to the systemic rape, torture, and murder of billions of sentient creatures each year. It is my hope that people who believe that those things were obviously wrong will see that what they endorse is horrific and needs to stop.

[–]jokul 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Do you eat meat? Vegan activists believe that a modern-day Holocaust is happening right now.

What does this have to do with anything? Depending on what sort of ethical framework you abide by, you may find varying levels of disgust at current animal consumption. To answer your personal question, I'm not a vegan, but I do eat far less meat than most people for ethical reasons.

It is my hope that people who believe that those things were obviously wrong will see that what they endorse is horrific and needs to stop.

I agree; I don't think eating meat can be ethically justified.

[–]YahwehTheDevil [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

What does this have to do with anything?

You used the Holocaust as an example of something that was obviously wrong and that we must do something to stop. If you really believe that, and if you agree with Yourofsky and Singer that slaughterhouses are a modern-day Holocaust, then I'd ask you to live by your convictions and stop contributing to that system.

That's great that you've reduced your meat consumption. What's stopping you from cutting it out altogether?

[–]lyml 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Morals are subjective in the meaning that in the absence of humans morals are irrelevant. There is nothing immoral about thraumatic insemination, radioactive decay or a volcano spewing out hot magma. That's just what is. We as humans have desires about what ought to be and how others ought to behave. That's what forms the basis of our morals.

[–]SnapshillBotShilling for Big Archive™ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

stopscopiesme>TAKEitTOrCIRCLEJERK.

Snapshots:

  1. This Post - archive.org, megalodon.jp*, ceddit.com, archive.is*

I am a bot. (Info / Contact)

[–]StefanRistic02 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Another one in r/morbidquestions? CHRIST! THAT'S TWO THIS WEEK!!

[–]Quidfacis_ 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

And morals are effected by feelings.

If you assume he did not confuse "effected" with "affected", and he truly believes that feelings effect morals, then this comment is really really funny in the context of his larger argument.

"Morals aren't made up! Morals are produced by feelings!!!!!"

[–]tiorzol 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Don't worry man, it's totally normal to get blindly angry at things you don't have the brain power to comprehend.

Ayyy I'm using that one.

[–]MelodyCristo [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

That thread is in two separate posts here now. Jesus.