How smart am I if I realized that morality is cultural and therefore does not exist?

The morals you live by may be culturally imposed, but there also could be a set of metaphysical morals imposed on you by a god you don't believe in, whom you have no knowledge of, but who could nevertheless be real.

In that case you're fucked.

>god

Attached: 160927210830-tk-ah0927-super-169.jpg (1100x619, 57K)

It exists because it is cultural. You live in a human experience which is built on naturally evolved moral guidelines. What you said has no actual value in saying out loud or realizing. You're still living in a moral universe molded by learned attitudes of the sensory experiences you take in.

>Cultural constructs don't exist
Heterosexuality is a cultural construct, so best you start getting your ass pounded

Attached: images.jpg (299x168, 6K)

>Heterosexuality is a cultural construct
Wrong infact homosexuality is a mental illness if we ask biologically

Is Yea Forums populated almost entirely by community college students? The responses in this thread are fucking terrible

>cultural and therefore does not exist
Please explain the reasoning behind this 'therefore'. If something is cultural, how does that mean it doesn't exist?

The statements 'object A is cultural' and 'object A doesn't exist' seem entirely contradictory to me even if you don't try linking them with a 'therefore'.

>everybody in ancient Greece and medieval persia was mentally ill
Get that hole greasy whyteboi

So then tell us o wise user is op wrong?

Odd how the greatest literary works of those cultures only deal with heterosexual relatationships then (Aeneid, Iliad and Odyssey)

>only deal with heterosexual relatationships
>Iliad

It is imposed on people since birth through culture.What is moral is what you are taught.I mean objective morality does not exist.

>objective morality does not exist
Ah, that makes more sense. I don't think it marks you out as very smart though- it's a fairly obvious conclusion to draw.

I unironically realized this when I was like 8.

>OP reaches the level of the strawman sophists in Plato

I think that unless you believe in God(s) you've got to jump through some pretty serious intellectual hoops to believe in objective morality tbph

>tfw you realize language is a social construct and there does not exist
hubba bubba

Attached: 1495468591840.png (537x717, 455K)

The fact that people have different ideas about something doesn't mean that no one is correct.

>How smart am I if I realized that morality is cultural and therefore does not exist?
Not very. It's a basic observation. However, this does not prove that morality does not exist just because there are differences between cultural beliefs. This is begging the question.

edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2015/09/the-absolute-truth-about-relativism.html

Welcome to the obvious conclusion of antihumanist moral nihilism. Time to accelerate the Thielism.

You have to jump through serious intellectual hoops to reject the rational arguments for God's existence.

I did when I was 10.

Lets hear em, I always enjoy a good joke.

Attached: A15BD588-A390-4F52-AF00-A7F1548FC5A7.jpg (678x678, 61K)

Pretty stupid

Fucking 9 year olds will never be ok, Achmed

>tfw you realize butterfag is smarter than OP

Attached: 1549009229470.gif (264x269, 173K)

Not very.

Universality =/= Objectivity

Concepts exist, information exists, strategy exists.

>morality is
>therefore does not exist
ummm....

Why does something being cultural mean it doesn't exist

>tfw you realize language is reality

Attached: 1403538569064.gif (186x190, 3.02M)

If that is the case, then how do you solve the issue of causation? If someone just dreamt up morality, who did, when did they do it, and why did they choose the rules we have? Who taught the first man to be moral?

Morals are enforced by culture, but they are not born from it.

I There is a fundamental knowledge of Right and Wrong inherent to humanity. This Law or Rule about Right and Wrong used to be called the Law of Nature. Nowadays, when we talk of the "laws of nature" we usually mean things like gravitation, or heredity, or the laws of chemistry. But when the older thinkers called the Law of Right and Wrong "the Law of Nature," they really meant the Law of Human Nature. The idea was that, just as all bodies are governed by the law of gravitation and organisms by biological laws, so the creature called man also had his law — with this great difference, that a body could not choose whether it obeyed the law of gravitation or not, but a man could choose either to obey the Law of Human Nature or to disobey it.

We may put this in another way. Each man is at every moment subjected to several different sets of law but there is only one of these, morality, which he is free to disobey.

Further, we can prove this Moral Law is not simply one of our instincts as you claim. If two instincts are in conflict, and there is nothing in a creature's mind except those two instincts, obviously the stronger of the two must win. But at those moments when we are most conscious of the Moral Law, it usually seems to be telling us to side with the weaker of the two impulses. You probably want to be safe much more than you want to help the man who is drowning: but the Moral Law tells you to help him all the same.And surely it often tells us to try to make the right impulse stronger than it naturally is? I mean, we often feel it our duty to stimulate the 'herd instinct', by waking up our imaginations and arousing our pity and so on, so as to do the right thing. But clearly we are not acting from instinct when we set about making an instinct stronger than it is. The thing that says to you, "Your herd instinct is asleep. Wake it up," cannot itself be the herd instinct.

>Morals are enforced by culture

No. One of the problems atheists have is the unbelievers' assertion that it is possible to determine what is right and what is wrong without God. They have a fundamental inability to concede that to be effectively absolute a moral code needs to be beyond human power to alter.

On this misunderstanding is a supposed conundrum about whether there is any good deed that could be done only by a religious person, and not done by a Godless one. Like all such questions, this contains another question: what is good, and who is to decide what is good?

Left to himself, Man can in a matter of minutes justify the incineration of populated cities; the deportation, slaughter, disease and starvation of inconvenient people and the mass murder of the unborn.

I have heard people who believe themselves to be good, defend all these things, and convince themselves as well as others. Quite often the same people will condemn similar actions by different countries, often with great vigour.

For a moral code to be effective, it must be attributed to, and vested in, a non-human source. It must be beyond the power of humanity to change it to suit itself.

Its most powerful expression is summed up in the words 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends'.

The huge differences which can be observed between Christian societies and all others, even in the twilit afterglow of Christianity, originate in this specific injunction.

I think you misunderstand my point. I agree with you. As I said, morality is not born from a culture, but rather a culture builds around a moral consciousness in order to enforce it, with morality acting as a foundation for subsequent developments in social and cultural norms, as it were. In the West that appears as the generally Christian culture of Europe, in the Middle-East it appears as the Islamic cultures of Iran, Iraq and so on.