Is morality objective...

Is morality objective? When people claim it is they just say what they consider as true morality and than say they're right. How can you prove that it objectivly exists in reality?

Attached: https___upload.wikimedia.org_wikipedia_en_thumb_e_e0_RWS_Tarot_11_Justice.jpg_220px-RWS_Tarot_11_Jus (220x383, 35K)

No concept of man is objective because no concept is without feeling or opinion

Beauty, morality, and justice are all objective, since they are all forms of the good. And the good is that which benefits and tends to existence, so it is the case that there is objectively some thing that will maximize benefit. Though we subjectively are flawed in determining what is good, there is certainly an objective good, and at some times we perceive what is truly good. Morality is simply that which benefits you the most. Justice is similar to morality but a bit more complex: a man of authority is just when his punishments and rewards tend to the welfare of society or some group which he oversees. For example, if a king does not punish criminals, then that only increases the likelihood that more crimes will be committed. Beauty is simply the appearance of goodness.

Stop with these boring questions already

If you are indifferent to something then does that not make it objective?
You must see that this was far too personal to be objective. I love committing crimes, so what state does that put the King in exactly?

>I love committing crimes, so what state does that put the King in exactly?
What? First of all, just because you “love” something doesn’t mean it’s good for you in the long run. So most of the time it’s immoral to be a criminal. If you commit crimes, and go unpunished, then that only encourages more crimes, and prevents you from following the path that will truly benefit you, which reflects badly on the king.

your answer is shit

How can you be sure what truly benefits me? Or how could I, for that matter. If thievery makes me wealthy and feeds my family at the expense of others am I in the wrong objectively? I cannot defend that I am in the wrong on an objective level, just on the level that others perceive me.

>How can you be sure what truly benefits me? Or how could I, for that matter.
I didn’t claim to be, and I didn’t suggest that anyone can be sure. But there is a path that will ultimately benefit you the most, but sometimes you don’t take it. A thief thinks that stealing will benefit him, maybe so, in the short-term, but what about later? What if he gets caught? What if he gets punished in the afterlife? Now if you were absolutely certain that no possible punishment would arise from commuting a crime, then if that crime benefits you, there is obviously no reason why you shouldn’t commit it. But our lack of knowledge about the future prevents us from doing such things. To commit a crime anyway is bold and risky, while you simply could have gone down the good path and ended up just as good if not better in the future without fear of punishment.

Indifference is suppression of emotion which in turn is emotion itself

>simply could have gone down the good path
But if neither you or I knows this path does that not make objectivity a guess?
Is a man chemically incapable of emotion objective then? Or would he no longer be a man and so irrelevant?

no u

Attached: 114.jpg (1024x768, 150K)

This seems like an argument for Tyranny more than anything else.

>But if neither you or I knows this path does that not make objectivity a guess?
It’s an educated guess in most cases. Don’t stab people randomly or you’re gonna get beaten up and killed. Don’t lie to people or they won’t respect you any more. Be good to others and they’ll probably be good to you. Every good action is simply that action which benefits you. If you want a perfect moral system, see the Bible. If you follow its teachings, you will not only be rewarded in this life but also in the next. All those good actions are those which increase the chance of your salvation.

I don’t understand how people can even say the word “morality” and not understand what it means. Most people think superficially about it, as if you’re supposed to do the right thing “just because.”

>Is a man chemically incapable of emotion objective
You can make things facts but there are times when those facts are colored with opinion and emotion

Things that are subject to debate such as morality or ethics which stem from ideas of man who's views shift over time can never be objective

"Just because" can be just as good as "should" I think. God is as good a reason as no reason at all so long as it ends the same way, no?
But I agree educated guess is more accurate, your examples are easy enough to understand. But it still means even God is a guess. I have trouble seeing a guess as objective morality.
You are saying man cannot be objective because he lacks the will?

>You are saying man cannot be objective because he lacks the will?

Man cannot be objective because the words definition cannot be used for anything that is dependent on the mind for existence

>I have trouble seeing a guess as objective morality.
In general, we cannot KNOW objective morality, but of course sometimes we are closer and sometimes farther away. That doesn’t mean that there isn’t an objectively moral thing to do in all situations. If a being benefits by attaining x, then there is one path that will most assist that being in attaining x. As for religion, you do have to take a leap of faith (as with all things), in the hopes that your benefits are maximized. It’s the best system because it not only makes this life subjectively meaningful but also possibly benefits you in the afterlife. This is why religious people are so righteous, virtuous, etc. To benefit yourself is the best thing you can do. Why are people looked down upon? Because they actively harm themselves directly or indirectly. This is morality

I probably won’t be commenting any more ITT since everything’s already been explained. This shouldn’t even be a discussion anymore.

Your answer isn't satisfying. See

So you think there is no path that maximizes benefit to a being? To stab myself, to exercise, to pray, to eat, to kill, to sleep all day....they all mean the same?

You involuntarily attribute your own meaning to these things in the form that you encounter them in.

what about concepts like fundamental forces in physics or natural laws?

based again

>How can you prove that it objectivly exists in reality?
Ethics, and morality, are affirmed immanently, and recognized objectively through mutual concurrence, not proven.

Can someone recommend a book on this subject? Like making a case for objective morality