>It turns out you can indeed have objective morality without God and it turns out that our morality is the morality for all he world to follow.

nothing can be absolutely objective
it's an absurdity
Even if it was you can't come up with an objective way to know about it being objective
Atheists who give in to this do so because christcucks will say
>oh aha! so it's not OBJECTIVELY immoral to do X
And the funny part is that X is usually not even condemned in the bible anyway
Lastly one can ask what does it even matter to you whether it's an objective moral or not?

>>17790889 (OP)
>>17790904
Just a classic case of people using words and concepts above their own heads. Subjectivity and objectivity are dogwhistles for human moral responsibility. The question of whether you'll face consequences for your crimes is completely different, but it gets lumped together with the existence of God, God's will and all sorts of other things. Yes, you'll almost certainly face consequences if you harm other people. You might get away with it, but hey, maybe God would just let you off the hook too. The chance is yours to take. There's objectively a power structure that will let you enjoy Hell, from your point of view it might as well be immortal. That all exists under a "subjective" human institution and you're the subject. If you understood everything I wrote, you don't need to believe in divine punishment for every little sin. Besides, one-God-given morality is ahistorical.

>and by objective morality mean we'll kill you if you don't obey us

>>17790969
>and by objective morality mean we'll kill you if you don't obey us
How is that worse than me supernaturally torturing you forever if you don't believe I exist? Sounds really fucking tame in comparison.

>>17790889 (OP)
I don't care what any of you say, Hitchens and Dawkins taught me a fucking shit ton about religion, discussion, and debate in general. Yes I was a reddit atheist for a lot of years.

>>17790889 (OP)
1. Anglo-Saxon dork who calls himself a Christian these days, even though he's still going to Hell.
2. A half Jewish sodomite.
3. A gamma male JewBu with terminal Trump derangement system.
4. Literally Who: The Philosopher.

>>17790969
pic unrelated

cool thing about sam harris is that he doesn't even know what objective means, he thinks 19th century utilitarianism has the answer to every question because he can't fathom that other people may not pursue maximising wealth stats like retarded stembugcels.

Watch this, bitch.
Man's man is his orimary method of survival, where for example a tiger's sirvival hinges on it's ability to sneak and kill, the human is bound to his ability to keep himself warm, cooking his food so he won't get sick, making traps and later on technology. To therefore deny a man their mind is evil. It is akin to cutting the wings off of a bird, simple cruelty.
There, consent based morality is all you need, biologically deduced using 0 mysticism.
Proceed to seethe.

>>17790889 (OP)
Sam Harris said that covering up the Hunter Biden laptop story during the 2020 campaign was a good thing, how can he be trustworthy about morality?

>>17792496
Mysticists are high on their own farts constantly, it's little surprise that they can't even fathom morality emerging naturally from utility (which still remains the best explanation)

>>17792599
Utilitarianism enslaves man if it would serve more people than it enslaves. Always take moral arguments to their logical extremes, and consent remains the only non-enslaving argument.

>>17792496
Man's mind*

>>17792620
>morality is emergent from utility = utiliarianism
are you indian?

>>17792637
I have a tan from last week's heatwave if that counts, but otherwise no.

>>17790889 (OP)
Sam Harris has a religion and morality tho. Israel good, people who are against Israel in any way bad.

>>17790889 (OP)
If you don't fear God you can't be trusted.

>>17792496
Nope. Survival can be used to justify much more strident behavior towards other people than just the NAP. If I fear for my life I can do whatever I want to you. It's not a valid argument here

>>17792496
>consent
Morality concerns what we should, and shouldn't, do.

Suppose I want steal your food, why exactly shouldn't I do that? (I'm starving, and confident that I'll get away without retaliation)

>>17791278
>How is that worse than me supernaturally torturing you forever if you don't believe I exist?
What stops a terminal cancer world leader from initiating nuclear war? He's going to die anyway, so that makes whatever action he takes before his inevitable death moral by relativism.

>>17792759
You could very well pretend to be a certain religion without actually fearing God, I'd say that was the norm before it became socially acceptable to call yourself agnostic or atheist

>>17792840
What stops a hateful desert god from torturing almost all humans who've ever lived literally forever?
Btw you don't even understand what moral relativism is, and I say that as someone who thinks moral relativism is retarded.

>>17792759
>I cannot be trusted
Too bad, so sad

>>17792511
There's literally nothing on there that compares unfavorably to the open corruption of Zion Don

>>17792863
>What stops a hateful desert god from torturing almost all humans who've ever lived literally forever?
I don't know, what does? My belief system posits that's because He is naturally Good per definition, as He is all-encompassing, meaning He holds fully the values of Mercy, Kindness and Justice within Himself, which we could not discern without Him being their origin.
Your belief system doesn't believe in transcendant elements, let alone perfect caracteristics. Therefore the burden of proof is on you to explain how if the threat of death is the only moral deterrent to undesirable action, the inevitability of close death does NOT make any action, no matter the consequences, moral?

>>17792887
Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the powerful in favor of the weak. Historical law subverts it at every turn.

>>17792896
That still doesn't answer the question as to your belief. Do you, or do you not believe that any action becomes moral on the metaphorical or literal deathbed?

>>17792887
Just fyi, I didn't describe my belief system at all. My first post itt was >>17791278.
More importantly, what you're putting forward is not an argument for your preferred moral theory, but rather an argument for why we should try to convince people your preferred moral theory is true. In essence:
>If people do not believe my preferred moral theory is true, they might do things which I don't want them to do. Therefore I should try to convince people my preferred moral theory is true.
This is entirely compatible with your preferred moral theory actually being false.

>>17792903
I fail to see how a contextual deathbed would inscribe anything with moral weight if it wasn't moral to begin with.

>>17792831
In a moral world you shouldn't have to steal if you are in need, they should have already given it to you to sate your need

>>17792906
>More importantly, what you're putting forward is not an argument for your preferred moral theory, but rather an argument for why we should try to convince people your preferred moral theory is true.
You would be right, if my argument in this case did not, inf act, poke a hole in the consistency of the moral theory put forth : that the threat of collective violence make a moral theory true. If that is the case, anyone aberrant - as in they hold no interest whatsoever in self-care against pain or care for living - would be completely untargeted by this moral theory. It is a moral blind spot. It's why I want you to state your belief on the matter; because if you do, there is a clear and distinct group of people who is somehow not affected by your moral theory, and therefore this makes it INCONSISTENT, and therefore NOT PREFERABLE by lack of caracteristic, as opposed to divine/perfect being-based moral theory, which apply to anyone but the perfect nature, who comply to its own model.

>>17792929
>the threat of collective violence make a moral theory true
Where was this proposed?
>It's why I want you to state your belief on the matter
Sure. I don't believe moral facts exist at all.
>there is a clear and distinct group of people who is somehow not affected by your moral theory, and therefore this makes it INCONSISTENT, and therefore NOT PREFERABLE by lack of caracteristic
Relativism (which I don't subscribe to btw) is not inconsistent, it does exactly what it says on the tin. To say that moral relativism is not preferable because it says moral facts are relative to time and place would be to beg the question against relativism.

>>17792950
>Where was this proposed?
see >>17790969 and >>17791278
it was supplemented as an alternative to "le ebil god torturing you forever" interpretation of divine-centered morality
>Sure. I don't believe moral facts exist at all.
therefore it is safer not to associate with you at all, or to eliminate you if you associate with others, because you invariably do not operate in either they or our best interest. You do not even believe in shared interests to begin with, since it is a moral fact.
>elativism (which I don't subscribe to btw) is not inconsistent, it does exactly what it says on the tin.
Which is being non-universal. Therefore, by its very nature, subscribing to it is ultimately completely self-destructive to any group made up of more than 1 individual.
Moral subjectivism isn't "an alternative" to moral objectivism, it is an absence of moral objectivism, the ideal of true Morality with a capital M. Just because a flaw has been revealed in an objective moral system does not justify moral relativism; in fact, the opposite, it demands an appropriate correction to reach a better, more perfected moral system.

>>17790889 (OP)
You can have a morality without god.

It's called Protestantism.

>>17792975
>see >>17790969 # and >>17791278 #
You mean a Christian giving a trolly description of atheism and an atheist replying with an equally trolly tongue in cheek post?
>therefore it is safer not to associate with you at all
Good luck figuring out what my metaethical views are when you meet me irl lol.
>You do not even believe in shared interests to begin with, since it is a moral fact.
Incorrect. I think that shared desires and values lead to shared interests. This does not imply that moral facts exist.
>Which is being non-universal. Therefore, by its very nature, subscribing to it is ultimately completely self-destructive to any group made up of more than 1 individual.
Both a strawman of relativism and a nonsequitor. Different relativists cash out their relativism differently. For instance, some may believe that morality is relative to culture, others may believe morality is relative to technological development etc. Under such views, all individuals within a certain culture, a community at a certain stage of technological development etc. would be subject to the same morals and the difference in what is moral would only exist between different societies which do not share the relevant characteristics.
>Moral subjectivism isn't "an alternative" to moral objectivism
That's correct simply because many moral relativist theories are objectivist. Objective does not mean universal, and a moral relativist may claim that, for instance, it is objectively moral to perform vigilante justice in one society but objectively immoral in another one.
If you want to know my opinion, I think relativism is incorrect simply because moral facts do not exist in any capacity.

>>17793005
*misread
>Moral subjectivism isn't "an alternative" to moral objectivism
As talking about moral relativism. Overal point still applies, there are objectivist relativist theories.

>>17792975
NTA
Humanity is imperfect, an imperfect system makes sense
Subjective morality, also known as real morality that exists, is a tool for saving mental work. Instead of intriguing against everyone, you adopt morality and don't have to think about it anymore, like road rules. Only people who work are capable of understanding this. The primary function of morality is to increase efficiency by streamlining interactions. God's morality, always superior to ours, is what we reach for but never achieve. It's up to God to decide whether carrying out the exact letter of the law, to your puny understanding, is actually the right thing to do.

>>17793005
>shared desires and values lead to shared interests.
nigger, to have those you must recognize values and interests in the first place. Those are moral facts. They are the very basics of moral facts; you cannot tell me "I don't believe in moral facts" and then believe that "value" is a thing that exists in the next sentence. Either value does not exist, or it can be used as a basis for a moral system between two or more individual, making it A MORAL FACT BETWEEN THOSE TWO OR MORE
>Under such views, all individuals within a certain culture, a community at a certain stage of technological development etc. would be subject to the same morals and the difference in what is moral would only exist between different societies which do not share the relevant characteristics.
if you do not have an objective ground to approach those various groups you've just identified, aberrations or out-group is not only encouraged, but is in fact indistinguishable from the in-group
in moral relativism, there is no "culture" because you cannot hold an objective definition of what the qualification of "culture" even is.
>Objective does not mean universal
no, it quite literally means so. An objective standard is one that is consistent and is not altered by circumstances, meaning UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE.
>If you want to know my opinion, I think relativism is incorrect simply because moral facts do not exist in any capacity.
and you conclude again with your nonsensical position, which I've already told you is dogshit, because you believe in value, whether intrinsic or relative does not matter in this case, because VALUE is a MORAL FACT.

>>17793028
>nigger, to have those you must recognize values and interests in the first place. Those are moral facts.
I value certain things. I do not believe there are some magical mind-independent values, or that oughts exist period.
When I say I value functioning sanitation, I am not saying we objectively ought to have functioning sanitation. I'm simply saying that I value it.
>if you do not have an objective ground to approach those various groups you've just identified, aberrations or out-group is not only encouraged
This is a problem of moral epistemology, not moral ontology, and therefore not an argument against relativism being true.
>no, it quite literally means so.
It does not. A moral relativist can say that it's objectively moral to do X in one society while it's objectively immoral to do it in Y society in the same way he may say country A objectively has a temperature spread or x-y°c while country B objectively has a temperature spread of y-z°c. You are using the terms differently than the way they are used among philosophers.
>and you conclude again with your nonsensical position, which I've already told you is dogshit, because you believe in value, whether intrinsic or relative does not matter in this case, because VALUE is a MORAL FACT.
Already debunked.

>>17792928
>in a moral world
Okay, but what about THIS world

>>17793044
>When I say I value functioning sanitation, I am not saying we objectively ought to have functioning sanitation. I'm simply saying that I value it.
You are conflating "ought to be" and "is". I do not tell you "value ought to be a moral fact", I am telling you it IS a moral fact, because you are contemplating it right now as a moral value, regardless of whether or not you use it or not as the basis of the moral theory. If it WASN'T a moral fact, the entire argument would be moot, since the preceding posts would be unintelligible babble (as the very idea of equating value with morality would be uncontemplateable).
>This is a problem of moral epistemology
it isn't, since it is nonexistent in anything but a relativist lense.
> A moral relativist can say that it's objectively moral to do X in one society while it's objectively immoral to do it in Y society in the same way he may say country A objectively has a temperature spread or x-y°c while country B objectively has a temperature spread of y-z°c. You are using the terms differently than the way they are used among philosophers.
I will break this down for you. No, I'm really not using it differently than those philosophers. Wanna know why? Because the second part of your statement here, concerning objectively declaring a country has a temperature of x STILL DEMAND AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD. The temperature scale DOES NOT change according to circumstances, IT ENCOMPASSES THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES; temperature not only is an absolutely unalterable scale, but can vary, for example, according to atmospheric pressure, but such a variety is taken into account in the calculus. A moral relativist inherently rejects such a view into their moral theory. Not only can they not admit to a universally applicable scale to begin with - like temperature - but they reject the inherent applicability of whatever incomplete scale they do have to any circumstances entering in relation with their system.

>>17791278
Hell is death, and you will suffer it for rebellion against God.

>>17793066
>You are conflating "ought to be" and "is". I do not tell you "value ought to be a moral fact"
Nor did I say you were, you have shitty reading comprehension. My point isn't that "value ought not be a moral fact". My point is that when I say I value something, I do not mean it objectively ought to be done. Those are two completely different things.
>it isn't, since it is nonexistent in anything but a relativist lense.
It is a problem of moral epistemology. You are raising the issue that the relativist may not be able to precisely define what exact criteria there are for outlining a culture or a stage of technological development etc., but this is no challenge for a metaethical position. Relativism could be true even if nobody is actually aware how to draw the lines or what is moral where and when precisely because such facts could be mind-independent. A mind-independent fact cannot be threatened by people's inability to know it.
>No, I'm really not using it differently than those philosophers.
Yes, you are. Philosophers take objective to mean mind-independent, not universal.
>Because the second part of your statement here, concerning objectively declaring a country has a temperature of x STILL DEMAND AN OBJECTIVE STANDARD.
But we're not talking about "declaring" anything. If objective relativism is true, the moral facts about different societies are true without anyone having to declare them or believe them.

>>17793103
>But we're not talking about "declaring" anything. If objective relativism is true, the moral facts about different societies are true without anyone having to declare them or believe them.
The claim that a moral standard exists is meaningless if it can neither be grounded nor expounded.

>>17793103
>Relativism could be true even if nobody is actually aware how to draw the lines or what is moral where and when precisely because such facts could be mind-independent.
This is arguing from presupposition thought. "You ought (and there's the prescriptive formula) to recognize the epistemologic problem because you might be wrong and it exists in another moral system" is completely irrelevant if I'm right, and if I'm wrong and I correct the discepancy in the descriptive of whatever gestalt I am describing, Im still back to my initial, objective position with no epistemologic problem.
You've essentially manufactured an issue that does not exist in an objective system.
>Philosophers take objective to mean mind-independent, not universal.
Any objective system would be operable in the absence of conscious agents and their replacement with Cartesian P-Zombies, hypothetically, yes.
>But we're not talking about "declaring" anything. If objective relativism is true, the moral facts about different societies are true without anyone having to declare them or believe them.
The moral facts ARE true, but the interpretation is false.
it's like you never met a moral objectivist before. Yes, for example we recognize the circumstances that led to Aztec society, for example, and the why they decided to adopt such a shitty religious and foreign relation moral model. We simply reject it as a false - evil - interpretation of the data by flawed humans with inferior understanding of ethics according to our objective moral standards - namely, human sacrifice is not only wasteful but prescribed against by God.

>>17793117
Nonsense. The meaning of the claim "a moral standard exists" is obviously that a moral standard exists.
If what you are trying to say that it doesn't have practical utility, that is irrelevant to whether it's true or not.

>>17793125
This is philosophical sophistry. Morality is the question of how we are to live our lives. The assertion there is a moral standard, without grounding or exposition, is like saying "there's an answer somewhere (might be unknowable), have faith!" It is intrinsically meaningless, and indistinguishable from its falsity. That is there is no difference between such a claim being true, and it being made up on the spot and thrown out on a whim. It has no substance and does not enable meaningful moral judgements.

>>17793122
>"You ought (and there's the prescriptive formula) to recognize the epistemologic problem because you might be wrong and it exists in another moral system"
I literally never said or implied any of this. I said that the problem that you're raising with regards to relativism is a problem of moral epistemology, not of moral ontology.
>The moral facts ARE true, but the interpretation is false.
We are not talking about specific moral facts, we are talking about metaethics.
>it's like you never met a moral objectivist before.
No, the problem is simply that you're not familiar with how philosophers use the term "objective". I am well aware that objectivist universalists believe there's one universal moral law (it's in the name). This does nothing to contradict the fact that objectivist relativists believe in objective moral laws which exist relative to some further fact(s).

>>17793136
It's a metaethical claim, not an ethical claim. The idea that things are only true if and only if you know them and can derive utilitarian use from them is complete nonsense.

>>17793143
>I said that the problem that you're raising with regards to relativism is a problem of moral epistemology, not of moral ontology.
and I am telling you that that problem simply isn't existent, hence why we've hit an impasse.
>We are not talking about specific moral facts, we are talking about metaethics.
I'm sorry, did I imagine someone arguing ITT for the absence of moral facts, the existence of which preclude the gestalt that is metaethics, or am I crazy?
>This does nothing to contradict the fact that objectivist relativists believe in objective moral laws which exist relative to some further fact(s).
according to what objective moral standard?
This is the question that keeps killing your type, because no option is satisfying and none that you raise solve the circumstantiality-universability dichotomy of relativistic objective morality

>>17793164
>and I am telling you that that problem simply isn't existent, hence why we've hit an impasse.
What? It's literally a problem that you yourself raised lmao. If you want to concede that you attempted to raise a problem that does not exist, we can move on.
>I'm sorry, did I imagine someone arguing ITT for the absence of moral facts, the existence of which preclude the gestalt that is metaethics, or am I crazy?
You're not crazy, you're just stupid. We talked about two different things here.
1)My own stance on ethics.
2)The stance of moral relativists.
On 2), I repeatedly told you that I disagree with relativists but think that your arguments against relativism suck. I can discuss metaphysics and why certain arguments fail the same way I can discuss theology and why certain theological arguments fail even though I don't believe in god.
>according to what objective moral standard?
That depends on some further facts. The relativist would likely claim that there are different objective moral standards depending on some further fact. As long as that further fact is mind-independent, the relativist's proposal would remain in the realm of the objective.

>>17793184
>metaphysics
*metaethics

>>17793148
>It's a metaethical claim, not an ethical claim
Distinction without a difference
>The idea that things are only true if and only if you know them and can derive utilitarian use from them is complete nonsense.
It's also a complete strawman. I repeat we are talking about *morality*. The ability of making moral judgments is the defining property of a moral standard. If I say you ought not kill, I am applying a moral standard. If I can't tell you what my moral standard is or why it is correct I have no moral standard, there is absolutely no difference from not having one. I do not argue from ignorance about an abstraction, but from its non-existence. I am saying that externally and objectively there is no difference between an ungroundable and inexpressible moral standard and no moral standard. I must correct a mistake my friend here made, for as the very objects of moral law are moral agents it is untrue even of an objective and universal moral law that it would be applicable in a world without moral agents, for it would have nothing to which it is applicable. It may be true that I ought not kill, but if neither I nor anything killable exists, it is not a meaningful statement. Likewise the same principle refutes you, for rather than there being no moral agents to which it can be applied, you propose a so-called "standard" which is non-applicable to moral agents.

>>17793184
>What? It's literally a problem that you yourself raised lmao.
I've told tyou that an objective moral agent could tell you what culture, race, people, language and other groups are with objective descriptors based on objective standards that are not at odds with their objective moral standards. You've told me that objective relativist can too, but then I've told you that unless you can provide an adequate objective standard then they really can't, you told me that's an epistemologic problem. How is that my fault for pointing out your moral system's flaw? lmao
>1)My own stance on ethics.
which depended on the inexistence of moral facts?
>2)The stance of moral relativists.
Which I already told you, don't hold the road
>On 2), I repeatedly told you that I disagree with relativists but think that your arguments against relativism suck.
and yet you can't argue for shit. You told relativist can use objective standards, but when I ask for those, you tell me "well, that depends on the circumstances", which is exactly my point, that no, actually, objective statements encompasses circumstances and that such a statement is meaningless.

>>17793188
>Distinction without a difference
Nope.
>I repeat we are talking about *morality*. The ability of making moral judgments is the defining property of a moral standard.
The defining property of a moral standard is that you ought or ought not do something. This can be the case even if you don't know it.
Didn't read the rest.
>>17793198
>I've told tyou that an objective moral agent could tell you what culture, race, people, language and other groups are with objective descriptors based on objective standards that are not at odds with their objective moral standards. You've told me that objective relativist can too
This never happened. If you think it did, directly quote me.
>which depended on the inexistence of moral facts?
Yes, and?
>You told relativist can use objective standards
I never said this. I said that relativists may hold that the proposition "there are objective standards" is true and that the proposition "moral standards are relative to some further fact(s)" is simultaneously also true.
>you tell me "well, that depends on the circumstances", which is exactly my point, that no, actually, objective statements encompasses circumstances and that such a statement is meaningless.
Given that objective simply means mind-independent, you're obviously wrong.

>>17793210
>This can be the case even if you don't know it
Only when other entities exist to tell you. Without them you're SOL

>>17793221
You being shit outta luck has no bearing on the truth value of the proposition.

>>17793210
>Nope.
Yes.
>The defining property of a moral standard is that you ought or ought not do something.
Which is a moral judgement.
>This can be the case even if you don't know it.
>Didn't read the rest.
I accept your concession.

>>17793226
If reality has no bearing on the truth, it's not really the truth is it?

>>17793226
There is no proposition in this case.

>>17793210
>This never happened.
>(you)For instance, some may believe that morality is relative to culture, others may believe morality is relative to technological development etc. Under such views, all individuals within a certain culture, a community at a certain stage of technological development etc. would be subject to the same morals and the difference in what is moral would only exist between different societies which do not share the relevant characteristics. (relativistic position)
>(me)if you do not have an objective ground to approach those various groups you've just identified, aberrations or out-group is not only encouraged, but is in fact indistinguishable from the in-group (objectivist position)
>(me) in moral relativism, there is no "culture" because you cannot hold an objective definition of what the qualification of "culture" even is. (relativistic position)
>(you) This is a problem of moral epistemology, not moral ontology, and therefore not an argument against relativism being true.
you are a fucking liar
>Yes, and?
and why the fuck do you keep trying to make a distinction between ethics and metaethics when you don't even consider as existent the composants of the gestalt of metaethics?
> I said that relativists may hold that the proposition "there are objective standards" is true and that the proposition "moral standards are relative to some further fact(s)" is simultaneously also true.
that's a circular argument, because any relative fact is going to related to another relative fact instead of encompassing it like an objective standard does. It doesn't hold up in universality.
>Given that objective simply means mind-independent, you're obviously wrong.
I don't think you know what mind-independant means as well as you think you do.
Say that tomorrow all humans are replaced with Cartesian P-Zombies, would temperature, for a hypothetical observer that is virtually non-existent to the P-Zombies, still operate like we do in a conscious society?

>>17793230
>Yes.
Nope.
>Which is a moral judgement.
It would be a moral fact first, possibly (but not necessarily) moral judgement second.
>I accept your concession.
Cool, now go back to spamming diaper fetish edits of Vegeta on /a/.
>>17793231
>If reality has no bearing on the truth
I literally said the opposite. Planet A has mass X regardless of whether you believe, know, can know or can practically utilize this fact.
>>17793232
The proposition in question is "there are mind-independent moral facts that depend on some further fact(s)".

>>17793239
Planet A is theoretically out there. You can build a star cruiser and go there. God and his truth are much more precious than that. You won't be getting anywhere near them.

>>17793239
>Nope.
Yes.
>It would be a moral fact first, possibly (but not necessarily) moral judgement second.
This is another distinction without a difference because the only difference between those is the latter is the expression of the former. You are an incredibly sophistical idiot.
>Cool, now go back to spamming diaper fetish edits of Vegeta on /a/.
You're projecting your own degenerate atheist activities
>The proposition in question is "there are mind-independent moral facts that depend on some further fact(s)".
No, the proposition would be "you ought not X", but actually isn't for reasons I explained that were too difficult for you to understand because it was above a kindergarten reading level.

>>17792782
If I threaten you directly that is initiating force by coercion, it's one of the three kinds. The others being straight up violence or using deception. Those are bypassing your mind to make you a means to their end. That is immoral.

>>17792831
You shouldn't because it costs you your self-esteem. You are either implicitly admitting you aren't trustworthy by not asking me for help or admitting you cannot subsist without theft. Theft is initiating force by deception.

>>17793256
right so government telling me not to say nigger is a violation of the NAP and I can ambush the next federal employee I see. Is that what you're saying?

>>17793238
>you are a fucking liar
What kind of ESL crap is this? I literally never said relativist have an objective standard for determining what culture, race, people, language and other groups are with objective descriptors based on objective standards.
>and why the fuck do you keep trying to make a distinction between ethics and metaethics when you don't even consider as existent the composants of the gestalt of metaethics?
Brought to you by the creators of "but I did eat breakfast this morning!". I can also distinguish between demonology and angelology even though I think neither angels nor demons exist, you glorious retard.
>that's a circular argument, because any relative fact is going to related to another relative fact instead of encompassing it like an objective standard does.
Easily disproven by a simple example.
There's a platonic object instantiating daytime and the moral law that we ought to eat fish, and another platonic object instantiating nighttime and the moral law that we ought not eat fish. Therefore we ought to eat fish in daytime and ought not eat them at night.
Q.E.D.
>b-but that's bullshit!
This response won't work on me because I think all "oughts" are bullshit.
>I don't think you know what mind-independant means as well as you think you do.
Funnily enough, it's you who does not understand it. It's a MODAL fact we're talking about - i.e. in the modal sense, propositions about agents may be true even in possible worlds where no agents exist, and such propositions will be mind-independent even if they're about agents with minds.
Anyway I'm going to a concert, enjoy being wrong.
>>17793242
Low IQ response that misses the point of the hypothetical as well as the fact that you can easily change its parameters such that your response won't fit anyway.

>>17793278
>enjoy being wrong.

>>17793266
Ideally the government cannot arrest you for what you say, so you defending yourself is justifiable albeit you worded it very agressively. Unfortunately a lot of post modernists say that words equal violence nowadays which just isn't the case. Words are merely an agreed upon form of expressing the self.

>>17793278
>you can easily change its parameters such that your response won't fit anyway
That would require abstraction which you don't seem to do. What do you call something that exists in the world, but you can't touch it with your hand? Would morality be something like that?

>>17793253
>Yes.
Nope
>This is another distinction without a difference because the only difference between those is the latter is the expression of the former. You are an incredibly sophistical idiot.
Christian intellectual heavyweight William Lane Craig (as well as the entire field of academic philosophy) agrees with me, lol.
>You're projecting your own degenerate atheist activities
No, I'm simply pointing out that you're using a meme created by people spamming abdl fetish edits of Vegeta on /a/.
>No, the proposition would be "you ought not X"
False. We are talking about metaethics, diaperboy.

The best part is Sam Harris said he didn't care if the Biden's were raping kids because Trump bad. That's religious TDS.

Nice morality you have there.

>>17793285
As long as government provides for an outlet where people can form and express thoughts, I don't mind censorship of various spaces by choice of their central figures. It's a new dilemma of modernity though.

It's another situation where big overarching principles and absolutism don't apply, I think.

>>17793289
>That would require abstraction which you don't seem to do.
Not even, you can simply change the descriptor of the planet to one that has passed past our observable universe.
If you say "but we could still get there by magic", the proponent of objective moral relativism can simply say that we could know the specific moral oughts by magic.
#rekt

>>17793302
Something in the past leaves a wake behind it. That doesn't count at all. It has to be something that never existed physically, like love.

>>17793294
>Nope
Yes.
>Christian intellectual heavyweight William Lane Craig
Lol
>agrees with me
I doubt that, particularly because you're too stupid to comprehend what the topic of conversation is.
>I'm simply pointing out that you're using a meme created by people spamming abdl fetish edits of Vegeta on /a/.
I started saying this, independently, 10 years ago.
>False
No, it isn't. I accept your concession.

>>17793309
You cannot interface with things beyond the observable universe in any way, that's what "observable universe" refers to. They are completely causally disconnected from us.
>>17793311
>Yes.
Nope.
>I doubt that
He literally uses the moral ontology/epistemology distinction almost every times he talks about ethics lol.
>I started saying this, independently, 10 years ago.
Sure you did, diaperboy.
>No, it isn't.
If you think it isn't, you're not really talking with me but rather with some voices inside your head.
>I accept your concession.
You forgot to attach the Vegeta picture.

>>17793300
I think public spaces are public forums, while people can still trespass you from their property (house/company office/whatever) so the free market of ideas would create the culture, consent and compromise is key. Not initiating force. Ideally there would be no public property tho. Worst managed property in every country.

>>17793300
Thanks for the open discussion btw.

>>17790889 (OP)
morality is an invention of the world dragon to enforce compliance in his design

>>17793327
>Nope.
Yes.
>He literally uses the moral ontology/epistemology distinction almost every times he talks about ethics lol.
That's irrelevant.
>If you think it isn't, you're not really talking with me but rather with some voices inside your head
Why are you still here, clown? I thought you had a Miley Cyrus concert, did your boyfriend not arrive yet?
>You forgot to attach the Vegeta picture.
You're still talking about your porn folder.

>>17793327
but the example of a dead planet or person mattering doesn't work because those things are causally linked to the present. It's not abstract thought yet, you're still in the mesolithic
>>17793331
youtube and 4chan and cloudflare can just trespass you now. Why should they allow a free market of culture and where does public property come in?

>>17793278
>I literally never said relativist have an objective standard for determining what culture, race, people, language and other groups are with objective descriptors based on objective standards.
Really want me to spoonfeed you your own fucking argument?
>Different relativists cash out their relativism differently. For instance, some may believe that morality is relative to culture, others may believe morality is relative to technological development etc. Under such views, all individuals within a certain culture, a community at a certain stage of technological development etc. would be subject to the same morals and the difference in what is moral would only exist between different societies which do not share the relevant characteristics.
nigga, that's literally just one sentence away
>I can also distinguish between demonology and angelology even though I think neither angels nor demons exist, you glorious retard.
First of all, the contemplateable existence of the both of them is not the same as the sensual existence. Second of all, you can differentiate between the two existences because you have a standard of differentiation, which you constantly have to point out you reject since you admittedly don't believe in moral facts.
>There's a platonic object instantiating daytime and the moral law that we ought to eat fish, and another platonic object instantiating nighttime and the moral law that we ought not eat fish.
>Therefore we ought to eat fish in daytime and ought not eat them at night.
You didn't prove shit. The argument is still reliant on a platonic form : an Absolute. That's like saying you're a relativist and then appealing to God as a source for your morality. Newsflash: if you rely on an absolute existence, it's no longer relative, it's absolute and objective

>>17793343
Those platforms are private property, that's exactly the point. You can say anything on your property and trespass others from your property for what they say. Public property should not exist, it is maintained by the forceful taking of taxes, which is the government initiating force by coercion and violence if necessary.

>>17793355
One caveat, public property can exist at the consent of the governed, by donation or otherwise service or product agreed upon.

>>17793355
What's the difference between government and a private entity that just happens to own everything

>>17793363
The government does not produce, it deals merely in force. Historically this means it engineers society this way. It merely takes or redistributes. A company has to produce direct value for its costumers to stay solvent. It deals in persuasion and trading and grows rich by serving many customers by making their lives better. In this age, the lobby system makes it so companies can use the monopoly on force provided by the government in order to protect themselves (copyright law, entry regulations to certain industries) which produces monopolies as you described. Ideally they would not be able to monopolize due to having to compete without the lobby and bailouts and all that corporate socialism. Divorce the economy and state so to speak, just as we divorced the church and state which has done wonders for technological progress for instance.

>>17793372
If that's the only difference, why didn't private government take over long ago? Efficacy is better than individual strength as WW2 showed

>>17793439
Because the prevailing moral ideal on earth today is altruism, the notion that you are a better person the more you sacrifice for others while gaining nothing in return. Our superhero is Jesus Christ dying on the cross for something he didn't do. We all see humans as filthy selfish greedy goblins that can only be set straight by force. We refuse to commend Bill Gates for making so that millions of wheelchairbound people can have a job and a life because he became rich too while we venerate those that die for a vague moral statement that doesn't actually feed anyone like that guy who set himself on fire for palestine. That combined with democracy means we vote to chain ourselves to each other with regulations for the most victimless shit like one big home owner association. This collectivism makes it so honest businessmen are villified while those who enrich themselves with the public treasury (taken by force or by "campaign donations") are seen as heroes of socialist policy.

tl;dr we are deathly afraid of being seen as selfish while refusing to recognize that rational selfishness (while still respecting the same freedom in others) makes the world a better place.

>>17793439
because it needs to maintain a façade of fairness
Nobody wants to be ruled by the corporate person of Pepsico or Pfizer - they don,t think it's fair to them - but put a person you've never heard of before on a balot which conscpicuously was VPDG of the American branch of Pfizer and suddenly it's totally fine to the braindead voters.

>>17793450
That happened because it's vastly more efficient to treat others as friends than potential foes.
>>17793452
It's no less fair than a king. populism is not necessary

>>17793458
True, but we actually treat each other as potential foes by increasing the legislative bloat because we don't trust each other not to initialize force.

>>17793458
populism isn't necessary, but it is convenient for corporate interest as long as the status quo remains undisturbed, which is why every and each one of their lobbied parties are the most milquetoast platforms imaginable.

>>17793469
people don't trust corporations to respect them because a huge corporation has different incentives and priorities that may seemingly outweigh one man's rights. The same reason you don't trust government. I don't see how legislative bloat has anything to do with trusting each other as individuals.

>>17793470
that's what we have today, government and corporations in bed together, conspiring to provide goods and services to the people.

>>17793474
Legislative bloat increases the amount of things you CAN'T do abovw what is necessary (banning the initiation of force via violence/deception/coercion). Every law above that is a freedom lost. Ergo, you treat your fellow countrymen as potential foes by restricting their freedom to ease your fears.

>>17793480
The alternative to that would be accepting Christ, not remove all restrictions AND abolish christian ethics.

>>17793483
Accepting christ would be to hold a man treated as a sacrificial animal as my moral ideal, that is not conducive to my personal flourishing/eudaimonia.

>>17793485
All the might makes right gods got brutally snuffed by him though. Maybe there's more than just surface level aesthetics at play. You sound like a bot tbph

>>17793486
>Maybe there's more than just surface level aesthetics at play.
Only this part is correct, altruism is a deeply philosophical issue, not an aesthetics one. Might makes right is also initiation of force via violence, which I've already concluded is evil in this thread.

>>17793512
what's philosophical about liking Thor more than Jesus because Thor has a signature weapon and a better death? Shallow aesthetic.
>Might makes right is also initiation of force via violence, which I've already concluded is evil in this thread.
It isn't. In many situations violence is unavoidable.

>>17793518
Violence in self defense is unavoidable sometimes but that is the reciprocation of force, not the initiation of it. Your life is your property, you should be allowed to defend it.

>>17793518
>In many situations violence is unavoidable.
the statistical or contextual inevitability of violence does not excuse nor expunge its evil quality. That's like saying that because thievery or rape will happen, it is morally acceptable.

>>17793528
All violence is reciprocal, otherwise I wouldn't be able to reach you. Don't impede my freedom of rule.

>>17793531
It's not evil, it's right. What's right for people is morally correct.

>>17793534
>everyone is guilty all the time!
Excellent example of someone who does not deem man a heroic being deserving of happiness and doesn't want him to thrive.

>>17793539
Not really. Violence isn't inherently wrong. Your fantasy world is softer than baby shit

>>17793536
>>17793541
Violence is a tool that is invariably used to hurt or diminish others. It's evil by definition because in an ideal world, even one still ravaged by the needs of the flesh, violence could always be avoided and all problems could be solved peacefully.
Violence is inherently evil because it a superfluous solution. Sometimes you must use it in order to defend yourself or save others from death, but it is by all metrics a destructive and unproductive tool.

>>17793555
True, cooperation and mutual benefit opened the world to a new age of prosperity.

>>17793555
>even one still ravaged by the needs of the flesh
specifically one ravaged by needs
violence isn't wrong in a world without pain. The whole moral judgment was established in a world where it exists.

>>17793561
>violence isn't wrong in a world without pain.
violence is wrong then too, because of Death. Violence carries the explicit risk of death for the two or more interacting parties. I've said it in my previous post, violence is UNPRODUCTIVE, making it flawed by default. There is no "Perfect Violence" exactly because "Perfect Violence" always operate at a loss.

>>17793555
This is crazy. Men of any generation before now would be horrified by the attack on their freedom to hunt and be rowdy. To see God's commandment extended to fleas and rats in the name of freedom, it boggles the mind. Not to mention your ideal world would've never been born, it would be like so many others floating out there.

>>17793570
what's wrong with death in an ideal world? there's probably something even better afterwards

>>17793572
>Sometimes you must use it in order to defend yourself
swap it with "preserve yourself", then. In that context, I miswrote. The spirit of the statement is still intact, though. Hunting for food or for clothes to prevent yourself from dying of hypothermia is very different of hunting for sport.

>>17790889 (OP)
I don't see what the problem is here. Vast majority of people are universalists in that sense. They can justify it anyway they want or not do so at all, morals aren't anymore real either way.

>>17793582
Waiting until everything dies of natural causes to consume it is just so much less efficient, I see why predation became so much more commonplace early in biological history. Speaking of which, how advanced does something have to be before it's violence? Is consumption of plants violent, or does there have to be blood and fur?

>>17793593
>Is consumption of plants violent?
Are you inflicting fatal or debilitating injury to a living being? Then yes. But again, violence becomes a necessity to preserve yourself almost unilaterally.
Plus there's also the line in Genesis (1:28-29) where God cuts us a blank check to eat plant life morally - notice also that Man didn't have to eat anything fleshy until he was tossed out of the Garden of Eden, uh - but I know philosophers aren't exactly keen on the divine argument.

>>17793618
Putting aside God's record on violence -- at what point does it become not just a regrettable necessity, but good? I like certain plants and animals too, when eaten. "Good" things happen in my belly

>>17790889 (OP)
Of course. Good people don't need some guide of conduct from desert people lol

>>17793632
>I like certain plants and animals too, when eaten. "Good" things happen in my belly
just because violence leads to a good thing does not expunge the evil of the violent act, I've already written this before ITT. That's like saying the violence of the American Civil War was morally good because it led to the abolition of slavery in the U.S. It wasn't, it was still violence: the outcome was good, and it undoubtedly saved some lives, but it was an utter waste of a generation of men in ameatgrinder nonetheless. By comparison, Britain outlawed slavery in their empire and did all it could to prevent such violence from arising. They arrived at the same outcome nonviolently.
>inb4 different circumstances
Again, I'm not saying violence was avoidable or unjustifiable, I'm saying it wasn't a GOOD thing that it needed to happen.

>>17793655
The ACW was morally right because it was undertaken by two nations of their own great will. Objectives were set and rarely exceeded, even where individual rights were subsumed by the draft a true malcontent could usually escape death. The mass of men were fighting for their nation. Whether the manner of their sacrifice was more or less honorable depends more on the style of the era than sweeping moral judgment, as opposed to excesses and war crimes which stand out for their dishonor.

but I digress...

If you had a world with none of that sin and feud, you'd have Venus. nothing but a cauldron of raw organic matter

>>17793655
>>17793680
So I guess the question is, can something completely necessary and fundamental to our existence be "evil" and if it is, what does that mean for good?

>>17793680
>The ACW was morally right because it was undertaken by two nations of their own great will.
you're ascribing to gestalts not only wills but good qualities obtained by violence when they themselves cannot suffer the effects of the violence their constituents experienced (pain and death) as unthinking corporate persons.
It's one of the most retarded things I've ever read, to be quite honest

>>17793730
>they themselves cannot suffer the effects
one of them ceased to exist, and there was a lot of death involved. It's pretty rich to talk about dumb arguments when the entire essence of your argument is to play dumb and autistic, taking no responsibility for anything, asking others to explain the world to you.

>>17793763
>one of them ceased to exist
that is A) a different thing from death, and B) unlike a man, a state can be revived in the right conditions
again, a corporate person is not a human being - it' s not even a living being - and operates under different caracteristics than human beings, one of them being that you cannot inflict violence on the corporate person.

>>17790889 (OP)
who are these four idiots?

>>17793794
Very mean men who traumatized E-christians for life by calling them poo poo heads.

>>17793256
I don't care about your permission, I just want to eat your food
Why shouldn't I steal it?

>it costs you your self-esteem
???
So what!
I don't care about this nonsense. I don't care if I'm "initiating force" either

>>17793790
We were talking about nations, not states. A nation is a body of people. The war happened because people were allowed to resolve the great question of their time with violence. Many will say it's better to have a world where that's not allowed, but I would argue something is lost for everything you gain. It was a freer world.

>>17793820
*shoots you in the face* the world is now a better place yay :)

>>17793872
I accept your concession.
People defending the nonsense that is "objective morality" are never able to defend their positions when pressed
Throw your toys and exit the conversation

>>17793872
>>17794020
Look the deal about objective morality, is that what I *should* do, the moral thing. Is supposed to be true regardless of my personal values, goals and desires.

What you need to tell me, is why I shouldn't steal your food, without appealing to my subjective values.
Which of course you cannot do, because it's a silly nonsense position

>>17794029
If you steal from me, I'll kill you. If you don't, you'll be fine but you won't have the thing you want. Even if you stole from me and I didn't kill you or set the cops on you, you wouldn't be any richer for having it, most of the time theft involves worthless baubles.

>>17794042
You see how telling me that the consequence of stealing is getting shot is appealing to my subjective desire to not get be shot at, right? I wanted to pre-empt this line of thinking when I asserted that I was confident that I would get away with it
I think consequences plays a huge part in human behavior. I just don't think it has anything to do to with morality being objective or not

You're right that I wouldn't be richer from stealing your food. But that's not why I'm stealing it.
I steal it because I want to (maybe I got further reasons, like hunger. But that's besides the point)

If you remove all other subjective values, like my desire to no be viewed as a thief, my desire to avoid punishment, etc. I don't think you can provide me with reasons as to why I shouldn't steal. It wouldn't make sense.


This whole NAP take on morality... What is even objective about it? (except the name Ayn Rand chose for her position). It appeals to our shared values, sure. Shared SUBJECTIVE values.
It only makes sense because we both care about the same things, like freedom and human wellbeing, but those are all subjective values that humans hold.

>>17794081
>If you steal from me you die
>As a living being you are hardwired to not want to die
That's as objective as it gets, dipshit.

>>17794081
What is objective about it is that the reason that humans survive and thrive on earth being their mind is undeniable if you ignore mysticism. To then turn around and deny the mind of others is to treat them as less than human.

>>17794281
oh yeah? what about when you're under anesthesia?

>>17794194
you're not "hardwired" life is just an incredible gift and being close to death feels like shit thereby. Not something I expect your worldview can cope with

>>17794306
Doctors ask your loved ones for consent, most often a parent or spouse who you trust. In case there's no time you can sign and carry a DNR card if you do not consent to livesaving surgery. Consent is given before surgery if planned beforehand and can be rescinded until anasthesia is applied. In the case of a serial killer injecting you with ketamine to kidnap you your consent is bypassed, making the act of injecting and kidnapping you evil.

>>17794341
so you're morally dead while you're out?

>>17794354
If you know beforehand you're going under, you have the responsibility of making your wishes known because you understand the physical consequences of being under anesthesia. If you cannot because of an emergency that is a widely debated matter, I personally believe talking it over with your parent or spouse is important so they know how to act when it happens. You are not capable of giving consent but planning for the future is how man thrives, it would be good for you to account for this possibility.

>>17794359
All those forms and consent don't undo the inherent evil of killing your mind.

>>17794311
>you're not "hardwired" life is just an incredible gift
It's also the most deep seated psychological impulse. It's why men ejaculate when hung and why drowning victims drown their rescuers in panic
>being close to death feels like shit thereby.
When I broke my collarbone and suffered a massive concussion I was laughing and having the time of my life as they wheeled me in. Adrenaline shock is the best drug ever.
>Not something I expect your worldview can cope
It's easily accommodated and your gay little worldview crumbles in relation to basic science

>>17794360
It is your mind, it is yours to give up for whatever you choose. Temporarily giving up your own freedom to fix a life-threatening issue is something a lot of people would agree to. That is their own choice, as well as when someone doesn't want it. The hospital will perform the surgery if you wish, but will not force you.

>>17790889 (OP)
I think its easy to interpret what is good and what is bad, what needs to change is what that means and how you go about it. Instead of categorical improvements while ignoring the nuance, we need careful accounting of what our lives are and how we are and how to make ourselves better. Pay attention to the detail more than the grand and reality will thank you for it, its not that difficult to enjoy life, but enjoying it without full understanding is just enjoying part of what others and nature and reality do for you

>>17794363
total nonsense. Dumb LLM
>>17794366
I don't see where free will enters in at all, it has nothing to do with survival

>>17794383
Surgery is a lifesaving act, it is absolutely about survival.

>>17794383
>No rebuttal
I accept your concession

>>17794404
that's not what makes it ok to go under of your own free will. freedom is a separate virtue from survival

>>17794406
how can you rebut what is not there? I see no argument. I see no person.

>>17794416
I raped your arguments and I raped you. I fuck your mother, I fuck your daughter, I fucked your father, and I FUCKED YOUR SON

>>17794415
Your previous consent does, you can make choices that effect your own future, that's where the entirety of contract law comes from.

>>17794419
Not an argument.
>>17794421
if previous consent matters, then nations have collective will. Consequences can't be imposed on your past self.

>>17794430
Concession remains. Toodles

>>17794430
If you actively vote, yes you are complicit in your own submission. If you don't, your freedom is being waltzed over by threat of imprisonment. Previous consent matters, but can also be revoked (not after the fact, but between the giving of consent and the until-then consented to act if it hasn't occurred yet).

>>17794442
I think you mean if you're born, because people have collective responsibility and collective will through their lineage. and don't forget to ask your co-deciders before making any consent decisions.

>>17794479
People are ultimately individuals, and collectivizing them based on force does not serve anyone but the forcer. To reason using your mind is an individual activity. If I eat you are still hungry, if you think I am still ignorant. We do not have a communal mind any more than a communal stomach.

>>17794549
Cooperation is a beautiful thing exactly because it is reciprocated voluntarily. In the case of force it is immoral.

>>17794549
Human survival and every single human accomplishment has collective effort to thank. The very language you communicate with and every bit of knowledge you have ever gained are the result of collective effort.

>>17790889 (OP)
>listen to these talking head instead of God
why? have any of these talking heads ever died for me?

>>17794549
oh yeah? How much farming did you do this week?

>>17790889 (OP)
>t turns out you can indeed have objective morality without God
I don't think you can.
And I think the "New Atheists" proved it

>>17794554
Yes, and the flourished most when reciprocated voluntarily in free markets. Wealth has exploded the moment individual freedom in the market became more respected. Technology increased immensely after people could use it to better their own lives instead of having to have a priest sanction your research only to have your invention banned or stolen by the local lord. Cooperation by force lags behind, we've all seen the pictures of north and south korea at night.

>>17794560
I create value of which I trade a surplus to pay the farmer. The farmer wants my dollar more than his cabbage, and I want the cabbage more than my dollar. We both benefit because of rational selfishness, cooperation based on mutual consent.

>>17794566
However, when the farmer (in China) decides to poison the collective stomach you consented to, he's protected by a public entity. Only you the libertarian are on your own.

>>17794194
Human beings highly valuing their own life is entirely compatible with it being a subjective value
It's made true by my SUBJECTIVE desire to stay alive.
As you say, "want to not die". Who's want are we talking about here? Humans. It's an entirely subjective value.

Objective in this conversation would mean that it's made true by something else that human values, goals or desires
Spooky nonsense like platonic forms of the good and moral, or a God that have undercooked conceptual properties where they just somehow makes it true what I *should* do, even if I don't care about it.
I don't think you're gonna go that route, but you've yet to provide me with an explanation for why I shouldn't steal, that doesn't bottom out in human subjectivity

>>17794281
I agree, it's OBJECTIVLY true that my morality is grounded in my SUBJECTIVE values

>>17790889 (OP)
I believe that if an objective standard of morality truly existed it would behave much like Gravity or Thermodynamics. Furthermore, it would be observed at work in the world, not given, not constructed, and it definitely could not be reformed.

>>17794811
It's all 'wheels in the head', as Stirner put it once.

>>17794281
Actually no. Fuck this waffling.
This all still hinges on me subjectively wanting to treat humans well.

Suppose I'm selfish, and value myself more than others (wild, right?). Then it would no longer be true that I *should* treat people in the way you prescribe.
I would be making a mistake by not imposing my will on others, if I stand to gain from it. By not doing this, I would be acting in a way that fails to realize my goals and desires, which is by definition, irrational.

>>17792986
Other way around.

Protestantism is god without morality, since salvation by faith alone automatically lends itself to antinomian tendencies (regardless of protestations to the contrary).

>>17794821
You are denying the human mind for an image drilled into you by religions and communists (man is born a dirty selfish goblin and only the almighty religious/workers party collective can raise him to standard). This leaves you cynical in dealing with your fellow man (I need to get away with theft and violence etc because I can't live the life I want otherwise). No waffling, just philosophical beliefs and the results they bring to how you think and act.

>>17794659
Ideally he wouldn't because that's initiating force by deception and also violence. Protecting him is not an objectivist thing to do.

>>17795266
From a business standpoint killing your customers (who are the reason you can feed your kids) is not a profitable thing to do as well.

>>17795263

You've yet to tell me why I shouldn't steal, beyond appealing to your subjective values, and hoping I share them
Which is totally understandable, because morality is subjective. And objective morality is dumb nonsense. - I don't expect you point at some mind independent fact that compels me to act how you'd want me to

>>17795333
What is subjective about them? You keep calling them subjective even though I brought it all the way back to human evolution. How much further do I need to go before you concede objectivity?

>>17795339
Yes, you can tell an evolutionary story about why humans have the subjective values they do. I don't disagree.
You've not provided me with a reason not to steal, that is independent of human subjective goals and values. You've just repeatedly told me that you think I'm evil if I have other values than yours.

I think you just need to stop calling your view "objective", it is not. The only thing that word is doing, is emphasizing that you really (subjectivley) care about this stuff.

>>17795396
It's not subjective, man's mind IS his primary reason of survival and to deny the mind of someone is to behave inhumane/treat someome inhumanely. It is cutting the wings off of a bird

>>17795266
That's where having an entity that respects your bona fides comes in handy. He gets protected because he's a citizen, you don't because you aren't. If you have a problem with that, adopt an ideology where someone has your back.

>>17795416
what if the bird's dad consents to getting his wings cut off?

>>17795468
That's circumcision, a barbaric practice by scary sandpeople

>>17795473
It's a father's natural right to make decisions for his offspring. Mouth off again and you get fed to hyenas, morally of course

>>17795475
t. misanthrope

>>17795479
tell me how you decided to be born

>>17790889 (OP)
>Gaytheist retards think god is a magic man in the sky
This is why gaytheist communists are a cancer.

>>17795516
Many Christards think that too. Gaytheist stupidity is a reaction to Christard stupidity.

>>17795516
Very dark passage. Dread and woe. Especially this part: "What the world wants is character. The world is in need of those whose life is one burning love, selfless." He speaks as the dried up, perverted avatar of a world which lacks those qualities, which anticipates no change, but will gladly suck youth away from the young. The villains 'misery' and 'superstition' are cynical cutouts. Who pities? Who preaches? Who accepts the sacrifice? I think a more loving, wiser statement would be "asian thought is inferior!" What is this intellectual separation between guru and student? They must do as we do. Respect elders for their divinity rather than some non-existent access to the truth.

>>17795516
>ok boss, I'm ready to run this shit!
>gosh there are a lot of you. uhhhhhh do the great war
poignant sacrifice

>>17795416
>to deny the mind of someone is to behave inhumane/treat someome inhumanely.
To say I SHOULDN'T do this. This is a completely subjective value. (even if I agree)

Suppose I didn't care about other people's freedom. That I just wanted to earn as much money as possible, even if it exploit the freedom of others.
You can say that you subjectively disapprove of my behavior, of course.
But it would make no sense to say I shouldn't do it, exploit others, if those are my goals and values. I would just be like: "I don't care. I want to earn money."

Different people want different things, and people SHOULD act in a way that achieves their goals and desires.
I don't understand why you loath to admit this

>>17795516
God is a man with holes in his hands

>>17790969
Yeah, so, they didn't because of their atheism. You should see if you can find quotes that actually support your point.

>>17794561

Contrary to what a lot of people think. New atheists are not moral relativists. They're moral absolutists. They believe their morality is THE morality. They believe their rights are THE rights. Trans rights are human rights. And we need a Global government enforce this. This is a non-negotiable self-evident universal moral fact. Nobody is exempt from this, not even the North Sentinel Islanders.

>>17790889 (OP)
does anyone else think daniel dennet never really fit in with this guys. he always seemed like a dunce. what major contribution did he even make to the atheist movement?

>>17796212
Do you think it's some kind of mistake to care about your own values, instead of other people's values?

>>17795516
>>17795571
Anglo ""enemy of mankind"":
>but that the dread of something after death
>the undiscovered country, from whose bourn,
>no traveler returns, puzzles the will,
>and makes us rather bear those ills we have
>than fly to others that we know not of
>thus conscience does make cowards of us all

>and the native hue of resolution
>is sicklied o'er with the pale cast of thought
>and enterprises of great pith and moment,
>with this regard their currents turn awry
>and lose the name of action

Eastern ""enlightened guru""
>put your whole heart and the fries in the bag, little bro
>maybe one day you can know nothing like me

>>17796183
You ignored the image, bravo.

>>17790889 (OP)

Most "atheism" isn't atheism. All they did was replace the old gods (Jesus, Krishna, Zeus, etc) with shit like George Floyd, Harvey Milk, and Trayvon Martin.

>>17796776
You seriously gonna keep telling yourself bullshit like this?
Where do you get these talking points..

>>17790889 (OP)
They promised a more rational society without Christianity. Look how that has turn out in the UK

>>17795192
>Having faith means lacking morality

>>17796869
Probably observation of the atheist movement

>>17797924
REAL atheists WOSHIP George Floyd

>>17797924
So disingenuous. I take a walk outside, and look who is hoisting the gay flags? It's the churches.

>>17790966
What the fuck are you talking about nigger morality being objective has nothing to do with whether or not you'll face consequences for it, its about whether or not its inherent to the universe or exists solely in the mind. For fucks sake you fit into your own first sentence.

>>17791399
well thats really pathetic

>>17792620
>consents to enslavement
what now?

>>17792831
because you're not entitled to it

>>17797972
What's so egregious about it?

>>17795192
https://invidious.nerdvpn.de/watch?v=lTimwo5oza8

>>17797976
I'm asking why *I* shouldn't do it. So I would need a reason that is applicable to ME.

You disapproving, telling me that I'm not "entitled". I don't care.
This stuff supposed to be [objective], you need to be able to provide me with an [objective] reason I shouldn't steal, that doesn't hinge on me subjectively caring about the reason.
Else it all down to people's subjective whims! (oOOOoooo, scary)

>>17797987
Its prescriptive not descriptive. What you care about doesn't change whether or not its objective.

>>17797969
That's exactly what I said though. The discussion attracts far to many people who think it's about consequences, whether objective/subjective morality "makes it ok to do X" when it's much more specific. It concerns the nature of the universe, not really human behavior.

>>17795475
>It's a father's natural right to make decisions for his offspring
I disagree

>>17798011
then how did he decide to impregnate the mother?

>>17796869
malding

>>17798009
Oh well then sorry

>>17797966
no more disingenuous to pretend atheist and secular institutions aren't doing it a hundred fold

>>17798015
thank you for the opportunity to clarify

>>17798012
the decision to create doesn't have anything to do with the decisions to rule

>>17798023
and how soon does the kid's agency start? 21? 16? 10? 5?

>>17798005
>Its prescriptive
Yeah, I get that it's supposed to be. But how does that work?
I don't think it does.

You are merely asserting that the values you espouse are prescriptive, and somehow makes it true what *I* should do. Even if *I* don't care about those values. That seems like total nonsense to me.
I think people should act in accordance with their *own* values.
Help me understand

>>17798016
Can you give me some examples of what you mean by atheist institutions? I don't really see any of those around here

>>17798290
Chinese Communist Party

>>17798308
The CCP worship George Floyd?
fucking clown shit

>>17797974
You can do that only for yourself, not someone else. I would not want to oick for you, nor have you pick for me.

>>17790889 (OP)
The problems in the world are being caused by religious people.

>>17790904
God is objective reality bro.

>>17799617
God is made-up

>>17792620
I respect your position, and in honor of it I have to ask you: Do you believe Armin Meiwes should have gone to prison?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armin_Meiwes
He killed and ate a fully consenting adult who in fact wanted to be eaten.

>>17799157
>>17799617
>>17800278
is this a bot thread? If you have nothing to say, just let it die.

>>17790889 (OP)
Dawkins changed his attitude on a lot of things tho.

>>17800555
wow this changes everything

There's an obsession with morals. I read a pertinent and funny parable that went something like; if a robber and a moral person both had 10,000 volts of electricity sent through their bodies you would be shocked (no pun intended) to see that the electricity didn't spare the moral man and he was electrocuted just the same as the robber. This is all to say that God and heaven are not about morals but scientifically objective.

>>17800909
Whoa there Nietzsche being good is still a good thing.

>>17800909
sounds like something an AI would shit out

>>17801371
i'm not an AI btw but i bet there's ton of AI posts on here

>>17801335
funny

>>17801375
I didn't mean you're an AI it just sounds like a quote from gpt

>>17801395
Well no offense but I don't give a shit bro, would you comment on what I said

>>17790889 (OP)
How can religion impart objective morality when different religions preach different codes of ethics?

>>17801411
>How can religion impart objective morality when different religions preach different codes of ethics?
Think about your own retarded question for 10 seconds, and try answering it yourself. I dare you.

>>17801404
I am commenting on what you said. It's not a parable and it's not something you read in a book. It doesn't seem human.

>>17801419
How do fifty flavors of "objective morality" that can't agree with their own texts claim to be objective when they clearly aren't?

>>17801451
kys

>>17801456
>Can not apply basic definitions
IQ Estimate: 108 (maximum)

>>17801464
oh yeah and it has nothing to do with God. it would be tempting god to put someone through an electricity trial.

>>17800358
I do think it is tragic for a human to decide to offer himself for food. It is his choice to make, however gross I might think it is. I would not do business voluntarily with either person.

>>17801538
Fair enough, in this case I think secrecy is guaranteed; acceptable middle ground0. I do believe in this case he'd probably gotten away with it if he had been less open about it.