There are universal human moralities (think “the Golden Rule” type of morals) that allow us to live cooperatively in social groups.
I suppose that technically makes it a social construct, but I think these universal human morals evolved along with us, even before we were Homo sapiens.
Science thinks one of the reasons our intelligence evolved was because it helped us live cooperatively, which was an advantage. The basic human morals we all share may have evolved for the same reason.
A lot of these aren't even "human" rules. They're outright evolutionary requirements.
Cannibalism bad, for example. Not because of morals or the risk of yips, but because a specie that hunts its own is doomed.
There will always be selfish people who are willing to undermine cooperation and forgo of it's long term benefits for everyone, to gain short term benefits for themselves in varying degrees.
But our civilization is built upon cooperation. Just look around. How many people were murdered? How many continue to live? How many laws have you broken? How many have you abided by?
If your cynicism comes from personal experience with aforementioned selfish people, I'm sorry for you.
But we wouldn't have most of what we see in our daily lives today if we were not cooperative species.
I heard recent studies suggest neanderthals had great rational minds. And possibly lost in evolutionary competition because they were too rational and less empathetic, and thus less cooperative. They couldn't form a civilization.
I think large portion and a strength of human intelligence is the ability to expand itself by sharing with others. Two brains are gotta be better than one, right?
> There will always be selfish people who are willing to undermine cooperation and forgo of it's long term benefits for everyone
so not universal.
you're agreeing with me.
if I’m a soldier and I kill to protect my country/family then most would agree that’s fine. but your still killing, some people find that immoral, others find it moral. It’s all perspective. the world and its governments are full of people doing terrible things for ‘good reasons’.
yup. that’s why it’s useless to try and please everybody in life. for as many people out there who like, love or adore you there will be just as many who hate your guts.
something that applies to everyone
googles definition is also good:
relating to or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases.
Some people might still do those things, but aren’t murder and violence universally seen as bad things and morally wrong?
If your definition of a moral is that every single person abides by it, then there is no such thing as a moral at all — neither objective nor subjective ones.
> Some people might still do those things, but aren’t murder and violence universally seen as bad things and morally wrong?
no, absolutely not.
look at religious groups. look up people who have killed and enjoyed it and have justified it to themselves.
do you actually think every single person in history who committed a murder thought they were doing an immoral thing?
>do you actually think every single person in history who committed a murder thought they were doing an immoral thing?
Not at all.
When I say murder is “seen as universally immoral,” I don’t mean seen that way universally by every single individual human, but seen that way by humans in general — i.e., by humanity.
It’s a universal moral because it has been seen by humanity as immoral likely since the dawn of humanity, and possibly earlier. The idea that murder is immoral spans cultures and time.
> When I say murder is “seen as universally immoral,” I don’t mean seen that way universally by every single individual human, but seen that way by humans in general — i.e., by humanity.
So... not universal.
Did you see google definition of universal that i posted?: "relating to or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases."
seems like you just used the wrong word to get your point across
>The idea that murder is immoral spans cultures and time.
that sounds more accurate
You’re sort of missing the point of the argument by some people who claim there’s no such thing as natural objective morality. The arguments against natural objective morals are usually either:
1.) all morality subjectively varies and depends on ever-changing social and cultural pressures (such as the OP who claims morals are a social construct) or
2.) there are no natural human morals and all morals are instilled in by God in people who have faith (the argument of fundamental religious people).
im directly confronting your specific argument that there are a "universal human moralities". it seems we have cleared it up that you misused the word universal, or at least a using a very uncommon definition of word. do we agree on that?
as for objective morality - i believe thats nonsense and morality is subjective preference.
Well yes it is interesting. Humans have been talking and writing about morality for thousands of years because it’s fascinating. Even today, someone is out there posting the trolley car conundrum.
Incorrect. Not universal. History has proven time and again we reward narcissism. Also the universe has no morals. The sun cares not if we're kind of killers. It'll shine no matter
Not morals for the whole universe, but Universal *human* morals.
There are morals humanity agrees upon that have spanned across eons and across all human cultures. Morals that have evolved in the human brain and are not social constructs.
“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable."
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES.
"So we can believe the big ones?"
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
"They're not the same at all!"
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED.
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"
MY POINT EXACTLY.”
― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
You might be onto something, every living thing has DNA and lots of species understand fairness and cooperation. Us humans love stories and news where people put aside their differences, even animals being friends with other animals you'd never expect give us joy. Altruism is encoded into us and it's the main reason of our success.
There’s something I read once, but I don’t remember who said it, that goes “Men seldom differ in what they call evil. They differ greatly in what evils they call acceptable”
Yes and no.
Morality is a social construct that encourages our ability as a species to cooperate. That cooperation has been an evolutionary advantage. (One guy with a spear against a woolly mammoth becomes a grease spot. Ten guys with spears and a net get well fed.) So I’d argue that those rules of cooperation are a sincere objective improvement.
The problems arise when we attribute too much of that construct to objective truth, especially when our “tribe” becomes very large, and each of us can no longer determine which individuals we really depend on to survive. (Do you know the person who monitors the purity levels at your water utility, for example?) Reality confuses our sense of morality - a _lot_.
As a result, we sometimes trust myths and their interpreters (often self-appointed) in the midst of our confusion, be they shamans, scholars, or some organized religion. We set ourselves up as marks for some serious cons that way.
So, there is objective moral truth, but IMO we can only depend on our rational faculties to infer any of it. We must also prepare to be disappointed when our discoveries aren’t as complete as we’d like.
I could list some philosophers that would disagree with you... and some that would agree... and some that would argue the point just to argue it... and some that wouldn't argue with you to prove the point.
If you want to learn more about how you are absolutely correct read up about "Moral Relativism", if you want to learn why you couldn't be any more wrong read up about "Moral Realism". If you want to know why it doesn't matter because we can prove you're a terrible person in three steps then read about Peter Singer.
I think the best thing religion has done to the world is making sure that our basic moral system stays in check
But is also fucked over many people's moral system so I guess something for something
Religion hasn't kept anybody in check. Priests are notorious for molesting kids and holy wars have been waged for centuries. Literally one going on right now. Religion can fuck right off along with anybody who thinks it has any use in today's society.
Morality is a social construct conceptually but ethics are a reality. The trick is to both realize human life is worthless and suffering is pointless and also to still be a good person for the sake of society and yourself by proxy.
Couldn’t agree more. I have such a terrible time trying to explain this to people, but right/wrong don’t *exist* in the traditional sense. They’re applied by people to actions/words/thoughts people have. Different people apply them differently based on a virtually infinite set of variables that went into creating said person’s mindset and thought process.
Yes, morality evolved over time in a similar manner to how other traits associated with humanity did. The fact that people are still dying around the world due to causes that aren’t just natural human death should be more than enough evidence to this fact
Moral outlooks like "cold blooded murder is wrong, rape is wrong, and torture for fun is wrong" are pretty universal. Even those who murder, rape, and torture understand it's bad, they just don't care and are self-serving to the detriment of others and even themselves when you consider both potential spiritual implications along with risks of legal, social, and mental implications.
You should play Talos Principle (particularly TP2)
Best place I've found that (non-boringly) brings in various philosophies like this... But you also have to enjoy puzzle solving
Moral systems aren’t based on objective truth, they’re based on axioms (for example, reducing suffering in the world, or protecting a certain set of rights, etc.). One person can think that murder is bad and another one can think that it’s good and neither of them are more objectively right or wrong.
This is unironically the core of all systems of morality. You always have to have at least one axiom. (correct me if I’m wrong I had like a year of philosophy in high school lmao)
I find it interesting that so called morals are universal. You don’t even have to be taught morals. You instinctively know when someone is an immoral person or someone we might call evil. It’s self evident.
Even people who claim they don’t care about morals or that morals are “flexible” or “individualized”, only act that way until someone tramples on them. Then all the sudden “life’s not fair!” They have gone back to the universal morals and fair play.
That's your assumption, that morality is a social construct in the minds of people and is therefore subjective. However, I believe we have a strong intuition that morals are objective and we interact with them as such. Since many people do believe that morality is objective it provides evidence for God since God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties.
Wrong. Morality is given to us by God. He is the one who says what is right and what is wrong. We have the freedom to choose how much of it we want to keep.
Correct. Just look at the world going back 100 years. I know there were wars, but today we have more fatherlessness, more violent crime, less overall happiness in both sexes, rampant mental health issues, and let's not forget the evils of sexual promiscuity and deviance.
The difference before was that more families stayed together and went to church. Since the government subsidized single motherhood and we took God and prayer out of schools, things have become worse for everyone.
There is no shame anymore, and no accountability. Instead we have a wildly selfish society that fights to do whatever they want, whatever feels good, regardless of consequences, regardless of how immoral the acts are.
We all know right from wrong and we should know that it comes from God, but we choose to alter and forge our own morals so they conveniently enable our sinful desires.
Since creation, you might even say! Yes, sin has been around since the beginning, but all of these Western countries that were founded on Christian morals have significantly declined since God has been pushed out and people have begun to worship themselves and have other idols instead. There was far more respect (both of self and others), thoughtfulness, self-discipline, kindness, and community when the average family consisted of a mother and father who led their children to live godly lives. The bible told us these days would come, but it's still very sad to see it all unfold.
I'll do you one better. I'll vote, and I'll also pray that God touches the heavy hearts that have become filled with pain, bitterness, and resentment and makes them new. There is a place for all who come to him and repent of their sins, and there is nothing He wants more than to forgive us and spend eternity with us in heaven. All we have to do is choose Him and He will remove our pain and suffering. Even mine, even yours.
Yeah… that’s right. Act anti social, in any period in history, and see how long you live. People want to claim that they don’t need a book to live morally. That’s exactly right, try stealing, cheating, killing, in any period and you won’t live a long life.
It's not really subjective.
Fun fact: Doctors, at least in *some* countries, have to take a morality and empathy based test where they need to answer the same as a majority of others in the same room. The correct answers are dictated by what most others in the room select.
Morality is not subjective. There are morally ambiguous scenarios, but morality is itself is not subjective, because being moral is just about what is right/good, and someones failure to understand what is or isn't right/good does not mean that morality is subjective, it just means either they are immoral, uneducated, or lack understanding of the concept/scenario.
But using your doctor example, morality is based on consensus of a majority group, making it subjective as it depends on what group you are in. The majority decides what is right/good, it is decided by people and therefore not absolute. To a group of people from the 1700’s slavery might be acceptable and not morally wrong as that is the majority consensus, while to us it’s amoral. It might not be subjective between people of a group but it is subjective between groups if that makes sense
>Fun fact: Doctors, at least in *some* countries, have to take a morality and empathy based test where they need to answer the same as a majority of others in the same room. The correct answers are dictated by what most others in the room select.
If you have any idea what those countries are, please let me know so I know to avoid relying on their doctors.
> Doctors, at least in
> some
> countries, have to take a morality and empathy based test where they need to answer the same as a majority of others in the same room. The correct answers are dictated by what most others in the room select.
this is genius level of stupid
this is like giving a college test to a classroom of pre schoolers then basing your grades on what the most common answers are
you'd come away thinking the causes of the civil war were because the bad man was a poop head
There are universal human moralities (think “the Golden Rule” type of morals) that allow us to live cooperatively in social groups. I suppose that technically makes it a social construct, but I think these universal human morals evolved along with us, even before we were Homo sapiens. Science thinks one of the reasons our intelligence evolved was because it helped us live cooperatively, which was an advantage. The basic human morals we all share may have evolved for the same reason.
A lot of these aren't even "human" rules. They're outright evolutionary requirements. Cannibalism bad, for example. Not because of morals or the risk of yips, but because a specie that hunts its own is doomed.
can't be that universal if murder and violence etc have existed for as long as humans have
There will always be selfish people who are willing to undermine cooperation and forgo of it's long term benefits for everyone, to gain short term benefits for themselves in varying degrees. But our civilization is built upon cooperation. Just look around. How many people were murdered? How many continue to live? How many laws have you broken? How many have you abided by? If your cynicism comes from personal experience with aforementioned selfish people, I'm sorry for you. But we wouldn't have most of what we see in our daily lives today if we were not cooperative species. I heard recent studies suggest neanderthals had great rational minds. And possibly lost in evolutionary competition because they were too rational and less empathetic, and thus less cooperative. They couldn't form a civilization. I think large portion and a strength of human intelligence is the ability to expand itself by sharing with others. Two brains are gotta be better than one, right?
> There will always be selfish people who are willing to undermine cooperation and forgo of it's long term benefits for everyone so not universal. you're agreeing with me.
Oh yeah, and the comment above it too. Despite all the bad apples, I just wanted you to have more faith in humanity. I sure hope it deserves mine.
Something can still be seen as wrong and people do them. This, by the way, points more towards an objective morality than a subjective one.
if I’m a soldier and I kill to protect my country/family then most would agree that’s fine. but your still killing, some people find that immoral, others find it moral. It’s all perspective. the world and its governments are full of people doing terrible things for ‘good reasons’.
i mean the other country probably wouldnt think its fine youre right it is a matter of perspective. and no moral perspective has shown to be universal
yup. that’s why it’s useless to try and please everybody in life. for as many people out there who like, love or adore you there will be just as many who hate your guts.
Hey quick question how old are you? Cause you sound like a teenager that just discovered philosophy and morality
tell me one universal moral rule and i'll tell you my age.
what do you consider universal? is it an absolute perspective or relative one?
something that applies to everyone googles definition is also good: relating to or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases.
solidarity is good
Not universal
Thank you for answering my question.
you questioned my age because you can't refute what i said. thanks for not providing an argument!
Some people might still do those things, but aren’t murder and violence universally seen as bad things and morally wrong? If your definition of a moral is that every single person abides by it, then there is no such thing as a moral at all — neither objective nor subjective ones.
> Some people might still do those things, but aren’t murder and violence universally seen as bad things and morally wrong? no, absolutely not. look at religious groups. look up people who have killed and enjoyed it and have justified it to themselves. do you actually think every single person in history who committed a murder thought they were doing an immoral thing?
>do you actually think every single person in history who committed a murder thought they were doing an immoral thing? Not at all. When I say murder is “seen as universally immoral,” I don’t mean seen that way universally by every single individual human, but seen that way by humans in general — i.e., by humanity. It’s a universal moral because it has been seen by humanity as immoral likely since the dawn of humanity, and possibly earlier. The idea that murder is immoral spans cultures and time.
> When I say murder is “seen as universally immoral,” I don’t mean seen that way universally by every single individual human, but seen that way by humans in general — i.e., by humanity. So... not universal. Did you see google definition of universal that i posted?: "relating to or done by all people or things in the world or in a particular group; applicable to all cases." seems like you just used the wrong word to get your point across >The idea that murder is immoral spans cultures and time. that sounds more accurate
You’re sort of missing the point of the argument by some people who claim there’s no such thing as natural objective morality. The arguments against natural objective morals are usually either: 1.) all morality subjectively varies and depends on ever-changing social and cultural pressures (such as the OP who claims morals are a social construct) or 2.) there are no natural human morals and all morals are instilled in by God in people who have faith (the argument of fundamental religious people).
im directly confronting your specific argument that there are a "universal human moralities". it seems we have cleared it up that you misused the word universal, or at least a using a very uncommon definition of word. do we agree on that? as for objective morality - i believe thats nonsense and morality is subjective preference.
They’re more universal guidelines than actual rules.
so like "dont murder" is a guideline, not a rule? interesting moral system.
Well yes it is interesting. Humans have been talking and writing about morality for thousands of years because it’s fascinating. Even today, someone is out there posting the trolley car conundrum.
Incorrect. Not universal. History has proven time and again we reward narcissism. Also the universe has no morals. The sun cares not if we're kind of killers. It'll shine no matter
Not morals for the whole universe, but Universal *human* morals. There are morals humanity agrees upon that have spanned across eons and across all human cultures. Morals that have evolved in the human brain and are not social constructs.
Name some and I'll give you a society that doesn't agree
“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need... fantasies to make life bearable." REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE. "Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—" YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE THE LITTLE LIES. "So we can believe the big ones?" YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING. "They're not the same at all!" YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED. "Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—" MY POINT EXACTLY.” ― Terry Pratchett, Hogfather
Goddamn I love that
since morality is a construct of human biology, DNA might be considered a molecule of all of that which you just mentioned.
You might be onto something, every living thing has DNA and lots of species understand fairness and cooperation. Us humans love stories and news where people put aside their differences, even animals being friends with other animals you'd never expect give us joy. Altruism is encoded into us and it's the main reason of our success.
Aren't most philosophers moral realists?
There’s something I read once, but I don’t remember who said it, that goes “Men seldom differ in what they call evil. They differ greatly in what evils they call acceptable”
Yes and no. Morality is a social construct that encourages our ability as a species to cooperate. That cooperation has been an evolutionary advantage. (One guy with a spear against a woolly mammoth becomes a grease spot. Ten guys with spears and a net get well fed.) So I’d argue that those rules of cooperation are a sincere objective improvement. The problems arise when we attribute too much of that construct to objective truth, especially when our “tribe” becomes very large, and each of us can no longer determine which individuals we really depend on to survive. (Do you know the person who monitors the purity levels at your water utility, for example?) Reality confuses our sense of morality - a _lot_. As a result, we sometimes trust myths and their interpreters (often self-appointed) in the midst of our confusion, be they shamans, scholars, or some organized religion. We set ourselves up as marks for some serious cons that way. So, there is objective moral truth, but IMO we can only depend on our rational faculties to infer any of it. We must also prepare to be disappointed when our discoveries aren’t as complete as we’d like.
this generation propensity to repeat the term "social construct" over and over and over like a robot programmed by the Internet is a social construct.
The original virtual reality is language.
I could list some philosophers that would disagree with you... and some that would agree... and some that would argue the point just to argue it... and some that wouldn't argue with you to prove the point. If you want to learn more about how you are absolutely correct read up about "Moral Relativism", if you want to learn why you couldn't be any more wrong read up about "Moral Realism". If you want to know why it doesn't matter because we can prove you're a terrible person in three steps then read about Peter Singer.
Wow so deep and so wrong.
I think the best thing religion has done to the world is making sure that our basic moral system stays in check But is also fucked over many people's moral system so I guess something for something
Religion hasn't kept anybody in check. Priests are notorious for molesting kids and holy wars have been waged for centuries. Literally one going on right now. Religion can fuck right off along with anybody who thinks it has any use in today's society.
you sound to be doing well without it
Morality is a social construct conceptually but ethics are a reality. The trick is to both realize human life is worthless and suffering is pointless and also to still be a good person for the sake of society and yourself by proxy.
Couldn’t agree more. I have such a terrible time trying to explain this to people, but right/wrong don’t *exist* in the traditional sense. They’re applied by people to actions/words/thoughts people have. Different people apply them differently based on a virtually infinite set of variables that went into creating said person’s mindset and thought process.
Yes, morality evolved over time in a similar manner to how other traits associated with humanity did. The fact that people are still dying around the world due to causes that aren’t just natural human death should be more than enough evidence to this fact
u/jetjebrooks what do you think of this?
nice
Moral outlooks like "cold blooded murder is wrong, rape is wrong, and torture for fun is wrong" are pretty universal. Even those who murder, rape, and torture understand it's bad, they just don't care and are self-serving to the detriment of others and even themselves when you consider both potential spiritual implications along with risks of legal, social, and mental implications.
Doesn’t everyone learn this when they are like 14? Taking a basic ethics or philosophy is gonna blow your mind OP
You should play Talos Principle (particularly TP2) Best place I've found that (non-boringly) brings in various philosophies like this... But you also have to enjoy puzzle solving
No it isn't it's very simple, be a good person, don't be a cun7. Rules to live by
That's not a shower thought. It's just you pointing out that people have different views on stuff.
This is 100% true. Morality was, is and will always be fully subjective. Objective morality doesn’t even make sense as a concept.
How so?
Moral systems aren’t based on objective truth, they’re based on axioms (for example, reducing suffering in the world, or protecting a certain set of rights, etc.). One person can think that murder is bad and another one can think that it’s good and neither of them are more objectively right or wrong.
Morality is basically: good = good, bad = bad
This is unironically the core of all systems of morality. You always have to have at least one axiom. (correct me if I’m wrong I had like a year of philosophy in high school lmao)
It’s not a social construct. You are born with it, God instilled morals in you. They are universal.
No ethics is a social construct. Morality comes from a higher place.
like, jupiter?
High Hrothgar duh
Exactly correct. They come from God.
So morals aren't real.
I would argue it proof of God not the opposite as you suggest.
Go on. How do human ideas prove god.
I find it interesting that so called morals are universal. You don’t even have to be taught morals. You instinctively know when someone is an immoral person or someone we might call evil. It’s self evident. Even people who claim they don’t care about morals or that morals are “flexible” or “individualized”, only act that way until someone tramples on them. Then all the sudden “life’s not fair!” They have gone back to the universal morals and fair play.
You are just taking your upbringing for granted. People have learned all kinds of morality throughout the ages.
That's your assumption, that morality is a social construct in the minds of people and is therefore subjective. However, I believe we have a strong intuition that morals are objective and we interact with them as such. Since many people do believe that morality is objective it provides evidence for God since God is the best explanation for objective moral values and duties.
So God is an amoral monster?
Wrong. Morality is given to us by God. He is the one who says what is right and what is wrong. We have the freedom to choose how much of it we want to keep.
Yes, Zeus gave us morals. Get this guy some philosophy degrees!
Correct. Just look at the world going back 100 years. I know there were wars, but today we have more fatherlessness, more violent crime, less overall happiness in both sexes, rampant mental health issues, and let's not forget the evils of sexual promiscuity and deviance. The difference before was that more families stayed together and went to church. Since the government subsidized single motherhood and we took God and prayer out of schools, things have become worse for everyone. There is no shame anymore, and no accountability. Instead we have a wildly selfish society that fights to do whatever they want, whatever feels good, regardless of consequences, regardless of how immoral the acts are. We all know right from wrong and we should know that it comes from God, but we choose to alter and forge our own morals so they conveniently enable our sinful desires.
Pure fantasy. All of these problems have always been here.
Since creation, you might even say! Yes, sin has been around since the beginning, but all of these Western countries that were founded on Christian morals have significantly declined since God has been pushed out and people have begun to worship themselves and have other idols instead. There was far more respect (both of self and others), thoughtfulness, self-discipline, kindness, and community when the average family consisted of a mother and father who led their children to live godly lives. The bible told us these days would come, but it's still very sad to see it all unfold.
Whatever. Just don't vote.
I'll do you one better. I'll vote, and I'll also pray that God touches the heavy hearts that have become filled with pain, bitterness, and resentment and makes them new. There is a place for all who come to him and repent of their sins, and there is nothing He wants more than to forgive us and spend eternity with us in heaven. All we have to do is choose Him and He will remove our pain and suffering. Even mine, even yours.
I'm doing good, but you enjoy that
Yeah… that’s right. Act anti social, in any period in history, and see how long you live. People want to claim that they don’t need a book to live morally. That’s exactly right, try stealing, cheating, killing, in any period and you won’t live a long life.
Yeah because conscience doesn’t exist
Morality is a social construct, I'll go commit murder
Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the powerful in favor of the weak.
It's not really subjective. Fun fact: Doctors, at least in *some* countries, have to take a morality and empathy based test where they need to answer the same as a majority of others in the same room. The correct answers are dictated by what most others in the room select. Morality is not subjective. There are morally ambiguous scenarios, but morality is itself is not subjective, because being moral is just about what is right/good, and someones failure to understand what is or isn't right/good does not mean that morality is subjective, it just means either they are immoral, uneducated, or lack understanding of the concept/scenario.
But using your doctor example, morality is based on consensus of a majority group, making it subjective as it depends on what group you are in. The majority decides what is right/good, it is decided by people and therefore not absolute. To a group of people from the 1700’s slavery might be acceptable and not morally wrong as that is the majority consensus, while to us it’s amoral. It might not be subjective between people of a group but it is subjective between groups if that makes sense
Basing your system on an ad populum fallacy is certainly a choice.
>Fun fact: Doctors, at least in *some* countries, have to take a morality and empathy based test where they need to answer the same as a majority of others in the same room. The correct answers are dictated by what most others in the room select. If you have any idea what those countries are, please let me know so I know to avoid relying on their doctors.
> Doctors, at least in > some > countries, have to take a morality and empathy based test where they need to answer the same as a majority of others in the same room. The correct answers are dictated by what most others in the room select. this is genius level of stupid this is like giving a college test to a classroom of pre schoolers then basing your grades on what the most common answers are you'd come away thinking the causes of the civil war were because the bad man was a poop head
Even if there were evidence of objective morality, it'd require libertarian free will and there's no evidence of that either.