This post is rage bait, and I’m a rage fish.
deleted by creator
Morality is objectively decided by the society you are apart of, rendering it subjective. If you say im wrong then ill play the nihilism card and say it doesnt matter in the end. Ill always win. Checkmate.
You’re wrong!
Well it doesnt matter in the end anyway
That by definition is subjective. You name anything that is ok in one society or even one area that is frowned upon in another that is subjective morality. For example as times have gotten harder and harder for younger people economically living with their parents in the Global West has become seen as more and more normal and not treating those adults as basement creatures or something.
leans in and whispers
Its all subjective
Unless you can prove objective morals exists, subjective morals are the only morals you are left with.
deleted by creator
All morality is subjective
deleted by creator
Honestly this is a pretty big topic in philosophy. It could be argued that morality is a human construct and therefore must be subjective.
Some people believe that not going to church each week is amoral, but some atheists think organized religion is amoral - who is right?
You and I can agree that murder is immoral. Would that stance change if we were on the jury for a murder trial and, if found guilty, the offender would be sentenced to death? If that doesn’t make us murderers, what makes the death penalty an appropriate and moral punishment?
Simply replying “false” indicates little to no thought on the subject or its nuance, and gives off strong “I’m 13 and this is deep” vibes
It could be argued that morality is a human construct and therefore must be subjective.
You can also jump straight to the top and argue it’s because the human experience itself is always subjective, since meat doesn’t seem to be very good at observing Reality. And then we get to cogito ergo sum and all that jazz
deleted by creator
The law is meant to be fair (which is a separate can of worms, but the goal is fairness). It is not meant to be moral, though it often follows what people generally consider to be moral, like don’t rape or murder people.
And, honestly, using the “reasonable person” argument here goes against your point - it indicates that people with different morals exist, and therefore morality must be subjective.
deleted by creator
Cool, sounds legit
Who decides what a reasonable person is? Well a reasonable person, obviously.
Prove it.
deleted by creator
ducks
deleted by creator
But in the eyes of the one committing these crimes they may fully believe they are justified. There are people out there who have minds that are biologically different than the majority. These people may lack empathy or even find joy in hurting others and see no moral issue with it. Who is to definitively say that they are wrong? You would have to believe in a god or follow a religion of some kind for this argument to be sound. And there is plenty of evidence against the existence of a god(s).
Evil is itself a subjective term. It is not possible for anything to be objectively evil, even if every person who has ever lived agrees - which they definitely don’t. To be “objective” it must be measurable, supported by facts; “good” and “evil” are not.
deleted by creator
The word you’re looking for is intersubjective
deleted by creator
Then you’re using a private definition of the word objective that you can’t assume people will buy into
It carries precisely the weight it indicates regardless.
When someone says “that’s a horrible/evil thing you’ve done!” They are expressing that you have done something they think is immoral.
How you let that weight impact you depends on you and your ability or inability to control your response to it.
Homosexuality used to be objectively immoral and to some folks it still is. Morality is an arbitration based on our perceptions of harm, and changes over time. Jaywalking used to be the norm, but a rule was made against it to prevent harm as the world adapted to motor vehicles. The Nazi believed themselves to be morally correct in their actions. If morality is objective, then the threats to a healthy society would always be clear and accurate. Maybe. What do you think? I’m interested to know.
Morality is objectively what I think is good or bad at any given moment but other people are just to dumb to see it
Morality is often subjective. In some places it’s immoral for women to show skin or drive a car.
OP literally just posted a hot dog water opinion and is going to anyone who disagrees and saying “Nuh uh”
deleted by creator
Nuh uh
deleted by creator
Soo, you are blatantly denying a fact?
deleted by creator
I discovered at a very early age that if I talk long enough, I can make anything right or wrong. So either I’m God or truth is relative. In either case, booyah.
deleted by creator
Would that go for art too? Like, if you claim that art is subjective, then is it hypocritical to state that something isn’t art?
TL/DR - yes. Hell yes even.
What is art or what is good art?
One of my fav definitions of art is "that which was created with the primary intention of invoking an emotional response in the observing subject.
Some would say art which provokes positive or negative emotions is good art, even if it was intended to be only positive. The more powerful the emotional response the better the art. So the Brandenburg Concertos are potentially on the same level of art as say Tiny Tims Tiptoe Through the Tulips, or Rebecca Black’s Friday. As music they are all galaxies apart, but as art. Strong emotions all.
Other would say good art provokes strong intended emotions. Like a performance piece about domestic violence is supposed to make you feel strong anger and revulsion. To these same “intentionists” if you found the same piece triggers a dark humour reponse and you lol, it’s bad art because it didn’t demonstrate mastery of emotional provocation. Closer to home, it means Shitposts are art. We are all artists here. Some masters, some aspiring. I could go on, but why.
deleted by creator
Your moral condemnation carries the same weight, regardless of your view.
A thought experiment: reveal your claim after your condemnation. Can the weight change? What was the weight before the claim was revealed?
Isn’t morality intersubjective?
deleted by creator
Yes, but we’re also undervaluing the power of the people who voice their disapproval and the ripple effect it has on other people. What matters, in the end, is the public perception when it determines the type of treatment you get. Do you really want to feel uncomfortable around others regularly?
E: I know it’s a shitpost, but let me cook. I’m having thoughts. uwu
Exactly. It only carries weight if you believe it carries weight or if there are laws/punishments behind it.
At first I was gonna say, maybe morality isn’t subjective. Maybe its just our perception of morality that is, and that as an intelligence constrained by our meat, the subjectivity is just a naturally occuring conceptual filter construct that creates the illusion of subjectivity.
Then I realized, I should have just said “yeah”.
With apologies to Mitch Hedberg.
