Does objective morality exist?

[Unmade]

The points about promoting a GOOD society universally.

There seems to be commonality in promoting social efficiency against corruption and waste, and making society materially safe for women and children to grow up and learn, which seems universal across human cultures.

People argue about objective morality however...

[River]

morality is just people making stuff up based on personal tastes, and rare fringe cases

Like oh a whale ate a kid and I don't like whales, lets outlaw whales.

[Unmade]

Originally posted by River:

morality is just people making stuff up based on personal tastes, and rare fringe cases

Like oh a whale ate a kid and I don't like whales, lets outlaw whales.

I like telling the truth. I think it is good to tell the truth.

Do you?

Truth fits the efficiency argument. It is the most efficient way to pass information to another.

[Alice Liddell]

Some people's morality is in the gutter.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

Might want to look up the definition for moral panic.

[Unmade]

Originally posted by Alice Liddell:

Some people's morality is in the gutter.

I agree.

Some people 'nurgle' themselves into laziness and ineffeciency. Some people get off on lying for personal gain and gaslighting others into doubting their own senses.

[Houseman]

If it doesn't, then you can't prove that murder is bad, it's only subjectively bad, and that also means that it can be argued that murder is good.

[Unmade]

Originally posted by Rumpelcrutchskin:

Might want to look up the definition for moral panic.

This thread is about objective morality. I am not going to make one on relative morality. The rest of the OT topics about whatever, by default fall into this category anyways.

[kbiz]

No. The idea of a god makes the strongest case for objective morality. But it's still all relative at the end of the day.

Any social truth is like a local maximum (a hilltop) with every other option sacrificing something more valuable.

[Rumpelcrutchskin]

Smells lot like another right wing thread about how their morals are superior because they support traditional values.

[Numlock587]

Morality left after the year 2000 and is a steady decline. But don't worry the apocalypse is near.

[Unmade]

Originally posted by kbiz:

No. The idea of a god makes the strongest case for objective morality. But it's still all relative at the end of the day.

Any social truth is like a local maximum (a hilltop) with every other option sacrificing something more valuable.

The saying 'Throwing the baby out with the bathwater' is a call to objective morality. It references people sacrificing what they hold dear to win in conflict.

This is done in favour of 'social truth' or 'consensus', which can be in error. Trofim Lysenko immediately comes to mind. His butchery of factual science caused both the Holodomor, and promoted a wave of state ignorance all over the early Soviet Union. It even spread into China when Mao picked it up and did basically the same thing, causing both a famine, and dustbowling in Upper Mongolia.

All because ego or opinion, coupled with authority, mattered more than objective truth.

It think with this in mind the truth, and claiming truth to be good, is a demonstration of objective morality, but once it becomes a realtive thing, it can immediately turn into what we consider evil.

It seems to be a fine line historically and more often than not, people are forced to take risks if the consensus veers away from factual reality.

[cherry cola 🌸]

No, when you look at history it's pretty obvious that nothing is objective but that doesn't stop me from using buzzwords like based and trvthnvke since I'm objectively right on any subject.

[matchjak88]

Satanic orgies aren't everyone's cup of tea.

[Unmade]

Originally posted by Houseman:

If it doesn't, then you can't prove that murder is bad, it's only subjectively bad, and that also means that it can be argued that murder is good.

The argument about killing; permanently removing someone as an entity from the world.

Barristers have even debated this by attempting to classify 'murder', against general 'killing', by defining murder as the aggressive an unwarranted killing of another human being, as opposed to killing others as acts of self-defense, accidents, or acts of war.

Again I think when the bush is neatly pruned, it becomes an argument about social efficiency with the lingering question being 'Does that one deserve to die for this or that?'

[Houseman]

Originally posted by Unmade:

Originally posted by Houseman:

If it doesn't, then you can't prove that murder is bad, it's only subjectively bad, and that also means that it can be argued that murder is good.

The argument about killing; permanently removing someone as an entity from the world.

Barristers have even debated this by attempting to classify 'murder', against general 'killing', by defining murder as the aggressive an unwarrented killing of another human being, as opposed to killing others as acts of self-defense, accidents, or acts of war.

Again i think when the bush is neatly pruned, it becomes an argument about social efficiency with the lingering wuestion being 'Does that one deserve to die for this or that.?'

And then you have places like Nazi Germany who deem it acceptable and "socially efficient" to imprison and ultimately kill tons of minorities that they deem as enemies of the state.