Message from @Benuty

Discord ID: 600497468345417738


2019-07-13 22:00:07 UTC  

Religion? Not necessarily but it is harder to answer the question "Why is that good or bad" without religion.

2019-07-14 01:52:33 UTC  

neitzsche was a dumb libtard

2019-07-14 01:53:04 UTC  

he makes me want to disavow the aryan race 😠

2019-07-14 15:21:07 UTC  

Frederick Nietzsche was a man worried about changing times, and he could not resolve his conflict between an Uncaring Population and a supposedly Absent God.

2019-07-15 11:07:58 UTC  

As could be seen in his work Thus Spoke Zarathustra

2019-07-15 20:12:23 UTC  

morality is firmly beyond the scope of science or secular society to even answer, which means we go by very basic rules and feels. As someone already said look to the modern secular west... yeah its becoming evident that religion has a quality to it that fosters morality.

2019-07-15 20:13:43 UTC  

The question is as well a debate between whether or not morality exists, and if it does exist then it is objective and that streamlines right towards god existing, so its easy to see why those outside of religion etc. would claim this weird relativist view (which they are entirely inconsistent on) to build society on, and again, we see where that is leading us

2019-07-15 20:15:24 UTC  

morality is not beyond the scope of science. Human morals evolved as our brains developed over hundreds of thousands of years

2019-07-15 20:15:33 UTC  

many of our morals are rooted within instincts that other animals have!

2019-07-15 20:31:46 UTC  

This is basically as far as I know sam harriss's view on morality, however its just not true. you cannot prove morality within science, you cannot measure it unless you are willing to do inhumane experiments. The issue really becomes evident when you cannot quantify good or bad. You are basically left with utilitarianism

2019-07-16 01:10:27 UTC  

A little late on the point about hellenism, but at least in the ancient greek context morals very much applied. A lot of the mythos involved lessons against hubris, and any attempt at defying fate as an example of Hubris.

2019-07-16 01:11:51 UTC  

I think some of the biggest plays to reinforce these lessons are courtesy of Sophocles.

2019-07-16 01:13:40 UTC  

Antigone involved a woman setting herself up for death not in the act of nobility, but out of pride i.e she deserved to die. Creon would have been the stories tragic figure had he actual killed her, but he wasn't (since direct execution would upset the gods). Then you have the play setting up the death of Oedipus's sons, and of course the prodigal play Oedipus the king.

2019-07-16 01:17:14 UTC  

ok, I'll make a qotd to get the conversation going again

2019-07-16 01:18:00 UTC  

@everyone Daily Question 🔖

-Is morality objective? If not, what exactly is it?

2019-07-16 01:19:09 UTC  

Reality is objective. perception of reality and all that stems from it is subjective

2019-07-16 01:19:27 UTC  

shut the fuck up boomer niggler

2019-07-16 01:19:45 UTC  

Morality itself cannot be objective. Morality is forged from our perception of what is good and bad. For example, we believe murder, in most cases, is immoral and thus bad. But, another culture could of had it so getting murdered is a great honor for some religious reason or whatnot.

2019-07-16 01:22:17 UTC  

but did it?

2019-07-16 01:22:31 UTC  

is there a culture like that?

2019-07-16 01:22:33 UTC  

I get where you are coming from, but there is one topic that all cultures seem to universally revile (unless you are wealthy), and that happens to be incest. Of course you have loopholes both legally, and culturally, but at the end of the day the base concept is reviled. I am aware thats not an argument for objective morality, but it does hint humans can at least have one thing in common.

2019-07-16 01:23:02 UTC  

there are cultures that promote cannibalism, yes, but the core still has similar moral values

2019-07-16 01:23:13 UTC  

murder is wrong

2019-07-16 01:23:18 UTC  

adultery is wrong

2019-07-16 01:23:24 UTC  

etc

2019-07-16 01:23:25 UTC  

According to who?

2019-07-16 01:23:32 UTC  

Is it wrong objectively?

2019-07-16 01:23:35 UTC  

according to literally every culture

2019-07-16 01:23:37 UTC  

yes

2019-07-16 01:23:54 UTC  

They only promote it up to the point diseases begin to ravage the minds of the participant tribes (i.e Papau New Guinea).

2019-07-16 01:24:19 UTC  

Who is in charge of our definition of what is objective moral or immoral then?

2019-07-16 01:24:28 UTC  

God

2019-07-16 01:25:14 UTC  

"God" is an arbitrary term, and thus cannot be used to define objective truth in reality.

2019-07-16 01:28:17 UTC  

Morality is objective

2019-07-16 01:28:22 UTC  

christianity is incompatible with fascism so i dont believe in a god

2019-07-16 01:28:27 UTC  

<:HellYeah:591182597514723345>

2019-07-16 01:28:28 UTC  

Raping and eating a child is objectively immoral

2019-07-16 01:28:37 UTC  

I don't care if some cultures do it

2019-07-16 01:28:50 UTC  

Morality isn't objective or subjective

2019-07-16 01:28:50 UTC  

yikes

2019-07-16 01:28:51 UTC  

In response to wiktor, sure cultures hold up universal values, but it depends on the base which influences them. An islamic civilization is very likely to view adultery (since many believe in the four wives) quite differently.There is a reason even in the argument for freedom of religion it only goes so far. Its one thing to sacrifice animals ala Santeria, but polygamy will never be acceptable in a country like the United States.