Morality is subjective change my mind.

If morality is subjective, then in theory people are free to do whatever they desire, including acts like murder

like im gonna read and respond to all of that

Discord philosophers are not very intellectual generally

same case here

the thing is the higher being exists

thats where subjectivism is idealistic

it wishes that the world was different and imposes that it is

it dosent take a person with an iq over 105 and 5 minutes of free thought to realize that a higher being exists

We deserve to be raped. I don't know why, it’s just a feeling I have

That’s about as far as people go most the time anyway

@Florida Man
That's not what the concept of subjective morality is about. I didn't say that morality doesn't exist, I said that morality differs from culture to culture, individual to individual and so on. Technically, the only things that stop you from murdering someone you hate, are a) your subjective moral code, b) the rules and laws and c) your mental stability and health. A psychopath's moral code does not stop him from killing someone, therefore he relies on only the B factor.

So moral relativism then?

@OrthoGoat If you don't want to read or partake in a conversation like this, then do not make initial unjustified, out-of-context, irrelevant statements.
Again, you must not insert a higher being into the subjectivity of the moral code, for the reasons I listed in my first message.

@Florida Man Yes.

<:dynoSuccess:314691591484866560> ***AntiLibertyAktion#5017 has been warned., This is a serious channel, adhom and phrases like "like im gonna read and respond to all of that" is unallowed.***

So if all morals are relative, then there's no way of saying you're better than someone since all morals are relative and equal

Its pretty obvious that moral relativism leads to incoherent conclusions

Not all morals are equal, no one said that, but no, there's no way to relate to things that aren't the same.

I'd argue that all morals would be equal under such relativism

So how does one define what moralism is?

@Sentient23 Yes, perhaps some conclusions of moral relativism are more incoherent or ambiguous for most people, since it's not easy for everyone to understand it. It's not as clear as moral objectivism, which simply assumes the existence of a higher being along with the existence of its rules and teachings.

Since if the foundation, or the reference point is arbitrary, and equally arbitrary to mine reference point, then all morals would be equal, since the reference point/axiom is picked arbitrarily

@valencia/Vaida Following your moral code.

> @OrthoGoat If you don't want to read or partake in a conversation like this, then do not make initial unjustified, out-of-context, irrelevant statements.
> Again, you must not insert a higher being into the subjectivity of the moral code, for the reasons I listed in my first message.
@Koninos I read your message

Its not about not understanding. its about actually understanding, and then deriving the logical consequence of moral relativism

Which leads to absurdity

How does it lead to absurdity?

> Since if the foundation, or the reference point is arbitrary, and equally arbitrary to mine reference point, then all morals would be equal, since the reference point/axiom is picked arbitrarily

That doesn't justify why moral subjectivism leads to absurd conclusions.

It actually does? Its pretty absurd that x and the antithesis of X are equally right

It's not X and the antithesis of X. It's about the X which is approximately the same as Y, being equally right with the anthesis of Y which is approximately the same as the antithesis of X.
Would you like to name your Xs though, in order to understand what you speak of?

The distinction you provided not only makes no sense, but is useless. I'm not talking about propositions which are approximately same/similar. I'm talking about inherently incompatible moral propositions. I.e if X was true, it would entail the falsity of the antithesis of X

X and Y would be literally any incompatible moral proposition

@Sentient23 Name your X, give me an example. Give me an example of a moral.

Any moral.

I don't see how its necessary

But alright. "transgenderism is inherently wrong" - X
"transgenderism is inherently right" - Y

Thank you, I just needed to further understand your position in order to respond to you in my best way possible.

Okay so basically what you're saying is that a moral, it being transgenderism being inherently wrong, cannot be equal to its antithesis, it being transgenderism being inherently right. I do understand your confusion, so I'll try to make the position of moral relativism as clear as possible.

To understand why X, and the antithesis of X(=Y) are equal, you must assume the following:
a) That a higher being's existence is unknown, and not brought into the conversation, to justify the objectivism of X and Y.
b) That different people, cultures, religions, have different moral standards; I believe that you agree with this one.

With the assumption of A and B, we make a draft conclusion: That X and Y depend on the people, their cultures and their religions. Therefore, without a universal, objective moral code, which 99.99% of the times is justified through the existence of a higher being along with its rules and teachings, both X and Y depend on the people, their cultures and their religions. Hence, if you get a person of a certain moral code, who believes that X is true, and then you get another person, of another certain moral code, who claims that Y is true, both, according to their personalities/cultures/religions(/or whatever has defined their moral code) are telling their own truth. The conclusion being, that these truths are equal.

@Sentient23

Yes

That's what i said