That gay looking plate of homosexualry on the right with 12 fricking tomatoes on the plate is most certainly not a full English. It's a shitty Amerimuttised take on it.
The "Full English" is meant to be a hearty breakfast for the working class (Dock workers, farmers, etc). It's high calorie for a reason, we usually have smaller lunches as well like sandwiches or meat pastries.
I sub in hashbrowns in place of beans but otherwise right is how I treat myself if I'm eating out for breakfast with others. Those portions are ridiculous though.
neither. have a small, simple breakfast. the "food" in the pic is disgusting gluttonous western excess.
The "Full English" is meant to be a hearty breakfast for the working class (Dock workers, farmers, etc). It's high calorie for a reason, we usually have smaller lunches as well like sandwiches or meat pastries.
>hearty breakfast for the doc workers, farmers >high calorie for a reason
and what is that reason? >have to work all day >bloat yourself up with food at the start of it
doesn't seem proper.
Cherry tomatoes are better raw
Eggs are better scrambled
I don't like mushrooms
And I could take or leave the baked beans
Granted, the American breakfast is loaded with carbs and starch, a full English is most certainly better for you, but I'm not judging it by calorie count.
left if the pancakes are good. im brit and the right is mushy: tomatoes, beans, mushrooms.
watery scrambled eggs, crispy and sweet bacon, and butter fried pancakes slathered with maple syrup may be unhealthy but damn
>muh rick and morty
Another seething midwit without an argument or a desire to pursue the truth. I accept your concession as well.
lmao you re a total homosexual i would make a hat with your butthole in a debate on god philosophy etc go back to your drugs and dont play plato you dont have what it takes monkey
>lefties
what? anyway you re the one coping i absolutely never lost a debate in philosophy recently, i own 99.9999999999% of the population in debate, and I can sense a dunning kruger homosexual with level 1 opinions when i see one
You don’t, you are just too stupid to understand their point and gaslight yourself into thinking you won
1 month ago
Anonymous
what? im way smarter than all of you combined regardless of bullshit like IQ, I know exactly what arguments you re going to have, i have listen to them all, and beaten them in debates. i know what you think but you do not know what i think, you never heard any arguments like mine, unless you had some religion you needed to break in order to hear them and thus cope with illogical bullshit
i wipe the floor with philosophy phds. philosophy is in the blood, no amount of reading or training will ever allow you to beat me, you can learn knowledge but you can't learn a sharph neurotic high IQ mind with a good sense of prioritization and meaningfulness, which many scholars and dunning kruger sociopaths lack terrible
A morality system that's just a "good and bad" slider is stupid (unless the setting of the game is very tightly contained such that everyone you meet shares the same moral values).
A good morality system requires specific characters/factions to do checks against specific actions you took.
If you destroy the dam and Water Town finds out, then Water Town will hate you for it, but the Ooga Booga tribe on the other side of the map has no reason to care, or even means of finding out about this.
I think morality systems in games are shit because they're shoehorned and shallow, making the one thing they're supposed to represent feel hypocritical and ring false.
The most reliable way to become gigasatan is to dive into someone's dumpster and steal 200 used cum tissues from it for a total of -1000 karma, maxing out the negative karma as a result.
All the most evil people in Nevada and DC are kleptomaniacs.
Also fun fact, in Fallout 3 you will always be at worst neutral if you decide to use the gigaholocaust virus, because you lose 2k karma, and karma thresholds are -1k and +1k, and you have to self-sacrifice to use the virus so you will always gain +1k good karma for the self-sacrifice, evening you karma to a neat 0.
Karma is a SHIT in Fallout in general, but especially in gamebryo Fallouts.
It's not nearly as subjective as you think, but it is situational. It's as simple as appeasing an entity, whether that entity is God, an organization, or your mom. Let's just say I have a lot of good karma.
God doesn't exist, and all the other entities operate on subjective directives. Appeasing them is appeasing their subjective sensibilities which change depending on circumstances.
I did state things. Things that are correct. What do you need argumented? Ehat exactly do I need to explain to you that you aren't smart enough to comprehend by yourself? It always takes personal approach. Ask and ye might receive, though you're a homosexual so you also might not.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>dude everything I type, even a gigantic metaphysical assumption, is just le correct
I know it looks smart when rick sanchez does this but when it’s just some random moron on the internet it doesn’t
1 month ago
Anonymous
>muh rick and morty
Another seething midwit without an argument or a desire to pursue the truth. I accept your concession as well.
But that might not be the reason you do it. Killing enemies should always be a neutral act. Killing specific people or civilians should be where karma comes into play. Fallout 3 nailed this aspect of the karma system despite the system having other ways it can be cheesed.
this.
I hated how killing some random enemy out in the wastes resulted in karma repercussions despite no one else around to see it and spread the word.
karma is a social system.
If a ghoul is killed in the metro and no one is around to see it, did they even get killed?
>tell tenpenny to relax around ghouls >they kill everyone there >kill the ghouls >threedog goes "AYO WTF homie THAT LONE WANDERER RACIST AND SHIEEEEEET" >lose karma
sorry bro didnt know the brotherhood of steel who were on record not particularly like ghouls or super mutants just let their Black stand up for literal murderers
what if im starving bro, i mean really starving, and theres no food for miles. the babys gonna die anyways theres no one else around so yes i will eat the baby
>morality is subjective
nihilism is a worthless truth my friend. morality is the most important system created by mankind and getting it wrong will produce terrible consequences for human progress and life on this planet
>morality is subjective >morality is the most important system created by mankind
Not OP but both of these statements are true and do not contradict each other. You're a seething double digit IQ normalgay if you argue otherwise. It's not nihilism, you simply have to accept that subjective concepts ARE important and sometimes it's important for you to do things and uphold values even if they are not objectively correct. Most normalgays just hate not being correct, and they were also psyoped into thinking that "it's just an opinion bro" is an impenetrable counter to all criticism.
Binary morality systems are fine depending on the game. The reason devs do it is because morality is complicated, and it’s a simple way to calculate the cumulative effects of your actions.
It’s only shit when when one morality is just objectively better than the other (Bioshock for example, where the Good route is objectively superior in the long run to the Evil route).
Universal karma systems in games are very dumb, faction-based karma is good. Also being able to steal everything not nailed down and only have NPCs notice if they see you do it is dumb. There should be some limit where if you come back and visit the NPC you stole from later, they call the guards on you and/or turn hostile. In every RPG I've ever played where it's possible to steal, stealing is way too good because of the lack of serious consequences.
Skyrim kind of tried with the 'hired thugs' system where if you steal from someone, they might realize it was you and send some thugs after you with a note saying, "Beat up player for stealing my dildos". It would probably be too taxing to make NPCs aware of all their possessions and react to them going missing in a realistic manner.
But I think it could be done if NPCs would be programmed with specific things that were important to them that they would notice missing. The family heirloom sword going missing after Mr. Hero shows up? Call the guards. The flatware disappears? Not worth the processing power.
It happens more in FO3 with the Talon Company and the other guys who will just endlessly send wave after wave of men to the player, even to the detriment of the world's internal logic.
Why do people think all subjective things are equally valid? Opinions are subjective but if my toilet is broken I value the opinion of an experienced plumber over that of a newborn baby.
Yeah man isn't the highest authority, God is the highest authority, but it just so happens that God never does anything in-person and speaks exclusively through men. :^)
sorry, anon, im not israeli or palestinian, my god is for the white man, therefore objectively right.
1 month ago
Anonymous
nah you’re an atheist which is the most anti white stance possible statistically
1 month ago
Anonymous
>muh biased liberal statistic says (x) therefore i have no opinion outside of this!
have a nice day immediately.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>biased liberal statistic
Absolute cope you know for a fact is cope >therefore I have no opinion outside of this
It’s politically healthy to follow trends and to designate how you should deal with groups based on their preponderance toward certain things. I avoid black neighbourhoods because they are more likely to be violent. I don’t support atheists because they are far more likely to be leftist and pro immigrant. I get it, you’re a special boy whose different, but your group is statistically cancer
1 month ago
Anonymous
>words words words words words words
thanks for proving me right.
1 month ago
Anonymous
it’s a tiny paragraph composed of about three sentences. let me surmise it >it’s a statistical fact that the majority of atheists support more immigration >I judge their group based on that for my own political safety
>it's messages that tell you to defy your human desires.
Defy them, or just delay your gratification to reap greater rewards in the future (as future is greater than the present)?
If it was truly about defying human desires then it would involve smashing your balls into paste with a hammer (and even then it's case dependant because some still would enjoy that). >that's why when god speaks through men
easy, a psyop to get suckers to fork over their resources
"give the messenger of the god money"
>If it was truly about defying human desires then it would involve smashing your balls into paste with a hammer
what purpose would that serve?
"go forth and multiply" how are you supposed to do that without testicles, moron?
i know you're a kissless homosexual, but some of us can actually talk to women. >easy, a psyop to get suckers to fork over their resources
"give the messenger of the god money"
and there it is, you're a just a bitter b***h.
no one can make your life better but you.
give it a try sometime, Black person.
you could think what you did was subjectively right but i also can morally and subjectively feel the need to throw you into a meat grinder as a response and both incidents are justified
that may be the case, but in killing you i too will have succeeded in my goals. if you think about it both of us got what we wanted out of this exchange
Morality is neither rational nor absolute nor natural. World has known many moral systems, each of which advances claims universality; all moral systems are therefore particular, serving a specific purpose for their propagators or creators, and enforcing a certain regime that disciplines human beings for social life by narrowing our perspectives and limiting our horizons.
Karma in FO3 is moronic because you can kill several sociopathic or psychopathic NPCs involved in horrific acts or planning them and you get karma deductions. Like the former raider in Megaton who says he'll only travel with you if you have bad karma and murder people...why do they let him live there? Why is killing a ghoul whos being kept out of an establishment for wanting to murder everyone inside give you bad karma? All of these people outright mention their love of killing for the pettiest reasons.
Morality in games is not what you consider moral or not but what the vast majority in that world view as moral or not.
Fallout and other games should have Karma vs Popularity separate meters, so you can be a beloved psycho or a hated vigilante
Actually it should be way more complex, but I suppose that's too much to ask for
The morality system in NV didn't really matter and was pretty much broken since you had to go out of your way to be evil and it gave out good karma like candy. The faction reputation however makes sense though.
>morality is subjective
it isn't
God is real and objectively Good, therefore actions that are in accordance to Divine Command are objectively Good while those that are in opposition are objectively Evil
god sent bears to kill 30+ children for insulting a bald man, even his own morality is subjective and as all humans are made in his image it would make sense for us to share in that subjectivity with regards to morals
in womb you are innocent. as you have not been born into sin yet.
Also if you knew anything about the bible outside of you surface level strawmanning of it, you'd know with the bear attack, the children weren't actually children.
I thought atheists were supposed to be smart and look at context.
>references specific story in the bible >heh they didnt say which god!
you're a fricking moronic homosexual.
plus redditors are the ones that hate the bible.
nice try, dipshit, but you have to go back.
would you rather i talk about how allah forbade things for moronic reasons as well as condoning things like pedophillia and incest. the point is that as we are reflection of our gods they too are a reflection of us and as such these supposedly 'immoral' things are subjectively moral in the eyes of a high power, and thus shouldn't be shunned
>morality is subjective
No it isn't. That's like saying truth and beauty are subjective, or like saying they're not real. At that point just say you don't believe in morality.
you’re an idiot. what is true? define it. oh wait, you have to employ circular reasoning because “true” is just a condition your brain developed for usefulness. it doesn’t correspond to anything but what your mind registers as “true” and true itself can’t be defined or substantiated
The fact that you'd argue that he's wrong invalidates your position. Even anti-truth people like you innately understand that there is truth and there is false.
1 month ago
Anonymous
No, we don’t. I’m saying the stupid monkey brain logic we are all forced to operate on doesn’t correspond to truth necessarily at all, but whatever our brain axiomatically ordains what truth is. The fact I can explain this to you means only that I can recognise there’s no inherent truth sense and most of what we say and do is complete nonsense. You may as well say, free will doesn’t exist, so whatever opinions I have are worthless because I am effectively forced to have them.
To put it simply, the concept of truth being objective and universal implies that concepts fundamental to the human experience exist irrespective of people's independent or individual feelings, interpretations, or perspectives. Truth exists as a constant, unaffected by people's subjective biases or personal beliefs.
Beauty has objective universal standards, this is what the traditional understanding of aesthetics is all about. At the most basic level, you have symmetry, balance, sacred geometry, harmony, things appreciated across different cultures and societies. But that's just visual beauty.
For morality, an objective standard refers to a universal ethical code that dictates right and wrong, good and bad, irrespective of personal or societal beliefs. Fairness, justice, respect for life and dignity, things that lead to flourishing rather than suffering and death, must be universal moral values. Of course, if you deny the truth that life is a good thing, despite hypocritically not killing yourself immediately, then you may have trouble agreeing with that. I suspect that the people who hate humanity and life in general, those that seek to convince others that truth is personal and subjective, wish to convince others that ultimately truth is fake and meaningless, meaning morality and beauty are fake and meaningless. Obviously such beliefs would ruin the human experience.
>Truth exists as a constant, unaffected by people's subjective biases or personal beliefs.
No it doesn’t. Because you don’t apprehend anything outside of human consciousness which filters everything you experience
1 month ago
Anonymous
Prove it.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Ok. What are you aware of right now? Your own consciousness, and that is literally it. Everything you see is a representation of information you have no direct access to filtered through mental constructs.
would you rather i talk about how allah forbade things for moronic reasons as well as condoning things like pedophillia and incest. the point is that as we are reflection of our gods they too are a reflection of us and as such these supposedly 'immoral' things are subjectively moral in the eyes of a high power, and thus shouldn't be shunned
Immoral and moral don’t make coherent sense as concepts if you are a materialist. You can’t rightly call Allah immoral because by your own admission morality is nonsense.
1 month ago
Anonymous
then god isnt moral or immoral because morality doesnt really exist as a concept
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Ok. What are you aware of right now? Your own consciousness, and that is literally it.
Prove it.
>Beauty has objective universal standards, this is what the traditional understanding of aesthetics is all about. At the most basic level, you have symmetry, balance, sacred geometry, harmony, things appreciated across different cultures and societies. But that's just visual beauty.
Incorrect. Beauty is a rough set of guidelines aimed at increasing the likelihood of offspring well suited for survival. It can also warp depending on the mental illness. Beauty is a rough subjective perception of adaptability. >For morality, an objective standard refers to a universal ethical code that dictates right and wrong, good and bad, irrespective of personal or societal beliefs. Fairness, justice, respect for life and dignity, things that lead to flourishing rather than suffering and death, must be universal moral values.
Flourishing differs depending on the circumstances, and justice oftentimes prevents flourishing when applied without subjectively measured factors. >Of course, if you deny the truth that life is a good thing, despite hypocritically not killing yourself immediately, then you may have trouble agreeing with that. >I suspect that the people who hate humanity and life in general, those that seek to convince others that truth is personal and subjective, wish to convince others that ultimately truth is fake and meaningless, meaning morality and beauty are fake and meaningless. Obviously such beliefs would ruin the human experience.
Strawman tangent, doesn't serve you well in being taken seriouslly.
Here's the gist of it all:
>morality is subjective >morality is the most important system created by mankind
Not OP but both of these statements are true and do not contradict each other. You're a seething double digit IQ normalgay if you argue otherwise. It's not nihilism, you simply have to accept that subjective concepts ARE important and sometimes it's important for you to do things and uphold values even if they are not objectively correct. Most normalgays just hate not being correct, and they were also psyoped into thinking that "it's just an opinion bro" is an impenetrable counter to all criticism.
You're just a midwit who jumps to conclusions about nihilism due to very limited cognitive capacity.
1 month ago
Anonymous
This is the most reddit post I've seen here in a long time. You remind me of a convenience store clerk I knew who wore a Rick and Morty shirt every day. >You're just a midwit who jumps to conclusions
Peak irony.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>no argument, just a midwit meltdown
I accept your concession. Boy, that sure was easy.
1 month ago
Anonymous
I wasn't arguing with you, I was just pointing out that you're a typical reddit midwit who cares more about looking right and smelling your own farts than actually being right.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Your assumption is objectively incorrect.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Some aspects of beauty can be linked to evolutionary biology, but that wouldn't negate the possibility of objective standards in aesthetics. The appreciation of symmetry, balance, and harmony across different cultures suggests that there are universal principles of beauty that go beyond individual perceptions or survival instincts. Beauty isn't even limited to physical attributes, it also includes artistic and intellectual beauty, which can’t be explained solely by survival or adaptability. Of course your perception of beauty would warp due to mental illnesses, given the nature of mental illness alienating you from truth.
Your argument that flourishing differs depending on circumstances and that justice can prevent flourishing when applied without subjectively measured factors seems to conflate the concepts of justice and flourishing. Justice, as an objective moral value, is about fairness and equality, not necessarily about promoting flourishing. It’s possible for a society to flourish at the expense of justice (such as through exploitation). An objective moral standard would argue that this is morally wrong, regardless of the subjective benefits it might bring to some individuals or groups. And indeed, in the long term, even if injustice may produce it faster in the short term, and adhering to justice would promote flourishing in the short term, even if it inhibits it in the face of injustice on the short term. The nature of societies throughout all of history have made this quite clear.
You could consider my closing thoughts a "strawman tangent" if you considered my post a formal debate, which seems disingenuous, especially given your willingness to insult, and the fact that I already specified it was a suspicion.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Objective standards in aesthetics
How many units of aesthetic does this image have
1 month ago
Anonymous
Some aspects of beauty can be linked to evolutionary biology, but that wouldn't negate the possibility of objective standards in aesthetics. The appreciation of symmetry, balance, and harmony across different cultures suggests that there are universal principles of beauty that go beyond individual perceptions or survival instincts. Beauty isn't even limited to physical attributes, it also includes artistic and intellectual beauty, which can’t be explained solely by survival or adaptability. Of course your perception of beauty would warp due to mental illnesses, given the nature of mental illness alienating you from truth.
Your argument that flourishing differs depending on circumstances and that justice can prevent flourishing when applied without subjectively measured factors seems to conflate the concepts of justice and flourishing. Justice, as an objective moral value, is about fairness and equality, not necessarily about promoting flourishing. It’s possible for a society to flourish at the expense of justice (such as through exploitation). An objective moral standard would argue that this is morally wrong, regardless of the subjective benefits it might bring to some individuals or groups. And indeed, in the long term, even if injustice may produce it faster in the short term, and adhering to justice would promote flourishing in the short term, even if it inhibits it in the face of injustice on the short term. The nature of societies throughout all of history have made this quite clear.
You could consider my closing thoughts a "strawman tangent" if you considered my post a formal debate, which seems disingenuous, especially given your willingness to insult, and the fact that I already specified it was a suspicion.
How many units of justice exist in the sentencing of OJ Simpson?
1 month ago
Anonymous
>Beauty is a rough set of guidelines aimed at increasing the likelihood of offspring well suited for survival.
/v/, be honest with me, do architects want to frick buildings?
1 month ago
Anonymous
you didn't know?
1 month ago
Anonymous
Architectanon here, half of our job consists of having sex with or otherwise raping buildings. We always hide a special copulation port somewhere during construction.
1 month ago
Anonymous
You just make commie blocks
1 month ago
Anonymous
>warped by mental illness
ah yes, let's not rule by the perceptions of healthy invidviduals and let's rule truth out of genetic experiments and people about to die and relying on society for everything
>I suspect that the people who hate humanity and life in general, those that seek to convince others that truth is personal and subjective, wish to convince others that ultimately truth is fake and meaningless, meaning morality and beauty are fake and meaningless
I hate Life and I am convinced truth and ethics are objective. If I hated humanity, I'd espouse creating more of us to go through life. >respect for life and dignity
Life has no respect or dignity for Life.
That's why reputation is better as different communities and people will have different standards for what is right and wrong. People in civilized areas would hate someone known for being a thief or murderer, but people in raider or merc gangs might respect you and want to hire you for jobs.
You? A mere, prole beast that needs to be chained by fear and violence. That's why government has a monopoly on such things, back then you could just threaten people with death or muh hell, now we can implement the same functionalities with jurisdiction system or ol' reliable police brutality
Morality systems go against the idea of roleplaying imo. if I want to be evil, then whats the problem with that? Why is the game judging me for roleplaying in a roleplaying game?
>pillage village >kill the men >kill the women (after rape) >sell the children into slavery (after raping them too) >well achktually, morality is subjective
The core tenants of morality are not really subjective. It basically revolves around making sure that you don’t infringe upon others lives or livelihoods. You can be that one homosexual that thinks rape and murder are moral but you’re just being an edgy gay sex enjoyer.
>powerful people tricking the average moron into killing other people so that they can gain more power and wealth.
How many times in history has a random group of farmers got REALLY PISSED at a town they’ve never even heard of and just invaded?
I think morality systems are shit because it actually hurts role playing
I'LL decide whether or not I'm evil or good
The game branding me as good because I slew a monster harassing a town, even though just minutes before doing that I slew a mother and her children is fricking dumb and hurts my immersion
Even if you believe that, morality in games is not subjective because there's clear definitions of bad and good that objectively exist in the game's world.
If the only thing keeping you from being an absolute piece of shit is the belief that you're always being watched by an all-powerful being, then you're already an absolute piece of shit. If any good you do is done simply so you can get into heaven when you die, you probably don't belong there anyway. The people who think they're guaranteed to go to heaven are most likely to go to hell. You've never even wondered if you're really as holy as you think you are, have you?
>started new vegas after a decade >wind up near powder gangers hub >clear the entire area and gain tons of good karma >steal from the same area and lose karma
i legit forgot how fricking moronic and stupid this is. i can kill someone before they even talk to me and thats good if theyre a bad faction, but stealing from the same bad faction is also... bad?
but it makes no sense homie. if i can just waltz into caesars camp and cave his head before he utters a word to me, but still gain karma, then why am i losing karma from stealing from a hostile faction? i hate to say it but its a prime example of Ludo narrative dissonance thats extremely hard to ignore
>steal a handful of junk from the powderBlack folk >-1 karma >blow the feet off a fiend with an improvised fusion grenade >+1 karma >check back in 2 days to repeat the process
The hardest thing to do in this game is play neutral since outside of stealing there aren't as many ways to tank your karma. Beheading a bunch of fiends with a blunt fire axe will usually put you well into the green.
>another thread where dumbass homies think "objective" means "consistent" or "agreed upon"
If something is objective that means it is a measurable physical property that exists independent of human minds.
Weight is objective. It is a measurable and quantifiable physical property. A five pound rock would weigh five pounds whether or not humans existed.
If the thing you are talking about is not measurable and quantifiable or if it would not exist if there were no humans then it is subjective.
There are no units of morality. There is no device to quantify and measure beauty. Neither concept is valid outside of human perception.
measurement through consensus of a number of monkeys that aised their hands in unison because they all felt something through their own senses so its not objective either if you want to be an butthole about it
you cant measure fear or selfishness yet these are real concepts. i own all this website in philosophy dont even try, i never lost a debate
>Weight isn't objective because the units specifically are a human invention
You're moronic.
No rebuttal is needed as your post was simply wrong by definition.
>fear and selfishness exist objectively and independent of perception!
But that's obviously wrong.
"Fear" and "Selfishness" are labels given to heuristic judgements. There are no units of fear. You cannot measure selfishness.
Then why are you using the words "not objective" as it was dismissing the reality of something?
1 month ago
Anonymous
>I don't know what objective vs subjective means >in this discussion of moral objectivity vs nihilism/relativism >despite literally responding to a post very clearly delineating that objective measures are just that: measures.
Fear, the concept, objectively exists in the minds of men. Existence is a binary concept, a boolean. Something exists or it doesn't.
Fear existing as a concept does not mean that fear itself is a measurable physical property - on the contrary it is a label given to a large and nebulous subset of mental states with no clear delineation.
It's time to stop posting.
1 month ago
Anonymous
you re running circle here. no one will take you seriously if you object that fear is real. i thought you d come up with something that would compromise objectivity and reality but here you are rolling back syaing things you already said for no reason.
if something is real yet not objective then something does not have to be objective to be real then you cannot say something is not objective to dismiss the reality of it. scienc eisnt objective either since we ar enot all knowing, keep trying to refine our undertsanding, test it, make mistakes and roll back many times on what we have done.
you say you can measure these science things, and that objective only means real even without human beigns(thus morality isnt objective) but truth is : without human beings, there is no science, and there are no measurements. K-O, cya under the bus
1 month ago
Anonymous
>no one will take you seriously if you object that fear is real
Good thing I didn't do that then.
Stopped reading here because I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone that can't read.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>stopped reading
then you just lost the debate. anyone can ignore arguments but thats doesnt prevent you from losing. if you wernt tryign to dismiss the reality of morality then why are you commenting? homosexual
>That's not what objectivity means!
In the context of moral philosophy that is absolutely what objectivity means you fricking moron. Moral objectivism is the belief in intrinsic properties of goodness and evilness the same way objects have weight and density. >I will not provide an alternative definition because I have none!
Neat >logic is objective
That's meant in a completely different sense than moral objectivism, but regardless:
Holy shit anon, if you can actually prove that you've got a nobel prize coming your way!
But you can't, because you're moronic and have no fricking clue what you're talking about.
>In the context of moral philosophy that is absolutely what objectivity means you fricking moron.
Please provide one (1) excerpt from any philosopher of your choosing that argues that moral judgment being objective means that they belong in the same class as measurable physical properties. >That's meant in a completely different sense than moral objectivism
No it's not.
You've essentially just said you're unwilling to make an argument.
1 month ago
Anonymous
Don't worry, anon, you may be moronic but I'll do your googling for you. I know it's hard even when the post right above yours tells you exactly what to look for.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080512150623/http://philosophy.ucdavis.edu/pekkav/research/moralrealism.pdf >The metaphysical thesis: Moral propositions are true when actions and other objects
of moral assessment have the relevant moral properties (so that the relevant
moral facts obtain), where these facts and properties are robust: their metaphysical
status, whatever it is, is not relevantly different from that of (certain types of)
ordinary non-moral facts and properties.
Technically there are multiple forms of Moral Objectivism (none of them call themselves that to avoid precisely this problem, they all call themselves Moral Realism instead") but the one that matters here is the third theorem of robust moral realism.
The anon claiming that's not what objective means is still moronic.
Your definition of objective is slightly incorrect because it hinges on verifiability. Something does not need to be measurable to be objective, it just needs to be independent of human thought. Verification is only done so we (subjectively, to ourselves) can confirm it as being objective.
Morality is obviously subjective thoughever.
every time such rhetorical arguments that deal with things surrounding rhetoric and truth and subjectivity and all that have happened and continue to happen,
one wonders how people got exposed to/got so close to such ideas without having realized that there is this guy who's pretty much a myth (his name is pretty widely well-known), and yet provides quite a compelling figure of admiration from which we might realize that to argue with each other in such ways, is self-sabotaging and self-destructive (but of course, his student went on to pervert his ideas in old-age, and then the student of the student went on to further pervert the ideas of the two prior men - that student ended up becoming quite influential).
There was once a man who tempered the ravenous heart with the guidance of logic,
and who tempered the self-delusional dispassion of logic, with the warmth of the heart.
Definitions are important and none of you kids know what the frick you're talking about.
Moral Objectivism - Morals are an inherent property like density
Moral Absolutism - there are moral truths that hold regardless of context
Moral Relativism - morals are a function of and codified within culture, moral disagreement is real
Moral nihilism - There is no intrinsic objective property of morality and there are no universal moral truths
Please note that it is possible to hold multiple of these views at one time. An absolutist is often also an objectivist though not necessarily. Most moral nihilists are also relativists.
Know what the words you're arguing about mean before you use them.
The concept of "morality" is next on the chopping block. The correct and modern term is ethics.
The difference is that ethics deals with real and substrate-dependent equations, which is always necessary for modelling reality. Only an incoherent subjectivist could think anything (including ethics) has true wildcards in it. Only an incoherent dualist could think anything exists independently of physically real (and physically determined) substrata. It cannot be stressed enough that the universe has no wildcards.
Morality is an archaic concept, based on dogma. Morals have nothing to do with a value/qualia/sensory equation, or applying logic to a dilemma. Morals are just screed passed down from generations. Morals are a contrived, normative, biased failed modelling of the world and ethic. They are based on poorly examined and contemporaneous memes and psychology, rather than logic and philosophy. Nobody who has any understanding of rational value assessment (that is honest, true, or that accurately deals with any circumstance whatsoever) would use the word morality. It's an obsolete word, for obsolete and primitive failed religious world models, and is indeed ready for retirement.
>beauty is objective
Jimmy thinks pears are yummy. Timmy thinks pears are yucky. Who is wrong and should be forced to change his taste or executed for heresy?
>pick "good" choice >get money, a unique weapon with better stats, and NPC likes you more and gives you another quest >pick "evil" choice >get 2x money, 5 weak healing potions, and NPCs call you an butthole every time they see you >on top of that the "evil" choice is 99% of the time senseless on the level of kicking puppies for no benefit or 'killing a mass murderer means you're as bad as him'
Morality is shit in games, yes. Doesn't mean it can't be done better, you just need someone to put some thought into the system for once.
dude people are too moronic to figure morality in real life, ruling elites included, you think they ll figure it out in a fallout gamebryo? lmao. who cares if it shit its useless. id rather have a shit system with good mechanics in game rather than perfectly morally accurate (which would be impossible anyway because you can always rationalize this guy was kindof a piece of shit and im out to save the world with the water purifier to save more lives anyway)
No? its not useful. it affects some fricking perks that frickign useless and barely gives any money. the whole thing is fricked. id rather have more conseuqneces and mechanics off karma. its virtually impossible to have a perfect moral system in game. i agree than you can make it better but if the mechanics /consequences suck whats the point of working so hard to make a good karma system?
>define morality
That is literally the entire body of moral philosophy to ever exist. Moral Philosophy exists as an attempt to do this. >Objective
In the broadest sense this means that something exists independent of the mind. In terms of the kind of robust moral realism that people are referring to when they say "morality is objective" it means that moral properties exist in the same way ordinary non-moral facts and properties (like mass) >Subjective
In the broadest sense this means that something does not exist independent of the mind. In terms of moral relativism, which is what people mean when they say "morality is subjective," it means that moral status is describing an individual opinion or societal agreement as opposed to an immutable physical property.
also see
Definitions are important and none of you kids know what the frick you're talking about.
Moral Objectivism - Morals are an inherent property like density
Moral Absolutism - there are moral truths that hold regardless of context
Moral Relativism - morals are a function of and codified within culture, moral disagreement is real
Moral nihilism - There is no intrinsic objective property of morality and there are no universal moral truths
Please note that it is possible to hold multiple of these views at one time. An absolutist is often also an objectivist though not necessarily. Most moral nihilists are also relativists.
Know what the words you're arguing about mean before you use them.
just to make it clear. I a pure (almost) french philosphical bulldozer. Truth runs in my veins and i always had the best instincts, both in taste and philosophical opinions. I was born to win philophical debates. You can only cry that your ego was wounded. Now if you don't want to stay out of the way unless you want your philosophical throat to be repeatedly philosophically facefricked (heterosexually)
>'causing suffering for others is bad' >GOOD AND EVIL ARE SUBJECTIVE ACTUALLY LMAO IF I CAUSE SUFFERING FOR MY OWN GAIN IT IS (IN MY SUBJECTIVE VIEW) MORALLY RIGHTEOUS
There are a lot of people in modern society who shouldn't really be allowed to self-govern
imagine sayign something isn't real because dependant on human experience, despite human experience being everything we have and probably the ultimate goal of the universe and maybe god, even the laws of physics being tuned to the millimeter to birth the most complex structure in the universe : our brain
but no, instead of making philosophy for humans, lets make philosophy for DUCKS, because its very important and meaningful right?
The concept of subjectivity doesn't have any value judgements thoughbeitever. It just means something depends upon a subject. You're confusing it for "personal," which is how people have been misapplying the term.
they are in the sense that they think we cannot have a reason based consensus on things that are more or less morals than others and that no opinion can have superiority over others when assessment of morality is not very complex in most cases
the supposition its that its ok to kill random people for fun. you re vastly overestimating the average anon on this psychopath website
>they are in the sense that they think we cannot have a reason based consensus
Except no, no one has said that.
What you are describing, societal agreement on moral status, is not moral realism or moral objectivism. You are describing moral relativism.
How ironic.
1 month ago
Anonymous
no. im syaing that things change depending on circumstances. but that you can infer what is moral based on "equations " that themselves do not change. only the variables change, as well as the result.
if because people disagree and it depends on the situation makes it relative then science is relative as well (which it really is, only tards think things are perma set in stone). but these same tards oppose set in stone objective blabla laws of physics woith morality to pretend one is better than the other when they are exactly the same. how ironic.
1 month ago
Anonymous
>no. im syaing that things change depending on circumstances
Which is moral relativism.
You are disagreeing with moral realism aka moral objectivism
You do not believe morals are objective.
1 month ago
Anonymous
not any less than science
1 month ago
Anonymous
Your statement is nonsensical
The language barrier is hitting you in the face.
1 month ago
Anonymous
how so? are you claimign that science is something objective compared to morality ? everything changes according to circumstances because the world is relative. even the laws of physics changed before the big bang apparently. the only constant is the will of god
1 month ago
Anonymous
>how so?
In that it makes no sense. It is divorced from the context of the conversation. > are you claimign that science is something objective compared to morality
This, too, is nonsensical. Science is a form of inquiry, it cannot be objective or subjective as it is not a property or judgement. It is a concept. >everything changes according to circumstances because the world is relative
This isn't saying anything. It's word salad. >even the laws of physics changed before the big bang apparently
"before the big bang" is not a thing
You lack the vocabulary to engage in this conversation.
1 month ago
Anonymous
i dont speak in autism so you re being a nitpicky butthole, despite the vocablurary and phraisng not beign respected, one can absolutely and obviously infer what i am trying to say, im not going to waste explanations on someone thats not even trying to engage
1 month ago
Anonymous
>I don't speak good but you know what I mean
No, I don't. In fact I don't think you understand the conversation that's being had at all, which is part of why your posts make no sense. You're arguing against your own misunderstandings.
also if being evil can land you slaves and crime companions like Jericho, good karma should land you storng allies willing sometimes to even die for your greater cause and show indefective loyalty. there are positive power bits to being good, but maybe its just fallout and anglo wrenched minds always trying to be cynical out of despair and the lacking intelligence to see that you can make posititive change (nuke britain btw lol)
i unironically believe plato was right about the form of the goof
and also i feel that we as humans can only aproximate what exactly "good" is because we are flawed and imperfect, but at the same time this is a good thing as we can always improve and be better if we try, in a way this is existence's greatest gift
Moral Relativism is opposed to Moral Realism which is what people mean when they say morals are objective.
Moral Relativism entails that morality is subjective.
This is what I'm talking about when I say you kids don't know what these words mean.
Morality is not subjective (individual), it's relative to groups. Don't call it objective. >what people mean when they say
frick people, they're not philosophers
Get up to date with the new tech in philosophy. Read more, if only just on Wikipedia to not get swamp ass.
accordign to your bullshit definition of morality. the less narrow one affects life in general, with the humanspecies at the top, then groups then individuals, to protect human life and thriving and make life experience better on the long term beyond your little self. that isnt dependent on groups which may have very local morals (which maybe better for themselves at the moment fault fo anything better)
different groups of scientists can have different equations that serve them in different ways, both being incomplete, but it doesnt mean there isnt a more complete equation out there, or that this better equation cannot be found
>accordign to your bullshit definition of morality. the less narrow one affects life in general, with the humanspecies at the top, then groups then individuals, to protect human life and thriving and make life experience better on the long term beyond your little self.
More complete nonsense.
if life isnt good why are you alive right now? if you had the opporunity to go in heaven right now, you would say no? hypocritical midwitted homosexual
>You have correctly divined my moronic belief that a self-preservation instinct means "life is good" must be an objective universal moral truth independent of the human mind
Cool, you're stupid on top of being unable to properly engage with this conversation in this language.
Something tells me you couldn't keep up in French, either.
it makes complete sense, you never adress any point with logical argument, you just declare it nonsense, you fricking LOST moronic money, now kneel.
>Cool, you're stupid on top of being unable to properly engage with this conversation in this language.
failed to adress again, i keep WINNING. you can leave the thread now.
>self preservation instinct
why do you blame your instincts? you can turn off your ego right now. tune down your emotions. woudl you say yes? yes or no?why are you tryint to think from an ezthereal dead zombie god with no emotions? you are NOT. we re discussing HUMAN philosophy and HUMAN morality. clay golems can frick right now. you fricking failed to aknowledge that his was a HUMAN debate. i CANNOT lose a hilosophical debate, as you are witnessing. i will always land on my feet with the high ground. are you feeling the dread of defeat yet?
1 month ago
Anonymous
>we are discussing HUMAN morality!
If it's only a function of human minds then it's subjective you dumb frick.
You keep accidentally arguing for moral relativism and it's very funny.
anyway like i said the equation doesnt change, only variables and results. one part depends, one part stays the same no matter what. life beign a prerequisite for everything its going to be difficult arguign than it is bullshit unless you have a nice day right now, but even then you might be wrong.. you not arguign that it has somewhat objective parts by pure definition, but because you would disagree with it. morality means what it means and you can bhe immoral if you want, and the gods might frick you for it if you want. wheter you disagre isnt the point. the point is that it exists, and huge consequences for us. humans are part of the universe so i dont se why it wouldnt be objective, are monkeys beign attached to each other sometimes something objective? do you draw the line when the morality affects human beings ?
>this fricking word soup
The best I can gather from your nonsensical ramblings is that you think the existence of a self-preservation instinct is the same as "life is good" being an objective and intrinsic moral truth, which is fricking moronic.
Also that you're religious, in which case your actual argument for moral objectivity is simple faith which is useless.
You don't seem to understand what objective means and you actively resist attempts to tell you what it means, so I think we're done here.
if life isnt good why are you alive right now? if you had the opporunity to go in heaven right now, you would say no? hypocritical midwitted homosexual
objective answers only
left
right
Right without the beans
why the frick do you people hate beans so much
That gay looking plate of homosexualry on the right with 12 fricking tomatoes on the plate is most certainly not a full English. It's a shitty Amerimuttised take on it.
Do brits skip lunch or are they just fatasses?
The "Full English" is meant to be a hearty breakfast for the working class (Dock workers, farmers, etc). It's high calorie for a reason, we usually have smaller lunches as well like sandwiches or meat pastries.
I love breakfast food, but I don't usually wake up early enough to have breakfast.
Right without the beans but it's so much food I dont think I would have lunch
left.
who tf eats tomatoes, beans and mushrooms in the morning?
I sub in hashbrowns in place of beans but otherwise right is how I treat myself if I'm eating out for breakfast with others. Those portions are ridiculous though.
I would, that seems amazing from a taste and nutritional standpoint.
Right, but replace the eggs with eggs benedict and replace the beams pineapple slices.
Brits don't have little prissy posh plum tomatoes like that with Full English breakfasts, It's usually half of one big rustic tomato.
>pancakes
>beans
Disgusting
I don't really like beans
Wish the American eggs weren't scrambled
neither. have a small, simple breakfast. the "food" in the pic is disgusting gluttonous western excess.
>hearty breakfast for the doc workers, farmers
>high calorie for a reason
and what is that reason?
>have to work all day
>bloat yourself up with food at the start of it
doesn't seem proper.
>cherry tomatoes on the vine
>green shit sprinkled on the eggs
>whatever the frick those 'sausages' are
That isn't a full English
Yeah it looks way too good to be a full english, which has to be as bland and flavorless as possible.
Cherry tomatoes are better raw
Eggs are better scrambled
I don't like mushrooms
And I could take or leave the baked beans
Granted, the American breakfast is loaded with carbs and starch, a full English is most certainly better for you, but I'm not judging it by calorie count.
I think three tomates are enough, thank you
Left.
Why don't brits just grind up their food into a smoothie?
It already looks soggy AS FRICK
Right looks a lot better than any "british breakfast" I've ever eaten, including sevarl in england. Never seen anything green on those plates.
I'm English, 33, and I've never seen a plate of food like that in my life
Hash brown
Sausage
Back bacon
Fried egg
Fried bread
Black pudding
Beans or tinned tomato
Mushroom
Toast
Swap the meat on the American for the meant on the Full English and then eat the new American.
full english breakfast is the only worthwhile contribution of this nation
right but I take left's bacon and extra beans
Neither. Cereal is better.
objectively, both are disgusting goyslop
Where is the fried bread on the full english
Also that's way too many baked tomatoes
American. It tastes good.
Full English but replace tomatoes with hash browns
english
left if the pancakes are good. im brit and the right is mushy: tomatoes, beans, mushrooms.
watery scrambled eggs, crispy and sweet bacon, and butter fried pancakes slathered with maple syrup may be unhealthy but damn
left is too dry
>i think morality systems in games are shit
True
>morality is subjective
moron
Dum bich niga.
cope harder
cope harder
lmao you re a total homosexual i would make a hat with your butthole in a debate on god philosophy etc go back to your drugs and dont play plato you dont have what it takes monkey
>word word word word
why are lefties like this? also cope again
>lefties
what? anyway you re the one coping i absolutely never lost a debate in philosophy recently, i own 99.9999999999% of the population in debate, and I can sense a dunning kruger homosexual with level 1 opinions when i see one
>more lefty seething
Quiet now please
k bot whatever
You don’t, you are just too stupid to understand their point and gaslight yourself into thinking you won
what? im way smarter than all of you combined regardless of bullshit like IQ, I know exactly what arguments you re going to have, i have listen to them all, and beaten them in debates. i know what you think but you do not know what i think, you never heard any arguments like mine, unless you had some religion you needed to break in order to hear them and thus cope with illogical bullshit
i wipe the floor with philosophy phds. philosophy is in the blood, no amount of reading or training will ever allow you to beat me, you can learn knowledge but you can't learn a sharph neurotic high IQ mind with a good sense of prioritization and meaningfulness, which many scholars and dunning kruger sociopaths lack terrible
didn't read keep malding
>morality is subjective
I think in the sense of grey areas of morality yes, it is subjective. the black and white of morality is objective.
A morality system that's just a "good and bad" slider is stupid (unless the setting of the game is very tightly contained such that everyone you meet shares the same moral values).
A good morality system requires specific characters/factions to do checks against specific actions you took.
If you destroy the dam and Water Town finds out, then Water Town will hate you for it, but the Ooga Booga tribe on the other side of the map has no reason to care, or even means of finding out about this.
I think morality systems in games are shit because they're shoehorned and shallow, making the one thing they're supposed to represent feel hypocritical and ring false.
I still remember losing karma for stealing from the legion in new vegas.
Stealing is bad mmkay?
I still remember losing karma for beating the drug-addicted pickpocket children in the Den to death in 2
Also my character was a moron and nobody would talk to him
The most reliable way to become gigasatan is to dive into someone's dumpster and steal 200 used cum tissues from it for a total of -1000 karma, maxing out the negative karma as a result.
All the most evil people in Nevada and DC are kleptomaniacs.
Also fun fact, in Fallout 3 you will always be at worst neutral if you decide to use the gigaholocaust virus, because you lose 2k karma, and karma thresholds are -1k and +1k, and you have to self-sacrifice to use the virus so you will always gain +1k good karma for the self-sacrifice, evening you karma to a neat 0.
Karma is a SHIT in Fallout in general, but especially in gamebryo Fallouts.
It's not nearly as subjective as you think, but it is situational. It's as simple as appeasing an entity, whether that entity is God, an organization, or your mom. Let's just say I have a lot of good karma.
i dont think you should have to appease anyone and should only work towards furthering your own goals
In that case I have a frickton of good karma, because I'm really good at appeasing your mom.
God doesn't exist, and all the other entities operate on subjective directives. Appeasing them is appeasing their subjective sensibilities which change depending on circumstances.
this is just midwit slop that doesn’t say anything. you’ve just stated your opinion with no substantiation twice over
this is just midwit slop that doesn’t say anything. you’ve just stated your opinion with no substantiation twice over
What do I need to prove? Look at your post and tell me where you established anything using argumentation. You just stated things
I did state things. Things that are correct. What do you need argumented? Ehat exactly do I need to explain to you that you aren't smart enough to comprehend by yourself? It always takes personal approach. Ask and ye might receive, though you're a homosexual so you also might not.
>dude everything I type, even a gigantic metaphysical assumption, is just le correct
I know it looks smart when rick sanchez does this but when it’s just some random moron on the internet it doesn’t
>muh rick and morty
Another seething midwit without an argument or a desire to pursue the truth. I accept your concession as well.
i think sleeping in an owned bed is objectively morally wrong
too bad it isnt
>killing ghouls automatically makes you a saint.
I've really never understood this.
Methinks putting ferals out of their misery is a good thing
I guess, but in the end they're just enemies you meet. There shouldn't be a +1 every time you kill one. This thing screws up the entire system
But that might not be the reason you do it. Killing enemies should always be a neutral act. Killing specific people or civilians should be where karma comes into play. Fallout 3 nailed this aspect of the karma system despite the system having other ways it can be cheesed.
this.
I hated how killing some random enemy out in the wastes resulted in karma repercussions despite no one else around to see it and spread the word.
karma is a social system.
If a ghoul is killed in the metro and no one is around to see it, did they even get killed?
>tell tenpenny to relax around ghouls
>they kill everyone there
>kill the ghouls
>threedog goes "AYO WTF homie THAT LONE WANDERER RACIST AND SHIEEEEEET"
>lose karma
sorry bro didnt know the brotherhood of steel who were on record not particularly like ghouls or super mutants just let their Black stand up for literal murderers
There is no winning with that quest.
Kill the ghouls and negative karma
Let the ghouls in and they kill everyone in the tower and turn it into a ghoul place
I wish there was a mod that fixes the dilema as there really is no way of doing it with a positive outcome.
Morality is a spook
>cannibalize a baby
>you have lost karma
>WOOOOOOOWWWW WHAT DO YOU MEAN I LOST KARMA? MORALITY IS SUBJECTIVE
What if you had a pretty strong hunch that the baby would grow up to be Stalin 2.0? Yeah. Not so simple now huh.
That's every baby
Yeah but what if Stalin saved a wolf?
what if im starving bro, i mean really starving, and theres no food for miles. the babys gonna die anyways theres no one else around so yes i will eat the baby
>morality is subjective
nihilism is a worthless truth my friend. morality is the most important system created by mankind and getting it wrong will produce terrible consequences for human progress and life on this planet
>morality is subjective
>morality is the most important system created by mankind
Not OP but both of these statements are true and do not contradict each other. You're a seething double digit IQ normalgay if you argue otherwise. It's not nihilism, you simply have to accept that subjective concepts ARE important and sometimes it's important for you to do things and uphold values even if they are not objectively correct. Most normalgays just hate not being correct, and they were also psyoped into thinking that "it's just an opinion bro" is an impenetrable counter to all criticism.
Binary morality systems are fine depending on the game. The reason devs do it is because morality is complicated, and it’s a simple way to calculate the cumulative effects of your actions.
It’s only shit when when one morality is just objectively better than the other (Bioshock for example, where the Good route is objectively superior in the long run to the Evil route).
Universal karma systems in games are very dumb, faction-based karma is good. Also being able to steal everything not nailed down and only have NPCs notice if they see you do it is dumb. There should be some limit where if you come back and visit the NPC you stole from later, they call the guards on you and/or turn hostile. In every RPG I've ever played where it's possible to steal, stealing is way too good because of the lack of serious consequences.
Skyrim kind of tried with the 'hired thugs' system where if you steal from someone, they might realize it was you and send some thugs after you with a note saying, "Beat up player for stealing my dildos". It would probably be too taxing to make NPCs aware of all their possessions and react to them going missing in a realistic manner.
But I think it could be done if NPCs would be programmed with specific things that were important to them that they would notice missing. The family heirloom sword going missing after Mr. Hero shows up? Call the guards. The flatware disappears? Not worth the processing power.
the hired thugs events only happens like once a playthrough too im pretty sure. as soon as you kill those guys they dont send more
It happens more in FO3 with the Talon Company and the other guys who will just endlessly send wave after wave of men to the player, even to the detriment of the world's internal logic.
Well this is easy to solve. Since every faction has its own morals, instead of having an overall karma system just have a rep with each facti--
Oh.
>Morality is subjective
>i uhh read his le wikipedia page and have a vague idea of what he was saying
you will never read the critique
>being a dick for no reason
>lying
You have already failed the categorical imperative and are an amoral person.
Why do people think all subjective things are equally valid? Opinions are subjective but if my toilet is broken I value the opinion of an experienced plumber over that of a newborn baby.
>eating breakfast when it isn't breakfast
It's just not the same...
If morality is subjective what is preventing you from becoming a god?
morals are only subjective when you believe man to be the highest authority.
Yeah man isn't the highest authority, God is the highest authority, but it just so happens that God never does anything in-person and speaks exclusively through men. :^)
well you see my god says i can kill you so i will, and if your god says you can kill me then that is also justified
your god is wrong, mine is right :^)
mine is right and yours is wrong lets kill eachother for 1000 years
sorry, anon, im not israeli or palestinian, my god is for the white man, therefore objectively right.
nah you’re an atheist which is the most anti white stance possible statistically
>muh biased liberal statistic says (x) therefore i have no opinion outside of this!
have a nice day immediately.
>biased liberal statistic
Absolute cope you know for a fact is cope
>therefore I have no opinion outside of this
It’s politically healthy to follow trends and to designate how you should deal with groups based on their preponderance toward certain things. I avoid black neighbourhoods because they are more likely to be violent. I don’t support atheists because they are far more likely to be leftist and pro immigrant. I get it, you’re a special boy whose different, but your group is statistically cancer
>words words words words words words
thanks for proving me right.
it’s a tiny paragraph composed of about three sentences. let me surmise it
>it’s a statistical fact that the majority of atheists support more immigration
>I judge their group based on that for my own political safety
uh huh, that's why when god speaks through men, it's messages that tell you to defy your human desires.
gay.
>it's messages that tell you to defy your human desires.
Defy them, or just delay your gratification to reap greater rewards in the future (as future is greater than the present)?
If it was truly about defying human desires then it would involve smashing your balls into paste with a hammer (and even then it's case dependant because some still would enjoy that).
>that's why when god speaks through men
easy, a psyop to get suckers to fork over their resources
"give the messenger of the god money"
>If it was truly about defying human desires then it would involve smashing your balls into paste with a hammer
what purpose would that serve?
"go forth and multiply" how are you supposed to do that without testicles, moron?
i know you're a kissless homosexual, but some of us can actually talk to women.
>easy, a psyop to get suckers to fork over their resources
"give the messenger of the god money"
and there it is, you're a just a bitter b***h.
no one can make your life better but you.
give it a try sometime, Black person.
religion existed before money did. the whole it’s a money scam is the most brainlet shit ever, it’s cartoonish
He spoke through a burning bush
Morality is subjective.
Though the consequences others bring unto you for your actions sure aren't.
>Muh morals
OP really steals? No dignity
there is no right or wrong, that doesn't mean other people see it that way. Now pick a side.
>rapes and kills your entire family including your dog
Nothin personell kiddo. besides I did nothing wrong since morality is subjective.
you could think what you did was subjectively right but i also can morally and subjectively feel the need to throw you into a meat grinder as a response and both incidents are justified
Do what you must, I have already won.
that may be the case, but in killing you i too will have succeeded in my goals. if you think about it both of us got what we wanted out of this exchange
>kills innocent citizen for absolutely no reason
>"why am I getting negative karma?"
you, OP, are a donkey
This was really annoying in New Vegas
>Kill a band of bandits
>Go to loot their stuff
>Its all red
>Stealing is wrong
>Murder is fine
Morality is neither rational nor absolute nor natural. World has known many moral systems, each of which advances claims universality; all moral systems are therefore particular, serving a specific purpose for their propagators or creators, and enforcing a certain regime that disciplines human beings for social life by narrowing our perspectives and limiting our horizons.
Morality in games is not what you consider moral or not but what the vast majority in that world view as moral or not.
Karma in FO3 is moronic because you can kill several sociopathic or psychopathic NPCs involved in horrific acts or planning them and you get karma deductions. Like the former raider in Megaton who says he'll only travel with you if you have bad karma and murder people...why do they let him live there? Why is killing a ghoul whos being kept out of an establishment for wanting to murder everyone inside give you bad karma? All of these people outright mention their love of killing for the pettiest reasons.
Fallout and other games should have Karma vs Popularity separate meters, so you can be a beloved psycho or a hated vigilante
Actually it should be way more complex, but I suppose that's too much to ask for
The morality system in NV didn't really matter and was pretty much broken since you had to go out of your way to be evil and it gave out good karma like candy. The faction reputation however makes sense though.
Might makes right
>morality is subjective
it isn't
God is real and objectively Good, therefore actions that are in accordance to Divine Command are objectively Good while those that are in opposition are objectively Evil
it's as shrimple as that
god sent bears to kill 30+ children for insulting a bald man, even his own morality is subjective and as all humans are made in his image it would make sense for us to share in that subjectivity with regards to morals
you didn read the book.
i read the cliffnotes and thats good enough
>abortion for all
>CHILDREN DIED IN THE BIBILE!!!
not even close. but you are moronic, and it's apparent by your lack of knowledge on the bible.
children died in the bible but not babies in the womb thus the life of a living child is a lot less valuable than one not yet born
in womb you are innocent. as you have not been born into sin yet.
Also if you knew anything about the bible outside of you surface level strawmanning of it, you'd know with the bear attack, the children weren't actually children.
I thought atheists were supposed to be smart and look at context.
interesting how someone uses the fairly neutral term god and redditors instantly start fuming at one specific one
>references specific story in the bible
>heh they didnt say which god!
you're a fricking moronic homosexual.
plus redditors are the ones that hate the bible.
nice try, dipshit, but you have to go back.
would you rather i talk about how allah forbade things for moronic reasons as well as condoning things like pedophillia and incest. the point is that as we are reflection of our gods they too are a reflection of us and as such these supposedly 'immoral' things are subjectively moral in the eyes of a high power, and thus shouldn't be shunned
>pedophilia le bad
oh right it’s a redditor
so you admit morality is subjective
>God is good
And yet he allowed starfield to be released. Doubt.
Christgays BTFO, praise Zeus
>morality is subjective
No it isn't. That's like saying truth and beauty are subjective, or like saying they're not real. At that point just say you don't believe in morality.
Beauty and morality are subjective. Truth isn't.
>Truth isn't
It is when I have enough power to dictate what 'truth' is
The truth will remain the truth, you can only force people to lie about it.
you’re an idiot. what is true? define it. oh wait, you have to employ circular reasoning because “true” is just a condition your brain developed for usefulness. it doesn’t correspond to anything but what your mind registers as “true” and true itself can’t be defined or substantiated
The fact that you'd argue that he's wrong invalidates your position. Even anti-truth people like you innately understand that there is truth and there is false.
No, we don’t. I’m saying the stupid monkey brain logic we are all forced to operate on doesn’t correspond to truth necessarily at all, but whatever our brain axiomatically ordains what truth is. The fact I can explain this to you means only that I can recognise there’s no inherent truth sense and most of what we say and do is complete nonsense. You may as well say, free will doesn’t exist, so whatever opinions I have are worthless because I am effectively forced to have them.
If truth is objective and universal, then beauty and morality must also have an objective standard to align with the non-subjective nature of truth.
Not him but explain why.
To put it simply, the concept of truth being objective and universal implies that concepts fundamental to the human experience exist irrespective of people's independent or individual feelings, interpretations, or perspectives. Truth exists as a constant, unaffected by people's subjective biases or personal beliefs.
Beauty has objective universal standards, this is what the traditional understanding of aesthetics is all about. At the most basic level, you have symmetry, balance, sacred geometry, harmony, things appreciated across different cultures and societies. But that's just visual beauty.
For morality, an objective standard refers to a universal ethical code that dictates right and wrong, good and bad, irrespective of personal or societal beliefs. Fairness, justice, respect for life and dignity, things that lead to flourishing rather than suffering and death, must be universal moral values. Of course, if you deny the truth that life is a good thing, despite hypocritically not killing yourself immediately, then you may have trouble agreeing with that. I suspect that the people who hate humanity and life in general, those that seek to convince others that truth is personal and subjective, wish to convince others that ultimately truth is fake and meaningless, meaning morality and beauty are fake and meaningless. Obviously such beliefs would ruin the human experience.
>Truth exists as a constant, unaffected by people's subjective biases or personal beliefs.
No it doesn’t. Because you don’t apprehend anything outside of human consciousness which filters everything you experience
Prove it.
Ok. What are you aware of right now? Your own consciousness, and that is literally it. Everything you see is a representation of information you have no direct access to filtered through mental constructs.
Immoral and moral don’t make coherent sense as concepts if you are a materialist. You can’t rightly call Allah immoral because by your own admission morality is nonsense.
then god isnt moral or immoral because morality doesnt really exist as a concept
>Ok. What are you aware of right now? Your own consciousness, and that is literally it.
Prove it.
>Beauty has objective universal standards, this is what the traditional understanding of aesthetics is all about. At the most basic level, you have symmetry, balance, sacred geometry, harmony, things appreciated across different cultures and societies. But that's just visual beauty.
Incorrect. Beauty is a rough set of guidelines aimed at increasing the likelihood of offspring well suited for survival. It can also warp depending on the mental illness. Beauty is a rough subjective perception of adaptability.
>For morality, an objective standard refers to a universal ethical code that dictates right and wrong, good and bad, irrespective of personal or societal beliefs. Fairness, justice, respect for life and dignity, things that lead to flourishing rather than suffering and death, must be universal moral values.
Flourishing differs depending on the circumstances, and justice oftentimes prevents flourishing when applied without subjectively measured factors.
>Of course, if you deny the truth that life is a good thing, despite hypocritically not killing yourself immediately, then you may have trouble agreeing with that.
>I suspect that the people who hate humanity and life in general, those that seek to convince others that truth is personal and subjective, wish to convince others that ultimately truth is fake and meaningless, meaning morality and beauty are fake and meaningless. Obviously such beliefs would ruin the human experience.
Strawman tangent, doesn't serve you well in being taken seriouslly.
Here's the gist of it all:
You're just a midwit who jumps to conclusions about nihilism due to very limited cognitive capacity.
This is the most reddit post I've seen here in a long time. You remind me of a convenience store clerk I knew who wore a Rick and Morty shirt every day.
>You're just a midwit who jumps to conclusions
Peak irony.
>no argument, just a midwit meltdown
I accept your concession. Boy, that sure was easy.
I wasn't arguing with you, I was just pointing out that you're a typical reddit midwit who cares more about looking right and smelling your own farts than actually being right.
Your assumption is objectively incorrect.
Some aspects of beauty can be linked to evolutionary biology, but that wouldn't negate the possibility of objective standards in aesthetics. The appreciation of symmetry, balance, and harmony across different cultures suggests that there are universal principles of beauty that go beyond individual perceptions or survival instincts. Beauty isn't even limited to physical attributes, it also includes artistic and intellectual beauty, which can’t be explained solely by survival or adaptability. Of course your perception of beauty would warp due to mental illnesses, given the nature of mental illness alienating you from truth.
Your argument that flourishing differs depending on circumstances and that justice can prevent flourishing when applied without subjectively measured factors seems to conflate the concepts of justice and flourishing. Justice, as an objective moral value, is about fairness and equality, not necessarily about promoting flourishing. It’s possible for a society to flourish at the expense of justice (such as through exploitation). An objective moral standard would argue that this is morally wrong, regardless of the subjective benefits it might bring to some individuals or groups. And indeed, in the long term, even if injustice may produce it faster in the short term, and adhering to justice would promote flourishing in the short term, even if it inhibits it in the face of injustice on the short term. The nature of societies throughout all of history have made this quite clear.
You could consider my closing thoughts a "strawman tangent" if you considered my post a formal debate, which seems disingenuous, especially given your willingness to insult, and the fact that I already specified it was a suspicion.
>Objective standards in aesthetics
How many units of aesthetic does this image have
How many units of justice exist in the sentencing of OJ Simpson?
>Beauty is a rough set of guidelines aimed at increasing the likelihood of offspring well suited for survival.
/v/, be honest with me, do architects want to frick buildings?
you didn't know?
Architectanon here, half of our job consists of having sex with or otherwise raping buildings. We always hide a special copulation port somewhere during construction.
You just make commie blocks
>warped by mental illness
ah yes, let's not rule by the perceptions of healthy invidviduals and let's rule truth out of genetic experiments and people about to die and relying on society for everything
are you a troony? another death worshipper
>I suspect that the people who hate humanity and life in general, those that seek to convince others that truth is personal and subjective, wish to convince others that ultimately truth is fake and meaningless, meaning morality and beauty are fake and meaningless
I hate Life and I am convinced truth and ethics are objective. If I hated humanity, I'd espouse creating more of us to go through life.
>respect for life and dignity
Life has no respect or dignity for Life.
Correct post. I agree with you.
That's why reputation is better as different communities and people will have different standards for what is right and wrong. People in civilized areas would hate someone known for being a thief or murderer, but people in raider or merc gangs might respect you and want to hire you for jobs.
You? A mere, prole beast that needs to be chained by fear and violence. That's why government has a monopoly on such things, back then you could just threaten people with death or muh hell, now we can implement the same functionalities with jurisdiction system or ol' reliable police brutality
>morality is subjective
bait?
Well duh. If you want to play an RPG you just have to assume that the developer's point of view is objective as far as the game is concerned.
>morality is subjective
Relative**
Morality is just a cage for the weak.
Morality systems go against the idea of roleplaying imo. if I want to be evil, then whats the problem with that? Why is the game judging me for roleplaying in a roleplaying game?
>pillage village
>kill the men
>kill the women (after rape)
>sell the children into slavery (after raping them too)
>well achktually, morality is subjective
They had it coming.
The core tenants of morality are not really subjective. It basically revolves around making sure that you don’t infringe upon others lives or livelihoods. You can be that one homosexual that thinks rape and murder are moral but you’re just being an edgy gay sex enjoyer.
but according to most societies throughout history it's justified if your enemy gets dehumanized to a point where morality doesn't apply to them.
>powerful people tricking the average moron into killing other people so that they can gain more power and wealth.
How many times in history has a random group of farmers got REALLY PISSED at a town they’ve never even heard of and just invaded?
there is zero difference between hunter gatherers invading each other huts and this dunning kruger homosexual
Commoners rallied together and purged the israelites quite a few times. Over a hundred I think.
I think morality systems are shit because it actually hurts role playing
I'LL decide whether or not I'm evil or good
The game branding me as good because I slew a monster harassing a town, even though just minutes before doing that I slew a mother and her children is fricking dumb and hurts my immersion
>lose karma in new vegas
>nothing happens
What a worthless mechanic
>be a saint
>"""steal""" 100 burned books
>You know, you're such a massive mean violent dickhead!
Frick you too, Cassidy.
Even if you believe that, morality in games is not subjective because there's clear definitions of bad and good that objectively exist in the game's world.
I am very intelligent.
Atheist have no justification for morality. Everything is in flux so nothing is good or bad hurr durr
If the only thing keeping you from being an absolute piece of shit is the belief that you're always being watched by an all-powerful being, then you're already an absolute piece of shit. If any good you do is done simply so you can get into heaven when you die, you probably don't belong there anyway. The people who think they're guaranteed to go to heaven are most likely to go to hell. You've never even wondered if you're really as holy as you think you are, have you?
Again no justification for anything just seething
>started new vegas after a decade
>wind up near powder gangers hub
>clear the entire area and gain tons of good karma
>steal from the same area and lose karma
i legit forgot how fricking moronic and stupid this is. i can kill someone before they even talk to me and thats good if theyre a bad faction, but stealing from the same bad faction is also... bad?
Stealing is bad.
but it makes no sense homie. if i can just waltz into caesars camp and cave his head before he utters a word to me, but still gain karma, then why am i losing karma from stealing from a hostile faction? i hate to say it but its a prime example of Ludo narrative dissonance thats extremely hard to ignore
Is there a mod to fix this?
Yeah, there is a mod. But conceptually, consider this. You're not stealing from the Powder Gangers. You're stealing from the NCR.
>steal a handful of junk from the powderBlack folk
>-1 karma
>blow the feet off a fiend with an improvised fusion grenade
>+1 karma
>check back in 2 days to repeat the process
The hardest thing to do in this game is play neutral since outside of stealing there aren't as many ways to tank your karma. Beheading a bunch of fiends with a blunt fire axe will usually put you well into the green.
>another thread where dumbass homies think "objective" means "consistent" or "agreed upon"
If something is objective that means it is a measurable physical property that exists independent of human minds.
Weight is objective. It is a measurable and quantifiable physical property. A five pound rock would weigh five pounds whether or not humans existed.
If the thing you are talking about is not measurable and quantifiable or if it would not exist if there were no humans then it is subjective.
There are no units of morality. There is no device to quantify and measure beauty. Neither concept is valid outside of human perception.
measurement through consensus of a number of monkeys that aised their hands in unison because they all felt something through their own senses so its not objective either if you want to be an butthole about it
you cant measure fear or selfishness yet these are real concepts. i own all this website in philosophy dont even try, i never lost a debate
>Weight isn't objective because the units specifically are a human invention
You're moronic.
No rebuttal is needed as your post was simply wrong by definition.
>fear and selfishness exist objectively and independent of perception!
But that's obviously wrong.
"Fear" and "Selfishness" are labels given to heuristic judgements. There are no units of fear. You cannot measure selfishness.
>You cannot measure selfishness.
thank you for paraphrasing me, but like i said these are still real. Would you say fear isn't real?
"they are real!"
Sure, subjective judgements are real. Doesn't make them objective.
Please learn what words means before you use them.
Then why are you using the words "not objective" as it was dismissing the reality of something?
>I don't know what objective vs subjective means
>in this discussion of moral objectivity vs nihilism/relativism
>despite literally responding to a post very clearly delineating that objective measures are just that: measures.
Fear, the concept, objectively exists in the minds of men. Existence is a binary concept, a boolean. Something exists or it doesn't.
Fear existing as a concept does not mean that fear itself is a measurable physical property - on the contrary it is a label given to a large and nebulous subset of mental states with no clear delineation.
It's time to stop posting.
you re running circle here. no one will take you seriously if you object that fear is real. i thought you d come up with something that would compromise objectivity and reality but here you are rolling back syaing things you already said for no reason.
if something is real yet not objective then something does not have to be objective to be real then you cannot say something is not objective to dismiss the reality of it. scienc eisnt objective either since we ar enot all knowing, keep trying to refine our undertsanding, test it, make mistakes and roll back many times on what we have done.
you say you can measure these science things, and that objective only means real even without human beigns(thus morality isnt objective) but truth is : without human beings, there is no science, and there are no measurements. K-O, cya under the bus
>no one will take you seriously if you object that fear is real
Good thing I didn't do that then.
Stopped reading here because I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone that can't read.
>stopped reading
then you just lost the debate. anyone can ignore arguments but thats doesnt prevent you from losing. if you wernt tryign to dismiss the reality of morality then why are you commenting? homosexual
Scientific objectivity =! Objectivity. Logic isn't measurable and it's still objective. Why am I even replying to you, you're a fricking idiot.
>That's not what objectivity means!
In the context of moral philosophy that is absolutely what objectivity means you fricking moron. Moral objectivism is the belief in intrinsic properties of goodness and evilness the same way objects have weight and density.
>I will not provide an alternative definition because I have none!
Neat
>logic is objective
That's meant in a completely different sense than moral objectivism, but regardless:
Holy shit anon, if you can actually prove that you've got a nobel prize coming your way!
But you can't, because you're moronic and have no fricking clue what you're talking about.
>In the context of moral philosophy that is absolutely what objectivity means you fricking moron.
Please provide one (1) excerpt from any philosopher of your choosing that argues that moral judgment being objective means that they belong in the same class as measurable physical properties.
>That's meant in a completely different sense than moral objectivism
No it's not.
>do my homework for me!
No. Go read Plato on your own time you lazy c**t.
You've essentially just said you're unwilling to make an argument.
Don't worry, anon, you may be moronic but I'll do your googling for you. I know it's hard even when the post right above yours tells you exactly what to look for.
https://web.archive.org/web/20080512150623/http://philosophy.ucdavis.edu/pekkav/research/moralrealism.pdf
>The metaphysical thesis: Moral propositions are true when actions and other objects
of moral assessment have the relevant moral properties (so that the relevant
moral facts obtain), where these facts and properties are robust: their metaphysical
status, whatever it is, is not relevantly different from that of (certain types of)
ordinary non-moral facts and properties.
Technically there are multiple forms of Moral Objectivism (none of them call themselves that to avoid precisely this problem, they all call themselves Moral Realism instead") but the one that matters here is the third theorem of robust moral realism.
The anon claiming that's not what objective means is still moronic.
Your definition of objective is slightly incorrect because it hinges on verifiability. Something does not need to be measurable to be objective, it just needs to be independent of human thought. Verification is only done so we (subjectively, to ourselves) can confirm it as being objective.
Morality is obviously subjective thoughever.
every time such rhetorical arguments that deal with things surrounding rhetoric and truth and subjectivity and all that have happened and continue to happen,
one wonders how people got exposed to/got so close to such ideas without having realized that there is this guy who's pretty much a myth (his name is pretty widely well-known), and yet provides quite a compelling figure of admiration from which we might realize that to argue with each other in such ways, is self-sabotaging and self-destructive (but of course, his student went on to pervert his ideas in old-age, and then the student of the student went on to further pervert the ideas of the two prior men - that student ended up becoming quite influential).
There was once a man who tempered the ravenous heart with the guidance of logic,
and who tempered the self-delusional dispassion of logic, with the warmth of the heart.
Definitions are important and none of you kids know what the frick you're talking about.
Moral Objectivism - Morals are an inherent property like density
Moral Absolutism - there are moral truths that hold regardless of context
Moral Relativism - morals are a function of and codified within culture, moral disagreement is real
Moral nihilism - There is no intrinsic objective property of morality and there are no universal moral truths
Please note that it is possible to hold multiple of these views at one time. An absolutist is often also an objectivist though not necessarily. Most moral nihilists are also relativists.
Know what the words you're arguing about mean before you use them.
The concept of "morality" is next on the chopping block. The correct and modern term is ethics.
The difference is that ethics deals with real and substrate-dependent equations, which is always necessary for modelling reality. Only an incoherent subjectivist could think anything (including ethics) has true wildcards in it. Only an incoherent dualist could think anything exists independently of physically real (and physically determined) substrata. It cannot be stressed enough that the universe has no wildcards.
Morality is an archaic concept, based on dogma. Morals have nothing to do with a value/qualia/sensory equation, or applying logic to a dilemma. Morals are just screed passed down from generations. Morals are a contrived, normative, biased failed modelling of the world and ethic. They are based on poorly examined and contemporaneous memes and psychology, rather than logic and philosophy. Nobody who has any understanding of rational value assessment (that is honest, true, or that accurately deals with any circumstance whatsoever) would use the word morality. It's an obsolete word, for obsolete and primitive failed religious world models, and is indeed ready for retirement.
>i dont like these letters in syllabes and letters by association so im gonna make my own definitions to feel good about myself
homosexual
Frick off troon. You will never be a woman.
what?
>beauty is objective
Jimmy thinks pears are yummy. Timmy thinks pears are yucky. Who is wrong and should be forced to change his taste or executed for heresy?
I played Fallout 3 back when it came out and still to this day I have no idea what the karma system actually was and how it affected my game
>morality is subjective
Oh, sweatie, are you trying to make an objective statement out of a subjective belief? Opinion discarded.
No, it isn't. Subjective morality means I can kill you because I don't like you. If you disagree, too bad.
My words of wisdom? Objective truth. Your mindless dribble? Baseless hypothesis
>pick "good" choice
>get money, a unique weapon with better stats, and NPC likes you more and gives you another quest
>pick "evil" choice
>get 2x money, 5 weak healing potions, and NPCs call you an butthole every time they see you
>on top of that the "evil" choice is 99% of the time senseless on the level of kicking puppies for no benefit or 'killing a mass murderer means you're as bad as him'
Morality is shit in games, yes. Doesn't mean it can't be done better, you just need someone to put some thought into the system for once.
dude people are too moronic to figure morality in real life, ruling elites included, you think they ll figure it out in a fallout gamebryo? lmao. who cares if it shit its useless. id rather have a shit system with good mechanics in game rather than perfectly morally accurate (which would be impossible anyway because you can always rationalize this guy was kindof a piece of shit and im out to save the world with the water purifier to save more lives anyway)
>who cares if it shit its useless
I think it's reasonable to care when people put shitty useless things into your games.
No? its not useful. it affects some fricking perks that frickign useless and barely gives any money. the whole thing is fricked. id rather have more conseuqneces and mechanics off karma. its virtually impossible to have a perfect moral system in game. i agree than you can make it better but if the mechanics /consequences suck whats the point of working so hard to make a good karma system?
It is okay for someone to kill OP. Morality is subjective and I say it is a morality good act.
ITT children without a basic understanding of the terms involved try to argue philosophy
Then do it. Define objectivity. Define subjectivity. Define morality.
morality is good and bad
objectivity is what's real as opposed to what's not
>define morality
That is literally the entire body of moral philosophy to ever exist. Moral Philosophy exists as an attempt to do this.
>Objective
In the broadest sense this means that something exists independent of the mind. In terms of the kind of robust moral realism that people are referring to when they say "morality is objective" it means that moral properties exist in the same way ordinary non-moral facts and properties (like mass)
>Subjective
In the broadest sense this means that something does not exist independent of the mind. In terms of moral relativism, which is what people mean when they say "morality is subjective," it means that moral status is describing an individual opinion or societal agreement as opposed to an immutable physical property.
also see
just to make it clear. I a pure (almost) french philosphical bulldozer. Truth runs in my veins and i always had the best instincts, both in taste and philosophical opinions. I was born to win philophical debates. You can only cry that your ego was wounded. Now if you don't want to stay out of the way unless you want your philosophical throat to be repeatedly philosophically facefricked (heterosexually)
>'causing suffering for others is bad'
>GOOD AND EVIL ARE SUBJECTIVE ACTUALLY LMAO IF I CAUSE SUFFERING FOR MY OWN GAIN IT IS (IN MY SUBJECTIVE VIEW) MORALLY RIGHTEOUS
There are a lot of people in modern society who shouldn't really be allowed to self-govern
Does anyone have that one picture? You know the one. The one with Kenshiro in it.
imagine sayign something isn't real because dependant on human experience, despite human experience being everything we have and probably the ultimate goal of the universe and maybe god, even the laws of physics being tuned to the millimeter to birth the most complex structure in the universe : our brain
but no, instead of making philosophy for humans, lets make philosophy for DUCKS, because its very important and meaningful right?
The concept of subjectivity doesn't have any value judgements thoughbeitever. It just means something depends upon a subject. You're confusing it for "personal," which is how people have been misapplying the term.
it very much has in the mouth of 99% of plebs who constantly use objectivity to say that things are not real and should be thought of as inexistent
Well, I don't think most people in this thread have been doing that.
but anon, if he had to engage with the actual philosophical definition in the proper context he'd lose the argument
they are in the sense that they think we cannot have a reason based consensus on things that are more or less morals than others and that no opinion can have superiority over others when assessment of morality is not very complex in most cases
the supposition its that its ok to kill random people for fun. you re vastly overestimating the average anon on this psychopath website
>they are in the sense that they think we cannot have a reason based consensus
Except no, no one has said that.
What you are describing, societal agreement on moral status, is not moral realism or moral objectivism. You are describing moral relativism.
How ironic.
no. im syaing that things change depending on circumstances. but that you can infer what is moral based on "equations " that themselves do not change. only the variables change, as well as the result.
if because people disagree and it depends on the situation makes it relative then science is relative as well (which it really is, only tards think things are perma set in stone). but these same tards oppose set in stone objective blabla laws of physics woith morality to pretend one is better than the other when they are exactly the same. how ironic.
>no. im syaing that things change depending on circumstances
Which is moral relativism.
You are disagreeing with moral realism aka moral objectivism
You do not believe morals are objective.
not any less than science
Your statement is nonsensical
The language barrier is hitting you in the face.
how so? are you claimign that science is something objective compared to morality ? everything changes according to circumstances because the world is relative. even the laws of physics changed before the big bang apparently. the only constant is the will of god
>how so?
In that it makes no sense. It is divorced from the context of the conversation.
> are you claimign that science is something objective compared to morality
This, too, is nonsensical. Science is a form of inquiry, it cannot be objective or subjective as it is not a property or judgement. It is a concept.
>everything changes according to circumstances because the world is relative
This isn't saying anything. It's word salad.
>even the laws of physics changed before the big bang apparently
"before the big bang" is not a thing
You lack the vocabulary to engage in this conversation.
i dont speak in autism so you re being a nitpicky butthole, despite the vocablurary and phraisng not beign respected, one can absolutely and obviously infer what i am trying to say, im not going to waste explanations on someone thats not even trying to engage
>I don't speak good but you know what I mean
No, I don't. In fact I don't think you understand the conversation that's being had at all, which is part of why your posts make no sense. You're arguing against your own misunderstandings.
>muh complexity
Is YandereDev's code good?
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication
you can only say that because of your complex brain, i win (as usual)
>morality is subjective
that's what an EVIL character would say
Right but replace some of the tomatoes for hash browns or breakfast potatoes and add toasts
also if being evil can land you slaves and crime companions like Jericho, good karma should land you storng allies willing sometimes to even die for your greater cause and show indefective loyalty. there are positive power bits to being good, but maybe its just fallout and anglo wrenched minds always trying to be cynical out of despair and the lacking intelligence to see that you can make posititive change (nuke britain btw lol)
i unironically believe plato was right about the form of the goof
and also i feel that we as humans can only aproximate what exactly "good" is because we are flawed and imperfect, but at the same time this is a good thing as we can always improve and be better if we try, in a way this is existence's greatest gift
form of the good*
>breaking things for the purpose of partially, temporarily putting them back is the greatest gift
moron
Morality is relative, not subjective.
Moral Relativism is opposed to Moral Realism which is what people mean when they say morals are objective.
Moral Relativism entails that morality is subjective.
This is what I'm talking about when I say you kids don't know what these words mean.
Morality is not subjective (individual), it's relative to groups. Don't call it objective.
>what people mean when they say
frick people, they're not philosophers
Get up to date with the new tech in philosophy. Read more, if only just on Wikipedia to not get swamp ass.
>Morality is not subjective, it's relative to groups
that makes it subjective
>get up to date with philo lingo!
Unironically no u.
accordign to your bullshit definition of morality. the less narrow one affects life in general, with the humanspecies at the top, then groups then individuals, to protect human life and thriving and make life experience better on the long term beyond your little self. that isnt dependent on groups which may have very local morals (which maybe better for themselves at the moment fault fo anything better)
different groups of scientists can have different equations that serve them in different ways, both being incomplete, but it doesnt mean there isnt a more complete equation out there, or that this better equation cannot be found
>accordign to your bullshit definition of morality. the less narrow one affects life in general, with the humanspecies at the top, then groups then individuals, to protect human life and thriving and make life experience better on the long term beyond your little self.
More complete nonsense.
>You have correctly divined my moronic belief that a self-preservation instinct means "life is good" must be an objective universal moral truth independent of the human mind
Cool, you're stupid on top of being unable to properly engage with this conversation in this language.
Something tells me you couldn't keep up in French, either.
it makes complete sense, you never adress any point with logical argument, you just declare it nonsense, you fricking LOST moronic money, now kneel.
>Cool, you're stupid on top of being unable to properly engage with this conversation in this language.
failed to adress again, i keep WINNING. you can leave the thread now.
>self preservation instinct
why do you blame your instincts? you can turn off your ego right now. tune down your emotions. woudl you say yes? yes or no?why are you tryint to think from an ezthereal dead zombie god with no emotions? you are NOT. we re discussing HUMAN philosophy and HUMAN morality. clay golems can frick right now. you fricking failed to aknowledge that his was a HUMAN debate. i CANNOT lose a hilosophical debate, as you are witnessing. i will always land on my feet with the high ground. are you feeling the dread of defeat yet?
>we are discussing HUMAN morality!
If it's only a function of human minds then it's subjective you dumb frick.
You keep accidentally arguing for moral relativism and it's very funny.
you just know that all these homosexuals who argue about how "morality is relative" have evil alignment irl
people confirm their bias and the brain seeks to not change no matter what, everyone has a religion
>everyone has a religion
frick off troon
>everyone has a gender!!!!!!!!!!
*everyone has a soul
ITT : spooks
>No, I don't
thats even worse
anyway like i said the equation doesnt change, only variables and results. one part depends, one part stays the same no matter what. life beign a prerequisite for everything its going to be difficult arguign than it is bullshit unless you have a nice day right now, but even then you might be wrong.. you not arguign that it has somewhat objective parts by pure definition, but because you would disagree with it. morality means what it means and you can bhe immoral if you want, and the gods might frick you for it if you want. wheter you disagre isnt the point. the point is that it exists, and huge consequences for us. humans are part of the universe so i dont se why it wouldnt be objective, are monkeys beign attached to each other sometimes something objective? do you draw the line when the morality affects human beings ?
>this fricking word soup
The best I can gather from your nonsensical ramblings is that you think the existence of a self-preservation instinct is the same as "life is good" being an objective and intrinsic moral truth, which is fricking moronic.
Also that you're religious, in which case your actual argument for moral objectivity is simple faith which is useless.
You don't seem to understand what objective means and you actively resist attempts to tell you what it means, so I think we're done here.
if life isnt good why are you alive right now? if you had the opporunity to go in heaven right now, you would say no? hypocritical midwitted homosexual