Morals

[MasterOLightning]

All other humans are competition for resources that I may need for living and sustaining a family line. What if I feel it's quite necessary that millions die in order for my and my family's continuing access to said resources?

 

[Einherjar86]

This is not a moral. The desire to eat food is not a moral either. Even if you explain in what way this is a moral issue, it's extremely vague. Define safe and define harm, and you're suddenly far from dealing with anything universal.

I think he means that since everybody (or at least, most people) feel an inherent desire to avoid pain/harm/discomfort of any kind it implies an objective standard that people should not hurt others since they themselves wouldn't wish to be harmed.

Edit:
I understand the argument, but this still supports no evidence for a universal standard of objective morality. There is no supernatural law that states what is specifically wrong and right, and if you don't abide by these conditions you're evil. I agree that there are commonly held relative morals that dictate what legislation is condusive to a society's success, but this doesn't mean that everyone in the world adheres to them.

 

[no country for old wainds]

I don't think no country even has a relativistic sense of morality. His sense of "values" approaches a nihilistic level.

After all, his hero is The Judge.

So it's just a preference that we not kill or torture each other? A matter of opinion?

yes, it really is that simple. whether it's in our nature to prefer not to kill each other (a claim i find reeeally unconvincing in the first place) is completely irrelevant to whether or not it's a subjective preference.

How do you know that basic moral beliefs regarding harm to others aren't universal among all possible rational human beings?

umm because murderers/rapists exist. or are they somehow inhuman now? not that the universality of a moral belief has any bearing on my post...

Made it sound like murdering someone was on the same level as putting your elbows on the table.

the point isn't that they're on the same level but that there are no such 'levels' - that the entire conception of such levels is nonsensical.

 

[skeptik]

I don't have the patience to read through all this shit right now, but I just want to say that if anybody argued that rationality = objectivity/universality, he/she/they need(s) to fucking die.

 

[no country for old wainds]

don't put objectivity/universality that just confuses matters further

 

[no country for old wainds]

the irony here is that morality and universality are mutually exclusive in the same way 'should' and 'is' are mutually exclusive.

i'm still waiting for vihris to explain why i shouldn't murder someone, without referencing MY feelings or MY psychological makeup and so grounding the moral in the subject.

 

[Dak]

The answer to why you shouldn't murder someone is in answering me asking you "why shouldn't I murder you?"

 

[no country for old wainds]

except i don't believe i have the right not to be murdered