the true basis of moral subjectivism?

[dazzn]

[Ryantology]

"Who give a shit what happens? and "meh, people do as they please" are the stock of those who reject morality, not those who acknowledge the subjective nature of morality.

The only difference between the two sides of this argument is that one side wants to think that their morals come from someone more powerful than themselves, so that they can feel that their moral code is more legitimate than everyone else's. The idea of objective morality is horseshit, naturally, but that doesn't mean morality isn't a real thing, it just means that its legitimacy relies on human consensus.

[dazzn]

"Who give a shit what happens? and "meh, people do as they please" are the stock of those who reject morality, not those who acknowledge the subjective nature of morality.

Really? Well the points you cite are standard arguments made by subjectivists.

The only difference between the two sides of this argument is that one side wants to think that their morals come from someone more powerful than themselves, so that they can feel that their moral code is more legitimate than everyone else's. The idea of objective morality is horseshit, naturally, but that doesn't mean morality isn't a real thing, it just means that its legitimacy relies on human consensus.

Or rationalisation of sociopathy? got it.

[Ryantology]

Really? Well the points you cite are standard arguments made by subjectivists.

It's never been my standard argument. Sounds like you've strawed you a man, there.

Or rationalisation of sociopathy? got it.

Correction: definitely strawed you a man.

[Violet]

The idea of objective morality is horseshit, naturally, but that doesn't mean morality isn't a real thing, it just means that its legitimacy relies on human consensus.

On individual human perception, I think you mean. What's a legitimate moral system if they are not all legitimate? (and yeah, OP is horseshit )

[dazzn]

The idea of objective morality is horseshit, naturally, but that doesn't mean morality isn't a real thing, it just means that its legitimacy relies on human consensus.

On individual human perception, I think you mean. What's a legitimate moral system if they are not all legitimate? (and yeah, OP is horseshit )

lol..

i'm simply saying the basis of subjectivism is sociopathy. why is this so "bad" to cite? knowing basic human motivations, i think this is evident.

---

Really? Well the points you cite are standard arguments made by subjectivists.

It's never been my standard argument. Sounds like you've strawed you a man, there.

Or rationalisation of sociopathy? got it.

Correction: definitely strawed you a man.

I don't believe in morals' existence. but this doesn't make me a sociopath. i don't see how it can. kindly expound as to how.

[littleendian]

As an initial point, I want to say that I don't believe moraliy exists. Nothing is "forbidden" and anything goes in this universe without restraint.

I'm not sure about the universe you inhabit, but around here is far away from a "universe without restraint". I think you can look at everything and ultimately see that it all boils down to causality, so basically everything is constrained in the ultimate way (*) Of course there is always the paradox that I really have the sense of a free will... maybe that's a way to think about morality and mental processes in general, it's the struggle between forces and the strongest will express itself in the decision I take and my actions. Morality then would be the struggle between forces representing lower impulses and forces representing higher values, e.g. the overall well-being of me individually versus what my rationality tells me is the well-being of the majority.

(*) although someone with an understanding of quantum mechanics may correct me here. My laymans understanding is that it doesn't break causality itself but merely whether we can predict causality or not.

---

I don't believe in morals' existence. but this doesn't make me a sociopath. i don't see how it can. kindly expound as to how.

What keeps you from raping and pillaging? I see two options:

(a) If it is a sense that this is wrong, then you have what I would call morals already.

(b) If it is because you fear the law then: Why is the law there? Because of the moral sense of the majority of citizens. So there's morality.

In both scenarios I think you might have to acknowledge that such as thing as morality does exist even if only in our heads.

[Violet]

Ooh, I remember now: I had a beautifully mocking response all gorgeous and prepared for you, and then I closed the computer without sending it. Oops.

Doesn't matter, it's self-evident, so

[Ryantology]

I don't believe in morals' existence. but this doesn't make me a sociopath. i don't see how it can. kindly expound as to how.

I never implied that it made you a sociopath. I just think your understanding of morality is that it is strictly binary and I don't agree that it is.

[dazzn]

As an initial point, I want to say that I don't believe moraliy exists. Nothing is "forbidden" and anything goes in this universe without restraint.

I'm not sure about the universe you inhabit, but around here is far away from a "universe without restraint". I think you can look at everything and ultimately see that it all boils down to causality, so basically everything is constrained in the ultimate way (*) Of course there is always the paradox that I really have the sense of a free will... maybe that's a way to think about morality and mental processes in general, it's the struggle between forces and the strongest will express itself in the decision I take and my actions. Morality then would be the struggle between forces representing lower impulses and forces representing higher values, e.g. the overall well-being of me individually versus what my rationality tells me is the well-being of the majority.

(*) although someone with an understanding of quantum mechanics may correct me here. My laymans understanding is that it doesn't break causality itself but merely whether we can predict causality or not.

---

I don't believe in morals' existence. but this doesn't make me a sociopath. i don't see how it can. kindly expound as to how.

What keeps you from raping and pillaging? I see two options:

(a) If it is a sense that this is wrong, then you have what I would call morals already.

(b) If it is because you fear the law then: Why is the law there? Because of the moral sense of the majority of citizens. So there's morality.

In both scenarios I think you might have to acknowledge that such as thing as morality does exist even if only in our heads.

who cares about the "majority"? why do their needs need accommodation?

as for your questions, conscience. i don't condone harm or ill will towards any group of persons.

---

I don't believe in morals' existence. but this doesn't make me a sociopath. i don't see how it can. kindly expound as to how.

I never implied that it made you a sociopath. I just think your understanding of morality is that it is strictly binary and I don't agree that it is.

binary? 1s and 0s aside, i said i believe the world is a free for all. anything goes, hence morality is redundant.

---

Ooh, I remember now: I had a beautifully mocking response all gorgeous and prepared for you, and then I closed the computer without sending it. Oops.

Doesn't matter, it's self-evident, so

to me this read:

"my ego demands attention!!" the nature of youth is ever constant lol...