Lol you do realize this post is called "Can anyone convince me there is an objective morality?" Right? If your not gonna participate but just say you know the answer and not explain why on earth are you surprised when people call you out for being dumb?

Please dont start attacking each other - each and everyone of you have your own views on objective morality, dont attack people for having their view on it even if you dont like the response; only warning.

*DEAD* EgN|s BEST ADMIN TITTYSPRINKLES: i thought today was rulebreaking day my bad :-(
*DEAD* EgN| Terminator #Fishy Guy: yup, ma dick to long :)

"I know the answer to P=NP but I'm not gonna teach you idiots jeeze do some RESEARCH" /s

I'd argue if you can't put whatever you "know" into your own words then you don't understand the concept of what you're arguing for and are just regurgitating something you've found.

Lol ok, rip.

Been there, done that. No regrets, never give up on what's important. Prioritize. Happiness is all that matters.
I really like meowers but can't own any for the time being.

Software Developer with a fondness for Python & UE4. 🐱‍👤

Interested in Star Citizen? - Use STAR-PZ6J-4C62 and get us both some cool extras :3

If I found it so easily why don't you go look it up for yourself then? That's right, because you don't actually care what the correct answer is, you just want to argue. In the amount of time you've spent clicking on this thread, typing responses, and being a cuck, you could have found information on the topic. Of course, in classic Doldol manner, the entire point of this thread was to argue, not to learn. So go fuck yourself.

By the way, You can't compare an unsolved mystery (P vs NP) to something that has been globally recognized for decades and can easily be found with a short internet search. Not even close. Try again.

Because you are quick to agree and assume, presumably in part due to confirmation bias, and you don't (want to) look below the surface.

Also proper debate is learning, the exchange of reasoning gets you closer to "truth". This is especially true in ethics.


Backup claim that the question of morality is solved absolutely by Utilitarianism? You cannot make this claim otherwise (because you have no proof of it's truth/validity). Which you need to have when you make a (esp.) positive claim, you have the burden of proof when you affirm something. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burden_of_proof_(philosophy)]

Been there, done that. No regrets, never give up on what's important. Prioritize. Happiness is all that matters.
I really like meowers but can't own any for the time being.

Software Developer with a fondness for Python & UE4. 🐱‍👤

Interested in Star Citizen? - Use STAR-PZ6J-4C62 and get us both some cool extras :3

You don't show up to a debate with a book and throw it at the other team and say "read this." You read the thing yourself and argue with points and passages from the book.

Morality is a human construct but not a human-made construct it is somehow emergent in our society. We can conceptualize it as a tool. For instance, to minimize negative feelings like pain and depression and to maximize well-being and happiness. When morality is strung in this way then there is an objective course of actions and decisions set out to reach this goal.

Correct me if I’m wrong but it sounds like your saying actions can be objectively positive or negative based off different moralities but I don’t see your case on whether morality itself can be objective or not