Degeneracy and Athiesm

How can you call something degenerate without a belief system that provides a basis for objective morality?

If you are an athiest with a purely materialistic explanation for the universe, the only way to escape nihilistic moral relativism is to try and ground morality in a darwinian advancement of the species type ideal. That is, whatever is benificial for the evolution of the species is good and whatever hinders its progress is bad. Taken to its logical end you would arrive at an authoritian state driven by eugenics, which would absorb weaker states until global dominance is achieved.

Does this match your intuitive sense of morality? Is killing the weak/sick wrong?

It seems to me that in order to have a healthy and just society, it is absolutely imperitive to have morality grounded in a cause beyond the material world.(low effort)

Attached: slut-walk.jpg (400x290, 65.38K)

shhh go away read a book.

Prove it. Also, learn to spell atheist.
What does objective morality mean anyway? What if somebody refuses to agree with your view of morality, which you consider objective? Either you try to convince the other person - which is what you do with your subjective morality - or you force them to live by it through the law or violence. That is, the claim that morality is objective, is just a moralistic justification for being authoritarian. It is the most nihilistic thing there is.
When you embrace the subjectiveness of morality, you have to recognize your duty to be able to convince others of your moral views, and you see how the enforcement of your moral views needs a justification of it's own. Besides, what people insisting on the objectiveness of morality never see, is that what we call 'morality' is simply a set of inborn, evolved emotions, plus the enterprise of fitting together different people's sets of moral emotions, where different people and different emotions have contradictory elements. Cultural differences come from emphasizing different emotions and aspects.

no shut up. nobody cares about this thread. it's shit let it sink or report it to get it anchored lol just make OP mad af who cares


What does atheism have to do with morality?

Objective morality means that there are things that are objectively wrong as opposed to being merely unfashionable. Without objective morality, how can the law be justified? If a rapist or murderer feels justified in his actions how can we say he is wrong if morality is relative to the individual? At best you can say that you have a distaste to his sense of morality but you cant say he is objectively wrong. And if morality is purely the majority consensus on what is right and what is wrong, then a nation that embraces slavery and rape as virtues cannot be said to be acting immoraly under your view.

Except that most serial killers knew what they were doing was wrong so that's why they did it. Ergo to stop murder we must say that murder is okay.

Because his actions can be wrong according to my morality. I can't force him to judge himself (and neither can an objectivist), but I can judge him. Stop pretending that you need to be told by some authority what is right and what is wrong. You can feel it.
It's not. If it were, I would have said so. You're trying to shoehorn objectivity into subjectivity through completely made-up criteria like majority consensus.

What if i feel the opposite to you about a moral judgement? What if 99% of the country feels the opposite to you? What if you are psychotic and delusional? Is a psychopath justified in his crimes because he feels they are right?

Then you do. I might try to convince you to agree with me. In fact, even if I thought my moral judgement was objectively correct (or even if it objectively was correct), trying to convince you would still be the only thing I could do. And same is true for your 99% toy example.
To say somebody is justified is an objective claim. Turn that into its correct form and it becomes a tautology - a psychopath feels his crimes are right if he feels his crimes are right.

Show me where this 'morality' lies if it literally exists somewhere outside human beings. Show it to me.

If you don’t have a muh God to tell you how to live everyone on Earth will turn into theives, rapists, pedophiles and homosexuals

I really wish we would have listen when Hegel warned us about letting philsophical illiterates think they know philosophy because they have some opinions.

My point was to demonstrate that if morality is purely based on subjective feelings, how could a cohesive and functional society exist? There needs to be standards of what is good and what is bad, not an infinitely relative model where everyone has an individual opinion on what is good and bad.

And i don't think morality lies outside of humans.

Because our subjective feelings aren't just random. They are evolved and have converged to a very similar place. Our inborn tendencies are naturally compatible for the most part. Just like with other emotions and feelings. For most people, hunger leads to very similar behaviour, yet no authority needed to give them objective standards on that. Having no constraints in principle doesn't necessitate being all over the place in practice. Even some non-human animals show signs of the most basic moral emotion - compassion. Where do you suppose that came from?

Then it's by definition subjective.


Attached: images (2).jpeg (363x406, 20.22K)

omg! you went there!!!

Attached: Doge_Trying_To_Save_Teh_Fish.webm (224x398, 2.93M)

There is no such thing as objective morality. Even if you get your morality from religion, there's tons of stuff in there that is obviously considered immoral today. Slavery, stoning for petty things, general barbarism, etc.

hmm… I don't think this thread should've been anchored.
I've seen lots of religious cucks who think exactly like OP, so OP might just be someone legitimately curious.