Are values purely subjective?

[BidenPresident]

"The radical atheistic existentialism of Sartre, de Beauvoir and Camus is postmodern."

https://bnugent.org/jean-paul-sartre-the-most-influential-philosopher-of-the-twentieth-century/

blah blah blah you posted someone saying something

 

[Cypress]

So you like sunsets, got it.

Please find one person on this forum who will truthfully say there is no beauty or aesthetic value in that sunset.

 

[BidenPresident]

Please find one person on this forum who will truthfully say there is no beauty or aesthetic value in that sunset.

You like sunsets.

 

[Cypress]

blah blah blah you posted someone saying something

I've heard professors of Philosophy call Camus and Sautre postmodern. But I am sure other opinions can be found.

 

[BidenPresident]

I've heard professors of Philosophy call Camus and Sautre postmodern. But I am sure other opinions can be found.

I never heard any serious philosopher say that. But, what is your point?

 

[Hawkeye10]

So you don't deny my statement that there are absolute standards of right and wrong: lying to your business partners, routinely breaking promises, burning your child with cigarettes.

The postmodernists started their project of moral relativism in the early 20th century, but I think it ran out of gas and I'm surprised anyone still subscribes to a program of strict moral relativism.

You remind of a woman at A2K around 2012 who told me that she had not seen a feminist in over a decade, they were almost all gone.

Get Bent.

 

[Matt Dillon]

G.E. Moore's Principia Ethica gives three thought experiments that suggest there is an objective side to value beyond the purely subjective.

A first argument is that beauty can have an intrinsic value, even if no one is around to see it. A universe that lacks any conciousness, but has the grand canyon, sunsets, waterfalls is still better than an opaque and colorless universe. Moore claims this shows beauty has an intrinsic objective value, even if no one is around to see it. .

The second argument is the magic button thought experiment. You have a choice to push a button which will convert us all into brains in a vat where Matrix type technology creates the neural experience for all of us of a living a pleasant best-possible digital pseudo-life. Moore says very few people would push the button because there is an intrinsic and object value to having contact with reality.

The third argument is the principle of organic unities. The case in which a person takes pleasure in a child's pain. The fact that someone takes pleasure in anothers pain does not mean the value of the whole is simply the value of the pleasure minus the pain. This kind of pleasure is morally tainted, what matters is the objective nature of the relationship between the two sensations. Here again, there is an objective side to values.

If the world was moral basketball players, you'd be a gimped midget.
Fuck your subjective morality bullshit, brah. With your way, a serial killer is A-OK, because that's the morality he/she perceives as being right to themselves.
Prove me wrong!

PS: Go choke on a bag of donkey cocks, you stupid fuck!

 

[Margot]

Cypress why block me then reply to my post?
Have some guts remove the block.

 

[Cypress]

I never heard any serious philosopher say that. But, what is your point?

Maybe I should have said philosophers of the early 20th century so there wouldn't be a question of who or who wasn't postmodern

Point is whether strict ethical relativism holds up under the light of scrutiny.

 

[Cypress]

If the world was moral basketball players, you'd be a gimped midget.
Fuck your subjective morality bullshit, brah. With your way, a serial killer is A-OK, because that's the morality he/she perceives as being right to themselves.
Prove me wrong!

PS: Go choke on a bag of donkey cocks, you stupid fuck!

This illiterate mouth breather is clearly one beer short of a 12 pack, because I am saying the exact opposite; strict relativism in values and ethics doesn't stand up to scrutiny

 

[Yakuda]

Lying, cheating, breaking your promises, abusing small children, stealing, courage, humility, temperance, charity, etc.

Trump had to set up a fake charity, not because he personally believes in altruism and sharing, but because he knows they are social norms people are expected to shoot for. Trump is a social deviant, and he knows he has to concoct fake charitable foundations to obscure that fact.

You didn't answer if this applies to morals as well.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

Are values purely subjective?

Perhaps in the instances where subjectivity is valued--that my best guess at the moment.

Otherwise, if objectivity is what's valued,
values are merely that to which we're likely to object.

 

[Cypress]

I can prove their is a purely objective value of beauty that virtually all mentally stable humans would perceive.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I can prove their is a purely objective value of beauty that virtually all mentally stable humans would perceive.

That is indeed beautiful, but in days gone by, it could have been improved by some neon displays.

In today's dreary LED era, however, it's probably best to leave it unenhanced.

 

[Cypress]

That is indeed beautiful, but in days gone by, it could have been improved by some neon displays.

In today's dreary LED era, however, it's probably best to leave it unenhanced.

I don't think I've ever met a mentally balanced human being in my life who wouldn't perceive the purely objective beauty of a place like that.

 

[Cypress]

You didn't answer if this applies to morals as well.

Depends on which morals.

Lying, stealing, breaking promises are frowned upon in all cultures.

 

[NiftyNiblick]

I don't think I've ever met a mentally balanced human .....

For a brief moment, I thought we shared something.

 

[Yakuda]

Depends on which morals.

Lying, stealing, breaking promises are frowned upon in all cultures.

So you are of the opinion that some morals are objective while others are subjective. So the 10 commandments.

 

[Cypress]

So you are of the opinion that some morals are objective while others are subjective. So the 10 commandments.

Half of the ten commandments are not moral injunctions, but rules on ritual worship.

The Sermon on the Mount or the Sermon on the Plain are actually well thought out and comprehensive frameworks of ethics.

 

[Yakuda]

Half of the ten commandments are not moral injunctions, but rules on ritual worship.

The Sermon on the Mount or the Sermon on the Plain are actually well thought out and comprehensive frameworks of ethics.

No they are all morals however they all boil down to one basic moral imperative, thou shall not steal. Everyone of them is about not taking what rightly belongs to others.