Objective morality is a fabrication. You need to invent your own moral code, and be aware that you made it up. There is no truth to it.
The chemical-physical make up of the universe does not allow for good or evil to exist as objective concepts.
Any view that posits good or evil as objective concepts is simply making it up.
It's as good as saying "Sex is wrong because I said so".
But what of someone saying "Stealing is wrong because it hurts someone."?
So does it matter that it hurts someone?
That fool has no problem stealing when it comes to supporting taxes, or animal enslavement. That fool has no problem stealing if he doesn't consider property to be a legitimate concept, or if he's starving.
It seems like this person just made it up based on "what makes sense" to him at the time. This person doesn't, and is not able, to take into consideration every single facet of every single event. It leads to a completely skewed, subjective perspective. A perspective that has no objective basis, but is instead completely subjective.
Murder is on that same level, as is rape.
Of course you'd think it's common to think that it's wrong to rape.
But it's not. Rape is very common on farms, to the point where "breeding animals" is just a job. Of course, this requires you to think of animals as objects. Not only that, but even in the wild, rape-type behavior is very common among animals. Even more dire, is that even among humans, rape has often been thought of as ok in certain situations. Wasn't there something about "Burn, loot, rape, kill", as far as certain cultures go?
But back to farm animals, and how we enslave, imprison, force them to rape each other, and kill them at any age we choose:
If you realize that humans are also animals, this logically leads to thinking of humans as objects. Which many people do, which is why they oppress, brainwash, and control people. Is this right or wrong? Good or evil? Of course not.
You need to just accept that this happens, and apply only your subjective judgement to it. Anyone who does things you think are wrong will disagree with you, and they might also believe in an "objective morality". This clearly means that despite the fact you both might believe in objective morality, neither of you agree with what is actually objective.
So where did you find this objective morality? I think you both just made it up, because there is no actual objective basis for it whatsoever. That's why you can't just prove it to each other.
Here's what breaks the logic of objective morality: People will simply disagree based on what they've been taught or what they've made up. They make up concepts like "good and evil", concepts that have no objective foundation, and then claim that their subjective opinion is absolute morality.
The most bizarre part, is my suspicion that the concepts of "good and evil" are never actually applied to real behavior. It's on the same level as a "champagne socialist". Of course it's nice to say "rape, murder, stealing, cheating, etc are all evil".
But why in the world would you actually do those things? By believing in good or evil, are you actually being some valiant knight of justice and honor?
I doubt it. It's not exactly normal to go around killing or stealing, or whatever, unless you really have to. And if you feel like you have to do it, you will do it, completely overturning whatever moral code you made up.
In practice, in daily life, the concepts of "good and evil" are ignored, no matter if they're subjective or not.
Absolute or incremental, the very concept of "good" or "evil", on any level other than personal subjective appreciation or disdain for a situation, is fabricated.
It's completely subjective what good or evil is, and it seems like most people just make it up as they go.
People just fabricate morality, and to say that you've somehow figured out good and evil, while other people openly disagree, is pretty telling that there is no good or evil. Only subjective opinions.
The very fact people can disagree about what's good and evil, including whether or not there is an objective good or evil, dismantles the concept entirely. The fact I can even disagree with the concept of objective morality, and have some solid logic to my disagreement dismantles the entire concept.
What does this MEAN though? If there is no objective morality, then what is there?
~Kitten
In reply to https://steemit.com/morality/@krnel/what-is-good-or-evil-the-good-and-evil-continuum-spectrum-scale-or-degrees
A truly brilliant article. Please read it.
I Love your posts!!! Now Following
Liberty cannot exist without objective morality.
Liberty is subjective.
It is an imaginary concept only relevant to subjectively oppressed humans.
Reminds me of a favorite Ammon Hennacy quote:
;)
What do you FEEL like it means?
It feels like a better understanding of how people truly work, and how society functions on a realistic level. The idea of subjective morality introduces many new concepts, that if ignored, will lead to cruelty and suffering throughout society.
If there is no objective morality, it means we need to change how we behave.
It means you can't harshly judge people for having different morals than you. This already happens. People already have different morals, yet, if you accept objective morality, any disagreement is like brittle glass slamming into another piece of brittle glass. You can't say you are moral and pure according to the universe, while someone else calls you immoral and unpure according to the universe. It creates an unresolvable clash.
Instead, you will need to accept that you need to come up with your own morals, just as everyone else does.
But you cannot be soft with this. You must be harsh on yourself, so that you have honor, courage, and attributes that push you to be a good person. What is good is how you define it, but I think that's what growing up and learning about the world will teach you.
And that takes thinking and feeling about it.
You can't just go into life without preplanning, or having complex thoughts.
A person ought to think deeply about society, the meaning of society, the meaning of other people, and feel and think deeply into the world and universe, to understand what is important to that person.
The answer is always different for everyone, but can still lead to a moral code that allows you to be an effective person.
I think this will result in people talking about morals and ethics openly, knowing that no one is truly right. Instead, it becomes wise to be flexible, and understand that things change, and circumstances change.
I think it's better to have invented your own flexible moral code, so that you can react to reality in an organic, yet sane manner. Pure logic will result in kindness and love towards people, and pure emotion also results in kindness and love towards people, so as long as people really think about their moral and ethical code, I think it will result in good things.