Morality Is Subjective

A talk on subjective morality.

Link to my discord

Link to Carneval's Pagan video

Link to Carneval's response video

Intro song
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License

Songs during video
Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License

Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License

Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License

Licensed under Creative Commons: By Attribution 4.0 License

[wyrdwildman]

The difference between a hero and a villain is how individuals within a society perceive action taken.

[marcibolton]

Law and order are the foundation of a civil society.

[stachan]

, ,How can anyone be pagan in 2020 (some emote)"
In thousand years, muslims will be laughing the same way, at, ,How can anyone by christian in 3020 (some emote)"?

[TheGiantMidget]

Morality is both subjective and objective simultaneously. Morality emerges from shared common goals/vision of the world we wish to live in. Not everyone has the same vision of what world they want to live in and so that is subjective but within the context of those subjective goals, an objective hierarchy of values emerges in the pursuit of them. For example if your goal is to be on a champion football team and win the superbowl, it is objectively better to co-operate with others, it is objectively better to value health and fitness, it is objectively better to get enough sleep, it is objectively better to go to football practice. But if your goal is to be a well educated intellectual it is objectively better to read a lot of books. So objective moral hierarchies can emerge but only under the context of subjective life goals

[michaelwolgast]

From watching just two of your videos on the whole "Might is Right philosophy" (which I really liked btw)

I am assuming this would also extend to mental might and other venues of dominating an individual/nation, right? Example : USSR vs USA. It's wasn't that the USSR got deafeated militarily by the USA, but economically and possibly by espionage/ phycological warfare ( this can be debated heavily).

Assuming this is true, do you think that the most advanced nations in the world today are employing this methodology (Might is Right) on each other through their culture, technology, military, etc?

[Anongh]

Harm caused is an objective condition and that's usually equated with evil. Although harm can't always be prevented, it can be mitigated. Hunting is necessary for survival, thus we're forced to value some life more than others if we want to survive. If we always attempt to prevent or mitigate harm and fail due to circumstances out of our control, are we evil? No. But what if we fail due to incompetence? If we do not directly or indirectly cause the harm, I would say no. Sometimes it's very clear whether harm has been caused, and sometimes it's unclear. It's a tough thing to pin down either way - objective or subjective. Or maybe my IQ is just too low to figure this out. I think it's a mistake to equate morality with ethics, or to equate right/wrong with good/evil. I feel like right/wrong are misused words when applied to human behavior, but should instead be used for the laws of nature. And although good and evil are apparently subjective, they're useful concepts for understanding human psychology and human behavior, but not for understanding science. In conclusion - ethics/ethos is subjective and morality is a false equivalence.

But that's just my opinion. 😉

[durstiespace]

Ohhhh I feel a YouTube showdown coming!

I couldn't last through all of carnival's video. Was he arguing that the existence of morals is objective or the content of our morals is objective?
I guess I don't understand what he's trying to say.