It sounds like you want to apply how we define truth to how we define morality. I’m not so sure why you’re following elph around with this question.

I still believe that the only objective knowable truth is the Cartesian I think therefore I am.

After that there’s very close to completely objective truths that come by virtue of definition: a triangle has three sides.

God and flat earth like non-truths are still very objectively true but less so by a **** hair.

We do not have moral absolutes in the same way. Every action is surrounded by and influenced by countless other actions. Morality is subjective. I figure most folks would conclude the same unless they believe in God and even more they don’t just believe that God chooses to be moral but rather that something is moral because God chooses it, like killing your own son, for example.

To address your last point, there are many views of morality, which is why I asked Elph about his. We can go round and round about this, but I tend to favor the side of Harris/Dillahunty, which basically equates morality to well being, which is not subjective.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that the order goes: Justification -> Moral determination -> Action.

Elph seems to view morality as subjective as well and thinks it can be changed on a whim depending on the circumstances of an individual.. If I'm wrong, correct me. I'm glad I had this conversation though, because its consistent with the positions he tends to take, and it helps me understand the thought process behind the wall I get sick of talking to. Still don't agree with him.

That’s Sam Harris and Matt Dillahunty (had to google- I thought we might be closer to Kant and Foucault). I’ve listened to those guys and I’ve read Waking Up.

It seems like if morality equals well-being it’s going to be subjective depending on whose well-being.

For an atheist Harris gets pretty deep into woo when he starts up on enlightenment and meditation.

The justification part has to be loaded with subjective reasoning.

I don’t get how your ideas about this differ from elph’s or anyone’s really.

Sometimes I find your writing cryptic. I need **** spelled out to get it.

I'll try and find a video for you that will do a better job of explaining it than I can.

I don't disagree that justifcation has to be loaded with subjective reasoning, but that's not in conflict with what I'm saying.

If you approach morality the way I do there are truths within it. If I am faced with a situation where I either kill or be killed, and I kill, that doesn't make killing moral all of a sudden, it's justifiable though. If we agree that morality is based on well-being killing another person goes against well-being.

What use is morality to us if it's not consistent? If everyone can just feel however they want, what's the point of the discussion? I never said Elph was wrong, I only said I disagree. It's a complicated subject, and I'm not well educated in moral philosophy. I'm arguing on behalf of the things I've heard that make the most sense to me.

Jordan Peterson says something very similar. It sounds great when he’s talking but honestly I’m not sure what it means.

Well we need some malleability over the centuries, don’t we?

If there are universal moral truths can you name them? And then explain when immorality is justifiable?

Since you brought up Peterson (who I'm not a fan of), and I was already looking for a video here:

Watch from ~44m-53m.. also ~58m-1h1m


I just gave you an example of when immorality is justified: I kill someone in self defense.

The video answers your other questions, but if you want me to reiterate my understanding of it, lemme know.

Edit: Here, ill try anyway: Yes, it needs to be malleable. If we discover something that promotes well-being better than the current model it is adopted. An example of a universal moral truth is that taking a life is immoral because it is in direct conflict with well-being, assuming we agree the morality is based around well-being.

You summoned a wild Elph.

I'm assuming he's talking about the basic concepts of thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, love thy neighbor, and whatever else society would destroy itself over if it didn't have those rules. Do the least amount of harm to the least amount of people seems like a pretty easy and obvious rule that you can't argue with. Plenty of wiggle room with legalese as the millennia have proven, but murder is still basically a universal no no so long as you don't complicate it with things like war and executions.

Basically the instincts all humans have that enable cooperative society to exist in the first place. Those are precepts that are so obvious that evolution has burned them into our brains. 1+1=2 morality.

Gramma done tole me I knows rights from wrongs

I hear you but once I get out of bed there’s so many ****ing angles it’s all meaningless

I always felt morality came from empathy. That which harms is wrong and that which helps is right.

In reality everything is really meaningless in the grand scheme of things and all that truly has any meaning is completely self contained meanings. So if you don't have any form of guilt or empathy and you really enjoy rape, then just go for it and pursue the things that mean something to you in this empty existence.

Edit: Because karma also does not exist, so if you don't feel any remorse and know how to escape societal punishment for following your passion of raping and torturing children you have absolutely nothing to fear and will live a completely fulfilled life with no consequences to your actions.