Fucking made my night . That would make everyone ' s night . <| sep |> Just trade us your coach this time <| sep |> Welcome I challenge your husbando to a duel ! Please don ' t shadow realm ' d me . <| sep |> Another Yonko coming ! so much great news <| sep |> Original post by uJamesPov in rgifsnbspThis crosspost was performed automatically as a part of the ImagesOfNetwork . Learn more about the ImagesOfNetwork , how you can help , and other Frequently Asked Questions , or visit us on Discord ! Remove my post ! The bot got this one wrong ! Stop Crossposting My Stuff ! # match Ohio <| sep |> they follow objective rules and are always true , even without humans around . Yeah , but we didn ' t just start with them . We had to figure them out first , and we did so by reason . In the case of scienceScience is constituted by logic and math . They are indispensable to it , and are still huge , gigantic parts of it . Dealing with topics in the philosophy of science is instrumental to revolutions and making discoveries in science . No , that ' s exactly what we ' re doing , and that ' s what separates it from a discussion on math . That ' s not an argument . Anyway , you can ' t honestly act like you ' re unfamiliar with norms , e . g . you should tie your shoes , you should look both ways before crossing the street , you should buckle your seat belt , we should favor accurate information over inaccurate information , we should try to understand how the world work , etc . Can we really not be confident in any of these claims ? Do you live your life like there ' s nothing that you should or shouldn ' t do ? Because humans are known to literally not have good reason in many , many , many circumstances . So , we ' re likely to be wrong , so there ' s no reason to think we ' re right especially when we ' re being rigorous about it ? Ridiculous . The growth of our knowledge over the years alone is evidence enough to reject such radical skepticism . Are you so proud and vain that you claim to be capable of that where no one else in history has been ? So , everyone working in any field that hopes gain new information for their field is being vain ? Listen to yourself . You can ' t just logic to a moral standpoint , it has to be based on reality . What the shit ? Do you think philosophy is done in ignorance of other subjects or reality itself ? And what do you mean by ' based on reality ' here ? What besides reality would serve as its basis ? Do you think logic isn ' t real ? thinking about it til you come up with a solution isn ' t rational . It ' s not going to lead you to any conclusion you didn ' t already have . That ' s not an argument . Anyway , sure it can . Intuitions aren ' t always right and what you take to be moral depends on what you take the basis of morality to be . I don ' t think that ' s fair to say solely because I reject absolute morality . You can reject it , but there simply are reasons not to reject it . If there aren ' t any , by all means , please inform the experts and collect your Nobel prize . Those are not subjective opinions , those are objective opinions . All opinions are subjective by definition , as they depend on minds to be had . Opinions can be justified and true i . e . knowledge , however . One has no evidence to support it , and everything says it ' s wrong . The young earth theorist , like you , could simply remain radically skeptical of our ability to accurately figure out the age of the earth , and claim that ' there ' s no reason to believe it ' s billions of years old ' without ever feeling the need to seriously look into the topic on his own . A subjective opinion would be the world is pretty oldNah , that ' s just a vague opinion . I still don ' t see what you mean by subjective vs . prescriptivenormative . It ' s descriptive e . g . group x thinks action A is immoral , but group y doesn ' t vs normative e . g . action A is immoral , and the difference is that the truth or falsity of ' morals '' ethical claims ' is irrelevant when talking about morality in purely descriptive terms , because they are just accounts of what x , y , or z people would consider to be moralimmoral . In normative ethics , the truth or falsity of normative ethical claims is relevant . Anthropologists and historians don ' t try to address ethical or metaethical questions e . g . what should I do ? and Is morality objective ? when they compare the moral codes of different societies , because they are merely describing things . Moral philosophers are directly addressing those moral questions and whether or not we can justifiably answer them . would it have been immoral to kill Hitler just for the lulzYes , obviously . Killing people for basically no reason is immoral . However , I ' d say that killing Hitler and having a good enough reason to do it e . g . in order to avoid all that horrible shit he would end up doing would not be immoral . But , please do defend the notion that everything the Nazis did was morally okay . then you ' ll never get an agreement on whether or not it ' s moral to shoot them . Again , moral disagreement does not entail that there is no right answer . I think that your entire paragraph , and even your usage of normative , indicates that you assume objective morality as fact , when it ' s not . I don ' t assume it as fact at all . You however certainly seem to assume the opposite , as you ' ve been categorically dismissive to the idea without really understanding it . Hell , up until I corrected you , you thought that morality was subjective by definition or otherwise came from religion . You ' re trying to establish some grand , objective moralityWhat is so grand about the idea that normative ethical claims can be true or false , and at least some of them are true ? Your ideas about what any sort of ethical theory must entail seem to be based on misconceptions and silly caricatures of moral authorities . but there ' s no reason to believe one exists , and no evidence of it either . Remember , we are talking about a metaethical claim , not some ethical theory or doctrine . Morality being objective doesn ' t mean that any of the ethical theories we ' ve come up with are correct . It just means that at least some moral claims are true , while every other one is false . And , again , there are reasons to believe morality is objective , so maybe check out what they are before continuing to assert this garbage about there being no reason to think it is . You aren ' t making a case against moral realism , you ' re just shouting Nuhuh ! from behind the veil of ignorance . I ' m going to post this and reply again after I ' ve read that stuff . You really should ' ve read the stuff before you replied .