LULZ / Misc

Any moralbots around?

I like the idea that there is an objective morality and we can achieve through cardinal virtues.
Is there anyone around who believes the same?

  1. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    what does that words even mean

  2. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Moraln-words don't belong here

  3. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    My cardiovascular virtues are very poor

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      anon you should stop eating so much TRANS-fat

  4. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    The only way to achieve objective morality is through fundamentalism. Moral relativism is the default if you don't choose a moral foundation.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      This tbh. Although, I don't think 'choosing' a moral foundation is at all easy if you don't already believe in its origin to some degree, or happen to have an iron will.

      the only way to achieve true objective morality is to shape your morals around your actions

      'sup, Trump

      do objective laws exist ?

      for instance, would Mathematics or Physics or Logic exist, even if there were no humans around to observe the Universe working inside the laws of Mathematics, Physics and Logic ?

      if so, that means objective laws exist

      if not, then you are holding to a position and asserting that no objective laws exist...
      ... but that positive assertion would itself become the objective law that 'objective laws don't exist'

      >if not, then you are holding to a position and asserting that no objective laws exist...
      >... but that positive assertion would itself become the objective law that 'objective laws don't exist'

      This is just a convoluted way of repeating Socrates' 'I know that I know nothing'. Also I'm not convinced that physical laws (which tend to just describe properties) are at all related to morality. The only moral conclusion I can draw from a physics-based framework is something along the lines of 'coming into existence, existing as I am, and then coming into non-existence, is in accordance with the laws of the universe, and therefore virtuous', which as a moral framework seems to leave a lot to be desired...

  5. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    >objective morality
    I actually believe the exact opposite. Morality is (almost) entirely subjective and based on circumstantial shit like cultural values and societal norms.

  6. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    >Is there anyone around who believes the same?
    Yes, I am a muslim, how did you know?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >Catholic and Muslim agree
      Like St. Francis and Sultan Malek

  7. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think it's just as simple as don't hurt people unless they hurt you first. Modern Satanists are homosexuals but they got that right at least.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >ritual abortions and public desecration of monuments
      >openly attacking all christians and other religions
      not quite, they still homosexuals you got that one right

  8. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I believe it exists, but I think achievement requires a full God conciousness. Maybe this is also possible? Maybe it is merely the ego thinking it us capable of God conciousness through intuition which is only a reflection of the ego. I cannot say. Good luck on your journey.

  9. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    the only way to achieve true objective morality is to shape your morals around your actions

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      OP here, I like how you think

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      are you sure that wouldn't be a subjective morality ?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        no because subjective morality is feelings-based
        objective morality is nature-based
        If your morality is based on how your interaction affects the world, that means you not only have objective morality, but also means you are a consequentialist

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          >If your morality is based on how your interaction affects the world

          what determines whether the affect you have on the world is good or bad ?

          • 3 weeks ago
            Anonymous

            The hierarchy of goods: sensitive, intelectual and honest

            • 3 weeks ago
              Anonymous

              by whose standard are these declared 'good' ?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >sensitive goods or "if it feels good, it's good"
                >intelectual goods or "if it's useful, it's good"
                >honest good "it's good as a means and as an end onto itself"

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                aren't those all dependent on the perspective of the person ?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not as long as you follow prudence, fortitude, temperance and justice. You need right reason for that, and right reason isn't based on perception of the phenomena but the phenomena itself

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                so prudence, fortitude, temperance and justice as determined by a reasonable mind, eh -- what determines what is reasonable ?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Not really; prudence, justice, fortitude and temperance are tools to appriach a problem. They are not defined by the rational mind but the opposite, they define a rational mind

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                k, so understanding that the model was to practice prudence, justice, temperance and fortitude as to develop the reason, again we have the issue of whether the P/J/T/F were determined by the practitioner as he understood them, or whether there was a higher standard than his subjective understanding of the virtues, yeah ?

                and again, we also have to understand whether these virtues do actually lead to reason, whether reason really is the highest law; and according to what standard ?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >or whether there was a higher standard than his subjective understanding of the virtues, yeah ?
                nah you are giving language and perception too much credit over reality.
                The virtues are natural phenomena that define a rational mind, they predate the existence of reason for they are a criteria that must be fulfilled for a mind to be considered rational itself.
                You are thinking of reason as "cogito ergo sum", which means the sum of thoughts; thoughts don't grant a rational mind but define a "sensitive" mind, means such individual is sentient but not yet rational.

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                >The virtues are natural phenomena that define a rational mind, they predate the existence of reason

                which would mean that the P/J/F/T virtues are objective laws, constraining excessive behaviours and refining the intellect to reason, yeah ?

                thus it naturally follows that such laws that operate within the kosmos - and upon the creature - are objective standards, yes ?

                now, do objective laws demand that there is an objective law-giver ?

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                which would mean that the P/J/F/T virtues are objective laws, constraining excessive behaviours and refining the intellect to reason, yeah ?
                Sounds about right, but there is a difference between normal reasoning (intellectual) and "higher" reasoning (honest), which are defined on the ends and means to the phenomena in which the individual takes part or caused.

                >thus it naturally follows that such laws that operate within the kosmos - and upon the creature - are objective standards, yes ?
                objective does not mean "material" but "outside" the subject itself. It doesn't depend on the subject because it always existed, but it is defined once the subject is present, take light for instance, with or without light your room is full of material objects no matter if you are able to observe them or not

                >now, do objective laws demand that there is an objective law-giver?
                Now that's the golden question. Do we need a Law-giver to follow objective morality? No matter of their stance on the Law-giver, if someone lacks virtue then there is no way they can follow them, they are irrational regardless. Like a feral dog or an untrained hand, If it doesn't have virtue (which is the criteria) then we can't say an individual is rational but vain

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                you have my respect, sir; and i'm grateful for the interesting conversation, but i'm afraid i must away

                cheers bruv

              • 3 weeks ago
                Anonymous

                Thanks to you, I thought the thread would just die like that senpai

  10. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Objective morality is completely nonexistent simply by the fact that people are only moral about things that are convenient to them at any given time, nevermind just how wildly cultures can be different, such as those that still regularly practice cannibalism or send children to conflicts and war zones. If you were raised in one of those cannibal tribes you would think nothing of it, if you were raised eating dogs and torturing monkeys you would think nothing of it, etc. Morality on a mass scale is just a tool used to make people more subservient.
    >inb4 some brainlet thinks I am saying you should go on spree killings because objective morality does not exist

  11. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    [log in to view media]

    >pink hair esper e-boi makes funny faces

    why do we like this anime again?

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      I like it because damian reminds me of my youth

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      We don't. It's shit.

  12. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I think I have semi-strong morals but not "twitter groomed me" morals or "i hate women" base morals.

  13. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I really want an objective morality to be out there. But nature doesn't allign with that. The world's core logic doesn't allign with that. And my personal experience tells me that whenever I do immoral stuff I get rewarded if I do it smart and nobody really gives a fuck as long as they don't personally suffer from it. While I got punished for trying to cling onto morals against group or personal interest.
    Also morals in politics is just a tool for distraction. Nobody cares. It is just a power play. Morals is just for manipulating those who can be manipulated by it. Other than that nobody cares. Nobody will respect you for it. Nobody will be attracted to you for it. That is fantasy bullshit. You get respected and you get bitches for power (ecnomical, social and physical). Doesn't matter how you get it.
    You want others to have morals tho. That will limit their actions, and give you an advantage over them.

  14. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    do objective laws exist ?

    for instance, would Mathematics or Physics or Logic exist, even if there were no humans around to observe the Universe working inside the laws of Mathematics, Physics and Logic ?

    if so, that means objective laws exist

    if not, then you are holding to a position and asserting that no objective laws exist...
    ... but that positive assertion would itself become the objective law that 'objective laws don't exist'

  15. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    Sorry Anon I do not believe in objective morality. This is at heart is deeply human concept.

    The near infinite universe around us is vast and uncaring, it does not matter to the stars and the law of physics if you slap a grandma or save a puppy's life.

    I believe however in the fact that as a human, I have a morality and that it does not matter if it is universal or not, what matters is thatI strive to follow my own rules as much as possible.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >I have a morality and that it does not matter if it is universal or not, what matters is thatI strive to follow my own rules as much as possible.
      but wouldn't that count them as rules of the universe rather than yours? If you are truly so insignificant what makes you think you had a real input on your own rules?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        They are not of the universe, at worst they are the product of the mix of my upbringing, genetics, and the randomness of what I encountered in my life.

        But does it matter where it comes from ? As long as I'm happy with my moral compass and that it doesn't conflict too much with the average societal one.

        In the end the only thing that makes one moral code prevail over another is strength. If you have the power to enforce it above other's your morals prevail if not they dont. Simple as that.

        • 3 weeks ago
          Anonymous

          Not that anon, but if you agree that genetics play a part on it, and all humans share pretty much the entire genome, wouldn't agree that there is some fundamental universal moral, even if a lot of the other details vary with your other factors? Things that are not humans don't have morality.

  16. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    There is no such thing as objective morality, every moral Is based on your own perception of reality and events, and also your social context.
    If, IF, there is any objective morality right now it would to just try and be kinder and understanding to each other, yet society lays its foundaments in hate and conflict, more so nowdays. It is a shame, and I am too depressed to live in such place

  17. 3 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    I believe in God and wish that I could be more pious but I feel like it's an impossible task. For some vain reason, I want to get my shit together before I start going to chruch instead of the other way around.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      >For some vain reason, I want to get my shit together before I start going to chruch instead of the other way around.
      Sounds like guilt. You Catholic?

      • 3 weeks ago
        Anonymous

        Yes, most of my older family members are Catholic. But I was never raised religiously. Whenever I went to church for easter as a kid it was always to a protestant megachurch because my mothers friends were all non-denominational.

    • 3 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      Catholic here. n-word you honestly need to read some St. Agustin.
      "Every emotion is good as long as it pushes you to do good"

      Don't feel guilty all the time or that falls into fake piety, that becomes imposter syndrome and basically can end fucking up your brain into depression.

      Pious people have their own stuff too (some have get themselves int the danger to fall into pelagianism) Always remember catholicism is a community effort: you can be better through helping your family in their own weaknesses

Your email address will not be published.