Morality is sophism to rationalise wants and desires ad hoc. Morality can’t be proved empirically without referring to axioms like for “the good of society” which are arbitrary in themselves. Humans are fundamentally irrational and are the same as any other species but with a higher capacity. There is no reason why a person should actually want anything at all apart from biological (and social) reasons, these things aren’t innately good or bad, they require a subject to assign these properties onto them, again based on what is good for the biological imperative. There is no universal right or wrong and truth can only describe what is and not what ought to be.
>But morality is a social construct, relativism, utilitarianism, etc.
A consensus is not the same as an epistemic morality.
>This argument negates the premise of the argument
I’m not trying to create a system of morality, I’m rejecting the basis of morality.
Wrong, it’s an objective fact
slide thread
How?
Again, it’s useful how? And the point of morality is that it can be used to justify almost anything due to circular reasoning so I don’t get your point
Your argument is basically the same as the God of the gaps argument. You are positing that objective morality doesn't exist or can't exist, when in fact, we just can't define it perfectly. Or define a set of moral rules for specific purposes. You can absolutely make a knowledge claim on morality or the basis for morality in hindsight. And humans reason by accumulation of knowledge thereby arriving closer to deeper moral truths as time passes. You can call the framing of western morality "wrong" but it's still a system of judgement whereby you can evaluate a past action as good or bad. It doesn't matter if you reject the framework. Take the current year for example. The 21st century has been a whirlwind of bad moral claims and judgements on the basis that tradition Athos had ot wrong; and look where it got us. Certainly not closer to truth, but much farther. Then you can reject certain liberal knowledge claims on the basis of their failures. It's just that as a society we're a bit caught up in a liberal sunk cost fallacy to realize we've lost our own moral framework to idiocy
1. There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better (hotter, colder, etc.) than others.
2. Things are X in proportion to how closely the resemble that which is most X.
3. Therefore, if there is nothing which is most X, there can be nothing which is good.
4. It follows that if anything is good, there must be something that is most good.
5. "Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God"
Based aquinas poster.
Morality, in a material sense, is practical reason. Something that preserves the essential functions of human society. Maintenance.
Yeah his pretenses are garbage. Just some retard trying to convince himself he can do things. Have a good one anyong homie
Was the way people found to avoid killing each other for every futile conflicts that happened
We know why do you dislikes
But without It
Probably you would be dead now
Because people hate leftists
They Just dont do nothing
Because morality
So you are based trying to Destroy
Because they are coming after you when you aheive it
>incomprehensible ESL needs to bump the bot thread
thanks greasy
Morality is the result of logic.
It's very real and useful.
But, one can excuse poor behavior many ways, how hard can it b when they behave poorly any excuse will do for them!
i believe morality can make intuitive sense
It’s only sensical to get other people to do your bidding (in some hedonsit way maybe).
How are Good and Evil fixtures though. At best, you can say humans can generally come to a consensus on things, not that these things are “good” or “evil”. You’rennot justifying anything
i think you can start with certain principles that make intuitive sense, such as killing innocent babies is wrong, and build on top of it with more intuitions to build a morality, even though they may not be technically axiomatically solid
This is the same as self-evident truth. Why is killing babies bad, you can give an axiom like “it’s cruel”, or “I will be ostrasiced for it” but why should a psychopath or someone care about that. We could constantly go back and forth and not establish an actual reason without using circular logic. Why is life so good in itself if you will die anyways and forget everything, or the day to day struggles of life?
*flag
In my opinion logic itself is not internally consistent, but that doesn't mean it's not useful even in issues of morality
i think some things are self evident, even if there's no reasoning behind it at it's core, for instance it's very hard to argue that killing babies is good, of course you could say life is bad life has suffering etc, but does that make sense intuitively as a good reason that we should kill dead babies? of course not, a psychopath is lacking oftentimes this intuitive sense, which i think can be useful even if it's not true, but it could be the case that it's actually true
I wasn’t arguing that killing babies is good I’m saying it just is. You could point to self-preservation or intuition but they are seperate phemonena from “truth” or even happiness or contentment. And death is universal and nothing you do genuinely matters in the grand-scheme of things. Likewise, you could say I can’t prove life is suffering but I’m not trying to, you can feel an emotional state like happiness or sadness without needing a metaphysical reason even though there are other material reasons for it, but it is all will. Both of these things are intuition
*just is as indifferent or amoral
>A consensus is not the same as an epistemic morality.
>At best, you can say humans can generally come to a consensus on things
This is where we seem to differ.
You seem to be viewing things from a perspective where people have agency, they "choose" to come to a consensus, the consensus is a reflection of some kind of "free will", but everything else you are saying seems to be coming from a position of extreme deterministic reductionism where concepts like choice and free will don't make sense.
At this level there is no consensus that is arrived at by choice, there is just an illusion of consensus. The social order is actually determined by natural selection acting between cultures favoring those cultures which are better suited to survival under the conditions they exist within. At this level morality is still somewhat arbitrary but it isn't subjective. This is like how fish can take on many forms, but there are still objective reasons why they tend to assume the forms that they do (streamlined bodies minimize drag which confers a survival advantage etc).
>At this level there is no consensus that is arrived at by choice, there is just an illusion of consensus. The social order is actually determined by natural selection acting between cultures favoring those cultures which are better suited to survival under the conditions they exist within.
I basically said this in the OP though. By consensus, I meant the vast majority agree on something.
>At this level morality is still somewhat arbitrary but it isn't subjective. This is like how fish can take on many forms, but there are still objective reasons why they tend to assume the forms that they do (streamlined bodies minimize drag which confers a survival advantage etc).
Again, I was basically implying this. I never said that morality is literally completely arbritary or it would just be randomness. I’m saying the axioms are flawed themselves as a barometer. Why do other countries have different laws even though they are still similar to each other.
It’s still an arbitrary judgement though so nothing you said changes the pont unless you’re willing to elaborate
Bullshit.
Good and Evil are fixtures. We are not greater than them.
Can be with God
I’m not religious and God doesn’t have an objective opinion, he just has enough will and power to enforce his opinion.
If we're looking at it from a theistic perspective, God's "opinion" is just a fact for us mortals.
Saying morality is a lie, is a lie
Let's be specific. The morality lie is how israelites control Whites and others. It allows israelites strategic freedom while constraining those that they wish to destroy.
That’s not morality that’s ethics you turbo retard
You probably kill small animals for fun.
>Morality can’t be proved empirically
There empirical evidence (picrel) for the evolution of moral behavior, but the individual has for nature only an indirect value, only so far as it is the means of maintaining the species. Apart from this its existence is to nature a matter of indifference; indeed nature even leads it to destruction as soon as it has ceased to be useful for this end. Why the individual exists would thus be clear; but why does the species itself exist? That is a question which nature when considered merely objectively cannot answer. For in vain do we seek by contemplating her for an end of this restless striving, this ceaseless pressing into existence, this anxious care for the maintenance of the species.
It is true all wish to be delivered from the state of suffering and death; to attain to eternal blessedness, to enter the kingdom of heaven, only not upon their own feet; they would like to be carried there by the course of nature. That, however, is impossible. Therefore nature will never let us fall and become nothing; but yet it can lead us nowhere but always again into nature. Yet how questionable a thing it is to exist as a part of nature every one experiences in his own life and death. Accordingly existence is certainly to be regarded as an erring, to return from which is salvation: it also bears this character throughout. It is therefore conceived in this manner by the ancient Samana religions, and also, although indirectly, by real and original Christianity.
now yer getting in. the world is your oyster.
Morality is not a lie. It is a thing, it exists and serves a very important purpose. We are a social species and our survival and propogation directly correlates with our numbers and ability to work together, and shared morality is the glue that binds us and allows us to work together more effectively as numbers increase.
I think your argument is that morality is subjective and changes with times/pressures/cultures/goals, so no set of morals can be considered "correct". Well, morals don't NEED to be "correct" in the first place, they are not maths or logic, they are a system of societal cohesion. Whereever there is a society there will be morality - the society could decide that a certain moral virture is no longer helpful and to be phased out or amended, which is fine. Having said that, we can say morality is objective if God exists, and that we should aim to observe whatever morals our Creator guides us to.
I'm a Muslim and believe there are correct morals to strive to, for the good of ourselves and future generations. Again morality will change, it is in human nature for morals to drift, but I can still say what the ideal is, which is what God guides us to.
I mention my religion because the Quran tells us to ponder upon the Ants, which I tihnk are relevant here. Ants do what is best for the colony, their efforts are unchanging, and they are extremely successful for it. Their colonies are chaotic but it is all controlled and running smoothly to an unchanging code - which could be said to be their objective moral system. For example when worker ants find a good source of food they don't hoard it and split off into a smaller colony - they share it, always, and the colony benefits. Each ant that could have splintered off with some food benefits too, they stick with a much larger group where other ants will look out for them too and survival is easier and less stressful. If we acknowledged God and live by his morals, our survival would be easier too.
Time for me to post something I wrote years ago
"Sincerity is a constant state for all living organisms, if an entity is alive the entity is operating under full sincerity, which can otherwise be construed as effort. The only variable in performance is the dynamic and emergent property of ability. This has major implications for the theory of morality. Perhaps morality isn't real, and perhaps the premise of morality greatly restricts the compassion we can supply to others. Perhaps morality is a divider, rather than a virtue. If we can understand that everybody is operating maximally, then compassion is the master key to enlightening the behavior of others."
bump
mark passio posting since OP is an anarchy flag
?t=10044
someone post cp
wrong. humans do not exist in and of themselves. we are part of a universal framework. how we operate within that framework implies morality, both for ourselves and for others
Morality is the highest form of intelligence which means you are a retard.