What is the point of arguing about ethics?
>I know you just murdered my whole family and stole everything I own but according to this philosophical argument what you did was objectively wrong. Heh, I bet you feel pretty stupid now.
>Oh you don't believe in objective morality? You wouldn't mind if I stabbed you in the neck then?
>You do mind? You're being hecking inconsistent!!!!!
>No you can't rob me! That goes against my metaethical framework! Stop it!
The same point as in any other argument. Common ground. Stabbing someone in the neck would be one of the things we'd be hoping to avoid.
>Stabbing someone in the neck would be one of the things we'd be hoping to avoid.
What if I want to stab you in the neck though?
Congrats. You're arguing ethics.
What a hecking own
Give upvotes
a (you) for that jolly good post
The point in learning ethics is to know the difference between right and wrong so you can avoid wronging others who are more strong than you.
There is no point in arguing about morality, it just makes you look like a cuck.
This doesn't require morals, simoly requires a knowledge of logic and psychology
>I like being free
>If I do x, I will probably get caught
>so I should not do it unless I judge the risk reward ratio to be an acceptable threshold...
What is logic based on? Don't you need objective truth in order for logic to function?
>Don't you need objective truth in order for logic to function?
What? Why would you? You're so fucking stupid. Do you need objective truth for a rock to drop when you let go of ir in your hand? Some things are just discernible and can be assumed to be consistent. Truth is an unneccessary and loaded concept.
>Why would you?
Well if you're going to abandon the truth, might as well let you have your own truth.
That doesn't seem likely to get me desired outcomes so why would I do that?
It tests how well your ethics work. If you just decided that x is right and y is wrong, then never questioned it, you may end up living according to a flawed, dysfunctional ethical system. Others can point out issues you yourself have not noticed: you can improve your ethics through arguing about them.
Acting right or wrong.
Being able to tell if something is right or wrong.
Aristotle's book is not good IMO. It starts saying everything aims at a good. What good does killing and raping aim to?
>What good does killing and raping aim to?
Dopamine
I don't consider dopamine a good. This video illustrates it. https://youtu.be/A3svaOilIis?si=Z-c414R97gpFVYt2
For me the meaning of life is the pursuit of happiness without taking the happiness from others and helping others to have happiness. Happiness would be the basic biological, psychological, social etc needs. The concept of "good" comes from this.
This is such a non-statement. It's like saying the conomics is about the pursuit of money without taking money from others and helping others to have money (without actually giving them your money). It is pure make-believe.
Why are you comparing happiness to economics? They are obviously different.
>They are obviously different.
Different in what way? If anything money is more real and countable. Happiness is a feeling that you get for 5 seconds after a trip to McDonalds.
What you describe would maybe be "personal financial development". Economics is a science about how the developments of all people work and interact, I think.
described*
I guess not only to find logical inconsistencies in people's arguments but also to improve your own logical thinking
If as in this retarded greentext there were only two people on earth and one of them was a sociopath determined to rob and murder you, then yes there would be no point in arguing about ethics.
The point of ethics is to build agreement in a community of many people to restrain a hypothetical person robbing you.
>The point of ethics is to build agreement in a community of many people to restrain a hypothetical person robbing you.
In other words, powerful people influence society (build agreement) to determine morality
You:
>heh, le morality is le silly
Chad Philosopher:
>gathers followers
>gathers masses
>his new religion/philosophy/law system breeds a new type of human, who is biologically and ideologically inclined to push the Chad Philosopher‘s message