>He believes in morality
>>18244647Morality is real
>>18244648It is impossible for you to practice objective morality.
>>18244647Let me guess, if someone were to cite which genetics correlate with morality, you'd rely with it doesn't count?
>>18244652Nice image.
>>18244652If someone had evidence that certain genes correlated with behaviors like being charitable or sexually chaste, I would agree with it. If someone even said that certain races were more aligned with these values than others, I would also agree with that. If someone said that these values are intrinsically good then I would disagree.
>>18244650So what? It is still real
>>18244660Not for you.
>>18244661Morality is real, it is possible to practice objective morality, and I personally practice objective morality
>>18244665No, you don't.
>>18244647Might makes right
>>18244671No, it doesn't. Might destroys and coerces, but it doesn't determine what's true or what's "right". If someone is mightier than you, you might abstain from certain acts as long as you are under his oppression, but as soon as you were free from him then you would act in another way.
>>18244677How do you determine objective morality?Dont say hedonisn or nature.Despotism is the truth
>>18244695Only one person can practice objective morality and it's the entire world of phenomena that you see right now.
>>18244671OK>*crashes ur roman empire*
Important thing is to not increase suffering and live without regrets.It can all be interpreted as fully self-serving because increasing suffering in the world inevitably brings suffering back on the self
>>18244666You said morality isn't real. He's telling you it is. Somebody being unable to perceive morality doesn't mean morality in itself doesn't exist.
Morality doesn't exist, it's a tool used by the weak to protect themselves.
>>18244808>He still doesn't get it
>>18244647What the fuck was Platos problem? Guy was a fucking schizo lmao
>>18244851>doesn't exist, it's a
>>18244808>someone being unable to perceive the shadows I can perceive doesn't mean they aren't real
>>18244665>I personally practice objective moralityWhat's the difference between someone who doesn't steal because it's it's an objective fact that stealing is immoraland someone who doesn't steal because they subjectively disvalue stealing?
>>18245140The difference between heaven and hell.
>>18245141retard
>>18245145God bless you
>>18244648Souls don't exist, buddy.
>>18245141Heaven and hell don't exist, buddy.
>>18245146Do you think this is a legitimate move to make in the conversation after doing the equivalent of farting as a reply, to a question about your view on morality?
>>18244650Nobody practices morality.They practice ethics.Morality has to do it's the intrinsically qualities of things and actions, virtues are inherent not imputed.Ethics is concerned with justice, the law and codes of conduct. Morally evil acts can be ethically justified; executing a criminal can be just in restoring balance to the common good and an exercise in mercy for their victims or their survivors, but the action of killing itself is morally wrong.
>>18245288It did not restore common good to inflict such. It did not resolve the transgression. It doesnt matter if you contain or even annihilate an individual committing wrongs you find sufficient for such action. You failed to rehabilitate, reform, or actually compensate for the loss on behalf of a victim. The fact is, and it is ugly, the justice system only delivers an illusion of justice as much as it may deter additional harms. It is incomplete, and ultimately if you failed to actually help the criminal, there is no true closure for the victim. They didnt gain anything from it objectively, only secondarily. This gradient decreases in consideration of potential bad outcomes moving into the future, but claiming responsibility and agency of the party for themselves while stripping not only all merit indiscriminantly, and also deluding yourself in the mercy concerning the individual, amounts to what? A moment of ease? It trains vengeance and malice. If you could entirely reform the life and views of the criminal without destroying them, as well as restore what was taken from a victim in absolute, that might be justice. But our current system is not justice. We settle for less because we are told it is what is possible and given standard of what to accept as systemically obligated, often in contradiction of its own premise and solicitation. It is a justice system but it is not. The problem is limitation that is not helped by lack of concern for actual wellbeing of the citizenry. Once designation of criminal is established, the party has less potential than before. Weird how the system treats citizens as less than children, but turns around and demands they be more mature than the system itself. You eventually catch that if you pay attention. And most just feel victim or circumstance and follow orders. But they tell themselves they are fighting the good fight. But they never want the good fight to end. They don't want evil to end.
Morality is an intersubjective reality. If you can't dance to the music, you get put in a box.
>>18244851>is doesn't exist>immediately defines it
>>18244647
>>18245570Gem post
>>18245686Libtards say morality is subjective because they’re sexually depraved control freaks.
>>18244647There is Good and there is Evil and the distinction between the two is not difficult to make.
>>18245716Is it good or evil to kill a mosquito?
>>18244647Kind of ironic to be using the allegory of the cave to argue for moral anti-realism, no?>>18244648How do you know?>>18244650Can you please justify your position?>>18244652Genetics correlates witrh behaviour, not with "morality". Ethics varies wildly across time and place even among the same broad racial group.
>>18245794there's nothing ironic about it at all>muh plato>muh form of the goodnigger you're already doing everything what the demiurge wants you to do
>>18245801There is something ironic about using an allegory about seeing the true form of things rather than their reproduction to illustrate realizing something literally doesn't exist.>Demiurgewhat does this have to do with anything.
>>18245811Don't engage with gnosticlarper schizos. It only encourages them. If you ignore him he'll go back to yelling at his tulpa.
>>18245811if you followed the discussion you would've seen where the conversation led>what does this have to do with anything???
>>18245813i forgot you dumbasses don't know where the term demiurge came from
>>18245754Intent has everything to do with the distinction between good and evil. There is not enough context for this situation you described to say definitively. However, killing always tends to be more evil even when something as small as a mosquito
>>18244647>ideas and shadows are bad because...>or something
>>18245827Then how can you ever make a good decision if it is always imperfect and therefore partially evil? Even the evil that you consider people to do has some good. When a young couple has pre-marital sex, they are still doing some good in the world. When a man steals from another to feed himself, he is still doing some good in the world. A lion who rips apart a gazelle does some good in the world. A mosquito who sucks blood from a human victim is still doing some good in the world. What if you had to kill a bunch of mosquitos to save an innocent child from life threatening malaria? Why do good for one life form at the expense of another?
>>18245815How am I doing everything the demiurge (in the original sense of the term as a maker) wants me to do?I just do not understand, I would appreciate an explanation.
>>18245847the demiurge is the cause of all action in the world as >>18244699 said. since the demiurge is the only one who has knowledge of all things and the power to change them, it alone can perform perfectly good acts. this means that all things that we perceive as evil are not necessarily evil in a holistic sense. all perceived evil is oriented towards an end, which is the good. this means that no matter what you do, whether good or bad, you will still be contributing to the good. every moral framework is subjective, oriented towards a limited and distorted image of the good, and therefore not real in the way that the laws of nature are real.
>>18245860people like you need to be purged
>>18245862why?
>>18245860Thanks for the explanation.However, would that not still support moral realism? Just with the caveat that true moral knowledge is inaccessible to us?
>>18245881If you aren't arguing for moral anti ralism please clarify, though. This is confusing.
>>18245881the point is that there is no such thing as moral knowledge since we are imperfect agents and can't practice it. even if we had knowledge of all things we still couldn't transcend our limited form. that's the sticking point, and what makes morality fundamentally unreal. morality is intersubjective and social, unlike what the demiurge does, which is objective and performed by it alone. but if you were the demiurge, for example, then anything that you did, including all the horrors you can think of that actually happened, would be good. and that collapses any distinction between morality and immorality, no?
>>18245841>Then how can you ever make a good decision if it is always imperfect and therefore partially evil? I never said that although I can see how it might have been implied. Like I said, intention has everything to do with it, and a good decision done with good intentions is the best anyone can do. >Even the evil that you consider people to do has some good. Yes of course. But good weighs less than bad, as in, it is far less significant, of less worth and value; as in, its more important to prevent evil than to propagate good.>When a young couple has pre-marital sex, they are still doing some good in the world. The good from the sex, the pleasure, exists and is significant, but is worth less than the "evils" (good and evil being general umbrella terms), those being loss of mutual virginity and chance for bastard pregnancy.>When a man steals from another to feed himself, he is still doing some good in the world. This is why intention is a key factor; stealing, no matter from who, makes you feel bad, and this sheds light on its overall place on the spectrum, that being tending more often to evil. >A lion who rips apart a gazelle does some good in the world. See picrel.>What if you had to kill a bunch of mosquitos to save an innocent child from life threatening malaria?Now this is better context. In such a situation there would likely be far better options, such as one of the best things humanity has ever invented, the malaria vaccine. furthermore one could wear more clothes, use nets, or stay inside. Most people don't think of these in the context of not having to end up killing, but they do act in this capacity.>Why do good for one life form at the expense of another?See this buddhist teaching: https://suttacentral.net/mn20/en/sujato?lang=en&layout=sidebyside&reference=none¬es=asterisk&highlight=false&script=latin
>>18245899>One simple test of...I will not assist $0¥s in destroying the world.
>>18245892Yes, it does. You make sense there.
I never understood how objective moral facts merely existing is supposed to have any "normative inertia" Why should I care? Why should I do what's "moral", rather than act in a way that achieves my subjective goals and desires, aligns with my values, etc
>>18245974It feels bad to hurt othersEven if it doesn't for you, you can imagine how the pain would feel to someone that might get hurt as a result of you chasing your goals and desires
>>18245982>you can imagine how the pain would feelYou really can't
>>18245982When you eat food, you take that away from someone else that could’ve had it. When you have sex, you take away a potential mate from someone else. When you work, you take away a job from someone else. Who cares?
>>18245989That isn't true either. You can try do things right, and not everything you do is wrong.
>>18245989What I want to say is life can be reasonable. It doesn't have to be this way.
>>18245987You can easily do this, even without innate empathy. >>18245989The implications of this are astounding. Basically if anyone has anything, its because they took it from someone else. Life always produces losers, often in orders of magnitude more than winners. And even then, the prizes are never as good as they should be given the sacrifices. Objectively speaking, feelings have value no matter who is feeling them, and therefore in every situation of life, there is suffering somewhere because someone is always losing. The problems arise because our illusion of separation fueled by ego and strivings/cravings, for food, sex, power, et cetera, can make you believe that feelings felt by someone else are less important, or that the pleasures you feel are worth the suffering that it might have taken to achieve, or even that the losers/sufferers don't actually even exist. The implications of these illogical positions are evident>>18246000Checked and true
>>18246003That's my point. People are always going to suffer. When I eat delicious hot dogs I don't really give a fuck that hogs had to live in horrible conditions before they were gracelessly slaughtered.>>18246002Yes it does.>>18246000You are always going to cause negative downstream effects, it is impossible not to.
>>18246006>I don't really give a fuck that hogs had to live in horrible conditions before they were gracelessly slaughteredDid you even finish reading the post?>because our illusion of separation fueled by ego and strivings/cravings, for food, sex, power, et cetera, can make you believe that feelings felt by someone else are less important, or that the pleasures you feel are worth the suffering that it might have taken to achieve
>>18246003>even without innate empathyThe conclusions you come to will be different then than someone who has it.>The implications of this are astounding.It's just the butterfly effect without a time machine. You do not know what these things experience or their values. You put your head on an insects body. A human head with a human face and a human mind, not an insect one.
>>18246013Call it an illusion all you like, I am my ego. You can talk about God all you want, but if God really cared about "love and peace, man", then he wouldn't make a world in which we experience multiplicity and conflict. I have feelings, I have desires, and I will pursue them, and no amount of nihilism or dissolution of the self as a concept will get in the way of that.
>>18246006>You are always going to cause negative downstream effects
>>18246018>The conclusions you come to will be different then than someone who has itSometimes, but not always. In fact it is possible that those with empathy might be more willing to inflict pain on others than someone who lacks innate empathy i.e. a psychopath, because of differences in intelligence and therefore understanding of the reality of the nonlocal nature and value of suffering.>It's just the butterfly effect without a time machine.Not exactly. I'm specifically claiming that suffering is a constant.>You do not know what these things experienceYou can make a educated assumption based on your own experiences and to deny this ability is to debase yourself and deny your higher human intellect
>>18246044>suffering is a constantSee:>>18246038
>>18246034Please strengthen your reading comprehension. I said the illusion is of separation, not illusion of ego. Ego feels real, the self feels real. So do feelings, desires, strivings and cravings. Even the separation feels real, or course, but only in an illusive way that, like I said, can lead to illogical actions.My point is that you are not the only being who experiences, or the only one whose experiences matter. That is what "dissolution of the self" really means, its just a recognition of the interconnected nature of reality. I would say that those in this thread who deny this are the real nihilists.In regards to the God and peace and love and him making a world stuff; I would say please try to recognize and expell the congnitohazard of judeochristianity from your mind
>>18246057Yes, and? What exactly are you trying to say please? Is it that you think I believe suffering to be a constant in life because I suffer from learned helplessness?
>>18246086The picture!
>>18246090Its a cute puppy
>>18246079Ok. But I don’t feel that suffering. What’s not getting through to your brain, numb nuts?
>>18246092I assumed you experienced the enlightenment. Oh well back to the drawing board.
>>18245982Yeah, if hurting other people makes me feel bad, I probably wouldn't wanna to do itHowever, that is a subjective reason not to hurt others.NOT the "objective moral facts" making it true what I should, or shouldn't do.The question still stands, why should I care about the objective moral facts?
>>18246594Objectivity and morality are mutually exclusive concepts.
>>18245982>Even if it doesn't for you, you can imagine how the pain would feel to someone that might get hurt
Morality is as fake as the superstition that free will exists. >noo but you'll feel bad if you hurt someoneIf you had actual advantages to be gained by doing so you won't feel bad.
>>18244648Give examples.
>>18245974It doesn't. The common imposition of posthumous punishment for bad acts and reward for good ones implies a level of awareness that something being 'good' or 'evil' by itself doesn't mean anything if it does not have tangible effects on the world. Even utilitarianism relies on self interest.An alternative is to hold the superstition that humans are inherently drawn towards good so they will just tend towards good because they just will.
>>18244647I believe in the tradition and mores of my forefathers, for they layed them out for the benefit of my descendants and myself. Moral anarchists such as yourself deserve to be hanged and quartered for seeking to destroy that which maintains harmony within society.
>>18244851Morality and ethical principles are a survival strategy, but not for the weak.
