>"If you crush a cockroach, you're a hero; if you crush a beautiful butterfly, you're a villain. Morality has aesthetic criteria."I think Nietzsche was a retard but this is actually an interesting point. How would you respond to it?
All of Gods creation is beautiful.
>>24816704I don't think this is a real quote
>>24816708>Cancer of the eyes is beautiful
>>24816712Maybe not i don't know. It is still an interesting question thoughbeit
>>24816715It is, in its own way.
>>24816704Where did he say this? On the surface I don't think this gels with his broader thought but it depends on the context.
>>24816719You are mentally ill
>>24816704There's no butterfly in my house.
>>24816704A broken clock is right twice a day, morality is subjective, relative and closely connected with aesthetic and sentimental preferences that are contingent on the current era and its values.
>>24816727that's not morality, that's preference and conventionthe two options are-moral objectivism-moral nihilism (which has various forms of song and dance)
>>24816721No. Just being truthful. Everything has its purpose. Or else it wouldn't exist.
>>24816727If morality was subjective, murder wouldn't be shunned by every religion.
>>24816730>Everything has its purpose. Or else it wouldn't exist.I like how you go from this, which is perfectly logical, to infant birth defects and anal prolapse are beautiful
>>24816733Murder is shunned by every religion with the exception that said religions permit murder against people who they don't like and/or don't follow the religion properly
>>24816737It's not beautiful as in aesthetically pleasing. It's beautiful in its design. Besides, the two things you mentioned are products of obvious problems caused by external factors. Which is a little bit beyond a cockroach.
>>24816742>It's not beautiful as in aesthetically pleasing.The definition of beautiful is something which is aesthetically pleasing. Also, even from a Christian perspective things such as cancer and tuberculosis are not good or beautiful as they are products of the fallen world and are markers of death and decay
>>24816712It is not a Nietzsche quote at all. It's just popular with normies on Instagram and TikTok where OP almost certainly comes from.
>>24816704>I think Nietzsche was a retard but this is actually an interesting point. How would you respond to it?I think the opposite, Nietzsche was smart and made good points, but this one bit is retarded and I don't even remember it. Kill yourself you faggot illiterate.
I think if you went into the middle of town and started killing cockroaches that people would think you're some weirdo.
>>24816729False dichotomy.Why does morality need to be objective in order it to exist?
>>24816704he's right, see physiognomy
>>24816817Retard fucker
>>24816704the former spreads disease
>>24816739I don't recall Buddha or Christ calling for murdering non-believers, but go off retard
>>24816739True, Saladin was known for murdering Christians.
>>24817099>a religion is nothing but whatever its founders saidlol
>>24816704>How would you respond to it?"Yeah you probably right"What else am I supposed to say?
>>24816704It's not what you crush, but why.If you destroy a living being just for fun or to feel power then you are a villain.If you destroy a living being because it's a pest, then you are a hero.People hate cockroaches not because they are ugly, but because they are unsanitary. My grandma killed a shitton of beautiful butterflies, because these fuckers were eating the cabbage in her garden and I don't think anybody would call her evil for doing that.
>>24816708But in the same degree?
>>24817110>A religion can exist if you don't follow its beliefsSophists, once against, proving they're retarded
>>24816744It's aesthetically pleasing how forces in opposition including death and decay come together to form the organism, with elaborate aesthetically pleasing defences against eye cancer.
>>24816704I know its not a real quote but>Morality has aesthetic criteriaThis is stupid. People pick flowers because they are beautiful, people kill humans despite our romantic partners being human etc
>>24816704>i'm 12 and this is deepgood things are good and bad things are bad, thank you neetche, very cool
>>24818384You value sanitation because it serves life. You value life for aesthetic reasons.That's why factory farming is immoral and traditional small scale farming is morally good despite both killing cows.Factory farms are ugly and trad farms look nice. When you get into why one is ugly and the other is nice it has to do with signals about death and decay vs life, like with the cockroach.
>>24817099>Christ calling for murdering non-believers,Why did God flood the world/destroy Sodom
>>24816704It's the same bullshit comparison Landa makes between a rat and a squirrel. It's for midwits. Give it even a second's thought and you'll see that one of those creatures is vermin that will deliberately infest your home and eat/shit all over your food and food prep surfaces. Squirrels and butterflys do not harass humans, they don't infest human homes, they don't leave feces over everything they touch that bring health risks to humans. It has nothing to do with aesthetics.
>>24816704Wait, that Reverend Insanity’s bear chapter was based on Nietsche? Fang Yuan said the same thing.
>>24816704i remember one of my high school teachers brought that up, but he did not tell us that the was quoting Nietszche and i did not make the connection until now
>>24819187One of those things minimizes suffering for it's own sake and one of those things maximizes suffering for profit. It's not comparable. It's like primitives hunting a single bison and using every piece of it and praying thanks to the bison spirit, compared to a guy in a helicopter shooting wild pigs with a machine gun for a goof. Both activities end in death but one of those things is morally permissible, one of those things is indefensible, and it has nothing to do with 'signals' about death and decay.
>>24819192Because Christ had not let offered the ultimate sacrifice toward all mankind.
>(ästhetische Rechtfertigung): ‘our highest dignity lies in the meaning of works of art—for it is only as an aesthetic phenomenon that existence and the world are eternally justified’
>a made up quote by a literal Redditor passes off as Nietzsche for OP>41 replies and most engage with it unironically
>>24819208Suffering has nothing to do with anything. You don't experience the suffering of others, you just think it's ugly.The goof is defensible, often defended and I would defend him depending on details, unlike factory farms. The factory farm becomes even more morally reprehensible if it produces cow bodies with no heads, there's presumably no suffering at all but everything about that is ugly and evil. At least part of that aesthetic judgement is rooted in adaptations to protect against death, decay and disease.
>>24819220You are an idiot.
>>24816704I'm sure you are a retard.
>>24819229>Suffering has nothing to do with anything. You don't experience the suffering of others, you just think it's ugly.Post your hand.
>>24819248I'm the whitest person on the entire planet with a pedigree back 1500 years and DNA tests confirming the documents.When you feel empathy you're not actually feeling the suffering of others. You just fucking think it's ugly you braindead faggot.
>>24819187>You value life for aesthetic reasons?No, that's not true.
Wherever the quote comes from, it's an intriguing thought that is unfortunately questionable in its actual exemplum. A cockroach infestation is a clear and present threat to your home whereas a butterfly simply is not. Merely sperging about cockroaches and butterflies in particular misses the point, but the analogy could have been better.
>>24819187>That's why factory farming is immorallol
>>24816704He got that jeet stare, that would explain a lot of his influences... and conclusions...>Aesthetic moralsThere is a saying that the inner world reflects the other, if something is "ugly" outside, chances are it's ugly on the inside also, and vice versa. Uglyness outside is aesthetics, ugliness inside is morality, if your morality is ugly than you are evil by definition. In this view, aesthetic morality is just emergent quality of true core being and not necessarily a fact, but yet another reference point.
