>Savagery is better than civilization Change my mind pol.
>>523844363I disagree. I'm a native American and I hate hunting, fishing, hiking, or any other outdoor activities. Now imagine doing all that while wild animals like bears, wolves, and mountain lions are abundant everywhere. Also rival tribes who might be hostile. I'm very happy to be living in the white man's civilization and being paid gibs to shitpost on the internet all day.
>>523844363naturalistic fallacy, not all moral good is intuitive or appears in nature, some of it requires analysis and higher thinking
>>523844363>Change my mind pol.How many holes would you like?
>>523844363We're a few years away from ASI, this is where the fun begins.
>>523844363wtf did rousseau know about the natural state of man? fucking bourgeois proto communist. absolutely laughable.
Outcome independence. Because all those jews and slavs would’ve died, regardless of Hitler existed or not. Right.
>>523844507typical kraut faggot wants to sit in a room with 20 other bureaucratic sophists talking instead of doing
>>523844363That nigger said christians should be colorblind because God would make "some ants more spencial than other ants" or some bullshit like that
>medicine, sanitation, and predictable food sources>life expectancy is exponentially higher>preserves knowledge through writing, art, science, and technology>enables large-scale cooperation, infrastructure, and social systems>lets you choose your path, your beliefs, your art, your philosophy instead of following only instinctYou tell me, faggot.
>>523844363rosseau is full of shit
This is the frognigger who ruined everything. Even more than Marx. Fuck Rousseau and his frogwhore mother.
>>523844363>>523844507>>523844706>>523844912>>523844993Nature is brutal, cruel, and utterly amoral. The fuck was this guy thinking?
>>523844759how else do you know if something is good or bad except analysis?
>>523844363
>>523844363Depends on race and stage of development. Kids are selfish, so are primitives. Civilization doesn't happen if everyone is selfish. Have to have the cognitive ability and psychological development to see beyond yourself ("the bigger picture"). To ask the question, "What would society look like if everyone did what I'm doing?" For example: Poos throw their garbage on the ground, they don't pick up after themselves, basically children, and they have no civilization. It's people clinging to survival living on a trash heap in the ruins of a civilization they didn't build.
>>523844492Chairrockee
>>523845078He was a sheltered bougie like >>523844706 pointed out, as Marx, Engles, and other retards of their ilk tend to be.
>>523845267that lens at that range would not even be able to focus lmao
>>523845152you don't because there is no such thing as good or bad, faggot
>>523844492You are based
>>523845364thats some subversive postmodern shit
>>523845510what's good for the lion isn't good for the gazelle
>>523844363>>523844492>>523844507>>523844693>>523844790It literally is, savagery is just following pure instinct. No Feminism, Women get beaten down, no 18 mag!cal age theory, no surveillance because no one care about teens lying about their age since you're just an adult at puberty, etc. Islam is ironically a nice blend between savagery & civilization.
>>523845510There can't be an universal good as long as the parties have different interests.
>>523845580Fuck off, Muhammad.
>>523845544You’re not a lion lmfao lions don’t take advantage of peoples trust manipulate children and conspire against their own population that’s not what lions do
>>523845544moral absolutism (x is always bad) isnt the same as moral realism (x is bad)>>523845580youre immoral and a degenerate, you should be put down by society>>523845601see above for absolutism/universalismtheres a difference between context dependent morality and moral universalism
>>523845580This nigger thinks mass surveilance happens because of teens clicking the "I'm 18 years old" button
>>523845698Realism transcends into absolutism you retard you’re taking stages of development and classifying them into two separate sciences like some sort of astrology dyke
>>523844363>>523844507
>>523844363What is good?
>>523845152good comes from strengthbad comes from weaknesssimple asnow that you know this secret you can throw all philosophers thoughts on morals in the trash
>>523845668Uh...okay? Not sure what that had to do with the point I was making. >>523845698Why is it "wrong" for a psychopath to do psychopath shit, but it isn't "wrong" for a lion to rip a gazelle apart alive? They're both genetically incapable of empathy. They are both just expressing their nature.
>>523844363Rousseau is one of the dumbest niggers to ever live. If I had a Time Machine, he and Voltaire are getting a bullet to the head
>>523845698There can't be a "realistic" good when the parties have different interests. A fractured society can't all benefit from the same thing. Especially when enemies exist within the society and would also benefit from that thing.
>>523845784incorrect, moral absolutism is in the realm of normative ethics and not meta-ethics, thus only normative ethics systems like kantian ethics concerns itself with absolutism (e.g lying is always bad even if lying would save a life)this is not an issue under consequentialism>>523845840nietzsche is wrong but ethics was never his strong suit>>523846006so you say good and bad exists but that it comes from strength and weakness?in that case would you say strength is good and weakness is bad by themselves?>>523846019you would first have to prove that animals are moral agents for this discussion to be worthy>>523846170see my first reply on this post, absolutism isnt the same as realism and you can have both realism and contrext-dependent morality.
>>523846221good bait leftist nigger.your wrong.
>>523846068Voltaire was based. You leave him out of this.
>>523844492based
>>523846221YOU CAN'T HAVE CONTEXT-DEPENDENT MORALITY WHEN THE SUBJECTS CONTAIN CONFLICTING INTERESTS WITHIN THEMSELVES
>>523846519im more fascist than you will ever bemoral relativism is for leftist cucks like you
>>523845733The entire basis for id verification/surveillance is literally the idea that teens might lie about their age, which wouldn't be an issue if you just accepted the animal kingdom biological premise that puberty signifies as adulthood.
>>523846615morality does not rely on the subjects interests
>>523846221>you would first have to prove that animals are moral agents for this discussion to be worthyIf animals aren't moral agents then a huge chunk of humans aren't (i.e. retarded and mentally ill people). Even in the example given - how is a psychopath a moral agent if he is literally genetically incapable of empathy?
>>523845152Feelings
>>523846769the reason for why animals might not be moral agents is not due to not having empathy but rather due to not having awareness (i.e knowledge of what morality is)
>>523846646That's not the reason. The reason is they want the surveillance. The teens are the excuse to distract normies. No one gave a shit about teens watching porn for the last 20 years. All of a sudden at the end of 2025 all world governments want mass surveillance.
>>523846846most people have no awareness nigger, they are on full autopilot. no internal monologue.
>>523847183humans by nature have awareness, its part of their biology/neurology
>>523846221>so you say good and bad exists but that it comes from strength and weakness?>in that case would you say strength is good and weakness is bad by themselves?Yea, it's that simple.That's at the root level but in reality there is also context.
>>523844363H. Rider Haggard said that any society is 19 parts barbarism and 1 part society.
I agree. Civilization is just golem cuckery. Everything civilization gives you that you have to pay for, nature gives you better healthier and for free. The anglokike ruined the world. Western Europe in general.
>>523847231if good and bad comes from strength and weakness and strength and weakness is good and bad then thats a circular definition (good = strength = good = strength ...)
>>523846846If you're truly incapable of empathy than morality is just a hypothetical intellectual game, or else becomes completely self-centered and utilitarian. You can't really understand it.
>>523846726How can something with the end-result that goes against a group's interests be morally good for it?
>>523847213not true at all, your shelteredgo to arbeitschule or whatever you krauts call it and see for yourself
>>523844492Holy shit a real life faggot chug.
>>523847213Not niggers
>>523847336So what?You can say everything is circular by that logic, who cares.
>>523847338morality doesnt rely on empathy>>523847354give me examples of what youre talking about>>523847663things that are circular break the laws of logic and thus do not exist
>>523847746>morality doesnt rely on empathyWhy should a psychopath not do what's best for his own interests at the expense of others? He's incapable of caring about their suffering.
>>523847338Morality is the application of pure, objective reasoning to motivation and action. Empathy and the other passions can only defile that process, they never enhance it. Love, for example, is absolutely not an emotional state. It is the absence of emotional states. It means being able to treat people according to their best interests, not your own.
>>523847879the question of whether morality exists isnt the same question of "why" you should be moralmorality exists, and actions can be moral, amoral or immoral, the psychopath can act either morally or immorally, regardless of his intent
>>523844363>Change my mind pol.East Africa./thread
>>523847746Any definition you give for any word can be considered "circular", you are just being bad faith in order to keep arguing over something trivial.It's like saying "law" is defined as "system of rules" and then say that's a circular definition. Pointless semantics desu
>>523847879Because anything that's "for his own interest" is inherently transitory and can't lead to fulfillment. If he were truly emotionless he would simply reason ahead of whatever temporary pleasure he's seeking and realize that it wouldn't satisfy, then immediately cease to crave it in the first place. The only thing that's truly in his best interest is to practice the virtue of detachment. Well-being doesn't come from the body or bodily states, it only comes from the mind and mental states.
>>523848099not quite, i ground my morality (goodness and badness) in the universe itself or rather the fabric of existenceits not dependent on strength or weakness
>>523847879Because he makes his tribe weaker. Simple as
>>523844492As a white man, that sounds extremely comfy, especially if your out with your bros+ hounds and have plenty of homebrew/homegrown too.
>>523848063The same applies to animals then, if it's all about the actions themselves and intent doesn't matter.>>523847969>It means being able to treat people according to their best interests, not your own.Why should a psychopath do this?>>523848151Nothing leads to "fulfillment". That's why actual dedicated Buddhists go rot alone in caves.
>>523848413And? Do you think psychopaths care about their tribe?
>>523848497>The same applies to animals then, if it's all about the actions themselves and intent doesn't matter.correct, this is the difference between deontology and consequentialism in normative ethicssome traditions of consequentialism/utilitarianism considers animals morally significant but not allmeanwhile deontologists care about intent (or in some cases both intent and consequence)personally i take a consequentialist position (negative consequentialism specifically, where reducing suffering is more important than increasing pleasure)but most people take a deontologist position
>>523848497Wise detachment leads to fulfillment. The man who wants nothing has everything that he wants, there's no higher or happier state.>Why should a psychopath do this?For the same reason everyone else should. Because it's objectively and logically correct. You may as well be asking why a psychopath would strive for the right answer to a mathematical problem. His need for the right answer and the benefit he derives from arriving at the right answer does not depend on his emotional state in any way whatsoever. His well-being is determined by how correct he is, not some fleeting emotional state. The fundamental mistake you're making is the assumption that emotions exist fundamentally and have some kind of bearing on proper motivation. They don't. Emotions are illusory and can only ever lead to improper motivation. Whether you're normal or a psycho, your well-being can only be found in objective thinking, objective motivation and objective action.
>>523848372I also ground morality in reality itself, which is basically ruled by the strong surviving and the weak perishing.What is the disagreement?Let's say we were both asked to kill someone for no reason.I would reject it because:1) context (I live in a context that taught me that this is abhorrent so I don't want to do it.)2) strength (the reason my tribe survived and defeated the other tribes was partially by adopting this belief so there must be some weakness caused by killing people randomly)What about you? Why wouldn't you kill someone?
>>523848372That's a lot of semantics and beating around the bush just to say "living in accordance with nature is the ultimate good"
>>523848820The man who wants nothing isn't even really alive anymore, he completely surrendered to the void.>>523848620Hippos are evil confirmed
>>523848529If they do or not is irrelevant. They should care.If everyone in his tribe acted with disregard, then their tribe would become weak and be destroyed by a strong tribe. So it is in his best-interests to be part of the strong tribe.
>>523848877>which is basically ruled by the strong surviving and the weak perishing.No, that's not the conclusion that reality leads to. Reality leads to the conclusion that survival is impossible because death is inevitable. Reality leads to the conclusion that bodies don't exist, and that matter exists within mind, rather than mind existing within matter. Reality and truth build up an anti-materialistic worldview which treats form and matter as worthless, while treating soul and principle as paramount. That's what it means to leave the cave and see the sunlight of Truth. Anyone still treating the body as if it were something of great importance is living in a delusion, as if they were dreaming and stubbornly refuse to wake up.
>>523848952The man who wants nothing is the only one who is actually living, because he has started to approach ultimate reality. There is no "void", the first principle that sustains existence is Goodness. That's what he surrenders to, and in doing so he beings to live. Everyone else is dead, so far removed from actually living that they don't even know what life is.
>>523844492This isn't what Rousseau is talking about at all.
>>523849026>If everyone in his tribe acted with disregard, then their tribe would become weak and be destroyed by a strong tribe.A. Then the psychopath would just join up with the other tribe. B. This wouldn't happen because psychopaths are a tiny minority of people. They're fine with the non-psychopathic normie masses acting in an empathetic way, propping society up and allowing them to do whatever they want.
>>523849182Sure thing, bro.
>>523844363>Change my mindI won't.
>>523849077Incoherent babble. Materialism is the correct way of looking at the world. If you truly believe that your body doesn't exist go chop your balls off and overcome it with the power of the mind.. Get it on tape for us.
>>523844363natural state=stagnation= 70iq homo erectus .
>>523849415wholesome
>>523848877>I also ground morality in reality itself, which is basically ruled by the strong surviving and the weak perishing.but if humans dont exist then that morality disappearsi believe that morality has been here since time immemorial>What about you? Why wouldn't you kill someone?because premise 1: murder is a form of harmpremise 2: we ought to not harm innocent peopleconclusion: we ought to not murder>(the reason my tribe survived and defeated the other tribes was partially by adopting this belief so there must be some weakness caused by killing people randomly)that can imply moral realism in some ways if you re-interpreted thatif morality is real, specifically if moral facts are real, then following those facts would entail higher survival rate for example, and failing to follow these facts (which are grounded in mind-independent external reality like all other facts e.g snow melts in heat) would lead to failure of some sort>>523848885define natureducks reproduce through rape, i dont think rape is good
>>523849625uNiVerSe itSeLf or raTher the faBric of eXisTeNce
>>523849625you seem to think that nature is evil, which is fine but you should logically subscribe to some form of gnosticism then
>>523849301>A. Then the psychopath would just join up with the other tribe. If the other tribe is operating under this moral framework, they will just kill him for being weak. So that doesn't work.>B. This wouldn't happen because psychopaths are a tiny minority of people. They're fine with the non-psychopathic normie masses acting in an empathetic way, propping society up and allowing them to do whatever they want.If they are being a causation for weakness in their tribe then their behavior is immoral. You can of course be immoral and indulge in weakness and goon 15 hours a day until your muscles turn into mayonaise but it's not in your self-interest to foster weakness. You can scam your family and steal from your parents but you're going to have a weak family and create worse conditions for your progeny. So the behavior should be corrected.
>>523849787>>523844507>not all moral good appears in nature>>523849789i dont believe that nature is evil, nor do i believe its inherently goodin many ways im not sure the idea of "nature" the way its believed in today existsi dont think theres some law known as "nature" that exists i believe in the physical world, but i dont think theres a "right way of living known as nature that we should be part of"that idea of nature relies on naturalistic fallacy (that something being natural implies that its good)the physical external world itself is amoral since its not a moral agent its just a universe
>>523849787>plebbit capitalizationGo back
>>523850004if inflicting suffering is an immoral action regardless of the intent, then the world is evil because it forces billions of beings to inflict suffering upon billions of other beings in order to survive >>523849884The psychopath isn't being weak though, he's being strong and exerting his will over others by exploiting them. He's just solely interested in his wellbeing and not theirs. There is no conflict of interest if he isn't discovered (psychopaths are usually good at hiding this shit, as compared to sociopaths) and as long as the non-psychopaths keep society running, which they usually do. You as an individual are not going to singlehandedly destroy society by acting in an antisocial way, and like I said actual psychopaths are an extreme minority.
>>523850004You sure love to over-analyze shit to come up with nothing of value.
>>523849472Materialism is incoherent. Your position is inherently hypocritical, because not even you trust the senses to inform you over what's true and false. You use reason, meaning reason is the arbiter. And if reason is the arbiter, then what's immaterial is primary over what's material. Materialism is essentially nothing more than a superstition.
>>523850318Random capitalization has been around since before you were born
>>523844363>Give me dat>you give me>*kills you*>I's got datYep, sounds based.
>>523849472How did nothing produce inanimate matter, and how did that inanimate matter produce consciousness?
>>523849625>but if humans dont exist then that morality disappearsWell yea of course, morality is basically a code of conduct that we have created by interpreting reality and understanding what causes strength/weakness.>i believe that morality has been here since time immemorialBefore humans? That doesn't make any sense but maybe you want to elaborate. Do you think flies have morals? I would say flies act according to the reality-based root principle of strength/weakness but I wouldn't call that morality because it's not really a conscious code of conduct.>premise 2: we ought to not harm innocent peopleWhy not, other than context? I explained why not, it's because it makes us weaker. Our tribe would devolve into an extremely low-trust shitshow where innocents are being murdered so we learned that we shouldn't murder innocents. That way we built high-trust societies and conquered the low-trust ones. At the root level the answer is always strength/weakness. Do you have a different answer as to why not?>if morality is real, specifically if moral facts are real, then following those facts would entail higher survival rate for example, and failing to follow these facts (which are grounded in mind-independent external reality like all other facts e.g snow melts in heat) would lead to failure of some sortMorality is a social code of conduct we adhere to, consciously or not. It's obscured by context but it's linked to strength and weakness and how these cause certain outcomes in the real world. Being stupid and weak is only immoral because it will end up with your tribe being raped by a conquering stronger tribe.I guess you believe morality is a magical thing that exists in the aether or something? I view everything as material.
>>523850424>if inflicting suffering is an immoral action regardless of the intent, then the world is evil because it forces billions of beings to inflict suffering upon billions of other beings in order to survivethe world isnt a person, it houses peopleeither way as a believer of context dependent morality i dont think killing is always bad, obviously in cases of self defense killing is morally okay.>>523850772>Well yea of course, morality is basically a code of conduct that we have created by interpreting reality and understanding what causes strength/weakness.i disagree, i think morality exists across the entire universe, including for aliens on another planetand if humans disappeared right now, morality would still exist but no one would be able to observe it since there are no observersim an ontological realist (the external world exists regardless of humans/observers) i dont subscribe to the misunderstanding of the observer effect where the observer creates reality, i dont agree with such relativism.>Before humans?yes, i think humans didnt create anything in this world, for example computersi think the possibility for computers always existed, and the material for them also existed, all humans did was discover it not invent it (i also believe math is discovered not invented)>Do you think flies have morals?i would say morality exists externally of living beings but not all living beings can access it, due to not being smart enoughsame is true for aesthetics for example>Why notthats a complicated question, but i think a simple answer is that i base morality around utility (normative ethics napu aka negative average preference utilitarianism) and i think suffering is bad (not necessarily only physical suffering like pain but suffering in general), so i believe we should increase pleasure and reduce suffering, damaging others and murdering them if they dont deserve it is increasing sufferingthings change if theyre a criminal obviously1/2
>>523851321>either way as a believer of context dependent morality i dont think killing is always bad, obviously in cases of self defense killing is morally okay.all carnivorous and parasitic creatures have to inflict violence in order to survive, and plenty of species are essentially hardwired to kill for fun outside of pure survival
>>523850772>Morality is a social code of conduct we adhere tobut i dont think humans invented it, i think it was always present as a force and just as we adhere to laws of physics we also adhere to morality>I guess you believe morality is a magical thing that exists in the aether or something? I view everything as material.not quite but kindai dont think its magical or metaphysical, i think its complex but still part of the physical world like math isand im not really a believe in the aether but i do think the universe contains complex laws and stuff like aesthetics, morals, etc is all part of itif you would maybe look into immanent realism, thats kinda what i subscribe toits similar to platonic forms but instead of second realm where the forms reside, instead the forms are part of this realm/universei do subscribe to materialism/physicalism but im not a nominalist that believes the universe doesnt house any complex meaning and that all meaning is man-made
>>523850424>The psychopath isn't being weak though, he's being strong and exerting his will over others by exploiting them.He is weakening his tribe. That's undeniable.>He's just solely interested in his wellbeing and not theirs.By making his tribe weaker he makes himself weaker. His children will spawn into a world where they are less likely to survive because their tribe is now weaker. Simple really.>>523850519That's not what hypocrisy means. I interpret what my senses capture in order to get as close as possible to material reality as I can because that makes me stronger. The fact that we have shared experiences is proof enough that there is a base reality. And again, why don't you prove me wrong by chopping your balls off?>>523850633>How did nothing produce inanimate matter,I don't know that "nothing" ever existed. A starting point for all of existence is only a requirement for you to make sense of the world if you're still in mortal monkey brain mode. There is plenty we don't know.>how did that inanimate matter produce consciousness?Another way to ask this is to ask how brains evolved. Just ask gpt.
>>523851537that is answered by kant in his "ought implies can" ideahttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ought_implies_canthe idea is that morality is dependent on your ability, but i dont agree with this ideai think the standard for what is right and wrong remains consistent across all species, meaning that ducks who reproduce through rape and parasites are inherently immoral just by existing alone.my form of context dependant morality doesnt account for differences in moral agents (e.g different cultures), rather morality remains consistent no matter what one culture believesi only subscribe to context dependent morality when talking about certain acts being bad (like killing or lying)
>>523851551So you're a materialist but you deny the big bang and think the physical universe is eternal?>There is plenty we don't know.Yeah, like how inanimate matter came from nothing and how consciousness came from inanimate matter.
>>523851551That is exactly what hypocrisy means. You live your life according to reason in all of the small ways, then argue that reason can't be trusted to arbitrate over the senses. Even such a basic statement as "I am hungry. Therefore, to solve my hunger, I should eat food" is entirely dependent upon reason. The senses cannot tell you about cause and effect, only reason can.>The fact that we have shared experiences is proof enough that there is a base realityYes, and our shared experiences go beyond the senses and include things such as numbers, geometric shapes, well-being and morality. This means that intelligible realities are primary over sensible realities. It means that the universe is built on eternal immaterial principles. You just refuted your own argument.>why don't you prove me wrong by chopping your balls off?Because I never made a nonsense claim that would lead to that being relevant. You did. You're the one arguing that it's okay to behave unreasonably as long as your senses tell you to. I'm arguing that reason is primary and all behavior should be reasonable. Which would exclude any action of self-harm. According to your argument, I should be asking you "Why don't you just starve to death if you don't want to trust reason? Because reason is the only thing telling you that hunger can be solved by eating".
>>523846646Kek you actually think that’s the real reason they’re pushing digital ID? You got a lot to learn about this world
>>523851707>i think the standard for what is right and wrong remains consistent across all species, meaning that ducks who reproduce through rape and parasites are inherently immoral just by existing alone.Okay, well like I said this is an immoral world then. Nature is immoral because it forces the majority of creatures to perform immoral acts in order to survive, and overall rewards species that are immoral towards other species.
>>523844363>french homosexual opines on people he never met I wish this faggot was dropped off in the congo for a week to see how noble his savages really are>>523845580We had literally all of this as late as the 1970's in some places of the USA. Iirc women couldn't even open a bank account until the mid 60's and beating your wife was considered a common household chore.
>>523851951i dont think nature forces anyone to do anything because nature isnt really a force i believe inbut i get your point its kinda true, we do live in a world that has a lot of sufferingthis is an issue that negative consequentialism tries to find answer to, with some of them going as far as to say that all life needs to be wiped out to stop suffering (tho i dont subscribe to that since its negative absolute preference utilitarianism while im a negative average preference utilitarian)i started my journey as a child with theology, questioning my religious belief and atheismthe problem of evil remained a huge issue for me, i thought if christianity was true then the problem of evil would imply that either gnosticism (god as a devil) or calvinism (god as a tyrant) is true
>>523844507>>523850004can you just stop posting altogether?you contribute nothingtake offense at everythingand act like a fucking nigger that needed to be aborted
>>523852433nigger stfu and go diemix some bleach and ammonia and breath it in
>>523852433>this is an issue that negative consequentialism tries to find answer to, with some of them going as far as to say that all life needs to be wiped out to stop suffering (tho i dont subscribe to that since its negative absolute preference utilitarianism while im a negative average preference utilitarian)If we get technologically advanced enough to terraform other planets then we can engineer our own ecosystems that don't have all that suffering built into it
>>523852659>reeee I hope you dieCircumcised moment.
>>523852702i wonder if we can do it without slave labor>>523852433tho i will say nature as a force does seem intuitive, but im not sure if all truth is intuitive, there are quite a few facts that arentanyway to add more onto the last part im an atheist today so i can say the problem of evil no longer bothers me, accepting that the universe itself is just chaos and entropy, it doesnt care for you and all life started with no reason (but still started causally due to the conditions required which make it inevitable as long as conditions like water and goldilocks zone etc is achieved)meanwhile life, evolution etc is still not perfect, its only "good enough" for life to keep existingthat is until we arrive at fisherian runaway and other problems that lead to extinction of course>>523852659>>523852542give your counter-argument if youre brave
>>523851321Alien morality would also be strength based because it's the strong that impose their morality on the weak.For example if the Aztecs invented guns and boats and sailed east and defeated everyone. Let's say they conquered all Europe and now everyone has pyramids sacrificing kids to the gods 1k years later and we are born into it. We would think this is the moral thing to do. And it would be, how else would they be so strong and able to defeat all the other tribes? But back to the real world, their sacrifices were basically a form of dysgenics. They sacrificed the smartest and most beautiful (some speculate beauty is related to health). So they made themselves weak and were conquered. That's why they were immoral. I guess you would still consider them to be immoral even in that hypothetical?>we should increase pleasure and reduce sufferingVery dangerous way of looking at the world. If this causes weakness then your worldview is evil. If everyone in your tribe is seeking pleasure while the other tribe seeks power, you will be destroyed.>it was always present as a force and just as we adhere to laws of physics we also adhere to moralityThe "laws" of physics are our interpretation of reality to the best of our ability but it's best to recognize our limitations. That which we call "law" might change in the future. So yes, we kinda made it up but it's still referencing something real.
>>523852924>i wonder if we can do it without slave laborWe have AI now. So yes.
Natural people are not good or kind.They're brutul murders. the only thing stopping you from getting killed is a law on a piece of paper.Man is a beast without civilization. this worship of the noble savage is cringe
>>523853116>the only thing stopping you from getting killed is a law on a piece of paper.I mean, I also have a gun
>>523844492based knower that some tribes were peaceful while a lot fought over land. The white man came in a brought order. Granted, we killed too many of the peaceful ones. We will not make that mistake again.
>>523852999Actually Indians.>>523852927>Alien morality would also be strength based because it's the strong that impose their morality on the weak.so your belief of strong/weak morality then implies that all rape is morally just since its just the weak getting what they deserve?>We would think this is the moral thing to do. And it would bei disagree, i think murder, rape, pedophilia etc is immoral even if some cultures around the world think its moralsame way 2+2 would be 4 even if some cultures teach that its 5>I guess you would still consider them to be immoral even in that hypothetical?yes>They sacrificed the smartest and most beautiful (some speculate beauty is related to health). So they made themselves weak and were conqueredi would say sacrificing people is immoral in general>If everyone in your tribe is seeking pleasure while the other tribe seeks power, you will be destroyed.well the difference between regular utilitarianism and negative utilitarianism is that suffering takes precedence in negative utilitarianism thus its fine if you have 0 pleasure as long as you dont suffer, but its not fine to have a lot of pleasure and a lot of suffering, suffering is always more important than pleasurethat said, under this idea if there was an imperialist tribe that wanted to destroy you, you would have to stop them to actually keep feeling pleasure, being destroyed is also a form of suffering tooself defense is still possible under consequentialism/utilitarianism
>>523853561>Actually Indians.Indians are AI???
>>523853743kekhttps://ia.acs.org.au/article/2025/the-company-whose--ai--was-actually-700-humans-in-india.html
>>523851801Just because I'm a materialist that doesn't mean I have to be arrogant and claim to have all the answers. I'm not "denying" the big bang, there's plenty of empirical evidence pointing to it but I understand some questions are too hard for us to answer adequately.Consciousness is hard to even define but it's linked to the brain so it can be explained by reaching a certain stage of development of brain matter. Seems like an easier question to tackle.>>523851889>reason can't be trusted to arbitrate over the sensesNever said that. Your whole reply is based upon this strawman. I used the word "interpret" because it implies the use of reason. >I should eat food is entirely dependent upon reason. Not entirely, your senses are informing you. You are not just your mind, you are your body as well.>our shared experiences go beyond the senses and include things such as numbersHow would you interpret and communicate numbers without the use of senses? You need to verbalize, see, hear. This argument only makes sense if you believe in telepathy and magical thinking. It's nonsense, sorry.>the universe is built on eternal immaterial principles.Such as what?>Because I never made a nonsense claim that would lead to that being relevant.If the material doesn't matter then you should be able to chop your balls off no problem bro. Anyway you are strawmanning me hard, I am the one advocating for the use of reason by striving to be as close to material reality as we can, despite of our limitations.Those who are close to material reality invent the rifles and become conquerors. Those who live in the immaterial believe in bullet-proof warpaint and become conquered.
>>523854106If you're not denying the big bang, then you're not denying that nothingness somehow spawned inanimate matter which somehow spawned consciousness in some incomprehensibly random and unlikely fashion.
>>523853561>that all rape is morally just since its just the weak getting what they deserve?Rape between members of your tribe is evil because it creates a dysgenic pressure making your tribe weaker.Raping members of a different tribe is evil because you are race-mixing and creating disharmony in the tribe by creating a new generation of mongrels who will create their own tribe and probably fight against your tribe.Even in a different case it may cause resentment and a desire for vengeance (disharmony in the tribe) so it would still be evil.If you think it's the act of penetrating the woman that's evil you're a simp! (just a fun take)>i disagree, i think murder, rape, pedophilia etc is immoral even if some cultures around the world think its moralI think they're immoral but apparently for different reasons than you that's all. How could any society that allows murder become strong? Doesn't even make sense. So people would be just killing eachother randomly. How would that tribe ever avoid being conquered? No wonder we consider it immoral.>i would say sacrificing people is immoral in generalI don't think you really believe this, even now. Would you sacrifice one person to save trillions? Just a basic trolley car. The utilitarian has to weight the suffering of trillions against the suffering of one. You end up in the same position.I would say it creates resentment and disharmony (weakness) in the tribe and that's why it's bad. But if the super Aztec civilization existed I would have to say it's good.
>>523854614"Random" just means unknown btw
>>523855148>materialist believes in "evil"
>>523855210No, random means random. Unless you believe there's some intelligence behind it, in which case you're not a materialist.
>>523855148>Even in a different case it may cause resentment and a desire for vengeance (disharmony in the tribe) so it would still be evil.so youre basically a consequentialist? you believe things are immoral based on the quality of its consequence?>How could any society that allows murder become strong? Doesn't even make sense.thats teleological consequentalismyou know theres something called state consequentialism which bases right or wrong based on whether it hurts the state/nation>I don't think you really believe this, even now. Would you sacrifice one person to save trillions? Just a basic trolley car. The utilitarian has to weight the suffering of trillions against the suffering of one. You end up in the same position.but the trolley problem is a thought experiment and i dont really like those, because they never are realistic, its very exaggerated ideas that could never actually happenobviously we want to reduce suffering so the trolley problem can be answered by consequentalists/utilitarians but theres a difference between simply answering a thought experiment and actually doing a sacrificeanyway i guess i misspoke when i said sacrificing people is immorali think the more accurate statement would be that sacrificing people for magical reasons like god or satanic ritual is immoral since i dont see any evidence of these being realthe moral weight of sacrifice could change depending on what youre sacrificing for, if its to save others then i could see an argument for it being moral/amoralwell its still a complex question with a very complex answer, having to take many things into consideration like consent, inevitability etc
>>523855242Yea I do and I explained what evil means.You are confused and don't understand what evil is. You think it's something magical outside of the material.>>523855290Can God (defined as the omniscient mind) look at a material event and honestly claim it was "random"? Or is it that having full knowledge of everything precludes him from "randomness"?
>>523844363Parasitism and disease are literally natural. War, cruslty, every kind of sexual deviancy all occur naturally.Good is a human invention and only society invents.
>>523844363easily the stupidest quote in the whole of history
>>523844492based squanto.
>>523844363Bullshit. He acts like nature has no evidence to the contrary.
>>523844809A looks better
>>523844363Seeking an unnatural lifestyle will always lead to unhappiness but there are still biological limitations.>life sucks and then you die
>>523844363Rosseau single-handedly destroyed Western Civilization. His ideas were more destructive than those of Marx, Hegel, Galileo and entire Frankfurt School.
