>>85751236
You arent talking about morality. The moral standards humans have established for the human experience are largely written in religious texts. Reframing morality as some sort of aversion to do harm or competition is mentally retarded

>>85751236
morals differ from person to person anon. Greed/hope are not needs.
I can feel my brain turning into liquid the more I read your post.

>>85751299
>>85751299
>morals differ from person to person anon.
Meaningless
>>85751299
>Greed/hope are not needs.
Then why do you not live with the bare necessities and before you tell me le I don't want to, neither do I but the question is are you morally culpable due to it aka is it a need

IF YOU WERE RAISED BY AN ANIMAL I ASSUME YOU WOULD BE A NICE PERSON

I have a similar philosophical framework.

I disagree with you on how the conditions of the world people happen to exist in automatically means they're immoral as individuals. Most people don't have the opportunity and education to ponder such things. You can't consider yourself a better person just because you were given more in life.

Evil is something that will always exist and ultimately the goal of a moral person is not to extinguish it but instead to reduce it where they can. It is an unreasonable expectation for an individual to have such a broad scope on the impact of their actions. I believe that if there is no joy in life then there is no point. Everyone should be able to enjoy their lives.

That being said, in a world where there is suffering it is evil to ignore those suffering. It is evil for resources that could otherwise be used to alleviate suffering to instead be used frivolously. Therefore, the vast majority of all entertainment and media are inherently evil. Consumerism is evil. Pet ownership is evil.

But that doesn't mean that someone watching a movie on their phone with their dog is an evil person. That's just someone trying to enjoy life. That person is probably experiencing their own suffering, and this might be one of their only reprieves.

This isn't to say that evil people do not exist. There are people who have had the opportunity to know better and be better but choose to cause unnecessary harm for personal gain or pure maliciousness.

File: 1000018583.png (333 KB, 650x500)

333 KB PNG

>>85751236
>the only way to be moral is to do the bare necessary since everything not needed can cause harm.
Everything needed only gets fulfilled because other people want to do so.
>Technically to be moral you need to live like a prisoner doing the bare minimum needed to survive, since anything done that is not necessary can cause harm to someone.
Neglect is a kind of action, too, anon. Choosing to do nothing and let needs go unmet to remain "moral" is a moral choice.
>You buy more stuff than the bare minimum that supports bad working conditions.
Why would anybody do anything if all they could hope for is the bare minimum? Why would I work to own money, if anybody could just take it from me whenever they need it more?
>You are friends with people who are mean to others
Yes. Honey can be stronger than vinegar. People who are mean to others are less mean with the right friends.
>You go on vacation you are creating environmental emissions.
Alright. But you first. You have to work and then take no vacations ever, first.
>How do you cope with not being moral enough
By understanding a wider scope for morals than utilitarianism. You have to start looking at people as their own ends rather than "need" being the main thing to consider. Rather than just thinking "who needs the reasources? Give them them." think "why would another person that doesn't need reasources care about making them in the first place?"
>Therefore we all suffer and live like prisoners, or live where might makes right who will impose their need for greed on others does it.
Anon, you can call it greed all you want, but are you going to go work for free? Are you going to be a slave?
>But also what is the line between necessary hope/greed and total immorality, idk. I don't even know if hope/greed is a need really
It's not. But needs being fulfilled depends on hope/greed. Without hope/greed, nobody would do anything except the bare minimum and we'd all be desolate animals murdering over scraps.

>>85751309
if its meaningless, than what purpose is your thread?
define bare necessities

>>85751236
There is no such thing as a global morality or whatever you have cooked up or any professor of philosophy has cooked up. In the sense "ultimate morality" or whatever you are trying to describe because somehow, some when, something you do can harm someone.

You have no obligation to society, to strangers, to anyone really.
Only your own blood and your tribe.

You should always think about your own tribe and only that, possibly only that and your soul/god/allthatis/source.

You are already dead living in a simulation/game/physical life experience.

Thinking the way you do is to try to be "considerate" to NPCs in a video game because if you kill said wolf in a forest they might not be able to be hunted by the NPC quest giver farmer at some point.

Life fades in and out as you load it around every corner and the real you is in spirit being watched by your real family.

I have Roz fatigue.

>>85751313
>reduce it where they can
The question of my thread I at want point are you morally culpable.

>>85751314
>Everything needed only gets fulfilled because other people want to do so.
Irrelevant
>>85751314
>Why would anybody do anything if all they could hope for is the bare minimum? Literally what I said that greed/hope is a human right it seems
>>85751314
>Anon, you can call it greed all you want, but are you going to go work for free?
You keep sperging on the technicalities but those are irrelevant the question I where does moral culpability start
>>85751316
>meaningless
Morality being subjective is a meaningless statement since it is like saying other people base their Morality on wearing purple hats, cool this thread is not for them

>>85751316
>define bare necessities
Literally the point of this thread

You need a basis for your morals. You claim one kind of hardline utilitarian thing and all the other anons itt each claim a different thing and nobody has a stronger foundation than the other, you're all equally right or wrong. How about starting with that next thread, explaining from where you derive these ideas of morality.

>>85751326
Low iq
>>85751342
What is a need and when does the need stop and you start becoming morally culpable

>>85751350
Yes, I didn't ask for a summary. Thanks anyway.

>>85751355
I am literally asking you

>>85751341
so observable reality, recorded history, is meaningless because you refuse to accept morality being subjective?
You said bare necessities. Did you mean water, food and air?

>>85751342
The concept of morality has an objective biological basis. OP seems to think there is a line you can draw for how much moral consideration and acting in accordance with moral standards matters, which it does not on its own. Our moral agency is in service of our own well being and existence, individually and collectively. Sacrificing your own well being to do moral good is itself immoral so its asinine to separate the two. People know what is right and wrong, theres nothing stopping them from doing both at the same time and theres nothing special about doing less of one simply to be biased toward the other. The consequences of doing right or wrong things are what matter

File: 1000018322.jpg (17 KB, 320x320)

17 KB JPG

>>85751313
>Most people don't have the opportunity and education to ponder such things. You can't consider yourself a better person just because you were given more in life.
You say this, until somebody from a bad neighborhood comes over to your house and kills your family for money because that's how they learned to get their way from the bad situation they grew up in. You say "oh, they're not a worse person than me. They don't deserve to be held accountable for their actions. In fact, I deserve my life to be taken from me and given to them" until it happens to you.
>I believe that if there is no joy in life then there is no point. Everyone should be able to enjoy their lives.
You say this, yet you also say:
>a world where there is suffering it is evil to ignore those suffering. It is evil for resources that could otherwise be used to alleviate suffering to instead be used frivolously.
You kind of have to pick one or the other. Either the point of life is joy, and thus frivolous, and thus evil, so not the point, assuming evil is when reasources are spent on frivolous endeavors rather than desperate ones. How could the point of life be to be joyous, if to be joyous is to be evil? It's almost as if you don't actually think it's the point of life?

>Therefore, the vast majority of all entertainment and media are inherently evil. Consumerism is evil. Pet ownership is evil.
Yes. All joy is evil. Anything unserious is morally reprehensible. But the point of life is joy, guys. Mkay.
> doesn't mean that someone watching a movie on their phone with their dog is an evil person. That's just someone trying to enjoy life.
But they're doing evil?
>this might be one of their only reprieves.
But they should feel GUILTY for it.
>This isn't to say that evil people do not exist.
Yes it is. They're just trying to enjoy life. That's the whole point of life.
>unnecessary harm for personal gain or pure maliciousness.
Malicious part makes sense. Idk about personal gain.

>>85751341
>Irrelevant
Okay, then nobody's needs get fulfilled. Does that still sound irrelevant now?
>Literally what I said that greed/hope is a human right it seems
But it's not a need. You said that NEEDS should always be put above wants. It's evil to use reasources on wants rather than needs.
>You keep sperging on the technicalities but those are irrelevant the question I where does moral culpability start
Anon. Even if needs matter, they will remain unfulfilled without wants. You cannot at the same time tell me that morals are the needs people have and that wants put above needs are evil, then admit we'd have no morals without wants. Either needs should always be put above wants, or not. You can't have both cases be true.

Nobody answer my question s m h
>>85751372
Low iq

>>85751236
>Technically to be moral you need to live like a prisoner doing the bare minimum needed to survive, since anything done that is not necessary can cause harm to someone.
Nah, that's gay left-wing "morality" not real Biblical morality.

>>85751403
>You say this, until somebody from a bad neighborhood comes over to your house and kills your family for money because that's how they learned to get their way from the bad situation they grew up in. You say "oh, they're not a worse person than me. They don't deserve to be held accountable for their actions. In fact, I deserve my life to be taken from me and given to them" until it happens to you.

Western niggers have had every opportunity to learn to be better people and more often than not still choose to be niggers. They are evil people.
African niggers who eat mud cakes and mosquito patties are like children who cannot be held to the same moral standards we're used to in civilized society.


>>I believe that if there is no joy in life then there is no point. Everyone should be able to enjoy their lives.
You say this, yet you also say:
>a world where there is suffering it is evil to ignore those suffering. It is evil for resources that could otherwise be used to alleviate suffering to instead be used frivolously.
You kind of have to pick one or the other.

I don't. You're conflating the desire to be moral with the meaning of life. Humanity is inherently selfish, that's just a function of biological propagation.
Like I said, evil is ever-present and cannot be extinguished. To be a moral individual you can only seek to reduce harm when you can. Most people can't do anything.

File: Plinysmiley.jpg (298 KB, 1080x656)

298 KB JPG

>>85751458
>Im not accepting any answer, and I will not answer any questions
>projection
a modern day, retarded version of aristotle.

>>85751490
If you are the subjective anon you are too stupid

it basically looks like you're the smartest person and everyone likes you, but your plans always fall apart?

>>85751495
Irrelevant post is Irrelevant

File: 200.gif (786 KB, 352x200)

786 KB GIF

>>85751492
Failing to realize you are endlessly contradicting your op is very smart.

>>85751515
Meaningless post is Meaningless

>>85751499
bold of you to assume i'm not busy being the bad influence

>>85751403
>>85751482
I'll also add that I do not consider myself to be an especially moral person. I acknowledge that I am capable of doing evil. If a nigger steps foot through my door I will kill it.

File: altruism.jpg (286 KB, 1400x933)

286 KB JPG

>>85751236
that's altruism not morality

the fact is you deserve shit too, you matter

>>85751590
>i <3 selfishness
>t. jewish foid

>>85751590
It's not tomato It's tomatoe

File: 1000019215.jpg (757 KB, 1523x2508)

757 KB JPG

>>85751482
>Western niggers have had every opportunity to learn to be better people and more often than not still choose to be niggers. They are evil people.
>African niggers who eat mud cakes and mosquito patties are like children who cannot be held to the same moral standards we're used to in civilized society.
Even if they're from africa, that doesn't mean they can come to your house and murder your family, and then have any entitlement to your stuff after the face? Consider a boy who was raped all his life by his family. He has a kid. Can he just rape that kid because he never had the opportunity to learn better? And then what? We're all just raped and then rape others to then keep raping? Rape, murder, these things are objectively wrong. There are not "different" standards. Being hurt doesn't justify hurting others. Otherwise it wouldn't even matter that you were hurt in the first place, because everyone around you was hurt too! We just circle rape eachother, like locusts, and then nobody is at fault, because everyone there is a victim, according to you.
Should mercy for such people exist? Yes. But limits.


>I don't. You're conflating the desire to be moral with the meaning of life. Humanity is inherently selfish, that's just a function of biological propagation.
So, joy/selfishness is not actually the point of life. It is not actually meaningful. It's just a biological function?

If there is a meaning of life, then it matters, hence it's morally imperative. You can't say "oh, there's a meaning to life" and then say "oh, your confusing the meaning of life with morals."
>Like I said, evil is ever-present and cannot be extinguished. To be a moral individual you can only seek to reduce harm when you can. Most people can't do anything.
Well, what even is evil? And if evil is using reasources frivolously, how is it any different than the point of life? And then how could the point of life be evil if it's the point of life?

>>85751610
wow was not expecting that. but this is schiz 100

>>85751710
I am right that your comment is meaningless since you haven't defined where one stops and the other begins

>>85751701
You've created a scenario in your head that doesn't make sense because you're fundamentally confused. I am not advocating any form of forgiveness or mercy. If someone is harming you then you are just as entitled to be selfish.

The primary objective of all life is to reproduce and in order to meet that ends every living thing has inherent selfishness. It makes sense to prioritize yourself over others. It makes sense to kill to survive. That is not the same thing as holding anyone to a moral standard, that is simply how life works. If you want to derive meaning from life by imposing moral standards on yourself then that's your prerogative.

Evil is something that exists, there are evil people, not everyone who does evil things are necessarily evil because doing evil is an inherent part of being human and basic survival. The thing that makes an individual an evil person is their willingness to cause unnecessary suffering.

>>85751236
>You buy more stuff than the bare minimum that supports bad working conditions
Literally the opposite, learn basic economics. If you don't buy it, the people in bad conditions don't even have any job at all.

>>85751721
um, no. read Brassier

>>85752293
>You've created a scenario in your head that doesn't make sense because you're fundamentally confused. I am not advocating any form of forgiveness or mercy. If someone is harming you then you are just as entitled to be selfish.
But anon! I can't judge them. They have different moral standards! You'd have me murder them just because they don't know any better?
>The primary objective of all life is to reproduce and in order to meet that ends every living thing has inherent selfishness
Alright, but that's not your objective.
>It makes sense to prioritize yourself over others. It makes sense to kill to survive
No it doesn't. But it makes sense it happens anyway.
>If you want to derive meaning from life by imposing moral standards on yourself then that's your prerogative.
You were the one saying:
"I believe that if there is no joy in life then there is no point. Everyone should be able to enjoy their lives. "
Should they or not? Stop running away! This is what you said before! Do you mean to say you didn't actually mean this!? You can change your mind btw if you want.

>Evil is something that exists
>there are evil people, not everyone who does evil things are necessarily evil because doing evil is an inherent part of being human and basic survival.
> The thing that makes an individual an evil person is their willingness to cause unnecessary suffering.

I disagree. Unnecessary suffering isn't evil. The reason you run into all these contradictions with bad actions and good people is because of this misunderstanding. Evil is intentional hypocracy. The problem is not that you've caused another person unnecessary suffering, but that you've not given them the same choice as you have yourself. One who harms themselves, for example, is hardly evil. One who harms others couldn't even do so without the very freedoms they deprive to others. Hence, they are evil. Survivors have no choice, hence don't contradict choice to get their way. They live and die by the knife.

>>85752878
>but that you've not given them the same choice as you have yourself
Is preventing somebody from hurting themselves evil ?

>>85752917
explain what evil is using this 1 easy trick

>>85752878
Nothing I've said is inconsistent or contradictory. You're jumping to conclusions that my words have not implied based on your misunderstanding.

I am a human with selfish desires, no human is perfectly moral, and moral superiority is not something I claim to have. Like I said, I would kill a nigger, it I had to do it to survive I would kill anyone because my life is important to me. I simply do not want to die or get hurt. I did not once advocate blanket pacifism. You seem to be under the impression that extending understanding to another person's circumstances means that I've forgone my own but I've painted a clear example for you. My point is wll life is selfish, including my own. I extend that grace of understanding to myself first and foremost.

>>85752917
I cannot say because the scope of its affects are beyond my understanding. If that person is a child who doesn't know better then it's obviously not evil. If you're trying to stop a terminally ill geriatric from their opportunity to go out on their own terms then that's a bit fucked up. What if you stop them from suicide and they decide to do a mass shooting or something. You can't know. Generally imposing your will onto others against their own is not good. If your intent is not malicious then you are not evil even though your actions might result in something evil.

>>85752878
In order for life to proliferate, biology has dictated we must experience joy. You get pleasure from eating and fucking. If fucking didn't feel good then we wouldn't exist. This is an inescapable evil inherent to life. The question isn't "should they or not"? It isn't even a question. It's a statement on the reality of the world. The pursuit of pleasure supercedes all other aspects of life by virtue of being life's primary driver and humans must do evil things in order to navigate the world they happen to be born in.

Being fat is evil, you're constantly consuming resources and making yourself a worse person in the process with the only benefit being pleasure. Not only that, you will inevitably require even more medical resource as your condition advances. But if you're an American then you just end up fat without ever thinking about it. You're a contributor to perpetuating that evil but that doesn't make you evil in and of itself.

If you buy make up or pokemon cards then you're contributing to major pollution. Of course pollution is evil, look at India and tell me that isn't hell on earth. But someone who buys pokemon cards for fun is not an evil person. They are only doing what they know and easing the burden of their existence.

it is what it is, there are bad people and good people, successful bad people and successful good people, good deeds by bad intented persons, and heinous acts by good-meaning ones. In the end it is what it is. I am purely moral because im a wimp and afraid of the law and confrontation and social stigma. Not because of idealistic reasons. But dont know, i say this with ease now, but i have thought lots about this, and will probably change my opinion about this in the future. But do what you do. You do it anyway, wether its good or bad. So just be i suppose

>>85752917
>Is preventing somebody from hurting themselves evil ?
Yes. In denying them choice, you've abandoned the very principle that lets you prevent them. Really, it depends on how you do it, because some methods are more forceful than others. There are other principles to consider, but I'm definitely in the bodily autonomy = good camp.
>>85752960
>my words have not implied based on your misunderstanding.
I mean, I quoted your words. What's there to misunderstand?
>I did not once advocate blanket pacifism
You said that it's wrong to cause other's unnecessary suffering. Further, you call yourself evil because you partake in causing necessary suffering. It's strange. I can't figure out if you think you're evil or not. You say contradictory things.

>>85753183
>If fucking didn't feel good then we wouldn't exist. This is an inescapable evil inherent to life.
So, it's not the point of life. It's just an evil to it.
>The question isn't "should they or not"? It isn't even a question. It's a statement on the reality of the world.
Yeah, but you yourself said in the text I had quoted "should."
>If you buy make up or pokemon cards then you're contributing to major pollution. Of course pollution is evil, look at India and tell me that isn't hell on earth. But someone who buys pokemon cards for fun is not an evil person. They are only doing what they know and easing the burden of their existence.
Nah, they're an evil person, how you define it. You can't make an exception just for them because it hurts your feelings. That said, I disagree with you about what's evil, so yeah. You seem to have a kind of humiliation fetish or smth where you have to view yourself and everyone else as evil but don't want to admit it.

>>85753682
Freedom shouldn't be the highest good, it's a mean to an end.

>>85753710
>Freedom shouldn't be the highest good, it's a mean to an end.
And what do you believe is the highest good? Almost all good depends on freedom, so it had better be pretty important.

But that's besides the point, anyway. I do not believe the highest good is freedom. It's integrity. You can't really have any good principles if you change them on a whim. They can't really accurately said to even BE principles if you have no integrity. What good is a promise, for example, if you don't even try to keep it?

>>85751236
I eat one meal a day, have no friends, never buy anything and work with disabled kids. I am pretty damn moral, not gonna lie.

>>85753747
No becausr you consume media and are not the lowest bmi possible to be healthy therefore you consume excess food

>>85752464
Explain it to me since you understand it so much
>>85752320
Then why are they suffering and not us westerners. Also that still doesn't answer the effects on the environment
>>85753213
You aren't ethical since you don't live in the bare minimum technically

So when does consuming become not moral

>>85754667
There's no ethical consumption.

>>85754708
I don't think that works as an answer

>>85753682
It's really simple and I've said it multiple times. It's amazing you can't understand. You must be stuck is a myopic wester framework.

Evil is just something that exists. Everyone performs evil acts because life necessitates it. It's not an individuals fault that they must participate and contribute to evil in order to survive in the world they had no choice in being born into.

>>85754667
If it's necessary for survival then it's ethical. Like when native Americans hunt and use every part of the animal, they're doing so with the intention to cause as little harm as possible while acknowledging that is something they must do to survive.

>>85754812
>Evil is just something that exists.
Good exists.
>Everyone performs evil acts because life necessitates it.
People perform good acts too. So, what's the difference?
> It's not an individuals fault that they must participate and contribute to evil in order to survive in the world they had no choice in being born into.
The degree they have choice is how much they're responsible. They did not really contribute to evil if they had no choice in the matter because their body forces them to try and survive. The evil would happen whether they wanted it to or not. They could not have chosen better. They could not have acted better. It was not their decision. Hence, they did not really do it.

>>85754822
Retard that us what I am saying but you don't follow that

>>85751236
I try to be poor as possible

>>85754900
That doesn't say anything cause you don't do it

>>85754834

>Good exists.
That's a given.

>People perform good acts too. So, what's the difference?

The only difference is how you as an individual decide live. You're stuck in a framework of good vs evil and that the individual is good or evil based on their action alone. Again, I'm not saying that moral superiority is something any given individual ought to aspire to.

>The degree they have choice is how much they're responsible. They did not really contribute to evil if they had no choice in the matter because their body forces them to try and survive. The evil would happen whether they wanted it to or not. They could not have chosen better. They could not have acted better. It was not their decision. Hence, they did not really do it.

This is close to what I'm getting at. The difference is you believe that evil is fundamentally something people do and can simply not be done given the choice, whereas I believe that evil is something that exists on a gradient of bad and that you simply cannot avoid it. Essentially the concept of yin and yang, as western people understand it is just good vs evil but what it means is that good and evil are two sides of the same coin. In order for one to exist so does the other.

To feed her cubs a lioness must hunt. It will tear another living thing to shreds while it is still alive. Its actions caused unnecessary suffering, we can all feel bad for that deer. But the lioness doesn't have the tools or understanding to have done it any other way, it needs to survive and it's compelled by its nature to feed its cubs. The lioness is not evil though it has committed an evil deed.

File: captain_baloo_colored_by_(...).jpg (38 KB, 640x480)

38 KB JPG

>>85751236
Based Baloo maxxing anon looking for the bear necessities to reduce the strife of life.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BH-Rxd-NBo

>>85751236
Biggest ways for you to do a Good Playthrough of Earth is to be vegan and anti-natalist. If you're not vegan and anti-natalist then you're doing a bad guy playthrough of Earth.

I say playthrough because none of this is real so I have to speak in two different languages when talking about Morality.

>>85755404
That doesn't reply to my question cause you would still consuming more than bare necessities

So is it that

>most people are technically not moral but it is ok because they are not too too moral
>consuming stuff is not moral because it is a need, because you would be miserable without. But if yes then where do you draw the limit of how much one needs to not be miserable

I wish i had an answer to ts

>>85755029
>You're stuck in a framework of good vs evil and that the individual is good or evil based on their action alone
Their choices. If somebody acts without choosing to do it in some way or form, it wasn't really their fault, becuase they weren't the origin of the action.

I can't see how somebody is just evil or good just because of other people's doings.
>Again, I'm not saying that moral superiority is something any given individual ought to aspire to.
By definition, moral superiority is something anybody should aspire to, at least when it's not achieved merely by making those around you morally inferior.
>The difference is you believe that evil is fundamentally something people do and can simply not be done given the choice, whereas I believe that evil is something that exists on a gradient of bad and that you simply cannot avoid it.
What evil can't be avoided isn't your evil. It's nature's or other peoples.
>Essentially the concept of yin and yang, as western people understand it is just good vs evil but what it means is that good and evil are two sides of the same coin. In order for one to exist so does the other.
What evil is necessary for good to exist was never a choice, hence wasn't your doing. That said, evil for the sake of good is precarious and should be handled with care as to not just become evil.
>To feed her cubs a lioness must hunt. It will tear another living thing to shreds while it is still alive. Its actions caused unnecessary suffering, we can all feel bad for that deer
The lioness did not choose to hunt. The act was mostly performed by nature rather than individuals. If the lioness did not hunt, she and her cubs would starve. Further, the lioness's instincts force her to do so. Her choices are limited, and also much of it wasn't even her doing.
>. The lioness is not evil though it has committed an evil deed.
The lioness was not the origin of the act. She did not choose this. She committed no such act. It happened to her.

>>85751236
the only explenation is an afterlife. no way this is all there is to it