/lit/ - Literature

>my opinions
>your opinions

>>13416384
>right
What benefits me
>wrong
What harms me

>>13416386
whats the problem anon? im sure you have a great opinion,you are on /lit/ afterall

>>13416391
extremely based

>>13416384
>right
action that helps living beings
>wrong
action that harms living being

>>13416397
>im sure you have a great opinion,you are on /lit/ afterall
This is wrong, because it's your opinion

>>13416384
Being tortured by international powers is bad
Unless they kill me then it's fine. There has to be a conclusion

>>13416384
They define each other as directions toward or away from the greater good

>what is the greater good

You are begging a question thats answer is based in sense than language. As writers before have, some better than others, gone in detail it’s been my experience that language becomes very recursive and therefore a less than optimal mode of “defining it”. But those who have done a great job we’re always Philosophers, specifically ones who acknowledged a higher power, God, etc.

>>13416416
>>13416404
>>13416402
>>13416397
>>13416391
>>13416386

Hewp

>>13416416
He never asked you to justify them
He's just asking what are they
C'mon anon

>>13416391
How’s highs school going

>>13416404
thats a great opinion too,i knew i was right

>>13416402
simple & great

>>13416424
>>13416423
>>13416420

Read >>13416418

>>13416423
Why should it be otherwise? Why do something that doesn’t benefit you?

>>13416420
Definition implies doing justice to a word by comprehending it’s meaning

>>13416411
dont say such things anon

>>13416416
loved it anon

>>13416418
whats the matter?

>>13416431
Because it’s the right thing to do.

>>13416440
What is “right” and why should you do it, if not to benefit yourself?

>>13416431
because its the right thing to do

>>13416424
Thank you. May happiness find its way into your live, and may harm never find its path.

>>13416444
See >>13416416

>>13416444
see >>13416384

>>13416440
>>13416449
how cute

>>13416450
*life

>>13416450
best wishes for you too anon

how cute
>>13416459
>>13416451

>>13416438
Ppl are harassing me and trying to kill me and I'm going crazy, I attempted suicide and km getting close to reaching a point where I go too crazy, I'm not doing well and nobody will help they just leech off me I'm ready to die, nothing good happens until I die, nobody is nice to me unless they just ripped my soul out and fucked with me and it's everywhere by everybody. Nobody finds this evil, I have no idea wat propaganda is used against me but it's too much I just want to die

>>13416449
Update your software
>>13416451
I’m a theist, but morality is still based on self-benefit. The Bible is an instruction manual for benefiting yourself the most. There’s no reason to not do the action that benefits you the most. Every single so-called “moral” or “ethical” or “right” action is only called that because it usually benefits you. Killing is wrong because of future punishment, revenge, etc. This should be a common understanding

>>13416475
what is the problem?
level of threat
what/who causes its?
consequences for me,others || short term,long term
wil it end,when
is it a game?
possible solutions?
how will this solve the problem?
final decision?

>>13416467
>>13416459
>>13416450
>>13416449
Why are yall happy, did u get close to cutting ur dicks off? Got go be a good little cuck? I'm going to kill myself and yall will have nothing to draw from again

>>13416486
stablish your territory and allies first
who can you count on?
what are your strenghts? weaknesses?
the one with fewer blind spots win

>>13416384
The question scews the very nature of ethical problems to such simplicities as right or wrong that I can only understand by your question that you mean can I be your sharif and protect this town from the deranged Others you must be dividing in your head now as we speak.

>>13416488
get lost fuckface

>>13416482
good point anon, Do you know any good books/authors on this subject

>>13416459
>how cute

Your lack of understanding this basic point reflects the deep handicap that belong to the unintelligent citizens of any society. It’s is the worst kind of boon the curing of which would change the world. Moral education is the highest form of education

>>13416486
Ppl are harassing and trying to castrate or kill me
It's high alert, any small thing that works against me makes ppl hate me even when I'm doing nothing but sitting in a hotel
You all do, I did nothing wrong and even if I said it's all my fault it wouldn't stop
? So u admit torture is fine as long as u benefit, I'm going to kill myself
Nope
Nope, calling it a game doesn't make it not a game
None I tried everything, yall could stop being little bitch assholes
Burn in hell

>>13416497
if i made a complex question no one would reply to it,also the image selection took me a while too

>>13416501
Cut ur little dick off babycuck, u can't get me so u make graven images of me to worship as ur little sex lord. You're a creepy disgusting little nobody fucker burn in hell

>>13416501
>good point anon, Do you know any good books/authors on this subject
No, I came to this conclusion on my own. I’ve only read a few books of Plato

>>13416503
how cute bc different people said the same things

damn,4chan is 4chan,and it is still 4chan,why did i fool myself

>>13416514
You don't know how to roleplay or do improv do you, anon?

>>13416528
Leave u little creep

>>13416488
May happiness find its way upon your life, anon.

>>13416384
Does it feel good? Yes? Then its good

>>13416562
Burn in hell u passive bitch, u could help
I promise I'll kill myself and no one will stop me and u interacted. You'll have to go stone cold in ur later years to not feel like shit. Km dying

>>13416482
>I’m a theist, but morality is still based on self-benefit.
No it’s not

>The Bible is an instruction manual for benefiting yourself the most.

No it’s not

>There’s no reason to not do the action that benefits you the most. Every single so-called “moral” or “ethical” or “right” action is only called that because it usually benefits you.

No no and no

>Killing is wrong because of future punishment, revenge, etc.

That is a disgusting logic

>This should be a common understanding

It usually is, for the unintelligent and weak willed.

Some reading for you;

The true service of God consists in nothing but morally good conduct in life. Ceremonial rituals, petitionary prayers, words of divine praise, penances, the observance of statutory law prescribed by church traditions, none of these have any truly religious aim, but only serve as illusory substitutes for doing what a truly good God would demand of us: namely, our ordinary moral duty as human beings.”

Ritual formulas that praise God treat him like an earthly despot whose favor his cringing minions may hope to win through self-abasing flattery; such formulas presuppose an image of our relationship to God which dishonors both him and ourselves. Prayer makes sense as long as it is seen as a way of bringing about a morally good disposition in ourselves; but prayer, "conceived as an inner ritual service of God and hence as a means of grace," is a "superstitious delusion" (Religion 6:194); as for petitionary prayer, it is "an absurd and at the same time impudent delusion to have a try whether, through the insistent intrusiveness of our prayer, God might not be diverted from the plan of his wisdom (to our present advantage)" (Religion 6: 196n).
If religious rituals are seen as a way of conjuring up God's grace or divine aid in pursuing our earthly ends, then they are to be condemned as fetishism, the superstitious delusion of being able to produce supernatural effects (Religion 6:177). t. Kant

>>13416384
>right
me getting bullied kidnapped and gangbang raped by these predatory ladies for days
>wrong
me not getting bullied kidnapped and gangbang raped by these ladies

>>13416685
>no
>no
>no
>etc.
Not an argument
>that’s DISGUSTING logic!
How so? How can logic be disgusting anyway?

>If religious rituals are seen as a way of conjuring up God's grace or divine aid in pursuing our earthly ends, then they are to be condemned as fetishism, the superstitious delusion of being able to produce supernatural effects
Right, but what about heavenly ends? Isn’t that the reason we have faith at all? To be SAVED?! Is this not what Jesus promised us?

You’re trying to delude yourself into thinking that you don’t do things out of self-benefit. Such a thing is simply illogical. Then why WOULD you do something?

>>13416431
The problem isn’t a moral one. You are wired to do what benefits you. The problem comes from the fact that calculating what is good and what is bad for you is impossible, even for a supercomputer. Say socialism vs capitalism. There are arguments both ways as to why either benefits you, such that you can always set up hypotethicals for either way. You can read Plato’s The Republic for a better formulation of what I’m saying

>>13416757
>Right, but what about heavenly ends? Isn’t that the reason we have faith at all? To be SAVED?! Is this not what Jesus promised us?
>You’re trying to delude yourself into thinking that you don’t do things out of self-benefit. Such a thing is simply illogical. Then why WOULD you do something?

You are so stupid its incredible. Religion has one purpose, to make you a better human being. Not to make you a fucking ideological cuck fanboy. I love Jesus, I absolutely love Christianity and the works of the Bible, but never for a second do I forget that it is a work that is meant to be understood mytho-poetically. You don’t know what you believe, the content of your beliefs or what exactly an actual good God wants from you. People like you give Christianity a bad name

>>13416868
Yes, I agree with you completely. Everyone is trying to benefit himself the most, but some fail horribly. Wisdom leads to virtue. Only when you’re intelligent can you figure out how to benefit yourself with small chances of failure. It’s difficult to find out that perfect path in the future, but we can make estimated guesses. For example, we know we shouldn’t kill people. We know that we should exercise and be friendly to others. However, in Christianity, we are given everything we need to go after righteousness. I’m convinced that if one follows the Bible as closely as possible, he will “have his rewards” better than anyone

>>13416884
>Religion has one purpose, to make you a better human being
What does it mean to be better? Why would you want to be better? Could it possibly be to benefit yourself?

Why are you so emotional and aggressive? You curse in one sentence, and say “I love Jesus” in the next.
>People like you give Christianity a bad name

>>13416868
>>13416901
>>13416914

It’s about flourishing the quality of personhood, not about amassing a quantity of benefit. This is exactly what Marx meant when he described the commodification of cultural life. Now being a Christian, even a good person means thinking about deeds economically. Absolutely fucking disgusting. Of course being a better person benefits you, but to consider benefit as the sole reason to be a good person is as ugly as it is shameful. Your like those people who were trying to buy indulgences.

>Why are you so emotional and aggressive?

Because you are retarded fuck, and the good in me has a natural jerk reaction to being confronted with utter stupidity.

>You curse in one sentence, and say “I love Jesus” in the next.

I would flip every table in your house and whip your mother while yelling “Look what you did!”

>>13417013
>It’s about flourishing the quality of personhood
What does THIS mean? It seems you’re going in circles.
>Of course being a better person benefits you, but to consider benefit as the sole reason to be a good person is as ugly as it is shameful
What’s another reason?

>>13417027
See >>13416416

Idiot. Stupid.
>I’m a Christian
You’re despicable. Read a book you fuck

>>13417097
>I have no idea what I’m talking about.

>>13417027
>What does THIS mean?

Why should you think knowing the meaning of this would help you? You are obviously are illiterate in theological philosophy and philosophy in general. And to think some definition could show you it all just goes to show how dumb you already are

>>13417117
I know you don’t
>muh Bible is like a hand book to benefiting my life

Imagine being THIS stupid

>>13417120
So you’re using language you yourself don’t understand? That’s an odd way to put together an argument.

>>13417129
2 Timothy 3:16
>All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness
Romans 15:4
>For whatever was written in former days was written for our instruction, that through endurance and through the encouragement of the Scriptures we might have hope.
James 1:21
>Therefore put away all filthiness and rampant wickedness and receive with meekness the implanted word, which is able to save your souls.
Psalm 119:105
>Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path.

And so on

>>13416384
Now many of you fine people got quite upset when I last did this but, I assure you, this will not be a scathing critique. No swollen faces here. They have yet to be puffed up on vanity or swollen by wine. There is no need to tear these ones down. No, none of these ones are good looking either, and I say that from an platonic aesthetic overview, so this isn't a this group vs that group comparison, they are two seperate entities judged on seperate things. That said, I will proceed to delineate idiosyncrasies inherent to them from left to right. Simple observations, perhaps guidance for a son or daughter heading off to be classmates.

1. Smug face
2. Pug face
3. Slow face
4. Mona Lisa
5. Abomination.
6. Cousin It.
7. Salem witch trial survivor
8. Incongruant face. Dishonest character saying "sssssspt, hey kid, wanna buy some drugs".
9. Special education case, conveying a look of confusion and just happy to be there. The happy go lucky harmless attitude of hers prevents bullying.
10. The look of someone who has seen a lot of shit to use a colloquialism. This is an actress putting on a display. She is hiding the Mexican stand off between her mother and her brother and the room mate needed as a source of income for the poor semblence of a family. Not malnornished enough to have made the journey herself. She is an anchor baby and deep down, she knows her raison d'etre is but a sad coincidence of place and circumstance. But of course she can't articulate this. She just feels it. This will of course drive her to overdose in the near future, facillated by the girl two previous, or, or, or, a happy long life of a nun inspired by the pathetic but fundamentally good girl one previous.

No numbered picture will be provided. There is no need. No background or foreground. Just a simple loop.

>>13416384
everything I do is right because this is my reality
everything you NPC's do is wrong because is mty reality

>>13417097
>>13417120
Still didn’t provide another reason>>13417027
Man, the idea that everything we do is ultimately for our perceived benefit, and that morality is based in self-benefit, is really triggering for some people.

>>13416384
Right is that which contributes to the flourishing of sentient entities. Wrong is that which contributes to suffering.

>>13416391
This, but what most people don't get is that when I say this I'm taking into account my emotions. It makes me happy to have friends and get along with my family. Thus helping others(people I want as friends) benefits me.

Everyone just assumes, that I only care about myself, which is only partly true.

>>13416402
>>13418443
A spaceship comes to Earth. A weak and sickly alien comes out, and says they need our planet to support their species. If only they could use our resources, they could sustain their billions of advanced members, and even use resources to fix their home planet, which has millions more species than on Earth. Do we humans let the aliens kill us all so that more sentient beings can flourish? Or do we resist?

>>13416482
This is the most cynical conceptualisation of morality I've ever heard and you need to grow up.

People do things like helping the homeless with no expectation of reward for doing so. You only act for personal gain. They are your moral superior.

>>13418462
I’ll make the decision clearer: the alien is so weak that he needs water and food and requires us to give him the supplies. He’s on the verge of dying. If we restore his health, he can then use his advanced technology to gather resources and eventually kill us all and rape our planet. So do we feed him and kill off trillions of sentient beings, or let him die just to save ourselves?

>>13418462
>more sentient beings ask less sentient ones for help

They don’t sound very sentient anon

>>13418462
I'm not a utilitarian. Killing the humans would be wrong because it prevents their flourishing and causes suffering. There are considerations beyond merely maximising utility.

>>13418474
Nice job avoiding the question, coward
>>13418469
Isn’t feeling good a reward? “I’m such a good person for helping that homeless man hehe” is what goes through these people’s minds. It’s not as if these people are helping the homeless against their will, just like a drug addict tries not to do drugs. No, these people willingly help the homeless and ENJOY it. You’re categorizing some people as superior because they feel good when they help other people. Some people simply aren’t wired that way. Of course, we can still celebrate that there are people who care for others, but it’s not pure selflessness.

>>13418492
And by not letting humans die you will contribute to much more suffering. What is the right thing to do?

>>13418471
We collaborate with the aliens to find them a new home.

>>13416391
hello Raskolnikóv

>>13418500
The alien is about to die and so are all his friends. They need this planet. There aren’t any other viable planets within light years. If only we have up this planet, they could flourish and go beyond this galaxy and find many other planets and even help other civilizations flourish. Shouldn’t we make that sacrifice?

>>13418494
People help because it's the right thing to do not because it feels good.

>>13418511
>>13416449
>>13416440
>because it’s the right thing to do
Why is it the right thing to do? What is right? You people will go in circles forever to avoid the fact that the “Why” is ultimately explained with the simple truth: we do what we think benefits us the most.

>>13418529
what benefits you the most?

>>13418510
In this extremely unlikely SF situation the moral thing to do would be to give up the planet but we wouldn't because we're on team human and we aren't morally perfect entities.

>>13418534
I believe that following God’s commandments benefit me the most. Exercising, working, studying, being friendly, are also beneficial. I don’t always know the perfect path in every situation but I know a good approximation. I will still always act so that I can benefit myself as best as I can. Part of the process is acquiring wisdom so that we can ignore our fleshly and temporary desires in favor of long-term benefits, which are ultimately better than short-term pleasures.

>>13418529
I'm talking about motivation you absolute brainlet

>>13418540
Would you give up the planet? Would you feed the alien?

>>13418529
You're a cynical child. A person who helps the homeless and feels zero gratification in doing so would still be acting morally

>>13416384
Right and wrong are only valuable concepts with regard to the individual's path to virtue. Moreover, the conscience is the only true measure of right and wrong. Keep going: the person doing wrong is the only person that is hurt by the wrongdoing (his/her soul is moved away from the good and will have to burn off bad karma created by the wrongdoing) while the person being wronged is aided by the interaction (with regard to karma's payment plan and he/she is given the opportunity to cultivate the soul through forgiveness and the potential breaking down of the ego due to suffering). These three points, taken in conjunction settle the matter: right and wrong are essentially relevant only to the individual's spiritual ascent (the only reasonable meaning of life), conscience is the only measure of the two, and the values of the effects of right and wrong in interactions are actually the reverse of societies accepted standard. Maybe?

>>13418547
>People help because it's the right thing to do not because it feels good.
What does this have to do with motivation? Please explain your view

>>13418555
If there are no possible benefits from a certain action, then you should not perform it. Why would you?

>>13418550
No, I'm not morally perfect. I want to survive. I recognise this isn't the correct moral choice however.

Why can't we live in peace and harmony with the aliens? Why do they insist of destroying us?

>>13418568
Because it's moral you utter tard

>>13416384
Whatever one I want it to be

>>13418574
See >>13418529
Why is it the right thing to do? What is right? You people will go in circles forever to avoid the fact that the “Why” is ultimately explained with the simple truth: we do what we think benefits us the most.

>>13418571
But the aliens also want to survive. Why is it more moral to assist them?

>>13418577
You're a moron. Contributing to the flourishing of sentient entities is more moral than doing what's in your best interests. There's no circular logic here, it's just you redefining morality as that which benefits the individual. Go read your Rand and leave the philosophy to the big boys.

>>13418587
But you’re also a sentient entity. Are you suggesting a utilitarian perspective?

>>13418587
>Contributing to the flourishing of sentient entities is more moral than doing what's in your best interests
why

>>13418582
Obviously. Because this decision maximises the flourishing of sentient entities.

>>13418595
Why is that a good thing?

>>13418590
I guess I am. Although I believe morality is more complex than maximising flourishing.

>>13418593
You need me to explain to you why the flourishing of sentient entities is good?
You think a world filled with suffering while you prosper would be better?

>>13418608
>You need me to explain to you why the flourishing of sentient entities is good?
Yes or I’ll accuse you of circular/unfounded reasoning.
>You think a world filled with suffering while you prosper would be better?
Let’s simplify this. Is it better to benefit while everyone suffers, or suffer while everyone benefits? I’ll take this to the extreme. If God Himself promised me that I could only go to Heaven if everyone else alive were sent to Hell, and that I would go to Heaven and be happy and forget that people are suffering in Hell, or that I would go to hell and everyone else go to Heaven, then I would choose heaven in a heartbeat. Why would I choose to go to Hell?

By the way, this situation will never occur, but that is my view on personal benefit vs. public benefit. In most cases, public benefit leads to personal benefit. That is why we value friends and having happy, stable people around us.

>>13418627
I would make the same decision however I at least have the decency to realise that that makes me a coward whereas you contort the concept of morality to endorse such an action. It's pathetic.

>>13418648
I don’t see an argument here. The fact is, if God says x will lead to my benefit, then I believe I should do x. Most of the “moral” actions you think are selfless are still based on some self-benefit, either directly or indirectly, or based on some hope of future reward (that doesn’t always come by the way).

Are you going to explain why the flourishing of sentient beings is good?

>>13418627
Imagine two worlds in which you were never born.

One of abject suffering. The other supreme flourishing. Are these worlds equivalent? Or would you prefer one exist over the other?

I would choose for the world of flourishing to exist. It is self-evidently superior.

>>13418665
Think of it this way: that world already existed billions of years ago. Now the question is, would you rather it be a world of extreme suffering, or flourishing? And I would say, I don’t care, but that world has no effect on me.

>>13418663
Stop injected God into your arguments all it does it cause people to take you less seriously.

Consider your favourite mythical character Jesus. He is the archetype of the moral hero because he acted against his self interest to do what he believed was right with no expectation of reward.

If you're stupid enough to be a Christian at least be a good one.

>>13418680
>but
*because

>>13418680
Then you are an amoral monster and I'm done talking to you

>>13418686
Then Jesus came with them to a place called Gethsemane, and said to His disciples, “Sit here while I go over there and pray.” 37 And He took with Him Peter and the two sons of Zebedee, and began to be grieved and distressed. 38 Then He said to them, “My soul is deeply grieved, to the point of death; remain here and keep watch with Me.”

39 And He went a little beyond them, and fell on His face and prayed, saying, “My Father, if it is possible, let this cup pass from Me; yet not as I will, but as You will.” 40 And He came to the disciples and found them sleeping, and *said to Peter, “So, you men could not keep watch with Me for one hour? 41 Keep watching and praying that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit is willing, but the flesh is weak.”

42 He went away again a second time and prayed, saying, “My Father, if this cannot pass away unless I drink it, Your will be done.” 43 Again He came and found them sleeping, for their eyes were heavy. 44 And He left them again, and went away and prayed a third time, saying the same thing once more. 45 Then He came to the disciples and *said to them, “Are you still sleeping and resting? Behold, the hour is at hand and the Son of Man is being betrayed into the hands of sinners. 46 Get up, let us be going; behold, the one who betrays Me is at hand!”

>>13418545
basically like me, I follow whatever my soul demands

>>13418691
That seems mildly inappropriate for a philosophical debate. I’ll lay it out clearly now: in general, improving public flourishing is a good thing, because it improves the chances of self-benefit. But if ALL chances of self-benefit are excluded, then there is no true reason why I should care about the flourishing of others. Why care about the aliens? I would rather benefit myself. You people have STILL not explained what is inherently good about the flourishing of entities other than yourself.

Using the pointer fingers and thumbs of both hands, make L's. The backwards L is right. The other one, which you'll notice is actually in the shape of a W, is wrong.

>>13418700
It seems perfectly reasonable given that you have demonstrated your complete indifference to the suffering of billions upon billions of people simply because it doesn't effect you. That is the definition of amoral

>>13416384
reading books

>>13418723
You haven’t even given a definition of “moral” or why preferring the flourishing of other entities over yourself is morally superior. I have a natural tendency to desire goodness, because I benefit from it, so I would naturally prefer a world with flourishing rather than suffering. But if the world must suffer so that I can benefit, then so be it.

>>13418700
You're free to believe that, as misguided as it is, but that does not a morality make.

That the flourishing of sentient entities is good is self-evident and it functions as the foundation of morality.

It is so obvious that it is more moral to help a man rather than torture him to death that to believe otherwise is a reductio ad absurdim.

Pic unrelated

My definition of morality is a system that assumes that both right and wrong exist as objective fetures about reality, and that you *ought* to do the right thing.

I disagree with both of the premises.

The first one I disagree with primarily because I believe moral statements about "Good" and "Bad" exist primarily because of the evolution of social creatures... However this is not the Crux of my argumet.

Even if I suppose that Good and Bad really ARE objective fetures about reality, morality (as I previously defined) still would be invalid.

This is because I hold that "Ought" statements require a prerequsite to function...
In other words, you require a goal to make an ought statement...
"If you want x, then you ought to do y".

This means that it is invalid to state "you ought to do what is good"

>>13418733
And by the way, it’s not as if I torture kittens and spit on hobos or something. I know you won’t believe it, and I know this is bragging, but people view me as a nice, generous person. Animals love me, children love me, older people love me, because I treat everyone respectfully. And i don’t act kindly just because I rationalize my behavior and think “this will surely benefit me in the future.” But I don’t pretend that I’m not biologically operating on that basis. I don’t like these hypotheticals with suffering and all, and they’re truly unlikely, but I won’t ignore the fact that everything we do is ultimately based on self-benefit. I’m a good person because I receive goodness as a result, and I’m ok with that.

>>13418733
Morality isn't something you decide on that aligns with your wants. You might not want to help someone in need but in doing so you act morally.

If you can't see this you were either raised improperly or have been corruption by Randian garbage.

>>13418742
>That the flourishing of sentient entities is good is self-evident
It is self-evident because their flourishing contributes to self-flourishing. But go back to the alien example. What is self-evident about killing all humans in favor of the aliens? Why is their flourishing more important than ours? It isn’t self-evident to me.
>It is so obvious that it is more moral to help a man rather than torture him to death that to believe otherwise is a reductio ad absurdim.
I agree because if you torture a man then you are bound to reap negative consequences, whereas if you help him, you may be rewarded.

>>13418753
What a horrible definition of morality. Is this all you can do? Please! Tell me what it is!

>>13418753
You are acting dogmatic.

Jesus fuck, most of you guys are dogmatic religious fanatics, or dogmatic nihilistic edge-lords.

>>13418755
Assume you definitely get away with it and you receive zero compensation for helping him

>>13418758
It's not a definition you hambone

>>13418765
It's not dogmatic to argue morality obviously transcends primitive notions of might makes right. Morality isn't relative

>>13418775
That is a major assumption. That’s like saying “Assume you get no nutritional benefit or good taste from eating food. Would you still eat the food?” We would still eat it, because our action isn’t wholly dependent on reason. It’s instinctual. Even animals have compassion. Do you also remove the good feeling that comes with helping him? If so, then why on earth would I help him? How could I rationalize it if you removed all my instincts to do so?

>>13418780
>its not dogmatic to argue that morality trancends explanation and anyone that disagrees was raised improperly

>>13418771
Who is being nihilistic?
>>13418776
Then what is it? It means nothing to me. We’re you trying to be persuasive?
>dude you should just, like, do it because it’s moral
mindless words
>>13418780
You haven’t made a good case. And who said anything about “might makes right?”

>>13418783
It's called a thought experiment retard

>>13418786
Or corrupted by Randian garbage. Some things genuinely are undeniably true

>>13418798
And I answered it. I wouldn’t help him if I didn’t feel good from helping him, and if I knew that I wouldn’t receive ANY benefit, in this life or the next. I brought up the food analogy because it demonstrates that we often act out of instinct, not because we’re basing our actions on some rational, transcendent morality that defies all explanation. But in my view, those instincts, along with our reason, constitute the tools to be moral, that is, to benefit ourselves.

>>13418812
>Or corrupted by Randian garbage
I’ve never read Rand
>some things genuinely are undeniably true
Like the fact that all action is based on self-benefit in some manner? You still haven’t explained what morality is. So what exactly are you labelling undeniably true?

>>13416391
absolutely based and truthpilled

>>13418822
That the flourishing of sentient entities is preferable to their suffering. Morality is fundamentally about bringing about the former.

Just because you haven't read Rand doesn't mean you haven't been corrupted by her ideas.

>>13418822
Even if all action were based on self interest it wouldn't then follow that that is morality

>>13418859
>That the flourishing of sentient entities is preferable to their suffering.
Back to the alien hypothetical. If their flourishing outweighs our own, then according to you, the most moral thing to do, and therefore what we should do, is let the aliens take all our resources and kill us. And I ask why this is moral. Because in this case, we are choosing what leads to the most flourishing, but against our own flourishing. So why should we do such a thing? I simply cannot see the reason for it. If you can’t give some sort of explanation for why we should do such a thing, then I don’t see any reason to continue this discussion, because obviously nothing will change. You have this strange belief that individuals should, in some cases, do something that leads to no benefit, or even worse, leads to self-harm. You must provide a reason or I cannot see from your perspective.

>>13418865
Morality is doing what benefits you the most. Think of a very righteous, moral person. Actually spend some time thinking about him. What distinguishes him from the rest? He lives in such a way that he will be rewarded, not punished. He makes friends, not enemies. He treats his body and his mind well. He loves God, and follows his commandments. Now think of the immoral person. He lives in such a way that he will likely be punished, not rewarded. He makes bad decisions, making people angry, committing offenses, etc. He is immoral precisely because he doesn’t benefit himself properly.

This is what morality is.

>>13418872
OMG WE WOULDN'T DO IT YOU ABSOLUTE BRAINTARD BUT DOING SO WOULD BE MORALLY SUPERIOR

You don't have to act in accordance with morality.

>>13416384
>Right
Communism
>Wrong
Capitalism

>>13418894
communism as described by someone, or an actually existing example of communism?

>>13418891
>we wouldn’t do it
That’s irrelevant. Why do you say that at all?
>but doing so would be morally superior
In other words, we SHOULD do it, correct? But why?
>you don’t have to act in accordance with morality
Again, irrelevant. It’s almost like you secretly believe we shouldn’t actually kill our species in favor of the aliens. I definitely don’t see a reason for doing it but I don’t think you do either.

>>13418872
The reason for is a moral one
The reason against is self-preservation

It's a difficult decision but humanity would likely choose in favour of self-preservation. This in no way means that that course of action is the most moral one

>>13418896
Everything that is in favor of acquiring actually existing communism.

>>13418899
>The reason for is a moral one
And what exactly is that reason?
>It's a difficult decision but humanity would likely choose in favour of self-preservation
Irrelevant.
>This in no way means that that course of action is the most moral one
I agree, but I see no reason why you’re claiming it’s morally inferior.

>>13418907
You're just wasting my time. Good luck with your pure self interest.

>>13418919
You never had an argument, so why were you trying to persuade me?

>>13418919
He wasn't even a Randian like me and he can clearly see the chain of logic to self interest, just imagine what happens when he actually reads her. Stay asshurt

>>13416384
I fucking hate roasties so much

>>13418963
Why should I read her? Seems like a waste of time. The Bible and Plato’s works have treated me fine.

>right
That which is in accordance with objective human morality
>wrong
That which is not in accordance with objective human morality

>>13418983
And what is objective human morality?

>>13418923
I don't need one. Turns out your position is called ethical egoism and was propagated by Henry Sedgwick, so now I have to read his dumb ass to learn how to argue against this idiocy

>>13419000
Ask Noam Chomsky

>>13419017
If you can persuade me, then good on you. It’s very difficult to argue against the position, but that’s why I don’t reject it. I cannot escape the reason. I don’t know that Sedgwick guy, but I will tell you everything I have read: a few Plato dialogues, the Bible, Industrial Society and its Future, Pensées, and Crime and Punishment. I definitely think (some of) these books have influenced me, so you might want to read them too.

>>13419039
>I don’t know that Sedgwick guy
I can tell.

The fundamental disagreement is that I believe that the flourishing of sentient entities is the basis of morality and you outright reject this sentiment which is preposterous to me. It is the basis of my moral conceptualisation and if you can't agree that that's what is important then the conversation is essentially over.

I think I could probably make a case for conceptual consistency, that is my conceptualisation of morality is more in keeping with commonsense while being internally coherent and defensible from objections, and thus preferable.

But again if you don't accept the axiom that flourishing is intuitively preferable to suffering then there's no helping you.

>>13419053
I don’t disagree with you on this point. However, I believe that ultimately we should act out of self-interest. Most of the time, that involves helping others flourish. When a community flourishes, so does the individual. And in the very unlikely scenario that my flourishing is pitted against that of everyone else, or all the aliens in the universe, then I will choose what is best for me. Don’t jump to conclusions; one of my biggest dreams is laying down my life for another person. But I believe this benefits me, and that is why I would do it. I simply see no reason how there can be a “should” that doesn’t involve self-benefit. And I see no reason why we shouldn’t actively seek out what benefits us the most. That is why I kill the aliens: because I won’t benefit by their survival. Tell me what benefits me the most, and I will do it.

>>13416384

>>13419053
And, if it still isn’t clear, just because I act in self-interest doesn’t mean I actively harm others. I think the wisest thing is to benefit others as much as you can, because this leads to your benefit. I don’t want to do anything that makes me look bad, or causes guilt, shame, punishment, etc. That’s why I’m not immoral. This system is true without God. But there are some cases in which I could easily sin and suffer no consequences, IF there is no afterlife. That is why I believe theistic morality is better than secular morality. Ideally, everyone would follow Christian principles and “meditate on the Word day and night.” This I believe is best for society and the individual.

>>13416384
>what is your definition of right
Anything I do
>and wrong?
Anything anyone else does to me I don't like

>>13419069
Yeah, I'm reading the ethical egoists now and I find myself agreeing with much of what they say. I think it makes sense to prioritise one's self interest, however I regard morality as distinct from this prioritisation.

>right
Whatever happens is right.
>wrong
Nothing. There's no such thing.

>>13419131
>I regard morality as distinct from this prioritization.
If morality is what you should and shouldn’t do, then you’re essentially separating self-interest from what we should do. So there are some instances in which we should do something not in our self-interest, or even against it, correct? But this I cannot understand at all. Surely the thing we should do will benefit is the most? Otherwise, why should we do it?

>>13419136
Not gonna lie. Everyday this rings more and more true to me. It’s frighteningly true. Everything is on the way, including us. Right when you think you got it, you are already gone. It’s exhausting. I’m grateful, but it’s very tiresome. And the craziest thing, I’m never as tired as I am after a long nights sleep

>>13419143
What one "should" do is a vague notion.
We should allow the aliens to inhabit earth to be in keeping with maximising flourishing, but we should also stop the aliens from inhabitanting the earth in the interests of self-preservation. There are reasons why we ought to do both.

>>13418980
Know why her philosophy is named Objectivism? Contrary to what reddit will tell you it isn't because she was just saying "everything I say is Objective". She discovered the Intrinsic/Subjective/Objective trichotomy, wherein she identifies that rather than operating off a proper definition of objective, past philosophers especially under the influence of Plato had been laying their ground work on subjectivist vs intrinsicist lines. Rand has several other philosophically revolutionary formulations like "Rand's Razor", the "Anticoncept", and several newly identified fallacies as well.
You would do far better to abandon Plato for Aristotle. She makes a hard-irrefutable case on why the student did indeed surpass the master.

>>13419143
>Surely the thing we should do will benefit us the most? Otherwise, why should we do it?
Maximising flourishing is at least a compelling prospect, no?

>>13419136
This

Whatever did not happen couldn’t have happened because it didn’t happen.

>>13419183
Why should we maximize general flourishing over self-flourishing?
>>13419188
If it doesn’t benefit the self, then there’s no reason to do it. I don’t think anyone on Earth who doesn’t hate humanity would be willing to give up everything to aliens, even if their society is much more advanced and larger than ours. That isn’t in our moral programming because it doesn’t lead to our benefit. But when you don’t exclude self-benefit, we naturally like the idea of helping others, because as I said earlier, a flourishing community is good for the individual. But that flourishing alien civilization won’t be good for us at all. You’re taking away the actual benefits but still basing morality on the desires that usually produce benefit. But of course if we were all in that situation we would prefer human survival, which actually is the most moral thing to do

>>13416384

> Right

What the Bible says is good

> Wrong

What the Bible says is bad

>>13419191
>>13419136
We can still learn from our mistakes and make better decisions in the future. We can look at the past and think about how it could have been better.

>>13416384

Well it's foolish and a bit arrogant to say there is no right or wrong
Of course there is a right and a wrong but we still lack a necessary something to actually view it clearly
Humans will predictably follow their own feelings on the matter in the moment regardless but as we can see in baser creatures feelings often lead us astray
So there really is no point in concerning oneself with this question
It's much like wondering what happens after death there is no way to know until we get there so practically speaking it is a waste of time

>>13416411
>>13416475
>>13416508
based schizo poster

>>13416384
It isn't fixed and entirely depends on the situation.

>>13416391
Replace it with "what i feel benefits me" and "what i feel harms me" and you've got everybody's definition of right and wrong, though they usually aren't aware of it and instead state something different - because stating that something else strikes them as beneficial to state.

>>13419632
So tell us what factors of the situation it depends on then, dumbass

>>13416384
Right=white
Wrong=niggers

wrong: what helps wypipo
right: what helps the PoC

>>13416384
If I do it, it's right. If an ugly or poor (ugly on the inside) person does it, it's wrong.

>>13416501
Dostoevsky, nietzche, carl jung

The foundation of my morality is Kant's categorical imperative.

>>13419880
Which is just long term utilitarianism

>>13419898
But utilitarianism is always at risk of treating people as a means, though the end might be the happiness of a different, larger group of people.

>>13419898
Nah, it's more golden rule. The imperative to follow the principles all should follow don't necessitate utilitarian principles.

>>13419907
That's societal utilitarianism. Kant's is a purely individual one.

>>13419911
While game theory frequently proves the golden rule to be the ideal move, most philosophy profs would slap you over the head for calling Kant's imperatives a modification of sorts of the golden rule.