/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.10743738]

Why is the "naturalistic fallacy" considered a fallacy? Outside of an intervening spiritual authority it is the only basis of morality and we can see that much of our already established morality, namely the core aspects of it stem from this.

[Anonymous No.10743767]

The spiritual morality of religious revelation is infused with intention, intelligence and most important motive (godly benevolence). Nature, simply brute forces, that which "is", has none of these. Observations of nature can help to inform moral (or evaluative) judgement, but it would be silly to draw them from nature on its own. The existence of an "is" does not imply the existence of an "ought".

As for your second point, we can say that the human moral thinking generally, being a natural phenomenon, is an "is" which we do not necessarily have to derive any "oughts" from - however much our instincts and feelings might push us to.

[Anonymous No.10743779]

>>10743738
Because it artificially divides up the world into nature and then things humans make and do. This isn’t a real division, just one humans have developed to make themselves feel good because it feels like the world is under their control.

Everything cruel and evil is natural, but we don’t have to abide by that.

I’d argue that one of the great goods of humanity is democracy, and also that democracy is a deeply unnatural thing.

[Anonymous No.10743794]

>>10743767
>he hasn't read Spinoza

[Anonymous No.10743848]

>>10743767
>The spiritual morality of religious revelation is infused with intention, intelligence and most important motive

Nature itself is filled with all of these, the type of motive, intelligence and intention that humans have within them has given birth to religion


>Nature, simply brute forces, that which "is", has none of these

As I explained above it does, you seem to differentiate between human nature (instinct) and the natural world, not understanding that it is our very nature that drives has to have these "unnatural" occurrences that we so much enjoy. A civilization is the most natural thing in the world, any creature would want to ensure it's offspring' future and comfortable, content life for itself, civilization increases the chances of this massively.

>Observations of nature can help to inform moral (or evaluative) judgement, but it would be silly to draw them from nature on its own.

Nature informs the morality that we have created, they have simply been distorted and reject true human nature - which is bound for failure. A religious code based on natural law is what we should strive for.


>The existence of an "is" does not imply the existence of an "ought".

The existence of the the "ought" is there to serve the "is"

>As for your second point, we can say that the human moral thinking generally, being a natural phenomenon, is an "is" which we do not necessarily have to derive any "oughts"

Again the "ought" is there to serve the is, the nature best serves this "is" and the "ought" should follow form


>however much our instincts and feelings might push us to.
Exactly why we should embrace it

[Anonymous No.10743866]

>>10743779
>Because it artificially divides up the world into nature and then things humans make and do. This isn’t a real division, just one humans have developed to make themselves feel good because it feels like the world is under their control.

You misunderstand what they accuse of being a fallacy, stating that we should follow natural law, our will, our instinct is not artificial or at the least it is the least artificial thing about humans.

>Everything cruel and evil is natural, but we don’t have to abide by that.

What is evil? Is it evil to eat meat? According to nature no, according to an arbitrary philosophy it is. Objectively though, human biology dictates eating meat is healthy and we should do it, proving once again following nature is not "evil" but "good".


>I’d argue that one of the great goods of humanity is democracy, and also that democracy is a deeply unnatural thing.
A false equivalence, one could argue democracy is terrible or that it is natural.

[Anonymous No.10745565]

>>10743779
Our nature compels us to certain behavior, including aversion to what we generally see as evil. All the virtues are based on feeling, feelings that something is right or wrong. When someone is incapable of empathy they are viewed as flawed, even nonhuman. Appeal to nature/conscience is the only valid argument.
Conscience is not taught, but can be unlearned through traumas that break our nature; as its source/base is not divine, the aim is.

[Anonymous No.10745587]

>>10745565
Evolution only care about survival, and as sciences has shown, the more virtuous and moral people are the better off our species and civilization is—especially when it comes to trust. And if you are a believer of anything, why have the god/s made the above statement true? What is life striving towards if not divinity?

[Anonymous No.10745695]

Our eternal soul evolves through the struggle of evolution, through naturalism. Only through an implementation of a true religion based on the law of nature can we truly evolve to God hood - as our spiritual and physical mission is.

[Anonymous No.10745734]

>>10743779
Democracy is one of the most evil things that has ever been, and it is entirely natural.

[Anonymous No.10745745]

>>10745695
Logos sounds like something you'd like.

[Anonymous No.10745807]

>Afallacyis the use of invalid or otherwise faultyreasoning, or "wrong moves"in the construction of anargument. A fallacious argument may be deceptive by appearing to be better than it really is.

The distinction of nature vs other isn't meaningful. Humans have altered their nature, but animals do the same. They burrow, build dams etc. Where do you draw the line?
If you do draw the line you face the issue of motivating where and why you've drawn the line. Unless you draw the line arbitrarily you've got a reason for distinguishing the two sides beyond just nature vs non-nature. Since you're defining what nature is right now.
When you have that distinction you can motivate from there instead of 'nature'. Say you don't consider nature to be non-toxin poisons like carbon monoxide to be of nature. Whatever your argument regarding the poisons are your argument isn't served by the nature vs non-nature distinction anymore. Your objection is with us introducing carbon monoxide.
This goes for any nature vs non-nature distinction where you can make a _rational_ argument because nature isn't well defined. Beyond definitions like natural vs supernatural. Any man made thing is operating within nature, physics. If you don't care about rationality you don't need to bother with fallacies at all.

So whenever you're tempted to use a natural fallacy you're either rationally wrong or not specific enough.
If your aim is to deceive people natural fallacies are a great tool. The people who supported fossile fuel waste instead of nuclear power in the 70's and 80's were very fond of it.

[Anonymous No.10745812]

>>10745807
>quote
It's Wikipedia. Pasted poorly for some reason.

[Anonymous No.10745815]

>>10743738
>Outside of an intervening spiritual authority
why are there so many fucking weirdos on lit

[Anonymous No.10745830]

>>10745815
What's weird about that? Pretty normal topic of moral philosophy

[Anonymous No.10746006]

>>10745807
>retard who didn't read OP's two responses about why naturalism is based on instinct and drive of a species and not running around a forest naked

[Anonymous No.10746011]

>>10745815
t. communist who cant understand the concept of morality

[Anonymous No.10746024]

>>10743738
Because what is considered natural changes from time to time. The naturalistic fallacy is also circular reasoning. It is, so it's good and it's good because it is.

[Anonymous No.10746033]

>>10745815
T. communist confirmed?

[Anonymous No.10746062]

>>10746006
He asked about the naturalistic fallacy.
If I'm gonna do him a favor and attempt to answer the question he didn't ask my guess is that he's mixing topics that shouldn't be mixed. Namely fallacies and morality. Morality is not intrinsically linked to rationality in any way. You've set a goal. Your goals may vary person to person. Since OP explicitly excluded the supernatural he's got a meaningless set (universe) to try to motivate something from.

Rationality and the fallacies is all about truth in the mathematical sense. He can't ask this question and mean to strive for truth while knowing what he's asking.
OP is an idiot.

If we wish to motivate universal morality from nature there's nothing to be done with those two. Anything that happens is natural. What you could say is that the environment we evolved to isn't the one we built and there's contention between desires and morality that comes from this new environment. I can agree with that. But that's not what he said. He didn't even remotely come close to that.
You've clearly read something into my post which I didn't say aswell. He never said anything about removing technology. Neither did I. Ignoring the comment about nuclear power. But that's just an example of fallacy in use.

[Anonymous No.10746085]

>>10746062
>>10745587
why have God/s made the world work in favor of virtue, encourage it?
The more virtues societies are the most prosperous; virtue is scientifically necessary for humanity's survival. Even if god had never intervened, we would still developed morality (our survival demands it), the theologians confirm and ponder this themselves: The ancient and virtuous pagans.
God confirms the "appeal to nature" as valid.

[Anonymous No.10746094]

>>10746085
Not the "appeal to nature", as in, that everything is natural. But as in, 'our nature'. Our nature is not any random behavior.

[Anonymous No.10746100]

>>10743779

You don't see the contradiction in your reasoning?
You claim that the division of natural and unnatural is artificial, and "not real", and then conclude that democracy is unnatural.

[Anonymous No.10746112]

>>10746094
>inb4
>human nature ayy lmao ishiggydiggy

[Anonymous No.10746135]

>>10746085
Incoherent. You are placing "virtue" before utility. What we call "virtue" is not, from a non-theistic perspective, "virtuous" a priori, but is deemed so for its properties useful in achieving perceived benefits. What is considered virtuous differs markedly from society to society ("virtue" itself doesn't always have a direct translation, there are other moral terms from ancient Greece that are difficult to translate into English as well, like 'agathos').
At the same time, it's hard to evaluate all societies virtues through such a rigid lens; it seems that a lot of human societies place value on things that are not necessarily conducive to survival, power, quality of life and so on; that may in fact directly contradict these ends - we might be able to say that somehow most traditions and values, somehow and at some point became prominent because of some survival or fitness-inducing quality, even if in a particular context they seem to us, as observers, aberrant and harmful.

[Anonymous No.10746172]

>Why is the "naturalistic fallacy" considered a fallacy?
Because
1) nature is extremely difficult to define
2) what people call natural is usually a material, amoral phenomenon that has nothing to do with ethics, right and wrong

>Outside of an intervening spiritual authority it is the only basis of morality
except for the other bases of morality.

[Anonymous No.10746186]

>>10746085
This is a very poorly written post. It doesn't seem intent on explaining. It's more an artistic expression. Not an effective way to make an argument. Though with the inclusion of god without making it an axiom rather than an assumption it's not an argument.
Yes, we need society to advance effectively. It's very unlikely we could be savages who murder eachother all the time and actually get some scientific advancement and thus power.
On the topic of virtue you should realize that with this argument you need to accept that virtue isn't a single thing. Societies have come about separately from one another and they very often don't share virtues beyond a few basic ones. When people talk about virtue they normally don't talk about how virtuous they are because they didn't steal, lie or kill today. Though just those rules gets us quite far. There's also lots of things that are regarded as virtuous that oppose progress along the path we've taken to get where we are now. Perhaps they make more sense along a different path but with how we've evolved as a society they were clearly not the right virtues. Unless the higher powers you believe in are just powerful beings (consider Norse gods that didn't really have much input on morality with regards to other gods) they would have steered humanity on the right path. Gods wrath didn't really play much role in furthering humanity when you consider Catholicism and their interactions with Galileo for instance. See the Galileo affair.
>>10746100
It's silly of me to answer for him but I'm thinking he takes on the view of his projected listener. That's the only way that makes sense. He should have been more explicit.

[Anonymous No.10746300]

>>10746186
>There's also lots of things that are regarded as virtuous that oppose progress along the path we've taken to get where we are now. Perhaps they make more sense along a different path but with how we've evolved as a society they were clearly not the right virtues.
>Gods wrath didn't really play much role in furthering humanity when you consider Catholicism and their interactions with Galileo for instance. See the Galileo affair.
So this is the power of comprehending all previous societies and historical forces only through their direct relationship to the present day...

[Anonymous No.10746308]

>>10746300
Well the counter augment would be that we've taken the optimal path due to divine intervention.
Which is very hard to see.
>comprehending all previous societies
Never said we did. But you can probably see how letting Galileo not be in house arrest for the rest of his life might have done something in the service of scientific progress.

[Anonymous No.10746340]

>>10746024

Furthermore, any useful understanding of nature must include the simple observation that nature, for lack of a more precise term (exactly because a certain emotional content is useful at this point), nature, well, nature is god-damn evil. Organisms constantly ripping each other open for food, etc.

>herp derp that's not 'evil' what a childish view terp-tee-tum

Okay, go get gored by a lion then. Such might not be "evil" in whatever then meaningless sense of the word you might have in mind, but one thing's for sure, and it's the only thing that actually matters here: for the organism getting gored, nature isn't /good/. And this is exactly the fallacy.

[Anonymous No.10746352]

>>10746308
The counter-argument is to question your basic assumptions.
It seems very odd to write off any 'productive' influence of the idea of "God's wrath" on human society based on the minute example of the Galileo affair... which doesn't really seem related to the idea at all, considering it was a conflict between what was considered correct and incorrect theory. A legal affair in a society where promoting "incorrect" ideas was considered criminal. It's also probable that Galileo had more of an impact on science and the Enlightenment due to the controversy, partly contributing the values of scientific freedom that you possess currently. It's entirely possible that in another timeline the lack of any watershed or controversial moments like this would not have lead to the conditions and sentiments responsible for modern sensibilities on the subject. Though it's impossible to really verify historical counterfactuals and judge the ultimate significance of singular events, you should be wary not to engage in historical determinism.

I'm no Catholic or real Christian apologist, but it's completely ludicrous and inane to reduce all of Catholicism's influence on European thought and culture down to such an obvious and exceptional canard.
Also your opinions on what "furthers" humanity and what is considered "progress" are obviously far from objective, and determined by your own cultural and historical context.

[Anonymous No.10746357]

>>10743738
look up the is/ought distinction

[Anonymous No.10746373]

>>10746352
>which doesn't really seem related to the idea at all
If gods wrath was a factor in determining humanity's outcome. Then if we've taken the optimal path gods wrath would have been in effect for this instance. That is assuming Galileo wasn't gonna wreck scientific progress somehow.
>It's also probable that Galileo had more of an impact on science and the Enlightenment due to the controversy
Well it's unlikely that this 'controversy' as you put it (a lone scientist being put to trial against overwhelming odds with almost nobody defending him and no clear attitude change within Catholicism) really did much.
>It's entirely possible that in another timeline the lack of any watershed or controversial moments like this would not have lead to the conditions and sentiments responsible for modern sensibilities on the subject.
This is a good point. But I don't deem it necessary to kill and stop so many people. Also if you consider the optimal solution to humanity progress encouragement and conservative argument for science seems like a much more reasonable approach.

I must be honest. I'm not taking the argument that God has intervened/planned this circumstance to optimally propel humanity forward by its own means seriously.
>but it's completely ludicrous and inane to reduce all of Catholicism's influence on European thought and culture down to such an obvious and exceptional canard.
Did I do that? Oh I must have done that on the backside of the HTML somewhere. I never saw myself write this.
What I did do is take a famous example of negative influence and say 'this is probably not optimal'.
>lso your opinions on what "furthers" humanity and what is considered "progress" are obviously far from objective
Absolutely. That's something I brought up. Humanity doesn't share a single set of virtues. But anons post was making it quite clear that he viewed societal advancement as it is now as (largely) positive.
We could get here quicker.

[Anonymous No.10746400]

>>10746373
Sorry I can't engage with you much more since I've stayed up quite past my bedtime, but I'll just note that I think we've misunderstood each other on a basic point: I thought you were talking about the "idea" of God's wrath in the human imagination, and it seems as though you've interpreted me to be advocating a literal, existing God's influence on history rather than the concepts and beliefs about such a being in the popular and intellectual imagination.

[Anonymous No.10746410]

Because nature is a myth, you fucking moron.

[Anonymous No.10746418]

>>10743779
Democracy is disgusting. Fuck off to /pol/
>>10743848
Natural law doesn't exist. Try again, plebbitor.
>>10745565
>our nature
Spooked. Fuck off, plebbitor

[Anonymous No.10746420]

>>10746085
NECK YOURSELF PLEASE YOU STOICSHIT SUBHUMAN

[Anonymous No.10746457]

>>10746400
I see.
Yeah that makes a lot more sense.
Since the initial poster assumed gods existence and seemed to hold some kind of direct attribution to god for how events turned out. Well you see where I'm going.

[Anonymous No.10746574]

>>10746418
>Spooked
Are you parroting Stirner now?

[Anonymous No.10746583]

>>10746418
Recommend me some books on democracy and natural law

[Anonymous No.10746586]

>>10746418
>Democracy is disgusting. Fuck off to /pol/
/pol/ hates democracy you newfag

[Anonymous No.10746597]

>>10746418
>T. extremely disproven blank slatist, probably commie

[Anonymous No.10746611]

>>10746583
Neither thing exists. Why would you read a book on something which doesn't exist?
>>10746586
Nope. Populism depends on democracy you newfag.
>>10746597
Project harder, statist subhuman.
>disproven
MUH PSY ANTS

[Anonymous No.10746618]

>>10746611
Recommend me some book that makes me understand your point of view then

[Anonymous No.10746638]

>>10746611
Communism depends on bourgeois capitalism to emerge but that doesn't mean it likes it. Populism emerges from liberal democracy and then destroys it.
Caesar.........

[Anonymous No.10746658]

>>10746186
I mainly mean trust, trust is the greatest virtue, without it civilization would die, and to have it, you need the other virtues.
And my point about the gods; they have made the rules of existence and written our—if they exist—so both sides, atheist and believer, must accept morals/virtue/ethics. Even the egoist, if he desires to continue living he must abide by the emotions that evolution and/or God has written inside us. Being virtuous leads to you having the best possible life; in everyone's standards, unless you are insane/psychopathic, were any form of cohesive logic is out the window. Obviously accidents happen and you might die any day.

Human nature is scientific fact, even if the external world is an illusion, that illusion clearly abide by unchanging rules.

[Anonymous No.10746661]

>>10746611
>Nope. Populism depends on democracy you newfag.
Ah, so sticking with the lesser of two or more evils must imply a love for democracy, right?

/pol/ only favors populist candidates because they suit /pol/'s desires more than other candidates. That doesn't mean that they'd put populism above monarchism or national socialism.

[Anonymous No.10746716]

>>10746658
*written our nature—
>statist
Did I say our current civilization was the best possible?
>I'm fucking posting Cicero, it's obviously his system that's the best.
I said in an earlier post that life (and existence) began at the lowest point, and evolution strives towards the highest—divinity.
Civilization is a child of evolution (and the gods who have written the rules of reality, if they exist).
Any law, no matter how basic, is still civilization.

Tabula Rasa is the most wrong and most disproven idea of the enlightenment.

[Anonymous No.10746748]

>>10746716
this >>10746611 should be above
>statist . . .

[Anonymous No.10746756]

>>10746661
>That doesn't mean that they'd put populism above monarchism or national socialism.
What are you talking about? Half of /pol/ is retarded boomers and the other half is teenagers

[Anonymous No.10746796]

>>10746756
He says that populism is relative. They agree with European populism not cause they're fucking populists.

[Anonymous No.10746826]

>>10746756
a lot of us on pol are crypto-fascists actually. I can pass perfectly for various forms of Marxist, a neo-liberal, an anarchist, and a left-libertarian among university students and the like.

You guys are immensely easy to predict and manipulate

[Anonymous No.10746852]

>>10746826
except its blatantly obvious that you guys are fascists.

[Anonymous No.10746865]

>>10746826
Behold: the mad genius, He-who-hides-in-the-dark, the shadowy puppeteer.

[Anonymous No.10746868]

>>10743738
>The state of nature, says Pufendorf, is not the condition that Nature proposes to itself principally as the most perfect and most suitable to the human race',34 and elsewhere, The state of nature pure and simple ... is not the state to which nature has destined man.35
>Which is to say that the state of nature is against nature, or in other words, that nature does not want men to live in the state of nature. The wording of this proposition is a little strange, but it is not surprising; it suffices to be understood. So what is this pure and simple state of nature that is against nature?
>It is that where we conceive each person finding himself as he was born without all the inventions and all the purely human or divinely inspired establishments... by which we understand not only the diverse sorts of arts with all the general commodities of life, but also civil societies whose formation is the principle source of the good order we see among men.36 In a word, man in the state of nature is a man fallen from the clouds31
>Pufendorf is right; ordinary usage opposing the state of nature to the state of civilization, it is clear that man in the first state is only man, less all that he has from the institutions that surround him in the second state; which is say a man who is not a man.
>In effect, when one says that nature destines or does not destine a particular being to a particular state, the word nature necessarily awakens the idea of an intelligence and a will. When Pufendorf says that the state of nature is against nature, he is not contradicting himself: he only gives two different meanings to same word. In the first case, the word signifies a state and in the second a cause. In the first case, it is taken for the exclusion of art and civilization; and in the second, for the action of some agent.
>Moreover, as in an equation one of the members can always be taken for the other, since they are equal, likewise the word nature every time that it expresses an action can only express that of the divine action, manifested immediately or by the intermediary of some secondary agent; it follows that without changing values, one can always substitute the value God for that of nature.
>The proposition is thus reduced to this: the state of nature is not a state to which God has destined man. This is a very clear and most reasonable proposition.

[Anonymous No.10746871]

>>10746796
>They agree with European populism not cause they're fucking populists.
lol good one

[Anonymous No.10746878]

>>10746852
i mean in real life my man. Even just having read Capital puts you a leg above almost all of them.

Of course in the current climate being le white male means you have to be sickeningly deferential but there are ways to do this and still appear like you know more than them, because of course you do, because they don't actually read.

[Anonymous No.10746884]

>>10746865
Im not at all unusual, anyone who wants to exist in that social world but can also think for themselves has to develop that ability. I've met a bunch of guys who do the same thing

[Anonymous No.10746890]

>>10743738
Nature is in flux, nature is in flux, nature is in flux


NATURE FALLACY NERDS BTFO’d FOREVER

[Anonymous No.10746897]

>>10743738
its only considered a fallacy by fags that hate that they get countless STDs

[Anonymous No.10746900]

>>10746884
Yes /pol/, I'm sure the vast majority of people are sociopaths just like you.

[Anonymous No.10747165]

>>10746716
>>10746658
>>10746085
>>10745587
>>10745565
The egoist should be he who's the most virtuous, people and society will treat him better, and he has all to gain.

[Anonymous No.10747369]

>>10743738
>Outside of an intervening spiritual authority it is the only basis of morality
This is only true if you adhere to a virtuist system of ethics. Utilitarians believe (correctly) that morals are systems invented by humans, for humans, and should therefore be structured according to ends, rather than derived axiomatically from a few "inherently good" starting principles.

[Anonymous No.10747483]

>>10746638
It doesn't mean it likes it, it means it is like it. Marxist communism is not utopian, it is the natural progression from capitalism, it contains aspects of capitalism.

[Anonymous No.10747491]

>>10743767
But this is obviously wrong. "is" demonstrates "ought" when the default "isn't". All we now about the natural world demonstrates not only that it is too ordered, but that it shouldn't exist at all, unless there is an outside force that set it into motion in this very way. This is again demonstrated by life. Nothing about the nature of chemical interactions suggests that life either could or should exist. While it does not negate entropy, it does negate a principle of entropy--not only must all energy dissipate, but it must dissipate in the most efficient way possible. Life is less efficient than not-life. Existence is less efficient than non-existence. If this cannot be possible without intent, then there must be intent. Therefore it is incumbent upon those who say there is no intent to prove how it is possible.

[Anonymous No.10747493]

>>10746135
I missed your reply. This post is pretty big, I'm sleepy, it probably have errors in all forms.
>"virtuous" a priori, but is deemed so for its properties useful in achieving perceived benefits
not necessarily
Women desire successful men, men desire women, women find many of the virtues appealing (but being women they confuse similar vices with virtue, like being an asshole with confidence) This is not truly "perceived" or chosen. All women want strong, confident, hard-working, honest, trustworthy, courageous, etc., women, and men, desire it in each-other, and mankind flourishes from them.
>"virtue" itself doesn't always have a direct translation, there are other moral terms from ancient Greece that are difficult to translate into English as well, like 'agathos
True, but I used "trust" (in another post) as a judge of virtue, you only trust those who are "virtuous" (obviously not all, or most).
>What is considered virtuous differs markedly from society to society
See above, and—find the most "virtuous" society, and you will also discover the most prosperous one. Just look at china, becoming a more virtuous nation has made it lift itself from the terror and evil of communist tyranny, obviously it's not a virtuous nation yet, but more so than before. Yet, we also find like above with women, values are actually pretty similar culture to culture, what changes are degree. I do not argue there isn't subjective values, there are clearly- Imagine dialects, we "all" share the base values, but they are colored by race, culture, and time/history. Obviously not the only variable, IQ has nothing to do with virtues, but higher intelligence and wisdom is clearly necessary for civilized behavior.
>At the same time, it's hard to evaluate all societies virtues through such a rigid lens; it seems that a lot of human societies place value on things that are not necessarily conducive to survival, power, quality of life and so on; that may in fact directly contradict these ends - we might be able to say that somehow most traditions and values, somehow and at some point became prominent because of some survival or fitness-inducing quality, even if in a particular context they seem to us, as observers, aberrant and harmful.
>it seems that a lot of human societies place value on things that are not necessarily conducive to survival, power, quality of life and so on
And they prosper less, hopefully you're not saying all cultures are equal?
As I've also said in thread, we aren't perfect, evolution strives for us to prosper. (Rather we strive and evolution happen, and we survive or die, and seemingly the "virtuous" survive "better".)
Evolution still "strives" to make us more virtuous—hopefully, still as it has.
We love to feel loved, we love those we see as virtuous; we can and have been deceived by liars and ourselves—we aren't divine, yet.

[Anonymous No.10747501]

>>10746658
Wrong again, STEMsperg. Try again, or maybe not, since you are so obvious a subhuman autodidact who has no clue what he is speaking about.
Frankly, just off yaself yacunt.
>>10746661
No, because they are literally just 'classical liberals'.
>>10746748
Pragmatism is invalid. Sorry, sweetie. Go back to plebbit with your le science memery.

[Anonymous No.10747503]

>>10747483
>marxist communism is not utopian
>literally calls for revolution to establish an ideal society

[Anonymous No.10747506]

>>10747493
Virtue doesn't exist. Please go back to plebbit, peterson suckoff, before I have the urge to bash in your nose.

[Anonymous No.10747528]

>>10747503
That's not utopian. Thanks for proving that you are an uneducated maggot who should be ignored, just like the stoicshitter subhuman.

[Anonymous No.10747529]

>>10747501
>>10747506
>Bothing is true, erryting is purmited

[Anonymous No.10747543]

>>10747529
Suicide, please.

[Anonymous No.10747546]

>>10747501
>>10747506
>oh man, why can't I stop browsing reddit, it's like some strange force within me controls me, stumspurgs call it habit, ayy lmao >>human nature is sumtin to ubercum

[Anonymous No.10747552]

>>10746611
idiot. Populism only requires democracy if you believe a government can only follow the national will via polling. Fascism soundly rejects this premise and believes that a strong leader works for the people and thereby receives their will to act with authority. This is literally the Swastika. If everyone acts for the benefit of the state, then the will of the nation is one and progress is guaranteed. You may say that's ridiculous, but that's what they believe.

[Anonymous No.10747560]

>>10747501
>Pragmatism is invalid

[Anonymous No.10747564]

>>10747528
>ideal society
>not utopian
Thomas More's Utopia, where the word comes from, literally describes a proto-Marxist state.

[Anonymous No.10747569]

>>10747564
I'm not him, but
an ideal society is not a proto-Marxist state
but they are both utopian in their way

[Anonymous No.10747698]

>>10747569
you fucking dunce. I want you to re-type what I wrote letter by fucking letter and then tell me how what you just posted is at all meaningful. The book Utopia, as in the source of both the term and idea that has now slipped into common parlance as a utopia, literally, as in by the direct meaning of the words, describes a society that not only matches in many regards, but in fact led up to, the society envisioned by Marx and Engels for which they encouraged radical political action. There is not a more textbook Utopian movement than that of Marxist communism.

[Anonymous No.10747793]

>>10747698
Yes that is true, but, the "ideal society" is not proto-Marxist, the proto-Marxist state is not an ideal society.

It should Eutopian tbhfamalam

[Anonymous No.10747890]

>>10747564
No?

[Anonymous No.10748660]

>>10743738
To just disregard an argument as an already established fallacy is a fallacy. It's an easy way to do a "gotcha" and claim victory because you can't actually debunk their argument.

[Anonymous No.10748668]

>>10743738

There is no basis for morality outside of an intervening spiritual authority

[Anonymous No.10748671]

>>10746418
>>10746611
>nutin exists only MUH ego matters

[Anonymous No.10749133]

>>10748671
I'm an ecologist you retard. I exist in everything and everything exists in me.

[Anonymous No.10749138]

>>10749133
Doesn't seem to make much sense calling yourself a retard does it?

[Anonymous No.10749143]

>there is no human nature
>also free will doesnt exist

???

[Anonymous No.10749168]

>>10743738
If you say, "It is natural, therefore it is good," you have to show precisely why this is the case in a valid syllogism. Many things that take place in "nature" (in the sense of an uncivilized state) are not what humans call "morally good," e.g. cannibalism. There are myriad ways to escape this conundrum. Aristotle says that animals aren't conscious, so morality can't be imputed to them, which is why it's fine or at least not immoral that they cannibalize each other, whereas humans are conscious, and have choice, so they can act morally, and this is why human cannibalism can be described morally. But even then, someone could make the argument that humans "naturally" eat the corpses of other humans when there is no other source of meat available.

So it's not necessarily a formal fallacy, but it (the name "naturalistic fallacy") can be used to describe an argument of this sort that contains a formal fallacy. Sometimes, though, ethical non-naturalists simply affix the term to any argument they don't like

[Anonymous No.10750507]

>>10749143
this

[Anonymous No.10751933]

>>10746611
>huu huu huuuu muh tabula rasa huu huu!

Blank slate theory has been categorically disproven. Human nature objectively exists, we have empirical evidence of this.

Anyone who denies this is creationist-tier retarded.

[Anonymous No.10752006]

>>10751933
Empirical evidence doesn't exist. Try again.
I'm not a Lockean, you subhuman retard. Get a rope.

[Anonymous No.10752102]

>>10752006
>Empirical evidence doesn't exist

Holy fuck how retarded are you?

[Anonymous No.10752117]

>>10752102
Go back to plebbit, please. Some of us are educated here.

[Anonymous No.10752126]

>>10743738

>2018
>Not being an expressivist

You only see much of -your- established morality in nature because you deliberately want to.

[Anonymous No.10752131]

>>10752102
sensory data doesnt exist only phenomenal experience is by definition real

[Anonymous No.10752148]

>>10743738

Morality is a field that is inherently geaneological. All sorts of people over the ages have appealed to nature in one form or another and came to various views; would it not be arrogance to advocate your own as absolute?

[Anonymous No.10752180]

>>10752148
>im gonna feign humility and erudition while parroting N

[Anonymous No.10752212]

>>10746658
>And my point about the gods; they have made the rules of existence and written our—if they exist—so both sides, atheist and believer, must accept morals/virtue/ethics.

Define moral. Define virtuous. Define ethical. If you can't do so in a way people won't disagree then I'm not sure how you can defend this?

>Even the egoist, if he desires to continue living he must abide by the emotions that evolution and/or God has written inside us. Being virtuous leads to you having the best possible life; in everyone's standards, unless you are insane/psychopathic, were any form of cohesive logic is out the window.

Morality is not wanting to be stabbed to death by a mob of angry plebs?

>Human nature is scientific fact, even if the external world is an illusion, that illusion clearly abide by unchanging rules.

What is human nature then? Where are the peer reviewed studies that shows it's exact nature?

[Anonymous No.10752220]

>>10752180

>Greentexting in response

What part of that do you disagree with? Yes, it's obviously influenced by Nietzsche. Well done for being ablw to read the word geaneological.

[Anonymous No.10752241]

>>10752220
there’s no arrogance because people don’t have virtues or selves and there’s no such thing as morality or morals or natures, these are all language fictions. and making noise, this is what you were doing, about different patterns of behavior can be advantageous or disadvantageous. For instance some people think murdering people is disadvantageous and their strategy will preclude this, others will find it agreeable and there’s won’t. That’s all that’s happening, there is no system of morals and no person in human history has ever had “christian morals” some of their behavior sometimes resembles the morality ostensibly espoused by church fathers or the bible.

[Anonymous No.10752297]

>>10752241

>there’s no arrogance because people don’t have virtues or selves and there’s no such thing as morality or morals or natures, these are all language fictions.

They also don't proclaim themselves to be arbiters of moral truth based on infallible deductions from objective features of 'natural' though? Which was my point, perhaps somewhat polemicaly in hindsight.

[Anonymous No.10752318]

>>10752212

>Define moral. Define virtuous. Define ethical. If you can't do so in a way people won't disagree then I'm not sure how you can defend this?

Assume everyone else is wrong?

[Anonymous No.10752392]

>>10743738
>Why is the "naturalistic fallacy" considered a fallacy?
You can't derive an ought from an is.

>Outside of an intervening spiritual authority it is the only basis of morality . . .
This is false. Moral philosophers have used an abstract "good," reason, the state, the people, greatest happiness for the greatest number, etc. as the grounding of their ethical systems. Saying "only god and nature" ignores the entire history of philosophy.

>much of our already established morality, namely the core aspects of it stem from [nature].
This is just false. One counterexample goes as follows:
P1) It is natural to die of disease.
P2) It is wrong for my doctor to let me die of disease, when he can prevent it.
C1) Therefore, my doctor "allowing nature to take its course" would be wrong.
C1 contradicts the assumption that what is natural is ethical. Therefore, there must exist some moral facts that don't rest solely on what is natural.