You have ten seconds to explain why any kind of act, rape, murder, anything, can be quantified as good or bad, and how evil and good can truly exist in nature rather than being results of social conditioning. tl;dr, spooks.

File: 6 KB, 200x237, Max_stirner (1).jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Anonymous Tue May 21 15:12:15 2013 No.3779991 [Reply] [Original]

You have ten seconds to explain why any kind of act, rape, murder, anything, can be quantified as good or bad, and how evil and good can truly exist in nature rather than being results of social conditioning.

tl;dr, spooks.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 15:18:14 2013 No.3780005 >>3779991 Just don't forget that deliberate immoralism is also a spook. And that all concepts are spooks. And that the self is a spook.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 15:19:14 2013 No.3780006 >>3779991 What hinders you to murder the next person you encounter on the streets?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 15:19:14 2013 No.3780007 a spook is a spook lol hey guys let's talk about stirner

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 15:20:14 2013 No.3780009 >>3780006 cuz you gonna get jailed

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 15:21:14 2013 No.3780010 >>3780006 the ramifications which are also spooks

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 15:21:14 2013 No.3780013 >>3780006 The social disapproval and the punishment of course.

Anonymous Tue May 21 15:24:14 2013 No.3780015

these acts are good and bad in the same sense that an investment may be good and bad, they may cost the individual, or society more than the benefit. Remeber human evil is to do a large, or long-lasting harm to another individual or individuals in order to gain a small or transient benefit for onesself.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 15:25:14 2013 No.3780016 "how evil and good can truly exist in nature" This hasn't been anyone's argument for 400 years, motherfucker.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 15:26:14 2013 No.3780022 >>3780016 Well now the floor is yours, anon. Show us what you got.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 15:28:14 2013 No.3780024 >social acts are dependent on social conditioning wowitsfuckingnothing

Anonymous Tue May 21 15:35:14 2013 No.3780036

>>3780022
I'm not here to make any case, it's just a stupidly loaded question.

If things are naturally impermissible, they aren't done. Period. Pretty basic shit.

He's only just demonstrated that he knows who Stirner is, I'm not making it my job to educate him if he wants to get into these arguments.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 15:37:14 2013 No.3780044 >>3780036 >anything that isn't done is automatically naturally impermissible What do you consider to be naturally impermissible then?

Anonymous Tue May 21 15:42:14 2013 No.3780053

>quantified

Retard. Anyway, why would I squeeze those things into the archaic "good/evil" paradigm when society as a whole have been working with the "it's in our best interest in terms of our well-being and survival that we prohibit certain activities" paradigm for a while now?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 15:45:15 2013 No.3780057 File: 163 KB, 750x819, Nietzsche187a.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3779991 Because I judge it so. The strong enforce their will. The weak search for petty meaning and moralization.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 15:45:15 2013 No.3780059 >>3780053 >prohibition imposed by the human race automatically validates certain things as being good or evil Yeah, nah you're a cunt

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 15:47:14 2013 No.3780061 >>3780059 Read it again, idiot.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 15:49:14 2013 No.3780067 >>3780061 >the good/evil paradigm is antiquated even though everyone is absolutely always moralizing about evil/good acts Yeah, nah you're a bigger cunt

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 15:51:14 2013 No.3780071 >>3780053 >implying the interests of the collective and the individual aren't at best partially at odds with each other

Anonymous Tue May 21 15:52:14 2013 No.3780073

>>3780044
I didn't say that anything that doesn't happen is naturally impermissible, only that things that can't happen are naturally impermissible.

If you keep arguing the idea that morality and every normative statement is derived from nature, then morality's reduced to what things are *naturally* permissible and impermissible, this gets you nowhere, because things that are naturally impermissible don't happen, by virtue of being naturally impermissible.

My point is that no one has actually tried to make it so that things are naturally good or bad for the majority of recent history of philosophy, and it's stupid to argue on those terms.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 15:56:15 2013 No.3780085 >>3780073 If what you're saying held any water then there would be no such thing as virtue, moral values would hold no weight at all and everything is a spook.

Anonymous Tue May 21 15:56:15 2013 No.3780086

>>3779991
there is no good or bad, these are simply the machinations of an incredibly complex yet fundamentally mechanical device known as the mind. the quantification of actions in a fundamentally predictable and deterministic universe is pointless, these actions were inevitable, and our condemnation of them equally predictable. in this sense good and bad are the inevitable results of social conditioning

Anonymous Tue May 21 15:58:15 2013 No.3780089

>>3780086
Woah, I think you're a bit loose on your stoicism there buddy. Only the things that are outside of the control of the self are neutral in a deterministic universe, the desires and aversions of men are freely ascribed, and by nature ascribed, the labels of bad and good.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 16:03:14 2013 No.3780101 >>3780089 the desires and aversions of men are freely ascribed by fate according to the laws of the universe. and so good and bad as concepts are created as an inevitable result. they are no more or less a creation of the universe than any rock or tree

Anonymous Tue May 21 16:06:14 2013 No.3780111

>>3780085
It means that the only 'natural virtues' are actually natural forces and laws, and that it's been a long time since we tried to make the case that things were naturally and inherently good or bad.

It doesn't mean ethics is deprecated. The guy I'm ripping from built a pretty extensive moral philosophy.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 16:08:15 2013 No.3780117 >>3780071 They aren't at odds with each other in the least bit. If you think so, provide some examples.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 16:09:15 2013 No.3780122 >>3780117 Person wants to do forbidden thing X but can't because collective says no.

Anonymous Tue May 21 16:16:14 2013 No.3780137

Aren't the notions of good and evil quantifications of natural instinct anyways? It's instinctual to steal food for your own survival and you kill someone, that's just all part of the process. Therefore a person can only be viewed by their surpression of instinctual desires. The social construct of "evil" is really just how subservient one is to their instincts. So essentially, being "evil" is just being selfish and/or self-centered.
In the wild, there are no social ramifications or punishments, therefore, rape or murder is acceptable regardless of it actually serves a purpose. If a man commits these acts for no inherent reason, they must suffer the consequences and are only labeled evil by the consequences themselves.

These are just thoughts of mine. You can take them for whatever they're worth.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 16:17:14 2013 No.3780140 life is an internal battle of primitive selfish impulses and empathy.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 16:17:14 2013 No.3780141 Because it is an offense to God.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 16:23:14 2013 No.3780159 Right and wrong are complexly manifested in states of affairs as they interface with our moral sense.

Anonymous Tue May 21 16:31:14 2013 No.3780178

>>3780122
Right, but forbidden thing X is against his interests even though he may think it's for his interests. Meaning, if everybody were allowed to do forbidden thing X, the structure of of the collective's well-being and survival (and HIS survival and well-being) would collapse.

The power of this paradigm is in the occasional sacrifices you make you make in return for protection of your well-being and survival. It's the social contract, niggas.

Anonymous Tue May 21 16:32:15 2013 No.3780182

I think it boils down to imposing your will upon another person without consent. Murder is basically the ultimate case of this, since you are imposing your will over the entire remainder of that person's life, so it can be considered the greatest of immoral acts for that reason.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 16:33:15 2013 No.3780185 >>3780013 Hobbes. >>3780015 Mill. >>3780073 A really tortured Spinoza. >>3780140 Freud. >>3780159 Hume.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 16:33:15 2013 No.3780186 >>3780182 How is imposing your will on someone else immoral?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 16:35:14 2013 No.3780193 universals

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 16:38:14 2013 No.3780197 >>3780186 Because most people don't want to be murdered

Anonymous Tue May 21 16:39:14 2013 No.3780201

>>3780186
Well, considering that morality is an entirely subjective thing, it's pretty much a lost cause to judge any act by the subjective moral standards of the "victim", and it is impossible to really prove whether one person's moral standards are any better than any other, besides on the criteria of "X is closer to my own subjective views, thus it is more correct" So basically it just seemed to make more sense that the only real immoral act is to impose your will onto another person without either consent or the intent to enforce a legitimately entered obligation (entered through either consent or a need to repair damages caused intentionally or through unreasonable negligence)

And yeah, I'm aware that this basically becomes a subjective moral set as well, and thus is also as impossible to evaluate as the other sets it was meant to avoid, but at least it's fairly simple, so it can be a sort of path of least resistance thing.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 16:42:15 2013 No.3780205 quantified...? getting weirld numerologist on me OP

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 16:42:15 2013 No.3780206 >>3780201 >Well, considering that morality is an entirely subjective thing You're an ignorant idiot. Read upon some contemporary ethics.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 16:43:15 2013 No.3780210 >>3780206 >contemporary ethics I bet you enjoy continental philosophy too you ludicrous faggot.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 16:43:15 2013 No.3780212 >>3780206 If it weren't at least somewhat subjective then would we need threads like this? You could just cite the proper line in the universal moral code and be done with it.

>>	Anonymouse Tue May 21 16:45:14 2013 No.3780214 >>3780185 Where you go to school?

Anonymous Tue May 21 16:46:14 2013 No.3780216

>>3780201
Oh, as far as the leap from "impossible to objectively compare one person's morals to another" and "imposing one's will is immoral" it's just that if you never impose your will onto another person without consent, there need never be a reason for conflict to occur where a difference in other subjective moral beliefs becomes relevant. Not sure if that was obvious or not.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 16:47:14 2013 No.3780218 >>3780185 Half of these are incorrect. Get back to reading

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 16:47:14 2013 No.3780219 >>3780111 It does mean they're relative though. Which basically means no-one has to give a shit.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 16:48:14 2013 No.3780221 >>3780178 >Groupthink Yeah, no.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 16:49:14 2013 No.3780224 >>3780218 Which?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 16:52:14 2013 No.3780231 >>3780216 >Conflict And this is bad because? So long as you're successful it's not really an issue...

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 16:52:15 2013 No.3780233 Property rights

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 16:53:15 2013 No.3780236 >>3780233 >Rights Rights are the lies we tell ourselves to keep society working.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 16:55:15 2013 No.3780239 Because morality stems not from arbitrary human tendencies but from an absolute God.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 16:57:14 2013 No.3780246 >>3780239 >God >dictating morality to us pls

>>	Anonymouse Tue May 21 16:58:14 2013 No.3780251 >>3780239 My cock is about to blow your doors of perception, plebian Ironically, while it will be a gift to the world at large, it'll also be considered a crime in Alabama.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 16:59:14 2013 No.3780253 >>3780239 But Euthyphro?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 17:01:15 2013 No.3780259 Morals are a system created by the human conscious to ensure something or other because of something or other, i'm pretty sure. Either way i'm sure I'd feel pretty bad killing someone unless I really didn't like them. Then i'd feel a bit bad.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 17:03:15 2013 No.3780262 >>3780259 Zizek/10

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 17:05:14 2013 No.3780270 File: 9 KB, 270x186, images.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3780262 :D

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 17:07:14 2013 No.3780274 >"exist in nature rather than being results of social conditioning." Because social conditioning comes from nature, meaning that morality is just a part of evolution.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 18:01:15 2013 No.3780370 Because I say so.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 18:09:14 2013 No.3780388 File: 99 KB, 480x640, 1351712294354.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >2013 >never read Kant or Gewirth You don't belong here, plen.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 18:10:14 2013 No.3780389 >>3780388 I haven't either. Recommend me a Kant text buddy boy.

>>	Franz Kafka Tue May 21 18:12:14 2013 No.3780395 it doesnt matter if you think rape is good or bad; have fun trying to justify it in a court of law.

Anonymous Tue May 21 18:16:14 2013 No.3780411

>>3780389

Read the Critique of Pure Reason, follow it up with the Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals, and conclude with the Metaphysics of Morals. Also read Gewirth's Reason and Morality. Don't come back until you've read all those, in that order.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 18:17:14 2013 No.3780412 >>3780388 Kant would go over the Stirner guy's head. Stirner also appeals to dilettantes because they only need to read one book.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 18:20:14 2013 No.3780428 >>3780412 You really need to read Alan Gewirth if you're into ethical rationalism and deontology and all that jazz. He provides a nifty analytic proof of agent-based morality.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 18:23:14 2013 No.3780434 >>3780411 Thanks for these. It's hard to get started.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 18:26:14 2013 No.3780444 >>3779991 >evil and good can truly exist in nature even most moral realists would call this a naturalistic fallacy

>>	satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Tue May 21 18:27:14 2013 No.3780449 >>3780411 are you seriously advising him to go read kant in the year 2013? what are you some kind of fucking idiot pleb?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 18:29:14 2013 No.3780451 >>3780449 b-but I already downloaded the eBooks..

>>	Franz Kafka Tue May 21 18:29:14 2013 No.3780452 >>3780449 >>>/b/

>>	mgg !DKNyt4Jk3o Tue May 21 18:31:14 2013 No.3780458 >>3780274 Morality is more likely a bi-product of evolution.

Anonymous Tue May 21 18:32:14 2013 No.3780459

>>3780006
All of the consequences of which I do not want. I mostly wouldn't do it because I don't know the person, and so killing them might keep me from having them as a friend later on in life. Also the fact that human murder is counterproductive considering how lucky we are to even be alive. Why ruin the best thing we have?

>>	Franz Kafka Tue May 21 18:32:14 2013 No.3780461 >>3780274 >animals >having morals morality is conditioned.

Anonymous Tue May 21 18:33:14 2013 No.3780463

>>3780449

Stan, you don't know what you're talking about.
Stan, do you understand me?
You don't know ANYTHING about morality.
Stan, are you listening to me?
Do you fully understand what I'm saying?
You're a TOTAL IGNORAMUS when it comes to morality.
Did I make that clear?
Stop talking stan.
Stop.
Now.

satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Tue May 21 18:34:14 2013 No.3780470 [DELETED]

>>3780451

promptly delete them. the entirety of kant's philosophy is based around his head viciously entering upon an infinite excursion up his own asshole; an ostensible show of his circularity.
you have to be special kind of retard to buy into the categorical imperative, especially since defeating a maxim rests on presupposed background values and is thus NOT a function of its "hrhrhr law like nature", as that retard believed.
basically i can make a universal law out of any maxim i want, if i remove my background presupposed values, which makes the categorical imperative a vehicle for circularity, producing nothing but useless tautologies.

not to mention its retardedly demanding nature.
maxim : i always hold the door for people before entereing
result: no one goes through any doors, ever, so the maxim is morally wrong herp derp

>>	Franz Kafka Tue May 21 18:35:14 2013 No.3780475 >>3780470 >>>/b/

>>	satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Tue May 21 18:35:14 2013 No.3780477 >>3780463 you are a fucking idiot pleb who deserves to euthanized

>>	satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Tue May 21 18:37:15 2013 No.3780479 >>3780475 >present irrefutable arguments >faggot replies with /b/ le kill yourself?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 18:38:15 2013 No.3780482 >>3780470 Maybe you will be right, but it can't hurt to read it and be able to defeat it in my own words.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 18:40:14 2013 No.3780488 File: 1.75 MB, 331x240, [Screams Internally].gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Because harming someone involves infringing on their freedom as a human being. >>3780006 Retaliation, fear of the law.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 18:40:14 2013 No.3780490 >>3780479 Go away you edgy tripfag.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 18:42:15 2013 No.3780494 >>3780461 Oh yeah buddy? PGC applies to everything. Prove me wrong.

>>	Franz Kafka Tue May 21 18:43:15 2013 No.3780498 >>3780479 >>>/b/

Anonymous Tue May 21 18:44:15 2013 No.3780501

>>3780477

Now stan, I want you to listen.
Okay?
I need you to listen.
You don't understand what you're talking about.
You don't understand Kant.
And you don't understand morality as a whole.
You need to stop speaking about that which you do not know.
Okay?
Stop.
Now.
Don't talk again.

satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Tue May 21 18:46:15 2013 No.3780507 [DELETED]

>>3780490
haha, shut the fuck up you little meat-headed faggot. i swear, each month some twelve year old with the charisma of dried fruit comes along with a new name and throws a hissy fit. franz kafka, are you ezra? also, lel at you trying to impress girls with books.>>3780390 you wanna know how i know you've never had a girlfriend?

Anonymous Tue May 21 18:46:15 2013 No.3780511

>>3780458

This.

Like mathematical ability, our love of music etc. morality is a biproduct of evolution with no purpose and is subject to socialization. Just look at the vast differences across laws in different contemporary societies, as well as societies throughout history and you'll find that morality is arbitrary and subject to change; it is not fixed in nature and consequently there is no absolute 'good' or absolute 'evil'.

>>	Franz Kafka Tue May 21 18:47:15 2013 No.3780512 >>3780507 how?

>>	satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Tue May 21 18:47:15 2013 No.3780514 >>3780501 awww, don't be coy with me sweetheart, reply to >>3780470 and we'll see who does and doesn't understand kant

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 18:48:14 2013 No.3780517 >>3780459 At least it's the best thing I know I have.

>>	Joseph Chamberlain Tue May 21 18:48:14 2013 No.3780518 I was taught the Multiplication Table as well, that does not mean the principals of multiplication could have been any different if I was taught them incorrectly/not at all.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 18:48:14 2013 No.3780519 >>3780507 I'm none of those, I'm elstin, and I would appreciate it if you didn't act like a fool , you don't have to like everyone, but you do have to deal with them.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 18:51:15 2013 No.3780526 >>3780514 I can't decipher your post. It is too full of meaningless profanity and a general sense of angry vagueness for my small mind to comprehend. And I read Wittgenstein's Tractatus when I was 13.

satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Tue May 21 18:55:15 2013 No.3780533 [DELETED]

>>3780526
here's the same post sans profanity:

defeating a maxim rests on presupposed background values and is thus NOT a function of its " law like nature", as that kant believed.
basically i can make a universal law out of any maxim i want, if i remove my background presupposed values, which makes the categorical imperative a vehicle for circularity, producing nothing but useless tautologies.

not to mention its demanding nature.
maxim : i always hold the door for people before entering
result: no one goes through any doors, ever, so the maxim is morally wrong (the point here is that the maxim is not wrong, it's just that universilizability is an absurdly demanding feature)

Anonymous Tue May 21 18:59:14 2013 No.3780541

>why any kind of act, rape, murder, anything, can be quantified as good or bad, and how evil and good can truly exist in nature rather than being results of social conditioning.
the immediate impulse to not do the bad things is just social conditioning. but i can reason, and can say that doing things labelled "bad", generally, cause other people unpleasant feelings, and those people will express those feelings in ways that will, either directly or indirectly, cause unpleasant feelings in me.
there's good and evil in nature, but they're just chemicals in the brain.

>>	satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Tue May 21 19:00:14 2013 No.3780544 inb4 genius 13 year old wittgenstein gives another disingenuous and evasive reply

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 19:01:14 2013 No.3780548 inb4 Kant's personal dicksucker starts another argument as pointless as morality debates

satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Tue May 21 19:10:15 2013 No.3780572 [DELETED]

for those interested in why kant's imperative is empty formalism and thus not binding in any way whatsoever, here's georg, jstor account needed:

http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/20483820?uid=3739600&uid=2129&uid=2&uid=70&uid=4&uid=3739256&sid=21102247134641

Anonymous Tue May 21 19:12:14 2013 No.3780579 [DELETED]

>>3780533

I am willing to bet anything that he won't reply. Kantian's have the same intellectual dishonesty and unwillingness to debate as religious nuts. For the rest of us, losing the debate is inconsequential. But if they lost, their entire world would come crashing down. The stakes here are not balanced out.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 19:23:15 2013 No.3780617 >>3780475 typical kneejerk response of the naked and the rekt

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 19:25:15 2013 No.3780619 >>3779991 because it causes pain? and of course good and evil don't exist in nature.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 19:25:15 2013 No.3780620 >>3780458 u a bi product

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 19:27:14 2013 No.3780625 >TFW desperately hoping the 13 year old Wittgenstein puts Stan in his fucking place. Come on man. I believe in you.

satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Tue May 21 19:31:15 2013 No.3780630 [DELETED]

>>3780625

he can't win. i really have an unfair advantage though.
kant has been largely swept under the rug by the overwhelming majority of academia, barring the occasional fanatic like Korsgaard, and even she's had to swallow innumerable Humean cocks lately.

basically, it's not a my merit that he can't win. it's a problem with Kant, as his theory is virtually indefensible.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 19:35:14 2013 No.3780637 >>3780526 Did you skip grades 2-5, as well?

Anonymous Tue May 21 19:54:15 2013 No.3780663

>>3780533

I thought to be able to really defeat a maxim you needed to have your background values erased. To say that maxims can actually be properly "defeated" is another matter entirely. But by definition, to defeat a maxim is to defeat assumption, i.e. "background value". Also, I'd like you to elaborate on the "useless tautology" bit.

Just saying that an argument is demanding does not make it any less true. Stop shoving your feelings in everybody's face when dealing with something so important.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 19:54:15 2013 No.3780665 >>3780637 Nope. I just decided to start reading philosophy around age 11.

>>	Kant/Wittgenstein Guy Tue May 21 19:55:15 2013 No.3780668 >>3780579 Don't assume as much as you do. It's unhealthy.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 19:59:14 2013 No.3780681 >moral realism >hasn't read mackie or richard joyce >2013

satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Tue May 21 20:04:14 2013 No.3780697 [DELETED]

>>3780663

>I thought to be able to really defeat a maxim you needed to have your background values erased.

are you talking about background values total?, or the background value that particular maxim is espousing? two different things.
if you mean the former, then anything goes, ie. killing is ok because everyone dying is then not in conflict with any background value. this shows the circular nature of the categorical imperative. instead of its force being a matter of its law like structure (as Kant thought) it is rather a function of the background substance, which kantians never erase, for if they did, anything goes. But then if this taking down of maxims is a function of background substance, it isn't really a function of the imperative at all, but rather to circular cancellatory method (ie. not in coherence with prior arbitrarily assumed values, which perpetually reinforce themselves through tautologistic means.

>But by definition, to defeat a maxim is to defeat assumption, i.e. "background value".

yes, by the use of prior background values

>Also, I'd like you to elaborate on the "useless tautology" bit.

this is hegel's term, as result of what he saw as nothing but empty formalism. you can plug in any maxim into the imperative and it will successfully universalize, UNLESS you have prior background values, which in turn devalues the force of the imperative and renders it as mere "formalism".

>Just saying that an argument is demanding does not make it any less true. Stop shoving your feelings in everybody's face when dealing with something so important.

lel, so you're actually saying that my maxim of "hold the door for other people" is morally wrong?
that's a gigantic bullet you're willing to bite, ace

also, are you NYU anon?

>>	satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Tue May 21 20:07:14 2013 No.3780703 anyway i gotta leave. need to get cunted. i'll be sure to check your reply and respond accordingly.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 20:13:14 2013 No.3780712 File: 21 KB, 460x288, ndog.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] Nietzsche ended philosophy Come at me

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 20:20:14 2013 No.3780728 >>3780712 Nietzsche ended ethics and metaphysics.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 20:23:14 2013 No.3780734 >>3780712 I ended ur mum

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 20:24:14 2013 No.3780736 >>3780734 I see someone has the "will to faggot"

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 20:24:14 2013 No.3780737 What reason is there to believe that correct moral principles have any less reality than, say, the law of non-contradiction?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 20:25:14 2013 No.3780740 File: 33 KB, 567x459, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3780712 Is that so?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 20:32:14 2013 No.3780759 >>3780737 Umm probably basic fact that they're entirely different things.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 20:34:14 2013 No.3780763 >>3780697 I'm so fucking tired of people constantly trying to tear down all morality, all norms, everything that makes us human. Why don't you put your mind to a positive use, Stan?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 20:37:14 2013 No.3780772 >>3780759 In what ways, and how are those differences relevant to their respective mind-independence?

Anonymous Tue May 21 20:43:14 2013 No.3780786 [DELETED]

>>3780772

Mind-independence is about as relevant to this discussion as you bringing up non-contradiction in the first place.
So before i tell you why it's irrelevant, i'd like you to think why non-contradiction applies here, since you know, you're the one who brought it up.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 20:44:14 2013 No.3780790 >>3780763 >Santaclaus posts paragraphs of argument >"please stop it Stan, please noooooo"

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 20:53:15 2013 No.3780822 >>3780786 OP made the rather trite claim that moral truth doesn't "exist in nature". Logical truths are a sort of abstract proposition that does "exist in nature". I don't see why moral truths should prima facie be treated differently.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 20:53:15 2013 No.3780825 >>3780763 The greatest crimes against humanity have been committed in the names of morality and norms.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 20:54:14 2013 No.3780830 You know certain acts will cause harm or pleasure or whatever to another person because you have the ability to imagine yourself being the recipient of such acts.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 21:01:15 2013 No.3780856 >>3780763 i'll slice ur artery whilst hastily walking by in the night and won't feel a think bro

Anonymous Tue May 21 21:01:15 2013 No.3780858 [DELETED]

>>3780822

Well they can't prima facie be treated differently. It's just that there better explanations of moral behavior than the explanation that moral truths exist.
We're dealing with unseeable matters right.
Well, a proton is unseeable. So how do we know it exists? We know because we predict the occurence of proton trails in chambers, and when we see these trails, we confirm the existence of protons. Protons, in this case, are the best explanation for these trails. Not assuming protons would make the trails a matter of "miracle".
Take moral truths. We have a person witnessing a murder. He feels its wrong. Can we then be sure that this is because of some Moral Truth in the same way that we can be sure of the proton? No. Better explanations refer to conditioning, general evolutionary aversion, etc.

So really, these matters cannot be resolved in a prima facie way.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 21:03:14 2013 No.3780865 >>3780858 And i dont think OP was treating them as prima facie wrong.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 21:04:14 2013 No.3780866 >>3780763 10/10

Anonymous Tue May 21 21:14:14 2013 No.3780905

>>3780858
It sounds like you're making a contention about WHY people act in what accordance with what they believe is morally right. And, undoubtedly, the answer is social conditioning, evolutionary guidance, etc—I agree with you on this. Obviously, providing a story about moral motivation will also be a story about morality's origins: in evolution and so on. But I sincerely don't see how this precludes the existence of moral truths that partake of the logical truth's qualities. I'm not saying we have epistemic access to them, but I don't see what grounds there is for ruling them out.

A parable: when you're preparing your taxes, you crunch the number meticulously for self-interested reasons: you don't want the IRS to audit you, which means extra inconvenience, etc. But no one would venture to say that addition is a social construct because people apply it just to complete their taxes in a satisfactory manner. Similarly, it would be a mistake to conflate the motivations behind so-called moral behavior with a characterization of morality's ontology.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 21:22:14 2013 No.3780937 >>3780905 There is no ground for "ruling them out". Just like there is no ground to "ruling out" god. Just like we can't "rule out" the possibility that the material world does not exist. But I mean...come on.

Kant/Wittgenstein Guy Tue May 21 21:25:15 2013 No.3780946

>>3780697

By background values I meant any value that is appropriate regarding the maxim.
>this shows the circular nature of the categorical imperative.
Still don't get it. Explain what you're saying to em like I'm five. And in what sense are you using the term substance?
>yes, by the use of prior background values
Not necessarily. Certain things are simply true, i.e. that there is a substance.
>this is hegel's term, as result of what he saw as nothing but empty formalism. you can plug in any maxim into the imperative and it will successfully universalize, UNLESS you have prior background values, which in turn devalues the force of the imperative and renders it as mere "formalism".
You know what, I wanna ask you to define "background value"
>that's a gigantic bullet you're willing to bite, ace
I don't care. Everything that happens is morally objectionable anyways.
>also, are you NYU anon?
Why do you ask?

>>	Kant/Wittgenstein Guy Tue May 21 21:26:14 2013 No.3780949 >>3780946 explain what you're saying to me*

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 21:26:15 2013 No.3780948 >>3780937 Ok, so in your world, anything which can't be confirmed empirically is just...up for grabs? Jury's still out? Well goodbye mathematics!

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 21:31:14 2013 No.3780964 >>3780948 What? Mathematics is confirmed empirically every day.

>>	Kant/Wittgenstein Guy Tue May 21 21:35:14 2013 No.3780971 >>3780763 The truth does not fear honest investigation.

Anonymous Tue May 21 21:36:14 2013 No.3780972

>>3780697
>you can plug in any maxim into the imperative and it will successfully universalize

How is this possibly true? With the classic maxim, "Lying is permitted"—universalizing it would render the concept of lying void, i.e., it wouldn't be possible to deceive someone in a world with rampant deception and where lying is expected. The same goes for the maxim "breaking promises is permitted". In either of these examples, have "background values" (new term for me) snuck back into the invalidation? I don't think so.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 21:40:14 2013 No.3780988 >>3780964 If you mean it produces useful results, then yes. So does morality—it produces a smooth-functioning society. But nothing in mathematics is true _in virtue_ of empirical observations.

>>	Kant/Wittgenstein Guy Tue May 21 21:42:14 2013 No.3780996 >>3780972 And that's another thing. This "background value" thing you've got going on is VERY clunky.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 21:57:15 2013 No.3781044 >>3780988 evidently multiple societies have reached a level of "smooth functioning" through a variety of divergent and often contradictory ethical values; if anything this suggests relativism and not the veracity of certain "moral truths"

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 22:00:15 2013 No.3781049 >>3780988 HAHA, you know mathematics being confirmed through science is not the same as moral values being confirmed through society. You're confusing a metaphysical necessity with practical necessity.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 22:01:15 2013 No.3781051 >>3780572 Does anyone have JSTOR? Can anyone get this article? I'd like to read it.I would appreciate it if someone can help

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 22:02:14 2013 No.3781059 >>3781049 There should be quotation marks around the second "confirmed" in that sentence.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 22:03:14 2013 No.3781061 Hey, Satan, how do you feel about Schopenhauer?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 22:09:14 2013 No.3781073 >>3780703 Why are going to get cunted on a Tuesday? It's fucking Tuesday, you rampaging alcoholic.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 22:13:14 2013 No.3781082 >>3781073 Tuesday is a fine day to drink. Although I suspect Stan is laying in bed sucking on a baby bottle full of kratom extract listening to Swans or something.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 22:18:14 2013 No.3781090 >>3781082 I actually ordered some from that website Stan gave us, and I've been in opiate-heaven for almost a week now. My new drug of choice.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 22:21:14 2013 No.3781099 >>3781090 So apart from corrupting you with his edgy retard amoralism, he's also telling you where to get drugs. What a swell guy.

Anonymous Tue May 21 22:23:15 2013 No.3781108

>>3779991
Things that are perceived as bad are perceived as bad because they are ingrained into our instincts as being bad because of evolution weeding out the assholes that couldn't cooperate with the rest of society. I want to elaborate, but you only gave me 10 seconds. Prick.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 22:23:15 2013 No.3781111 >>3781099 Relax guy! It's legal.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 22:25:15 2013 No.3781128 >>3781111 Bath salts were also legal.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 22:27:14 2013 No.3781135 >>3781090 What was the website?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 22:27:14 2013 No.3781139 >>3781128 yo bath salts are fucking awesome son, them shits had me dreaming of babylon dodging traffic and shit. 10/10 would bathe again.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 22:27:14 2013 No.3781140 >>3780137 >Aren't the notions of good and evil quantifications of natural instinct anyways? yes

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 22:31:14 2013 No.3781160 >>3781135 Phytoextractum.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 22:37:14 2013 No.3781177 >>3781099 I like how moralists here never get down and dirty with the subject at hand but stick to vague dismissive remarks.

Anonymous Tue May 21 23:33:14 2013 No.3781290

>>3781044
First off, they're converging if you look at it historically. Secondly, I don't see the disagreement and discrepancies as evidence of relativism. I wouldn't expect all societies to possess the same moral knowledge, just as different societies are at different levels of technological advancement. What made you think that discrepancies were evidence of relativism?

Anonymous Tue May 21 23:37:14 2013 No.3781296

>>3781049
I concede that. Still, the second point stands. It's not as though mathematics is true _in virtue_ of the empirical observations. You can see this: if an observation seemed to conflict with basic mathematical principles, we wouldn't revise the principles themselves, instead we would remeasure and retake the observations. And if mathematics can stand on its own foundations, without help from empirical observation, so too can moral truths.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 23:40:15 2013 No.3781303 >>3780972 Someone care to defend his argument?

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 23:46:15 2013 No.3781310 Social contract/thread.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 23:47:15 2013 No.3781313 Objective morality is empathy. Everyone who whines and complains about "oh, but morality is just a social construct" is autismal as fuck.

>>	Anonymous Tue May 21 23:49:15 2013 No.3781322 >>3781313 But empathy is subjective.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 00:08:15 2013 No.3781367 >>3781296 lol math is just another language mankind has created to describe the world, making it no more objective than any other language, only more practical >2013 >still entertaining the notion of truth

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 00:16:16 2013 No.3781374 >>3780006 Spooks. I ain't no ghostbuster.

Anonymous Wed May 22 00:29:16 2013 No.3781393

>morals have their origin in evolution

This has to be one of the most bullshit statements I've been seeing lately. There is nothing within biological evolution which necessitates the creation of moral judgements. Every species that has ever existed save for one has gotten by just fine without ever having a moral thought. The fact that many people are so easily capable of the most extreme kinds of hypocrisy should be evidence enough that moral judgements have shit to do with one's genetics. If one day a pacifist woke up with god-like powers you can be certain that all of that crap about non-violence would be blown away like it never existed.

People who claim that morals come from our evolutionary history do so because they want to believe that everyone's values can be roughly on the same page. Like "oh we're all humans so its only natural that our values should be similar to each other and its those damn outliers that are working against our biological heritage." Rubbish. What were the Mongol invasions? The result of a mass genetic mutation?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 00:43:15 2013 No.3781407 >>3780057 Until someone stronger comes along then you whimper and cry, begging for the mercy you never showed.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 00:47:15 2013 No.3781410 >>3779991 You're own post can't be quantified so why expect someone else to quantify theirs?

satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Wed May 22 01:22:16 2013 No.3781461 [DELETED]

>>3781303

hold oaff ye fuckin radge, i dinnae fuckin need naebide tae fuckin argye fir me ain fuckin arguments, so if yir lookin fir a fuckin debate, moan, i goat ye ye wide cunt.
so like, yi mibee fuckin breeak promises ken? en mibee ye fuckin dinnae. the truth bein thit yi cannae fuckin go roond being some kinday fuckin pussy ken? heres a hypo-fuckin-thetical for ye: so ahm mibee bit too fuckin drunk after slingin a few four locos back like fuck, n me mibee wander oaff innae sum pretty little blond haired cunt's bathroom ken? n this fuckin cunt jist passed the fuck oot in her fuckin toilet, n she's nae wearin any fuckin underwear but. n ah thinks tae mahsell, whae ays jist should fuckin mibee try tae fuckin wake the lass up fir the ride eh? or mibee i shud jist no bother her with time consuming formalities ken, so i jist does me fuckin cowp oan proper, n as ahm fuck all deep innae, she wakes up like and ses "wha ar ye dain tae me?".
so tell me mate, whats a fuckin sound cunt tae say eh? dinnae come right oot and coam fuckin propar like tell me thit ye jist dinnae fuckin lie tae her in that situation, cus ye know tae right fuckin thing tae do is tell the fuckin cunt "ay, ye wis fuckin right pillin oan me fuckin cock all night befir ye radge, moan tae fuck, doan tell me ye forgoat!?"
n she goes "aye, i forgoat. as ye were then!" and immediately resumes unconsciousness likes,
proablem fuckin solved, nd gates tae fuckin heaven opened, ken?

satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Wed May 22 01:34:15 2013 No.3781477 [DELETED]

>>3781461

because relly, if ye jiss tell ehr the truth, ye jis dinnae fuckin kno how she'll react. how's a sound gadge sposed tae jis sey "aye, i saw ye passed right the fuck oot on the toilet n ah thought tae masell, ah'll jist have me a ride quick". she might start greetin n make a fuckin show ootay ehrsell, no fuckin good mate. this stairry nevir happen by the wey, ah jist like dain one a them "thought experiment" likes,

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 01:40:16 2013 No.3781487 >>3781461 >>3781477 Yeah, we're looking for Edgystan, not Scottstan. How many assholes have this trip anyway?

>>	satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Wed May 22 01:45:15 2013 No.3781495 >>3781487 >>3781487 mibee 3, mibee 4, mibee there's mair stans that ye kin fuckin caire tae find oot ye fuckin child molester. Whae! ahm no a fuckin philosopher right, but ah make mair fuckin sense than this radge cunt>>3780697 any dey

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 02:03:16 2013 No.3781523 >>3781461 >>3781477 Your thought experiment is horrible. There's no dilemma whatsoever. It's just fucking stupid.

satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Wed May 22 02:10:15 2013 No.3781527 [DELETED]

File: 12 KB, 300x400, if we could undo psychosis.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3781523

dinnae fuckin tell me boot me ain fuckin thought experiment ye smarmy wide cunt or ye git ma fuckin mit wrapped accroas yir fuckin nose, ken?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 02:12:15 2013 No.3781530 >>3779991 ur a fukken spook, cunt

Anonymous Wed May 22 02:17:15 2013 No.3781540
File: 39 KB, 339x450, lartigue_fine_art_photog060.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>3781527
"So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you" - Matt 7:12

But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, Matt 5:44

Love is good, treating others as yourself is good, helping those in need is good.

Good and evil do exist, but just like anything else they require the correct vision to detect them. If you zoom out too much the tree disappears into the forest, the forest into the earth and the earth into a black void.

You see spooks because you have zoomed out too far, or too deep.

>>	satan !!1Fa7LzeI6u8 Wed May 22 02:32:15 2013 No.3781557 File: 24 KB, 333x400, If we could undo Psychosis3.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3781540 yer post is interferin wi me fuckin essence mate, time tae fuckin nash

Anonymous Wed May 22 02:32:15 2013 No.3781558

Good, Evil, morally right, morally wrong. . Terms created by religion to control those in society not part of the ruling class. . To believe that any terms created by humans has any sort of concrete solution to truth or a way of life is naive. No one on this planet chose to be here, but we can choose how we interact with our environment while we are living.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 02:32:15 2013 No.3781559 >>3781160 lol wut is this stuff

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 02:33:15 2013 No.3781560 >>3781530 cunt = kunt

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 02:33:15 2013 No.3781562 >wow this pizza is delicious BUT IS IT OBJECTIVELY DELICIOUS?! asks the retarded philosopher who doesn't understand how language works.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 02:48:15 2013 No.3781576 >>3780117 Muh gun control.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 02:51:16 2013 No.3781578 >>3779991 Yo mama's stinker is a spook.

Anonymous Wed May 22 03:11:16 2013 No.3781603

If they were natural they'd be nothing, they'd be like a falling stone or the waving sea. On the other hand, what gives them their strength is the fact that they are "made" collectively by us, that we take them for real so we impose them upon ourselves; in brief, we think we are discovering things while all we are doing is inventing a way to manage them.

You said it almost right but arrived at the opposite conclusion cause you still believe in objective realty, you think that only "nature" is real and that we can manage at will everything else. THAT is the result of social conditioning, that we divide things in real/artificial and only accept the former, as if social forms depended on our will while it is actually this will that is shaped by them.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 03:31:16 2013 No.3781618 >>3781562 first we have to designate exactly where the line between delicious and not delicious stands

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 03:34:16 2013 No.3781619 >>3779991 Because a society/civilization functions more efficiently when it's workers are feel safe to do their job. Any 'morality' exempt from any civil institutions and social contracts is nonexistent.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 03:54:16 2013 No.3781636 You're begging the question.

Anonymous Wed May 22 04:06:16 2013 No.3781647

>tl;dr, spooks.

isn't this kind of a moot question in 2013?

Transcendent morality must be considered a mundane concept when "social conditioning" is employed in order to deem it "arbitrary". Consider the possibility that "social conditioning" is derived from nature as a necessity, determined and not arbitrary and you have something much aching to morality "truly existing". If you would like to claim that that is not truly existing then you're setting yourself up for an reduction to absurdity that, quite frankly, has no place as long as we accept common sense to hold some validity (possibly the one and true spook)

Being able to give a geneology of morality (i.e. Big N cuckolders and stockholders) does not imply that it lacks necessity-- it only serves to mock and illuminate the rather ugly aspects of morality and whence it originates.

The implication of the progress (rather, succession of events) of history/nature/time as a necessity is that morality, much like any other concept, is derived from "nature" and not reducable to a human/nature dichotomy.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 09:29:16 2013 No.3782027 >>3781461 no fucking shy this cunt, eh?

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 12:53:15 2013 No.3782342 >>3781527 >>3781557 Does anyone know who painted these?

Anonymous Wed May 22 13:16:15 2013 No.3782362 [DELETED]

>>3781618
>first we have to designate exactly where the line between delicious and not delicious stands

no first we say X Y and Z are delicious
A B and C are disgusting

and from examples we generalize and understand what words mean.

You can't start backwards by looking for a definition of a word outside man, outside our language and use.

>but is it objectively delicious
is a non-statement.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 13:23:16 2013 No.3782381 File: 31 KB, 306x423, happy man.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] good = increasing well being of life, happiness etc bad = increasing harm, pain, death

Anonymous Wed May 22 13:34:15 2013 No.3782407

>>3779991

>You have ten seconds to explain why any kind of act, rape, murder, anything, can be quantified as good or bad

you have 10 seconds to explain why an "objective morality" should matter to anyone

if rape and torture were "objectively good" and healing and helping were "objectively evil" -- no good person would change their behavior and neither would a bad rapist, no one would care, nothing would change, we wouldn't even change the meaning of our words

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 14:48:16 2013 No.3782542 >>3782342 http://lmgtfy.com/?q=if+we+could+undo+psychosis# ;) really though, man, search engine

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 14:50:16 2013 No.3782547 >>3782381 Pretty problematic when increasing harm, pain and death in others increases well being of life, happiness etc. in myself.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 15:01:15 2013 No.3782567 >>3782547 Then do it. If a mad man finds joy in murder who are you to stop him? Let the world serve him. If he's lucky, he'll stop before everyone has died because the void remains.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 15:22:16 2013 No.3782612 OP, get raped and stabbed. Then come back and tell us how pleasant the experience was.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 15:25:16 2013 No.3782618 >>3782612 physical exercise isn't pleasant either, you moron

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 15:36:15 2013 No.3782640 >>3782612 >this logic Dumbass. Stirner frowns upon you.

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 16:38:16 2013 No.3782792 >>3782547 Mankind us greater than the individual, life is more than your life. There is no force compelling you to so good. Good and evil are obvious. Make your choice and handle the consequences

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 16:39:16 2013 No.3782799 >>3782792 No force compelling you to do* good. Is what I meant

>>	Anonymous Wed May 22 16:59:16 2013 No.3782871 File: 48 KB, 1077x1107, stirner14.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>3782792 >Mankind us greater than the individual, life is more than your life. >being this spooked Catherine roll your rashed ass in here with fitting citations.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature