/lit/ - Literature

>>10215767
to be moral

>>10215767
because you're too immature to see through your own pretensions

>>10215767
lol why not

>>10215767
because you cant escape right and wrong no matter whats around you

>>10215767
>Why
well there's your problem

>>10215813
Is that avoidable?

>>10215767
The only objectively moral act is that of the accumulation of power by one so that one may subjugate any given other one to the former's own subjective morality.

You will be happier

>>10215826
>found the christian

>>10215838
Actually more of Muslims concept.

>>10215767
because you have the capacity to be.
if you don't bring yourself up to your full potential you might as well be an animal.
non-human animals are the best versions of themselves that they can be.
it just so happens that animals can't do any more than eat, shit, and fuck.
as humans, we can do more, and so we must do more,
otherwise you're wasting your time and you are worse than an animal in terms of self-fulfillment.

>>10215825
do you mean is it possible to disillusion oneself? yes, i'd say so.

>>10215767
Because it's in your self interest

>>10215858

your assumptions:

1. that the human experience is fundamentally different than that of animals

animals are governed by brain chemicals just like humans and suffer from the same compulsions and tics and inexplicable shit as humans. saying that humans are fundamentally different than animals is like saying that a rich person is fundamentally different than a poor person. they are not. their individual circumstances happen to be different but they are not fundamentally different. we are all flesh and bone.

for the sake of argument, assuming you're right:

2. that being an animal is good while being animal-like is bad

judging people on their motives is stupid. it doesn't matter if you know that running a red light is a crime or not, you will still get cited for it. same goes for here. you can't say that it's okay for animals to act like animals but that it's not okay for a human to act like an animal. you don't know what's going on inside the animal's head nor do you know what's happening inside my head. if it's morally okay for a tiger to eat someone then it's okay for me to eat someone, too. (of course, if I make a choice to live in society, I also have to live by society's rules and accept society's punishments for whatever I do --- but society is governed by rules that serve the mutual benefit of the members, NOT morality.)

3. that fulfilling potential > not fulfilling potential

what even is potential? i could potentially rape someone. if I don't, am I being immoral?

4. that self-fulfillment cannot be simple pleasure-seeking

why not?

Read Plato.

>>10215767
God demands it of you, upon pain of death and fates-worse-than-death

>>10215932

More specifically The Republic

>>10215977
I'd actually recommend Gorgias, but the first few books of Republic are also good for this subject

>>10215767
moral is all the "should" there is

>>10215927
I was gonna greentext some of the dumb shit you've said here but honestly so much of it is retarded I would almost be copying the entire post. Bravo

Why should you let the world dictate to you whether you should be moral or not? Putz.

Moral and immoral are abstract concepts that change with time and culture, there is no absolute morality. If you consider this, you can say that being moral is to follow your own values, because you are the only person you can let down on this front.

Why should you be an immortal person in an immoral world?

>>10216198

If there's no absolute morality then how do you make sense of the existence of evil? If there is no objective standard of good which we can use to measure actions then what is evil if not a deprivation of good?

>>10216247
The definition of evil is subjective as well. Personally i like Voltaire take on it, he said something like "Liberty is doing everything that doesn't harm other people".
By extending it a little, you can say that "Doing evil is harming others with your actions", and doing good is "Doing things that make other people happy without getting anything out of it".

Anything in between is being neutral, but i guess you could argue that not helping someone starving while having plenty food is evil. My view on being a moral person is to take your "neutral" to be as good as it gets.

>>10215767
To burn in the fires of virtue

>>10215767
You want to be convinced of a moral necessity to be moral? But how could I convince you of this without recourse to morality which in the first place you want to be convinced of?

You are an idiot, or a troll. If the former, a proud one, and if the latter, a cunning one.

>>10215767
Because you want the world to become a moral place, if only by the small and seemingly insignificant amount that your actions cause.

Now of course, this requires the sanctity of morality - or else it is mere preference, mere sides competing over taste.

>>10215914

>>10216284

If evil is defined as the deprivation of good how is that subjective? Its an appeal to a transcendent standard of perfect good. Our interpretation of what that good looks like can be subjective but this doesn't make the good itself subjective.

Doing things that don't harm other people or doing things that make others happy can work as moral advice or guidelines but they don't tell us anything about the nature of good and evil itself. The point I'm getting to is that the concept of evil is unintelligible without a transcendent standard of objective good. As CS Lewis would say a man does not call something crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. We can't call something evil unless we have a notion of the ultimate good. If there is no objective good then there can be no such thing as evil.

>>10215767

because it makes for a beautiful story

>>10216347
But as humans we can't set something as objective good. Everything we see, create or define is subjective, there isn't and will never be an absolute definition of good, therefore we can't establish what is evil.

>>10216372

If evil doesn't exist then why should I try to make others happy or avoid causing them harm? If objective good doesn't exist there can be no imperative.

>>10216384
"Don't do to others what you wouldn't want done to yo" can work as a base to work on

>>10216391

That's not an imperative. You're not listening to me. The question I'm asking is why I should care about others. Why should I not do to others what I wouldn't want done to me? I'm not disagreeing with you that the golden rule can be useful if everyone followed it, I'm asking why I should care about what is useful in a universe without true good and evil

Dude, like, it's all relative, man.

>>10216419
>The question I'm asking is why I should care about others
The only logical conclusion is, you don't have to. The argument i made is just an indication, that if followed by everyone would be an utopia, but since we can't reason with absolutes, we don't have an absolute and imperative set of morals.
The only good reason do do as i said is to hope everybody else will stick to that.

>>10215767
Depends on what perspective you want the example in. On a logical level immorality begets immorality and consequences.

>>10215767
If you're asking that question, then its too late
There's no reason for you to be moral

Morals are an abstraction, and are therefore subjective. You don't have to believe in them, however they are woven into law, which you may or may not be inclined to follow.

>>10216571

Math is an abstraction, is it subjective?

>>10216596
It's an abstraction used to measure reality, but yes, it is subjective. It is possible for an entirely different mathematical system to be devised that is equal in function to the one we use.

>>10216600
>used to measure reality
Wrong. Are you still in high school?

>>10216600

You're confusing the symbols used in mathematics which is subjective with the truth found in mathematics, which is not. 1+1=2 is objectively true regardless of what system of symbols we use to symbolize the number one and the number two. There's no development that can change the truth of 1+1=2.

>>10216626
Wrong, mathetical statements are only true because they are consistent with mathematical definitions and axioms.

>>10216596
>>10216600
>>10216626
>>10216648
How does Math even work? Like, seriously?

>>10216670

It doesn't because dude everything is relative.

>>10216670
Mathemetic claims are only objective within their system of axioms. As another poster above said you can have different systems that each produce meaningful ways to describe reality.

>>10216571
>le "morals are subjective" fallacy

>>10216811
>MOM I CALLED SOMETHING SOMEONE ELSE DID ON THE INTERNET A FALLACY. DID I WIN???