/lit/ - Literature

Go back to /his/

>>11407167
I made a post about this on facebook dot com this morning... you aren't a friend of mine, are you?

"Whatever 'good' is, it is unclear. Is it 2000+ years of Christ's teachings? Is it that which might makes? Is it popular violence?"

>>11407179
Common good? PAH! Don't make me laugh... whatever is common cannot be good!

I wanna pump her ass full of babies.

>asi se ven 15 años de carcel meme
hmm

>>11407192
Will hte babies be alive or dead? Damn, that a disturbing think to imagine either way...

>>11407214
I meant to say that I want to ejaculate into her anus.

>>11407167
>Does objective morality even exist?
Yes
Does Might make right?
Also yes

>>11407258
You want to explain that statement?

>>11407258
PLATO BTFO

define objective

>>11407286
Not subjective.

>>11407167
Yep

>>11407299
define morality

>>11407313
A system of beliefs from which humans decide which actions are "bad" and which are "good"

>>11407328
ala
something entirely subjective by definition?

Gross hands.

>>11407328
Ok, Socrates, what's "good" and what's "bad"... C'mon give me some descriptive terms about the formation of the soul and character, along with mimicry! Tell me how bad poetry is!

objective morality is an oxymoron

>>11407167
It depends how we define morality. If we define morality as something mind-independent, and instead ground it in the assertion of something like natural law, then the question about objectivity will probably boil down to a metaphysical belief in the divine or not. On the other hand, we can take morality to be something that is intrinsically created by and for humans. Morality could be taken to mean a set of prosocial convictions that facilitate interaction on a very basic level. If you understand morality this way I think we can flesh out "objective" moral truths.

>Does might make right?
Lol

>>11407332
No, morals can also be supplied from an higher dorce, e.g God

>Does objective morality even exist?
No, it's subjective, just as anything defined by human culture, as such it also suffers major changes over the time. Which doesn't mean people should be plain evil instead (also a human construct). Things being subjective don't mean they hold no value, it's important though to remember that what might be moral now might not be in some years.

>>11407275
God is the strongest, therefore he decides what is right.

>>11407167
Objective morality does exists, yes, but might makes right is a wrong statement.

Christfags GTFO

>>11407394

reddit tier, feel-good kurzgesagt bullshit. evil is a human construct, jesus christ. read a book for once.

what is this "objective morality"? any examples?

>>11407275
Not really, no.

>>11407393
and God is himself not subjective?

>>11407442
>evil is a human construct
It isn't? Why? Honest question.

>>11407447
Moral realism is the position that moral statements are truth-apt, some of them are false, some of them are true, and their truth value doesn't depend merely on subjective opinions.

>>11407455
No, he's objectively false.

>he didn't read Plato

>>11407167
>Does objective morality exist?
Yes, in the sense that there are commonly accepted solutions to various dilemmas in the human condition. For example, laws punishing murder is a commonly accepted solution to the problem of homicide.

I see morality as an engineering problem rather than a theoretical problem. We can engineer solutions to common dilemmas and no such solution is perfect, but nothing in engineering is.

>Does might make right?
No. Might can ally itself with what's right, but oftentimes, people resort to violence specifically because they're not right.

>>11407394
>Evil is a human construct

t. someone who doesn't know about serial rapist and serial killer dolphins

>>11407487
are those dolphins considered evil by other dolphins?

>>11407167
I want to hug her

>>11407485
you don't understand the definition of "Objective"

>>11407470
which are true and which are false?

>>11407498
Are you asking for an example of one that is true and one that is false or are you asking for a way to determine which are which?

>>11407494
Probably, I don't know enough about dolphins. I do know that crows hold court where they punish a crow that has broken the law (eg stealing from another crow's cache). They circle the crow and after a time, one of them or all of them will group up on the crow they have deemed guilty:

See this gfycat. Fucking 4chan filter won't let me link it directly.

gfycat FearlessVeneratedAtlanticspadefish

>>11407167
Women don't understand how male lust actually operates. Women think that men experience women as "the Beautiful," as something pleasant and trifling that can be enjoyed at a distance and then allowed to pass on. They think that a picture of themselves wearing clothing that shows off all their fat and all their soft skin and warm nice holes is like a postcard with a picture of a beach on it. But to men, female beauty is not the Beautiful, it's the Sublime, it's not trifling but great and terrible, and it stirs something great and terrible and daemonic in man's subterranean depths that impels him forward to fuck things from roughly below and behind the prostate area.

When a man sees a picture of a beautiful sexy woman he feels half a million years of race knowledge thrumming in his veins, an infinity of sexy women reaching around behind themselves to spread their asscheeks and pussy apart with one hand and say "fuck me." He hears the drums from the movie Jumanji, his soul tangibly but invisibly leans forward outside of him grasping desperately for the pussy and gnashing its teeth. He wants to taste her holes and squeeze her fat and smell that combination of smells girls have that when you ask them what it is they say it's just normal shampoo and fabric softener but you know it's something more.

It's not fair to post these hot sluts constantly. The jezebels guy is right and this post is not an homage. I'm going to kill myself if I can't escape from this feeling soon. Women don't understand what they're doing. I saw a girl on a bicycle yesterday and I started thinking about what it would be like to be a bicycle seat for 10 minutes.

>>11407497
Enlighten me how I'm wrong. It is objective in the sense it's a real (as in not dependent upon human observation), albeit complex problem that is solved heuristically. All of game theory is predicated on the idea that morality is objective.

>>11407511
both i guess, i'm a brainlet desu

>>11407539
this

Are you religious or not?

>>11407736
I´m agnostic

>>11407167
>objective morality
everyone who uses that term is clueless. read a book faggot

>>11407485
I didn't expect /lit/ to be this dumb, disappointed yet again

>>11407539
10/10. Post like this more often.

>>11407495
>based and redpilled

>>11407539
Sheer poetry

>objective anything

>>11407167

>>11407540
a solution being commonly accepted means that it's dependent on human observation.

>>11407485
>objectively true = commonly accepted
you need to kill yourself like right now

>>11408016
>>11408018
So I misspoke when I wrote that post in like a minute, sue me. I meant that referring to the fact every culture (no exceptions) prohibits murder. But if you're going to nitpick over minutiae like the brainlet you are, let me be even clearer.

It's objectively true in the sense that you can write an equation to most moral problems and solve for the fucking Nash equilibrium.

>>11408091
>every culture (no exceptions) prohibits murder.
lot's of exceptions, ever heard about executions, genocide, war and abortions?

>>11408129
>abortions
That alone is a good point, even within cultural groups there are people who disagree about it being evil or not, hell, they can't even agree if it's murder.

>>11407167
make somebody stab you with a knife and decide if it's pleasant or not, then you'll know what's objective morality

>>11407312
oh god.

>>11407539
the one and only good reply in this thread

>>11408091
STEMtard here, insofar as I know even the value of Nash equilibrium cannot be considered ideal, when the time spent searching for the value is too long.
In addition, how you gonna make a Nash equilibrium in a first place? is there a absolute method to define a numerical data? Im retard at philosophy but at least I know what adorno want to say

>Does Might make right?

Take a look at how every tyrrany has ended.

>Does objective morality even exist?
I believe so.

>Can we know it?
I don't believe so.

>Does Might make right?
I like to believe so.

>>11407179
>I made a post about this on facebook dot com this morning.
*snap*

>>11407167
good/evil is the false dichotomy of plebeians.

might is right.

morality is a fiction, there is only fullness or lack of being

>>11409061
That doesn´t mean it´s wrong