/lit/ - Literature

>>11636662
Definitely worth reading and discussing.

>>11636662
Just make up your own. Alot yourself anywhere from 1 to 10 axioms to base it on like every philosopher has so far (Kant's proof for synthetic a priori is shit, 2+2 contains 4 in it's essence)

read aristotle, kant and nietzsche

>>11636662
Nah, you don't need to read Aristotle and Aquinas first, just start reading.

In fact, I would say starting with Macintyre is actually probably best, because he gives you a basic history of ethics in AV, and engages with all the major ethical theories.

>>11637735
Just make stuff up? Hahahaha

>>11636662
nah

>>11636662
>Alasdair MacIntyre
Why would you read someone who can't even spell their name right?

>>11636662
Yah

>>11639047
>Man laughs at "making things up," insteads opts to create his own moral framework from scratch

Picking axioms is always completely arbitrary. Universalizability? Why does the universal viability of a principal to be incorporated in a personal system of morals matter? Hedonism? Why is your happieness more important than others'? Either you embrace that it's completely arbitrary, kill yourself, or realise that human morals weren't meant for humans to make up.

but you should just read what intrests you and you can understand, as long as you get to aquinas and aristotle and augastine you should be fine

>>11636662
Oh hell yea. Macintyre is one of the most important writers in ethics today.

>>11641147
>human morals weren't meant for humans to make up
I think you shot yourself in the foot at the end there anon. Make it up because we were not meant to make them up?

>>11641246
>Make it up because we were not meant to make them up?
No, don't make it up. Either you acknowlege that any man-made system of morals is arbitrary, you avoid the problem through suicide, or you get your morals from God. In my opinion making up morals is a foolish endevor because human morals aren't ment for humans to make up

>>11636662
Nope, MacIntyre is a great writer and can introduce you to virtue ethics with little to no previous knowledge of the subject.

>>11641258
>Either believe in God or kill yourself
The absolute state of Christposters!

>>11642524
Nah dude you can live withought religion, but don't pretend that your moral system is anything excpt for arbitrary and random

>>11636662
>someone trying to create their own moral framwork

>>11641258
Your own conscious decision to embrace Christian morals and to interpret those morals as you do is also arbitrary. You haven't escaped any problems of morality.

>>11642908
It isn't though.

>>11642908
I don't

>>11642908
>arbitrary and random
dude these are sophomoric concerns for a poignant criticism of morality. epistemologically or ontologically bankrupt would be a better way to go for the throat, hypocritical displays of the will masquerading as teleology if you wanna go the Nietzsche route. The trick with the latter is that you have to deny that morality is either arbitrary or random but rather a historical evolution of plays of power aimed at venting the will for the health of the individual. The development of a value system will always contain its own logic in relation to power. Sure, the forms that it takes might seem arbitrary, but that was never a concern anyway because of perspectivilism and what not.

>>11644102
This. Comments like these are the reason that the general ethics threads on here are worth the time put into them.

>>11636662
Read his Short History of Ethics

>>11643037
This, but I sort of want to see it now.