/lit/ - Literature

>>11928192
1. The only useful ethics are livable ones that can actually be realised in real life and not abstract nonsense that most plebs won't understand, care about or be able to implement.
2. Most humans are inherently lookist due to biological factors and hate and treat badly people who look ugly.
3. Therefore it is ethical to hate ugly people. Anything else is unviable nonsense.
TLDR;
Liking ugly people is not a viable ethics and therefore not ethical.

The only innate desire in man for god is the fear of death. No one is looking for god, they're looking for an escape.

>>11928276
>1. Attractiveness correlates positively with high socioe-conomic status.
>2. High SES correlates positively with irreligiosity.
Hmm...

>>11928299
no one who actually knows the historic context for religion would ever think this. quit projecting the limitations of your own puny mind onto others, fag-o brainlet

>>11928192
It has to be proven that being cringe and bluepilled is a sufficient condition for being wrong about some topic. There are some cringey Christians out there.

>>11928192
Uhhhhh yeah that’s gonna be a cringe for me

>>11928192
Is this a joke? the only reason why atheists are cringy is due to the way they broadcast it. they use buzzwords (like the pills and etc.), thy portray themselves as objectively right, and they look down upon anyone who disagrees with them. Anyone who holds to0 strong of belief in something to the point of arrogance is cringy, so christians, muslims, jews, scientologists, atheist, and whoever can be judged under this rule.

>>11928301
>quantifying attractiveness, which is quite possibly the most subjective quality out there
Hmm...

>>11928192
This was just ripped off from Summa Theologica

>>11928358
>attractiveness
>subjective
Yowzers

>>11928368
Anon, you won't win an argument for objective beauty. just drop it

>>11928192
based, ngl

>>11928369
An organism’s beauty is a form of goodness, because its beauty represents health, and likelihood of preserving the species. After all, the good is that which tends to existence.

>>11928369
You're right.
Anyone who thinks beauty is subjective is too stupid to bother talking to.

>>11928192
If proofs for god had it's cringe scoreboard, this would make the top 5.
And I always knew C. S. Lewis was gay. Bird brains logic: "innate desires always have a real object of desire" because it is so.

>>11928393
so you would consider angler fish beautiful? this is a perfectly healthy fish and it's appearance allows it to mate and continue it's species
>>11928402
blow it out your ass. The world doesn't conform to your view of it.

>>11928299
Not only. For example hyperreactive agency detection also does the trick.

>>11928417
It’s possible for organisms to exist while not being in higher forms of beauty. Such is the case for (too) many humans today. It’s also possible to have various parts with different degrees of beauty. Someone with a “beautiful mind” might have an ugly appearance, yet still have reproductive success, especially if his mind allows him to become wealthy. I don’t know much about the Angler fish, so I don’t know if it could be much more suited to its environment than it already is. I do know that it is limited to its environment, and can not have very large populations, which is perhaps another reason for its lack of beauty.

>>11928417
Some parts of it are beautiful, sure. Just look at the fins. But the face is too dissimilar to human proportions, which we have evolved a specific preference for.

>>11928393
I completely disagree, but I like your answer still.
Why existence = good?

>>11928477
>Why existence=good?
This I have observed, and think is true. Consider goodness and evil to humans. Usually, the evil is that which harms us, while the good is that which preserves us. Now, evil can exist, so it is still good, not to humans, but to God, because God is the source of all existence, and loves existence. This is why God is the most good being.

>>11928452
>different degrees of beauty
That would make it subjective. A "beautiful mind" is a subjective statement as well, as if the mind is lets say proficient at physics, one could find is fascinating and engaging while another could find it dull and lifeless. the knowledge that the mind contains is subjective to appeal. As of the mind obtaining wealth, it is not the mind that they are attracted to but rather just the wealth. And some people also find wealth to be a turn-off, as people voluntarily live reserved lives and consider this beautiful. And an excess of wealth can create "gaudy" look, which people would consider unattractive
>>11928459
If good things tend to exist then why does the angler fish's face look like that?

>>11928493
An evil to a human may be good to a hungry alligator. So, good and evil are subjective. But within that subjective view there is an objective measure of goodness. Though we may disagree on what is good, it does not mean there is no thing which will most likely preserve us, or that which is the most good thing.

>>11928493
You started well and then you blew it all.
The less preserving of species in this generation, the less harm in the next one. I'll go and look for some evil in my state of partial nonexistence, which is sleep.
Bye

>>11928514
>>11928514
>That would make it subjective
Sorry, I meant that some parts of the body may be very good, while others aren’t. The rest of your post can be answered >>11928527

>If good things tend to existence why does the angler’s face look like that?
It lives in the dark.

>>11928529
>The less preserving of species in this generation, the less harm in the next one
What? If harm is what leads to non-existence, then that species would be in a worse state, since it has a smaller chance of being preserved.

>>11928514
>then why does the angler fish's face look like that?
I don't think it's ugly. Beauty and the good arise where things are in accordance with what they are intended to be.

>>11928529
>I'll go and look for some evil in my state of partial nonexistence, which is sleep.
You’re just losing credibility at this point. If we abandoned sleep completely we would all fall into non-existence. Or do you not think sleep is a good thing?

>>11928527
Good and evil are not subjective. It is good for a hungry alligator to eat. It is good for a man to avoid being eaten. One will win. These things are natural and in their proper place. It is not contradictory.

>>11928527
I don't think any believers would suggest that desire and good are the same.

>>11928570
You’ve conveniently forgot
>it is not good for an alligator to starve
and
>it is not good for a human to die
Give me a challenge

>>11928276
Justify ethics needing to be "useful."

>>11928192

thats incredible

>>11928585
This is one of the most retarded posts I’ve ever seen

>>11928585
What is the point of a system of ethics that no one can follow and that it is biologically impossible to follow?

>>11928673
>>11928609
Name one (1) ethical system that's not realizable.

>>11928299
Yeah the Greeks couldn't wait to go to the underworld and be miserable for all eternity

Considering how little we know about the universe, how little we understand about nature (we can't even explain fucking gravity, only describe it) and how we keep finding smaller and smaller "planes" of existence as technology advances, it's pretty fucking cringy when an adult thinks he can 100% undoubtedly without any question proclaim that the existence of a god or some other life form we'd consider "higher" in comparison to us is impossible.

Just to clarify I don't believe in god. But to believe that one cannot exist is just naive. Agnostic 4 lyfe.

>>11928690
boy do I have a book for you

>>11928679
Any ethical system that advocates for nondiscrimination on the basis of looks is not realisable. It's simply in the nature of human biology that good is equated with pretty and evil with ugly.

Why can't we all just accept for once that we're all coping with the inevitability of death?

Believers cope by avoiding the subject, non believers cope by tackling the subject head on, in a fake confidence act.

Deep down we're all scared.

>>11928696
Sounds interesting. I'll put it on the list, thanks.

>>11928705
I think you are very wrong. Most of my spiritual thoughts have absolutely nothing do with my own mortality and I think it is the same for most. I can’t speak for all religions but Christianity is most definitely focused on how to conduct yourself in life and not about afterlife.

>>11928192
Good to see christfags think talking to themselves, mumbling over beads, allow priests to molest children unchallenged by anyone (except the other priests who protect the child predators), condemn people to eternal torture for minor slights, believe that the Earth was created by magic and that life is magical and has never changed in the time since its inception, can't agree on what books are in their Bible, and worship a Jew think they're not the cringe inducing faggots in the dialectic between them and the fedoras.
>>11928276
premise 1 is wrong there is no such thing as a coherent ethics because language doesn't translate to behavior properly. Premise 2 is only contingently true, there are cases where it isn't and also cases where "badly" is subjective or not really the case, it also doesn't help premise 1 being not true. the conclusions don't follow from the premises, there are livable ethics which aren't lookist and there is no coherent ethics at all much less one that is lookist and the second premise likely untrue as well; additionally, even if premise 1,2 held (they both do not) it wouldn't follow necessarily that hating them would be logical, it also wouldn't necessarily mean much of anything as far as "livable" ethics go, like you could hate them but still allow them to breed, or you could not hate them but exterminate them ruthlessly and countless other variations which would violate the atomic statements of the first two premises. Ergo the entire argument is invalid and unsound, you are a brainlet get off my fucking board now.
>>11928686
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elysium

note that the aristos often believed they were of divine lineages.
>>11928679
my ethics states that we should throw every single fat person into volcanoes, however many fat people are too strong, heavy or numerous or clandestine or influential to heave into volcanoes, this is the good life for me and my kin, we cannot realize it. There are infinite other iterations of just that template of ethics that aren't realizable, think before you speak.

>>11928698
sorry but ALL ethical systems advocate for nondiscrimination on the basis of looks.

>>11928276
Only uglies are athiest cause God finds all His Children beautiful

>>11928737
A great many do and they are unrealisable by the masses and hypocritical.
I don't see how you can deny the biological reality of the Halo Effect and discrimination against ugly people.

>>11928752
Anon he probably doesn't take it for consideration

>>11928299
>>11928705
I can't imagine what it would be like to think and live like this.

>>11928798
Dark and very damp, most thoughts in this degree of fallen Ideals sweats fear and contentment

>>11928726
Your interpretation of Christianity is very superficial to the point that I think you’ve never even done a cursory reading of the Bible. I hope you will ease your bias in time. Also your denial of coherent ethics because of the limits of language is ultimately misanthropic.

>>11928726
ACTUAL, logically formed, coherent ethical systems, ONE (1).

>>11928192
good

>>11928276
>2. Most humans are inherently lookist due to biological factors and hate and treat badly people who look ugly.
Ugliness isn't attractive, so it allows all kinds of shady activities. How many people spend their time chasing beauty, but avoid garbage? Yeah.

>>11928798
Why?

>>11928876
Ugliness allows people to do bad things?

>>11928705
>Believers cope by avoiding the subject
>all religious systems make death the point of metamorphosis, which life is a preparation for

how the fuck is this "avoiding the subject," all atheists do is say "WE'RE JUST SCARED YOU'RE SCARED LIKE ME," there is no organizing principle in life, "tackling the subject head on" means one of two things:
1. living in anticipation of death
2. committing suicide and seeing what death is all about

fucking hell i thought atheists prided themselves on being rational

>>11928945
It's like camouflage. People hate looking at you, so how can you make use of that? Among the uglies, the successful ones are evil.

>>11928966
>fucking hell i thought atheists prided themselves on being rational
Human pride is the antithesis of rational behavior, though.

>>11929014
two kinds of pride

the one that derives from self-acknowledgement and is proper

the one that derives from excessive validation and is improper

you're referring to hubris, which blinds

>>11928836
>Your interpretation of Christianity is very superficial to the point that I think you’ve never even done a cursory reading of the Bible.
>superficial
What part was WRONG? Please quote the bible in refutation.

>>11928966
>all atheists do is say...
All athiests say is that they don't believe in the supernatural fairy tales that constitute religion. That's it. I don't know if you're scared of death, and I couldn't care less either way. All religions, and I mean ALL, have some form of world creation myth. Religion is how early humans dealt with the inevitability of death: by framing human lives in a larger context, often with hopes of afterlife or reincarnation. As civilizations became more complex and hierarchical, monotheism came about to address the inequalities of stratified society. God is a dream of good government: even if you had a shit life as a homeless beggar, you will still be rewarded if you acted good according to god's commandments. And even spoiled rich people can miss their tickets to heaven if they're jerks. It's a comforting fantasy; it lets people believe that existence really is fair, regardless of what happens to us in our mortal lives. Might as well believe in leprechauns, though.

>>11928192
ITT butthurt fedora tippers get riled up by op and proceed to prove his point

>>11929286
well i mean some people were arguing objective beauty too

>>11928299
not really, heaven is a new idea if you are thinking about the time religion has been around

>>11928836
>you're a misanthrope
yes and?
>you've never read the bible
I have a bible sitting on my nightstand anon, what did I get wrong?
>>11928839
Don't even know what you're protesting, there is no coherent actual ethical system, and its being logically formed means nothing because it doesn't actually cause behavior or describe behavior or predict behavior properly, its just arguments between humans when they're not actually doing the things being proscribed or prescribed. If you want to say something then say it, don't act like what you said was even vaguely clear, much less intelligent. It was neither, anyone who has spent time at uni learning ethics and logic could eviscerate most of the stupid shit in this thread.

>>11929369

>>11929167
>God is a dream of good government
could you be any more of a marxist

>>11929482
Yes, considering I'm not remotely marxist.

>innate desires always have a real object of desire to satisfy them.

proof?

>>11929430
excellent thought anon, I agree that not only are you a fucking faggot but you're also a gutless midwit coward and so is the OP

>>11929752
Do you genuinely have autism? Serious question.

>>11929841
I'm pretty sure he's just pointing out that you're a faggot.

>>11929869
So that's a yes.

>>11929907
Maybe, but considering your only rebuttal was a wojak reaction image, I'm sure he's much happier being an autist than a blithering retard.

>>11929912
Lad, I'm not the one took the shitposting op as a personal affront. Get it together.

>atheists are so arrogant and cringy following their prejudice and looking down on us cristbros
>meanwhile this thead is christians doing just that
Irony and basedpilled?

>>11929931
>Lad, I'm not the one took the shitposting op as a personal affront.
Neither am I, I'm just clarifying that someone was pointing out that you're a faggot.

>>11928552
I ment harm as suffering and that can only exist if consciousness exists. No humans = no suffering.
You look for the good of the species, not for the good of conscious beings. And it seems to me it's the "selfish gene" talking through you. You are willingly becoming just a vessel for evolution.

>>11928566
It was a joke, buddy