/lit/ - Literature

I just love your air of superiority!

>>14062063
>Morality is doing whatever benefits you the most
stopped reading here

>>14062136
Why be moral, then?

>>14062063
>morality is a strictly utilitarian calculus

No.

>>14062342
Not an argument

>>14062063
>benefits
>the most
Morality is what I am when I am not in an internal conflict.

>Dude, what if the good was the good
You've cracked it anon

>>14062430
So what? He's correct and you're wrong. No argument is needed. We could remove all arguments from the world and it would still exist.

>>14062141
You think margret spent millions on a Monet because it benefitted her?

>>14062513
How am I supposed to respond to you or him? No substance

>>14062104
I'd rather he act like he's superior to everyone than to be a sniveling faggot like yourself

>morality is based only on the results
sounds like someone skimmed Il Principe and decided to embrace surface level Machiavellianism

>>14062063
>Morality is doing whatever benefits you the most.
Look, I'm a big Stirner guy, but don't you think this is a little bit reductive? I'm fine with admitting morality is inevitably self-centered, but words like benefit strike me as too straightforwardly hedonistic. Do people really think this way, or is it just simplification?

Regarding the utilitarian/deontic conflict in the background, I've stopped referring to utilitarian decisions as moral at all since having read Kant. And in conjunction with that, I also think it's worth noting that what might prove a certain moral system to be "correct" might not the same as what moral decisions within that system are predicated upon. Kant might hate me for this, but suppose you have moral system X, which is not utilitarianism, and can show that it fulfills utilitarian goals better than utilitarianism itself does. Per the hypothetical, actions within this system aren't based upon measures of utility, but them-having utility may be how you argue in favor of them over utilitarianism. Epistemic justification is not the same as moral predication. Sometimes I make optimal decisions, sometimes I make moral ones. But not only my decisions but the distinctions between the two kinds, is itself egoistic.

>>14062583
read more Hegel and Carlè holy fuck

>>14062583
Some experiences are more preferable than others. The most preferable experience should be sought, and this is what it means to be benefited. Simple pleasure seeking is rebuked by time: hedonism cannot be sustained over a lifetime, and does not lead to lasting contentment, at least for most people.

>ugh another morality thread
>here have another shit morality thread
Read a book

>>14062614
The last thread was hardly directional. This one is much more specific. The simple question is: why be moral? We should first accept that morality is based on self before asking questions like how atheists have morality. Every question concerning morality is made much more simpler when we start with that obvious truth.

>>14062063
Let me break your shitty argument with one simple question: is giving your life to save your child a moral act?

>>14062648
How can I know what is most beneficial? I pointed out that some decisions are morally gray because we don’t know the future. If Heaven is real, and sacrificing yourself will get you to heaven, then the choice is obvious. If there is no afterlife, and you’re suicidal, then I believe that would be a good way to end your life. Otherwise, I think it depends on the child. If the child is related to you, then you could increase the chance of your familial genes being spread. But let’s say you were about to conceive lots of children with your wife, or maybe you already have a lot of kids. Then, if you sacrifice yourself, then your children will lack proper protection and support. It all depends on the circumstance and the truth of the world.

>>14062648
>>14062670
also there's the fact that the child may end up growing up to be a terrible person

>>14062693

>>14062701
unironically worth more than the mayor, so no, bad example

>>14062705
All the people who suffered as a result might have a different opinion on that. But I would have done the same thing as Tenma

>>14062670
>>14062693
>you could increase the chance of your familial genes being spread
That doesn't benefit you if you're dead. Hell, having children at all doesn't benefit you, at least not in our current society since they are unlikely to stick around and support you in your old age. You also cannot base your morality on something like Heaven or your child not growing into a criminal, since they will always be hypotheticals no matter how much faith you have.
The major issue with your argument is that you assume personal benefit is the ultimate goal of life, when in fact the vast majority of living beings show to care more about other things than just their own benefit. You cannot have a universal moral system if you don't have universal priorities first.

>>14062063
>>14062726
And yes, claiming that "Morality is doing whatever benefits you the most" IS a universal statement.

>>14062716
fuck everyone else in this situation, someone participating in corruption deserves to die first. Johan is smol anime boy; who cares if he kills people when the mayor is a dick
>>14062726
>since they will always be hypotheticals
seems that you didn't read the OP, he already addressed this

>>14062726
>Hell, having children at all doesn't benefit you
Then why do people do it?
>You also cannot base your morality on something like Heaven or your child not growing into a criminal, since they will always be hypotheticals no matter how much faith you have.
Tomorrow’s existence is hypothetical, but you should still prepare for it.
>The major issue with your argument is that you assume personal benefit is the ultimate goal of life, when in fact the vast majority of living beings show to care more about other things than just their own benefit.
We care about the things that contribute to our benefit. Killing ants is nothing compared to killing humans. Humans, and many other animals, are social creatures and flourish with the help of others. It is good for an individual to be good to others. Do you disagree? And do you somehow think that it is better to not seek maximum benefit? What a contradiction!

>Petitio principii; the post

>>14062749
>Then why do people do it?
Because they like fucking with condoms, for example. Or because they simply want to continue and preserve life on Earth.
>Tomorrow’s existence is hypothetical, but you should still prepare for it. >>14062739
Sure, but is killing someone because you believe they might turn into a criminal a moral act, even though they have done nothing wrong yet?
>It is good for an individual to be good to others. Do you disagree?
If it gets you killed, it's not good for you personally. However, it might be good for reaching some other goal, like the "continue and preserve life on Earth" I mentioned before. Different priorities, different morality systems.

>>14062812
>Because they like fucking without* condoms

>>14062812
>Sure, but is killing someone because you believe they might turn into a criminal a moral act, even though they have done nothing wrong yet?
No one is advocating doing that. That would only be possible if you had absolute knowledge that the kid would grow to cause a lot of suffering. Even then it would be risky as you would have to convince others that the child is evil. As I said in the OP, what we believe is moral isn’t always actually moral, especially in the case that God doesn’t exist, or when the moral question doesn’t concern topics covered explicitly in the Bible. It is generally moral to save children, and not to kill them, so it is practical to act on that principle.
>If it gets you killed, it's not good for you personally.
We will all die eventually. Before we die, our motives seem to be predicated upon preserving our genes. Personal success and happiness is a great indicator of future attraction and ability to mate with good genes. Killing your self for another is very moral, especially if you have already lived your life, and reproduced. Older people are much more selfless for this reason. I would not blame a good-natured teenager for not saving a child.

>>14062861
>Morality is doing whatever benefits you the most
>our motives seem to be predicated upon preserving our genes
>Killing your self for another is very moral
So which one is it? These 3 things can be mutually exclusive.

>>14062063
>that post
>that pic

Did you even watch Monster? The entire conflict of the show revolves around the irony of Tenma making a selfless choice that backfires on him. In any case, your post reads like you're a 16 year old who has never had to really consider the consequences of their actions.

The reason morality is such a difficult subject is because it can't be understood without omnipotence. Until human beings can solve the problem of having limitations of knowledge and perception, then we will never solve the problem of morality. And trying to convince yourself that you've got it all figured out is extremely dangerous, not just for yourself, but for others as well.

>>14062861
To add on, imagine a games of chess. Common theory and knowledge says that you shouldn’t do x type of move in y type of position. Say a grandmaster is in the championship, and is deciding between two moves: one that aligns with common principles, and another that doesn’t. He doesn’t actually know which move is the best. Yet, it’s likely that one move is truly better and gives him better chances. To break the principles and play the strange move is only considered wise when he knows that the move will improve his chances of winning. Otherwise, he is playing foolishly. Similarly, it is best to act in line with moral principles that are proven to tend to good results, unless we have good reason to act otherwise. Just because it’s possible that acting “immorally” can actually be moral, doesn’t mean we have license to ditch our moral principles whenever we feel like it. My main point is that we are flawed beings, lacking in free will, not always able to benefit ourselves the most.

>>14062901
Those things can be mutually inclusive as well.
>>14062911
It’s just a reaction image from a show I like. I don’t bother relating morality to the show.
>And trying to convince yourself that you've got it all figured out is extremely dangerous, not just for yourself, but for others as well.
Can you convince me that it is not best to do what is best for the self? If morality is sometimes doing something that doesn’t benefit you the most in the end, then why be moral? I don’t think you’ve read my post carefully.

>>14062949
>Those things can be mutually inclusive as well.
Of course they can be, they are in the vast majority of situations, but the issues arise when they are not. How do you choose the moral thing to do?

>>14062976
>How do you choose the moral thing to do?
This has been discussed throughout the thread. There are many factors that would influence your decision. If you’re old, or suicidal, then it makes sense to save yourself for the child, especially if that child is related to you, or seems like someone that will be a good person. We are biological creatures, and part of our programming is saving beings that share our genes. I can’t answer why exactly we are compelled to do so. We just are. We enjoy continuing the species and preserving life. If saving a child seems so worthwhile that I should kill myself for it, then in those few seconds, I am having a positive experience. There is nothing more meaningful than such an act.
>Greater love hath no man than this: that he lay down his life for a friend.

>>14062063
Why Is Johan Liebert so based?

>>14063009
So you morality system is: "Do the first thing your biological instincts tell you to do".

Do I REALLY have to say why this is an absolutely terrible argument for morality?

>>14062063
This is so simple.

>>14063017
Because literally everyone else in that anime is a terrible human being, Tenma and Nina in particular.

>>14062911
>trying to convince yourself that you've got it all figured out is extremely dangerous, not just for yourself, but for others as well.
Who cares; we're all going to die anyways.

>>14062949
>Can you convince me that it is not best to do what is best for the self?

No, I can't, and I'd be trying to manipulate you if I did. You may be right in that I jumped the gun with my response, and for that I apologize. Doing what is best for the self is ultimately the most moral thing a person can do. However, doing what is best for your own self requires that a person:

A) Determines what the right thing for themselves is
B) Takes action towards ensuring that they manifest that idea into reality

From what I've observed, doing just of these things is extremely difficult in any given situation and doing both of them is so rare that the people who actually manage to do it usually grow to become inspiring figures who seem larger than life.

For example: I abuse my prescription amphetamines every time I get the prescription for them. There are many, many simple solutions for solving this very basic problem, the most obvious of which being 'just don't fucking do that thing you know is bad and instead do that thing you know is good'. Indeed, what I do is exceptionally immoral because it harms myself and others. But still, I continue to do that which is clearly irrational and wrong. In spite of this, I continue to engage in my immoral behavior because I find comfort in knowing that eventually I will quit procrastinating and try to become sober.

The point is, I can continually engage in immoral behavior because I am able to find comfort in procrastinating on my vague ideas about life without amphetamines. I have romanticized it so much that to simply imagine the amount of progress I'll make when I start exercising, eating right, and avoiding drugs/alcohol is about 10,000 better than what life is really like when I'm sober all the time. So you tell me-- do I sound like the kind of person who really knows what is best for me and therefore able to claim that I am a moral person because of it?

TL;DR - You're not wrong, but you're not right either.

>>14062063

>The theist cannot imagine the possibility that murder may be right in some situations, because God has made murder a sin.

Im an atheist, and it dosen't really matter besides the sake of argument, but there is a scene in the old testament where on the day of sabbath a sheep is stuck in a hole in a very hot day, and a sheperd is trying to get the sheep out of the hole. But thats breaking a rule because he is taking care of a sheep, and thats his job technicaly, and its the day of sabbath.
Jesus who was walking by says "If you dont understand what you are doing you are a transgresor of the law and you are cursed, but if you do understand what you are doing then you are blessed."

So its not so simple. The idea being, that for instance even tough you shouldn't lie, lets say you are living in a dictatorship and you are sheltering members of the resistance.
The police comes knocking at your door to ask if you are hiding anything, you are allowed to lie. As a general rule the theist think we should do what is supposedely moral, but if you really think you should and you understand properly the context then you should do what is the most moral thing from your perspective. However that is also predicated on the notion that moral choices are things that produce the most good on not only yourself but also the world. So that wouldn't make mutch sense with an excessively heidonistic definition of morality. But either way that is not how the theist morality works, not that it invalidate the rest of the

I don't care about your opinion on morality to be honest.

>>14063189
I knew, hence why i said it was merely for the sake of argument towards this specific part and dosen't invalidate the rest of your post in any way. That being said, i never ever said clearly what my stance on morality was.

>>14062592
OK but could I get more of a lead here?

>>14063236
I didn't read your post in the first place

>>14063073
explain.

All morality can be reduced to biological imperative. That is to say, whatever moral predisposition your Gene's are more acclimated to, would fulfill that specific function. That is all that needs to be said.

You as a human being are stuck in the middle. You think you have the freedom to act morally, but your act of morality is a result of your genes interacting with the environment, deterministically and paradoxically.

Are you doing it? Or is it doing you? There is ultimately no way to know and enlightenment is when you accept this presupposition as something inescapable as you sink into this paradigm of existence.

>>14063247
lol

>>14063236
not OP

>>14062063
>Morality is doing whatever benefits you the most.
Starting an argumentation by stating something so diarrhetically arbitrary, mmm, lovely! What is benefit? What am I? What is "doing"? Couldn't we say that me doing my job is not benefiting me, because, really, I'm just wasting my energy, but that the real benefit is that my boss pays me? If so, morality would then be displaced from my consciousness and dispersed into the boss, and in the long run into a web of mutually dependent relations among people, thus undermining the idea that "I" should be the central point morality stems from and leads towards.
Besides, even if we disregard that, is it moral when I willingly do something that doesn't benefit me but it completely accidentally turns out to benefit me through some unexpected means? And is it moral when I willingly do something that I believe would benefit me but turns out to harm me?
How do I even know what harm and benefit are? I can't see into the future to know what outcome an action will have.
But, again, what is benefit, if I'll die regardless of how much I've benefited in my life?

>>14063258
>All morality can be reduced to biological imperative.
It can, but it doesn't have to.

>>14063288
have sex

>>14063311
Would you be interested in helping me with that?

>>14063311
Also, how would having sex benefit me?

>>14063288
What do you mean it doesn't have to, it's not like you have a choice in the matter. You might think you do but ultimately you dont.

>>14063347
>>14063351
cope

>>14063366
Then why did you say it *can* be reduced?

Because you are composed of matter and elements, stuck in a closed loop of reaction to the environment. Your thought "processes" are entirely based on chemical interactions. Therefore it can be reduced to the purely material constituent of my existence, despite me having the conviction I an free and autonomous.

>>14063288
>is it moral when I willingly do something that doesn't benefit me but it completely accidentally turns out to benefit me through some unexpected means?
Yes. In certain poker scenarios, a foolish move can lead to a good result, but that doesn’t justify the move. Murdering everyone around me just might be the best thing for me, but I can’t know that, so it’s foolish to do such a thing given my knowledge.
>How do I even know what harm and benefit are?
We don’t know the future, but we have an idea of what experiences are more preferable and how to achieve those experiences. You must know this, or else you likely wouldn’t be alive by now.

>>14062063
did Johan have a goal or was he just an asshole

>>14062063
>An unwise man might think it’s ok to murder, but going to jail for the rest of his life is probably not conducive to his well-being.
This line alone makes me fail to take you seriously.
>A person's morality deems murder is bad because he would go to jail
And yet, what about why a person would go to jail in the first place? What kind of fucked up circular logic is this?

>>14062063
>An unwise man might think it’s ok to murder, but going to jail for the rest of his life is probably not conducive to his well-being.
This line alone makes me fail to take you seriously. It does not attempt to clarify WHY you would be put in jail for such an act, nor why it would be consider heinous to commit one in the first place. What a vapid, useless post filled with circular logic.

>>14063441
You're not talking about morality but about foolishness at this point. And that is irrelevant, because we're talking about the former. It is equally irrelevant whether I have or have not survived for a certain time period or what produces serotonin in my body, because that is only a biological/physical and not an ethical matter (though you might wish to prove the opposite, which I'll gladly hear).

>>14063666
He’s put in jail because people don’t like murderers roaming free. That’s conducive to their self-benefit. This is obvious.

>>14063759
Perhaps I should have rephrased that. What I meant to say was why would an act such as murder be considered immoral because it negatively affects you, when the issue is the act of murder itself is deemed sheer evil universally agreed upon by society? It doesn't make sense to me to suggest a sociopath who doesn't kill someone because it would cover his blow is being "moral", rather than simply pragmatic.

>>14062136
Me too

>>14063838
I have no idea what you’re saying

>>14063875
I'm saying morality isn't this series of individual to individual traits, rather a universal trait defined by society. You say a man who wishes to murder a man is acting "moral" for not going through with it, but not out of a conscience, but moreso out of a pragmatic perspective as he would be judged by society for doing so. Are smart sociopaths deemed moral? From OP's perspective, yes. Yet most of us here would not define that as so.

>>14063892
>but not out of a conscience
Meaningless phrase

>>14063892
Humans have similar genetics and desires. That’s we have common moral principles. Snakes do not care about our crime laws, they attack humans anyway. Pragmatism is a reasonable base for morality, especially over your vague idea of “conscience,” whatever that means. Why is killing an ant less punishable than striking a human? Do you think killing an ant is just as wrong as killing a human? Why?

>>14063062
Is this an insult or are you realizing how needlessly complex and vague morality is made out to be?

>>14062063
>i define morality as follows...
Literally all you said you fucking loser. No, morality has various definition from which you take the word. Overwriting them doesn't make you right. Why not just use another word and not be bound by something clearly separate to your conception?

>>14063997
I would define morality as what you ought to do. And you ought to do that which benefits yourself the most. How could you disagree with this?

>>14064031
Redefining things is not the same as solving them. Maybe my car can't start but if I say that cars ought not to start (because I say so, don't question my definitions!) and, wow, now everything is fine and I didn't have to put in effort to fix the car.

>>14064257
Then give the proper definition

Is Johann objectively evil or does Tenma simply believe him to be?

>>14062063
Nope, morality is doing whatever accrues the most things of the colour blue in your life.

>>14062063
You have to define what a beneficial future looks like to you, which essentially resets that argument back to square one.
You've essentially just said, "Morality is creating a future that lines up best with my values in the long run." But you didn't define what your values are, and kind of alluded to the pursuit of morality being a sociopathic endeavor.

For example, if my idea of benefiting me the most in the long run is improving society as a whole so that my children and grand children start in a better place, then I'm doing things that align with traditional archetypes of "morally good".

>>14064324
The constitution of the agent and the environment determine what is moral. What you think will improve your subjective experience overall for your existence might not actually be the case. But in general we know some basics. As I said in the OP, we must act on faith in moral endeavors. No one ever truly knows the correct path in any situation, though we can guess correctly.

>>14062063
No wonder America has so many school shootings

>>14064334
>The constitution of the agent and the environment determine what is moral.
That makes no sense to me.
You're gonna have to give me your definition of constitution and agent if you want me to be able to pull anything from that. Environment seems pretty self explanatory, but you might as well throw that definition in there too if it differs from the obvious one.

The way it reads now, you're saying
>the combination of you (The agent) and everything that's not you (The environment) determine morality.
Which essentially boils down to saying that everything determines morality.
Seems pretty self-evident.

The point of my post is that you have to define your values and ideals yourself, which would affect how you perceive the things that benefit you.

If the things that benefit you are subjective, that would mean that morality(the pursuit of things that benefit best in the long run) is subjective as well.

In that context, working towards things that will provide a perceived benefit to you is morally good, and the failure to work towards things that will provide a perceived benefit is morally evil. And I agree with that to some extent, but it's really just playing semantics with the term benefit.

The idea that the only way to be morally evil is to either not have any values or ideals at all, or to actively be working to push yourself further away from your values and ideals is one that I'd accept readily.

>>14064409
>If the things that benefit you are subjective, that would mean that morality(the pursuit of things that benefit best in the long run) is subjective as well
Morality definitely depends on the subject. Humans have different morals than other animals, and even among humans, what benefits one human might harm another. But the word “subjective” has a connotation that implies that we can simply choose what is moral. Sure, what we think is moral can sometimes be truly moral, but that isn’t always the case. A simple example is pleasure-seeking. You might develop a philosophy that the only thing that matters is sex, drugs, etc. and live your life like that, but you might suffer later. And it might be the case that if you had made different decisions, then you would be happier now, and you would prefer this other life to your own. Take all the possible lives, and place yourself in them. Look back on all your life in each of those lives, and judge them. Whichever life produces the most pleasant experience is the best life, and the one you should seek. But obviously no one can do this. So morality is fixed, objective, etc. but we can only use faith in seeking what we think is moral. To be truly moral is to be perfect. You would be like a chess AI that has calculated all the possibilities and plays the perfect moves.

>>14064450
>morality is objective
>but is also doing whatever benefits you the most
Retard. Just say you are a moral relativists, like most of the population on the planet, you are nothing special and you feel like making this dumb threads

>>14064450
If you're purely a pleasure seeking creature, and you have the ability to be something more if you put in the effort, then you failed to establish long term values and ideals. You're simply enacting hypothalamic impulses.

In my previously stated model, the failure to create values and ideals (when you have the ability to do so) is immoral.

>>14064471
I've seen acts of malevolence that I can't help but view as objectively immoral, but I don't think anything can be objectively moral. Which is pretty pessimistic now that I think about it, but I think it's right.

If you're trying to negatively affect someone else with no possible benefit to yourself, I can't help but feel that's objectively immoral.

>>14064471
What is subjectively good for you tomorrow is objectively determined today based on you and your environment. There’s an arrow above our heads pointing us in the right direction, but we cannot see it. That is why I say morality is objective. Perhaps there is a better word to describe it, but I’m not very verbose. The right path is determined based on your experience as a result of taking that path, but nothing you can do or think will make some other path become the best path.

>>14062063
You just replaced morality with strategy.

>>14064510
Then what is morality? Give the proper definition

>>14064506
The issue isn't just that morality shifts over time, it's that morality is completely dependent on your frame of reference.

ISIS thinks they're doing the morally right thing by blowing up a school full of children before they have the chance to sin and go to hell.

>>14064523
As I said, striving to be moral requires faith. Who can say with authority what is moral and what isn’t? The problem is much more complicated when you consider the afterlife. I described theistic morality in the OP, and how this system is universal, objective, etc. but this is also faith-based. I haven’t yet advocated any specific system of principles, only the simple idea that we ought to try to benefit ourselves as much as possible.

>>14064534
Taking any action requires faith in your judgement of the outcome of the action.

I don't think that adds anything to the discussion though.

>>14064546
>I don't think that adds anything to the discussion though.
My goal was not to create discussion, but to clear up confusion. Starting from a common understanding, we can then raise some questions and decide what should be discussed. But we’re apparently not ready for that stage, yet.

>>14064559
Maybe you just weren't up to the task.

>>14062136
This.

>>14064567
Why be moral?

>>14064578
If your definition of moral is the same as OP's, then it's pretty self evident why you'd want to be moral.
If you want to be immoral in that context, then you're nihilistic and you should have killed yourself by now.

>>14064592
I meant if OP is wrong, then why care about morality? If for some reason the most moral path is less beneficial to you in the end, then why should you be moral?

>>14064598
OP can't be wrong, he left his definitions extremely vague and left it open to semantic interpretation.

You have to attach a specific definition to beneficial before a conversation can be had on whether or not OP is wrong.

Personally beneficial? Consciously beneficial?
You can't know what will be best for you in the long run. Partially because you're imperfect and can't accurately predict the outcomes of your actions, but mostly because the things that are beneficial to you change based on your current value system.

To always be working towards something that will be beneficial to you, as far ahead in the future as you can reliably predict (In your best approximation), is morally correct from your own frame of reference.

"It is a moral responsibility to pursue what is meaningful."
The things that are meaningful to you are defined by you.
You assign meaning to life, there is no innate meaning to life.

>>14064623
Explained here
>>14064450
>>14064506

>>14064635
That doesn't explain anything.
Animals don't have morality as they're, for the most part, engaged in perpetual hypothalamic impulse fulfillment.

You gave an example where someone refused to create a value structure that included the future and reaped the negative consequences of their inaction.
The difference between a person engaged in perpetual hypothalamic impulse fulfillment and an animal is that the person has the potential to put off momentary pleasure in favor of long term benefits, while the animal usually doesn't.

The person is making a conscious decision to negatively affect their long term well being, unless they're literally unconscious of their actions and their possible future consequences, which sometimes happens in this day and age.
Fukkin NPC's.

>>14064635
And I'm not sure if you read this post fully
>>14064409
But this part of that post
>If the things that benefit you are subjective, that would mean that morality(the pursuit of things that benefit best in the long run) is subjective as well.

>In that context, working towards things that will provide a perceived benefit to you is morally good, and the failure to work towards things that will provide a perceived benefit is morally evil. And I agree with that to some extent, but it's really just playing semantics with the term benefit.

>The idea that the only way to be morally evil is to either not have any values or ideals at all, or to actively be working to push yourself further away from your values and ideals is one that I'd accept readily.

Is saying that I agree with the idea that morality is seeking the things that will benefit you the most, in the context I provided.

>>14064635
To simplify, I think it is immoral to not act in a way that lines up with your values.
You should constantly be striving to reach your ideal, and that's not necessarily selfish as your ideal will be something that benefits the people around you if you have any sense.

>>14062063
so psychopathy is actually the the best morality .... OP ... idk what to say !? Brilliant !

>>14062648
I largely share OPs viewpoint and I say yes. Ill die anyway, and I consider my childs life to be very meaningful. Ill die for it - doesn't matter if anything comes after, I consider that a good death.

>>14062136
Yep

Actually morality is following the laws of physics. There are two good arguments for this, the first one is the fact that we can only follow the laws of physics and becuase ought-implies-can, every ethical theory is infact ethical physicism.

The second one is even more devastating: why be moral? For example, why should I benefit myself? There is no good argument for this, but there is a better argument for ethical physicalism, namely that you are a physical being and therfor you should follow the laws of physics, becuase is implies ought and all that and it's a necessary condition for existence.

>>14062136
Can't handle truth, huh? Plato has given up on this fact as well.

I read too much Nietzsche, how do I become a good person again

>>14062726
>The major issue with your argument is that you assume personal benefit is the ultimate goal of life, when in fact the vast majority of living beings show to care more about other things than just their own benefit.

This is the source of confusion - people like OP see no significant difference between saving your child because you want to and letting your kid die because you want to. Both are acting out their self-interest. The reasons behind WHY you want that thing in particular are not chosen - you just happen to be that sort of a person.

>>14064521
when choosing from a variety of possuble actions, the ons that, to tge best of your knowledge, will generate the most happiness and or eliminate the most suffering in the long term is the most moral. All other moral frameworks are derivatives of this principle.

>>14062583
Are you sure that the determinations of 'moral system X' aren't based on measures of utility? How likely is that a moral system would persist and rise to prominence if it does not confer pragmatic advantages? It may not be consciously done in such a case, but I'd argue that utility is always the foundation of any set of prescriptions/proscriptions (what measures will achieve desired outcomes).

>>14062726
They simply haven't reduced things far enough. Morality is about collective benefit/surival. Even non-mystics often seem to forget that the values they possess as an individual only exist because they served some collective purpose. Universal morality isn't required (nor possible), only a sufficient amount of overlap.

>>14062732
No, it's an objective statement.

>>14063046
Abstract thought is also biological in origin, and influences the equation. Do you have evidence for free will?

>>14063288
You're not actually capable of doing something without at least the intent of benefitting yourself in some way (even if very temporarily). If you punch yourself in the face to attempt to prove me wrong, you're still doing so to satisfy yourself psychologically: "Heh I'm right, gottem!"

>>14062519
>How am I supposed to respond to you or him?
You're not.
>No substance
The substance should be clear to you in so far as you perceive the world.

>>14062136
same

>>14064683
Right, because actively wanting to do the things that don’t benefit you is perfectly sane.

>>14062063

>I will define a word in a different way than others and then make a post about how wrong other people are

>>14065865
Then what is the proper definition?

>>14065883
There is no single definition, the point is that it is not useful to argue about what a word means.

Is it useful to define "morality" as "acting in the way that benefits you"? Most likely not because no-one else defines it that way. It is more constructive to provide an argument about something than to re-define a word to mean what you think is right and the call others stupid for having another definition.

It is moral to act in the manner X vs morality means acting in the manner X

Here's the CHAD take on morality; the realization that the world is utterly meaningless, that life has no intrinsic value and that all human struggle is ultimately futile as it is just an extension of the ever-going historical proccess, and while having this series of revelations actually choosing to treat others with kindness and respect, for we are all doomed to suffer until we die and others come take our steps into the dance of life and death that is human existence.

>>14065911
Typically morality concerns good and bad behavior, or what you ought and ought not to do. I’m simply clarifying that the good behavior should be based on what benefits you in the end. Utilitarians make a similar proposition, but for some reason, extend this principle to universal benefit, which I would say has no real reason behind it. It might be the case that creating a happy society is the best thing for the individual, but why should increasing universal happiness be the end? It is really just the means to increasing the happiness of the self. So only in some cases do utilitarian principles align with correct moral behavior.

As for what the correct moral principles are, as I said, it is ultimately based on faith as we do not know what will benefit us the most in the end.

>>14062063
pretty based ngl

Sing me a song, you're a singer
Do me a wrong, you're a bringer of evil
The devil is never a maker
The less that you give, you're a taker
So it's on and on and on, it's heaven and hell
Oh well
The lover of life's not a sinner
The ending is just a beginner
The closer you get to the meaning
The sooner you'll know that you're dreaming
So it's on and on and on, oh it's on and on and on
It goes on and on and on, Heaven and Hell
I can tell
Fool, fool
Oh uh
Yeah, yeah, yeah
Well if it seems to be real, it's illusion
For every moment of truth, there's confusion in life
Love can be seen as the answer, but nobody bleeds for the dancer
And it's on and on, on and on and on and on and on and on and on
They say that life's a carousel
Spinning fast, you've got to ride it well
The world is full of kings and queens
Who blind your eyes and steal your dreams
It's heaven and hell, oh well
And they'll tell you black is really white
The moon is just the sun at night
And when you walk in golden halls
You get to keep the gold that falls
It's heaven and hell, oh no
Fool, fool
You've got to bleed for the dancer
Fool, fool
Look for the answer
Fool, fool, fool

>>14062136

You're in the Maxtrix, Stirner. Don't follow the spook-rabbit.

>>14062136
this desu

Morality is cute and funny.

>>14065933
It seems most ethical systems are chasing the ghost of universality. There are utilitarians -- myself included -- that don't believe morality is universal (it functions via overlap in natures, not universality of nature).

I will disagree in that moral behaviour is about what benefits your collective, not just yourself. Consider, if it were possible to be a lone entity in the universe, and your actions would have no impact for others, then 'morality' would be a senseless notion -- it wouldn't apply. The reason is obvious; the individual only exists because their collective survives.

The correct moral principles are those which lead to the healthiest sustainable populations, and so are potential matters of fact. We may not be able to approach the answers via exacting calculation, but we can study outcomes and apply a heuristic model to iteratively improve them.

>>14067576
Would you rather go to Heaven and doom everyone else to hell, or go to hell, allowing everyone else to go to Heaven? Note that in either scenario, your experience of heaven or hell is the same. So you will not remember the choice you made and regret it. What do you do?

>>14068922
>your experience of heaven or hell is the same
do you mean that heaven and hell is the same experience for you, irrespective of their designation ? meaning that heaven and hell is basically the same place ? if so why even add this to the equation ?

>>14068922
I'd like to think I'd have the courage to sacrifice myself for everyone else... Even realizing that I only possess such a value due to evolutionary circumstance.

I've seen this hypothetical posed a few times here in relation to the topic of morality, and I'm not sure what it's supposed to prove. What's so clever about it?

>>14062063
>too many pieces in the game

>>14069094
I meant that regardless of your choice, your experience of heaven will be the same as if you went to heaven naturally. So if you chose heaven, you would not be burdened by your decision.
>>14069250
The idea is that usually we care for others in such a way that is beneficial to ourselves. But in this case, being good to everyone has no benefit for you, while sending them to hell is great for you.

>>14069250
>I'd like to think I'd have the courage to sacrifice myself for everyone else...
So you would choose hell? If you could decide right now, you would choose an eternity of torment? I assume you think that the correct choice is to choose hell, but does that mean you will actually choose it? Or will you simply say that you are imperfect, and that therefore you would choose heaven?

>>14062639
God, you fucking midwit. Did you forget?

>>14069269
It does have a benefit though, in that you gain the fleeting psychological satisfaction of acting in accordance with your values.

Still, if someone were to condemn everyone else instead, what would it prove about the nature of moral behaviour? Surely immoral actions must be possible for moral actions to exist?

>>14069281
I'm saying that perhaps we can't know for sure what we'd do until confronted by such a drastic choice. Deciding right now, I would choose hell.

>>14069324
>in that you gain the fleeting psychological satisfaction of acting in accordance with your values.
You think that is worth it all? Consider the possibility that your principles, which generally are good, do not apply in this situation. We are not used to such extreme hypotheticals, so we are hardwired to believe it is always good to be good to others even if it means harming yourself. But in this case, you will be suffering for eternity, all because you wanted to stick to your values. I think you have a hard time of convincing yourself that you could get away with such a thing, that you could actually get into Heaven by sending them to hell. Personally, I would choose heaven in a heartbeat.

>>14069363
I think it would be worth it. One experience vs. countless experiences. It is in my nature to have empathy (hardwired, as you say), but I don't second guess that nature; it is greater than me as an individual. I wouldn't exist without the collective -- without sacrifices from those who came before me -- and I consider it honourable to fufill that role. Obviously my principles still do apply, as they still have consequences.

So you would make the immoral choice... Fine. What does that have to do with the nature of morality again?

>>14069409
>What does that have to do with the nature of morality again?
I would say that people like you have created this false version of morality, adhering to it while forgetting how those moral systems were derived. For example, utilitarianism makes some sense from an egoist perspective, because individuals do well in a happy society. But we shouldn’t make utilitarianism be THE principle of morality. Why is doing good to others moral in itself? Why should I do that? There is no answer but “because it’s the right thing to do” etc.

>>14069437
I'm not forgetting the derivation at all. Moral systems are simply formalizations of cooperative social behaviours. The entire purpose of such behaviours is to ensure the survival and flourishing of collectives; this is simple and rather obvious answer to 'why' certain actions are moral.

Why do you think morality is only concerned with individual benefit? How does that even make sense?

>>14065862
Yeah if beheading some people is going to benefit me so be it! haha