/lit/ - Literature

Morality is objective; see virtue ethics.

Morality is an extension of aesthetics.

>>14180017
Why is it ok to kill an ant, but not a human?

Morality exists, but it's subjective. For instance, I think it's wrong to kill someone, but if you said it was righteous to kill someone, you wouldn't necessarily be incorrect. For you to be incorrect, morality would have to be objective. That doesn't mean morality doesn't exist, though.

>>14180037
>differing perspectives on what is moral disproves objective morality

>>14180030
It's not okay to kill an ant.

>>14180037
Morality is dependent on the consequence. If killing leads to your suffering, then it’s immoral. In other words, you should not do it. We all have common moral principles because we have a common understanding of what’s good and bad for us. We all eat, for example. The reason we have disagreements and moral dilemmas is because it is not always easy to know what is good for us in the end. We can not calculate the future, and some situations are too complex for our instincts to guide us.

>>14180030
The notion of morality exists only as a figment of mind, where it can objectively exist.
>>14180023
See
>>14180030
You don't have to be this way. There are better ways to live.

>>14180055
Based and Mahavira pilled

>>14180055

>>14180085
>edgy anime poster
You've answered his question enough

>>14180017
eww a subjectivist, gross

>>14180094
I’m just asking questions until I hear answers

>>14180017
whether it's objective or subjective doesn't change the fact it doesn't exist.

it's subjective btw

>>14180125
The question is if it exists if it's subjective

>>14180136
get it through your thick fucking skull you piece of shit

>>14180125
If it doesn’t exist, then are you saying that there are no things you should or should not do? Then why do you always do the same things, such as eating? Or not killing people? It’s as if you think you should be doing certain things and not doing other things.

>>14180143
>then are you saying that there are no things you should or should not do? Then why do you always do the same things, such as eating? Or not killing people?

did I say that? Or did you just pretend that I said that because of your mental retardation? Higher questions are not your province if you cannot handle basic reading comprehension.

>>14180139
My point is that if it's subjective it kinda breaks down. Like morality doesnt really exist if it's subjective, because then it's just a bunch of peoples feelings about what is good or bad without truth in it

>>14180152
You said morality doesn’t exist. But what do you mean by morality?

>>14180155
it also doesn't exist if it's objective

don't ever make me repeat myself again, fucking peasant swine. this is why you toil in the fields and I live on a beautiful private estate.

>>14180030
Accidentally stepping on it or killing it for fun? Vague questions should be avoided for the sake of clarity no?... because the answers can differ significantly given a more precise question.

>>14180017
Do lies exist if they aren't true? Yeah, sure. But that doesn't make them into true propositions.

>>14180158
it doesn't matter. meanings don't exist either

it exists inter-subjectively and we who believe have to protect it from those who believe differently

>>14180165
i dont believe in morality either anon my meaning is to dunk on moral subjectivists because morality doesn't exist

>>14180170
>Accidentally stepping on it or killing it for fun?
What is the difference? But let’s go with the latter. What is so wrong about killing ants for fun?
>>14180173
Why you use words if meanings don’t matter? A discussion with you is pointless.

It exists,but is a social construct. Don't discount it as arbitrary. Social constructs are very powerful, but are subject to change more than saw, the laws of physics (which are also subject to change as new information is discovered)

>>14180037
So if someone killed your parents but was totally righteous about it, would you say, "well we just have a difference of opinion?" Or alternatively, if you disagree with someone about whether chocolate or vanilla ice cream is better, would you seek legal recourse against them?

>>14180184
I believe in morality but that doesn't mean it exists.
>>14180186
Everything is pointless, so it doesn't really matter that talking is pointless. I don't expect you to understand though. Very few are as enlightened as me.

>>14180208
I'd probably kill him because he evoked such a negative response, not because of any morality, but because of my own will.

>>14180186
It's hypocritical if we don't want to be killed for fun no? Besides no one gains anything good for themselves by stepping on bugs or mutilating and killing other animals.

>>14180219
even unwilling participants in this nightmare such as myself deserve what they get

>>14180219
>It's hypocritical if we don't want to be killed for fun no?
Why is it hypocritical? Just because I don’t want to be killed for fun doesn’t mean that I shouldn’t kill ants for fun. Shall I not eat anything because I don’t want to be eaten?
>Besides no one gains anything good for themselves by stepping on bugs or mutilating and killing other animals.
It’s fun and there is little to no risk involved

>>14180219
>It's hypocritical if we don't want to be killed for fun no?
The do unto others as you would have them do unto you forgets one small tiny little detail: others are not you.

>>14180219
The entire history of ethics is philosophers constructing and debating the why's and what's of how we ought to behave.
Don't discount to this work as arbitrary. It has taken thousands of years to construct where we are today.

>>14180257
except time doesn't exist

>>14180227
>Shall I not eat anything because I don’t want to be eaten?
To kill animals for food is justifiable as their meat provides you with food, in this there is innocence as it is done out of a sincere reason, or to an extent where a person does not do it to fuel his carnal passions (lust), which would be gluttony in this example. Innocence doesn't dwell in carnal passions.

>>14180247
True, but is not nothing of value lost when we do indeed treat other as ourselves?

>>14180279
I don’t see how sustenance is more justifiable than killing for entertainment. They’re both for my benefit. Why is it wrong to kill ants for fun? Why shouldn’t I do it?

>>14180289
Different thinkers would have different perspectives on this
Why not go read instead of fucking around on lit looking for easy answers and pretending to be profound asking elementary questions

>>14180279
>True, but is not nothing of value lost when we do indeed treat other as ourselves?
self respect, individuality, freedom

>>14180305
Thinking and discussing are just as important as reading.

>>14180309
Are we truly free if we think that we lose our self respect if we treat others as we do ourselves?

>>14180276
*blocks your path*

>>14180389
Respecting yourself as yourself and respecting others as others is logical. Respecting yourself as yourself and then others also as yourself is borderline delusional.

>>14180017
read a book

>>14180059
>If killing leads to your suffering,
I may be outing myself as a brainlet here, but what does an individual's suffering, or lack their off have to do with morality? It may play a role in what one decides is or isn't moral, but it's not the only factor.

>>14180665
It is the only factor that matters. Morality concerns what you should and shouldn’t do. You should be trying to improve your conscious experience of life/afterlife as much as possible. To be moral is to pursue goodness, to bring about the highest chance of your enjoyment of life. Im not saying that we know what’s best for us, because we obviously make the wrong decisions sometimes. But if there’s a path in life that we would prefer over every other path, then that is the path that we should choose. We can’t really know which path is greatest unless we’ve run a simulation and experienced all possible lives. I think the best path objectively exists, and we can only approximate it at times. The general moral principles guide us well, and it is wise to follow them.

>>14180030
Because you are a human. It is wrong for YOU to kill a human.
An alien can kill you without any remorse.

>>14180704
>Because you are a human. It is wrong for YOU to kill a human.
Not really an explanation. Other animals kill their same kind all the time. But these species do not rely on social cooperation, so for them, killing may sometimes be necessary.

>>14180730
Maybe you are an autist and have problem with euphemisms.

>It is MORE wrong for YOU to kill humans than to kill ANY OTHER beings, since you ARE a HUMAN.

>>14180840
this doesn’t make sense, dude. There’s no logic in what you’re saying

>>14180030
Does the storm pity the shipwrecked? The two are nothing alike and you know it. Humans are to ants as lovecraftian horrors are to humans.

>>14180853
If you never live your room and think you're a brain in a vat, maybe.
If you actually experience the world as a body and soul it makes sense.

>>14180873
ok, so ants are different than humans. That doesn’t exactly answer the question. You only said that ants and humans are different.
>>14180874
not an argument

>>14180885
It doesn't answer the question because your question is inherently nonsense. Besides, ants don't even have a conscience; they move on pure instinct.

>>14180189
basicly this

>>14180897
>It doesn't answer the question because your question is inherently nonsense.
How is it nonsense? Care to explain?
And this is after you tried to answer the question. Then, immediately after you say this, you try to answer again:
>Besides, ants don't even have a conscience; they move on pure instinct.
Why does this matter? There are plenty of animals that we kill that can feel pain. Why is it so difficult for you people to define morality and explain why killing humans is wrong while killing ants is relatively fine? I have an idea, but do you?

>>14180924
Let me flip this on you : why do you think it's bad? Why do you think anyone owes an explanation for killing animals for either sport or sustenance? It is within my power to either kill them or spare them; their lives are mine to do with as I please. Regardless of which choice I choose, or whether I asked for this responsibility or not, weaker subjects in nature are mine to rule over by virtue of my power over them.

>>14180997
I don’t think killing them is bad, and I never implied that it was

>>14181005
Then what are we even arguing about? Are we here just to jerk ourselves off over which one of us can beat the other in sophistry?

>>14181023
I just want to see why others think killing humans is wrong, and why killing ants is ok. I have my own explanation, but any time I give my own it always ends with me asking others to explain their vague and circular ideas about morality, anyway. So I just started asking from the beginning.

>>14180112
Well it all depends on the intention. if you intentionally kill animals for abuse, that's not morally correct. If you're going to use it for a substantial reason, then it's alllowed. However bear in mind that most major religions don't just let you kill animals to eat but that there are correct, systematic methods in doing so (Islam, b Judaism, Christianity)

>>14181034
Like I said, what are we even arguing about? Morality in the traditional sense of the word is a spook unless you genuinely believe in the existence of a higher being. I don't think we're even in an opposition here.

>>14181051
>if you intentionally kill animals for abuse, that's not morally correct.
See >>14180085

>>14181062
Because you're harming (that is an evil, an injustice) for no reason (double injustice.)
Feeling pain is not a Good but an Evil (generally , for the sake of this argument I'm simplifying.)
So inflicting pain, without reason is very immoral.

>>14181057
See>>14180059
I definitely think that there are some actions that I would prefer over other actions. Morality is only non-existent when it makes no difference what I do from my perspective, in my opinion. But since some actions are so obviously more preferable than others, morality exists.

>>14181086
Why should I care about harming an ant? Why is being evil to ants bad?

>>14181091
That is a matter of your personal ethics. Morality, as a framework that applies collectively, is a spook. Usually it's just a nicer name for sets of rules that promote mutual benefit between the individual and society.

>>14181097
That's where objective morality leads to religion. You literally can't say that hurting ants for any reason is bad unless you have an objective reason. Hence, religious texts like the bible say that because God created animals you shouldn't harm them sadistically because they are part of a divine spectrum.
So if you want to say that hurting ants is okay, you are in the camp of subjective morality since who cares, right? "To each their own"

>>14181127
but often it’s the case that the same moral laws apply to every person. It’s pretty obvious that murder tends to be bad for the murderer, so we take it as a moral principle that killing is wrong. Obviously this is not a true moral law since it isn’t always true and doesn’t apply to every person in every circumstance (unless God commands it so), but it’s difficult to know when to break the principle as we can not calculate the future. It’s best to follow the principle as if it is always true, unless you understand why it’s wrong to kill. Most people seemingly do not understand why some moral laws exist, so they must be told “do this” and “don’t do that” without any actual explanation. So you have many people confused about what morality is. They’re raised to think that some things are good “just because.” But at least they believe in these principles.

>>14180017
morality doesn't exist but cope-tards will desperately try to convince you it does

>>14181193
Define morality

>>14180017
morality is objective. someone would say that it's always wrong to kill your parents, but it wouldn't be wrong if you were to die of cancer in 2 weeks. You would save them from a lot of trauma and depression and living for nothing, especially if you would be their only child. Not only would they have nothing to live for, they would be traumatised for life. Objectively, you're getting rid of a lot of pain. Subjectively, some people would say killing is wrong. But in some cases like this, it's actually useful, considering we also know the outcome (objectively it would be moral to run a rapist down with a car before he rapes another person but subjectively it wouldn't because you wouldn't know you're actually killing a rapist)

>>14181222
>objectively it would be moral to run a rapist down with a car before he rapes another person but subjectively it wouldn't because you wouldn't know you're actually killing a rapist
I like you

>>14180017
First understand that: objective ≠ universal

Does morality exist objectively? Yes, I think it's a formalization of strategic social behaviours inherent to our natures. Is it universal? No, as our natures are not universal (morality works with overlap, not universality).