/lit/ - Literature

>>16990927
>moralfag
>not related to religion

>>16990927
Arsene Lupin vs. Sherlock Holmes (Or Herlock Sholmes if we are talking the old edition after Doyle got angry).
It won't really challenge your beliefs, but it does dip a toe into problem of morality (as does most of Lupin stuff), and you might as well read something fun for a change.

Why morality if not religious? Evolutionary explanation or something?

>>16990947
>Or Herlock Sholmes if we are talking the old edition after Doyle got angry
That damn 161 year old bastard is still sperging about his intellectual property?

>>16991052
Yes, people are afraid of organizing ghost summoning sessions cause they might stumble upon him.
Most editions will have Herlock Sholmes, but anything newer (editions, games, whatever) can use the proper name.

>>16990927
The Prince. You can deny it publicly, but you agree that Machiavelli was a cool-headed and reasonable man.

On the Genealogy of Morals

>>16990939
>>16990952
>religion is needed for men to be moral

Why would you want to change? Or are you simply looking for a challenge. We need more moralfags.

>MORALS?
>NO RELIGION??? LOL NOT POSSIBLE XD

>>16991098
>>16991115
Well you need to ground it in something that expands across the whole universe

>>16990927
Hippias Minor will absolutely do it. Also the Odyssey to get the positive depiction of cunning and deception behind Odysseus's character.
>>16990947
No, terrible, irrelevant response. May as well recommend Teletubbies.

>>16991098

Was just asking - I'm not religious and believe in morality too. But I think knowing the origins of morality is important and religious people can just say they are derived from God, the answer is a lot harder to come up with otherwise. I don't have one.

>>16990927
>Gorgias and The Republic - Plato (advance moral realist positions, but contain important representations of early moral scepticism)
>Outlines of Pyrrhonism - Sextus Empiricus
>An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals - David Hume
>Justine, or the Misfortunes of Virtue - Marquis de Sade
>Philosophy in the Boudoir - Marquis de Sade
>On the Genealogy of Morality - Friedrich Nietzsche
>Ethics: Inventing Right and Wrong - J.L.
Mackie
>The Ego and Its Own - Max Stirner
>The Myth of Morality - Richard Joyce
>Straw Dogs - John Gray

>>16991133
Just because it's not some autist rambling doesn't mean it can't make one stop and think. It is a nice, simple example of relativity of morality, Lupin stole to try and save a family, while Homes destroyed the trust between spouses just because he only had justice in mind.
Seriously, anon, try some fiction from time to time, it will do you good.

>>16990927
religion isn't needed for man to be moral, per se. however, the theist could argue that it is needed for there to be morality, since morality itself would need to be universal and objective, and such could only be grounded in a god of some sorts. I'm not a theist so meh, I don't really care.

>>16991255
fuck, i meant my post for >>16991098

>>16991093
This, or Beyond Good and Evil.

>How dare you, of course I can be a modern materialist atheist and care deeply about morality!
>Why is what's good good and what's bad bad, you ask? W-well, b-because... I-it makes p-people happy... I-if you need a skyfather to tell you why rape is bad, th-then you must be bad!!
>W-why act morally? WELL BECAUSE THAT'S NOT NICE NOT TO BE MORAL YOU SEXIST MYSOGINIST RACIST TRANSPHOBIC ANTISEMITIC AGEIST PIG

>Noooo but Aristotle said that a thing is good if it fulfills its telos, so we just have to consider the telos, no skyfather needed!
>What a "telos" is on a material level? W-well... You metaphysicians don't even understand yourselves! Next question!
>What the human telos is? But of course exactly that what I want it to be based on my 21st century culture

>>16991204
Hippias Minor is more important than the Republic because the support for immorality comes from Socrates' own mouth.

>>16991480
>durr I need God to tell me what to do
>muh freedoms is being taken away by the goberment
>o-of course I would follow the ill informed ideals and way of life of goat herders and carpenters rather than objective reality

>>16991906
I tried and still wasn't able to come up with a strawman as stupid as this, bravo

The Selfish Gene

>>16991970
>materialists have no morals
>not le strawmannerino, only I can do that
Are you as insufferable irl as you are here?

Beyond Good and Evil

>>16992046
The point isn't having morals, the point is having a justification for them, of which materialists have none. Even the theist justification for morality ("god said so!") is barely functional cope.

>>16992108
>morality itself is cope
>might as well rape and pillage as we see fit because that's natural
I too had an edgy nihilist phase anon

>>16992108
>("god said so!")
Atheists' understanding of what they think they reject is hilariously bad

Thus Spoke Zarathustra
The Genealogy of Morals
The Ethics
Nietzsche and Philosophy
The Enneads
The Upanishads

>>16992140
>implying that what's natural is good
>implying that what's pleasurable is good
>implying that what you want is good
There is nothing edgy about my nihilism. Morality is a spook, as are most other things. There is no reason why you should do one thing rather than another, so all you are left with is to do what you decide to do. This is different from doing what is pleasant, or what you like or what you want - though you could decide to do those things, too.
>>16992147
That's more or less the theistic argument though. You are a Chr*stian after all, aren't you? Unless I'm speaking to some Sufi master I will firmly stand my ground.

>>16992202
I see your point but being an insufferable faggot because you understand parts of the truth doesn't help anyone anon, not even you

>>16991906
>>16992046
>>16992140
>talks about ‘objective reality’ (whatever that is and however he’s supposed to access it)
>settles opposing truth claims in favour of which one is less ‘edgy’

>>16992226
But see anon, because of the death of god, morality no longer holds any sway over us. Therefore, I am free to be an insufferable faggot even when that helps no one, not even me.

>>16992246
Yeah, so?
>>16992247
If its all so pointless might as well off yourself now because time will render your name, the people you know and the ideas you embody into nothing.

>>16992108
Morals are justified by values. Values are facts of life. There is no more need for "justifying" that 1+1=2, than there is for me valuing something. It just happens to be or not to be the case.
>>16990927
You might be severely disappointed in the West's achievements in morality, as I was when I wanted to read up on it. Apart from "god says..." texts, there are like 50 texts that elaborate on morality, about 50 000 texts that elaborate on the language used and about 50 000 000 texts on the language used when elaborating on the language.
Like Neitzsche said - moral philosophy really is just a couple of dudes per generation verbalizing the themes behind their peers' behavior.
Apart from sometimes-useful ideas like categorical imperative, teleology etc., you're really better abstracting values and their relationships from behavior by yourself.
>>16992247
Morality very much has sway over you. Death of God only means you can't anchor morality it in anything but your mood.

>>16992280
>If its all so pointless might as well off yourself now because time will render your name, the people you know and the ideas you embody into nothing.
Sure, but I haven't decided to off myself and don't expect to do so in the future. So I won't. Sinple, really.
>>16992299
>Morals are justified by values. Values are facts of life. There is no more need for "justifying" that 1+1=2, than there is for me valuing something. It just happens to be or not to be the case.
That seems incoherent? Just because something is true, valuable or factual doesn't necessitate your subjection to it. If you wanted to, you could very well write down 3 as the answer to 1+1. It would be wrong, sure, but you are free to do so and nothing can prevent you from doing that if you wish.
>Morality very much has sway over you. Death of God only means you can't anchor morality it in anything but your mood.
All moralism still left in me is just an instinctual reaction from the upbringing I've had. I don't consider morality in anything that I do, I have my own way of doing things.

>>16992299
>Morals are justified by values. Values are facts of life. There is no more need for "justifying" that 1+1=2, than there is for me valuing something. It just happens to be or not to be the case.

Beautiful.
This is revealed preference and it's the basis for microeconomics.

>>16992280
>the only reason anyone would want to exist is for posterity’s sake
Cringe. Just another suburban retard.

>>16992449
Where did I say that? I want immortality so that I can witness the collective boot of humanity on other worlds and fuck alien bitches
>inb4 implying they evolved like us hurr

>>16992421
>doesn't necessitate your subjection to it
The question as far as I understand wasn't "what necessitates your subjection to morals", but "what justifies morals", to which the answer is "values". And nothing has to justify values.
>if you wish
If I wish it, it is valuable to me as an option. And the value then justifies my action.

>>16992461
>The question as far as I understand wasn't "what necessitates your subjection to morals", but "what justifies morals", to which the answer is "values". And nothing has to justify values.
Ah, I see. You have arrived at this conclusion because you have ignored the implicit question - justified to whom exactly? The answer is you. Hence what I said earlier.
>If I wish it, it is valuable to me as an option. And the value then justifies my action.
A perfectly fine rationale, so long as you acknowledge that the only value this option has exists because you assign value to it.

>>16992481
>justified to whom exactly? The answer is you. Hence what I said earlier.
I don't see the "hence", sorry, we're talking "justification", not "necessity".
>the only value this option has exists because you assign value to it
Maybe, maybe not, it's your personal interpretation that value is "assigned" instead of discriminately "recognized".

>>16992525
>I don't see the "hence", sorry, we're talking "justification", not "necessity".
We either have very different ways of thinking or this is just cope. It's hard for me to tell. If morality needs justification and it needs to be justified before the individual, then it is for a functional purpose - in other words, to provide guidance to human life aka to subject the person to a specific moral code. That's how I see morality and I think that's how it is understood generally. Maybe you have a different relationship with that word.
>Maybe, maybe not, it's your personal interpretation that value is "assigned" instead of discriminately "recognized".
It is "discriminately recognized", but according to your will or in other words according to your standards, which you use to judge things by - meaning that you assign things their value.

>>16991098
Yes

>>16992574
>If morality needs justification and it needs to be justified before the individual, then it is for a functional purpose - in other words, to provide guidance to human life aka to subject the person to a specific moral code.
I agree. And the question of justification is answered by regarding values as irreducible facts of life.
You, in turn, opened the question of what "necessitates" a person's subjection to a moral code, which is a different question from that of justification.
>meaning that you assign things their value.
I feel like we're having troubles in the large question already so allow me to pause this minor (almost semantic?) point of discussion for a while.

>>16991098
yes. unless you are relying that or maybe on evolutionary morality stirnir is the peak of moral thinking

>>16991098
Religious mentality, sure.

>>16990939
>religious
>but not a moralfag
Get on my level.
>>16991098
Retard.