/lit/ - Literature

Everything is permissible either way. This is what the entirely Christian concept called "free will" refers to.

God has no relationship with morality, this is proven by the Is-Ought gap. It's literaly impossible to ground morality in god.

Did he say that or did Ivan Karamazov say it?

>>20153386
Yes.

Not really, since secular societies don't seem all that fond of committing genocides. Probably because that would significantly hurt its chances of survival

>>20153412
In which world do you live?

>>20153386
>"Anything be non-permissible even without a God"
Even Neech sends that points into the dustbin. That's why the entire existential discourse left the religious metaphysics entirely behind, dum-dum.

>"I would be gay and do crime if it did not mean existential torture by a higher will"
How do desperate christcucks manage to hate themselves so intensely? That's pretty much the opposite of Christianity.

>>20153386
Good. Accelerate

>>20153406
This

>>20153406
>>20153568
Ever heard of the ten commandments or the two commandments given by christ?

>>20153596

Oh yeah? Well, ever hear of "Shut the fuck up!"

Goddamn! Christians are worse than ComicBookGuy.jpg

>>20153596
God does not prevent you from violating His commandments. There are consequences for breaking them, and there are different consequences for keeping them. The choice is yours.

>>20153596
Yes. Just becuase god said that you should do x, it doesn't follow that you actually should do x.

>>20153386
I do prefer Christians over "atheist but moral" people. I mean Christianity is obviously stupid, but if you reject religion and then refuse to fundamentally reevaluate your moral system you've clearly fucked up. At least the Christian is honest in that his morals are grounded in faith (even though the details are always a bit sketchy).
Basically, my boy Max already had all this figured out ages ago.

>>20153419
>>Even Neech sends that points into the dustbin. That's why the entire existential discourse left the religious metaphysics entirely behind,
yeah? to go where?

>>20153406
Morality is whatever God dictates it as. Nothing else.

>>20153406
The is--ought gap does not apply to God. God is Goodness itself. His nature is the Good that Plato talked about. He is Being itself, he is Love itself. To be moral is to be like God.

>>20153626
nigga what a dumbass comeback

>>20153722
None of this compels a person to be moral. You can simply choose to not be like God.

>>20153722
>The is--ought gap does not apply to God.
Why?
This is not a meaningful post. I interpret it as a piece of poetry instead. <img class="xae" data-xae width="28" height="26" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/adf2d2f0_EZY.png">

>>20153408
Ivan, not him
I think he said it in the chapter so be it, so be it

>>20153386
so?

>>20153716
Morality is an algorithm to determine the actions of rational agents. <img class="xae" data-xae width="41" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/72694e0e_desusmirk.png">

>>20153405
Protestants don't have "free will," that's a Catholic dogma. Pure Popery.

>>20153763
btw he said it to make midwits seethe and get admiration from normies because he didn't fully believe it himself
idk yet if that's actually the point of the book or not, I have to finish it

>>20153722
How do you escalate down Beauty and The Good to particulars?

>>20153406
Why don't you prove the is-ought gap first?

>>20153386
Like Zizek says, with god everything is permissible.

>>20153821
It follows from basic logic. In an argument you have a conclusion and a set of premises. In order to prove a conclusion you need a premise that you affirm to be true and a premise that says something like "if this then that" or "this or that". To bridge the is-ought gap you need to start with a descriptive statement and end up with a prescriptive statement, but to do so you need a statement that contains both the conclusion and the starting premise, but such a statement will always be prescriptive becuase it contains a prescriptive proposition.

Say god says you should not use /lit/. In order for this to lead to that you should not use /lit/, you need to show that if god says that you should do something, you should do it. But this is a prescriptive statement, so you need to assume a prescriptive statement in order for somthing normative to follow.

>>20153386
Coping? This has nothing to do with it <img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/57b01648_nepSmug.png">

>>20153386

>>20153416
One where most of the wars and mass murders are committed by highly religious people

>>20153386
Smerdyakov was unironically the most based character in the book.
>Refuses to be bluepilled by Kikestianity
>Kills retarded degenerate father, doing all of Russia a favour
>Sends equally retarded and degenerate Dmitri to Siberia
>BTFO's soiboi Ivan who fancied himself an atheist but did not truly comprehend its implications until the end.
>Kills himself and rejects existence itself, the final redpill.

>>20154452
That’s not saying much, most civilizations were religious but it’s not specifically because of religion large scale casualties were instigated. Religion can be used as propaganda to make humans do unspeakable things,sure, but let’s not forget the largest loss of life happened within the past 100 or so years where wars were fought over politics or ideology stemming from ‘logical positivism’.

>>20153386
hate this, a character said it not him.

>>20153386
Turn that frown upside down, Dosto!

>>20154709
Nietzsche formulated the biggest cope in all of philosophy

Cioran BTFO him so hard

>>20154445
Extremely based

>>20153408
Ivan, but /lit/ is full of retards and probably assumes Dosto meant that quote as his own view of life

>>20153868
you literally go to hell when you disobey god

>>20153408
>>20154789
Ivan said it but it was obviously something Dostoevsky believed irl.

Maybe this time people will read my response to this.

Read Carl Schmitt. He thoroughly dispenses with this notion in Nomos of the Earth and Political Theology. Even if God exists, everything is still permissible because God never intervenes to stop you from doing anything that is actually wrong.

>>20153868
Are you basically saying that because something is inherently prescriptive like moral law. You must justify it ought to be the case or am I missing a fundamental step in the logic you're trying to explain? Because the justification part is easy, so I assume you mean something else.

>>20154830
People need to ask themselves what kind of Nazi sadist God would invent natural selection or why animals have teeth and claws to rip each other apart.

>>20154861
Buzzwords and shitty rhetoric. How sad. <span class="xae" data-xae="cry">&#x1F622;[/spoiler]

>>20153412
There are more slaves alive in the world today servicing American needs than at the peak of American slavery in the 19th century. Genocide occurs, and is in fact maintained by the west, it is simply more abstract. Your moral superiority isn't even hollow, it's written in steam. All of your imagined religious extremism is quite literally cultivated by your intelligence agencies.

>>20154875
Dude, where's your argument? <img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/8b7cc3e0_WTFF.png">

>>20154961
Um...but the government is good? Hello? Joe Biden is in office, we're the good guys.

>>20153744
Obviously. But there is a categorical imperative to be good. Of course people choose not to.

>>20154829
The entirety of the Elder Zosima chapters is about refuting that point, you giant single-celled organism.

>>20154851

1. D: descriptive premise
2. Unkown premise
---------------------------------------
C: P: prescriptive premise

In order to get from
D to P

You need to assume either D implies P or -D exclusive or P. (There's probably other ways) to go from 1 to C, but it's always a premise that requires a normative statement.

>>20154819
Sure, but just becuase you go to hell, doesn't mean that you should obey god. <img class="xae" data-xae width="28" height="26" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/adf2d2f0_EZY.png">

>>20154967
I genuinely think you're too dumb to bother responding to. Go waste someone else's time. <img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/a6955123_yaranaika.png">

>>20154723
who?

>>20155051
And yet you responded so that's a lie <img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="27" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/ec538b5c_Thonk.png">

>>20155060
It's because I'm courteous even to degenerates like yourself. <img class="xae" data-xae width="28" height="27" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/08b66b75_FeelsOkayMan.png">

>>20154967
<span class="xae" data-xae="plead">🥺[/spoiler] pls no bully

>>20155079
You just did it again, you lie to me, to yourself, to Nazi sadist God. <img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/57b01648_nepSmug.png">

>>20155044
Are you saying that because of the structure of a syllogism you will always get a normative statement? There's no way to actually use a syllogism without a normative statement? Surely when you look at the sky and can see it being blue you conclude that it must be blue, therefore it's not normative but just 'is'.

>>20155118
No, it's in the context of the is ought-gap, not reasoning in general.

>>20154991
How so? It was literally the motivation for the murder.

>>20155182
To make things simple, could you find a flaw in this?
Premise: God created moral laws
Premise 2: Moral laws are good because God is good
Conclusion: We should follow moral laws

>>20155212
>Premise: God created moral laws
I don't think it's metaphysically possible for God to create objective moral laws, but this depends on the ontology of moral laws.
>Premise 2: Moral laws are good becuase God is good.
This is a normative statement, "God is good", it has a similar content to "If god says you should do something, then you should do it".
>Conclusion: We should follow moral laws
You can arrive at this conclusion by just using premise 2, premise 1 i unnecessary

>>20155238
>I don't think it's metaphysically possible for God to create objective moral laws, but this depends on the ontology of moral laws.
Christians would say that God created the possibility for any law or knowledge to exist including morality. Yes, I know of the Plato's paradox of morality, but I can't go into all that right now.
>This is a normative statement, "God is good", it has a similar content to "If god says you should do something, then you should do it".
I don't see the problem with this. We have the free will to decide if we want to do it or not. For a Christian, he would say that we should obey this law, and for an atheist he would say that we should do whatever we want. Both are normative and it's impossible to escape it.
>You can arrive at this conclusion by just using premise 2, premise 1 i unnecessary
I was specifying the attribute of this particular god being good and not some demiurge. Either way, it might be redundant.

>>20153405
>>20153653
>>20153675
>>20153744
>can
>should
<img class="xae" data-xae width="37" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/0ee48fb4_longcat.png">

>>20155304
>Christians would say that God created the possibility for any law or knowledge to exist including morality. Yes, I know of the Plato's paradox of morality, but I can't go into all that right now.
This would subscribe to a voluntarist theory of omnipotence, which is pretty uncommon in christian philosophy. But I have to concede that a voluntarist god can create moral laws. Other versions of omnipotence? Probably not.
>I don't see the problem with this. We have the free will to decide if we want to do it or not. For a Christian, he would say that we should obey this law, and for an atheist he would say that we should do whatever we want. Both are normative and it's impossible to escape it.
I don't get this. If you don't see the problem with it, then you concede that in order to argue that we should follow moral laws, we need to assume that we should do what god says, and the gap remains unbridged. The purpose of the syllogism was to bridge the gap, but premise 2 is normative, so it fails.

>>20155354
>we need to assume that we should do what god says
I will stop after this, but all I have left is this question: What if I'm appealing to objective truth and not something that appears to ought to be? Kind of like saying "God created objective reality and a part of that is an unalterable code of ethics that should be abided to because the alternative is contrary to objective truth". I guess I'm adding justification to my premise instead of relying on assumptions.

>>20155418
>"God created objective reality and a part of that is an unalterable code of ethics that should be abided to because the alternative is contrary to objective truth"
I'd say it's either metaphysically impossible or it's a voluntarist god that no christian believes in.

>>20155439
>it's a voluntarist god that no christian believes in.
It's merely a God that created transcendental categories required for the possibility of knowledge in the first place. The same God the early Christians believed in and the same one the Orthodox do today. If this solves the is-ought problem then I'm satisfied.

>>20155473
Sure, If god is powerful enough to create moral facts, then god can bridge the gap.

is-ought is anglo bullshit
<img class="xae" data-xae width="29" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/7a95728b_Gigachad.png">

>>20153675
are you retarded?

>>20153653
and based on your choices you are juged by god and by human standards. this is called morality. qed.

>>20155671
I actually changed my mind, talking with the other guy, god can ground morality if god is powerful enough to create moral facts <img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="31" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/8a527ac8_WanWan.png">

>>20155706
god is justice itself so it should be clear that all morality is grounded in god.

>>20153406
Go read some more Hume and see if it helps you find the dead gerbil lodged in your anus, you fucking fag.

>>20155738
No that's retarded <img class="xae" data-xae width="28" height="26" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/adf2d2f0_EZY.png">

>>20153386
Meanwhile all the nice and civilized countries (Western Europe and East Asia) are irreligious and all the shithole uncivilized countries (America, Middle East, Eastern Europe) are religious.

>>20155750
Fuck you. I hate you.

>>20155765
Define nice objectively. Define civilized objectively.

I don't get why people have such a problem with this. If the Christian God as typically conceived really exists his words are law and the full truth of reality is contained in them. Were Anglos actually trying to debate a God that they recognized as existing? What the fuck is a real God that is falsifiable or contingent in any way?

>>20154830
pretty sure you/he completely missed the point lmao holy midwit

>>20153406
literally retroactively refuted by hume himself

>>20155879
thank you anon for pointing out the anglo arrogance

>>20155695
Yes, that's a typical definition of morality, but the claim in contention is whether "everything is permissible."
>God is able to stop you from behaving immorally.
>God does not stop you from behaving immorally. You are allowed to choose hell.
That looks like permission to me.

>>20154991
What the fuck are you talking about? This is what Zosima says
>It is different with the upper classes. They, following science, want to base justice on reason alone, but not with Christ, as before, and they have already claimed that there is no crime, that there is no sin. And that's consistent, for if you have no God what is the meaning of crime?
The Ivan plot in TBK is primarily devoted to exploring the problem of a world without God. He shows how that idea of Ivan's, that if there is no God everything is permissible, was not a liberating or empowering position but a destructive and horrific one as seen in Smerdyakov's actions and the fantasies of Alyosha's cute and funny friend (pineapple compote). This does not mean that he ever tried to prove that the world can be moral without God kek

>>20155924
its not permisson its just freedom of will. god wants you to love him (obey his commandments), this is only possible through free will. Disobeying means rejecting god and his love.

>>20153824
exactly. Its actually the opposite.

>>20154819
you literally go to gulag when you disobey Stalin
so I guess that justifies his morals?

>>20156115
yes

>>20155044
where can I learn how to write out these kinds of logical arguments? Is there some book that is an introduction to this?

>>20153824
Please tell me there is more depth to this than "dude the crusades, people KILLED people because of religious beliefs"

>>20155892
Proof?<img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="27" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/ec538b5c_Thonk.png"><img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="27" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/ec538b5c_Thonk.png"><img class="xae" data-xae width="32" height="27" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/ec538b5c_Thonk.png">

>>20153386
Cope? Why? That's unironically good news.<img class="xae" data-xae width="31" height="32" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/099390a2_peepoBlanket.png">

>>20156053
Extrapolating from the normal human understanding of "permission", it seems pretty clear that God "permits" murder. We men do not permit murder: we do everything we realistically can to intervene and prevent it ahead of time. But God has the ability to prevent any murder, and He explicitly does not do so. He deliberately stays His hand. I view this as permission, in much the same way that any earthly father might grant his children permission to do as they will, even in opposition to his own desires, for the sake of their freedom.

>>20153386

Permissible implies an allowance. Without god there is a moral vacuum and no "true" authority to dicatate what should or shouldn't be. Dostoesky makes a moral prescription in the moraless world he creates (probably due to his edgelord bias towards chaos).

In the absence of God, what ever is physically possible violates no code, however, whatever moral code which may come to existence in this vacuum will asserts itself in relation to its power, and potentially becomes the code regardless of "validity".

That may be all there truly is. A shared and invented idea with no true authority, propped by violence, or the absence of a shared idea.

>>20156701
there is way more depth to it and its nothing to do with what you just said. Its more to do with how under atheist society we aren't even allowed to choose what we want let alone choose what we do. In Christian society you choose what you want. Zizek compares it to the authoritarian father who says you must call your grandma with the liberal father who says you can choose whether or not to call your grandma. In the second case it is actually even more restricting because you still have to call her but you also have to make the choice to call her. In the first case the choice is being done for you. You should read introduction to Lacan. Its where I read his argument for this. Zizek in general supports Christianity because he thinks it is not as deeply authoritarian as liberal atheism is. Liberal atheism is far more dangerous because its authority is invisible but it is also more powerful.

>>20153406
>Village being burnt down by invaders
>Why aren't you running? You're going to get killed
>Well just because it is in my nature to run and it is indeed true that I am in danger, that doesn't mean I ought to run from dan- AAACCKKK
This is what happens when you don't gatekeep philosophy from midwits and dimwits.
>>20155750

>>20157498
The possibility to do something doesnt mean permission to do something.

>>20156213
It's just basic prop logic https://builds.openlogicproject.org/open-logic-complete.pdf

>>20153419
Nice cope

>>20154659
>if the religious kill, it somehow has nothing to do with religion
>if the secular kill, it's caused solely by their lack of religion

Please stop coping

>>20153917
Not related but how on earth do you use emotes in 4chanX? I cannot find any tab in the extension that will allow me to use them.

>>20153744
But to compel has nothing do with the ontology of morality in this argument or tradition. God is the source of all things. To be good is necessarily to be like God. To be "evil" is not to have an opposing but ontologically equal status with goodness, but to be lacking in some capacity. That is, God's being and goodness are the same thing, which is why evil has no positive existence.

>>20153386
*sniff*
Akhcsjiually, is opposite like Lacan says
*sniff*

Thanks Zizek, very profound

>>20153386
I dont really get this statement, I get the impression that Dosto here confused God with Nature, without Nature everything is possible, but without God, reality as something material would still exist.

If he is talking about pure morality, then what does this have to do with God, the idea that good moral behaviour results in some rewards is simply not part of the Christian religion, it is Christ that saves, not moral behaviour.

>>20153412
>since secular societies don't seem all that fond of committing genocides.
Communism mate, read a book. If you mean seculiar as in, tolerates religious and nonreligious equally, well how about Napoleon, or king Leopold.

>>20158600
Got to this thread just in time to read this bafflingly stupid post, wew.

>>20158602
>Got to this thread just in time to read this bafflingly stupid post, wew.
Good, explain me wrong then.

>>20156701
If you are acting in the name of the guarantor of objective moral values and he is speaking directly to you there is no such thing as crime, and you are free to torture, maim and murder along with the rest of the inquisition without the idea that any of it could be evil ever entering your mind.
I don't know what more depth you want. It is a fair and valid point, and similar to what Schmitt says about liberal humanism - anyone who establishes his own value system as the humanist one at the same time excludes anyone who disagrees as being inhuman and monstrous, and liberal humanism is hence the most monstrous of all, permitting the most heinous crimes imaginable - a point of Schmitt's that Zizek and the rest of his gang of modern leftist thinkers are very much in agreement with.

>>20157656
>can't help but pull others around you down
>forced to live under yoke because you were to cowardly to die or sacrifice yourself to protect your fellow tribesmen
>get converted to a weird religion
>become a card carrying member
>2000 years of grains and labor later
>t.

>>20153386
No because empathy and consequences

>>20154861
>if God exist then why bad thing happen
brilliant

<img class="xae" data-xae width="28" height="26" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/adf2d2f0_EZY.png">

>>20153386
<img class="xae" data-xae width="28" height="28" src="https://s.4cdn.org/image/emotes/48c107b3_monkaChrist.png"> people don't need permission to do what they want. If they think it goes against their religion, they'll just change the rules of the religion to rationalize it to themselves.

>>20153406
Well its impossible to ground morality in David Hume, either

>>20159260
Jews are notorious for doing this btw
>Oy vey i'm not suppos'ta do anything on Saturday? Guess I'll just ask someone who isn't jewish to do it for me!

>>20153386
It's literally the fucking opposite, some of the most heinous and inhuman crimes in history have been done in the name of a higher entity or ideal.
Everything is permissible as long as you delegate the burden of your crimes to some superior scapegoat, illuminism and the notion of human rights do a far better job at explaining why you should act moral.

>>20153406
Based, Christians seethed hard at this post.

>>20159308
Even atheists will invent a little God to justify anything. Metaphorically speaking. They will make an idol.

>>20153406
>believing that the Is-Ought gap was ever real
Man I guess /lit/ really is retarded

>>20158601
>fucking commies mate look up commies
I mean, Nato and United States shelled children in various countries and got away with it because muh freedum and muh democracy. Saudi Arabia is shelling children in Yemen as I type this post and they believe in God there. You low IQ poltards always shit on commies and le gommunisme for everything and then proceed to ignore what capitalism does.

Russia is an orthodox Christian country so it's basically le real Christianity yet they shell children in Ukraine because muh neutral state and muh oil fields in Crimea.

>>20159198
Brilliant enough for you to not be able to answer it in a satisfying manner

>dead kids because you touch peepee

>>20153408
Ivan said it like it was supposed to be a good thing. Dosto clearly agrees but thinks it's a reason to maintain faith in God.

>>20153675
>Just because God said 'Let there be light' doesn't mean there really is light.

>>20153386
He never said that btw
*SNIFFS*
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37RLn28mrLU

>>20158611
So are you saying a hegemonic morality like liberal humanism functions as a God would? That's not God lol. Also Schmitt was talking about Yankee progressives like Wilson with that and specifically those that made the treaty of Versailles. I don't think that type is specifically God-fearing

>>20153386
He based frfr

>>20153406
Easy way around this is by saying God and morality are the same thing

>>20153744
The incentive to be “moral” is for your own benefit. If you are always trying to belittle people you are hurting yourself in a way. But doing things because somebody told you they are moral isn’t moral which is why I think ideologies are dangerous

>>20160720
>So are you saying a hegemonic morality like liberal humanism functions as a God would?
Uh huh, in a qualified sense. Kantian thought planted the seeds that would eventually secularize the absolute, allowing liberal universal values to possess the same absolutism that was before Kant reserved to theology. What liberals do according to Schmitt is that they delude themselves that they are not doing political theology.
>Also Schmitt was talking about Yankee progressives like Wilson with that
Certainly, but it is also broader than that. While the contemporary political landscape was no doubt part of the motivation for his thoughts, he was neither historically nor philosophically uninformed, and the gradual rise of liberal thought from the Springtime of Nations in 1848 had deeper philosophical justifications which Schmitt was also acutely aware of.

>>20153768
Pseudo-intellectual meaningless drivel.

>>20153439
Well the vast majority of people are perfectly OK with committing all sorts of heinous acts when they become certain there's no fear of retribution from the law. The figure of God has just been substituted with secular law, but that statement is still true on a purely moral basis. It's really just fear that holds people back in every case, but respecting the law is not really a moral question, rather just compliance with a system of rules. Christianity is not just actions but also a change in morality, which is something the law cannot enforce.

>>20153406
Based Hume reaping another harvest of mutt seethe.

>>20153716
Whatever *your* God dictates, right? And only you correctly interpret God's dictations, right?

>>20153386
The most laughable thing about religion is that they always get causality backwards. The reason why religions even have laws against murder is because you can't have a civilization where murder is legal. In a secular society, you'd have the same Laws, just informed by different things. It's because these Laws are necessary for the existence of our society that makes us put them in our religions, they don't come from religion themselves. No functioning society, regardless of religion has ever made murder, theft or rape explicitly legal.

>>20162020
>It's really just fear that holds people back in every case, but respecting the law is not really a moral question, rather just compliance with a system of rules. Christianity is not just actions but also a change in morality, which is something the law cannot enforce.
>what is the concept of hell

>>20159491
It's real and meaningful. I have explained it earlier in the thread.
>>20159747
You don't understand the difference between descriptive and normative.
>>20160826
No, they are two different things with different meanings.
>>20161959
No it's not.
Rational agents: beings capable of reasoning.
Algorithm: a set of operations to solve a problem.
You should know what the words in my sentence mean.

>>20159198
I believe in God, I just don't get how you could look at evolution and think "Yup, this is a system an omnibenevolent, merciful God would come up with".
A merciful God would create life the way it's described in the Bible, complete, perfectly designed from day six, absolutely no suffering will happen here unless mankind fucks it up for everyone using the free will that God so graciously trusted them with.
But that's not what happened, instead we have a system that's designed to eliminate the weak by having them be literally eaten by the strong and where being a serial rapist is great evolutionary strategy. God just liked it better that way.

>>20163103
>where being a serial rapist is great evolutionary strategy.
>righttards still unironically believe this

>>20163144
It objectively is though, consent doesn't even exist for animals, they rape each other freely and any distinction between consensual and forced sex is almost impossible. Even with humans on the neurological level we can see the traces of how our ancestors were unrepentant rapists. It's only recently in the history of life that humans got civilised enough to make such a concept as rape even possible.

>>20155750
good argument

>>20153406
>this is proven by the Is-Ought gap
Proven by something which doesn't exist? There is only what exists, and what ought to exist is what is.

>>20163520
So if I fuck your mom, I ought to fuck your mom?

>>20153386
Genetics already disproved him. Not everything permitted because our genes limit what actions we can do, and intern, our morality.

>>20153868
>To bridge the is-ought gap you need to start with a descriptive statement and end up with a prescriptive statement
No, all you need is the predicate Good, and then the assertion that things are good so far as they are true to their essence, in other words what they essentially are, rather than their flickering imperfections and effective non-existence through time. This way there is no ought, you merely need to ask someone whether or not they want what is good or not, and let them decide the rest.
>>20163528
A transitory verb, let alone any verb, is not an essence

>>20153386
That quote doesn't apply to Catholics.
For them, if God exists, everything is permissible.

>>20163547
>No, all you need is the predicate Good, and then the assertion that things are good so far as they are true to their essence
Theese are prescriptive statements
>A transitory verb, let alone any verb, is not an essence
Schizo posting

>>20163567
>Theese are prescriptive statements
How? I didn't make any prescriptions.

>>20163582
Should we do good things? If yes, then you assume that we should do good things in your argument and then your true statement is
"we should be true to our essence" and you failed to bridge the gap. If you say no, then you have zero normative conclusions from your philosophy and you have failed to bridge the gap, either way, you fail.

>>20163589
>Should we do good things? I
As I said, that's up to you. It's your choice whether you want to strive for what is good or not.
>If you say no, then you have zero normative conclusions
Wrong, there are normative conclusions there for anyone with their head on straight, but the point is it's still their choice. No one in their right mind would want what is not good, which is not equivalent to a prescription, it is stating the fact of the matter. So Hume's entire argument falls apart and is shown for what it is, semantic nonsense which doesn't say anything meaningful about real ethics.

>>20163595
Let's cut the chase, can your philosophy tell me what I should do? Otherwise I don't care and your not doing ethics.

>>20163612
So you're telling me all you're interested in is a philosophy which tells you exactly what you should and shouldn't do? Would you not prefer to be told how to discern what is good, so that you possess the wisdom to navigate the world freely and in a way which is conducive to the general good? This is what it comes down to: The is-ought problem is only a problem to those who feel like external imperatives are necessary for any ethical behavior. Wisdom, discernment, and that which is, provides everything you need to act ethically. There is no magical commandment which solves ethics.

>>20163632
>So you're telling me all you're interested in is a philosophy which tells you exactly what you should and shouldn't do?
In ethics, yes.
>Would you not prefer to be told how to discern what is good, so that you possess the wisdom to navigate the world freely and in a way which is conducive to the general good?
Unless I should be good, then I don't care about goodness. I specifically view good as a synonym for "doing what you should do".
>This is what it comes down to: The is-ought problem is only a problem to those who feel like external imperatives are necessary for any ethical behavior.
No, it can be internal imperatives to, but in general, without imperatives, you can't determine what you should do.
>Wisdom, discernment, and that which is, provides everything you need to act ethically.
No they don't unless they tell you what you should do. To act ethically is specifically to do what you sould do.
>There is no magical commandment which solves ethics.
There is, but I won't tell you what it is.

>>20163612
> can your philosophy tell me what I should do
If it does that, then it's not a philosophy - it's a set of instructions, and therefore the opposite of philosophy.

>>20163638
>Utilitarianism is not a philosophy anymore

>>20163637
>No, it can be internal imperatives
What is an internal imperative? How could something internal be imperative to other beings?
>Unless I should be good, then I don't care about goodness
You're obviously arguing for the sake of it at this point. You get given a house. Unless you should want a good house, then you don't care whether or not it's a good house.
>I specifically view good as a synonym for "doing what you should do".
The word "good" is not a verb, so I find it odd that you'd make a noun the synonym of a verb. I was not personally using the term in this sense, and it doesn't make sense to use it in this way in this context.
>without imperatives, you can't determine what you should do.
Yes, you can. We do it every day by using our faculty of intellect and making comparisons and discernments of ourselves and our environments. There is no imperative to do anything, only discernment of what is good and therefore, based on our own judgement, what we would do based on our understanding to attain what is best.
>There is, but I won't tell you what it is.
No, there isn't. The categorical imperative is refuted, the Bible is obviously refuted, and utilitarian ethics are based on virtually nothing that isn't refuted by Hume's same so-called problem. You can spit up anything else and I can show you how it is flawed.

>>20163679
You used the term external imperative, so you obvisually believe that internal imperatives exist.

Me prefering a "good house" (whatever that means) over a "bad house" is subjective and has nothing to do with ethics.

I have no idea what good means unless I use my definition. I don't care about essences and find the concept retarded.

You're philosophy assumes that you should strive for the good, so you're lying.

The categorical imperative is based and I'd love for you to attempt to refute it. Also apparently has, in the words of the intellectual titan vaush, outpaced me intellectualy.

>>20154861
>Nazi sadist God
That's precisely the God I worship and adore anon.

>>20154452
Like Putin?

>>20153386
God or no god, try and take what is mine and see how permissible I am about it.

>>20153412

>>20163869
And how many of those forcefully born are you willing to adopt yourself? If the answer is 0, you don't seem like much of an actual Christian either, just an atheist who doesn't want to be confronted with truly harsh choices

>>20163841
Yeah, he seems pretty fond of the Orthodox Church

>>20164082
>forcefully born
immensely retarded statement

>>20164082
>How many victims of theft have you fully compensated the amount of money stolen from them? If the answer is 0, then you have no right to talk about whether theft should be illegal.
Fuckin retard.

>>20154445
no idea if this quote is authentic but in his own definition of Christ being truth that makes him betray Christ just as much as if he chose to stick with truth over Christ.

Imo it's important to trust in your own perception and ability to attain truth above every religious doctrine. Thus if someone prooved to me that Christ is outside of truth, I'd stick with the truth.

>>20153406
This. It's the same situation as claiming morality stems from a king, God is just a really powerful king. "Do it or I'll hurt you" still isn't 'morality' even if it is 100% non-negotiable.

>>20164185
It was 100% accurate, you just don't like it.

>>20163869
This meme is so poorly written.

>>20153412
The secular/non-secular classification of societies is misleading to the point of being plain silly. All societies are mainly driven by practical factors but guided by a set of subjective values, it's really just a matter of which part they showcase.

>>20165028
Good. Being so sure of your views to the point that you reject even the theoretical possibility of changing your mind is retarded.

>>20163869
Ecclesiastes 4:2-3
>So I congratulated the dead who are already dead more than the living who are still living. But better off than both of them is the one who has never existed, who has never seen the evil activity that is done under the sun

>>20153386
There's no argument here. It's just a quote.

>>20165132
I still can't believe they kept this in

>>20153386
Everything is permissible, just expect resistance from opposing people. Same would apply even if a literal Christian God did exist.
The game then becomes some 'tismal-battle of 'Do I believe myself capable enough to resist the resistance and receive enough utility from what I am fighting for to make it worth it?' between man and man/state.

>>20164408
Those are in no way comparable. If you're 'pro-life' (more likely just a seething incel, but hey), and you're not also sacrificing a good portion of your own life for a life you deem sacred, you're just forcing some unwanted kid to be born and live out what will most likely be a shitty life because you don't want your feefees hurt.

Once again, you've just shown what your conservative christianity truly is, selfishness dressed up as morality

>>20165285
If life is so bad then KYS.
The fact that no antinatalist does this tells you all you need to know, they don't even believe what they say.

>>20165285
>Once again, you've just shown what your conservative christianity truly is, selfishness dressed up as morality
100% this

>>20165296
Antinatalism is a silly internet meme that has nothing to do with this discussion. Pro-choice does not mean antinatalist, there are very few antinatalists in the world.

>>20165285
They are absolutely comparable. The unborn child is just as much of a person as the 20 yo comatose man who will wake up in 9 months, and it is just as much murder to pull the plug on the one as it is the other. Adoption has nothing to do with not wanting infanticide. But hey, next time you get knocked up and considering abortion, I'll take em instead. Ship em over in a box, why dontcha.

>>20165332
>But hey, next time you get knocked up and considering abortion, I'll take em instead. Ship em over in a box, why dontcha.
if this is somehow true then obviously the criticism doesn't apply to you

>people who don't do X are bad
>Nooo! I do X and I'm good!
okay

>>20165306
If your position is that it's better to not be born than to suffer then you're already an antinatalist whether or not you would self describe as such. Life is suffering, but it's better to have the chance to overcome that than to have your mother murder you in utero and end the one and only chance at life you will ever get.

>>20165306
The issue with the "life begins at conception" idea is that it's just one more step using the same logic to saying "every sperm is sacred" and failing to make a child when you have the potential materials is murder, as the Catholic church basically asserts. This can lead to some ridiculous places.

The other extreme "life begins at birth" is also rather stupid but it is closer to where I think the sensible middle ground is: basically that it begins at a certain point of development where it has come together as a complex organism.

>>20165367
Sperm has no DNA of its own, only the father's genetic information. There was never a time when "you" were a sperm vibing in your dads balls as is frequently imagined.

>>20165339
>If your position is that it's better to not be born than to suffer then you're already an antinatalist whether or not you would self describe as such
First of all, that is not the pro-choice position. The pro-choice position is (in general) just a value judgement that the right of the woman to decide how to handle the situation is more important than the right of the fetus to be born. Anti-natalism does not fit in with this view as it gives the mother the right to arbitrarily make the child suffer, an anti-natalist would be actively pro-abortion.

I also do not agree that anyone who thinks it is better to not be born is an anti-natalist. There aren't good statistics handy on these things but I think huge numbers of people hold that position, and yet most of them still end up trying to reproduce. There are lots of other factors to the equation, the most basic and brutal one being self-interest, "life is suffering but I'm already stuck here and have decided I can't kill myself, so to make this more bearable I will have a child".

Consider the fact that the basic version of this view is present in the bible, as >>20165132 pointed out.

>>20165367
this was meant for >>20165332

>>20165390
This is what *you* think the important detail is, but many disagree and they have a logical defense ready. It's really not that much of a stretch to go from your view to theirs.

Personally I don't see much of a difference between the amount of 'you' that exists in a sperm and egg separate and together immediately after conception. There's no consciousness. It's the same principle of 'it could end up being you, or it could not'.

>>20153386
yeah he is correct, everything is in fact permissible

>>20165332
>The unborn child is just as much of a person as the 20 yo comatose man who will wake up in 9 months, and it is just as much murder to pull the plug on the one as it is the other.

You do realize that a good portion of the comatose actually don't wake up, right?

>Adoption has nothing to do with not wanting infanticide.
It most certainly does. It shows that you don't really give a shit about any of those kids you're 'saving', you just want to impose your dumbfuck values onto society, and you naturally transmit the massive downside of those values (the incredibly shitty life the kid will have) onto someone else's shoulders, which once again proves that your values are, like I just said, selfishness dressed up as morality.

By the way, my position is that a doctor should be the first and primary voice to make adecision on this, before any seething tradlarping incel like you ever gets a say in any of this

>>20165337
I mean you're just being silly in the first place. That other anon was completely right; to say that being opposed to abortion (because you believe it to be the unjustified killing of an innocent human being possessing personhood, i.e. murder) while not at the same time personally looking into adoption is hypocritical is just as absurd as saying you are a hypocrite if you oppose, say, the government rounding up and executing the homeless but do not personally pay out of pocket to help those homeless who would otherwise have been executed.
In essence, it would be better for people who are going to have poor lives to never exist in the first place, but when they are conceived, they already exist. Obviously, the solution then is not to kill them, that would only make things worse. Stopping a horrible thing from happening is a blatant improvement of the situation in every way even if the situation is still wretched.
But yes, if I could trade a life which would otherwise be killed by taking that life into your home, I would do it every time and I think most people, confronted with that dilemma would do the exact same thing, pro-life or not. Differance is pro-life people consider the life inside the womb just as worthy as that life outside it.

>>20165437
>It shows that you don't really give a shit about any of those kids you're 'saving', you just want to impose your dumbfuck values onto society
This. It's the same general sort of thinking that leads people to say things like "you shouldn't work at (shitty entry-level job), that's bad!" without offering any better options. Rather than actually helping you operate at a higher standard or passively allowing you to accept reality and make some hard decisions, they just screw with you.

>>20165391
I know what the pro choice position is, what I was referencing was what you said here
>you're just forcing some unwanted kid to be born and live out what will most likely be a shitty life because you don't want your feefees hurt.
I don't agree that if you don't want to be a parent that it would then be better to kill a healthy child so it doesn't have to live a shitty life. I've met many exceptional people that were orphans and many scumbags with loving families, life is what you make of it.
I have more respect for the kind of woman who's upfront that she just doesn't want to be pregnant and give birth because it feels bad, at least the hedonistic argument can stand on its own terms. But pretending it's for the child's sake just assumes an extremely fatalistic view of life in that it's going to be doomed without a traditional family, but truthfully giving the child away is the kindest thing you could do.

>>20165453
This had nothing to do with the point that was made. You should have just said "oh, okay"

>>20165458
That was someone else and I was just throwing in with them, I wouldn't have put it quite as they did.
>I've met many exceptional people that were orphans and many scumbags with loving families, life is what you make of it.
Yeah sure there are many exceptions but I know you don't contest the general principle that you are way more likely to live a quality life (and not create problems in the lives of others) if you come from a good family. The same people who use this line are always extremely pro-family and just pretend to forget it when it gets brought up as a point.

I understand if you have a moral conviction against abortion but you should still accept that, from a utilitarian perspective, killing off unwanted babies can stop a lot of suffering.

>>20165406
What is the logical defence? It's easy to distinguish the foetus as an (admittedly dependent) individual from the mother, but how can we distinguish sperm from the father any more than his skin or hair?
>There's no consciousness
Consciousness emerges from the body as possibly its most complex product, at concept the body has barely just formed even its basic components but it will surely be conscious in only a matter of months just like the comatose adult man. To me arguments that humanity or right to life is contingent on conscious seems a lot like dualism for atheists rather than accepting that truly there's only one substance, the material substance.

>>20165482
>but it will surely be conscious in only a matter of months just like the comatose adult man
>surely
this is the biggest chink in your argument. In none of these situations is it "sure", and in all of them it is possible. It is quite possible for the comatose man to never wake up (by the way, I notice that you declined to say "brain dead"), and it is quite possible for a sperm and an egg to come together. Both the sperm and the egg have a material existence as well.

What do a sperm and egg that combined 10 seconds ago have in common with a healthy adult human being that non-combined sperm and eggs do not?

>>20153406
Why does everyone quote Hume but never reads him? Hume expressly makes exception to God at many points in Treatise on Human Nature

>>20165525
That's just for PR. It was at a time when saying things like this could get you in a lot of hot water.

That or he was just wrong on that point.

>>20165367
>as the Catholic church basically asserts
"Every sperm is sacred" is a Monthy Python skit brother. The Catholic Church considers masturbation to go against natural law by going against the teleological purpose of sex, which is reproduction. But they don't consider jerking off murder, neither is normal reproductive sex without contraceptives murder (because even then 99.9% of the sperm released will die).
Conception is the proper biological beginning of a new human organism. Sperm cells and egg cells are precursors but they're not their own seperate human organisms. Only a zygote has the ability or potential of self-directed development into an adult human.
Now this does not mean that an embryo has personhood but implying that leads to the absurdity of applying personhood to gametes is moot. There is no definitive event later on in development that signals the transfer from some earlier stage of life into human life. It's simply the gradual development of the exact same being into a more and more complex life-form. It's a gradient so all other proposed dates in the pregnancy of when the fetus becomes a 'proper human', so to speak, are arbitrary. In the pro-life position, what makes you worthy of life, what gives you personhood, is your being human. And creates a very clear-cut line. You begin at your very conception in the womb and persist until you lay on your death bed. There can be no talk of you beginning either earlier or later.
Now you can define personhood differently, but that leads to some uncomfortable positions, see Peter Singer.

>>20165528
Nice assumptions / cope

>>20165476
We can also stop all suffering by secretly sterilising the entire global population, animals and all.
Mitigating pain and maximising pleasure is definitely a good general rule but this needs to be informed by the consent otherwise any kind of tyranny could be justified for the greater good. Imo this is the biggest problem with aborting healthy babies for QOL concerns, the child can't make a decision now but could if allowed to grow, by aborting it's robbed of the opportunity to make that decision, it's in this way I'd argue that giving the child away is objectively more moral whether the child will be adopted or not.
I think it's really troubling how the west is increasingly adopting abortion as a human right but no thought is given to voluntary euthanasia. To have the former but not the latter seems deeply anti human and anti freedom.

>>20165536
thank you

>>20165511
>What do a sperm and egg that combined 10 seconds ago have in common with a healthy adult human being that non-combined sperm and eggs do not?
Unique DNA, as I said. With nature left to take its course it will be a viable baby in only a few months.
A sperm, unless acted upon, won't do anything it will just be recycled into your body for nutrients while new sperm is generated to replace it. It's only once introduced to an egg that there is even potential for growth.

>>20165532
>"Every sperm is sacred" is a Monthy Python skit brother
I am well aware, but Monty Python's branding of it is much shorter and more interesting. I don't claim to know the doctrine inside and out but I am under the impression that the Catholic view of this is largely based around Onan "spilling his seed" and being personally killed by God for it. There are a lot of ways to take the meaning of that story and they seem to have taken it to be that intentionally wasting sperm is wrong.
>But they don't consider jerking off murder
I would like a citation on this, it doesn't fit with the general theme.
>neither is normal reproductive sex without contraceptives murder (because even then 99.9% of the sperm released will die).
I know and they also made a point of clarifying that it's okay for you to have sex even if you are already sterile (old, disabled, etc.) but that's because you aren't actively trying to avoid making children. It's only murder to *intentionally* stop a sperm that could have made a baby. It's a rather questionable doctrine but that's the thinking.

As for the rest, we are definitely in agreement that it is very arbitrary. There is no good standard on this and for practical issues we just go with "common sense". The issue I have with so many pro-lifers is they claim to have a clear and consistent standard but, same as anyone else, they don't.

>>20165564
Really you're just saying one more step has to be done. All the basic factors are already there, and the unique DNA still exists in a theoretical sense.

>>20165482
>truly there's only one substance, the material substance.
You believe that the only thing/substance that exists is precisely that which no one has ever—nor ever can—experience?
Not baiting or antagonizing, honest question.
To me it seems the case that all we experience is our perceptions, even scientific instruments can necessarily measure only the behaviors of our perceptions. Even if an instrument could measure "objective material reality out there" it'd be useless to us because we wouldn't be able to perceive it as it supposedly really is, if we could perceive it at all.

>>20165511
That anon isn't me. I didn't say brain dead because, as far as I know, brain death isn't a recoverable condition. The point of the analogy is to equate the person inside the womb with the person outside it, because there isn't a differance in their values. Will the man in the coma wake up? In this case we presuppose that he will, to make the analogue with pregnancy more refined because we want to avoid getting caught up in and clouding up the scenario with the debate about euthanasia, which is besides the matter. To be fair, a lot of pregnancies end up in miscarriage, but still. The point is that the man in the coma is unconscious and not [currently] sentient. But it is murder to kill him. It is not right to kill people who are currently unconscious and lacking sentience because their personhood is not derived from consciousness but from their being human. And in this case we know for a fact that he's going to wake up in nine months, barring other complications unrelated to his being in a coma.
Would you kill this man?

>>20165541
I agree with most of what you said but "consent" just doesn't get you very far in practice. Many hopelessly deformed babies will never reach a point where you could fairly accept their ability to give consent on these matters, and I don't think they should have to live a hopeless life of suffering just for that (not should anyone else be forced to suffer for them).

>>20165609
A braindead man has a material existence, you are abandoning that definition by rejecting him.

>>20153406
It's refuted by the Is-Ought gap, pseud. God is the Ought to science's Is. Lemaître understood this, Einstein understood this, every scientist understood this until the advent of Reddit thought.

>>20165617
What do you mean by that?

>>20165599
Exactly, if there were one more step (really two, sex and conception) then you would have a foetus on the trajectory to become human, prior to that point you have a sperm and an egg on the trajectory to be wasted.
>and the unique DNA still exists in a theoretical sense.
What do you mean?
A man's DNA isn't the same as his brother's, only about 50 percent or so. Prior to conception there's no unique DNA, just the father's DNA in the sperm and the mother's in the egg. The resulting baby isn't just 1+1=2 but rather a diverse and unpredictable selection from both parents.

>>20165296
You don't know what antinatalists say then, the ones who know what antinatalism actually is at least. Antinatalism has nothing to do with continuing a life, it's concerned with starting a new one. You can logically love YOUR life and still be antinatalist, although that's probably a rare position, and it's true a lot of antinatalists are more just depressed than they are holding the philosophical position. (Not completely sold on antinatalism btw but have read up on it)

>>20165627
Most zygotes do not survive. Same as any given sperm and egg, the majority are wasted. It's not until you reach a point considerably down the line that any given "baby" is more likely than not to survive.
>Prior to conception there's no unique DNA, just the father's DNA in the sperm and the mother's in the egg.
This is what I meant by "theoretical", the combination is there and simply has not happened yet. There is a sperm, there is an egg.

>>20165610
I agree, this is why I make the qualifier "healthy" babies. If the baby is certain to die, or will be born with crippling birth defects to make life constant physical pain then it'd be a mercy to terminate the pregnancy.
Mind you I think circumstances where death really would be a mercy are exceptional, living with shit like Downs Syndrome or blindness from birth or other things that can be mitigated with modern technology and good social support doesn't actually look so bad, though I still would hesitate to say abortion is unjustifiable in such a scenario. Obviously a special needs child is going to need massive amounts of care that the system as it is can't reliably provide, if the parents can't either then maybe death would be better. But really this a concession to practicality, in the ideal world we'd have a much more robust support system for unwanted kids, but that's not likely any time soon.

>>20165600
Perceptions are a product of the material like smoke is the product of a fire, it is our instrument for measuring the objective reality out there.

>>20153406
the idea of a having a moral compass implies some higher nature or "god" you adhere to, whether you personify that nature or not is peripheral.

>>20165680
It depends very much on how you define "morality", and I think in this context it was used interchangeably with "ethics".

>>20165654
In the long run no one survives, but natural death is what it is and it doesn't need our moral permission.
>This is what I meant by "theoretical", the combination is there and simply has not happened yet. There is a sperm, there is an egg.
By this logic we can say I'm theoretically a billionaire because my bank account exists and 1 billion dollars exist, they just haven't been combined yet.

>>20153412
Last century's history of atheist regimes had death tolls by the millions.

>>20165719
Well, yeah.

When will people realise Jesus urged us to realise Communism 2000 years ago

>>20165541
If it was up to me both abortion and voluntary euthanasia would be legal.

>>20165301
>Fuck you dad: the post

>>20166127
My dad is an atheist, he's more of a fedora-tipper than I am.

>>20153412
>since secular societies don't seem all that fond of committing genocides
on what planet does this man live?

but when people did believe in god, they still did atrocious things anyway? so either way, whether he exists or not, it doesn't matter since people will behave however they want.

>>20154991
>says everything is permitted
>"this guy wouldnt willfuly misrepresent himself!"

>>20155695
so, uh. what happened before this

>>20153416
>>20166412
samefag or functionally the same thing as a samefag (discord tranny)

>>20166423
this really should be obvious desu

>>20166468
i mean yeah, theres no god. but this is a thread about arguing if he does or does not exist

>>20166520
what

>>20166526
sir this is a board about reading

>>20166531
I know, what you said did not follow.

Every post trying to debunk based Dosto so far either presupposes the non-existence of God or the fallibility of God (so, not the God Dosto was talking about). I really don't get why people can't step into a theistic brain for one second to realize what an absolute promulgator of laws would mean for the moral universe.
>dude he doesn't exist dosto btfo
>dude he's not absolute dosto btfo
>dude laws are bad anyways so dosto btfo
none of these critiques seem to deal with the actual substance of the argument

>>20166664
Dosto does nor believe everything his characters say

>>20166664
are you just saying random words?