/lit/ - Literature

Just because you have no morals doesn't mean others don't.

>>2509176
So you're saying that you would stop a beautiful woman from screwing you on moral grounds (assuming there were some moral grounds) or even worse because of impropriety?

>>2509188
There are some moral grounds for whatever any given person wants to think.
Some people are neuters, some have Christianity drilled into their poor young heads and are just fools, others are old and just not feeling it anymore.

I think your problem is the author who doesn't convince you of the characters convictions.
I get the same feeling with all those cliche tacked on love stories.

>>2509188
correct, some people have morals, i would not have sex with an obviously promiscuous woman who likely is plastered in makeup and diseased.

Sex outside of wedlock is immoral anyways.

>>2509205
Being old or neuter are not really *moral* are they? You are of course correct that this probably has to do with the author failing to convince me.
>>2509208
How is sex outside of wedlock immoral?

>>2509208
>Good reason not to have sex
Disease
>Bad reason not to have sex
Not in wedlock

>Things in books that are not genuine
Since when was fiction genuine? Many authors write about topics they don't know about, virtues they don't have or think they have, and vices they wish they have but too pussy to practice.

>>2509225
>How is sex outside of wedlock immoral?
against the bible.

Also sex outside of marriage means say good bye to having a successful monogamous relationship.

Oh yeah OP, and I bet you'd rather read about things that ARE genuine?

PIC RELATED

>>2509233
The authors do not have to live what they write for the characters they describe to be genuine. Genuine is not the same as realistic, or factual or
>>2509254
banal
It does not have to be lived experience but it should ''ring true'' to lived experience.

>>2509248
How is something ''against'' the bible? What does that even mean? To my knowledge, the commandment to not commit adultery is against adultery which would mean extra-marital sex; and when you consider that Jesus pretty much nullified all the laws of the old testament it gets even more questionable.

>>2509248
most obvious trolling in the universe award

>>2509248
The bible is against the bible. Say what you mean instead
"Its goes against the Church elders."
Be honest with yourself
>say good bye to having a successful monogamous relationship.
In some cases certainly, but marriage vows are broken more often than a shacked up couple's agreement.
If any given couple are dedicated, then that's that.

I have been offered sex but declined on moral grounds; namely, I have a girlfriend. OP doesn't know what that is.

>>2509301
>implying i don't just cheat on all of my girlfriends :)
Also, is that really a question of your morals? You don't cheat because it is in your best interests not to cheat.

>>2509330
It's very easy to cheat without your girlfriend catching you. It would just make me feel very bad, and it's clearly the wrong thing to do.

>>2509248
Find me a bible passage that says you have to be married to have sex.

If not that. Then here's this. According to the bible, god can't see through 'white linen' let me say that again.

God, and all powerful being, Can't see through 'white linen' a coarse plant fiber woven into fabric.

Truly the bible is an infallible book. I just need to fuck chicks out of wedlock under white linen. Then god won't know it happened.

>>2509336
It would make you feel *scared* of getting caught. Angst because you would have to tell many ancillary lies in order to uphold the primary one and insecurity at your inability to be convincing. Lying makes people feel bad because to do so convincingly is difficult, not because the person you are lying to has access to damning information, but because consistency is hard to maintain while making things up (for most people) I am not saying this as a ''good liar'' in fact I am a bad liar (much better at justification)..but, this is my theory on the subject. And why is it so clearly wrong? I don't see it as being clear at all.

>>2509374
>the bible uses no wordplay whatsoever and everything in it is to be taken as is
>therefore when the bible says "All the people of Jerusalem did X" We are to understand that everybody of Jerusalem did that one thing and not one person did not partake in such activities
This is what you sound like.

>>2509392
No. What I sound like is a person wanting proof of sanctioned monogamy in your 'good book'.

I'm also pointing out just how absurd it is to live according to a text about 3,000 yrs old. Even better is that you're listening to a desert fairing people who were too stupid to move out of the desert.

You can't get past the fact your all powerful god can't see through 'White linen'

Your god is blind to fabric.

>>2509407
Never claimed to follow the book. You're getting buttfurious over nothing, and attacking a book.
A book.

Additionally, I'd like to say that Palestine isn't a desert, it's a very fertile region, just like several other areas in the Middle East, that one land where civilization started.

>>2509407
Different poster, but being that following a religion is generally about having faith, generally trying to disprove a person's religion is pointless.

We take a leap of faith for many choices in our life being that you cannot take a scientific approach to ever choice in life. Religion is simply another leap of faith.

>>2509416
Chinese had printing presses and paper while sand Jockey were still digging through camel shit.

>>2509424
Okay now you're just being illogical. I have no reason to continue talking with you.
It's funny because you're trying to take the role of the voice of reason.

>All men want sex with all attractive women all the time.
Yeah, how about you go fuck yourself?

>>2509431
Why is this so offensive to you?

I am annoyed by authors who put forward their own philosophical ideas into a story/ article.

Good books should rely on witty narrative and creative, factual background. Examples include Terry Pratchett, encyclopedias.

At the end of the day a book is a portrayal of how the author views the world. Many authors, however, have a tendency to spew pretentious dribble as fact when it is an opinion.

>>2509430
Nah. I'm just trying to troll you. Was waiting for my IM buddy to get online. They're here now. Later.

>>2509442
>confusing book characters' points of view with author's point of view
>2012

ISHYGDDT

>>2509301
It's not necessarily the risk of being caught in the act- it's more the effect this will have on the cognition and emotional relationship with said girlfriend.

Consider this: If your girlfriend was fine with/ encouraged an open relationship (even if she didn't participate) would you still have declined sex with an attractive woman simply on principle? Even if yes there is much less inhibition at work.

>>2509376
Different poster, but...
I would feel bad about cheating, don't try to tell me I wouldn't. I would feel bad because I care about my girlfriend, and I wouldn't want to do something like that to her.
I know this might be a difficult concept for a sociopath to understand, but normal people do feel bad about wronging each other.

>>2509447
Nope. I have no issue with characters' viewpoints.

I have on more than one occasion denied the sexual advances of a beautiful woman for *moral* reasons.

>>2509449
Here's an argument nobody ever brings up:
What if you had a child? Even if you don't have an abortion, will you be able to raise that child in a stable family?
You're doing the kid an injustice either way.

>>2509449
What does cheating *do* to your girlfriend exactly? Assume that she would never know about it. Are you feeling bad because you are imagining what she would feel like if she found out? If this is the case isn't this just an abstract way of thinking and if so then what inspires this kind of fantasy? I think it is the fear of getting caught, because obviously that is the basis for such a scenario. If you were absolutely 100 percent sure that you would not be caught and she would never know (and this kind of certainty would be difficult if not impossible) then you would probably not even fantasize about how she would feel if she knew.

>>2509459
okay, i will play along and pretend you aren't making it up. What were your moral reasons?

>>2509461
>What if you had a child?
What, have abortions been deemed illegal all of a sudden or something? If you fuck a woman and she decides to keep the child, then it's her problem.

>>2509463
I would feel bad that I had violated her trust, not because I was worried about getting caught.

>>2509472
Okay, well violating her trust does not hurt her unless she finds out. Or does it?

>>2509472
So it's not the principle but the guilt left on you which will inversely affect your own actions around her.

Principle is making the decision before you have even met them. You considered the act and responded out of fear.

>>2509469
So what you're saying is you have no moral obligation to be a father to that child even after you caused it? If she had moral obligations to not kill it, then you're fucking her and the kid, and that's not any good at all.

>>2509489
>If she had moral obligations to not kill it
But she doesn't, and she hasn't had those obligations since Roe vs. Wade nearly 40 years ago.

>>2509498
Dear god, man, I'm taking her moral views into consideration, not her legal obligations. I should have been more clear in my use of the word.

>>2509503
She has all the power with regards to whether or not to keep or abort the child. If she doesn't want to abort it, then she can give it up for adoption. You know, it may be difficult for you to accept, but women actually have autonomy and are capable of being responsible human beings on their own, it is not the job of a man to rush in and save them from their own decisions.

I once rejected the advances of an attractive woman. But I didn't reject her advances on moral grounds.

I felt that if I did have sex with her, it would've ruined the image of her that I had constructed in my mind. To indulge in her body would've been to ruin that beautiful image.

The temptation was great but I wanted her to stay as that image even if it meant me living with regret to this day.

>>2509517
This is woefully retarded and you should feel bad

>>2509517
So essentially you saw her as a chaste thing, lily, white and pure as snow, so you didn't fuck her to corrupt this image.
It's too bad she went out and probably sucked some alpha cock after you were such a beta

>>2509517
That is a reason that I can appreciate, it has some kind of authenticity to it, some controversy..not like the bland reaction of impropriety that i see depicted time and again in books and film. I can understand this after feeling like i ruined an image that i had of certain girls by sleeping with them..but i have never even tried to resist it..

>>2509521

Basically, yes. But, wrong on the whole pure, chaste, and innocent qualities. I knew she fucked guys. Heck, I was fucking her friend while I knew her.

To me, she was beautiful not by how she looked. (I mean sure, she was really attractive) But how she inspired me to paint. We would paint together or do ceramics together and when I saw her paint or roll clay between her hands, there was this spark. I felt truly inspired.

To have fucked her for me, would've ruined her for me. Like how Dorian Grey eventually grew tired of Sybil Vane, I would've felt the same...

>>2509248
You sheepishly find some rocks to hide in, where you remove your clothes.You stroke your average prick eagerly, quickly bringing yourself to a full, throbbing state. You easily wrap a hand around your average cock and start masturbating. You stroke quickly, pleasuring your sensitive prick, darting down to fondle the base of your cock. The sensations prove too much for you, and you feel the tightness building in your twitching manhood, growing rapidly. You stroke furiously, feeling the pressure of your cum as it nears release. Pleasurable spasms overwhelm you as cum erupts from your average shaft. Your hips jerk in the air in time with your eruptions, spraying cum in the air. A few thick spurts of cum burst from your loins, splattering you liberally. You quickly fall asleep, spent.

>>2509544
It is okay to use pronouns in the place of repeating "prick," "cock," and "manhood," but other than that pretty nice.

Would read again.

>>2509538
>saw her roll clay between her hands..there was a spark
how freudian of you

>>2509551
>tfw Freud has been reduced to phallic symbolism

>>2509544
>sensitive prick
Guess again.

>>2509557
>mfw people take jokes too seriously

>>2509560
How the fuck do you know pruane2?

>>2509585
i'm an agingfag

>>2509586
Wait, pruane2 is actually like, known?

I hate all of you.

>>2509587
he was at one time a kind of /b/ celebrity known as ''jawsus''

>>2509538
>>2509557
Seems familiar.

>>2509173

It's only unreal because you are thinking of your own time and culture. If the setting of the story is not present day America/Western Europe then yeah it's pretty fucking realistic.

ignorant dipshit

>>2511176
wow was not expecting this thread to come back. i think you have some kind of idealized view of the past. read some Decameron or Canterbury Tales..it was just as fake back then as it is today .

>>2509173
>For instance, the protagonist denying the sexual advances of a beautiful woman for *moral* reasons. It is so unreal that it annoys me.
Except it does happen, you halfwit.

>>2509463
ITS NOT ABOUT THAT YOU FAGGOT

ITS ABOUT MORALS, HONOR, AND DIGNITY.

>>2511195
>being contrary, not refuting or substantiating
herpshiggydiggy

Hey, OP, check out the Sword of Truth series. You'll love it.
Author is Terry Goodkind, if you didn't know.

>>2511202
I don't need to refute beyond that.
It happens, there is no real way to expand on that, and the only evidence I can provide is anecdotal. You won't trust any anecdotal evidence, and even if I had some kind of hard evidence, you'd just ignore it, or claim it was fabricated, so why bother?
I've done it a dozen times in my thirty-seven years, turning down a beautiful woman's sexual advances for my moral code.

>>2511207
cool i mean i haven't read any fantasy at all so maybe this can be my first.

Having a dry spell, OP?

>>2511239
>assumptions everywhere
look man, if you had some kind of *compelling* anecdotal evidence i really would consider it. all of the anecdotes itt have been like yours though, just like one sentence about how ''i've done it'' and nothing more. this isn't very high stakes for me so i'm willing to listen to the other side. what moral code had you turn them down? what were the circumstances? i've countered a few claims with my own insight on this. >>2511257
no actually..

>>2511271

I'm having a hard time believing your (brief) refutation of my assertion.

>>2511241
It'll really set the tone of the genre for you, you won't read another non-fantasy book again.

Not to get on a high horse or anything, but about 10 months ago I did exactly what OP described, for solely moral reasons. The social fallout that resulted has really ruined my life in a lot of ways, and I'm lonelier than I've ever been, ever.

My point is people do actually do this in real life, whether or not it's wise.

>>2511271
Sure thing.
>what moral code had you turn them down?
I can't engage in sexual relationships with my patients. That is a moral code thing. There would be a near-zero percent chance of me being caught, and with my influence I'd probably be able to make it go away.
>what were the circumstances?
A very attractive patient of mine, after a session, propositioned me to engage in sexual intercourse with her. My penis was saying yes, but I still said no. It would violate my moral code.

Now, there were two more cases quite similar to this one. One time my friend's wife propositioned me, various friends girlfriends tried to get me to engage in sexual intercourse with them. Several drunk girls I refused to have sex with because I'd feel wrong since drunk people aren't really consenting when they are consenting, and a quite attractive seventeen year-old girl tried to get me to have sex with her after I spoke to a psychology class in a local high-school.

Things like that. I have very clearly-defined rules for these situations. I don't deviate from those codes.

'The Collector' by John Fowles is just that, it's about a creep named "Fred" who cannot reconcile his sexual desires and fixation on some girl called "Miranda" with his supposed principles. He decides to kidnap her, forcing her to live in his cellar but rejects her and displays disgust when she offers sex in exchange for her freedom.
However there is a point to those kinds of things depending on the book - scenarios constructed to prove the author's point.
but i what do i know, i'm just a window cleaner...

>>2511302

Man, I feel you. It's really satisfying to avoid a sexual encounter knowing that having done so would have been a shitty move on your part.

>>2511317
It is very satisfying.

Oh, every time I've turned down these sexual encounters, I go home and masturbate to my idealized mental image of what the encounter would have been like had I gone through with it. Leaving out all of the negative implications, of course.

Still don't regret turning them down.

>>2511302
you stories do make a case, but how much of what you do are you convinced are done from principle and not simply because it is good policy? That is the question I am setting, up...are such actions the product of moral rigor or are they simply from fear of being discovered..truly nothing would be more simple than to say ''i feel i was acting out of principle, so i must have been'' but i wonder if we were to look a bit more deeply into ourselves, into the circumstances and be more forthcoming then perhaps we find that our reasoning was not simply based on morality, but rather or morality simply confirms our reasoning after the fact..i guess in a way, i'm not just questioning whether this is genuine in literature, but whether it is indeed genuine in life.

>>2511351
I was unworried about being caught. For any of the patients, they would have to come out and say I had engaged in sexual intercourse with them, which they probably wouldn't do, secondly, I could make it go away were it the issue.
The drunks, I don't believe a person under the influence of alcohol can consent, that when they are consenting, they aren't really consenting. No fear of getting caught, no fear of someone accusing me of date rape, they probably wouldn't remember in the first place. For the wives and girlfriends of my friends, they are in a relationship with someone, I think it is wrong to wreck someone's relationship for selfish purposes.
It was out of moral principal alone.
Also, are you trying to set up the idea that morals are based on getting caught, when in some people that isn't the case.

>>2511377
>probably
>probably
I find it is the lack of certainty which forms the basis for all moral claims..some people may not admit it is based on getting caught but then again people are not always honest with themselves or others

>>2511395
I knew this was coming.
Getting caught wasn't even a possibility because I wouldn't do it because it violates my moral principals.
What's so fucking difficult about that for you to grasp?

ITT the OP has a hard time relating to male characters who aren't 14 year old boys.

>>2511406
That shit ain't logical..saying getting caught isn't possible because you wouldn't do it..circular reasoning..if you did do it the possibility of getting caught is real.
>>2511421
blahblahblah poor ad hominem

>>2511435
If I did, sure the possibility of getting caught would be real. Court and the prison system don't scare me.
Anyway, it is a non-issue because I wouldn't do it. I was taught that screwing patients, underage girls, drunk girls or girls taken by my friends was ultimately morally reprehensible. The issue for me isn't a fear of getting caught, but my belief that it is absolutely morally reprehensible.
Believe it or not, not everyone lacks morals or is an objectivist who believes his happiness is the only thing his actions should be centered around.
Sorry kid.

>>2511467
Who said I believed in Objectivism? I just question what a moral decision really is and you say that prison does not scare you but I find that hard to believe I mean I don't really believe it and it is not even relevant. My point is that people confuse good policy for good principles. You were taught morality and you are able to use what you were taught as a justification for what you did. Morality effectively bridges gaps in reasoning, where the reasoning is either unclear, or it is not something that you want to admit. I don't see why the truth of this insight is so difficult for you to accept

>>2511480
You sound like a child at this point. Get a few more years under your belt before becoming so confident that you've got it all figured out.
Anyway, I'd like to address all of your points here.

>Who said I believed in Objectivism?
All of your posts thus far have lined up with objectivist views.
>I just question what a moral decision really is
A decision based on principal more than fear of negative consequences.
>and you say that prison does not scare you but I find that hard to believe I mean I don't really believe it and it is not even relevant.
Have you heard of post-conventional morality. Conventional morality is law and order, fear of consequences. Post-conventional is based more on principal that fear of consequences, and your principals can even run contrary to the law, and you'd follow them with no fear of consequences.
My principals happen to match up with the law a lot, yet I act based on my morals, not the law.
> My point is that people confuse good policy for good principles.
Good policy and good principals overlap quite a bit.
>You were taught morality and you are able to use what you were taught as a justification for what you did.
Actually, morality was the primary reason behind my actions, not something I used after the fact to feel better about it. I would know, I was there.

>>2511572
>Morality effectively bridges gaps in reasoning, where the reasoning is either unclear, or it is not something that you want to admit.
Morality is a form of reasoning, actually. It's not logical reasoning, but logic doesn't always work.
> I don't see why the truth of this insight is so difficult for you to accept
Because I'm not seventeen, I've had thirty-seven years to experience things, to get a handle on reality. I am a psychologist, I understand how people work. I get things you couldn't fathom. You know what? Some people have morals and are compelled by those morals, instead of purely their own happiness. I'm one of those people. If you can't fathom that, then deal with it kid. Deal with the fact that some people have morals.

>>2511572
>All of your posts thus far have lined up with objectivist views.
Actually they could be ascribed to quite a few schools of thought and you were just using objectivist in its standard (for /lit/) pejorative sense
>A decision based on principal more than fear of negative consequences.
Implying that principles preceded the decision and aren't ascribed in its aftermath
>Have you heard of post-conventional morality.
Does not sound much different from any other sort of morality.
>Good policy and good principals overlap quite a bit.
And isn't it convenient?
>Actually, morality was the primary reason behind my actions
This is what you *claim* it is certainly not a very deep insight, and it comes off as more of an assertion, in support of your arguments. Tell me how did you determine what was the primary reason? Are you determining it now or in the moment of choosing. Be honest.
>Morality is a form of reasoning, actually
Morality can be the product of reasoning or but in itself it is not a form of reasoning.
>some people have morals
Many people claim to have morals, but are quick to bury whatever may contradict these claims.
also
>kid
I'm 25

>>2511595
>Actually they could be ascribed to quite a few schools of thought and you were just using objectivist in its standard (for /lit/) pejorative sense
I was using it not in a pejorative sense, but rather because it was the school of thought that came to my mind when I was reading your post. What you've been saying could be ascribed to any philosophy that disregards morality, throws it aside claiming it's a bunch of lies.
>Implying that principles preceded the decision and aren't ascribed in its aftermath
The principals did precede the decision. I was there.
>Does not sound much different from any other sort of morality.
The difference is that consequences are irrelevant.
>And isn't it convenient?
Good policy was based on good morals, believe it or not.
>This is what you *claim* it is certainly not a very deep insight, and it comes off as more of an assertion, in support of your arguments. Tell me how did you determine what was the primary reason? Are you determining it now or in the moment of choosing. Be honest.
It isn't deep, I'll admit it. I have rather simple motives.
I honestly determined morality as the primary reason in the moment of choosing. There is no way to verify this, I'm sorry.
>Many people claim to have morals, but are quick to bury whatever may contradict these claims.
And I do have morals and there isn't anything to contradict those claims. Sorry.
>I'm 25
Your posts have all sounded childish, so I went with it.
Furthermore, I still have twelve years on you, in terms of age.

Regardless, I'm enjoying this discussion, I hope you are as well.

>>2511695
discussion i have had on /lit/ in an age, i won't lie.
anyway:
>The principals did precede the decision. I was there.
>I honestly determined morality as the primary reason in the moment of choosing
This is really getting to the bottom of things, now. You have some knowledge of psychology and I do not, so my question would be how does one have certainty about the relationship between their reasoning and the decision they have actually made? Especially in the moment of choosing. It seems like you assume that your decision was completely rational. Or that all decisions are completely rational,even
>And I do have morals and there isn't anything to contradict those claims.
You may have morals but you do not always act as an agent of those morals. I am positive that not all of your actions even conform to your morals. So, if the case is that you are not always acting morally, what determines exactly when you are acting morally and when you aren't?

>>2511747

>This is really getting to the bottom of things, now. You have some knowledge of psychology and I do not, so my question would be how does one have certainty about the relationship between their reasoning and the decision they have actually made?'
How? One just has to have an understanding of their thought process.
It depends on how good of an introspective one has of himself. I am quite aware of what's going on in my head, I know my reasoning process and all that. Most people are pretty good at it, unless they are very impulsive. I'd say I'm eighty-five percent certain in my understanding of my reasoning.
> Especially in the moment of choosing. It seems like you assume that your decision was completely rational. Or that all decisions are completely rational,even
I assume my decision was completely irrational. Morality is rarely rational, and acting as an agent of your own morality is often irrational. It's like how it's rational for me to pick-pocket people when I'm low on cash, it's easy money that I'd be able to get without much fear of repercussions, as I'm quite good at misdirection, I even do magic at parties sometimes, yet my moral belief that stealing is wrong doesn't allow me to.

>>2511771
>You may have morals but you do not always act as an agent of those morals. I am positive that not all of your actions even conform to your morals.
That's right. No one always acts as an agent of their morals. I generally do, but occasionally I'll break from them.
>So, if the case is that you are not always acting morally, what determines exactly when you are acting morally and when you aren't?
Whether I am adhering to the principals I normally adhere to or not. If I am adhering to these principals, I am being moral. It's hard to explain, sir.

We are getting really close to the issue at hand, yeah.
You're really making me think, yet it's just making me more confident in my beliefs.

>I'd say I'm eighty-five percent certain in my understanding of my reasoning.
That sounds accurate, but what of the other 15% is that something that you simply can't know or is it something that you, personally, feel you have failed to grasp? Am I mistaken in thinking that the other 15% is the decisive space; that ultimately it is this irrational dimension that is really at work in deciding, and the rational dimension is more or less a tool for appraisal and justification?
>I assume my decision was completely irrational.
I think in that paragraph you are confusing what I think of as ''pragmatic'' for what I mean when I say rational..when i say rational I mean it was the product of your rational faculties..your brain acknowledges what it is doing, as opposed to say primitive biological drives.
>I generally do, but occasionally I'll break from them.
So if you can break from them, are they truly your principles, or are these morals just tenuous? What determines when a moral decision is suitable and when it is suitable to act immorally?

i think the basis for doubt in morality is that morality only functions when a person can act rationally, if they are taken over by irrational drives they can no longer uphold their morals. since the irrational drives are always working in some way, influencing the rational faculties i would say constantly, then i wonder are they not more influential on a decision than the so-called principles? principles can be taken up or left behind at will, but the irrational aspects of your mind cannot.

>>2511809
>That sounds accurate, but what of the other 15% is that something that you simply can't know or is it something that you, personally, feel you have failed to grasp? Am I mistaken in thinking that the other 15% is the decisive space; that ultimately it is this irrational dimension that is really at work in deciding, and the rational dimension is more or less a tool for appraisal and justification?
It's more that I can't grasp that fifteen percent of my motives. Those are the strange motives that defy logic and morality.

>>2511809
>I think in that paragraph you are confusing what I think of as ''pragmatic'' for what I mean when I say rational..when i say rational I mean it was the product of your rational faculties..your brain acknowledges what it is doing, as opposed to say primitive biological drives.
Yeah, I misunderstood it. I was being rational in the sense you are describing here.

> So if you can break from them, are they truly your principles, or are these morals just tenuous? What determines when a moral decision is suitable and when it is suitable to act immorally?
Morality is generally broken when your drives get the best of you. When you haven't had sex in years, and someone offers you sex, you'll generally take it. A starving man will break his morals to feed himself. I only break my morals when these drives overcome me. It doesn't happen often, but it does from time to time.
>i think the basis for doubt in morality is that morality only functions when a person can act rationally, if they are taken over by irrational drives they can no longer uphold their morals. since the irrational drives are always working in some way, influencing the rational faculties i would say constantly, then i wonder are they not more influential on a decision than the so-called principles? principles can be taken up or left behind at will, but the irrational aspects of your mind cannot.
Yeah, that. But, you cannot really deny that humans are completely devoid of morals and principals.

>>2511828
>Those are the strange motives that defy logic and morality.
Is it odd that i find such strange motives to be more genuine than professed morals?
>Morality is generally broken when your drives get the best of you
Since morals are capable of succumbing to the drives, would you say that the drives are ever overcome by the morals, or do morals only exist in a space where drives are sufficiently satisfied? (this is what i contend, essentially)
> But, you cannot really deny that humans are completely devoid of morals and principals.
I am not really claiming that people are devoid of principals, but I question when people profess morals to be of principal importance in their decision making.

do your morals command you to act as you did? or did you just happen to act in accordance with those morals? isn't just a matter of circumstance that you did? also, where do the morals come from are they professional, religious, conventional?? y u no have sex with these women?

>>2509173
OP, don't know if you are still around but I'd like to make the case that you are wrong.

Fact of the matter is I did this during high school a few times. I know this is the internet and you have no reason to believe me but I will at least tell you guys the story. Also, I will attempt to weigh in on this debate between the earlier anon and Dr. LoveCraft.

As a freshman in high school-14 year old-I started talking to and "dating" a girl. At this point, I went to an all boys boarding school out of my home state and she went to the sister school. I continued to talk to a good number of girls from back home and did not take the relationship very seriously. I wasn't a sexually active 14 year old but I saw a good number of girls with whom I enjoyed myself.

So about two years pass, and I'm still at the boarding school dating the same girl. We have become much more romantically involved with one another and pretty much were best friends (with sex). At this point, there was one girl with whom I still kept friendships from my old school and she was an extremely attractive red head girl. I knew she was interested in me and in the past, while I was with current girlfriend myself and the redhead had messed around.

I had no fear of girlfriend finding out what I had done, it had been months. I want to make this very, very clear, I was not at all worried about my girlfriend finding out. The longer I was with girlfriend the worse I felt about what was happening with the redhead. I felt like I was cheating both of them, girlfriend in the literal sense and redhead simply because I was basically using her.
Felt bad man.
I

>>2512648
>>2512648

stopped because of my morals and I did not start again. I told my girlfriend what had happened because of the principle, I wanted her to trust me. It was not a question of whether or not I can lie-I've been an actor all my life I know I can lie-I told her what had happened because I felt that she deserved to know. I hope I've made this clear.
It's been years since this all happens but if anyone would like to hear more just say so.
tldr; OP you are wrong that is a very human thing to do for anyone from any age. I believe that people do have a sense of morality and, at its most basic, this means treating those you love in the way they deserve, or the "golden rule."