/lit/ - Literature

>You: "I am an amoralist."
>Me: *stabs you*
>You: "Why did you stab me?"
>Me: *shrugs* "It seems you lack the courage of your convictions."
>You: *dies*
>Me: "Time for lunch."
>Me: *devours your fresh corpse*

>>6941607
Does your mom know you're using the computer ?

>>6941617
Kek

>>6941607
but morals ARE muh feels
and most people have muh feels
congrats op, you're a psychopath

>>6941617
*grabs you by the throat*
back the fuck off??!!

>>6941850
Explain cannibals, and I don't mean the people in modern society who are lunatics who kill and devour people, but the societies in which cannibalism was(and to an extent still is; Africa) a normal part of life, part of that peoples beliefs or "morals".

>>6941859
*murrs gently*
ASFO? :3

>>6941867
It's part of their tradition; they aren't conditioned against cannibalism (less individualistic). They don't have muh feels about cannibalism; it's normal.

>>6941867
niggers

>>6941878
Right, so for them there isn't anything immoral about eating another human whereas there is to us.

>>6941890
>reply

>>6941617
I don't think this is against amoralism. You are allowed to dislike things like getting stabbed, you just don't act like it's some sort of objective rule.

>>6941876
22, f, arctic wolf, bisexual

>>6941892
>>6941878
>>6941867
>>6941850
Prediction: OP realizes he's just a moral relativist

>>6941892
Yep.

>>6941899
*disconnects*

>>6941867

i don't know how old you are, but the simple explanation is that cannibalism is not immoral in their culture, while here it largely is considered to be immoral.

surely your argument can't be that since no objective standard set of morals exists across culture, one's only option is to subscribe to amoralism.

you know that morality can be subjective, right?

>>6941899
wat

>>6941951
>>6941867
all of these fallacies

>>6941898
Congratulations on fucking understanding moral rationalism.

>>6942018
explain

>>6941951
It's not that morality CAN be subjective, it's that it wholly is subjective.

>>6942037
solipsists need not apply

>>6942037

yeah dude, that's not amoralism. that's moral relativism.

>>6941901

OP here. Used to be relativist, but I have become further convinced that morality is just a construct/spook/whatever.

Morals only mean something to the person who choses to acknowledge them.

To a person who sees this as being a social construct and arbitrary, it is utter useless and in sense doesn't exist.

It has no effect whether you abide to the good/bad moral dichotomy, literally nothing happens in a metaphysical sense, only in the material world, someone might put you in prison etc.

I think morals as a descriptive term work, but not as normative. X is wrong because Y population deems it so --> descriptive term. But it doesn't work as a normative, unless you believe in a deity.

>>6942080
>I dont believe in morality because it is difficult to ground it on objective concepts
>But lets talk about metaphysics
lol noob, morality is a problematic concept but "metaphysical" and "material" are intuitive?, xd

>>6942080
you don't believe in anything transcendential either, right?

>>6942080
also, answering the original post, when normal people talk about morality they mean either natural compassion or social tabboos, maybe the reason you cant discuss morality with people is that A) you are incompassionate or/and B)you are a social outcast, as you see normal people dont intelectualize morality, so it is not a tale about freethought but a tale about someone trying to approach a problem from a perspective that was never meant to be applied to this particular problem and then feeling amazed when people dont understand the false conclusions he has arrived to.

>>6942080
Deities are irrelevant, whatever gave you the idea that they can alter the status of morality?

>>6942111
The conclusions are arguably not false as the concept of morality is impossible to rationally defend.

>>6942118
>whatever gave you the idea that they can alter the status of morality?
By having them create it? For example the Ten Commandments?

>>6942080

"morality is just a construct" ok.

"morals only mean something to the person who chooses to acknowledge them" ok.

"to a person who sees this . . . it is useless" not as ok, but still ok . . .

". . . and in a sense doesn't exist" not ok, sorry.

just because nothing happens metaphysically and the only consequences to acting immorally are material, that doesn't mean morality doesn't exist. if i get punched, there is no metaphysical consequence, but i still get a bruise. morality is able to be measured without metaphysical implications.

i no longer think you are a confused moral relativist, at least. i do think you are just flat out wrong, and that you're probably kind of no fun.

>>6942134
And how do the ten commandments differ from the laws of human societies in moral authority?

>>6942134
. . . but so can people and culture. discounting the effect of metaphysics and religion on morality doesn't provide an argument against its existence.

>>6942136
He admitted as much. Morality may exist, but it does not motivate, it only describes the irrational set of values held by people.

>>6942111

A is sort of right. B is not.

Often when I discuss these matters, most often with family, they bring up "personal responsibility" and "gut feeling".

So my grandmother will often argue that morality is something intuitive to humans and we can "feel" it. This is very much an objective and transcendential morality she is talking about. But all she bases this on is a gut feeling and an idea of personal responsibility in some metaphysical sense (like it is elevated from the material world).

We talked about this a lot when I was assaulted once. She was mad that people were so evil, and we talked about criminology. I argued that there was nature, nurture and some randomness. She said again that there was some personal responsibility, I then asked her how you are supposed to gain this if your parents never teach you, but she said it was something "more than just that".

And I find that many people where I live are like my grandmother, I love her to death, but I don't get her always.

But A is probably right.

>>6942146

Precisely. Descriptive - Yes. Normative - nope.

Any /self-hating amoralist/ here?

I really wanted morality to be real, but it just isn't. You can't derive ought from is, you can't prove morality and that's it.

That's why I don't pay attention to politics anymore, only to art.

>>6942136
>morality is able to be measured without metaphysical implications

Ummm, how?

>>6941607
The reason people use "muh feels" as an argument for morality is because ethics = aesthetics.

That doesn't mean that some things are not permitted, it just means people are going to feel a certain way about certain actions.

>>6942160
This dude gets it. I value aesthetics more than anything.

>>6942037
Justify.

>>6942138
It's not that they differ, that wasn't the point of that post.

>>6942142
Of course, but what stops someone from breaking the codes of morality, what kind of consequence is there? Say a war erupts somewhere: killing someone isn't immoral any more, it's survival. People can rationalize raping and mutilating someone in war and not consider it immoral because those people being raped and tortured aren't even considered people. Sure after the war ends you can try to find these people and make them pay for what they did, but that doesn't change what happened and the person who did these things might feel no remorse at all on his past actions because of the rationalization above, even though he will be tried according to laws and suffer physical consequences from his actions.

>>6942191
>It's not that they differ, that wasn't the point of that post.

In that case, how do they give rise to moral realism when human laws do not?

>>6942198
I'm not sure what the question is.
Are you asking if moral laws created by a god or gods are truer than man-made laws?

>>6942161

culture 1& 2: "we are totally secular and do not believe in god, the afterlife, or any sort of metaphysical implication to our actions. but we also like to get along with each those who live in our culture, so we've agreed upon norms and standards of action to facilitate that--morals."

culture 1: "it is our norm that abortion is immoral."

culture 2: "it is our norm that abortion is moral."

>>6942204
Yes, more or less, as that was what the post I responded to was asserting and hence what I assumed that you were defending.

>>6942205

And how is that a measure? What are you measuring and how are you measuring it?

A norm is a "measure"?

Then I can just make it my personal norm to rape and murder women, then it must be right, right?

>>6942205
OP admitted that cultural relativism is valid as a descriptive system, but it is insufficient for any for of normative ethics.

>>6942216
Presumably he's going on about descriptive relativism again in spite of the fact that all parties agree on the validity of such.

>>6941607
Morals exist as soon as someone believes in them. The don't need to be objective to be.

>>6942225
He has admitted this, it is pointless to repeat. Moral relativism and normative amoralism are not mutually exclusive.

>>6942165
Is this Pepe rare?

>>6942230
Sorry, I didn't read the whole thread. What is the point discussed then?

>>6942233
All my Pepes are rare, son.

>>6942095
>>>6942080
>lol noob, morality is a problematic concept but "metaphysical" and "material" are intuitive?, xd

I'm not the person you're responding to, but I think that that person wasn't saying that there's anything metaphysical. He was saying that there are no metaphysical punishments for breaking supposed "moral laws" (e.g. Heaven and Hell) because nothing metaphysical exists.

>>6942240
Not much at this point, people mostly just keep repeating the point you just made.

>>6942248
Right. What about this: how does one defines the ontological validity of morals (or any object)? Let's say dragons exist, by being an element of many cultures, and neither they need to be real nor evoke the same picture for everyone. However, “dhepa” does not exist, a priori. How can I distinguish them? Do I have morals if I can't define them or is their own existence are born in their definition?

>>6942269
>Let's say dragons exist, by being an element of many cultures, and neither they need to be real

How can they possibly exist if they are not real? I'm afraid I do not fully understand your question.

>>6942215
Alright.
It depends on whether or not you believe in any one religion. The threat of burning up for all time in hell being tortured for breaking that god's rules and the reward in heaven with whatever pleasures heaven has to offer is (one of)the reasons for believers to follow these rules. But that isn't grounded in "reality" or the real world, that's after death, so in life there is no punishment or reward to speak of. It would be much worse going to hell for breaking a law of God than going to prison for a couple of years for breaking a law of mankind. Now of course, we're supposing that a God or several gods exist and that they have created rules for us, and because of that these rules must be followed otherwise one would receive severe punishment. If we suppose that a God or gods do not exist, then these rules are not above the rules of mankind and if anything they're lesser compared to the common laws we have in our Western society. Someone who believes in God or gods will find these rules, the morality of the religion, to be the ultimate laws, to be not only superior to the laws or "morality" created by mankind but as THE truth. But for someone who doesn't believe the rules created by a God or gods have no meaning.
Where this started:
>But it doesn't work as a normative, unless you believe in a deity.
>Deities are irrelevant, whatever gave you the idea that they can alter the status of morality?
>By having them create it? For example the Ten Commandments?
That a set of rules were created and ordered upon mankind by a superior being means these rules are THE rules. For someone who believes in a deity these rules are the end of the line. Of course there's been a lot of twisting and changing throughout the times, individual people taking some things more seriously than others, but generally believers consider the rules of a deity to be supreme to all else. The "fact" that a God created these rules, this morality(of the religion), means that that this morality is what all actions and opinions must be held against.
And again: of course this only holds true if you believe in some religion and deity. In this way, the "fact" that a deity created the rules means they are superior to any rules mankind could make and as such the moral code of a religion could be considered higher than that of a code created by mankind.
Am I making sense? I feel like I'm either repeating myself or I'm not getting the right wording out.

>>6942280
I don't see any contradiction. These are a being. We can describe them, we can discuss them because we share their representation. They are something, thus they exist.

>>6941907
so either you were just bitching about semantics or your argument goes like this

>you must care about other peoples feelings
>no not for some practical reason, but because it is a universal rule

>>6942269

Well, I think there is an interesting point there.

Dragons are defined as whatever we defined them as, in much the same way we do with morals. So morals are born in their definition, I would say. But as with dragons, they merely exist as concepts, and not something real. Being defined does not mean that it gains validity in real life if you ask me.

>>6942292

But the difference between material and fictional beings and things are that fictional things are born from their definition, whereas material things are simply defined for what they are.

>>6942298
So they can produce causes in “reality” despise not being real? Isn't a definition of “being real”?

>>6942288
The scale of the punishments only place divine commandments above human law if one is already commited to the idea that consequences can be used to derive "ought" from "is". Let me explain further: If I were not convinced that Hell is worse than Heaven, God's commandments are not objective. Since whether I consider pain worse than pleasure is subjective, God's commandments still require subjective values for me to be motivated by them.

For this reason I am an apatheist. I do not consider the question of whether a deity exists interesting because I would not behave differently if one did.

This is treading on cognitive psychology but I'm of the school that morals are the mere asymmetrical matrix on which we make decisions. The inner characteristics of a human do not even matter, in fact I can find you classic studies where only a .30 correlation was found between the prior inner beliefs and in successfully predicting the outcome.
This is called a Fundamental Attribution Error, and the flaw in OP's thinking is that his choices actually matter all that much at all. As human beings we all make similar decisions based on the environments that we are placed in and the circumstances that appear.

So when you say you do not have morals you are lying because everyone takes some sort of inner beliefs to a decision, even if it only has a lighter correlation for the outcome.

The moral of the story is that OP doesn't truly understand what morality is at all, mistakenly thinking that it is something you cannot have. But he is wrong. When he goes into a decision he bases his decision at least partially off his past experiences and personality predispositions. This is a human trait. Nobody is without it.

>>6942325
mkay so I phrased some of this incorrectly but you still get the point.

>>6942320
>Since whether I consider pain worse than pleasure is subjective
That doesn't make any sense. If your leg was to be slowly cut off with a saw again and again would that not be painful? If someone were to derive pleasure from that kind of torture wouldn't they have some serious mental deficiency? I don't understand.

>>6942292
What has a definition does not does not necessarily exist as existing is something to the effect of being part of external reality. Something with the properties ascribed to dragons is not part of external reality even if descriptions of such things are.

>>6942340
It would obviously be painful, but pain is not "bad" in itself. It requires aesthetic values in order to become bad, and these are subjective.

>>6942325
> OP doesn't truly understand what morality is at all, mistakenly thinking that it is something you cannot have

He admitted that we can describe such a thing as morality in people. What he denied was that it can be motivated, which I am rapidly tiring of reiterating.

>>6942325

Beliefs = ethics?

I think you are the one that is in deep m8.

Past experiences and personal predispositions, sure, but that does not mean morality. That just means I am more inclined to X than Y based on Z factors.

>>6942353
>It requires aesthetic values in order to become bad, and these are subjective.
But isn't that implied with Hell and Heaven? That the punishment will be pain and the reward will be pleasure? That in Hell you'll be tortured in various ways and in Heaven you'll be pleasured in various ways?

>>6942371

"The mind is its own place, and in itself can make a heaven of hell, a hell of heaven" - Milton

>>6942371
Yes, but my point is that there is no rational reason to pursue pleasure over pain. Hence, any deity who threatens pain still relies its followers to prefer pleasure over pain. Therefore, the moral framework built on the commandments of the deity are not absolute.

>>6942388
Would the same not apply to the laws and rules we follow in society then? We're threatened with pain and punishment if we break the law.

>my point is that there is no rational reason to pursue pleasure over pain.
We're getting pessimistic here then. If we suppose there is no deity and no "afterlife", and if there is no "rational reason to pursue pleasure over pain", why not commit suicide on the spot? Would we not be rid of pleasure and pain altogether? Become "nothing"? Non-being?

>>6942368
well in terms of the outcome I suppose I don't understand the distinction between beliefs and ethics. The supposition is that ethics direct your beliefs (beliefs here being your personal take on specific situations) which can only be quantified in an experiment when you are testing the outome of a situation.

So in summation the school of amorality (if I am understanding correctly) believes that there is no/they have no ethical dispositions to bring to a situation? I'm trying to get on the same page as OP, these definitions aren't really agreed on. Esp. if OP is saying some of them don't exist. I think we can agree that ethics and morals are the same thing however.

>>6941898
What? If people didnt steal and lie etc thing would be a lot more peaceful for us
Thus "objectively" better, wtf are you some edgy satanist or something?

>>6942518
Really? Everything would be objectively better if people didn't lie?
Dumbass.

>>6942030
That moral actions are grounded not on objective standards but on rationality, that is, preference for higher good rather than lesser good, for every actor in given situation. Since getting stabbed produces lesser good for a rational actor than not getting stabbed, a rational actor dislikes getting stabbed, and thus it would be moral to not to stab them and immoral to not to, assuming that the action of stabbing is unjustified in given context.

>>6942552
*and immoral to do it

>>6942518
>>6942526
>whole argument is insulting the opponent

Thanks for this great debate.

>>6942622
Are you retarded? Are you so dumb you can't see the severe consequences of what would happen if everyone, from now on, could only ever tell the truth? Are you seriously this retarded?

'Thanks for this great post', fuckwit.

>>6941617
*it's a hologram*

>>6942518

Objectively? How do you measure that? Why is pleasure better than pain? peace better than war?

How about stealing from the rich and giving to the poor then?

It isn't that simple.

>>6942824
Do you deny the existence of an objectively better world by dismissing any mean to measure it? Such an inference does not seem very valid.

>>6942843
>Can't be measured
>But it does exist

How the fuck do you know?

>>6942857
I don't say it exists. I say neither its existence nor its inexistence can be proved. The unique valid conclusion is “nothing can be concluded”. However, if you extend the notion of objectivity/subjectivity duality to the truth, then it exists a proof ad absurdum that a pure subjective system is incoherent, the which proving the existence of some objective true proposition(s). There may be an objectively better world we can't describe. You can't tell me I'm wrong and I can't prove I'm right.

>>6942216
>>>6942205
>Then I can just make it my personal norm to rape and murder women, then it must be right, right?

You sure can and, in your mind, you can believe that it's "good" and your morality is just as valid. However, if the majority of the population and those with power (i.e. the governing body) don't agree with you and if they find that you're breaking THEIR moral code, they'll punish you for it. They don't care whether or not you believe that rape is morally acceptable, just that you've broken their rules and they don't want you to go unpunished and free to break their rules. They have the resources and the means to enforce their rules. There's no reason why they have to respect your moral beliefs. All they have to care about is enforcing theirs.

Basically, when a person says that an action is "immoral", it just means that it goes against the rules that they subscribe to. It doesn't mean that their beliefs are absolute. They're flexible and, if you could come up with a convincing enough argument as to why they should change their beliefs, they would.

Science will probably find beliefs as sets of proteins sustaining circuits influencing behaviors at some point in the future.

Then morality will be real, in the brain of those who believe in it.
Why does anyone care tho?

>>6941867
but cannibalism in some tribes is done as a punishment, in others it is done to other tribes exclusively, so there is still a moral compass there

>>6943122
lol nigga morality isnt an ice cream flavor smh

>>6941607
>says that morality doesn't exist but whines about moral people

ej le majo

>>6942296
What? You've completely misunderstood me.
Amorality = not having morals
People don't subscribe to amorality because they don't feel that way -- they would feel bad stealing from somebody, for example. It's simple.

>>6943220
>lol nigga morality isnt an ice cream flavor smh

I wouldn't exactly call that an apt analogy, since people's moral beliefs, generally, don't change from day-to-day. Still, they're susceptible to change.

It used to be the general consensus that it was morally acceptable to own other people. Governments supported this as did most religions.

Slowly, due to a variety of factors, the commonly held belief that slavery was "morally acceptable" shifted to slavery being considered "morally unacceptable". It wasn't an objective imperative or logical conclusion that people came to, but it changed. If things had been different, it's quite possible that we'd still practice slavery, today, and wouldn't see it as being morally objectionable.

Having said that, there are still places where slavery is a common practice. We can try to offer arguments as to why outlawing slavery might be beneficial to them or to their society and help them acheive certain goals, we can try to appeal to their emotions to make them change their minds, we can try to change their laws by force, or we can leave them alone. What we can't do is provide them with objective reasoning as to why it's morally wrong because morality isn't a tangible thing that exists in a natural state. Their belief that slavery is "moral" is just as valid as our belief that it's "immoral". Morality isn't objective, though, so there's no "moral imperative" for us to respect their beliefs (that is, unless YOU believe that respecting their moral beliefs is a moral imperative).

>>6943331
>their belief that slavery is “moral” is just as valid as our belief that it's “immoral”

What?

testing

>>6943731

What's so incomprehensible about that?

>>6943768
There is nothing proving this statement.

>>6943773
>>6943773

People who claim morals are a thing have the burden of proof. You can't logically reason that slavery is inherently wrong.

>>6943773
Why does he need to prove that they are equally valid, when you are the one claiming that a disparity exists? On what basis is something moral or immoral?

>>6943792
No. the burden of proof falls on the one who makes a claim. I just came, I did not shared any of my opinions on this subject. You stated “their belief that slavery is 'moral' is just as valid as our belief that it's 'immoral'” out of nowhere. Care to justify this assertion?

>>6943792
True, you can't logically argue that slavery is wrong
Because wrong is a moral tag. Since you don't believe in morality or ethics you can only make your decisions on past experiences, education, and situational understanding.

That's great. Why are we all arguing again? So that you can sort out your childish rebellion against the system?

>>6943816

I'm not the original dude.

see >>6943812

>>6943822

To discuss and learn. I feel I have learned something today.

>>6943822
I'm
>>6943816
The point is not about morals being objectively right or wrong. This point I make here is the relevance of the claim “their belief that slavery is 'moral' is just as valid as our belief that it's 'immoral'” as inferred from “morality isn't objective”. Assuming this last assertion is true, which I don't think so, there's no way it logically causes the first one.

>>6941607
Ethics doesn't really have anything to do with perfectly objective rules. While they can technically be deduced, ethics has to to with understanding that you are a rational creature and your actions will have effects the world around you.The rational person, after realizing this, should use reason to guide their actions to the best of their ability.

If you don't understand this the idea of an "objective rule" would make no sense.

>>6943836
That doesn't mean much when you didn't know anything in the first place OP you massive retard