/lit/ - Literature

Is your dad a sophist?

>>7102424
No idea. He argued against moral nihilism.

Im actually pretty proud about all this.

>>7102444
What did you say that made him so mad?

It's time to go to church anon. It's good for you to be around other people in an actual community, not that online one you're always talking about.

GODZ A PHONY DAD LIKE SANTA IVE READ WIKI ARTICLES ON PHOLOSOFY AND NEITCHZE IS SMARTER THAN YOU IVE READ FINNEGANS WAKE AND IT WAS FUCKING PLEB TIER
Was your conversation anything like this?

>anime picture
>nihilism

I'm surprised you actually had to argue to get kicked the hell out.

>>7102500
Probably something along the lines of murder/rape isn't inherently immoral. lol

>>7102418
>getting worked up over mental masturbation for disenfranchised fuccbois

nice job you fucking failure

>>7102444

>actually proud

You pathetic eejit.

>>7102507
>>>autism center

>>7102418
Good, now keep going.

>>7102504
No. He is not THAT religious and im not an edgelord.

>>7102500
>>7102507
I told him that if god appeared and told me whats inmoral and whats not that still would be another opinion and nothing else.

>>7102511
>>7102513
I honestly have no idea what you guys are talking about.

>>7102505
fuckkkkkkkkkk

>>7102604

>I honestly have no idea what you guys are talking about

You're an idiot. Doubly, now.

Your poor father.

>>7102618
Sure. Are you ok?

>mfw I think about OP posting from his grandma's house

You should sleep in the streets for a year, have to steal, get caught and jailed so a friendly Black cellmate would penetrate your juvenile mind with some moral relativism.

>>7102633
Whats worse is that indeed i am.

Still, i know him, ill wait one day and he´ll be like nothing happened again.

>>7102638

kek

And might provide the starting blocks for a half-decent novel.

>Arguing for moral nihilism
>that OP pic

fuck me, what a sad day it is

>>7102651
Im honestly curious, whats so wrong with moral nihilism? I have never seen any solid argument against it. Is not a justification to kill or anything, but still.

>>7102604

>I don't understand the concept of god

I'd disown you if you were my son tbh

>>7102661
It's all about the combination of the two, or rather three (adding the 'arguing-with-father' situation).

They say more about you than about moral nihilism itself.

>>7102661

>Im honestly curious, whats so wrong with moral nihilism? I have never seen any solid argument against it

>i have not read a single philosophy book
>a single one

This really is dismal. OP's dad is a saint for putting up with him for so long.

>>7102678
Really? I think you guys are stereotyping a bit much. Tell me what does it says about me and ill honestly confirm or deny it.

>>7102444
Great, so you can't complain against him. I've always dreamed of beating the shit out of a moral nihilist. Your dad is a smart man it seems.

>>7102418

b8

I think it should be a crime punishable by death to defend moral nihilism in any way other than as devil's advocate.

>>7102687

>I've always dreamed of beating the shit out of a moral nihilist

Kek, this is fucking brilliant. I wonder if OP will be capable of understanding?

My dad beat me up as a kid. Stop being a whiny sperglord and get a job

>>7102507
Yeah this is what happens when people that have never had an ethics class try to talk about morals

>>7102708
Done. Im not any of that. Thats why im saying you guys are stereotyping too much.

It was an argument like the thousands i have with him about everything. I feel like you made a character in your mind and the only way for someone to defend moral nihilism as a truth is to be a neckbeard or something.

Well, so much for that i guess.

>>7102684
It says you're an edgy teen who read few to nothing related to philosophy. You seem to just have discovered morals isn't compelled to reason, which is only acceptable if you're 15. it means you read nothing about natural law, positivism, consequentialism, virtue ethics, hedonism or utilitarianism which are the first things people learn when getting to know ethics. You obviously never read Kant, Aristotle nor Mills.

>>7102725
Oh, then you are right except for the edgy part. But i dont see whats so bad about it. Im not a philosopher. Neither is my dad.

>>7102723
Tell us a bit more about yourself and the argument then.
We have little info to work with atm.

>being a moral nihilist instead of a skeptical moral quasi-realist

>>7102725

OP, this is an overly charitable post with helpful ideas for further reading. Don't ignore it.

>>7102734
This way of thinking is edgy as possible. Acknowledging you're ignorant doesn't make you look brave or right. You're still a faggot that talk about things he don't know and knows he don't know. Stop browsing 4chan and buy a book instead.

>>7102604
Oh so he kicked you out for being retarded.
That's fine then.

>>7102725
Not OP but why do guys who study philosophy talk like "Someone famous said this therefore it is true"?

>>7102725
Dank namedropping tbh fam

>tfw OP's dad is a true patrician

>>7102755

>i don't read books so i don't understand how this sort of thing works

Sort out your life and actually read a book.

>>7102755
No one ever did.

>>7102725
I want to know you're argument against it. Prove me wrong. Don't just namedrop various authors.

>>7102769

>you're argument

Jesus, poor OP Senior.

>>7102755
It's probably cause they can't think for themselves.

>>7102725
Congratulations on passing Intro to Ethics!!!!

>>7102755
I can't believe I have to answer this. Those “famous philosophers” are famous and popular for a good reason which is they either created, described or summed up a precise and specific philosophical concept. It's not an absolute “truth” nor the only one you should read but it's hard to ignore Kant or Aristotle when it comes to ethics. It's not namedropped to looks “cool”.

>>7102772
Nice rebuttal. Now that you're done, can you answer my question?

>>7102735
Ok, it goes like this. Let me recall how did it start.

Yeah so i was telling him how a random beggar appeared and asked me "What is your life made from?". But i ignored him since they tend to be crazy and talking with them is usually a waste of time.

Then he said that madness is relative, because maybe all of us are mad and the beggar was not. And i told him not, because some things just are. But i told him that in other things, is the majority for me what decides what makes sense and what not, like in morals.

And he said that morals were inherent to man because of nature, but i told him that still makes them something that i could chose to reject since i dont have the obligation to obey nature, and that what actually makes someone obey those morals is more about experiences and education, idk. I dont really remember all of it, it was really a clusterfuck.

Then he told me that morals probably come from god. But i said that, if god were to come and say whats right and whats wrong, that still would be his opinion. Then he got mad and said that that was stupid because god will never come to do such a thing, so i told him it was just an figurative example, aaand then he told me that we didnt have to use examples, and then i told him that that made no sense, and then he told me to fuck off.

In retrospective, it was pretty retarded, but im not taking it seriously since its obvious we both dont know shit aaandd this fight will last like, let me guess, till tomorrow.

Still it was pretty fun. Btw i dont think killing should be permited or any of that shit, just for the record. Sorry if there are typos.

>>7102779
You didn't argue against OP. You just insulted him and told him to read some people.

>>7102779
>not an absolute truth
Well, there it is.

>>7102775

No, it's a stupid straw man.

If you ever took the time to read a philosophy text rather than assuming you know it all already, you'd know that the authors that poster cited actually provide detailed logical arguments for their claims.

It's not as simple as saying "I think x" and people latching onto it unthinkingly.
Philosophers convince and have to convince, they make no simple claims to authority like the religious.

>>7102755
So if you study physics there are classical physicists, who despite their flaws and gaps in information, set the foundation for current theories - like Galileo or Newton
It's similar in philosophy to point to somebody like Kant in the same way, his name and works summarize a foundation of moral philosophy

>>7102604

I feel so bad for him. He busted his ass working a job he hates his whole life to try to provide for you and raise you right. Then he had to watch you slide into this superiority complex, while listening to you bitch and moan about something you know nothing of.

>>7102769
Arguing the subjectivity, and by extension the non-existence of morality, is ridiculous. For one, it would be tantamount to arguing love does not exist because its definitions, and two, it would be arguing there is nothing inherently wrong about [insert horrific evil here].

I can't pretend to know what these inviolable moral laws are, but I believe they exist. The murder, torture, and violation of thinking, feeling beings is deplorable. And usually moral subjectivistism is a big thing in pomo circles, which are lauded by sheltered weirdos who have never been engaged in a life or death struggle with reality to secure their basic necessities, and thereby learn the primal relationship we have with good and evil, with what fosters life, joy, and creativity and what denies it for selfish ends.

>>7102791
I don't intend to argue with him. If you're lost with all the anonymous answers, I simply answered what he looked like and he even said I was right. Why would I even argue, anyway? He's almost proud of “not being a philosopher”—understand: not have carefully thought about the subject—, admited he never read the most basic texts in ethics and talking with him would probably be like playing chess with a pigeon. Whatever the competence of your moves, he will shit on the board and thinks he “win”. No thanks. I hope he will at least read Aristotles and then fuck off.

>>7102812
Dont feel sorry, he loves his job and i never whine. Having an argument is not bitching.

>>7102790
>But i said that, if god were to come and say whats right and whats wrong, that still would be his opinion.

ayy lamo the state of academia today folks

>>7102813

>Arguing the subjectivity, and by extension the non-existence of morality, is ridiculous. For one, it would be tantamount to arguing love does not exist because its definitions, and two, it would be arguing there is nothing inherently wrong about [insert horrific evil here]

This.

(I doubt OP will be able to understand this though.)

>>7102758
>Kant is namedropping
>Mills is namedropping
>ARISTOTLE is namedropping

I thought summer was over

>>7102790
>But i said that, if god were to come and say whats right and whats wrong, that still would be his opinion.

>That's, like, your opinion, man

hahahaha what a loser

>>7102853
It's namedropping when the person obviously has no knowledge of those names being dropped.

>>7102853
I don't recognize half the names on that list.

>>7102872

>It's namedropping when the person obviously has no knowledge of those names being dropped

It's obvious, is it? Then you'll have no problem explaining how you came to that conclusion.

Surely you're not flailing about, throwing unthinking insults and trying to mask your embarrassment, are you?

>>7102813
>it's ridiculous because love and muh feelings
Wow. What a compelling argument.

>>7102872
What was obvious about his lack of knowledge? It seemed perfectly applicable to me. These names are pretty much the first Ethics you'll read in an intro class.

>>7102897
You can choose from a list of the top 10 most discussed and mentioned philosophers on /lit/ and they'll be applicable in some form.

>>7102896
Would you say that moral nihilists/moral relativists are more tolerant of the moral judgments of others when compared to moral objectivists?

>>7102418
Na, he's just ashamed of his son being a weeb.

Can't blame the guy tho.

>>7102896
Lmao ite kid, it was compelling enough for most of the greatest thinkers on this planet, sorry you ctrl+f'd "spooks" and didn't find anything fuckboy

>>7102894
Not that guy, but you do realize you're covering the actual discussion just as little as the other guy, don't you?

>>7102444
good on your father.

>>7102918
>moral nihilists are just nicer people g-guys

laffo nice fedora, you get that on sale

>>7102896

>being this fucking braindead

How did you not understand his argument? Bloody Hell, there's some idiots posting here today.

>>7102913

Possibly because pretty much all thinking people would reject OP's "argument".

>>7102913
>Mills is in the top 10 most discussed philosophers
Yeah, no. I would make the argument that not even Aristotle is in the top ten of /lit/

>>7102930
Sigh. I was actually posing a question and I'm a moral objectivist. I was going to argue from tolerance. I see you have actually never been in an Ethics class or read anything pertaining to Ethics at all. I appreciate the fedora comment, though. Very nice. Clever.

Please, refrain from making posts about things you know nothing about. Stick to John Green threads or whatever it is that you feel you contribute here.

>>7102813
>believing love exists

>>7102949
>typing out the word "sigh" to denote annoyance

ruh-roh raggy

>All these spooks

>>7102872
Postmaker here. I'm curious about how you get that conclusion. I don't lurk /lit/ since a long time but I feel Mills is barely never discussed here. What exactly in this “namedropping” sounds inappropriate to you?

>>7102932
That *was* his entire argument. There's a lot of fluff around it, but that's the essence of it.

>all these appeals to authority

>>7102949
I don't have God-given proof that murder is wrong, but nearly every great thinker whose meditated on it, and nearly every person who lives a full, balanced life would agree with me, so there's something to it.

As a moral objectivist, do you have a more substantial argument than this? I'd love to hear it (I'm being unironic, no memes)

>>7102964
Yeah I figured this would be the response. Clever, again.

Schools must be starting late

>>7102976
>he thinks namedropping fallacies' denomination isn't a fallacy itself

>>7102982
Define the following:
>God-given proof
>wrong
>great thinker
>full, balanced life
>substantial

>>7102986
>he thinks a fallacy fallacy is enough to prove either point wrong

Doesn't everything discussed in this thread collide with Hume's Law?

>>7102983
Just saying, you come across like a female in her late-30s when you type like that.

>>7102968

He can't, comrade. He's already been asked, he just made a pissy remark because he can't counter your points.

>>7102974

>second time still doesn't get it

No hope for you, then.

>>7102976

>sees names of philosophers in posts
>thinks "now's my chance to shine"

Why don't you actually read what people write?

>>7102986
I wasn't arguing a point, ignoramus. Pointing out fallacies isn't a fallacy. If I said there are no morals as people are appealing to authority in their arguments, then I'd be using the fallacy fallacy.

>>7102933
Maybe if they had anything good to say they'd be in the top 10.

>>7102982
Yes, moral objectivists have better arguments than this, but most of the arguments that they pose have more to do with poking holes in subjectivism.For instance, a moral objectivist would raise the question of 'progression' and how it could ever be possible if a society merely adopted subjectivism. Because the minority would always be incorrect (relative to the subculture), nothing would progress. Other issues with relativism arise when one starts picking apart exactly what 'morality' entails. If one considers morality to be a guiding force behind our actions, than that definition is simply not applicable to moral relatvisits, for they believe that morality exists but only relative to a culture. However, one can belong to numerous subcultures at once (being a new yorker, being gay, being Irish, being a member of a family), each of which may have different moral values. Therefore, one cannot be guided by one's actions for their moral judgments are viable and may change at any given instance. THus, morality does not guide any action.

The debate between nihilism and objectivism is a more interesting one, IMO (though, I feel that I must say that nobody in academia is a moral nihilist). The argument of objectivists against moral nihilism relies more on specific actions and thought-experiments in which a completely altruistic action is introduced. Again, inherent moral value is not a thing that can be proven (just as it cannot be disproven). Relativism can be disproven, but nihilism is not as easy because it nearly becomes a matter of opinion at that point. I think the greatest argument against moral nihilism is the notion that with the evolution of reason/rationality in human beings, morality evolved as well. For reason is an inherent trait in humans and one could make the argument that reason necessarily entails morality.

Nearly every contemporary philosopher that is taken seriously in academia is a moral objectivist.

>>7102418
He was just using the argument as an excuse. What he's really mad about is you sucking dick in every room of the house.

>>7102988
>God-given proof

the heavens opening up and declaring x is wrong

>wrong

detrimental, opposed to, or running counter to the ultimate principle and order of reality. I'm a platonist. I believe reality precedes from Divine Archetypes. a godless void giving us female beauty, the efficiency of the human body, the feeling of 'rightness' in enjoying life with family and friends, brains to ponder meaning where none exists... it doesn't jive with me.

>great thinker

someone who we can argue to the best of our subjective ability is a thinker with a coherent system of thought that relates to the world in meaningful and relate-able terms

>full, balanced life

honing the intellect, body, and soul. eating clean. mindfulness of the present moment. recognition of the dignity of other beings as living, thinking, feeling beings who have just as much as right to exist in the first place. living with gratitude in your heart, that you're even here living in a body that if someone had explained to you in another universe you'd have laughed them out of town (meat computers? get the fuck outta town)

>substantial

c'mon nigger don't be a pedant

>>7103003
Nah, this is just how people type when they get out of highschool and become annoyed with moral nihilists who think they've cracked the case and people who ramble about 'le ebin fedora' or whatever without any context and lack any substantial argument. You just get annoyed after a while, is all. It'll happen to you too.

>16
>did not get kicked out
>walked out after his dad told him to shut up about how nihilism and NEETism is the best way to live life
>argument started over his dad asking, "son, if you ever want to make some money of your own I can get you a job."
>autist OP goes into rant about how sunlight hurts his skin and how money doesn't even matter in the real world
>leaves house angry
>sneaks back in or so he thinks
>gets on computer
>shitposts

awesome OP

>>7102604
>I honestly have no idea what you guys are talking about.
Moral objectivists tend to get start insulting relativists quickly because they're pretty short on arguments.
You see, objective morality is about controlling people and you are getting in the way of that power they so desire.

>>7103052
I got a list of other things you need to define.

>>7102418
That's what you get for caring about that dumb shit

>>7103054

This pretty much sums it up.

>>7103058
>You see, objective morality is about controlling people

lmao we should ban faggots who get their ethics arguments from anime

>>7102638
This, desperation is known to make for sound mind and judgement.

>>7103067
frankly I'm not interested in jumping through every one of your hoops. lmao if you still need what I said 'defined' you're a clown and possibly a troll

>>7103070

>lmao we should ban faggots who get their ethics arguments from anime

I fully support this motion.

>>7103058
This is awful.

How is moral objectivism about control?

>>7103037
morality (or the sense of it) being intrinsic to the universe is probably my number 1 argument for me too. we are not in disagreement.

give organisms a big enough brain to comprehend their status as a living being existing in an objective arena populated by countless of other living beings and you get morality. what does that say?

>>7102418
This thread is the most Reddit thing to have ever happened to /lit/

>>7102604
>I told him that if god appeared and told me whats inmoral and whats not that still would be another opinion and nothing else.
>Doesn't know how God works
>Can't into concepts
>Thinks he's winning any arguments in this thread
It's truly a marvelous sight to behold someone stuck up their own ass. I was like this once.. Thank God I'm over it.

>>7103058
>Moral objectivists tend to get start insulting relativists quickly because they're pretty short on arguments.
>>7103070
>>7103079

>>7103095
No, you're just in another level of up in your own ass.

>>7103096
Fuck off. I bet you support rape and genocide. Go watch some anime.

>>7103086
>how is telling people there is only one correct way to live and that is your way, about control?

>>7103099
Whatever helps you sleep at night. Speaking of which, I'm off to bed. G'night, mate.

>>7103092
You are obviously pointing that out like it's a bad thing. But, to know that, you would have to visit Reddit frequently, wouldn't you?
Why don't people who get their autism rustled by Reddit realize this?

>>7103096

I simply enjoy insulting the stupid. If you want my to provide the (obvious) arguments for objective morality, I'll happily oblige.

>talk about particular category of behaviours and ethics
>thing exists

>>7103117
>talk about particular character on morrowind
>thing exists
Fargoth is real everyone!

>>7103110
>to know that, you would have to visit Reddit frequently, wouldn't you?
No not really

>>7103105

>implying everything is a moral act
>me typing this is a moral act

>>7103105
>he thinks murder being wrong is a human rights issue

Youre a mook

>>7103132
>>7103133
please show me your strain of logic here

>>7103105
Ah, this is a very flawed argument my man. You seem to be falling for the trap of 'Subjectivists are more tolerant! They never tell you what to do!"

This is false. Subjectivists do not have to be tolerant of the views of others. Subjectivists are only tolerant if tolerance is good relative to their beliefs. Therefore, one has no reason to be tolerant. You're trying to make a meta-ethical claim while adopting the ethical axiom that tolerance is inherently good. You can't do this.

>>7103144
objective, or even absolute-relativist morality, is not about policing your every action, it's about making clear-cut moral laws that forbid murder, rape, whatever. even the 10 commandments were just that, 10 commandments. sure leviticus got a little spergy with it but if you're getting buttflustered about a society that treats obviously horrific things as obviously horrific then that's your problem

>>7103155
Good point if that was what I was trying to say jackass.
No I don't think subjectivists are more tolerant than objectivists and no I don't think tolerance is an objective good (obviously since I wouldn't be a relativist otherwise)

The actual point of my comment still stands.
I.E. The concept of morality is about control

>>7103175
>I.E. The concept of morality is about control

>>/a/

>>7103144

You say:

>people who accept objective morality tell people there is only ONE way to live
>this means that objective moralists wish to dictate every aspect of people's lives - if one isn't accomplishing the one right way to live they are doing wrong
>in order for this to be the case objective moralists must believe everything not that "one thing" is wrong (immoral)


In order for your critique to be any less shaky, you must believe that objective moralists (for want of a better term) consider EVERYTHING to be a moral act. If there is only one moral way of doing things, everything else which isn't that one specific thing is immoral.

This shows that you haven't read a single ethics text, much less any critique of your position.

>>7103165
No I mean the strain of logic that lead you to think I think everything is a moral act or the one that somehow makes my comment which didn't mention rights at all, about rights.

>>7102418
Translation:
>I'm a silly billy.

>>7103184
did you even read my post? who cares what you meant? it blows your original, shit argument out of the water.

>>7103175
Control exists without objective morals.

Objective morality is only about control if you take that to mean that it is necessary for society to exist at the most fundamental level. I suppose if you think that living around/with other humans is stifling and an infringement on your rights, than I suppose your argument could stand.

>>7103180
What does /a/ have to do with anything?

>>7103203
cause only a basement dweller would think the foundation of civilization since time immemorial is only about control

>>7103214
A lot of history says otherwise.

>>7103220
Ah, vague assertions. I love them

>>7103144

Your position is laughable anyway, considering we now know the moral sense is innate.

Trying to deny it's existence is like trying to argue language isn't real, so we needn't waste time pointing out your disdain for logic.

You're wrong. It's that simple.

>>7102604
>I told him that if god appeared and told me whats inmoral and whats not that still would be another opinion and nothing else.

>>7103182
>>people who accept objective morality tell people there is only ONE way to live
>>this means that objective moralists wish to dictate every aspect of people's lives
No not really.

>>7103193
But it doesn't at all, the only thing you argued against was the claim that moral objectivists want to control EVERY aspect of a persons life, which was your misunderstanding of me.
You have completely ignored my central point of morality being a tool for control, which your comment only helped.

>>7103200
>Objective morality is only about control if you take that to mean that it is necessary for society to exist at the most fundamental level
Please show me your string of logic here

>>7103252

>No not really

What it your point then? You're becoming vaguer and vaguer, and you were pretty opaque to begin with.

>>7103252
Justice is about control, no? Does that make it bad? Isn't control necessary?

Read some Hume my man

>>7103256
Morality is necessary for society to exist.

>>7103260

That's a good point. What's so bad about control >>7103058?

After all, in a universe where nothing is inherently wrong or right, something like control shouldn't bother you, should it?

>>7103214
It'd be weird if the foundations of any society wasn't about control tbh

>>7103229
Your aggression reveals your insecurities

>>7103284

Your vagueness reveals your ignorance.

>>7103258
I'm not going to explain if for a third time. see >>7103252 the "central point" part

>>7103289

>But it doesn't at all, the only thing you argued against was the claim that moral objectivists want to control EVERY aspect of a persons life, which was your misunderstanding of me.
You have completely ignored my central point of morality being a tool for control, which your comment only helped

The above says literally nothing ('cept that your quick in abandoning your original claim).

>>7103001
/thread

>>7102755
Why do guys who study physics talk like "someone famous discovered this therefore its true"

>>7103260
>>7103264
>>7103273
I should probably clarify something.
I believe that morality is subjective/relative, but that does not mean I have no personal morals or principles. I do not think it would be swell to legalize murder, rape etc. And I base this off of me not feeling like that would be preferable, my subjective feeling.
Morality being subjective does not mean I respect other moral systems and think they're all equally valid. Mine is the only valid one to me.
And I think everyone else is the same really, just less honest.

>>7103330
>comparing physics to philosophy
l o l
o
l

>>7103339
>"I'm literally saying nothing of importance, take me seriously though."

this fuckin guy. of course you need a standard by which to judge something, you can call that subjective, but that's fucking stupid. ethics is basically nutrition for the moral body of individuals and societies. fucked up ethics means you society falls apart. good ethics means your people are happy and your society works.

>>7103349
>this fuckin guy. of course you need a standard by which to judge something
Because... this achieves your personal idea of good? Not a very strong case for objective morals tbh.
>you can call that subjective, but that's fucking stupid
hot argument there
>fucked up ethics means you society falls apart
And not falling apart is preferable because...? ("because of course it isn't" is not an argument btw)
>good ethics means your people are happy and your society works.
And you base this being good off of what? Your feeling of it being good? Then it's subjective.

>>7103339
If you subscribe to moral relativism you ascribe no inherent moral value to anything.

>a man is raped, tortured, and murdered for being gay

Looking at this from a relativist standpoint, this action could be morally correct in relation to a culture's values. Raping and torturing others is not objectively right or wrong

Moral relativism is stupid.

>>7103426
There's nothing inherently right or wrong about stoning gay people. You're stupid.

>>7103442
>there's nothing right or wrong about anything
>nothing means anything
>categories are meaningless
>define "define"
>the universe might as well be a soup of particles

fucking pomo

>>7103447
Yes, that's right. It doesn't matter what your feelings about it are.

>>7103442
Damn. Imagine if moral nihilists ruled the world

>>7102604
>I told him that if god appeared and told me whats inmoral and whats not that still would be another opinion and nothing else.
Are you stupid?
>>7103460
They do, Goy.

>>7103452
>what is ethical context

>>7103472
No, they don't you dingus. The existence of a justice system implies inherent moral value

>>7103481
>The existence of a justice system implies inherent moral value
No it doesn't, Goy.

>>7103488
heh goy epic meme XD

>>7103447
>muh post modern boogie man

Sure is spooky in here

>>7102799
As if its being absolute matters.
stemfags pls go

>>7104292
How convenient.

>>7102976
Shorthand.

>>7103229
>Your position is laughable anyway
stop posting

>>7102738
I don't think you know what those terms mean

>>7102604
>I told him that if god appeared and told me whats inmoral and whats not that still would be another opinion and nothing else.
I'm an atheist and I'd kick you out for saying this too.

>>7102755
It's cause every argument you ever thought of was already made in a better way by dead white dudes smarter than you.

>>7102604
how do you know it's actually god that appeared and not a highly advanced organism that wanted to ruse you?

How do you know that the god that appeared to you wasn't under the influence of another god who he has no idea of and was deceiving him?

How do you know god is even telling you the truth?

>>7105601
>truth
kek

>>7105552
Maybe our definition of god varies? For me a god is something on which existence depends on. So is not perfect except in that regard. And even if it was, im free to go against what his perfect mind deems the perfect choices since i dont believe in afterlife anyways.

>>7102872
If you're having any philosophical conversation heated enough to get you thrown out over, there's no chance that you haven't heard of Aristotle

So is Demosthenes full of shit then?

>>7106303
>im free to go against what his perfect mind deems the perfect choices since i dont believe in afterlife
HAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHA
You literally ruined your relationship with your father because you think you're clever, but actually you're very stupid. I hope you ask him to forgive you and take back what you said, seriously and sincerely.

>>7102755
Because this is how undergrad philosophy is taught
Because some people actually do think this way
Because the American higher education system is a fucking joke and French philosophy can't cut butter with a hot knife to begin with
Because analytic philosophy is gay
Because German idealism.is for fascist cuckolds
Because everyone here is Slavoj Zizek

>>7103442

>There's nothing inherently right or wrong about stoning gay people. You're stupid

This is what postmodernist philosophy does to people's brains, kids. Don't do it.

>>7104364

>:'(

>>7107241
Isn't Worse Hitch pro-stoning gays?

>>7107241
Moral nihilists are pretty alarming

>>7107247

No.

>>7107250

You said it, comrade.

>>7103386
I've just entered the thread and tbh have no prior in-depth understanding of ethics. But what you're saying is my first impression. I just can't understand the argument of the guy you replied to. It seems to essentially say "good morals are good and produce good because they are good".

>>7107250
OP here. I dont think thats true. I can think there is nothing inherently bad with killing people, but i still think that in the social organization in which i live killing is inconvenient so i shouldnt do it. I think most moral nihilists are just like that. The fact that morals are baseless doesnt make one automatically evil. Even more, since morals are baseless and there isnt something wrong with killing, there is nothing wrong with sending killers to prison and wanting to stop killings neither. So at the end, even if it is just the desires of the majority, being "good" is what i do.

>>7107216
Blah blah. He is just too emotional, he already said everything is ok an hour ago and now he had a fight with his wife about how much he uses his cellphone. I dont think im stupid at all, and even if i was, your response is not helpful. Anyways, i wont argue with you. Too many people here feel like if they dont really have arguments besides pointing and insulting.

>>7107317

>i still haven't read a single philosophical text

Your poor, poor father.

What a bloody waste. I wish there was some way I could send him my sympathies.

>>7107328
Neither did him. See? More of the same. There is no point.

>>7107338

>gibberish

>>7107280
In defense of the other guy, good ethics promote a working society as he stated. This isn't based off it making you "feel good" it's based off it being proven to work. When I mean work I mean it is the best way in which humans can thrive and survive. Essentially good ethics promote optimal survival for human beings it has been proven through countless years of progress (there's a reason nearly all religions promote similar good ethics) . Bad ethics have been proven to greatly hinder human survival and progress. People are not stupid, we follow rules and laws because we know that they are their to promote our growth and general stability.

>>7107350

>there's a reason nearly all religions promote similar good ethics

There's evidence that this universality we see results from innate predispositions, that our moral sense works much like our language capacity.

In case you're interested comrade: http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Helen_Haste/publication/238397752_Moral_minds_how_nature_designed_our_universal_sense_of_right_and_wrong/links/0deec53c677d1a260d000000.pdf

> I can think there is nothing inherently bad with killing people, but i still think that in the social organization in which i live killing is inconvenient so i shouldnt do it.

That seems very contradictory my friend. You choose to follow good morals yet question the same morals you follow?

>>7107387
To
>>7107317

>>7107317
So you think there is nothing inherently wrong with killing others without cause?

You think it is a neutral action to strip someone else of existence?

>>7107342
>poo poo

>>7103054
this tbh

I would kick my son out too if he was a NEET faggot posting anime pictures on a fucking book board

go get laid or something and stop being a fucking faggot

>Not posting Shinku
Fucking christ if you're going to post animu at least get the best girl

>>7107387
Yes. They are baseless. If i consider someone evil, i feel is more like he just acts different from the majority. But, the majority tends to act in a way that makes life more peaceful, so im also part of that. What i mean is that i wouldnt have a problem with killing -in theory, in real life i might not be able to do it because of my education- but i wouldnt do it. Not because i think is "evil", but because i want to avoid it. At the end its exactly the same shit, just that i dont blame the ones that do it that much. I also however understand the ones that kill the killers.

>>7107399
Is evil, yes but "evil" is not some kind of law for me on which some acts are always evil and some others are always good. Evil is what the majority rejects at the time. Killing tends to be evil pretty much always.

But if someone were to say "i dont give a fuck about what the majority things, i want to kill people", even if i think he should be put down because it is inconvenient i dont feel he is evil as in some sense on which he broke a natural law. He is just going against the flow, and he has no obligation to follow that flow. The same thing goes with what i said and everyone mocked -you might be right, i dont care- if god (i understand god as something on which existence depends on- were to tell me what is wrong and what is right, i still dont feel obliged to obey him. I have my own will and no real reasons for following these laws. Maybe pain, at most, because of prison or hell? But pain is not a reason for me, its just a threat.

Anyways, i agree i might be talking nonsense. I dont know. I still havent seen a good argument against what im saying, but im sure there are some somewhere.

>>7107445

>I still havent seen a good argument against what im saying, but im sure there are some somewhere

>>7106303
>I don't believe in an afterlife so it doesn't matter if there actually is one and I direct piss off the one guy who decides... r-right?

>>7107450
There are no good arguments against moral nihilism. All I see here are appeals to emotion and "common sense". That's fine if you're trying to convince a menstruating woman or a child, but you'll need cogent arguments to convince sophisticated intellectuals such as myself.

>>7107459
Good one, Pascal.

>>7107463
>There are no good arguments against moral nihilism. All I see here are appeals to emotion and "common sense". That's fine if you're trying to convince a menstruating woman or a child, but you'll need cogent arguments to convince sophisticated intellectuals such as myself

>>7107445
>They are baseless

But how can they be baseless if as said the majority of people choose to act that way to make things more peaceful? If they had no base it wouldn't make much sense to follow them on any manner. In mathematics, people know that 2x3=6 due to the fact that 2+2+2=6. We are comprehend mathematics because it is based off of addition. We use it because it allows us to calculate numbers more efficiently. People choose not kill other people based off the fact that it promotes a more peaceful environment. This imo is how morals can be objective. It is impossible to not align things as good and evil because they either promote or hinder. Morals are the guidelines we use to help prevent ourselves from doing evil actions and encouraging ourselves to do good actions. Just because you are able to question whether it is morally good or not doesn't make the result come out any differently.

>>7107509
Also not attempting to be hostile just curious of your opinion is all.

>>7107509
I see. I think its maybe just something inside me what i rejected. The fact that they go against a peaceful world for me doesnt make them evil. I want a peaceful world. But i might not want it. I dont think anyone has the obligation to want anything. So, maybe you are right and that is what decides what is right and what is wrong... But i still dont think people should or shouldnt do these things. They are free, and chose, and being evil or good is irrelevant. Someone could suddenly say that he wants war, and whoever doesnt go to war is evil. Since the majority decides, whatever is evil or not depends actually on the human desire. And the human desire is not for me a solid law that i must always follow, like 2 plus 2. Most of the current desires that guide morality imo are based on progress, in living and going forward. But i know ill die, and i wont enjoy that future. So, i have no obligation to follow them, even if i do it because of my own desire. And even if i was inmortal, i still dont have obligation do do anything since im free. The only things im obliged to accept and embrace are, as you said, things like mathematics.

Something like that. Sorry if it doesnt make any sense.

>>7107540

It's ok I can understand where your coming from. It seems to me like you believe that just because people follow moral principles they are somehow trapping themselves to something they don't desire. Human's have the choice to do whatever they want. If they choose to follow a moral code then they do it. If not? So be it. Don't confuse human choice with morals they coexist with each other but are not the same.

If I might add I do encourage you to definitely get into philosophical literature contrary to your beliefs so it can help get an understanding of both sides. Also get into Stirner to get more insight on moral nihilism itself.

>>7107445
You experience life only through your perception
This dichotomy outlines a morality that more or less revolves around what's good for your experience and on the flip side a lack of [you] is inherently bad for [you]

This addresses the only argument you need against moral nihilism

>>7107591
Thank you. Ill try to, its always nice to change. Anyways, i dont think humans who follow moral principles are trapping themselves. I think they do what they desire, as much as the one that kills.

>>7107649
Would that instead be moral relativism? Since everyone`s perceptions tend to vary.

>>7102604
If you really didn't believe in morality, you would have killed him on the spot for threatening the instrumentality of your will.

But you didn't kill him, because deep down inside you know that morality is objective and killing him would have been wrong.

>>7107725
You don't know that. He could have not killed him for a myriad of other reasons like fear of imprisonment.

>>7108289

>>7107317
>>7107445

Alright, OP. Since you actually spoke up and gave some of your reasoning, I have no choice but to reply.

>I can think there is nothing inherently bad with killing people, but i still think that in the social organization in which i live killing is inconvenient so i shouldnt do it.

"inherently" meaning "objectively", "bad" meaning "wrong". "in the social organization" meaning "inter-subjectively", "inconvenient" meaning "wrong".

Very basic pitfall of moral reasoning to assume that just because something isn't objective, it's 100% arbitrary, and therefore somehow meaningless. I think that this delusion stems from a person needing to see outside of human thought in order to believe something. This is not possible-- all evidence is filtered thru human thought.

>make one automatically evil

Conflation of action and character. You need to think more about this.

>So at the end, even if it is just the desires of the majority, being "good" is what i do.

You play the martyr because you suppose that carrying out your convictions would result in persecution. Appeal to pragmatism. Basically, you take comfort in holding the right opinions in the ideal world while maintaining your right opinion in the real world. Delusional

>Not because i think is "evil", but because i want to avoid it.

"i want to avoid it" meaning "wrong". Jesus christ, all of your arguments just beg the question / assume the point you're trying to prove. You are torn. You move words around. You have a very, very crude way of thinking about ethics, and it's killing you.

>majority
>natural law

You need to realize that there is more that ethics can be rooted in than these things.

>I have my own will

Prove it, you stupid fucking faggot. While you're working that one out, go apologize to your dad and tell him that you were being crazy through the whole argument.

Sorry that your family life sucks.

Oh man, I can't stop laughing.

OP, is a living meme. Literally, the physical embodiment of pic related.

I'd kick my son out too if he was a faggot watching chinese children cartoon shows

>>7108720
Oh this also is helpful. The only part i dont agree with at the moment is the martyr shit, i dont feel like one.

Ok let me analyze it.

>>7108720
Well, the first part of your answer did get into me, but at the end its the same shit. If is not a 100% objetive truth like 2+2, im not obliged to follow it.

But you are right in some aspects. Is not as if i dont have a sense of evil and good. Is just that i made it irrelevant when i noticed is not an absolute law. I only feel like i have to stand for absolute things, on the rest not so much. And yeah i wouldnt kill. But actually, i would do a lot of other evil things without guilt. So its pragmatism yeah. By following the majority i can live outside of prison and keep my friends and shit.

My point is, you are right. Morals probably have other bases besides nature and the majority. But any base that is not being an absolute law like 2 plus 2 makes me feel like if i dont have any need to follow them actually besides being comfortable.

Anyways, thanks for the help. Ill prove my will via not saying sorry to my dad, since he got mad outta nowhere. Dont care if you rage.

Oh my, this thread is awful. Most of the posters are /pol/-tier stupid.

>>7107720
>moral relativism
You're an idiot and so is your dad

That's nothing, I broke up with my gf over an argument about Baudrillard.

>>7109507

Pussy.

>>7102418
I would have kicked you out too, but for saving thumbnails