[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 209 KB, 313x410, 48281810_705362326530308_7414605542930251776_n.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12323319 No.12323319 [Reply] [Original]

Ego is a virtue.

>> No.12323405

Let's break the tradition of people on lit simply stating their thesis without any arguments backing it up. It leads to misunderstandings of your intent, and therefore low quality discussion.
Why is ego a virtue OP?

>> No.12323422

>>12323319
That’s literally the opposite of true

>> No.12323423

>>12323405
You just did the same.

>> No.12323441
File: 27 KB, 500x500, 1402665785244.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12323441

>>12323405
Because I said so.

>> No.12323445

>>12323319
Morality is not objective. Egoism can be virtuous in your personal moral system.

>> No.12323465

>>12323445
Ethics isn't so complex as to rationalize moral relativism. Moral relativism is just an excuse we use to do bad things.

>> No.12323466

>>12323441
Cringe

>> No.12323479

>>12323465
What exactly is your point? Do you accuse my lack of believe in an onjective moral system to have its roots in me wanting to do "bad" things? If so then I have to disagree. I wish an objectively true moral system would exist so I could adhere to it. Now I have multiple contradictory moral systems in my head which fight for existence and I can't prove that any of them are objectively true.

>> No.12323488

>>12323405
anon you haven't been here for long, making up facts is our specialty.

>> No.12323493

>>12323423
I'm not the one making a claim

>> No.12323500
File: 133 KB, 580x802, King-Pop-art.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12323500

>>12323488
I dream of a better /lit/

>> No.12323504
File: 7 KB, 196x167, 7896.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12323504

>>12323500
Nigger

>> No.12323511

>>12323479
Perhaps not explicitly. By and large, people who spend lots of time reading about and discussing moral philosophy and epistemology tend to be more morally grounded than most. However, it's evident that if you define morality as an infinite number of nebulous personal moral codes, each as valid as the next, you leave no room in which to judge the actions of others.

>>12323493
Claim: doing X leads to misunderstanding and diminished quality of discussion.

I don't really care, but it's amusing that you did the exact same thing without realizing it.

>> No.12323515

>>12323319
My elephantine uncircumcised COCK is a virtue.

>> No.12323527

Altruism and societies obsession with it is the greatest spook of all.

>> No.12323533
File: 690 KB, 2060x1236, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
12323533

>>12323511
>I don't really care, but it's amusing that you did the exact same thing without realizing it.
Ok you're right is doesn't matter but teeeeccchhhhnicaaallly what I said was a supporting argument for the implied premise of 'you need to state supporting arguments for your thesis'.

>> No.12323543

>>12323511
I'm still very confused as to what your point is. In this discussion you seem to presume that objective morality exists and can be found and understood through moral philosophy and those who do not believe in objective morality seem to know what is "good" and what is "bad" but rationalize moral nihilism to excuse "bad" decisions. In response to that I'm saying that I don't believe in moral nihilism to excuse bad behaviour. In fact, I would love to find an objectively true moral system. However, I have not found any compelling evidence to suggest that morality is objective. If you can prove to me that there is an objectively true moral system, then I would love to hear what it is and why you believe it is objectively true.

>> No.12323557

>>12323319
Why do you feel the need to link virtue with ego? Ego is, that's enough as it is

>> No.12323560

>>12323319
When will american people learn what ego means? When did they start misusing this word? It makes me feel like I'm listening to Eckhart fucking Tolle.

>> No.12323600

>>12323543
I'm not presuming that an indisputable objective morality exists. I'm only pointing out the limits of moral relativism and its utility in argumentation. It's an entirely unidirectional observation that objective morality doesn't exist, by which I mean that its only practical use is sanctioning things, not denouncing things. This is what I mean when I say that we use moral relativism as an excuse to do bad things. (Sure, we also do good things, but we never raise the issue of moral objectivity in those discussions.)

Anyway, I don't need to cite some objectively true moral code in order to point out that quite a few people manage to live by the illusion of an objectively true moral code, the validity of which is almost secondary to the fact that they hold those convictions sincerely.

>> No.12323650

>>12323600
Well you use the words "good" and "bad" as if they were objective. Thus I said that you presume that morality is objective. You talk about the utility (or lack there of) of moral nihilism. That approach in itself has its root in a moral system (utilitarianism). I have not said anything about the utility of the realization that morality is not objective. Again, moral nihilism has made me miserable. I admire people who sincerely believe that their moral system is objectively true. I would never go to a deeply religious person for example and try to convince him/her that morality is not objective.

>> No.12323696

>>12323650
> You talk about the utility (or lack there of) of moral nihilism. That approach in itself has its root in a moral system (utilitarianism). I have not said anything about the utility of the realization that morality is not objective.
I understand where you thought I was coming from. That's reasonable. However, I think you mistook me slightly. My entire retort has been a commentary on your first post (>>12323445). When I attack the utility of moral relativism, I don't mean it from a social, utilitarian standpoint but from a "this is a dumb method of argumentation" standpoint.

If I'm honest, I respect moral objectivity for its argumentative value more-so than I do for its social value. At least religious people are able to state unequivocally why they believe something is wrong. Relativists are only able to state why something is sanctionable, and the nihilists are can only restate why a thing is neutral. The argument never goes anywhere, which is why making an observation that "egoism can be virtuous in your personal moral system" is a nonviable contribution to a discussion.

>> No.12323703

Virtue is a spook though