/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12823476]

Prove the opposite
>Morality is a leash invented by the weak to prevent the strong from dominating them. The only thing that stays the hand of a powerful man from slaying a weakling, raping his family, and taking his riches, is the notion of such a deed being 'morally wrong'. Yet nobody ever managed to explain why 'wrong' deeds are undesirable, or why must anyone care about the wrongness of their acts. Society as a whole exists as a gigantic sonorous choir of weak people screaming in the faces of those more imposing than them from their very birth that wrong things must not be done, or else. However, this 'else' itself (usually in the form of the punitive forces of the state) depends on another, even stronger men believing in the wrong axiom, without proof or sense. And thus morality rests on the pillars of fear, and survival, two irrelevant notions that never explain, only zombify.

[Anonymous No.12823490]

If morality was just a social construct people wouldn’t become physically and mentally ill after doing something immoral.
For example, psychological damage of Nazi officers in concentration camps. If morality was simply a spook then why would someone who saw Jews as subhuman filth that needed to die still suffer massive psychological trauma from the deeds they committed?

[Anonymous No.12823494]

Morality is eternal, we didn't invent it or magically come across it through evolution lol

[Anonymous No.12823495]

>>12823490
Scream at people long enough that breathing is bad, and many would feel horrible for doing it. Programmable nature of human beings is hardly an argument.

[Anonymous No.12823496]

>>12823476
If the weak invented morality, how did they manage to expose it on the strong?

[Anonymous No.12823498]

>>12823495
>Scream at people long enough that breathing is bad, and many would feel horrible for doing it
[citation needed]

[Anonymous No.12823499]

>>12823476
In your view, what makes someone happy?

>>12823490
>If morality was just a social construct people wouldn’t become physically and mentally ill after doing something immoral.
Or the Chinese Emperor who got mindbroken after his mother tortured another wife of his father.

[Anonymous No.12823503]

>>12823495
Just because what a majority thinks doesn't make something right, nor wrong for that matter

[Anonymous No.12823504]

>>12823496
The weak together overpowers the strong. The strong should fear the weak. It's all a power game.

[Anonymous No.12823505]

>>12823496
Strong != smart

[Anonymous No.12823509]

How did the weak man originally impose this leash on the strong man? If it truly is just an invention of weak mean then how did it come to be so pawerful? You would think that the strong men would just disregard it, but in fact we see that many of the most just people in antiquity were also the most powerful.

[Anonymous No.12823515]

>>12823505
And if the strong are so dumb that they can be this easily controlled by the weak, where does the boundary between the weak and the strong lies at all?

[Anonymous No.12823518]

>>12823476
On the contrary, morality was invented by the ruling classes to keep the proles in subjugation. 'Don't touch my riches;' they shout from their heap of marble and gold, 'after all, it would be theft!'
It is only with the rejection of morality that the masses can overthrow the despotic regimes which hold them in fetters.

[Anonymous No.12823524]

>>12823518
Imagine believing this

[Anonymous No.12823532]

>>12823490
>If morality was just a social construct people wouldn’t become physically and mentally ill after doing something immoral.
If money is just a social construct why do I feel sad when I'm broke?

[Anonymous No.12823533]

>>12823518
>Rich people don't commit suicide or other atrocious, base acts

[Anonymous No.12823534]

>>12823515
By strong I mean strong in the most crude, simplistic way - someone capable of overpowering you, taking you life, taking your property. Such people mustn't necessarily be intelligent. A lion is pretty dumb, but can maul a human all the same. Where is the eternal morality which prevents a lion from tearing you in two? Why must they be kept in cages, and not convinced out of their violent ways?

[Anonymous No.12823539]

>>12823495
The point is people don't have to be programmed that much to feel empathy. For a majority of people it's a natural part of psychological development.

>>12823476
What you're really missing here is that the "weak" tend to be more numerous and well-organized than the "strong". The worst enemy of a strong man is not another strong man but a mob of weak people who are tired of his shit.

[Anonymous No.12823541]

>>12823532
money is the abstraction of material wealth which is very important for survival, it is not a social construct

[Anonymous No.12823549]

Imagine being the sort of person who posts in this thread sincerely

[Anonymous No.12823550]

>>12823534
An invalid argument, a lion is strictly weaker than a human (which will operate in packs) and which also can wield weapons.

[Anonymous No.12823557]

>>12823539
>The point is people don't have to be programmed that much to feel empathy.
Fly to some Middle-East shithole to get proven horribly wrong. Lmaoing at you thinking the western society didn't program you to be empathetic.

[Anonymous No.12823573]

>>12823476
>The only thing that stays the hand of a powerful man from slaying a weakling, raping his family, and taking his riches, is the notion of such a deed being 'morally wrong'

No, that's the police.

[Anonymous No.12823577]

>>12823541
>it is not a social construct
It absolutely is. As soon as people stop believing in money, it becomes worthless paper.
>important for survival
You could argue that empathy carried some evolutionary importance for survival and from it morality proceeded. That doesn't make morality biological, though. Different cultures have different moralities.

[Anonymous No.12823579]

>>12823549
lmao bro look at these nerds lmfaaooo

[Anonymous No.12823584]

>>12823579
>>>/his/

[Anonymous No.12823586]

>>12823573
Also mutual aid, op is a cuck and should read kropotkin.

[Anonymous No.12823591]

>>12823584
/his/ became /int/ with dates.

[Anonymous No.12823592]

>>12823586
>>12823573
Literally addressed in the OP post, have you ever tried reading past the first sentence?

[Anonymous No.12823593]

>>12823591
Not our problem. Read the sticky, back to >>>/his/

[Anonymous No.12823596]

>>12823592
Are you delusional? Do you have a mental illness? Do you think you do?

[Anonymous No.12823600]

As gay as it sounds I think the solution to that is ethical egoism, the interests of others are often in our interest, and we support each (at times) and all that jazz like a bunch of hippies.

[Anonymous No.12823606]

Childish freshman at college level opinion there friend. Here’s a few things wrong with it
1) if the weak invented morality then why do men and animals feel a natural pull to be good? For example, hermits and ascetics both tend to grow more moral and kind as their solitude increases. Why does a mother instinctively love her child and not want to do him wrong? Why do animals (such as rats) have an observed morality in play?
2) why do we have morality to animals? If morality is a construction of the weak to not be exploited by the strong then why are animals also treated morally? I can’t see a reason the weak would want to include animals, and I can’t see why the strong would want to adopt animals in morality as well.
3) How did the weak impose morality on the strong? And, keep in mind that if bands of the weak teamed up and imposed them on the solitary strong, then the roles reverse and those in groups are the strong and those solitary are weak. Therefore the strong would impose it on the weak.
4) if morality is created by the weak so as not to be exploited by the strong, then why do current and archaic moralities exploit the weak? For example, Christian morality exploits the weak by creating a priestly caste for them to serve.

[Anonymous No.12823607]

>>12823534
I know what you mean by strong, but that doesn't contradict the fact that if the supposedly weaker individual has the psychological control over the stronger one he is actually more likely in a position of being capable of doing all these things that a the strong can do by your definition, than the stronger one himself.

[Anonymous No.12823619]

>>12823557
Have you actually lived in the Middle East my kind sir ? Not in a war-torn city (war is the kind of situation that tends to reduce incentive for empathy, would have you figured?) but in a normal centuries old village or in an old capital city (there are plenty of both in the Middle East).

I think you'd be surprised by the level of kindness and hospitality. This of course doesn't mean there aren't also daily acts of routine, casual violence (but those exist also in the West). But the empathy would very much be there.

And precisely I'd wager that kind of experiment would tend to prove my point as you'd see empathetic behavior being extant and even prevalent in most if not all cultures (though of course in different forms and with different conditions). So you have something that appears spontaneously in most cultures throughout the age unless it is hampered by a strong culture of not giving in to empathy. Strange isn't it ? You also have the human neurological dependence on companionship and ability to picture other's feelings (most notably pain) to a limited extent, which is well documented.

If this is conditioning this is conditing at the transcultural level over millenia of history. Which tend to make the distinction between human nature and social "programming" (as you so elegantly put it) quite blurry if not outright moot, don't you think ?

To anwer more you more specifically I' say, yes, of course, there as been some degree of "programing" for kindness in my education (that's what education is about after all), but that "programming" is not limited to "western society" (however you draw the frontiers of what's western) and it works on the human neurological capacity for empathy which emerges over youth as part of natural brain development. But there is also "programing" for violence (see: any kind of military training or better yet any kind of propaganda with appeal to murder). None of this means there isn't a natural human ability for and even tendency towards feeling empathy and behaving in consequence.

In conclusion OP is being an edgy faggot who misunderstand how human reationships work and unironically believes in the pseudo-Nietszchean memes he's been reading on r/atheism.

[Anonymous No.12823623]

>>12823606
> if the weak invented morality then why do men and animals feel a natural pull to be good?
They don't, you're projecting your westernized worldview on everyone else, including, hilariously, even animals
>why do we have morality to animals?
We don't. There are four dead chicken bodies in my freezer waiting to be consumed. Millions will die tomorrow to keep me and people like me well-fed and happy.
>How did the weak impose morality on the strong?
Already addressed
> if morality is created by the weak so as not to be exploited by the strong, then why do current and archaic moralities exploit the weak?
It is a toll of the weak to be exploited. The alternative is death.

[Anonymous No.12823634]

>>12823600
Egoism necessarily reduces to hedonism. You can't prove that you are the same person as you were before or who you will be in the future. There is literally no point in favouring exam revision over self-indulgence since you are only revising for the interests your future-self, who is not you, thus violating egoism. Similarly the pleas of your past-self need not bother you for the same reasons.

[Anonymous No.12823648]

>>12823476
Morality is caused by social memes and not the real material conditions of society and the intrest of capital (which is sentient)? Real talk; the state exist as the defense of capitals intrest through violence, private property is an ethical standard created to justify capitalism, the same thing with individualism, humanism, secularism and so on.

[Anonymous No.12823655]

There's always a "stronger" man. The weak might become the strong if the strong grows weaker.

Morality is how we evolved to transfer this struggle into another realm of economical struggle so we don't live in a constant state of treachery and destruction.

[Anonymous No.12823659]

>>12823623
>They don't, you're projecting your westernized worldview on everyone else, including, hilariously, even animals
Name a place in the world that has a morality with a blatant disrespect for the ecosystem and animals.
>We don't. There are four dead chicken bodies in my freezer waiting to be consumed. Millions will die tomorrow to keep me and people like me well-fed and happy.
You didn’t even address my point. Most of the chickens in your freezer have factory standards for humane raising and killing even if you are so arrogant as to look over it.
>Already addressed
[citation needed]
>It is a toll of the weak to be exploited. The alternative is death.
So, by your logic, the weak have to be exploited to keep the weak from being exploited? Seems counterintuitive