[ 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: 16 KB, 220x287, IMG_1433.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13040256 No.13040256 [Reply] [Original]

Even if the moral realists were right, why should I behave morally? Barring some sort of punishment in the afterlife which I don't believe in, there is literally no reason for me to follow the "laws" and "imperatives" laid out by the moral realists. Every other law I know of has me bound. I physically cannot break the laws of physics; abandoning the laws of logic would destroy my comprehension; let me try and transgress the laws of the state and I will be thrown in prison. But what happens if I break the moral "law"? Precisely nothing.
>b-but you can be illogical
Not on the most fundamental level; I challenge you to try for a day to stop believing in cause and effect or in the modus ponens.
If by illogical you mean it is possible to make invalid deductions, then yes. But logic, unlike morality, doesn't have in itself any categorical normative claim about how you ought to act. "If you want to get at truth, you should be logical" is a conditional norm. In other words, only IF you want to do thing X, should you do thing Y.
>b-but morality is the same! If you want to get at the Good, you should be moral.
This is not true. The Good is defined as that which you should strive for. To say "you should strive for the good" is to utter a tautology: you should strive for what you should strive for. But what if I don't want to strive for the Good? A very strong case can be made for the utility of truth and therefore logic, but no similar case can be made for the Good.

>> No.13040482

>>13040256
Weird. Your roundabout argument espouses free will. Perhaps there's less choice in the matter generally than (you) let on, evidences notwithstanding? What of local pressures, parents, friends, employers, the like? Having not flouted their expectations till close to now (theoretically) in what ways would (you) flout them tomorrow? Is there a plan? If so, I'd be interested in reading some about it.

>> No.13040531

>>13040256
Note further that a choice NOT to be good necessarily assumes a status of 'being good' right now, or else there can be no 'choice' in the matter at all

>> No.13040553

>>13040256
Immoral actions make life worse for you. Your mind becomes chaotic and this colours the rest of your experience negatively. Moral actions lead to a pleasant existence. Criminals almost always have drug/drinking habits for a reason - they can't stomach life while sober.

>> No.13040614

Because my dear OP, if you truly were being logical then you would follow the categorical imperative. Kant didn't just formulate this moral theory from thin air, it is formulated out of pure reason, reason which provides the foundation for the possibilty of experience. Similar to how you would not want to be without logic, yet there is nothing requiring you to be illogical, you also would not want to be without morality that is designated in the same root. Since you clearly believe in transcendental freedom of will then by extension you should know that it is the duty of any free rational being to follow moral imperatives that are born within him.

>> No.13040657
File: 984 KB, 3072x2008, 1431465438270.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13040657

>>13040256
Morals are about realizing that no matter what you are dependent upon the world and others.
To obtain any change in your life and the world you will have to realize you being immoral has lead to passionate desires of the mind without the will to act any of it out because you've secluded yourself from the truth.
In that you will bow down to the ones that do have the power and control over your desires and will lead you straight to death.