[ 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: 303 KB, 1400x2092, 8117HB7WbvL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13563099 No.13563099 [Reply] [Original]

Now the dust has settled, was Smerdyakov really in the wrong here?

>> No.13563121

>>13563099
most overrated book of all time, especially by /lit/. Smerdyakov was sociopathic. but the author tried to imply that is the natural state of every person. the normative human has an evolved sense of fairness which is necessary for group living and synergy which is the primary strength of the human race

tl;dr normal people have an innate morality, no god needed

>> No.13563134

>synergy
yikes

>> No.13563137

>>13563121
Are you a robot? You’ve actually managed to read this book so badly that I can’t believe you’re a real person!

>> No.13563141

>>13563137
explain

>> No.13563149

>>13563134
human civilization rests entirely on the fact that a group can be more than the sum of it's parts, if you fail to understand this principle, I can't help you

>> No.13563155

>>13563121
based retard

>> No.13563160

>>13563137
can you point out my error? I think the concept that god is needed for morality is a grave insult to the human character and condition. we know evolution has produced fairness instincts, combine that with our ability to imagine the future and think abstractly, and you get a reasoned morality without any need for divine intervention

>> No.13563165

Smerdyakov was based and only did what Ivan wanted him to do.

>> No.13563175

>>13563121
there is so much more to the book than the quote that if God doesn't exist then everything is permissible. You come off as someone who never read the book but encountered the quote and a little bit of sparknotes.

>> No.13563180

>>13563160
fuck off seriously

>> No.13563183

>>13563175
I read the book. OP specifically asked about Smerdyakov, so thats what I address. try and keep up

>> No.13563186

>>13563180
very enlightening comment, thank you for your astonishing contribution

>> No.13563187

>>13563160
>fairness instincts

What the fuck are you talking about

>> No.13563190

Agrafena is a thot

>> No.13563191

>>13563183
Smerdyakov is only one piece of the puzzle that Dostoevsky was portraying. For you to adequately provide some counterargument against Dostoevsky's big quote (as stated above), you would have to account for the mode of being that each character depicts.

>> No.13563195

>>13563141
Why would you just automatically assume that the normative human has an innate sense of fairness?

>> No.13563196

>>13563187
reciprocation is a massive part of socialization, I'm not surprised you'd be unfamiliar with it

>> No.13563215

>>13563196
How do you explain people who do not reciprocate? While we do have oxytocin in our brains, that doesn't automatically make us moral by nature.

>> No.13563217

>>13563191
Yes, Dosto also tries to portray Ivan as being secretly religious when he "acts out beliefs he doesn't profess", not going to hunt for the exact quote but the idea is that the atheist character is acting out a belief in god because he is doing moral things. this is absolutely uncompelling and amounts to a religious fanatic's fantasy

>> No.13563222

>>13563196
I know you must think you’re very smart, but we’ve all read Hobbes. Why do you assume that reciprocation is important for socialisation - because it is now? You’re transplanting qualities of the developed human onto some unattainable image of the normative human and claiming that as some kind of self-evident truth of ‘human nature’. Where is the evidence for anything you’ve said?

>> No.13563233

>>13563215
people disassociate with those who do not reciprocate, thus there is a pressure to reciprocate. there will always be a certain percentage (like sociopaths) that can take advantage and burn bridges, but it is not a winning strategy in the vast majority of cases

>> No.13563245

>>13563217
Dosto’s observations on morality are far more based in reality than your ridiculous ‘fairness instincts’ claims are

>> No.13563246

>>13563222
did you know that Vampire Bats share the blood they get in hunts with other Vampire Bats that were less successful? The Bats are actually capable of recognizing the individuals that shared with them so they can reciprocate later on. these biological systems are ANCIENT and are the reason that certain tribes of humans survived while others did not

>> No.13563250

>>13563245
the concept of reciprocation is firmly established in evolutionary theory

>> No.13563254

>>13563233
lmao i'd like to see u walk outside and engage someone with your reciprocity bullshit. they'd capitalize over your foolishness and laugh at you afterwards.

>> No.13563263

this thread reeks of fedora

>> No.13563267

>>13563246
Is this a joke? You’re comparing moral systems built over millenia to vampire bat behaviour?

>> No.13563271

>>13563254
look, I understand in business you need to be cut throat, but literally every business in existence relies on mutually beneficial relationships in order to survive. reputation matters, if you constantly capitalize unfairly on your customers, you won't get more customers

>> No.13563274

>>13563250
Lol, are you for real

>> No.13563279

>>13563250
>i fucking love science
kys

>> No.13563280

>>13563267
I'm demonstrating that these systems have biological origins that are then refined by the moral systems that comprise the culture

>> No.13563287

>>13563271
You have reduced morality to mere exchange of goods and services.

>> No.13563288

>>13563274
>>13563279
sorry, was it too hard for you guys to follow along?

>> No.13563293

>>13563280
Yes, I can understand that, but you’re also arguing that humans are innately good by virtue of their biology - a claim that I take much more issue with than your evolutionary morality/social contract shtick. Where on Earth is the evidence for that?

>> No.13563294

>>13563287
No, I've reduced it to evolutionary pressures which led to a complexity of the human mind which was then able to refine morality

>> No.13563297

>>13563288
>duuuh human good because evolution!

What’s there to miss?

>> No.13563302

>>13563294
You’re confusing the ability of the human mind to reason with the ability of the human mind to act morally by nature.

>> No.13563305

>>13563293
I have not used the word "good". I merely point out that we innately have a conscience (apart from a small percentage of sociopaths)

>> No.13563311

>>13563305
>all murderers are sociopaths

>> No.13563320

>>13563305
>people have an innate morality

That’s what you started with. Own your argument. You’ve not been able to show how people are innately moral. You’ve just shown that people have a conception of what is bad and good, not what compels them to do good.

>> No.13563321

>>13563302
it comes back to the principle of synergy. groups that work together out compete groups that have inner conflict. this is partly why tribalism is the primary problem facing human beings today. acting morally is another word for acting in a way that promotes group cohesion/efficiency

>> No.13563328

>>13563320
the fact that groups with cohesion out compete groups without cohesion is what compels them to act morally

>> No.13563338

>>13563320
And furthermore, you’ve not actually shown how your odd ancient psychological egoism actually explains how humans have distinguished bad from good. At the moment your argument confuses morality with law - ‘what is good for me is good for everyone’ - and ignores a whole lot of benevolent, unnecessary acts that fall outside of any transactional behaviour yet are still considered ‘moral’.

>> No.13563341

>>13563311
not really, historically religion has been quite good at getting non-sociopaths to commit murder

>> No.13563349

>>13563321
>>13563328
You can explain morality through this transactional group relationship up to a point, but it doesn’t account for what I’ve said here >>13563338.

Plus, your argument that group cohesion by nature pushes people towards the good is demonstrably untrue throughout history. Was the Slave Trade or the Holocaust just a product of ‘synergy’?

>> No.13563351

>>13563338
I am and have been speaking about the biological drives behind moral actions and how the law (or culture in general) formalizes them into a code

>> No.13563363

>>13563349
in fact, those support my earlier point about how these conditions that allowed for the development of morality are also the conditions that cause groups to do horrendous things to those they consider "out group". however because we have the ability to reason, we can universalize our moral in group drives to extent to humans in the out group and even animals although that has admittedly been a slower development

>> No.13563379

>>13563363
So you admit that the ‘innate morality’ of the evolutionary-moralled humans is actually just some insane egoism that justifies killing innocents as long as they’re of a perceived ‘out-group’? Hardly an argument for getting rid of God.

>> No.13563381

>>13563341
>religion
more like politics

>> No.13563388

>>13563379
based

>> No.13563406

>>13563379
on the contrary, I'm merely outlining the factual basis of how morality evolved in human beings. I'm pointing out that we are biased to act in these ways, and that the only counter to this is reasoned reflection on how to shift our moral drives in a better way. religion tends to be a back slide into tribal mindset based on factually inaccurate premises

>> No.13563414

>>13563379
just as an aside, the old testament is full of "killing innocents as long as they're the 'out group'", so the god of the bible isn't really a paragon of virtue in that regard

>> No.13564492

>>13563280
>>13563406

Read On The Genealogy of Morals

>> No.13564525

>>13563406
>religion tends to be a back slide into tribal mindset based on factually inaccurate premises

the type of psycological egoism your are espousing does the same thing.

>> No.13564812

>>13563121
I'm halfway done with this book, and I can tell you it is NOT overrated. It is absolutely beautiful, and I am loving every second of reading it.

>> No.13565130

>>13564812
The Grand Inquisitor was pretty good, not much else is though

>> No.13565142

>>13565130
nooooo. no no no no no.

I liked the chapter preceding The Grand Inquisitor just as much, actually. Rebellion.

And the book was excellent before TGI, and 150 pages later, it's still been consistently good. I think this book may just not catch with some people. But for me, it's amazing. But I relate to a lot of what's going on with different characters. Identifying with as much as you possibly can goes a long way with Dostoevsky novels. It makes them all the more impactful.

>> No.13565572

>>13563149
Sum of its parts is entirely meaningless when talking about people.
What you are probably trying to say is that productivity increases much with division of labor, which requires a base minimum level of trust, which I don't think anyone in the book would deny.
To go from this to your feel-good bullshit doesn't work though.

>> No.13565602

Smerdyakov is filth.

>>13563121
Based.

>> No.13565606

>>13563121
Your dumb observations have nothing to do with the book, you just butthurt Dosto shots on atheists.
>>13563099
Well at the end of the day Smedryakov was a server and as one he let Ivan make the choice. So yea he was wrong for killing his father but does not deserve all the blame.

>> No.13565609

>>13564492
i'm here to argue, not to get recommendations

>> No.13565627

>>13564525
>psycological egoism
If only. Anon has dropped even lower to some form of bio-autism about people 'reciprocating' as automatons.
This would also imply that any spiritual life would take men away from the high level of 'reciprocation' achieved through said animal automatism. See anon's dismissing comments about how spiritual life is the evil thing.

>> No.13565631

>>13563246
This is your brain or evolutionary psychology.
Pretty scary stuff.

>> No.13565647

>>13565631
Not an argument. Thanks for conceding.
Next.

>> No.13565659

>>13565572
I'm talking about evolutionary pressures that acted on separate groups of humans and favored groups with high cohesion, a primary component of which being a sense of fairness and the capacity to reciprocate. The "feel-good bullshit" comes when we apply another evolutionary advantage of ours (abstract thinking/imagination) to our evolved morals in order to improve upon those drives and live in groups to the best degree possible.

>> No.13565707

>>13565659
Aside from being unfalsifiable evo psych trash, the argument doesn't even closely overlap with the issues of the book or morality in general, which deals with the self making active decisions, not to the supposed passive psychological characteristics of more or less cohesive species. It also focuses exclusively on social relations which is only a segment of morality.

>> No.13565718

>>13565647
yea its not an argument, but an observation dummy

>> No.13565727

>>13563160
>fairness instincts
Yeah, I guess that is why people are literally never unfair right? Literally have order break down for a bit and you would see how "rational" "fair" people would start killing the shit out of each other. Fuck off

>> No.13565739

>>13563341
Yo what happened to innately having a conscience?

>> No.13565779

>>13565707
>evolutionary theory is unfalsifiable
are you for real?
>>13565727
society can only function because people have a fairness instinct, it is coded into us genetically due to our evolutionary history. we also have a great capacity for violence which can override other drives in times of crisis, but we do strive to restore stability and justice
>>13565739
they still have it, but it can be subverted by establishing a false moral authority to abdicate the moral responsibility of the individual

>> No.13565992

>>13565779
Evolutionary morality is entirely unfalsifiable because you can’t prove or show to any degree how humans actually behaved all those millenia ago. At the moment you’re speculating entirely, and as I said earlier in the thread - your speculation has its foundations in your observations on the behaviour of modern man. You literally have no idea how prehistoric Man developed, you’re just giving rational-sounding hypotheses on what may have happened.

>> No.13566443

>>13563099
Cant even fucking remember wtf smerdyakov did that book is so contrived, long-winded and poorly written. It's still one of the books of my life and always will be. Dosto is fucking weird man

>> No.13566499

>>13563099
Well, fuck, YES. He screwed over everything and everyone.
>>13563121
Complete retard post.
>>13563160
>the concept that God is needed for morality...
It's bullshit But It's not the fucking point neither of the book nor of Christianity

>> No.13566536

>>13563294
So it's not actually morality. If you can hide it then you'll do it as much as you can since there's no pressure. Therefore you aren't actually moral, you're just really good at hiding that you aren't

>> No.13566573

>>13563121
you go on reddit every day

>> No.13566650

>>13566536
He's been getting BTFO the entire thread, there's no way he's serious

>> No.13566702

>>13565627
Same school of autism, different field. OP is to stupid to realize his thought process is no different than theists or divine command except that he is trying to hide behind "rationality" and the material. He holds his theory to be self-evident when it itself is unfalsifiable, no different than a claim of divine command.

>> No.13566898
File: 226 KB, 563x651, 1554242233256.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13566898

>>13563121
>people like this have no problem posting their ridiculous opinions in public and I'm too afraid to post for fear of having misinterpreted the book

>> No.13566985

>Now the dust has settled
the book's been out for 100+ years nigga wtf you on

>> No.13567218

>>13566985
Apparently the phrase is a meme from /tv/ and maybe qualifies this thread for deletion under global rule 6.

>> No.13567413

>>13565992
We absolutely know that early humans lived in groups, and we know group dynamics. You are way off base
>>13566536
People DO act more immorally when no one's watching. I'm talking about the factual basis of the roots of human morality, and every objection I've seen literally just proves my point more. As I've stated before, we need to use our abstract thinking to shape our biological morality to a better end
>>13566573
I've only ever gone to reddit for free sports streams
>>13566650
No one has reasonably refuted a single point I've made. In fact most posts in reply to mine have missed the point entirely because /lit/ seems to hate the idea that evolution doesn't stop at the neck up

>> No.13567418

>>13566898
>my entire existence is lived in fear of not acting exactly like the wider group
I pity you, anon

>> No.13567432

>>13567413
you lost bucko

>> No.13567467

>>13567432
wrong again anon

>> No.13567481

>>13567413
>and we know group dynamics
You know group dynamics for animals and people living today. You don't know a single thing about prehistoric man. And even if you did, you've still not been able to fully explain what about evolutionary morals actually promotes morality beyond simple reciprocative acts (which isn't the extent of morality).

>> No.13567537

>>13567481
I think you completely fail to understand the theory of evolution. We know what the pressures were and we know what the result was and we know how the process works and we have archeological evidence that contributes support. We also know which traits appear in our close relatives like chimpanzees who also have a sense of fairness and they know when they are being treated unfairly and will protest

>> No.13567543
File: 30 KB, 415x500, Redditguy.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13567543

>>13563121

>> No.13567600

>>13567543
>opinion I don't like
>must be bad tribe
really breaking the mold there, huh?

>> No.13567609
File: 484 KB, 429x809, smokingweedinspace.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13567609

>>13567600
>>opinion I don't like
>>must be bad tribe
>really breaking the mold there, huh?

>> No.13567648

>>13567467
you lost, reddit. just because you constantly respond to every post doesn't make your arguments any better.

>> No.13567680

>>13567648
No one can actually refute my points and there hasn't even been a single good insult yet. Still waiting

>> No.13567694
File: 29 KB, 720x454, humeBTFO.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13567694

>>13567537

>> No.13568132

>>13567537
No you don't know any of that except the end result. Evolution can't give any scientific method for its work. It's just a guess in the dark as to what happend. The fact that you think you know what prehistoric humans did is beyond laudable.

>> No.13568212

>>13563121
Another episode of Atheists hate Dostoevsky.

>> No.13568227

>>13563406
there is no evolved, definite morality. Morality differs fron person to person but have fun in Hell

>> No.13568256

please be considerate, use spoiler tags on the op.
thanks

>> No.13568901

>>13568132
Not only is there actual evidence for how prehistoric man lived, we can draw conclusions based on a system (evolution) we know functions and how it functions
>>13568227
>no two brains are identical so brains share no commonalities
I've already outlined how group cohesion is selected for through evolution. Our morality is purely a product of promoting group cohesion

>> No.13568994

>>13568901
And how do you explain behaviour that doesn’t rely on group cohesion? Where’s the explanation for charity, unnecessary acts of kindness, things which we consider moral but aren’t necessary for the functioning of a society? And furthermore, cohesion doesn’t always correlate with what is good. If your girlfriend asks you if she looks good in something, your relationship may be more cohesive if you lied and said ‘yes’, but that would be, by most standards, immoral.

>> No.13569037
File: 132 KB, 500x357, tiresome.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13569037

>>13563121
>innate morality
>innate natural rights
>innate

>> No.13569094

>>13568994
charity requires empathy, which is the act of psychologically including a person into your group. also, the vast majority of people would disagree and tell you to at minimum be tactful with your responses to your girlfriend on sensitive subjects if not outright placate her
>>13569037
morality is a result of evolution and is then modified by culture

>> No.13569108

>>13569094
What the fuck is ‘culture’?

>> No.13569117

>>13569108
memes

>> No.13569143

>>13569094
An issue with evolutionary morality which you’ve failed to resolve is the fact that you can’t give a base from which future moral actions can be taken. If morality has evolved, as you say, then it is still evolving. Surely it’s conceivable that one day our conception of morality will evolve so that murder and rape become moral (say if they became the most pragmatic acts for a society trying to survive)? How can you honestly argue that an evolving morality safeguards human dignity in any way, when it can shift at any time to make what is good bad and what is bad good?

>> No.13569181

>>13569143
I contend that it is a good thing that it is evolving. For the vast majority of human history, slavery was a universal. It is now officially universally condemned. Also, it's more likely that we continue our evolution in a direction of reducing harm to a wider group, for example I suspect that in another few hundred years people of our day will be condemned for our treatment of animals in factory farming. The fact is that morality IS relative, and the people who claim they have an objective standard are just blind to their own biases

>> No.13569631

>>13569181
And what assurances do you have of this proposal that 'everything just gets more liberal forever'?

>> No.13569702

>>13569631
None he is retarded. The fact that he "sees" animal agriculture becoming immoral in the future is a product of him already considering it to be immoral to some degree. You can't conceptualize an act "becoming immoral" without already believing to some degree that is. No one would say an act considered universal moral or amoral as being immoral in the future, such as putting on socks.

>> No.13569803

>>13569702
>such as putting on socks.
You'll be amazed. In 50 years socks will be considered ableist and deemed offensive to people without feet.

>> No.13569871

>>13569143
Why even bother keeping up this argument, he’s not going to give you good answers no matter how hard you try

>> No.13569910

>>13569871
eh, it gets you thinking about what his possible counter-arguments could be. It's at least a good mental exercise.

>> No.13569999

>>13569910
So far he’s just been dancing around the topic and pulling weird pseudo-anthropology out of nowhere to try and make a point, it’s embarrassing

>> No.13570070

>>13563121
>>13563160
>>13563196
>>13563233
>>13563246
>>13563271
>>13563294
>>13563305
>>13563321
>>13563363
>>13563406
>>13565659
>>13565992
>>13567413
>>13567537
>>13568901
>>13569094
>>13569181
look at how much mental gymnastics it takes to be an atheist lol

>> No.13570097

>>13563121
Smerdyakov was a hedonist

>> No.13570119

i feel like people tend to praise dosto way too much on here. i'm not denying that crime and punishment and brother's karamazov are good, but that he still had flaws in other ways that people don't discuss. his style is boring and reading it in english leaves certain things awkwardly translated (not his fault obviously). also his books tend to meander, especially in the idiot. makes sense since he was paid by the word and never had time to edit, i don't blame him. his ideas are revolutionary, but as a reader i think some parts of his books are just plain boring or tedious.

>> No.13570400

>>13563183
I hate to break it to you anon...but Smerdyakov...is you...

>> No.13570635 [DELETED] 

>>13563160
"Fairness instincts" are something in groups have at the expense of out groups. For Smerdyakov the in group is just him.

How about you give Dostoyevsky some credit for guessing the motive of the holocost before it happened?

>> No.13570646

>>13563160
"Fairness instincts" are something in groups have at the expense of out groups. For Smerdyakov the in group is just him. He realizes altruism is just the genes inside him being selfish at the expense of the individual, check out George Price.

How about you give Dostoyevsky some credit for guessing the motive of the holocost before it happened?

>> No.13570979

Saw reg post anout it being always sunny in russia and it fucked me up. Cant stop thinking about it this way it fits way too good. Im just not sure if alyosza is charlie or mac

>> No.13571041

>>13569631
the fact that the pressures inherent in group dynamics will always push in that direction
>>13569999
I'm the only one actually making a point, it's just that some people have difficulty recognizing that they are a product of evolution
>>13570070
I'm guessing you can't understand evolutionary theory. sad.
>>13570097
he is portrayed as a sociopath
>>13570400
I am not a sociopath
>>13570646
>For Smerdyakov the in group is just him
groups are by definition more than 1 person. he has no conscience to stop him from morally reprehensible acts because he is a sociopath

>> No.13571187

>>13569143
you know, whenever I mention that God supports slavery in the bible I'm told that it has to be taken in context. suddenly maybe morality is a bit relative even with a supposed objective authority

>> No.13571650

>>13571187
Your understanding of what a slave is is based almost entirely in the conditions experienced by Africans under the Atlantic Slave Trade. Looking back to Old Testament, and then Roman slavery, you’ll see that actually being a slave wasn’t as horrible as it became in the 1600s onwards. A common practise of ancient people was actually to enslave themselves so as to pay for debts which they couldn’t otherwise afford. Biblical morality may be occasionally a little rough around the edges when it comes to relativity, but it’s still far more sturdy than your foundationless evolutionary morality.

>> No.13571880

>>13571041
>group dynamics will always push in that direction [more liberal]
So your understanding of history, is that every group always becomes more liberal? Do I really need to explain why that's wrong?

>> No.13572351

>>13570119
>books are just plain boring and tedious

no you're just a cumbrain

>> No.13572436

>>13570119
I admit that sometimes the translations make me laugh - the number of times in his books that men ‘fly at each other’ only to then go back to exchanging words civilly in the next sentence is just one of those oddities that arises when you translate between two so wildly different languages, and read a book 150 years removed from its publication. I wouldn’t say Dosto is overrated though, his works are perhaps some of the most deep and powerful one can read. Sometimes I would agree that substance comes before style, but in Dosto’s case I think the substance is so incredible that the style would naturally come second no matter the author.

>> No.13572775

>>13563121
Based didn't read the book bro

>> No.13572812

>>13571650
>defending slavery
A+
>>13571880
The arc of human development has been towards liberation, although strangely the most gains were made at a time when religion was most beaten back.... very strange, that

>> No.13572842

>>13572812
>freedom

>> No.13572861

>>13563233
So are people doing it out of fairness or self preservation? If those consequences no longer exist, will they continue to act morally?

>> No.13572910

>>13572861
these kinds of systems develop over massive spans of time, so the biological drives to act this way will be with us for a very long time. If there were a mass catastrophe which radically reduced the human population, then the moral standards would change (again over time after the event) to reflect the individuals that survived

>> No.13573060

>>13572812
Lol, I think you’ll find it was you that was defending slavery with your ‘b-but the Bible did it too!’ defence.

>> No.13573088

>>13573060
I never defended slavery. in fact I specifically stated I think it is a good thing our morality advanced past it the point where it is officially universally condemned. the religious are the ones who have to reconcile the fact that their "objective authority" supported it

>> No.13573123

>>13573088
God supported a form of slavery which is almost unrecognisable when compared to modern equivalents. You did defend slavery when I asked how your moral system prevents against it becoming moral in the future, and your only response was ‘but God did it so it’s okay!’

>> No.13573409

>>13573123
What? Where did you get this idea it was better in the past? 19th century American chattel slavery was much less harsh then earlier periods. No, it wasn't nice, but they were expensive investments. They could have families, and a little dirty shack to retire in, sometimes they'd even buy their way out. You didn't just cut their balls off then work them to death in a few years.

>> No.13573670

>>13573409
You have a child’s knowledge of history, why are you even attempting to argue? Slavery from the 1600s onwards was perhaps the most brutal iteration of the practise ever seen by Man. You are a fool if you haven’t done some basic reading on this.

>> No.13574088

>>13573670
Do you have, you know, like any counter examples?

>> No.13574186

>>13574088
I’m not a fucking encyclopaedia pal, do your own research. End of the day, I’m right, live with it

>> No.13574189
File: 258 KB, 555x307, 1564170852518.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13574189

>>13563099
Isn't this novel really weird though? I mean, who is the narrator here? If it's a 3rd person omniscient one, then how come he refers to himself as a person who lives in a monastery? And if that's really the case, he's just a monk in a monastery, then how come he's so able to describe every dialogue in the story like he knows everything? It makes little sense.

>> No.13574227

>>13574186
doesn't god tell people to nail their slaves earlobes to the door? real humane

>> No.13574232

>>13574227
Why is exploiting or lying to other people, as long as they don't find out, a bad thing?

>> No.13574246

>>13574189
>who is the narrator here?
It's inconsistent. Most of the time it's an omniscient narrator, but from time to time it'll be an inhabitant of Skotoprigonyevsk who gives an account of happened several years ago when the events of the story took place.

>> No.13574264

>>13574232
It's a bad long term strategy for the well being of the individual and the community, but I think you should get a round of applause for that stunning ducking of my point

>> No.13574286

>>13574186
I provided examples, while you seem incapable...so I guess we'll leave it up to the reader.

>> No.13574318

>>13574286
just to add a point, the bible states you can beat your slave as much as you want as long as he doesn't die within 3 days of the beating

>> No.13574337

Exodus 21:20-21 New International Version (NIV)

20 “Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.

someone in this thread defends this treatment as not that bad. amazing how morally bankrupt you can be if you buy into religion

>> No.13574367

>>13574264
>It's a bad long term strategy for the well being of the individual
no, it's not

>> No.13575479

bump

>> No.13575597

>>13563099
russophobe pls

>> No.13575781

>>13572351
i don't mind reading 1000 page books but there is undeniable beauty in brevity

>> No.13575972

>>13575781
all I'm saying is that a 900 page book better be just as good an experience as three 300 page books

>> No.13576173
File: 742 B, 26x20, Bones20.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13576173

>>13563121
based

>>13563137
middlewit take

>> No.13576176

>>13563160
holy fucking hell you are a cunt

>> No.13576191

>>13563183 >>13563186 >>13563160 >>13563246 >>13563233 >>13563250 >>13563288 >>13563294 >>13563305 >>13571041 >>13572812 >>13573088 >>13573409 >>13574088 >>13574286 >>13563196


holy fucking hell i thought i was smerdyakov-like until i read your fucking putrid posts

die cunt

>> No.13576228

>but we have evolved to behave morally

Even if that's the case, this doesn't debunk Dostoyevski. The problem is that, despite any biological or cultural influence, once you gain self awareness of the on going process in the former divine morality, the possibility to no longer follow these precepts arises. Dostoyevski was one the aware guys of this crisis in the western mindset. And not only religion loses its divinity but also the enlighted notion of men fails, demons live inside us.

>> No.13576318

>>13576176
>>13576191
yeah, arguing in an attempt to advance a point is horrible of me, better to just hurl the most base form of insults instead. consider me educated, anons

>> No.13576339

>>13563099
Maybe Smerdyakov and Fyodor Karamazov were like both representations of Dostoevsky and like Dostoevky was placing his psyche on a philosophical battleground. If this is the case, beauty and the thing to fight for would to become more like Alyosha. No?

>> No.13576346

>>13576228
the biological drive that manifests as a conscience in non-sociopaths can't just be "no longer followed" because someone chooses so. there is some play in how culture forms what the norms are, but the conscience seems to have hardwired guidelines around pain/loss/guilt ect. in a lot of ways, your self awareness only represents a single dimension of you. not to get too into the weeds in psychology, but the subconscious complex web of drives and emotions is not fully understood, but we do have a very firm understanding of how evolution works to produce the systems we can observe in humans today

>> No.13576474

>>13563190
Only reasonable post

>> No.13576490

>>13572812
Communism completely destroys your point.
Completely free form religion, absolutely no freedom.

>> No.13576503

>>13576490
did communism survive? no. it failed. that is a branch of moral evolution that does not succeed. also, the communist states of the 20th century tended to deify their leaders. funny that, huh?

>> No.13576549

>>13576503
That was not your poit tho. You point was that godless systems are liberal and encorage freedom.
By your logic Christianity is evolutionary superior to almost everything we have because it has survived for 2000 true everything else.

>> No.13576560

>>13576549
did you miss the part where a deified leader means it is not a godless system? Maoist China definitely had a religious fervor about it. Christianity, and many other religions, do serve a function, just like the custom of plucking bugs of your neighbors back and eating them served our tree dwelling ancestors long ago. at a certain point, however, it's time to move on to something better

>> No.13576575

>>13576549
also Stalin used the old belief that the Czar was more than man, that is, a god king and deliberately built up a cult of personality around himself

>> No.13576605

>>13576575
Cult of personality is peek atheism I don't see how that contradicts anything.
>>13576560
So it's your "hopefull" atheist speculation that don't even apply to your own evolutionary logic. Nice.

>> No.13576747

>>13576560
He has a point though - if evolutionary morality is so powerful, why does the entire world follow religions?

>> No.13577789

>>13576346
>the biological drive that manifests as a conscience in non-sociopaths can't just be "no longer followed" because someone chooses so.

Why are people still trying to rationally engage with this highschooler

>> No.13578102

I'm torn with Dostoevsky because I don't like his beliefs or philosophy but he's absolutely wonderful at writing characters and a good story

>> No.13578149

>>13574337
The Old Testament is infested with the remains of the unevolved Jewish religion, new testament is however 100% based

>> No.13578451

>>13576605
peak atheism is a godless constitution and a secular state
>>13576747
people have evolved senses of morality and then create lots of different religions which have their basis in that evolved morality. there is then a process of evolution within those ideas themselves, so, as I've said, religions have played a role in human survival which is why they continue to exist, however it is my contention that since we now have the capacity for abstract thinking and rationality, we can and should dispense with religion. the separation of church and state has been one of the great moral advances of modern time
>>13577789
is it your position that people can just "turn off" their consciences?
>>13578149
new testament introduces the idea of infinite punishment for finite crimes. far from based

>> No.13578542

>>13568227
unless you are praying to the seven headed God of Vishnu you are also going to Hell anon
i know I am right, and you do too but you just refuse to believe because you have been fooled by the eight headed God Gharmadu

>> No.13578543

>>13578451
You have changed "conciousness" to mean "biological imperitive". Conciounsess can't be "followed" when it is only a state of awareness beyond basic sentience. You have set up a argument so autistic I can't begin to argue with you.

You subscribe to some form of weird psycological egoism, you just can't even find the words to articulate it without fumbling over youself conflating conciousness with some biological imperitive.

>> No.13578657

>>13578543
where exactly do you disagree with what I've said? we are products of evolution, the "biological imperative" of consciousness is adaptability. I propose we use that adaptability in the most optimal way with our ability to think abstractly and communicate about ideas. simply recognizing the process that produces consciousness does not diminish the phenomenon. the human brain is an absolute marvel of nature and it's true we don't fully understand it at all, but we do understand the basics of the process that brought it about

>> No.13578695

>Kill someone because you had an hallucination where his son lowkey asked you to kill him
Smerdyakov was clearly psychotic Idk if he could be declared responsible for his own actions

>> No.13578699

>>13578542
based, all the anons in this thread are doomed for not recognizing the true divine, Vishnu

>> No.13578721

>>13578657
You haven't said anything of substance beyond your first post, just rambling about some non-falsifiable system that you hold to be true, no more or less austistic than holding divine command to be true.
You haven't proved there is some "moral" bioligical imperitive or psycological egoism esq system that is inescapabe.

>> No.13578903

>>13578721
all you're doing here is showing your absolute lack of understanding of how evolution works on the group level. do you just deny evolution? do you think it does not shape how the brains of species form? do you deny that certain parts of the brain can be conclusively linked to empathy? you just keep clinging to this idea that it's unfalsifiable like a catchphrase you heard someone a lot smarter than you say once but it doesn't apply here because I'm directly talking about the material world, the realm of the falsifiable

>> No.13578957
File: 17 KB, 495x362, 8F5158C5-AD4A-4508-9663-6AA5DE698B12.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13578957

>>13578903
AAAAA STOP FUCKING SAYING EVOLUTION IM GOING TO FUCKING KILL YOU!!!!!

YOUVE FAILED TO IDENTIFY HOW EVOLUTIONARY MORALITY SAFEGUARDS HUMAN DIGNITY MULTIPLE TIMES NOW AND UNTIL YOU DO IT IS AN INFERIOR SYSTEM TO CHRISTIAN/DEISTIC MORALITY.

JUST STOP SAYING IT YOU FUCKING RETARD AAAAAAAAAAA

>> No.13578988

>>13578903
> do you just deny evolution?

You are so dense. You are making evolution = "moral" biolgical imperitives. You are making conciousness = something that is followed rather than a state of existience.

>I'm directly talking about the material world, the realm of the falsifiable

Then prove your weird evo-morality. Why shouldn't we just engage in drastic eugenics are a prefered form of evolution and exterminate all lesser humans to further this biological ethical goal?

>> No.13578991

>>13578957
"inferior" is not the question. I'm speaking about the facts pertaining to the origin of morality. if you want religion because it gives you a "safeguard" then you are literally admitting you are a small child hopelessly clinging to your safety blanket cause it gives you the good fefes and rejecting what objective observations of reality are showing. I'm stating that it gives you good feelings because you are evolved to value the cohesion of the group. so your desire for the preservation of human dignity is actually a product of evolved morality as well

>> No.13579001

>>13578988
that has been demonstrated to be incompatible with the well being of the desired group. compassion and cooperation are traits that are selected for through the process of evolution. if evolution shows how species become suited to their environment, why do you object that it shows how humans become suited to group living? why do you think there is s disconnect between evolution producing physical traits and evolution producing psychological traits?

>> No.13579010

>>13578991
oh my FUCKING god you are stupid, so so stupid. I don’t give a fuck about the origin of morality, you’re talking about doing away with current moral systems in favour of this vague relativistic psychological egoism but you’ve yet to explain how it safeguards what we currently hold as moral. What stops your morality from evolving into something heinous and horrifying? THATS what I mean by ‘safeguard’ you stupid hook-handed spastic.

>> No.13579030

>>13579001
So we should engage in eugienics to further evolution as this is the moral imperitive?

> why do you think there is s disconnect between evolution producing physical traits and evolution producing psychological traits?

Because morality can not emerge prior to conciousness and free will, it is a result of conciousness. Conciousness is the result of evolution, not morality.

>> No.13579065

>>13578903
Morality does not exist on naturalism
/materialism.

>> No.13579085

>>13579010
the US constitution was a great moral step, going from a divine monarchy system where church and state were intertwined to a secular state which was mandated to be religiously neutral and follow a constitution that makes no reference to god outside of the preamble. you are essentially arguing against that moral progress because it threatens the stability of the established moral standards. I am arguing for a system that is now firmly establish as the best formation of a state known to man, that being a liberal democracy. nothing stops heinous and horrifying things from happening, just look at the history of religion. all I'm doing is being honest about how our morals came to exist, and advocating for a better way to act and live together peacefully

>> No.13579116

>>13579030
eugenics is not compatible with the overall well being of the group, respecting individual rights is, as has been shown by recent history. morality absolutely does emerge before consciousness in the form of vampire bats reciprocating. if you're talking about the cultural enforcement of morality, it by definition requires a culture. but that ability to produce culture is a product of evolved primates who lived for a huge amount of generations in groups with all the pressures that come with that. again, the cultural specifics can change quite rapidly, and a form of evolution occurs on this level whereby the cultural ideas that contribute to the detriment of the group fail and are no longer passed on, and those that aid the group, get passed on and succeed.
>>13579065
culture is produced by human brains, which are part of materialism

>> No.13579150

>>13579116
It doesn't matter if we agree products of the human brain is materialism, it can't be called morality if we accept ought to mean can.

1) A person is not morally responsible for an action he is unable to avoid
2) If naturalism/materialism is true a person's actions are determined by forces outside his control
3) If naturalism/materialism is true a person is unable to avoid any of his actions

Morality can not exist on naturalism/materialism.

>> No.13579373

>>13576346
It's true that our moral ideas are conditioned by culture and biology but that's precisely the problem that Dostoyevski is pointing: since moral rules are not written in the sky but are a mere mechanism to survival and social cohesion, then these mechanisms don't necessarily aim to bring general goodness over all the members. You are asumming that evolution works towards "good", you are enrolling some liberal idea of progress and good in the biological and cultural schemes you've described. As you've said morallity is just a matter of survival, tribalism, reciprocation but these things, as history has proved, can also produce the worst horrors. Your god is now some vague idea of goodness inscribed in all the humans.

>> No.13579401

smerdyakov was so terrifying to me, especially when he killed himself
it was the ultimate malign act that fucked everyone over and denied anyone any justice
but he was also justified in a sense
he's just this fucking evil black mark who sits there and ruins everything in the worst way possible at every turn but i also can't fault him
but the guy gives no shits and will literally kill himself to spite everyone. that's some real shit to me

and i guess he is justified. he's a shitty serf and he just fucks everyone else up

good for him

>> No.13579612

>>13579150
the concept of moral standards still function and are useful even in a deterministic world. consciousness is mysterious and has a massive number of variables and connections meaning a heuristic system of morality whereby individuals are held responsible for their actions is not just beneficial, it is necessary
>>13579373
the worst horrors of eugenics and communism proved to lower their groups survivability. the fact is that if you chart human history, the trend is away from cruel and unusual punishment/oppression and towards respecting individual rights precisely because of it's evolutionary benefit over the alternatives. ideas like trade, capitalism, and democracy are such powerful ideas that they dominate almost the entire globe (even places like China and India adopted many western concepts despite them originally being foreign) you and I both have a conception of the "vague idea of goodness" because that has had evolutionary value

>> No.13579660

>>13579612
>the concept of moral standards still function and are useful even in a deterministic world.

Explain as almost every modern ethicist disagrees with you presuming we accept ought to mean can.

>> No.13579696

>>13579660
moral standards contribute to the success of the group. if you had a group where no one was held accountable for their actions and a group where the individuals were held accountable for their actions, the second group would perform better than the first even in a deterministic setting. what disagreement are you assigning to "every modern ethicist"?

>> No.13579758

>>13579696
We cannot persribe any ought statement if what "can" must be biological imperitives/determinism.
Actions result in consequence, but moral resbonsability cannot exist. An act cannot be moral or immoral if there is no moral agent; a lion killing for food is not moral or immoral because the lion cannot exhibit free will over this act. If persons are bound to the same imperitive we are no longer moral agents, and thus morality cannot exist.

>> No.13579784

Jesus fuck is the atheist in this thread retarded. This is r/atheism levels of cringe. Morality comes from the believe in some sort of afterlife, and in our case it's Christianity. The "secular morality" we have was developed by religious people like Locke, Bacon, Descartes, etc. Even atheists like Voltaire realized religion is important to have so people don't become evil. There's a mountain of evidence to show people can turn evil on their own, evolution or not. Stanford experiment, Milgram experiment, Ordinary Men by Christopher Browning. This is what happens when you favour rationalizing over actual concrete evidence.

>> No.13579795

>>13579758
the complexity of the human brain is such that it can interact with cultural norms and operate under the system of responsibility even in a deterministic world. the concept of personal responsibility contributes to the success of the group because, even if in a strictly deterministic way, it acts to influence it's members future behavior. again, to recap, we have an evolved innate conscience which combines with our social setting and is further refined by active thinking and reasoning. the problem is that we cannot keep all factors in mind when thinking about determinism, and as a result most people reduce the complexity of the situation when speaking of determinism, purely because there are too many complex interactions for our brains to fully conceptualize or realize

>> No.13579800

>>13579784
"people only act morally because they want a reward in the afterlife"
is that even morality?

>> No.13579804

>>13579696
Further from >>13579758 you have loaded your satement saying the second group would prefom "better". What material evidence proves this to be "better"? This is the problem with determinism/naturalism, you load your "descriptive" statements with normatives ones.

>> No.13579810

>>13579804
group cohesion would contribute to efficiency in a whole range of areas ultimately resulting in higher survivability among other things

>> No.13579819

>>13579810
You haven't answered why this is better.

>> No.13579835

>>13579819
measured along lines of survivability which is the base line for the system we know operates on living things

>> No.13579839

>>13579835
Still hasn't answered the question. Why should this be followed? We could easily say the operation of living things is wrong.

>> No.13579846

>>13579839
yeah, but we are made up of biological drives that compel us to survive and those who disagree, fail to survive and are omitted from future iterations of the system

>> No.13579858

>>13579846
This doesn't mean either is better or worse.

>> No.13579864

>>13579858
it means better in regards to continuing to exist, which is the context I used the word in

>> No.13579872

>>13579864
If you are making the claim that we can and should pursue this goal it is a normative statement, not a descriptive one based on evidence or the material.

>> No.13579887

>>13579864
You’ve been getting cataclysmically BTFO for the entire thread, why are you still arguing against people who are so obviously smarter than you?

>> No.13579899

>>13579872
I'm saying we will, and in fact must, otherwise we or the people who believe so, will exit the process of existing. you and I are the offspring of people who were inclined to pursue moral, group cohesion, therefore we are also inclined that way. and if you have a genetic mutation that compels you to do otherwise, you are less likely to procreate, but on the larger scale the group that has too many members that have inclinations against group cohesion fail and cease to exist

>> No.13579904

>>13579887
nice demonstration of group solidarity anon, but you may want to develop your ability to interact with outgroups

>> No.13579923

>>13579904
kek, the amount of insane babble he’s come out with is honestly astounding. Even at my cringiest atheist phase, I was never this bad

>> No.13579928

>>13579899
If we must pursure this goal, than it is not a goal it is an imperitive consequence of existing and actions that result or don't result in the prusuing of this goal are not without morality. For morality to exist there must be a moral agent.

>> No.13579930

>>13579923
again, maybe one of your future phases will include the ability to talk with and respect people with other view points. one can only hope.

>> No.13579939

>>13579928
are without morality*

>> No.13579945

>>13579928
the language of "goal" and "intention" function because of how the human brain works. we have the ability to conceptualize the future which influences how we act in the present even if it is deterministically. consciousness adds a layer of complexity which operates as if the individual is making decisions, but we know that these decisions are directly informed by biological systems

>> No.13579956

>>13579945
>but we know that these decisions are directly informed by biological systems

Obviosuly we are informed by biological systems, this isn't relevant. External factors having influence over your acts isn't a rejection of morality, but determinism is. If there is no individual actor who has agency over the act there can be no morality or moral responsability, ever act just is. There is no goals, mistakes, acts that are justified, etc. there just is what exists in nature/material. You seem to have very little understand of materialism/descriptive statements vs normative as well as determinism as even in your own statement you contradict yourself.

>individual is making decisions
There are no decisions within determinsm.

>> No.13579982

>>13579956
I said it operates "as if" individuals are making decisions. there is the subjective experience of making a decision, but the decision itself is just the culmination of multiple previous deterministic processes. again, goals, mistakes, learning, it all still operates on the hardware of the brain even in a deterministic world.

>> No.13579997

>>13579930
Wait, I thought you were being ironic when you said ‘outgroups’, oh my God hahaha, you really are autistic

>> No.13580000

>>13579982
So it isn't a decision, do not refer to it as such.

>again, goals, mistakes, learning, it all still operates on the hardware of the brain even in a deterministic world.

No they do not, unless you also say a tree operates with the "goal" of produce apples, or a rock is responsable for rolling down a hill. The tree and the rock are not morally responsable for what occurs as a result of their exisience. The same is true for us if we accept determinism to be true.

>> No.13580080

>>13580000
human beings make plans, trees do not. are you asserting that plans cannot exist in a deterministic framework? this is what I was referring to with the extra layer of complexity that a human mind brings. human beings form goals they they work towards in a psychological way that is still compatible with a deterministic world

>> No.13580087

>>13579997
whatever helps you cope, anon

>> No.13580104

>>13580080
>human beings make plans, trees do not. are you asserting that plans cannot exist in a deterministic framework?

Yes, plans cannot exists in a determistic framework. You cannot plan for anything, because what is to happen will happen. There is no "can" within determinism. Again you contradict yourself if you beleive determinism to be true;

>human beings form goals they they work towards in a psychological way

No, there is just a future that will result. No goal can exist or be worked towards. There is an inevitable destination. This is why morality is not compatible with determinism, and ever modern ethicist agrees with this.

>> No.13580162

>>13580104
it is not a contradiction of determinism for individuals to form conceptions of the future based on information they have access to. it is a product of a human brain that by all observations is comprised entirely of material components that are subject to the laws of the material universe. humans are predetermined to develop imaginations and use them within very particular ways as that is the capacity of their brains

>> No.13580165

I really love Alyosha, bros.

>> No.13580178

>>13573670
The american slave had it better than the french peasant who had it better than the russian serf.

>> No.13580204

>>13580162
>it is not a contradiction of determinism for individuals to form conceptions of the future based on information they have access to

There are no conceptions of the future within determinism. There can be what individuals believe to be conceptions, but there is only one future. Any information concieved from false conceptualization is irrelevant, the same future will result. You again contradict yourself later and display your ignornace on this topic;

>humans are predetermined to develop imaginations and use them within very particular ways as that is the capacity of their brains

There can be no "use" within determinism, there just is. Use of something requires an agent acting towards a purpose/objective. A rock does not use the hill to roll to the bottom, they just exist and result in an inevitable consequence. There can be no objective within determinism only what is. You are however doing a great job demonstrating why determinism is so austistic and those who believe it can even help but contradict themselves.

>> No.13580233

>>13580204
individuals with "false conceptions" of the future but which are closer to the truth than others will survive. therefore false conceptions can contribute to survival. this is what I refer to when I say "useful". information can accumulate in the collective reservoir of a group of humans and the closer that is to that actual objective truth the more likely that group is to survive. determinism does not diminish the complexity of the systems that comprise the human mind and the capacities it holds

>> No.13580242

>>13580204
just a side note, would you object if I used the phrase "an ant uses it's antenna to help it move around"?

>> No.13580279

>>13580233
Truth is irrelevant within determinism.

> false conceptions "can" contribute to survival
> information "can" accumulate in the collective reservoir of a group of humans


Again you contradict yourself. There is no "can". There is only what will happen. "Can" accepts that there are alternatives. You like many others can't escape rejection of determinism when trying to justify it, because determinism in and of itself rejection the concept of something being justified.

This isn't a controversial subject in philosophy. There is a reason the vast majority of phisolsphers/ethicists are not determinists, and the small percentage that exists will reject normative statements (though most modern philosphers argue this is impossible as you must accept some basic forms of logic to even reach this position which are normative statements themselves).

>> No.13580299

>>13580279
our conversation operates within the framework of our flawed, incomplete knowledge, thus the word "can" is appropriate. I don't see how this contradicts determinism

>> No.13580326

>>13580242
>would you object if I used the phrase "an ant uses it's antenna to help it move around"?

To use this statment we as agents ourselves must presume the ant to have a goal, but without out an agent no, there is no "goal" of nature there just is unless you say the ant has a desired goal and is not just operating based on a imperitive.

>>13580299

Because by engaging in concepts like "can" or "responsibility" you are rejecting determinism. Again, not a controversial subject in philosophy, please just do more reading before you turn in Sam Harris.

>> No.13580379

>>13580178
>American education

>> No.13580536

>>13580165
Who's better, Alyosha or Myshkin?

>> No.13580697

>>13579612
>you and I both have a conception of the "vague idea of goodness"

And people like you and me are also capable of extreme violence given the circunstances. I mostly agree with your description of morallity as the sum of culture and biology but still you don't seem to grasp the problem proposed by Dostoyevski. Why one should care about all these restrictions when you are tecnically free to do whatever you want?

>inb4 because people tend to be good

This modernist project that sees humans as deterministic machines that only need to behave in certain way and follow some steps to achieve happiness was also debunked by Dosto.

>> No.13581501

>>13580326
I don't see why a deterministic universe would be barred from having highly complex brains that had the belief that they had free will. if it is a survival advantage for an individual to have inferences about the future arise in it's brain as long as those inferences were at least partially true, then through evolutionary pressures you would have brains with a more and more accurate function of making inferences about the future. carry this to the complexity of the modern human and you have a deterministic evolutionary system giving rise to individuals that receive sensory input and transform that into psychological inferences about the future. I agree that within the subjective experience of such a brain it feels as though you have agency, and as such when language developed it reflected that subjective experience, but that subjective experience doesn't prove or even give any weight to the prospect that we are free agents who can act outside of how our genes and out side influences had primed us to act

>> No.13581512

>>13580697
can you arbitrarily form your own values? and if not, why could you arbitrarily drop values that are evolutionarily baked into you in the form of a conscience?

>> No.13581794

>>13581512
>why could you arbitrarily drop values that are evolutionarily baked into you in the form of a conscience?

because we aren't perfect machines and our inner world is extremely complex