/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.15830789]

I read a book about ethics and have become convinced of certain arguments, but I am also convinced of my intuitions, for example

>A: there is no objective morality
>B: it is wrong to exploit others

How do you deal with reason and sense conflicting?

Is there a point to doing philosophy if you're going to ignore the answers and claim that intuition must take precedence?

[Anonymous No.15830801]

Also how do you deal with this in politics, as in communism? It's correct in theory but fails in practice. Any way to reconcile the two?

[Anonymous No.15830818]

>A: there is no objective morality
>B: it is wrong to exploit others
Well in the first sentence you said morality is subjective, yet in the second sentence you gave an objective morality statement.

[Anonymous No.15830903]

>>15830818
Yes, they are contradictory, that's the entire point of this post...

[Anonymous No.15831017]

>>15830789
But B is obviously false

[Anonymous No.15831778]

>>15830789
both are false

[Anonymous No.15831799]

>>15830789
What convinces you there is no objective morality?

I'm pretty convinced of one.

[Anonymous No.15831835]

>>15830789
it is not necessarily wrong to exploit others. You instinctively view it as wrong because it usually leads to bad consequences for yourself. That’s why we’re much more willing to exploit animals. That’s not to say that there is no objective morality, only that morality is not necessarily permanent or universal. Objective morality is ultimately derived from your subjective preferences. For example, it may be objectively moral for me to exercise even if I don’t feel like exercising today, because by exercising I may maximize my well-being in my life

[Anonymous No.15831867]

>>15830801
ethics are for an individual. communism is a collectivist ideology preached by sociopaths

[Anonymous No.15832024]

Intuition is above reason and emotion.

[Anonymous No.15832054]

>>15831017
>>15831778
t. lives in a society

[Anonymous No.15832298]

>>15831799
The sceptical argument, the is-ought gap, the fact/value distinction, the naturalistic fallacy etc. etc.

[Anonymous No.15832358]

Well, if you take the presuposition that all arguments are based on a subjective view of reality and that each of them has some "truth value" depending on the context you won't suffer much with contradictions/apparent contradictions. That's the viewpoint that I tend to "use" because of pragmatic reasons.

This isn't teenage-like-relativisim though, while some opinions may have some truth value that truth might be buried under a ton of shit.

[Anonymous No.15832367]

>>15831799
What convinced you that objective morality exists?

[Anonymous No.15832379]

>>15830789
>A: there is no objective morality
This is wrong
>B: it is wrong to exploit others
Define exploit
Your morality is totally not thought through and literally just the typical morality of the day

[Anonymous No.15832380]

>>15832024
Why, what does that even mean to be "above" intangible concepts. Are they so firmly defined that you can arrange them in a hierarchy? Why is there a hierarchy even if they are real things?

[Anonymous No.15832388]

>>15832024
Prove it

[Anonymous No.15832399]

[Anonymous No.15832410]

Morality is just practical reason put into action. Stop reading the cope of degenerates.

[Anonymous No.15832428]

>>15830789
Being able to argue convincingly doesn't make what someone is saying true

[Anonymous No.15832493]

>>15832379
>Your morality is totally not thought through
That was an example, or a simplified version of my belief, which if you wanted a 'thought through' version, plenty of books have been written about.

>>15832428
>someone proves you wrong
>"na bro i'm still right, you're just better at arguing"

[Anonymous No.15832803]

>>15832493
>plenty of books have been written about.
Yikes. Like I said, "literally just the typical morality of the day." Unless those books are by Catholic Saints and the morality is natural law

[Anonymous No.15833173]

>>15832367
The functional structure of neural networks.