[ 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: 151 KB, 671x900, 72885772.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16143059 No.16143059[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

>>'Boo, I don't like that!'
>>'Yay, I like that!'

Is this all there is to morality?

>> No.16143066

No it‘s more like „this feels right“, „this feels wrong“. The issue with focusing on what we like is that sometimes we start to like destructive things in order to not go insane by the sheer amount of destructive things surrounding us.

>> No.16143069

>>16143059
Low effort post. Jannies clean it up

>> No.16143071

>>16143059
No, that’s all there is without morality. If you don’t like something, and there is morality, you can still be forced to tolerate it, because of moral imperatives. If, however, there is no morality, no obligations or rights, then you are free to enforce what you like and what you don’t like

>> No.16143074

In the postmodern world yes. People don't even question their actions, and take the law of the government to be the objective moral, many such cases!

>> No.16143078

>>16143069
You really think so? This is a perennial problem in philosophy.

>> No.16143079

>>16143059
sometimes there is a middle ground.
>i like that but only half of it

>> No.16143092

>>16143078
Don‘t listen to him he‘s one of those fiction fags who hate on philosophy threads because „le rules clearly state it has to be about a specific author or book“.

>> No.16143095

>I just read an introductory book on ethics, found out what emotivism is, and now I'm going to make a thread pretending that I'm profound and intelligent and nobody else has thought about this

>> No.16143099

>>16143071
Approbation and blame form a necessary part of morality. The're not outside it, they are the very first principles of it.

>> No.16143102

>>16143092
really?
i can't even tell if OP was trying to make fun of philosophy or not.

>> No.16143104

>>16143095
>i‘m going to act smug instead of encouraging people that are just starting out with philosophy by giving them the possibility to discuss their insights
Anon pls

>> No.16143107
File: 303 KB, 358x474, 1594784838499.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16143107

>>16143059
Non-cognitavistism is the dumbest of all metaethical positions.

>> No.16143108

>>16143092
Yeah, there's been an uptick of those recently.

>> No.16143121

>>16143095
>>16143107
Give us a syllogism which establishes your position.

>> No.16143125

>>16143104
Posting a vague question like 'is morality real?' is not going to lead to a fruitful discussion. All you'll get is a bunch of low effort assertions like >>16143107 as shown in this thread.

Do some basic reading, then come back and ask a more specific question if you want to get anywhere.

>> No.16143141

>>16143121
>Give us a syllogism which establishes your position.
What the fuck does that even mean? A syllogism doesn't establish a position. It is a logical structure, or argument for a specific claim based on a set of premises.

>> No.16143147

>>16143092
This is a "philosophy" thread? Wow how little effort goes into the bullshit you believe in.

>> No.16143156

>>16143147
kek

>> No.16143166

>>16143066
Morality is not about your feefees.

>> No.16143175

>>16143141
Holy fucking shit, do you not know what the word 'position' means? Let me spell it out for you: it means that you maintain the truth or falsity of some proposition. Now that I've explained the concept to you in a more autistic manner, are you going to give us an argument or not?

>> No.16143178

>>16143099
I don’t think that’s true, but even if it is, is it not more obvious that if morality is not real I have all the right in the world (that is, since there is no reason I should not) to blame people who do what I don’t like? It very clearly exists outside of morality, also.
Anyways my point is, all arguments that one should not force what one like upon others is based upon morality, all rights and obligations are. If there’s no morality, I have no obligation not to force others to my will, and they have no right not to be forced by me. Arguments for such things, like that of Locke, are based on morality firstly. Now, obviously, forcing people not to force their own goals unto other is in itself an act of forcing ones goal unto others, so this is the case for morality too, but it equally exists outside of morality

>> No.16143190

>>16143059
Yep.

>> No.16143205

>>16143178
Right, there are some acts of blaming which, assuming morality, would be more 'correct' or 'just' than other ones. The same goes for acts of praise.

>> No.16143206
File: 51 KB, 853x480, 1595303802634.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
16143206

>>16143121
Why would i when OP has failed to do the same? All he deserves is derision until he stops being an intellectual free rider.

>> No.16143210

>>16143206
Darling, questions aren't propositions.

>> No.16143258

>>16143205
Sure (as long as the morality doesn’t make it an obligation not to clearly blame), then, but people would also blame others for not conforming to their will without morality (why would they not? They have absolutely no obligation not to anyways). Without morality, I can simply say that all that goes against my will is to be blamed as wrong.