What is the point of being moral if we're all morally inconsistent?

[Anonymous No.21961605]

Any books on this?

[Anonymous No.21961626]

>>21961605
What’s the point of washing my dick cheese if it just comes back? Idk maybe it’s nice not being covered in dick cheese all the time.

[Anonymous No.21961642]

>>21961626
But we can't help but being morally inconsistent. It's not something we fix when we find it. It's just how we are.

[Anonymous No.21961644]

>>21961605
What's the point of flushing the toilet when it's just going to end up full the next time I use it?
What's the point in talking to people when there's always the risk of misinterpretation?

[Anonymous No.21961649]

>>21961644
See >>21961642
You can't fix being morally inconsistent, ever. Inconsistency implies everything goes, by the principle of explosion.

[Anonymous No.21961656]

>>21961649
>Inconsistency implies everything goes, by the principle of explosion.
I don't follow. How does our inconsistency undermine the validity of moral principles?

[Anonymous No.21961657]

>>21961642
Idk but if this was the tribal era I would kill you and take your sisters as sex slaves.

[Anonymous No.21961660]

>>21961656
Google "principle of explosion".

[Anonymous No.21961674]

>>21961660
I don't see how that's relevant. If it's wrong to murder, then it's wrong to murder independent of our actual conduct.

[Anonymous No.21961676]

>>21961674
Okay so if we hold views X and not X, i.e. we hold inconsistent positions, then by the principle of explosion, all propositions are true.
=> It's true that murder is good.
=> It's true that murder is bad.
=> It's true that raping you and your family is good
Etc.

[Anonymous No.21961683]

>>21961642
>>21961649
>>21961660
>>21961676
Avatarfagging is a rule violation and by the principle of explosion => Dilate.

[Anonymous No.21961686]

>>21961676
People can hold positions for wrong reasons.

[Anonymous No.21961696]

How can we go to work if we don’t go to work always? How can we tell the truth if we don’t always? How can we diet if we don’t always keep our diet? How can use the toilet if we’re Hindu? How can we not be a faggot if we’re OP?

[Anonymous No.21961713]

>>21961605
Who is we? Are you talking about hypocrisy or disagreement?

[Anonymous No.21961720]

>>21961696
See >>21961676
>>21961713
We is all humans, and neither.

[Anonymous No.21961739]

>>21961720
I don't see how this isn't a problem for everything besides morality. People have inconsistent positions about the answer to 2+2. What happens to mathematics?

[Anonymous No.21961758]

>>21961739
If you firmly believe 2+2=5 then math does fall apart, yes, in your framework. It's the same for morality.

[Anonymous No.21961776]

>>21961758
All it takes for the framework to collapse is for someone to hold a sincere belief that contradicts someone else's sincere belief?

[Anonymous No.21961785]

>>21961776
All frameworks are subjective mental constructs. If your framework has inconsistencies then it falls apart. I'm saying everyone's moral framework is unfixably inconsistent, or at least almost everyone's.

[Anonymous No.21961790]

>>21961785
>All frameworks are subjective mental constructs.
This is trivially true insofar as all of our beliefs are filtered through our minds.
>If your framework has inconsistencies then it falls apart.
Internal or external inconsistencies?

[Anonymous No.21961793]

>>21961758
>If you firmly believe 2+2=5 then math does fall apart,
All that happens is a symbolic rearrangement. Maths remains the same. 5 becomes the symbol that represents the same as what 4 previously represented. The only question then is not a matter of belief, but of whether you understand what each is referring to.

[Anonymous No.21961800]

>>21961790
I mean your beliefs have bearing on my framework and vice versa.
>Internal or external inconsistencies?
What's the difference?
>>21961793
Bad example then. I mean if you believe 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 at the same time.

[Anonymous No.21961807]

>>21961800
>I mean if you believe 2+2=4 and 2+2=5 at the same time.
All this would mean is that 4 and 5 are two equivalent symbols, in the same way that one and 1 are equivalent symbols. What you're attempting to do is violate the principle of identity, not mathematics as such (mathematics is of course predicated upon that principle). It's not very highbrow, and all mathematicians already acknowledge the principle of identity as a necessary presupposition for the validity of mathematical truths.

[Anonymous No.21961813]

>>21961800
Not every inconsistency is a justified inconsistency. People can be sincerely wrong in holding a belief.
>What's the difference?
Who believes that murder is wrong and murder is right at the same time?

[Anonymous No.21961815]

>>21961807
You're talking about ways to square consistencies by relabeling symbols, but that's not what I'm talking about. 4 is 4 in that example, not just a relabel of 5. I'm talking about an actual inconsistency.
>>21961813
>Who believes that murder is wrong and murder is right at the same time?
Almost everyone would press a button to kill 10+ people instead of themselves if they were forced to choose.

[Anonymous No.21961833]

>>21961815
We would have to ask those people why they think that murder is wrong and why they made that choice. I would likely disagree with their reasons, but this doesn't necessarily indicate an internal inconsistency.

[Anonymous No.21961839]

>>21961833
If there's no internal inconsistency then there most likely will be something horrifically wrong with their moral framework that leads to think their life is more valuable than almost everyone else's.

[Anonymous No.21961845]

>>21961839
I agree, but this sort of deranged ethics doesn't undermine morality as such. The point of being moral and asking questions of morality is so that we can explain and eliminate these inconsistencies as much as possible.

[Anonymous No.21961850]

>>21961845
Maybe the problem is different then. Almost everyone would behave immorally when it's most convenient and they would feel justified, even given lots of time to think it over. I think this undermines why we should care about morality if ultimately we'd all act immorally if it's too inconvenient.

[Anonymous No.21961863]

>>21961850
>Almost everyone would behave immorally when it's most convenient and they would feel justified, even given lots of time to think it over.
I disagree. I don't think it takes much to recognize that there are greater goods than personal convenience, such as truth.
Your argument, in my eyes, is precisely why we should care about morality. We need to think about morality so that we recognize greater goods than personal convenience.

[Anonymous No.21961872]

>>21961863
Definitely it's just about convenience in certain cases, e.g. killing others to save yourself like in the button scenario I gave. That's not really morally justifiable unless you just value yourself over others or believe something similar. If so, then you might as well just have a moral framework that's maximally convenient to yourself.

[Anonymous No.21961873]

>>21961872
Yes, and the point of being moral and asking questions of morality is to make people recognize why valuing personal convenience above human life like that is wrong.
Far from undermining moral frameworks, your scenario demonstrates why we need to think in moral frameworks and challenge each other's frameworks.

[Anonymous No.21961886]

>>21961873
How can people be convinced that being moral is good when it doesn't benefit them?

[Anonymous No.21961888]

>>21961886
By having them recognize that the world doesn't revolve around them and that other people exist.

[Anonymous No.21961961]

>>21961888
How would you convince someone to not press the button to have others killed over themself being killed?

[Anonymous No.21961970]

>>21961961
By telling them that the most moral choice is to refrain from pressing the button, because this is the only option that does not implicate them in choosing one life over another.

[Anonymous No.21962961]

>>21961657
Totally ethical.