/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.2263543]

If you are a rationalist, sceptic, basically a learned person you have to accept moral relativism.

Face it. Stop lying to yourself coward just to feel better or conform to contemporary social standard.

Morality has it's role but it's just a tool humanity (and other species) use for their fairly primitive ends.

[▒ R E I ▒ !Ry9.23Wow. No.2263546]

I ASSUME THAT THE ORIGINAL POSTER FEELS "PROUD" OF WHAT HE TYPED.

[Dr. Seussicide (SLAF) No.2263550]

>>2263546
You are literally the worst.

[Anonymous No.2263552]

>>2263546
Regardless what OP feels I bet you have nothing on him christfag.

[Anonymous No.2263562]

Down is not really down, does it make a fucking difference?

[Anonymous No.2263566]

i don't need to do anything because i don't accept that human thought is meaningful/relevant

[Ticklish !!wWB+eshITQR No.2263571]

agree w/ u my bro.

Hume proved this centuries ago. Non-cognitivists reiterated the same point. Nietzsche showed us how to fucking deal with it. Ethical nihilism is 'okay'

[Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ No.2263573]

>you know its truel.jpg
I know its true that that man needs to be hung.

[Anonymous No.2263574]

>>2263566
From my experience it's morality that is actually limiting humans in what they do. Not lack of it.

Checkmate, atheists.

[Anonymous No.2263588]

>>2263574
that's sort of the point of it, isn't it?

Morality limiting your actions to those that are "good", or at least limit the actions you take that are "bad".

Obviously not having the limit of morality leaves you with a larger possible subset of choices.

[Anonymous No.2263592]

Personally, I'm a fan of the "Don't be a dick" philosophy. Its probably too deep for most of you 4channers to comprehend though.

[Anonymous No.2263595]

I'm educated and I don't accept moral relativism.

[Anonymous No.2263598]

Never let your sense of morals prevent you from doing what is right.

[Anonymous No.2263603]

HOW DARE YOU POST A PICTURE OF THAT GENOCIDAL MOTHERFUCK HENRY KISSINGER GRAHHHHH HARR BLAAAAAAA

[Anonymous No.2263609]

>>2263592
The irony is killing me.

>>2263598
That statement makes absolutely no sense.

>>2263595
You seem like a pretty dope solipsist. Don't let the reality ruin your fun, bro.

[Anonymous No.2263610]

if nothing has meaning, why is morality bad?

Checkmate etc

[Anonymous No.2263612]

I adhere to the categorical imperative.

[Anonymous No.2263614]

>>2263574
Morality of a certain sort; basic shit like "thou shall not kill" we would have got NOWEHERE without

[Anonymous No.2263616]

>>2263609
Calm yourself young padawan.

[Anonymous No.2263619]

>>2263595
As an educated faggot, I surmise that you need a good bumming

[Anonymous No.2263621]

>>2263543

Not necessarily, there are plenty of viable ethical theories around now a days. The state of ethics is not nearly as simple as you make it out to be.

I personally like W. D. Ross' argument for "prima facie" morals, from "The Right and the Good".

[Anonymous No.2263625]

>>2263614
>thou shall not kill
>theoretical deity of bible kills entire planet's life with flood, kills individuals, supports genocide
>people kill people throught their history en masse
>animals kill people and non people
>people kill animals
>we would have got NOWEHERE without

[Anonymous No.2263629]

>>2263543
You are wrong; morality is inherent to mankind: ethical reasoning can be relative, but morality can not be reasoned. There is no universal morality, no break between "good" and "evil" that can be applied to the entire world, but everyone has its own set of moral values.
This guy >>2263592 knows what he is talking

[Anonymous No.2263628]

>>2263625

Seriously. I always laugh when people say this. Sometimes some people just have to die.

[Anonymous No.2263633]

>>2263543

> If rational, skeptical people with an education believe it, then it must be true!

You're boring me op.

[OP No.2263655]

I see you guys fail to apprehend one simple point I am trying to make. It's not about what you like or don't like, what you would like to see as factual or not. It's about the truth.

Your denial is a defensive mechanism because you are too scared of reality.

[Anonymous No.2263651]

>>2263628
>>2263625
I wasn't meaning the biblical sense, though of course I'm a retard who can't into communication.
I meant the societal bond between humans and many other mammals which enables us to be confident of each others support and therefore progress to civilisations.
Its morality any way you look at it, yet where would you be without it (and the other more complex moral rules humans have)

[Anonymous No.2263665]

>>2263655
>I see you guys fail to apprehend one simple point I am trying to make. It's not about what you like or don't like, what you would like to see as factual or not. It's about the truth.
>the truth
>truth
Alright, well, I guess every other philosopher and anyone with a differing opinion can go home. OP's got us beat.

[Anonymous No.2263677]

>thread about moral relativism
>appeals to truth

4/10

You had me going there for a couple minutes.

[Anonymous No.2263680]

>>2263655

How can you expect us to accept your views as the "truth" when you haven't given us an argument for them? You're not making a point, but a baseless assertion.

[Anonymous No.2263683]

>>2263655
>Your denial is a defensive mechanism because you are too scared of reality.
>You have to be trolling.
I already told you (>>2263629) why you are wrong.
The fact that there are no moral standards (in the idealistic sense) does not mean that there are no moral values in people. For example: if I kill someone, I feel bad because it is against my moral values .

[Anonymous No.2263682]

I agree with you OP, but I don't think calling people who disagree 'cowards' and simplifying their difference in belief to 'lying to themselves' is going to convince them over to this side.

[real OP No.2263695]

>>2263683
>The fact that there are no moral standards
That's not what moral relativism means.

[Anonymous No.2263702]

>it's role
stopped reading there. retard.

[Anonymous No.2263711]

>>2263702
>no capital letter's
>calling other's retard's

[Jeff Mangum Died For Your Sins !rAl8Mz2mp2 No.2263729]

>discussing morality without mentioning neuroscience or biology
>two thousand and eleven

Morality is just the word we ascribe to human solidarity, which evolved in us having been necessary to our survival. It's innate, like our need for sex. The entire thing can be summed up in just a few word: Be kind to those in your tribe. We wouldn't have survived this long without this biological imperative that everyone, aside from sociopaths and psychopaths, shares.

Stop making it more complicated than it is.

[Anonymous No.2263743]

At least Kissinger was transparent about his motives...he didn't make a pretense of saying that the US really valued things like freedom and democracy, or religious belief, or any of the other convenient lies most politicians say to make the reality of their actions more palatable to the masses. It's just about power, and finding ways to expand/manage your power and the external forms are mere superficial accoutrements. No serious politician cares about freedom or democracy. No serious business cares about the quality of the working conditions or how well the workers are treated. Everything (well, a lot of things) are predicated on using the means that give you the greatest advantage over others.

[OP No.2263763]

>>2263743
I would say it's not the transparency of motives of american statesmen that is deteriorating but the aggregate IQ and education of amurkan public. That may give you a false impression of Kissinger's conduct. I must confess, though, that singling out 'K' out of the sea of sharks is pitiful.

[Anonymous No.2263775]

>>2263729
thank you

[Anonymous No.2263781]

>>2263729
Why does it seem that philosophy only makes headway when science makes progress?

[Anonymous No.2263840]

>rationalist
>sceptic
>learned person

Those three categories are not of necessity synonomous