[ 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: 88 KB, 750x1000, flat,750x,075,f-pad,750x1000,f8f8f8.u1.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23367587 No.23367587 [Reply] [Original]

>study moral philosophy for 4 years trying to establish a rational ground for moral actions
>realise Nietzsche was right all along

>> No.23367605

>>23367587
Can happen.

Write a novella about your current situation. Don't forget to add some sex

>> No.23367723

Morals are unique to the individual.

>> No.23367782

>>23367723
This is the conclusion every rationalist eventually arrives at, as if it were redeeming. At the end of the day you can't insist on calling behaviour 'bad' or 'good' without admitting that it only has meaning to yourself. As a personal code of living it works I suppose, but calling it morality is more cope than anything. Might as well just say "people do what they want, and the universe has nothing to say about it". Why not just warp your morality to suit yourself? After all if you are convinced that is perfectly righteous then there is no intrinsic standard to say otherwise. We probably do that to an extent already. The real answer isnt made for a rationalist to swallow: "I have blind faith in my own sense of right and wrong, and although i claim no objectivity i can only hope to function in the way i trust as the best". Which neatly brings us to the final flaw of rationalism: the ultimate lesson to be drawn from the history of western philosophy is that if you take rationalist precepts to heart, good thought will eventually lead you to be skeptical about EVERYTHING. If you want certainty you must BELIEVE, you must have faith. This was the ultimate genius of st augustine. "Believe so that you may understand". All knowledge follows from some faith, otherwise the only thing certain is your own consciousness.

>> No.23367793

>>23367587
Well, you did accomplish something then.

>> No.23367800

I love breasts

>> No.23367826

>>23367587
There are two alternatives, really.
Religion and Nietzsche.

Nietzsche is not a "threat to religious morality". Nietzsche is a threat to secular forms of morality.

>> No.23367883

>>23367826
just read Nietzche instead of regurgitating half baked thought terminating dogmas that insulate your thought from criticism. It's beyond me how many awful opinions there are concerning nietzche, nobody should talk about him for any reason at all ever

>> No.23367906

>>23367883
Uh? What I have said is nothing that has not being said before.

The challenge for Nietzsche was morality in a world without the belief in God. How to not fall in nihilism.

>> No.23367926

>>23367906
read my post again until you understand it

>> No.23367936

>>23367926
Well, I don't understand your point, so write more clearly.
What I have said is in line with what someone like Alasdair MacIntyre said. That Nietzsche "demolished" Enlightenment style ethics. That there are two alternatives, Nietzsche and Teleology (which, IMO, is not possible without the existence of religion).
Would you say MacIntyre is ignorant?

>> No.23367938

>>23367906
>Uh?
Effeminate communication style.
>has not being said
Horrible grammar. Possibly ESL.

>> No.23367945

>>23367938
Maybe so, but you didn't prove me wrong did you, mon chéri?

>> No.23367959

>>23367587
So you're both retards? Got it. I mean it's not really hard to establish a rational ground for moral actions. And no i won't elaborate since I got better things to do, just telling you that it's out there if you try harder.

>> No.23367962

should have studied metaphysics, that's what you get for trying to cheat. How can you talk about what good action is if you don't think about what the good is?

>> No.23367981

>>23367587
>study moral philosophy for 4 years trying to establish a rational ground for moral actions
>realise Jesus was right all along and ask for his forgiveness

it's that easy bros. Praise the Lord

>> No.23367990

>>23367800
Boobie dubs confirms, this guy loves breasts

>> No.23368076

>>23367587
Then you didn't try very hard. Ethics is straightworwardly analogous to logic:
Ethics is to proper action (oriented towards goodness) as logic is to proper thought (oriented towards truth). Both are inherently normative disciplines, so any supposed trouble with normativity in ethics carry over to logic, robbing you of the basis for a rational objection. Grounding ethics is no more or less problematic than grounding logic; both disciplines are sui generis and cannot be grounded in anything outside of themselves. All that ethics requires is forming a basic concept of the good (positive valence states) by rational reflection and avoiding special pleading when applying its manifest significance to action, i.e. without attributing metaphysical import to what is just a difference in epistemic access.

>> No.23368084

>>23368076
this. simple stuff OP, jeez

>> No.23368209

>>23368076
>i.e. without attributing metaphysical import to what is just a difference in epistemic access
but everyone has a different level of epistemic access

>> No.23368280
File: 35 KB, 922x529, 1715272051546.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23368280

>study moral philosophy
>still can't solve the trolley problem
And this is why science is better than philosophy.

>> No.23368316

>>23368280
Got solved tho

>> No.23368345

>>23368209
So what? Are you a solipsist just because you only have direct access to your own mental states? The difference in epistemic access prevents others' valence states from being inherently, directly motivating to you n the way your own states are, but given that you understand the relation between valence and proper action in your own case, a purely indexical difference with respect to the referent of 'I' is metaphysically empty and cannot itself rationally ground differential treatment.

>> No.23368539

>>23368076
>Grounding ethics is no more or less problematic than grounding logic
Ok, so how do you ground either/both? Why should I do anything?

>> No.23368577

>>23368539
>should
There's your problem. Prescriptivism eats its own tail until there's nothing left of itself. Only the smiling watcher endures. Judging nothing, experiencing everything

>> No.23368601
File: 28 KB, 652x1000, 41pzcachX9L._AC_UF1000,1000_QL80_.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
23368601

You guys are referring to "morals" but that's not a thing as Nietzsche rightly pointed out. The Greeks didn't have this issue, so virtue ethics solves what Nietzsche criticized because virtue is about human excellence not morals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_Moral_Philosophy
Read pic to understand MMP.

>> No.23368817

>>23368577
I agree, but >>23368076 clearly doesn't, throwing around "positive valence states"
>>23368601
"Excellence" implies a definition of the good and thence a means of moral judgment and thence a moral system

>> No.23368818

>>23368539
Ok, so how do you ground either/both?
You don't. What do you think the problem is? Appeal to the principle that everything needs to be grounded? How do you ground that? The problem only arises if you try to chase your tail, so stop.
>Why should I do anything?
Because it is good. What other reason could there be?

>> No.23368827

>>23367826
Agree

>> No.23368912

>>23368817
>"Excellence" implies a definition of the good and thence a means of moral judgment and thence a moral system
You're retarded. Being excellent at chess isn't a moral judgment but having the ability to beat others.

>> No.23368924

>>23367723
Absolutely incorrect. Most people agree that murder is wrong. Morality is like math. You can claim it's subjective and a fantasy all you want but the empirical evidence as well as a little bit of introspection speaks to the contrary.

>> No.23368954

>>23367723
Subjectivists in a nutshell. If my morals were shitting on your front yard and decking your wife in the face you better explain to your wife why you can't do shit about it because my morals are unique to me and she should know that.

>> No.23369004

>>23368076
Brainpet here what does this mean?
>if being nice good
>doing nice thing good
?

>> No.23369015

>>23368601
No it isn't. Greek aristocrats were heavy on compassion and morals.

>> No.23369030

>>23368954
The fuck kind of retard are you?
Subjectivists can still call the cops on you or put a bullet between your eyes.

>> No.23369039

>>23368818
>You don't. What do you think the problem is? Appeal to the principle that everything needs to be grounded? How do you ground that? The problem only arises if you try to chase your tail, so stop.
If there's no notion of the necessity of grounding, there's no notion of justification, and facts are arbitrary. Your "rational reflection" of the form
>You don't have to ground it, X is just true
works for all X, and does not actually answer the question "why should I do any one thing in particular?"
To illustrate
>>How do I do addition?
>Well I don't know, and neither do you. But we know the result is a number. That number is 5.
>>That doesn't seem right
>Oh so you do know addition

>Because it is good. What other reason could there be?
Tautology. "good" is shorthand for what one should do. Why are we defining positive valence states as good?
>>23368912
Because it's not human excellence, it's excellence at chess. Within the framework of chess, of course, the notion of excellence arises from a definition of the good (winning per the rules) which allows for moral judgment (!!, !, ?, ??)
>>23368954
In the descriptive sense, obviously morals are subjective, because you shit on my deck and I think you shouldn't have done that. Only retarded leftists think that the subjective nature of morals has the normative implication that no one can condemn others' actions as immoral by one's own moral code

>> No.23369046

>>23368601
Fucking Dunning-Kruger tards
>While Greek moral thought was originally based on mythology, which provided moral meaning but no comprehensive framework, from the 600s BC a new moral approach emerged which used rational arguments instead, leading to the rise of philosophy as a distinct mode of thought.[5] This has been especially attributed to Socrates.[5] The Socratic method aimed to establish moral truths by questioning the beliefs of others, rather than by explaining them directly.[6] He opposed the moral relativism of the Sophists, insisting on the formulation of moral principles from beginning.[7] As portrayed in Plato's Republic, he articulates the greatest good as the transcendent "form of good itself".[8] In his personal life, Socrates lived extremely morally. He was chaste, disciplined, pious, responsible, and cared for his friends[9] In the so-called Euthyphro dilemma, he raised the problem of whether divine action was motivated by it being good, or whether it was good because it was divine.[10] In Gorgias he defends the notion that it is better to suffer injustice than to do it.
etc.

>> No.23369051

>>23367587
Actions that cause suffering are bad, actions that decrease suffering are good

>> No.23369061

>>23369051
What about actions that do both?

>> No.23369063

>>23369046
Huh so the Greeks concept of "morals" is exactly the same today? I guess words don't change over time. What a revelation!

>> No.23369073

>>23369051
eww a consequentialist

>> No.23369100

>>23369039
>If there's no notion of the necessity of grounding, there's no notion of justification, and facts are arbitrary.
No, it just means that some things cannot be grounded in something more fundamental. Logic and ethics are "brute", but that does not imply arbitrariness in the sense that we can rationally deny the conclusion of a sound argument or the warrant for action given states of differing valence.
>Tautology. "good" is shorthand for what one should do. Why are we defining positive valence states as good?
We are not defining anything, we are simply identifying the warrant for action in the apprehension of the good.

>> No.23369102

>>23369100
where can i read up on this? What is this subject even called?

>> No.23369174

>>23369102
Sorry to disappoint, but this is just my personal crack-pot theory of meta-ethics based on reflections on the idea of normativity. I'm sure it's not original, but I cannot recommend specific literature (except general reading to become familiar with terminology and common paths through the conceptual landscape). One generally useful starting point is called phenomenological conservatism, which is the principle that you should take as true what seems to be true absent defeaters, because otherwise you'll get stuck in radical skepticism with no way to proceed. The idea that your experience of valence provides warrant for action is one application of this principle, and the way out of egoism is suggested in my previous posts.

>> No.23369285

>>23369004
Grugg experience good and bad. Grugg think: good is when make more good, bad is when make more bad. Grugg try to make more good. But there is problem. When Grugg make good, sometimes this make bad later! So Grugg learn: sometimes make some bad now to make more good later. But now Grugg learn: there is not only Grugg, but also Pugg! When Grugg make good for Grugg, sometimes this make bad for Pugg. Grugg wonder: when Grugg make small good for Grugg and big bad for Pugg, is Grugg make more good? So is good only Grugg-good, or is good Grugg-good and Pugg-good? Grugg smart: both Grugg-good and Pugg-good is just good, difference is in how know, not in what is! So when Grugg try to make good, Grugg not try to make only Grugg-good, because Grugg-good and Pugg-good is same good. Everyone happy.

>> No.23369309

>>23367723
>>23368924
Morality is from our species, we all have similar instincts unless you are insane or something, we all naturally know what is right or wrong, all we need is the knowledge to understand our own common instincts and it's purposes for our individual and collective survival and analyze each situation.

>> No.23369323

So before this ends up becoming another pointless fight between realists and anti-realists based on how seriously to take skepticism, let's consider the following normative question: are (dis-)utils fungible, or more concretely, does any finite number of people stubbing their toes add up to counterbalance (then overtake) one person being flayed alive?

>> No.23369349

>taking lessons on morality from a guy who lived alone in the mountains

like taking business lessons from a professor who has never ran a business

>> No.23369361

>>23368345
K but how do you apply that in practice

>> No.23369372

>>23369361
only act according to those maxims you can will to become universal laws.

>> No.23369525

>>23369372
There must be balance in all things anon, there must be balance in all things. What goes up must come down.

>> No.23369621

>>23368954
I never understood these kinds of answers to subjective morality, obviously in my and my wife's morality this would be wrong and we would take steps to prevent / punish you, this is such an obvious answer that I want to think that people saying this are just baiting.

>> No.23369630

>>23369100
>>23369174
Why do states of differing valence warrant action?
What does it mean to seem to be true?

>> No.23369668

>>23368954
It's more about laws existing due to self preservation, most think it's better to simply join forces with everybody else into a mob and impose a law where violent individuals that randomly attack innocents for no reason get purged for everybody safety.

So there is no objective morality, it's simply the best deal for everybody.

>> No.23369687

>>23367587
Keep re-doing it until it's right. If you still think in terms of right and wrong, then you need to restart again.

>> No.23370203

>>23368954
>why you can't do shit about it
But according to my morals, I can. What now, faggot?

>> No.23370211

>>23368924
>Most people agree that murder is wrong
You're sheltered. Most people would be for allowing weapons testing on homeless people because of how much of a blight they are on society.

>> No.23370382

>>23370211
Irony of calling someone sheltered while listing off the voices in your head as "most people"

>> No.23370392

>>23367826
Nietzsche is a an atheist, so he is not a threat to secular morality

>> No.23370398

>>23368924
>Most people agree that murder is wrong
Not really, and even if it were the case it's contingent to an era and a geography

>> No.23370403

>>23369309
>>Morality is from our species, we all have similar instincts unless you are insane or something
There is no ''we''. a ''we'' is an atheist social construct created to counter their individualism.

>> No.23370888

>>23369030
Subjectivist societies do not have cops.

>> No.23370892

>>23368601
My man, Nietzsche was not at all a virtue ethicist.

>> No.23370895

>>23370211
Lol. I dare you to go up to your mom and ask her whether she thinks this

>> No.23371338

>>23369630
>Why do states of differing valence warrant action?
Because it seems that they do and we have no defeater for this belief. Why do you avoid suffering?
>What does it mean to seem to be true?
I can offer paraphrasings, but I doubt you're struggling with the words or grammar here. I'm concerned here with how to handle fundamental principles that

a) have no positive or non-circular justification
but
b) should be affirmed regardless (or so it seems)

The Humean skeptical worries about induction, causality, etc are classical examples of what I want to defuse. For an extreme example, take Cartesian doubt, for a less extreme example take the logical positivist project, which tried to reduce the scope of meaningful talk to things that can be cashed out in terms of sense-data (what we would now call qualia, intended in a metaphysically thin sense). Turns out, they ran into self-contradiction when trying to positively ground their approach with a general principle to the effect that everything needs to be grounded in sense data, because this fails to satisfy its own demands. Note that the problem here is not lack of grounding for the principle, but self-contradiction (incidentally, how to you justify rejection based on self-contradiction?)

There are different theories as to the proper scope of philosophy, the possibility/justification and scope of metaphysics, some of them fairly elaborate, complicated and systematic (like Kant's transcendendtal idealism), some of them fairly minimal (like the principle of phenomenal conservatism). I'm less confident in the correctness of various systems proposed than this one simple principle, so I make that my starting point and proceed to develop my own ideas. If you think can get out of radical skepticism and make sense of our rational/practical commitments without appealing to phenomenological conservatism, or by appealing to a more plausible, thinner principle, please let me know.

>> No.23371361

>>23367587
I care more about morality and optimism than I do about rationality, certainly more than my own limited ability to rationalize. I might be a midwit, but it seems like putting the cart before the horse to fall into despair over not being able to rationalize morality. I used to be Christian, I've lost faith, but I think I've transferred that faith muscle, that mental process, into just the belief that we need to try our best to live good lives. Questioning it seems besides the point.

>> No.23371371

>>23368924
Most people agree that murder is okay so long as they don't have to think about it and can get a cheap tank of gas

>> No.23371375

>>23369349
>like taking business lessons from a professor who has never ran a business
That is the correct option, as the guy who runs a business will just do the rational business decision and kike you into buying his book and courses.

>> No.23371384

>>23367800
>>23367782
Real. Both of these I agree with.
>>23368076
People should embrace your emotions as a human entity. Logic is always based on personal axioms first.
This anon I agree with also unless I’m misinterpreting him.