/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.3815787]

/lit/ I have a question on morals. So a lot of people seem to think that because morality is man-made (in their opinion) or has no basis as a natural thing, it is instantly untenable. So, I ask you, why is something natural tenable while something man-made isn't? What arbitrary scaling decides that?

[Anonymous No.3815841]

bem

[Anonymous No.3815843]

u mad

[Anonymous No.3815852]

>>3815843
you are so fucking rustled right now cunt jesus christ

[Anonymous No.3815850]

what does it mane

[Knee Ander Thall No.3815858]

>>3815787
Any "arbitrary" scales or scores would be invalid since they were man made.

[Anonymous No.3815869]

>>3815787
>What arbitrary scaling decides that?

I do.

polite sage for butthurt respons, but i have an exam about that gibberish tomorrow and i study fucking engineering.

[Anonymous No.3815870]

>>3815858
Are you saying that because the arbitrary distinctions deciding that morality is untenable because it's man-made are man-made as well and therefore equally arbitrary?

[Anonymous No.3815876]

Because humans are flawed in a way we can understand, and there's no way to train yourself in "morality" as opposed to a skill or a trade. So therefore, anyone's idea of morality is as good as anyone else's.

Perhaps nature is the same way, but if so, then it's more or less impossible for us to truly comprehend.

But just as this >>3815858 guy said, any judgement we make is also flawed, and we cannot possible be un-flawed. This very issue and any arguments against it are based on flawed logic as it is the logic of human minds.

So from there, you can either embrace it, or reject everything.

[Anonymous No.3815881]

i know wut morality is

morality is just a very smart way of protecting ourselves... you dont say "oh Im not gonna hurt this person or do this bad thing" because theres something inside u that tells u that u shouldnt, well maybe there is, but thats not the main thing the main thing is that if you do that bad thingu know (becas youre smart) that a bad thing may happen to u...

morality is simply a the prefrontal cortex way of survivng

[Anonymous No.3815883]

>>3815869
and it isn't the difference nature/man but something transcending/man, i guess.

[Anonymous No.3815885]

[Anonymous No.3815892]

>>3815885
>stirnerfags in charge of saving images

[Anonymous No.3815887]

>>3815885
>saving a thumbnail

[Anonymous No.3815943]

>>3815887
>>3815892
implying you had to zoom in to know what's there.

[Anonymous No.3815951]

>>3815787
morality does not exist physically as an object in the world other than as neurological movements in human brains.
morality is due to two things:
1. evolution: we have evolved morality to better promote the genes of a species by having people look out for one another.
2. society: morality exists also as a social construct in the form of laws, social rules and taboos etc.
this does not, of course, make morality invalid. but it is a human construct. there is no natural moral code to the universe.

[Anonymous No.3815976]

>>3815951
How do you know it doesn't exist in a metaphysical way? Like Plato's forms do.

[Anonymous No.3815981]

>>3815979
That's not an answer to the question retard.

Anyway, I suppose you've realized this since you deleted your post.

[Anonymous No.3815990]

>>3815951
this is the popular version of what teenagers think that have no formal education in metaphysics, philosophy of mind and ethics, though; i.e. a commonly shared opinion of morality that floats among the laymen on the internet.

[Anonymous No.3815999]

Some people just think that anything that is natural must be good.

[Anonymous No.3816004]

>>3815999
like weed and shrooms 420 legalize it

[Anonymous No.3816011]

>>3815999
Homosexuality comes to OP naturally.

[Anonymous No.3816201]

>>3815999
That's called "naturalistic fallacy" and is untrue.

>>3815976
Plato's forms do not exist in a metaphysical way. Sorry /b/ro.

>>3815990
What do you think it is then, god's natural code?

[Anonymous No.3816236]

Back in 2009 when "U MAD" was in full force, I would just start responding with "yes" every time someone asked me and they wouldn't know what to say.

It really started to suck when some idiot found that Russian folk singer doing the "trololololo" thing because whenever I told a joke, some 12-year-old would say "TROLLOLOLOLOLOL" and I couldn't easily get them to stop by just saying "yes". I had to explain the difference between telling a joke and trolling but I quickly realized that I was wasting my time and I decided to stop talking to people online and to start reading more instead.

[Anonymous No.3816248]

>>3816236
thx 4 sharing

[Anonymous No.3816258]

>>3816236

That sequence of events had a temperature lower than average, male sibling.

[Anonymous No.3816261]

>>3816248
My pleasure, but you should've responded with "U MAD?" or "TROLLOLOLO" or "r ur jimmies rustled? they sound rustled."

[Anonymous No.3816275]

>>3816261
There can only be a neckbeard at the other end of the screen. For you to think yourself a superb manipulator of minds and dominator (yes, I made that word up) of debates has me in awe. I am thoroughly impressed that you "stumped" some 12 year old on /b/ by using such an amateurish way to end an exchange, the equivalent of a teenage girl sending a one word text in an attempt to end a conversation with some socially awkward adolescent. Truly you must be one of these young intellectuals I've been hearing about.

[Anonymous No.3816282]

>>3815787
Edited for accuracy

[Anonymous No.3816294]

>>3816275
u mad?

[Anonymous No.3816323]

>>3816294
yes

[Anonymous No.3816348]

>>3816201
>Plato's forms do not exist in a metaphysical way.
Are you really asserting a negative when a negative can't be proven, without saying "probably?" How unscientific can you get?

[Reasoner !qR/x.62rVM No.3816360]

Because they're retarded?

[Anonymous No.3816371]

>>3815787
People who say hurr durr morals are untenable are deep and edgy and believe their "reasoning" can somehow discover permanent laws of the universe.

We would say dog packs have morals if they have behavior that promotes social stability and benefits the pack as a whole. Human morals are that pretty much, being an evolutionary adaptation towards certain behaviors and tendencies.

If we didn't have the morality to know not to punch children and steal from our neighbors, society would probably degenerate and collapse pretty quickly.

The problem is the belief in some very specific morals which don't have much bearing on stability, but are held anyways. Like treating women as property and outlawing homosexuality. Its constructed from primitive reasoning, and in light of our moral considerations of fairness and equality, untenable.

[Anonymous No.3816377]

>>3815787
Because if man have decided in a way they can decide and do it otherwise.

[Anonymous No.3816388]

>>3816371
This is just silly. One we don't say that they are moral we say that they are quasi social.

Also morality does not necessarily exist because of its consequences. Some theories of morality believe that morality does not exist to sustain society. Morality exists just because it has to be followed.

If being moral brings to the collapse of society (like in the case of the antigone) then you still have to follow it according to deontological theories.

Your idea of morality is very superficial.

[Anonymous No.3816872]

Pihranas do not eat eachother normally, ar ethe y moral?

[Anonymous No.3817472]

>>3816348
Okay apologies, "probably". Just like how God probably doesn't exist and there probably isn't an invisible chest of drawers with a purple hat that's about to fall on me before I finish this

[Anonymous No.3819556]

>>3815787
>because morality is man-made (in their opinion) or has no basis as a natural thing, it is instantly untenable
who exactly says that

[Anonymous No.3819562]

>>3816388
>then you still have to follow it according to deontological theories.
and that's why deontology is untenable, and possibly what the op was referring to as 'morality'.

[Anonymous No.3819613]

>>3815787
of course it's manmade. It's a concept based upon the happiness of the most people possible.

[Anonymous No.3819710]

I think the response would be that morality is ontologically subjective while the "natural things" these people are comparing it to (e.g. fundamental forces of physics, most conceptions of mathematics, etc.) would be considered ontologically objective.

[Anonymous No.3819734]

>>3815787
natural thinks are innate. They have no faults they are or they are not. Man-made constructs contain fallacies. They are riddled with holes.

[Anonymous No.3819756]

>>3815787
>implying what man makes isn't natural

What the fuck is this.

[Anonymous No.3819862]

>>3819710

What if I were to argue that because man is a natural being, therefore anything he creates is natural, in one sense?

For example, because man is a gregarious animal, and the state is a institution formed for the sake of not just living but living WELL, and that there appears to be such a thing as "the good life" as opposed to a poor one, insofar as there are being we admire and envy as models, therefore the state is "natural" and morality and goodness and badness seem to have deep roots in nature itself.

Is that a completely untenable position?