[ 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: 165 KB, 773x1024, nietzsche.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4234299 No.4234299[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

What makes people immoral?

>> No.4234303

shitposting

>> No.4234315

Reading Nietzsche without a good knowledge of history of philosophy

>> No.4234318

>>4234303
topkek

>> No.4234320

>>4234299
The notion of morality.

>> No.4234325

>>4234318
lel

doge

>> No.4234328

Killing babbies

>> No.4234331

>>4234320
u so smart
now explain your point dipshit

>> No.4234350

poor education

>> No.4234353

>>4234331
Immorality requires not only a person to commit an immoral act, but a gaze to judge it as such, and so a concept of morality. What makes people immoral? People who judge others based on their own fantasy of morality.

>> No.4234354

>>4234299
Harming other people without sufficient justification

>> No.4234355

Being born.

>> No.4234356

immorality is simply to gain at another's loss. You can gain money by stealing. You can gain vengeance by killing. You can gain pleasure through adultery (that is having sex with someone who is in a marriage/relationship already).

so immorality comes about from either a lack of empathy with the person who you're dealing harm (aka psychoticism) or the lack of will to restrain oneself from benefitting at another's expense (thus leading to guilt).

pretty straightforward i think

>> No.4234366

>>4234299

Perception. There's no tangible or objective barometer to measure against so it all comes down to opinion.

So there's your answer. Subjectively - almost anything depending on the person. Objectively - nothing.

>> No.4234369

>>4234366
That's a cop out though. If you made a statement like "killing strangers for money is usually immoral, yes/no?" to a 1000 people then probably 900 or more would say "of course!" Even though the human condition is made of seemingly disparate subjective standpoints we can make general statements that are not negated by absurdist (ie Camus) arguments.

>> No.4234371

>>4234369

That's just an appeal to the majority though. An opinion being held by a large number of people doesn't make it correct.

>> No.4234375

The lack of a belief in the Christian God leads well-intentioned men to barbarism.

>> No.4234376

>>4234371
It provides strong evidence that the contrary is false. Stronger evidence could be found in scientific fact, but where that doesn't exist appeal to the majority is about all we're left with. If you don't agree with that, at least in major things, then you've created an absurdist world in which no philosophy of life has any bearing at all. Especially in the realm of "ought tos". If it's all opinion then nothing matters and any conversation about ethics or morality is a dead end. It's like a child asking "why?" repeatedly. It's philosophically empty.

>> No.4234382

>>4234376

I don't believe that's valid evidence on matters that are purely conceptual. Or much else for that matter. You can't get around the fallacious nature of an appeal to the majority, regardless of whether any objective methods exist or not. Most people believe in a personal deity, Moral opinions shift over time and so do social demographics.

>In which no philosophy has any bearing at all

Bingo. No objective meaning anyway. There's always relative meaning which leads me back to my original answer:

The only thing that makes someone immoral is your own perception or feeling son the issue.

>any conversation about ethics or morality is a dead end

How so? That's a black hole of nihlism. It's all very interesting to see how different cultures produce different ethical standpoints.

>> No.4234383

Genetic and environmental factors.

>> No.4234393

>>4234382
Well first, I'm an atheist so I would say there's pretty strong evidence that god doesn't exist (no medical evidence of a soul, no proof of god before big bang). BUT we can see that no culture, for example, condones senseless killing (broadly speaking). Even cultures that grew apart or were in isolation. That speaks of pretty strong evidence in the human condition to the immorality of killing. It may be genetic or part of what makes us mammals and group animals.

For example, mammals give birth to young that must nurse and have longer bonding periods with their offspring, often requiring communities that are stable, nonviolent, and cooperative in order to thrive. So there could be a rational/scientific argument to be made for why the world is the way it is. I've heard this argument made, and I'm not sure I buy it, but it is a scientific guess as to why certain moral codes are broadly held.

And that's the thing - certain moral codes ARE broadly held, which is strange for it to be that way and there not be a reason. If anything the rhetorical onus would be on you to prove that morality doesn't exist in the face of this evidence.

When I talk about using a general consensus on what morality is generally condoned that is to find out what society is like. Not the "why is it" but the "what is it in practice". Once we know the "what" we can go looking for reasons as to this "what" and find the "why".

>> No.4234402

Being mean to animals

>> No.4234657

Being born a human being and then following a set of rules that goes against your nature.

>> No.4235796

>>4234356

Basically this. All other discussion is postmodern hogwash.

>> No.4235820

In its most basic form, inconsideration of the well being of other people.

>> No.4235823

>>4234356
I would add ignorance to that. Perhaps the chief factor, in my opinion.

>> No.4235869

>What makes people immoral?
Other people

>> No.4235891

>>4234657
nice teleologcial fallacy

>> No.4236208

Morality and immorality emerge from the needs created by social interactions.

>> No.4236217

>>4234353
That's like saying a tree falling in the woods doesn't make a sound. A prick of the conscience doesn't generate immoral acts, immoral acts generate a prick of the conscience.

>> No.4236222

>>4234366

There's no such thing as subjectivity.

>> No.4236223

>>4236217
That's like saying a tree falling in the woods doesn't make a sound.

If no one is there to hear it, it doesn't.

>> No.4236227

>>4236223

You blow a little bit of doubt out of proportion. The same thing happens with moral skepticism.

>> No.4236232

>>4236217
Nullum crimen, nulla poena sine lege, my friend. The law is what makes the crime exist as a crime, precisely because crime is what breaches the law. Acts aren't immoral by themselves, that is to say, without any moral observer to judge them.

>> No.4236267

>>4234393
It's interesting to look at psychological aspects of actions which are considered immoral. The emotional trauma that usually comes from killing another human being or witnessing death seems to indicate the universality of a theoretical set of principles which guide human action. But then you also have people who disregard these instincts, or who respond differently.

Even the sanctity of self preservation is suspect, as there are always people who are willing to sacrifice themselves for the greater good or to protect others.

An other note, it's said that if there is no god everything is permitted- but the opposite is true. If there is no god, nothing is permitted- every action has to be brought under scrutiny. Is what I am doing right? There is no god,no universal principle, no categorical imperative, I cannot know.

God, objectivity allows one to affirm one's morality through action. You can be sure you are doing the right thing if you are striving to follow a universal. Furthermore, Christianity distances one from the importance of this world. It is the afterlife that is important, not this one. Kill em all and let god sort it out.

The existence of god permits any atrocity, any torture committed on another human. If they scream out in a plea for repentance as you begin turning the screws, that is a sign of guilt. If not, it is a sign of martyrdom and the eternal glory they now bask in.

No one is innocent before god and so no one can be treated as such.

>> No.4236268

>>4234299
not reading enough biographies of proper sound cunts innit

>> No.4236362

>>4234375
this

>> No.4236492

It can be fun.

>> No.4236494

>>4234299
Judgement

>> No.4236508

>what makes people immoral?

Private property.

>> No.4236665

>>4234375
'
This, with the contingency that the men be of lower intelligence.

In the absence of God only men of reason can erect a model of morality; only through introspection can one realize the irrationality of pretenses, and this is a skill that only intelligent individuals possess.

>> No.4236559

morals

>> No.4236950

>>4234402
Hello, Hitler

>> No.4236961

>>4234299
Behaving in a way other people call immoral.

>> No.4236983

>>4236665
I like Zizeks reversal better: Without god nothing is permitted.
Precisely because there is no concept of a higher order, people are forced to be careful.
It is only with a fascist oversimplifying belief that things should be in a certain way, that man can truly transcend the law under the pretense that the crime he is committing paradoxically will sustain the law of the god he believes in. Only a fascist fantasy will cause planes to crash into towers, and crusades against those who do not share the fantasy.

>> No.4236992

>>4236983
>Zizeks reversal

You mean Lacan's.

>> No.4237003

>>4236992
Yes, thank you.