[ 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: 342 KB, 1272x1024, 1396441212668.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4959733 No.4959733[DELETED]  [Reply] [Original]

Question: why is killing someone "wrong"?

Please do not assume I'm an edgelord, I'm actually quite interested in what you have to say, nor do I hold the belief that it's okay to kill anyone.

>> No.4959742

define wrong

>> No.4959744

>>4959742
Morally so, as oppose to incorrect

>> No.4959750
File: 178 KB, 373x327, 2edgy4me+_6c76a6b92007db61b985656238ae4575.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4959750

>>4959733
Killing people hurts society, if normal people killed at random society couldn't progress in any way.

>> No.4959756

>>4959750
Thankyou. But you do understand that I said
>nor do I hold the belief that it's okay to kill anyone

>> No.4959757

>>4959744
which morals

>> No.4959763

>>4959757
I don't know. That's why I came here to ask.

>> No.4959770

>>4959763
well figure that out and then ask

>> No.4959775

>>4959770
Fine. For what reason is killing detrimental to others?

>> No.4959784

>>4959775
that seems self-evident

>> No.4959790

>>4959784
I know, but I need to know how to "prove" it.

I'm arguing with an asshole who asked why killing is wrong. So I'm asking you guys for help.

So far I've used Kant's principles, Hobbes' nature and Utilitarianism. All not working.

>> No.4959827

>>4959733
Killing is wrong because you are asserting yourself over another human being, making it impossible for that individual to govern themselves. You are taking away their ability to choose to be alive.

That is wrong. HOWEVER, if that individual threatens your wellbeing and poses the threat of extreme risk and death to you or someone else, subduing that person is the only right thing to do, and if they happen to die in the process, it is not Wrong. They forfeit their life when they endanger other people.

>> No.4959835

>>4959790
Well what were the other guy's arguments?

Look, common sense survival tactic: if you and everyone you live with agree killing is wrong you will (in most likelihood) not be killed. If you say there is nothing wrong with killing, you have directly put yourself and your loved ones in danger by principle. That's bad surviving.

In a more broad scope, if the town's shoemaker was murdered, the town just lost a shoemaker. That's a loss.

>> No.4959840

>>4959733
No one likes to get killed that's why we humans made it a kind of value that killing is wrong, so we can live a more relaxed life.

>> No.4959847

>>4959835
Obfusculation and moving goalposts, while asserting that his position was truth and mine was opinion.

>> No.4959848

It isn't wrong. It's just not allowed.

>> No.4959876

>>4959848
Why isn't it wrong?

>> No.4959887
File: 102 KB, 500x667, b6520a4b940debec3a1041e9a09c56de.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4959887

>>4959876
Hes just being edgy for the sake of being edgy.

>> No.4959922

>>4959733
As long as it serves a purpose -be it 'good' or 'bad'- it is not.
Killing productive people is bad though, no matter what.

>> No.4959923

Killing others is only negative if the consequences affect you.

>> No.4959925

>>4959750
/thread

>> No.4959930

>>4959750
>"progress"
Having a one on one with a guy because he told everyone in town you're a bitch isn't "random", btw, and talk shit get hit got us from cavemen to the 1960's

>> No.4959943
File: 994 KB, 3963x2900, Marlboro-Black-104.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4959943

>>4959930
What? I meant that if people didnt treat killing with any kind of taboo normal people would do it more often. If that was to happen society would have a harder time progressing because everyone would feel threatened by one another. The taboo surrounding murder is important to keep people from doing anything to halts progress in the civilized world.

>> No.4959958

>>4959733
Karma

>> No.4959964

>>4959733

Kant would say because you can't Universalize that sort of action. There's an internal contradiction present in the idea that we should solve our problems by killing each other.

It reduces people to instruments for our own desires, mere means to another end, murder totally destroys the autonomy and dignity of the other. This in turn denies the rational "duty" practical reason bestows on us.

Murder becomes wrong not just in a moral sense, but in a rational sense, it's irrational

>> No.4959978

>>4959943
I'm just think there should be a legal outlet for killing people who cause you grief, like dueling or holmgang

>> No.4959984

It's not.

>> No.4959991

>>4959733
Because killing, unless within the limits of what society deems as appropriate and "justified" killing, is a destabilizing force within society. You simply can't have a functioning, stable and growing society if you don't impress upon citizens that killing people is usually not ok.

>> No.4959996

>>4959964
murder is not irrational. if you have a reason to kill someone preemptively, then there is a Reason. it might not be a good reason, but there is reason in murder and killing. Being a psychopath and killing a bunch of people because you're a virgin is irrational.

Killing someone that is going to do harm to someone, that is reasonable; even if there are many other solutions to resolve problems. But if none are feasible due to a lack of Rationale on either side, then it could be the only rational thing to do.

>> No.4960008

>>4959996
What if the guy called you a doodie head? Is it rational to kill him then?

>> No.4960013

it is 'wrong' because you are ending the 'life' of a conscious being, if you dont understand why society usually regards this as bad... well, shit.

it is all relative, and can depend on whether of not someone or something is selfish. if killing benefits them, then it is right for them.

but, biologically, it doesn't even make sense to kill others who are similar to us, just those who are different. this goes for competing families and different populations in the same species. killing those who are least related to you is a good way to expand your relatives territory.

i think without greed there would be no killing, but what kind of society would allow that?

>> No.4960016

>>4960008
nah

>> No.4960020

>>4960016
>nah
That's how you get your bitch took

>> No.4960025

>>4960020
Are you implying i need one
that's fucking rude

>> No.4960028

>>4960013
>it is 'wrong' because you are ending the 'life' of a conscious being

But society so often justifies killing in cases of obvious self-defense and even justifies killing offensively in cases wherein the claim of self-defense is tenuous (think every US war in the past 60 years).

There is not absolute value granted to life within society. And that's not even looking at communities that actively promote the killing of others on grounds not even founded on the claim of self-defense.

>> No.4960031

>>4960025
You don't "need" anything, m8, but cunts feel good on your ding dong

>> No.4960035
File: 61 KB, 673x501, are you le serious.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4960035

>sending people to heaven faster
>"wrong"

>> No.4960041

>>4960035
>implying we dont want to kill the people that should go to hell

>>4960008
no, thats just silly. you could probably just call him a poopoo head back.

>> No.4960044

I don't care if you think human life is worthless or not. If the person you kill thinks his life is worth living, ie. he wouldn't kill himself, you are basically destroying something someone considers extremely valuable. And how isn't that not wrong?

>> No.4960068

>>4960028
you are using the law as a means to provide justification, but you can use the law and decisions made regarding law to justify pretty much anything. there isn't even a 1:1 correlation between the law and society. even killing innocent individuals is sometimes 'right' to society, and to the law, when they are prosecuted as a criminal and executed.

i meant, collectively, that society doesn't practice arbitrary killing. if someone attacks you, why should you let them kill you?

it somehow benefits them, even though you did no 'wrong' to them. it is right to kill you, according to them.

they have no reason, but your reason would be to protect yourself. it is right to kill him, according to you. society would probably consider this fair as well.

>> No.4960070

>>4959996
>Killing someone that is going to do harm to someone, that is reasonable; even if there are many other solutions to resolve problems

Why would that be rational? It might be desirable to you, the egotist who wants to survive, but it's not rational.

>> No.4960079

>>4960070
if i was gonna stab you in the heart, would you let me? if i didnt stop trying, would you run away?

Id just kill your in your sleep. You'd better have the smarts to kill me. cuz i wouldnt stop trying to kill you. Im not gonna reason with you. nothing you can say will change my mind.

Nigga imma kill you. and you're going to let me.

>> No.4960131

>why is <insert action or entity> <insert morally subjective adjective>?
See where I'm going with this?

>> No.4960159

It makes the people you don't kill uncomfortable.

>> No.4960165

It's wrong because you or someone else believes it's wrong. That's as deep as it goes.

>> No.4960169

>>4960079
>if i was gonna stab you in the heart, would you let me? if i didnt stop trying, would you run away?

I'd stop you because I'm also an egotist who likes to survive. I'd also steal food if I was starving.

That doesn't mean theft is rational or good.

>> No.4960178

>>4959750
Wouldn't the long-term evolutionary benefit of random killings help society though? Checkmate, moralfags.

>> No.4960200

>>4960178
random killing?

reducing the gene pool actually does the opposite in regards to evolutionary advancement

>> No.4960202

>>4960169
theft is rational if there is Necessity.

determinative ethics of criminal actions are characterized by necessity.

If you are hungry and have no money, you can either ask for money or ask for food. If you receive neither, would you not think it rational to steal food?

If you need a car, but have no money, would you steal a car? If you know what having a car entails, it would not be rational to steal car. you would need to acquire money first.

If your life is in danger, it is rational to escape danger. If killing someone prevents you from dying, then killing is rational.

Killing someone for a pokemon card, is not rational.

>> No.4960205
File: 35 KB, 461x600, checkmated2.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4960205

>>4960178
People who kill at random generally aren't as useful to society as those that wouldn't. Checkmate edgyfags

>> No.4960214

>>4960205
Edgyfags don't give a fuck about society. Checkmate moralfag.

Source: I'm a self-diagnosed sociopath.

>> No.4960217

>>4959750
>Killing people hurts society
not necessarily
war can also benefit a society

>> No.4960218

>>4959733
plenty of reasons.

1. it's mean.

2. it's too permanent and not fair.

3. you might get in trouble.

>> No.4960221

>>4959733
infringement of freedom, essentially

>> No.4960227

>>4960202
>theft is rational if there is Necessity.

no it's not because nothing is necessary, not your survival or mine.

>> No.4960230

>>4960227
oh just leave before we figure out you're 15.

>> No.4960232

>>4959733
I honestly believe the act of killing isn't evil by default, since all things have to kill to live.

I rather see the how and why as essential. Killing for arbitrary desires, such as lust or rage is abhorrent, as it is done without respect for the life taken. Ritualized killing on the other hand, is a glorification of the subject, and is generally seen as the most positive way of dying in any sacrificial culture, like Hinduism.

I take a very animistic approach, I take from brother cow (in this case by keeping myself to ecological farming) and brother wheat, and will return myself to my mother Gaia once my material body grows cold.

That's why, even tough I consider myself Christian, have thoughts about getting a Sky Burial.

>> No.4960237

Consider morality as a collectively enforced set of rules to protect the individuals that take part in enforcing it. Nobody wants to be murdered or stolen from so even though allowing murder / theft might benefit a specific individual they tacitly enforce a policy of "no killing".

Promiscuity used to be widely considered a serious menace to society so people collectively defined it as immoral to suppress something they thought could be dangerous to them.

>> No.4960240

>>4960214

Regardless of your predilection towards fedoras, even if you don't give a fuck about society, then you still likely feel some kind of loyalty to yourself, right? Since random killings damage society, society will reprimand for you if you do so; vis a vie, random killings will ultimately lead to harm befalling the self. Checkmate, autist.

>> No.4960242

>>4960230

so why is your survival necessary but if I attack you and try to kill you mine isn't necessary?

who determines who is a necessary human? plz enlighten us oh wise 18 year old

>> No.4960246

All this thread has proven to me is that you dorks can intellectualize your way into doing anything you want. This is why science is superior to liberal arts. This kind of nonsense isn't tolerated.

>> No.4960248

>>4960068
That is true. I'd say that the law is at heart guided by preservation. At the individual level, there is preservation of property and of life. At the greater level, the set of laws in sum serve to preserve society. Wherein individual preservation and greater preservation are in agreement is where society finds its ethics.

>> No.4960268

>>4960246
>This is why science is superior to liberal arts. This kind of nonsense isn't tolerated.

>implying scientists don't manipulate their data and interpret studies to benefit whoever is funding them

high level science is basically philosophy and quackery anyway, have you seen what kinds of things they peddle in physics these days?

>> No.4960271

>>4960242
lol alright. If you are hostile toward a person you forfeit your own safety.

there is no objective "necessary" human. Each life is necessary to each individual, and individual welfare should be valued in some way by every other person, because by recognizing anothers value, you are in turn recognizing your own value.

unless of course you think you're worthless and all humans should die because we're a plague on the earth and theres no point to living because we alll die anyway and the universe is going to collapse on itself and nothing will ever matter because there wont be anything in existence because its all GOOOONEE etc etc etc
>fatalism

>> No.4960281

>>4960240
The question of the thread was whether killing someone is _morally_ wrong, and not whether it is disallowed by society. Checkmate, illiterate.

>> No.4960294

>>4960271
>there is no objective "necessary" human. Each life is necessary to each individual

Translation: I want to live therefore let me live.

Yes I agree but "necessary" is the wrong word. "Desire" is better. I desire to live. The rapist desires to rape. The hunter desires to hunt.

As long as we are basing morality on our individual desire we will always have contradictions. Why does my desire to survive trump your desire to rape and kill me? It doesn't. It's just survival of the fittest in the end.

The only way to have a real morality is to have a third party come between us. Kant wanted Rationality to be that third party, Theologians say God is that third party.

So murder is wrong, not because it goes against your will, but because it contradicts God's will or contradicts Rationality itself.

>> No.4960309
File: 522 KB, 505x656, 1261072782953.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4960309

>>4959996

>murder is not irrational.
>it might not be a good reason

If it has no good reason at all then it's irrational. Please phrase your arguments better.

>if you have a reason to kill someone preemptively, then there is a Reason.

There's a motive but doesn't mean that it's as I've mentioned before, reasonable or rational, what do you for example gain by killing someone? That you planned someone's death? That you murdered someone? You can't justify premeditated murder.

>> No.4960314

I do not believe killing to be wrong in a universal sense, I do however take issue with a lack of justification. A random murder would be wrong in my opinion because I project my own desire to live and recognise many other's desire to live, I believe this provides ample justification for dissuading random killing. I do however recognise examples where one may have to resort to violence to protect one's life, family or a state of affairs which are desirable or to remove a state of affairs which are not desirable and killing may be a product of this self defence.

>> No.4960315

>>4960281

Morality is a social construct, asswipe. If you don't subscribe to a collective society, your moral compass still has to align with your own reason, at the very least. Murder will never be the rational option, therefore, murder will never be the moral option. Checkmate, undergrad.

>> No.4960320

>>4960315
Morality is objective and not a social construct. Learn some neuroscience and read Sam Harris. Checkmate, non-STEM fag.

>> No.4960321

>>4960294
Out of Desire, there are necessities we must satisfy to achieve the things we desire. If i dont desire to starve, it is necessary to eat by any means. If i desire not to be raped, it is necessary to not be a woman.. or to take steps to avoid situations where rape may take place.

Necessity and desire go hand in hand, for without necessity desire is useless, because there would be no way to satiate the desire without taking necessary steps.

>>4960309
thats teh tricky thing about "reason" sometimes its ill intentioned, and selfish. It might not seem reasonable to anyone but the individual that perpetrated the murder.

anything can be justified, even if it is blatantly wrong or heinous.

>> No.4960330

>>4960321
>Necessity and desire go hand in hand

The problem is the foundation is desire not necessity. Necessity follows from desire.

So what happens when the rapist meets the woman? How does she convince him rape is wrong? Her only argument is "I don't want it" and he counters with "but madame, I do want it".

So they are at an impasse, and then might makes right.

The only way to have some moral code that transcends "muh desire" is to appeal to something beyond ourselves.

>> No.4960351

>>4960320

Objectivity dictates there is some kind of naturally occurring element within moral judgements that exists beyond mental entities. Show me a cross section of a moral act and find the glowing ethical core. Oh wait-- you can't. Because morality is a prescription by subjective consciousnesses. Checkmate, STEM major who couldn't handle analytic philosophy.

>> No.4960354

>>4960330
>The only way to have some moral code that transcends "muh desire" is to appeal to something beyond ourselves.

this is true. which is why we should all read the bible and accept Jesus in our hearts. He teaches us about selflessness and love and compassion.

also
> How does she convince him rape is wrong? Her only argument is "I don't want it" and he counters with "but madame, I do want it".
my lols

>> No.4960370

>>4960320
>Morality is objective

Even if this were true it would still not solve any problem for people who act out of self-interest alone.

If some moral code was written in the fabric of the universe: "It is wrong to steal food"

the egotist would say, ya so what? what happens to me if I steal? any special negative consequences other than our human courts? No? then fuck it.

Also there is no guarantee that these objective morals coincide with our own values...

it could be objectively moral to "rape and eat babies"...no one would agree with that "objective moral law"

>> No.4960383

>>4960320

>citing a meme scientist

*tips fedora* :^)

>> No.4960416

Well OP, you know how sometimes people say that in relationships, whoever cares less has the power? Well philosophical questions such as these are similar. You cannot prove absolute morality without appealing to axioms you hope people will just accept and agree on. You are always at the risk of being taken into an infinite regression when you posit that 'wrong' or 'right' exist inherently, in which case you can never win and will exposed for essentially making shit up.

You need to get your 'asshole' to agree something so that you can get some traction, for example 'as a human being it is wrong to murder', or 'in the context of humanity', or 'given that ____ is humanities goal it is wrong' etc..

Godspeed OP.

>> No.4960433

>>4959733
>Question: why is killing someone "wrong"?
>>4960330
>The only way to have some moral code that transcends "muh desire" is to appeal to something beyond ourselves.

I'm starting to think that morality can't be a standard you can rationalize for other people, it can only be something you set for yourself based on your values. Something you hold yourself to, but not others.


Even if we invoke a God who declares divine commands, you still have to value God and his will for the commands to have moral significance.

>> No.4960454
File: 51 KB, 620x417, 1377737945670.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4960454

>>4959733
I agree with this >>4959964. But if you want to hear the opinion of an asshole who has studied very little philosophy, it seems like there's a pretty basic answer. We're social animals, and our morals are an extension of communication and cooperation instincts. Thinking it's okay to kill other people within your own group is super unproductive and basically forfeiting your worth as a human.

But I think there's way more to this question than you think, because even if this guy was just fucking with you >>4959742 >>4959757
>>4959770, he's right. There's so many things that need further explanation in order to even start answering this question.

>> No.4960475

>>4960433
With God that's not true, because your morality can then be wrong. It's not about there being immovable morals that are so set in stone that we can't even conceive of anything but the right ones, it's about having a cheat sheet that you can compare your morals to in order to see if they're objectively right or wrong.

>> No.4960494
File: 35 KB, 500x601, 1268703501791.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4960494

>>4960321

>Out of Desire, there are necessities we must satisfy to achieve the things we desire.

Desires are transitory and shift according to personal will, they should not be viewed as standards; Also necessities are obligations imposed on you and are thereby not desirable.

>thats teh tricky thing about "reason" sometimes its ill intentioned, and selfish.

Despite their "reasons", desires and actions have consequences that have negative repercussions on them and other parties, especially in the case of murder.

>> No.4960496

Kill, or anything action for that matter, without a context, is morally neutral.

Killing your neighbour for his food is wrong. It's wrong because every human being is equal and have a default right to live their own life. No one has the right to take another's life because no one is more "equal" than another.

Killing a thief planning to kill you is okay. Self defence, he forfeited his right to life at the moment when he decide to take yours.

>> No.4960497

>>4960475
>With God that's not true, because your morality can then be wrong.

But it's only wrong because you value that code. It's still you saying "I wanna follow Xenu and his ethics, cause I value his will".


>>4960475
>it's about having a cheat sheet that you can compare your morals to in order to see if they're objectively right or wrong.

Yes, but it's you who decided to pick that God, and the ethics associated with it.

It's really not much different than just making your own. Instead of making your pizza dinner with individual ingredients, you went to the store and bought a pre-made pizza.

Subscribing to God is like getting a pre-packaged ethical system.

BUT! You still had to decide which pre-made pizza to buy, which pre-packaged system you value and which you reject.

>> No.4960500

>>4960496
>Killing a thief planning to kill you is okay. Self defence, he forfeited his right to life at the moment when he decide to take yours.

You forfeited your right to the pie the moment you put it on the window sill to cool off.

We can make arbitrary parameters too, yay!!!

>> No.4960502

>>4960200
>>4960205

The point is random-killings would work as a natural selection device, leaving only genes conducive to superior-survival skill and murder-avoidant phenotype. Checkmate moralfags.

>> No.4960514

>>4959733
Morality is entirely subjective and based on youth teachings and beliefs. So no, life is violence, and some violence is necesary. But don't kill people for no reason or anyone weaker than you.

>> No.4960516

>>4960494
>hunger is imposed on you by an external force outside of yourself

is the act of killing also not a negative repercussion of prior circumstances?

>>4960500
>You forfeited your right to the pie the moment you put it on the window sill to cool off.

as silly as this is, i have to agree. It would be nice to be able to have things without people taking advantage of them. Also the pie analogy should be equated to women and rape. dont flaunt it, dont get raped.

>>4960502
anyone can kill. we dont because we have decency to respect the life of others, even if theres some people that would be better off not living anymore, like yourself.

>> No.4960523

>>4960516
>dont flaunt it, dont get raped.

This is your moral code? Strange

>> No.4960526

There are generally 3 perspective to moral system:

Divine Absolutism:
>There is a god
>He commands that something right, do them, some things are wrong, don't do them
>You do good, you go to heaven, you do bad, you burn in hell..etc.
>(or reincarnation..etc.)

Problem:
>Does god exist? Can you prove that?
>Even if he/she does, how would you objectively verify what he/she wants?
>If God says blowing up non-believers in suicide vest is okay, is that the right thing to do?


Moral Relativism
>Morality is like ice cream, you pref vanilla I prefer chocolate
>No absolute right or wrong

Problem:
>Holocaust is okay

Moral Objectivism
>Observe human nature
>Discover what things human should do that will lead to a long, stable, and happy society
>Discover what things human should not do that will lead to misery and destruction

Problem:
>Never perfect, ever evoluving

>> No.4960537
File: 73 KB, 266x400, carefree.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4960537

>>4960514
morality is not subjective. I believe that morality is an innate concept that is embedded in all man, even if it is suppressed.

the effect and reason for morality is affected by society and culture, but at its core "morality" is simply and purely; Doing what is good and harmonious with your environment. Not to say that disrupting harmony is immoral, but to intentionally, maliciously disrupt harmony for personal gain and to disadvantage others for "no reason" is in fact immoral. simply because it serves no purpose.

This rationale could be used to justify killing people for gold, because the monetary gain is a purpose, though it is selfish. But selfish reasons invalidate any "rational" or "moral" choice. We have the capacity to use good judgment and use discretion to do what is good and right, but we dont. Its not always wrong to not do the right thing, but it is immoral to intentionally do the wrong thing, knowingly.

>>4960523
no i was just kidding

>> No.4960566

>>4960516

>is the act of killing also not a negative repercussion of prior circumstances?

Yes, killing is a negative action.

>hunger is imposed on you by an external force outside of yourself

Hunger is an internal desire to use something external (like food or water) for sustenance, so yes, hunger is triggered by external forces.

>> No.4960573

>>4960537

Agreed.

>> No.4960595

>>4960497
I don't think you quite grasp the concept of God and absolute authority.

The whole point is that it's not you who picks. What you think is irrelevant in that context, it just is. It would be like trying to say "if I don't believe in circles they don't exist, if I don't subscribe to circles they aren't real". If you bring in a God with a moral code, you solidify morals into the INTRINSIC FABRIC OF THE UNIVERSE. They would be as real as matter, and the God itself. It doesn't matter if you "pick that God", if you picked another you would be wrong, much in the way if you called a circle a triangle, you would just be straight up objectively wrong.

>> No.4960607

>>4960526
>problem
>holocaust is okay

Be careful with that. Moral Relativism is more of an unbelief. If you applied it correctly, in terms of the holocaust, you would get "The holocaust is". There would be no attachment of any form of right or wrong. There would only be the holocaust as it existed and it would have no connotations whatsoever unless you choose to (falsely) project them onto it.

To summarize, for a true moral relativist, the holocaust wasn't okay and it wasn't okay. It just was.

>> No.4960638

>>4960607
> If you applied it correctly, in terms of the holocaust, you would get "The holocaust is"
No, you'd get "the holocaust isn't"

>> No.4960646

>>4960607
>>4960638

Point is, you should turn a blind eye to events such as Holocaust, according to Moral Relativism.

>> No.4960651

>>4960638
Hah, I see what you're saying. I think the you'd even more likely just get "the holocaust".

>>4960607
Also realized the last part should read "wasn't okay and it wasn't wasn't okay".

>> No.4960654

>>4960646
I don't disagree, I'm just saying when you slip in the word 'okay' you're pretty much contradicting everything moral relativism is. Just looking out for you anon.

>> No.4960662

>>4960573
i could go even further to say that, if a group of people were to kill for gold, it would be wrong, but in certain circumstances for example in africa, that gold could be used to feed thousands. Is killing and stealing wrong? Yes. Is feeding thousands of otherwise impoverished people wrong? i want to say no.

>>4960566
i can see you're going all the way..

External forces included, hunger is a response to a physical need. And food is acquired to taken in for sustenance. However, WHY do we eat? Its to nourish ourselves, but why is this? Not simply because "im hungry", but because our bodies require fuel, and chemicals to function properly. Sugar, salt, potassium, protein.. but WHY? because our brains need it. When you eat sodium, you NEED potassium to balance your electrolytes for optimal blood pressure, and to act as a conductor for bio-electricity. this keeps your nervous system running smoothly, and your brain working. your brain makes everything function; things like acquiring protein, to give you muscle go out and hunt for more food. In which case you will need balanced electrolytes to maintain a healthy blood prsesure, so that you dont get tired and weak when on the hunt.

we discus the reason and logic of killing, but even this is tied to things as simple as eating.

So..i got a little sidetracked, losing my train of thought..but ultimately the brain is the reason for hunger, and thusly hunger is an internal force, rather than external.

>> No.4960669
File: 39 KB, 382x435, ugly son of a bitch killing your friends.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4960669

BUMPING THREAD WITH PURE AUTISM I WROTE IN MY DIARY THE OTHER DAY

1/2

the human condition
1. all people act to benefit themselves
2. benefiting yourself is achieving or increasing the likelyhood of
desire is wanting, wanting is desiring, values are the object of our desires or perhaps the guiding principle of our wanting or perhaps the wanting itself
1. wants are prior to needs
2. needs are only an expression of our own weakness, they are and do occur due to the complement of our personal ability in relation to our desires
you want to live, this is a temporal desire; you want to continue to live
you can not simply live based on your own ability, you can not simply continue to live only through yourself so your living is conditional
it can thus bee seen that this inadequacy creates needs, certain conditionals that must be for your desires to be fulfilled - you must procure air, food, water and shelter - and in this way needs are an expression of your weakness, the fact that you cannot consist of yourself through yourself, and the need exists as the result of your inability in relation to a specific desire
the relation with this specific desire is of chief importance. if you do not want to live, do you then need to breath/eat/drink? no, in fact you would need to bring these activities to a halt to fulfil your desire - your own death
1. all desires, values and purposes can only be seen from the frame of reference of a subject
2. a subject is either that which can experience qualia or the qualia occurring/being itself
3. morality is the threat of violence for detriment to the values of the more powerful, inherently social, the approval of benefit
4. violence is detriment caused by one subject upon another
5. friendship/love/cooperation is benefit caused by one subject upon another
the categorical imperative is the greatest piece of satire given to us by one of the worlds foremost geniuses. the awkwardness inherent to morality as the individual no longer benefits from appeasing the majority is given full recognition and the values of the majority are taken to be the absolute in a scenario where the individual will not accept or want to accept the values of the majority and thus will denounce such a system. At heart everyone is selfish, appeasing the majority/being moral is selfishness that recognises its own inability, the inability to combat and ward off the violence of a majority/an other OR the need for an other, however when one cannot possibly benefit from appeasing and perhaps are being at the same time detrimented(for to act without benefit surely is a detriment) they will dissent. The individual has to in all situations where there is a possibility of benefit and detriment perform an analysis on the situation that ensures the best case for themselves.

>> No.4960670

>>4960595
>It doesn't matter if you "pick that God", if you picked another you would be wrong..The whole point is that it's not you who picks. What you think is irrelevant in that context

>I don't think you quite grasp the concept of God and absolute authority.

The problem with divine command morality isn't on God's side, the problem is on our side, humanity.

If we were all-knowing this wouldn't be an issue, lol.

We still have to guess and reason and have faith and make decisions under uncertainty, as to which is the pre-packaged Divine Command system is true.

>> No.4960671
File: 132 KB, 305x479, sartre this ugly.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4960671

2/2

our emotions direct our behaviour. the most adequate teleological account for their existence exists in our inability to perform benefit/detriment analysis of our situation with reason in the time that is required for us to act, however emotions are not irrational - they are a heuristic and there is likely to some extent consistent internal logic within their operation
1. what can bring upon benefit is also beneficial
2. what can bring upon detriment is also detrimental
4. violence is detriment caused by one subject upon another
if we consider that the threat of violence is still violence we can see that morality is itself simply a more subtle and cunning form of violence. if morality were more than a limiting agent upon an individual it could act as an abstracted friendship, morality perhaps only acts this way when you are the dominant value holder/most power-or-able
concepts of right and wrong are simply abstractions of this (moral)violence
the individual is free to desire and desire what it will
if the individual values others through its own will then altruism is truly possible
1. morality and values are interdependent between individuals
that is, if you do not value anything that can be affected by an other their attempts at violence are whispers in the woods, they may as well not exist, and the others may individually be more capable at affecting the possibility of your desires coming to fruition and so different instances of violence will be consequence for you depending on their source

>> No.4960711

>>4960671
>>4960669

plz stop spamming this thread

>> No.4960737

>>4960670
I see what you're saying, I thought you were talking about Divine Command in theory, not as it is actualized in our lives. Yes that is definitely a problem.

>> No.4960771

>>4960711
i only posted twice. not going to post again just thought it was relevant to conversation

>> No.4960820

>>4960771
I read the first few sentences, and I think you really went full pants-on-head retarded with that "needs" part.

Just take any want and it arises from a 'need'. It's pretty obvious that needs precede wants, since they exist independently of wants, for an example take any non-human organism ever. Wants seem to be a natural by-product that arise from our level of self-awareness and needs.

>> No.4960856
File: 583 KB, 1181x961, 1-giuliano.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4960856

>>4960820
oh okay, you don't have to agree but you sound pretty spooked imo
if you care, you might want to maybe read more carefully

>> No.4960900

>>4960662

Killing one group for the benefit of the other goes against your original purpose: preserving people's lives and stealing the resources at the expense of one group lives to benefit another group is still wrong.

>thusly hunger is an internal force, rather than external.

That's what I said in >>4960566, we agree.

>Hunger is an internal desire to use something external (like food or water) for sustenance, so yes, hunger is triggered by external forces.

>> No.4960958

>>4960537
it is entirely subjective.
but you can believe what you want.
the belief of "evil" is also subjective.

let me give you an example:
a man goes out and sleeps with another woman other than his wife,
is he wrong for doing so?
depending on teachings you were given as a child will vary your answer.

as for the evil thing.
look at a sparrow, is is inherently evil to you? unless your fucking insane, no it's not.
but if you a worm that sparrow is hitler.

>> No.4961002

>>4960900
i was referring to this
>hunger is triggered by external forces. Hunger isnt triggered by external forces. it is persistent due to internal forces, the brain.

But yes, we essentially agree.

as far as groups of people killing for positive gain, despite negative actions.. this is a blurry line. i think that all life should be preserved, if it be worthy of living. If a group of people oppresses another people with violence, their wellbeing is subject to the actions of those that would stand up for the oppressed people. so violence and killing is tolerated, even if killing is still wrong. the result would be the end of violence, which is a morally right goal to strive for; the end of violence. even if achieving it means becoming violent.

>>4960958
im not sure how to respond. You are hitler to cows. If a man has sex with a married woman, its a multi-tiered situation. The woman is wrong for being dishonorable to her husband. the man is wrong for, i assume, knowingly engaging with her. the man is also wrong for dishonoring her husband. the woman, again is wrong for not having respect for her relationship.

it has nothing to do with the bible, or religion or morals. it is more about selfishness, deceit, and taking what you feel you are deserving of with no concern to others, even your husband.

now the bigger question, when the husband finds out, would it be wrong to divorce, or could it also be seen by some as wrong for him to stay with her?

THAT is where morality becomes subjective, when other people try to tell you what is moral. but morality IN and OF itself is not capable of being subject. the very pure concept of "morals" is, like i said "harmony". harmony is not subject to other peoples opinions. and we as people are so quick to disrupt any harmony, like a man sleeping with another mans wife.

>> No.4961061

>>4961002
>im not sure how to respond. You are hitler to cows. If a man has sex with a married woman, its a multi-tiered situation. The woman is wrong for being dishonorable to her husband. the man is wrong for, i assume, knowingly engaging with her. the man is also wrong for dishonoring her husband. the woman, again is wrong for not having respect for her relationship.

you're getting close to what I mean.
morality is subjective because it has to fit the people who abide by it.
Muslims have a social construct where women are disposable as adults,whereas western society view this as abhorrent and savagery.

>it has nothing to do with the bible, or religion or morals. it is more about selfishness, deceit, and taking what you feel you are deserving of with no concern to others, even your husband.

that perspective is highly influenced by your morality, but a woman in that situation would feel as no one was physically hurt, it was morally moot.

it's a tough concept to think about without your personal feelings getting invoked.

but morality isn't carried by everyone the same way, and it's flimsy at best as a social construct.

>> No.4961173

>>4961061
Well we need to assume that the woman has some inclining to realize that it would be looked down upon to have sex outside her marriage. she might feel like nobody was hurt, but depending on the reason for her infidelity, she herself could be the one that is ultimately hurt, and possibly prior to having sex with another man. If her cheating was an attempt to quell some sort of emotional distress, then its still wrong to do so, because the woman obviously cant reasonably find alternative solutions to her problems. perhaps she doesnt try, or maybe she seeks only physical pleasures to express herself.

only seeking physical pleasures goes against the bible, yes, in this case morality is influenced by theology, but it is not purely religious. But to seek physical pleasures only for oneself is selfishness.

Selfishness is again another aspect of morality that determines if something is inherently "moral" or made subject to culture and perception.

Muslims are always wrong. their doctrines are death and oppression. they may think it moral, but im not sure they do. they do whatever, in the name of their god. Just because socially, a particular culture might not think a certain thing is morally "wrong" doesnt make it Not wrong. There is no standard to what is wrong or right, but morality is more than simply what is "wrong and right". morality is acting with good intentioned reason.

sleeping with a man out of marriage, is not acting with good intention. Marrying off children to men is not acting with good intention, in maintaining the childs personal freedom. stoning women for getting raped is not acting with good intention. a muslim man lying about raping a woman is not acting with good intention. and generally raping children, even if they are married is not a good thing... or is it?

>> No.4961316

>>4961173
>>4961061
Morality in my opinion is clear cut. What is right and wrong, is more fuzzy.

The ethics or morality is more trying to figure out what things are right and wrong, and if a certain thing is moral or immoral.

>> No.4961318

>>4961061
>Muslims have a social construct where women are disposable as adults
Please kill yourself

>> No.4961349

>>4959733
"Killing someone" could be right or wrong depending on the context.

>> No.4961406

>>4961316
that's my point.
moral compass is based entirely on right and wrong.
but your right could be my wrong.

so it's not as clear cut for you as me.

there is not right or wrong because no individual or action is inherently evil.

>> No.4961443

>>4961318
shariah law is real.
and if your woman disgraces you, you can kill her.
it's how it is.

>> No.4961447

>111 posts

So /lit/ is just /b/ with /books/

>> No.4961452

>>4959733
That depends on what "wrong" you mean.

Morals are just a persons internal rules for interaction, so if you don't murder and justify that it's too risky then you're a simple amoralist

>> No.4961470

>>4959790
No, OP is right. If you do not feel inclined to work with other humans and agree on morals then there's no argument that makes morals "right".

It's either a faculty you use or a faculty you don't. Petty moralists may not understand why this is so: you can't derive a morality from a physicality, at some point a moral axiom has to be asserted as the basis for all moralizing, and if someone rejects all moral axioms then they simply are amoral

>> No.4961497

>>4959750
not even that far.

its just evil, plain and simple. its inherently wrong, whether or not it affects society as a whole.

>> No.4961501

>>4961406
but morality is not subject to "right and wrong", its the opposite. morality is more or less set in stone.

Doing the right thing will always be "moral". and doing the right thing should always be "right. Doing the wrong thing is not always wrong, but it cant be "morally right".

an action is evil if it is done with the sole intention of having negative reactions and outcomes. a person who acts solely for the purpose of negative outcomes, is evil.

We arent Born evil, but we have the ability to understand, through inflection, and our own perception, of what is to be considered "good" and "bad".

To give you an example of "my right could be your wrong", think of this.

I smoke crack, and its soo gooood. And you Dont smoke crack because its bad for you. Its good for me cuz it makes me feel good, but you think its bad, simply because it is bad for the body.

Crack is bad, and even if its good feeling, its harming my body, and you know this. If you were to tell me, "thats bad for you", it would be seen as wrong to ME because you are impeding my personal freedoms to do as i please, even if my pleasure is again, causing my body damage. To confront me would be "right", for myself the crack addict, and you the good Samaritan, because you are acting with good intention. if 9/10 people say crack is good, there is no reason to surrender your opinion that crack is bad, because it is not an opinion; its a fact. It brings nothing of value, but a temporary pleasure which causes you to do more crack.

Is the crack addict a bad person? Not necessarily, they simply do a bad thing. Perhaps they dont know of any other way of doing things, but they certainly wont learn if not for the good word of someone who could do something so terrible as to tell them "crack is bad".

there is no compass. Doing what is right and good, is plain to see. its just easier not to do it, and claim that morality is a social construct; a fabrication.

>> No.4961521

>>4961497
>using the word evil without irony

>> No.4961540
File: 83 KB, 445x554, lindsay-lohan-10-6-09.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
4961540

>>4961501
> morality is not subject to "right and wrong" morality is more or less set in stone.
>Doing what is right and good, is plain to see

are you a real person?

>> No.4961561

>>4961501
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/morality
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/morality
http://www.allaboutphilosophy.org/definition-of-morality-faq.htm

morality isn't subject to right and wrong, because it's your definition of right and wrong.

so it is entirely subjective because morality will change from culture to culture to person to person.

>> No.4961564

>>4960607
>being autistic
By 'okay' he meant 'permissible' not 'approved of'

>> No.4961574

>>4961561
>this is what moral relativists (ie human cancer) actually believe

>> No.4961580

>>4961574
you seem to be lacking an argument there,friend.
I'm just telling how it is.
morals are not the same for everyone. that is not to say we should abandon them or abide by other morals, because that's ignorant.

>> No.4961585

>>4961540
i have transcended the use for traditional 3-dimensional logic-scapes

Doing good, doesnt have to be called attention to, if there be no wrong done. its like if you let your left hand see what your right hand is doing, only in this case, your left hand is doing right, and you right hand is doing right as well.

lol

>>4961561
the word morality is a social construct. Its meaning and truth will never change. Moral is everything that is not immoral. It never changes.

>>4961580
The thing is, ill continue morals cant change. its the perception of morals, or the lack of, that alters what is "good and right".

>> No.4961781

>>4961574
scared to death, scared to look, you shook
cause ain't no such things as half way spooks

>> No.4961803

>>4961585
oh I see,
you view morals as the social construct that they exist, rather then what they imply.

I can get that.
I was referring to what said morals stand for rather than the existence of said code of ethics.

so in reality we are not on opposing sides, because either you moved goalposts enough to agree on some level, or this was a misunderstanding.