/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5204512]

Let's get a moral realism thread going.

Obviously there is such a thing as "morality"-- we have a word for it.

What is the nature of this thing called "morality"? Is it nominal? Universal? Is it natural to humans? Or is it artificial to humans- viz., do humans construct it?

How is morality actualized? Through thought or action? Through gestures or contracts?

And what of moral qualities? Are "virtues" and "vices" real traits of an individual identity? How do these traits exist, metaphysically speaking? More, what is "identity", and what is its relation to action? Are "virtues" and "vices" words to describe habit? Habits of what? Of thought? Of action?

Is there a such thing as moral progress or regress? How can we improve ourselves, morally speaking?

Be sure to mention what kind of conceptual schema your description of morality relies upon. Where does morality fit into the whole of human experience? Where is its place in epistemology? And what of aesthetics? Are morality and aesthetics at all related? After all, morality is generally taken to be within the purview of human valuation/value judgments. So, what is the conceptual nature of morality in a broader, axiological context?

And what about linguistically? Morality usually implements terms like "good" and "bad". Do "good" and "bad" in the moral sense share their meaning with other usage of "good" and "bad" in common parlance? Do you think that morality can be descriptive, or does morality necessarily implicate "prescriptive" or "normative" language?

And, finally, if morality is a thing held in common by humans, where does morality fit into a sociological and political framework? Do leaders lead the State's construction of morality, or does the State reflect the morality of the people? Different cultures doubtlessly reflect systems of morality that differ from one another... why is this? But, simultaneously, there are common threads amidst the moralities of different cultures... why's that?

Let us hear it, /lit/.

[Anonymous No.5204519]

>>5204512
Make one thread at a time, you autistic faggot.

SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE SAGE

[Anonymous No.5204524]

>>5204519
Anon, I forbid you to make a meme of my post here.

Bring it to s4s for board approval.

[Anonymous No.5204539]

>>5204512
>Obviously there is such a thing as "morality"-- we have a word for it.

We have the word "magic", too. But it usually refers to clever tricks and self-deception.

>What is the nature of this thing called "morality"?

It is, like most human constructs, an attempt at categorization. And, like most categorization, it is imposed from the outside. There is nothing "inherently" good or bad, etc.

>what is "identity", and what is its relation to action?

Any attempt at "identity" is a fracturing a man's being-in-the-world, his relation to the world and to other people. To reduce a man to his "vices" or "virtues" or any other attributes is to fracture a part from the whole. Because of this, it is very much possible and often common for "identity" to resemble nothing of a man's action.

>Is there such thing as moral progress or regress?

Within the bounds of some particular usage of "morality", yes. Like any game, there are rules which can be learned and a sense of progress to be had. However, which game of "morality" you are playing is largely dependent upon who you are interacting with, who is judging you, where you are, the place in history, etc.

>Be sure to mention what kind of conceptual schema your description of morality relies upon.

Pointless categorization makes it easier for handwavers to handwave. No thanks.

>Do you think that morality can be descriptive, or does morality necessarily implicate "prescriptive" or "normative" language?

It is descriptive, but that means that there can be no singular morality and that all conversations about morality depend on the participants. There may be a dominating view, but even then there are shades of ambiguity and discrepancy thanks to the nature of language.

>Do leaders lead the State's construction of morality, or does the State reflect the morality of the people?

It is reciprocal.

>But, simultaneously, there are common threads amidst the moralities of different cultures... why is that?

I couldn't possibly know, but most cultures still glorify murder despite what the dominant morality preaches...so long as it is murder performed by the State.

[Anonymous No.5204550]

>>5204539
But that will just receive the "she's a man in a woman's body" criticism (which has already been leveled in this very thread). Clearly there must be some uniquely female-identifying actions or thoughts for the character to be a good female character.

[Anonymous No.5204584]

Bump

[Anonymous No.5204592]

>>5204550

[Anonymous No.5204593]

Blimpo

[Anonymous No.5204648]

Obviously

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5204658]

>>5204512
Oh. No prob.

I suspect the dodecdog.png-guy

[Anonymous No.5204817]

nice

[Anonymous No.5204824]

The fucking mods, I swear.

[Anonymous No.5204914]

Just to be clear, mods, this is the real thread.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » No.5204923]

>>5204658


The board is on shrooms

[Anonymous No.5204924]

>>5204512
These duplicate threads are your most creative work yet.

[Anonymous No.5204926]

um

what is going on here

[Anonymous No.5204944]

>>5204924

Maybe I'm just tired, but I don't see what you mean. It would affect the usable labor force in the sense that it would raise the minimum level of wages required to employ, but this could be easily enough counteracted by mandatory employment seeking. In fact, that would almost be required for such a system.

How is that anything but cosmetically different from expanding social programs and tying these to mandatory employment seeking?

[Feminister is a pederast No.5204946]

>>5204924
What duplicate threads?

[Anonymous No.5204959]

>>5204914
I love you, Diamond Dog. You were always such a pain in my ass. PSI Rockin' never worked on you.

[Anonymous No.5204963]

>>5204959

WOULD YOU LIKE TO TYPE EROTIC STORIES TO ONE ANOTHER?

[Anonymous No.5204993]

>>5204963
YOU KNOW IT BB.

[Anonymous No.5204997]

>>5204539
T R U T H B O M B S
R
U
T
H
B
O P
M
B T F O
S

[Anonymous No.5204999]

>>5204993
pizza-rama kink-arama?

[Anonymous No.5205032]

>>5204999
Me, Man K. Man. Me want King Banana.

[Anonymous No.5205042]

>What is the nature of this thing called "morality"? Is it nominal? Universal? Is it natural to humans? Or is it artificial to humans- viz., do humans construct it?

it herd-animal instinct + the human capacity for deliberation/self-consciousness. dogs enforce social behavioral norms, they feel shame when they break them and pride when they adhere to them. the difference between dog morality and human morality is the dog does it without the reflexive "this is why i'm doing this" thinking that humans have when they make moral decisions.

>Is there a such thing as moral progress or regress? How can we improve ourselves, morally speaking?

i would say that whatever kind of morality you have, just about everybody will be morally superior if they become more consistent in their application of morality.

>Be sure to mention what kind of conceptual schema your description of morality relies upon. Where does morality fit into the whole of human experience? Where is its place in epistemology? And what of aesthetics? Are morality and aesthetics at all related? After all, morality is generally taken to be within the purview of human valuation/value judgments. So, what is the conceptual nature of morality in a broader, axiological context?

i'm operating on a emotivist/relativist understanding of morality. in the human experience it takes the role of an important set of emotional conditions that affect one's behavior. Morality and aesthetics are very related, both are biologically driven emotional attitudes

>And what about linguistically? Morality usually implements terms like "good" and "bad". Do "good" and "bad" in the moral sense share their meaning with other usage of "good" and "bad" in common parlance? Do you think that morality can be descriptive, or does morality necessarily implicate "prescriptive" or "normative" language?

good and bad mean suitable or unsuitable, for *this* purpose

if you dont specify the purpose you have in mind, the terms are meaningless, and also, not every purpose you cite makes them meaningful either (some purposes making use of the terms good/bad, creating a circle)

good food is food that is good for tasting or good for digesting. simple enough, if you have no intention of eating, good food is not good, i.e. good food is not a good construction material, even though its "good" still

morality runs into a pickle when you speak of things that morally good *in general*, because the purpose of morality seems to be "to do good", so a good morality becomes, "the one that leads you to do good", but you only know how to do good by appealing to what morality suggests, so its a circle

[Anonymous No.5205069]

>>5205042
Anon, please move your good post to the actual thread: >>5204328

[Anonymous No.5205079]

>>5205042
But pickles are always good food; they last longer than jams.