[ 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: 48 KB, 550x550, 1418492575498.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6227580 No.6227580 [Reply] [Original]

>there are no intrinsic reasons to be "ethical"

>ethics is nothing more than societal pleading

>> No.6227586

ethics are primal, monkey-boy

>> No.6227622

>>6227586
Appeals to nature?

Get out man, this isn't amateur hour.

>> No.6227625

Ethical person here, get laid almost every day

>> No.6227629

>>6227580
People want to be "good" on the same level they want to eat and have sex. It's evolutionary.

>> No.6227631

>>6227580
have faith that there are

>> No.6227633

>>6227580
Chemical balances, berry-picker

>> No.6227639

>You'll never hear a girl say "You're so much more moral than my last boyfriend"

>> No.6227660

>>6227639
I have literally said this to a guy.

>> No.6227701

>>6227660
faggot

>> No.6227731

>>6227639
Yo if morality was rewarded, people, nobody would care about right or wrong, and everybkdy would just act egoistically.

>> No.6227738

Ethical guy here. Being ethical makes me and others feel happy.

>> No.6227740

>>6227731
But then egoism would be moral and that wouldn't even be a problem unless you're some kind of Kantian autist

>> No.6227838

>>6227701
I'm a girl, but nice projecting :)

>> No.6227858

>implying you wouldn't rape anything and everything if you were given the chance

>> No.6227859

>>6227740
Then morality wouldn't even be a thing yo.
>oh wow you did the right thing because you knew it would oay for you, I really wish more people would act in their own best interest

>> No.6227865

>>6227731
>and everybkdy would just act egoistically
But that's what people do without exceptions. Even so called altruism is nothing but work in exchange for social currency and dopamine.

>> No.6227867

>>6227838
hey sugar
I'm pretty moral, probably the most moral guy I know. let me know if you want some action, k?

>> No.6227996

>>6227859
I've never understood the insistence that acting in accordance with one's own self-interest is unacceptable. Surely, being moral is in everyone's best interest if morality exists at all.
This attitude is quite post-Kantian, the notion of ataraxia as Plato and Aristotle understood it involved being moral, and ataraxia was a selfish goal in that knowing the Form of the good could only benefit the knower. Even Christian morality is ultimately selfish.

>> No.6228001

>>6227858
Please.

Most of /lit/ is too beta to even have consensual sex.

>> No.6228008
File: 535 KB, 1285x1252, Altkirch_16_Karl_Bauer_1909.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6228008

>he sees ethics as something separate from the increase of his own powers

haha oh wow

>> No.6228017

>>6227580
>>there are no intrinsic reasons to be "ethical"

Wrong.
Being ethical creates trust and cooperation, which results in a more comfortable life

>> No.6228050

>>6227580

>there are no intrinsic reasons to be "ethical"


lel

>> No.6228054

>>6227580
No more than there are reasons to live.

>> No.6228071
File: 2.87 MB, 320x240, 1423218278662.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6228071

>>6227865
>altruism is nothing but work in exchange for social currency and dopamine
>implying altruism can't be, and isn't done for it's own sake.

>> No.6228079

>>6227580
>>there are no intrinsic reasons to be "ethical"

Other than, you know, the fact that people within communities live longer than those without
Try and tell me that ethics doesn’t have anything to do with that

That leap of faith is a hell of a lot more plausible that the one that ethics has no solid evolutionary basis. Tell me about how much your cortisol levels harden your arteries after living in a cannibalistic, self mutilating society and then thank god you live in a society predicated upon these values

>> No.6228727

>>6228079
That's not intrinsic.

>> No.6228789

>>6227996
>I've never understood the insistence that acting in accordance with one's own self-interest is unacceptable
It isn't inacceptable, it just cannot be the standard of moral behaviour, and thus a sepration between moral motifes and egoistic ones is necessary.

And yeah, you said it, christians are selfish bastards who don't knkw shit about morality.

>> No.6228813

everybody pls go and stay reading genealogy of the morals

>> No.6228903

>>6227629
Not the same level. People want to be "good" so that they can eat and have sex.

>> No.6228908

>>6228079
It's utilitarian reason. Not intrinsic.

>> No.6228915

>>6227738
Cuckold.

>> No.6228925

lol read plato

>> No.6228930

>>6227622
You were just bashing society, praising "intrinsic reasons". Is that not an appeal to nature?

>> No.6228948

>>6228789
>it just cannot be the standard of moral behaviour
But it isn't, and I never implied it should be. Knowing that you benefit from being moral doesn't invalidate morality under any circumstances. This is a non-problem.
>Implying you have a better moral code than Jesus did

>> No.6228966

>>6228925
Holy fuck, this. I was as libertarian as they came for the longest time, then I read Gorgias and Republic and I was just obligated to changed my mind. Literal step by step logical proof that pleasure is not the same as goodness, the temperate life is better than the intemperate one, and acting unjust for "personal gain" even if there were no repercussions is only enslaving yourself to your ultimately destructive appetites. I went on from there to read the modern ethical philosophers; now I feel very confident in my moral compass and am much more clear-minded and at peace than I was when I was completely convinced that it was all just artificial meaningless bullshit for the weak to enslave the strong and courageous.

>> No.6228974

>>6228017

I could just pretend to be ethical

>> No.6228979

>>6228974
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges

>> No.6228992

>>6228974
sup devil's advocate glaucon

>> No.6228996
File: 67 KB, 600x620, 1384779540510.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6228996

>>6228966
>all these spooks

kek

>> No.6229003

>tfw knows error theory is probably true
>tfw like reading ethical philosophy more than any other phil.
>tfw the people around me live as slaves to the pleasures
>tfw I live arbitrarily ignoring my inclinations and desires, doing whatever would be least beneficial to me
>tfw wants to be a Utilitarian or someone who adheres to an arbitrarily moral code that one develops

>> No.6229011

>>6228996
>all these memes

jaj

>> No.6229015

>>6228966
> pleasure is not the same as goodness,

I was not satisfied with that in the book. Why is goodness something I should strive for?Pleasure is something I can genuinely experience. Goodness for it's own sake is only satisfying as far as it can provide pleasure.

>> No.6229027

>>6229015
Well, that all depends on this: would you rather constantly satiate your body's basic desires for temporary pleasure, or transcend the inclination to indulge in those pleasures for clarity and peace of mind? If you truly prefer the first option, nobody is going to stop you; I just don't understand why anyone would think it's more appealing.

>> No.6229037

>>6229011
>jaj

go fuck yourself Pedro

>> No.6229043

>>6229037
i think i will, thanks for the suggestion.

>> No.6229080

>>6229027
>would you rather constantly satiate your body's basic desires for temporary pleasure, or transcend the inclination to indulge in those pleasures for clarity and peace of mind?

Implying that the benefits of being unethical can only be temporary and visceral

>> No.6229093

>>6229015
>Why is goodness something I should strive for?
Because it's the best, this is literally the most airtight logic in philosophy.

>> No.6229097

>>6229080
Reread Gorgias; Socrates demonstrates that pleasure and pain leave the body simultaneously. You're asking for itches to scratch.

>> No.6229113

religion owns. i suggest being religious.

>> No.6229118

proof that atheism is a bad idea: to coherently defend atheism you have to end up arguing for why genocide or whatever isn't objectively morally wrong. if atheism was good, why would it put its followers in such stupid positions? atheism is maladaptive

>> No.6229125

>>6229118
My goodness, I hope you don't only act morally for personal salvation (i.e. self interest).

>> No.6229129

>>6229125
>Implying self-interest is wrong
Again, this Kantian bullshit has to end.

>> No.6229132

>>6229125
fortunately i am not atheist

>> No.6229139

>>6229113

>mass murdering people for worshiping the wrong god
>ethical

>> No.6229140

>>6229118
>if atheism was good

I like to think that atheism is true but not necessarily good.

>> No.6229145

>>6229118

>to coherently defend atheism you have to end up arguing for why genocide or whatever isn't objectively morally wrong.

Luckily, thanks to Moses, we now know that genocide is a-okay

>> No.6229147

>>6228966
>The free life was too hard for me so i willingly turned back into a slave

>> No.6229151

>>6229118
Firstly, you don't. There are many ways an atheist could believe those are morally wrong and still be consistent.

Secondly, why exactly are any of those things wrong?

>> No.6229152

>>6229132
What does that have to do with what I said? Why do you act morally, if not for personal salvation?

>>6229125
Kant was certainly not the only, nor the first, to speak against self interest. Read more philosophy outside of your comfort zone, in a completely unbiased mindset.

>> No.6229153

>>6229145
Good thing some of us aren't Jews :^)

>> No.6229165

>>6229152
why act
what is acting even
i don't know what's going on here bro
life is so crazy

sorry for trolling the atheistbros. but religion is pretty good i recommend it

>> No.6229167

>>6229153

No, I bet you're one of those pick-and-choose Christians, which makes your rants about moral relativism all the more hilarious

>> No.6229178

>>6229147
On the contrary. The people who do whatever they deem to be okay by their own book are enslaved by their desires, and by transcending that illusion of freedom, I became truly free.

>> No.6229184

>>6229178
>and by transcending that illusion of freedom, I became truly free.

And who said you did?

>> No.6229194

>>6229184
The logical conclusion of rational thinking?

>> No.6229202

>>6229194

And what makes you think you, out of all the 7 billion people on the planet, have reached this mythical conclusion of rational thinking that is apparently out of reach for us desire slaves?

>> No.6229205

>>6229202
Oh, I'm definitely not the only one, not by a longshot. And it's certainly not out of reach for you. Not sure where I got that impression.

>> No.6229206
File: 338 KB, 1419x1427, image.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6229206

You sure about det?

>> No.6229211

>>6229205
>I
*you, my b

>> No.6229216

>>6229205

And what exactly makes you and your group of noble elders so much better than everyone else? Because you sound exactly like the desire slaves you despise

>> No.6229224

>>6229216
>group of noble elders
No idea where you're getting these ideas. The world of philosophy is pretty much torn half and half between moral relativists and moral absolutists. What about my post sounds like I'm a "desire slave"?

>> No.6229241

>>6229224

You desire absolute truths, and even think you're the unique possessor of the truth with a fixed capital T. I'm willing to bet your Philosopher King has the exact same function that the free market has to the average libertarian, which means you're exactly like him, except with different labels

>> No.6229251

>>6229216
>being this much of a thrasymachus/callicles

>> No.6229255

>>6229241
I didn't chase after absolute truths. I just started reading the philosophy, certainly not in search of absolute morals since I was a relativist, and it just made sense. Also
>strawman strawman strawman

>> No.6229262
File: 6 KB, 200x266, le box squat man.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6229262

HOW MUCH DO THE ATHEISTS ITT BENCH

>> No.6229266

ethics protect everyone

>> No.6229290

>>6229255

Plato's Philosopher King does not have access to the Ideal, higher truths that mere peasants don't have?

Also, what do you base your absolute and perfect morals on? Your own views?

>> No.6229302

>>6229290
Who said I agree with everything Plato says? This is the definition of strawman.
I don't base them on anything. They're rooted in the application of systematic, critical, rational thinking to questions like "what are morals?" and "what is goodness?".

>> No.6229313

>>6229290
dude, you have zero conception of what moral absolutism is. the fact that when you hear of such a thing, you presume it's limited to a tiny minority who thinks they're better than everyone, goes to show that you don't know anything about the subject. it's a massive category of thinking with a great amount of people standing by it.

>> No.6229321

>>6229302

>I don't base them on anything.

Then why are they absolute?

>> No.6229326

>>6229321
Anything subjective or personal, I meant. Should have worded that better.

>> No.6229374

Things don't need to be "intrinsic" in order for you to live them, talk about them, put them to use and so forth.

I don't get why fags get so worked up about anything that is subjective and relative. It shows how hard it is to accept it. As if you folks were searching for a truth that is completely separate from the world. Yes, opinions are subjective, ethics are talked about through societies and attitudes, we function on ideology. That doesn't mean "discard them!" it means, let's start to fucking talk about them.

>> No.6229402

>>6229326

Your moral truths are without any subjectivity whatsoever?

>> No.6229416

>>6229402
Not mine. THE moral truths. It's really not an esoteric concept, as >>6229313 said. There are volumes of writings about it, spanning at least 2400 years.

>> No.6229460

>>6227580
What we might call "proper ethics," instead of those that you follow when they benefit you and neglect when they don't, can only spring from a pseudo-Christian ideological masochism.

>> No.6229476

>>6229015
Goodness is just a brief period of mania. Abstract hedonism.

>> No.6229496
File: 102 KB, 640x640, #seafresh.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6229496

>>6227580
Morality is just a haughty word for a certain subset of preferences.

Preferences are real though, moral ones no more or less than other ones. "Killing is bad" and "chocolate icecream is good" are the same sort of statements.

>> No.6229608

>>6229206
>virtlie
>solirces

>> No.6229619

>>6229027
>Well, that all depends on this: would you rather constantly satiate your body's basic desires for temporary pleasure, or transcend the inclination to indulge in those pleasures for clarity and peace of mind? If you truly prefer the first option, nobody is going to stop you; I just don't understand why anyone would think it's more appealing.

False dichotomy? Why can't I occasionally satisfy primal desires, keep a nice balance in life and just be happy all around? What's with the notion that 'pleasure' comes from satisfying the body's basic desires? Clarity and peace of mind is pleasureable as well and seems like it is to you too, otherwise you probably wouldn't adhere to it.

>> No.6229796
File: 1.54 MB, 300x229, 1422242390392-0.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6229796

>>6227580
>implying that happiness isn't the highest good
>implying that ethics aren't the only way to happiness
>implying that being unjust will lead you to true happiness, and not just corrupt your soul, leading you to more unhappiness
It's like you didn't even start with the Greeks.

>> No.6230543

>>6229796
>Implying that ethics is the only way to happiness.
>Implying that a "corrupted" soul leads to unhappiness.
It is as if you were not even a Machiavellian.

>> No.6230890

>>6229496
so if i kill ur mom it's like liking icecream?

>> No.6231252

This thread deserves a nobel award.

>> No.6231751

>>6229796
>implying that ethics aren't merely just another way the discourse of the master takes its shape
>implying if you live by the abitrary rules established by someone else you aren't opening yourself up to subordination

>> No.6231758

>>6228001
Noncon is more beta than con, by definition.

>> No.6231779
File: 35 KB, 640x424, dead-roaches.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6231779

Ever notice the people that most fixate on nihilism are essentially a egotistical hedonistic slug race of human being?

>> No.6231804

>>6231779
Sounds like op

>> No.6231833

>>6227580
intrinsic ethics are inherit to perception.

eg. a cat sees food, the food looks good to the cat. To the cat, the food is good.

there is no ethics outside a perceiver.

>> No.6231864

>>6227580
There are no intrinsic reasons.

>> No.6233001

>>6227629

The sense of "good" which you speak of here does not point toward any morality of self-restraint or mutual respect. This primordial "good" that people want to be, is the "good" of excellence, achievement, and success. The "good" of Abrahamic-style morality has to be taught.

>> No.6233010

>>6229619
Let me know when you see an ascetic saying "yeah it's okay to relapse on the discipline once and a while; this whole renunciation of bodily desires for spiritual peace is sometimes false in its hypothesis."

>> No.6233015

>>6233001
>This primordial "good" that people want to be, is the "good" of excellence, achievement, and success.
Nope, it's the kind of good that gets them to live harmoniously among their tribe members. Morality is just conformism, or as Freddy said: "the herd-instinct in the individual."

>> No.6233183

>>6227580
Empathy is an adapted trait

>> No.6233218

>>6229216
>putting on airs bullshit

Read Vonnegut faggot

Not that guy

>> No.6233248
File: 138 KB, 908x540, 1422398168771.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6233248

NICE MORALITY FAGGOT!

>> No.6233427

>>6233010
But you're not an ascetic and neither am I. How is that even an answer to what I've said?

Either way, I'd argue that ascetics derive some kind of pleasure from living an ascetic lifestyle. Props to them if that's what 'get's them off'.

>> No.6233879

>>6231779
your point is infallible and absolutely airtight in truth and fact. thank you for your intelligent musings.

>> No.6234233
File: 9 KB, 247x250, 1422620817527.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6234233

>>6228071
> believing man can act deliberately towards any cause but his own

>> No.6234343

acting ethically is sort of the opposite of demonic possession. except, like, good...

>> No.6234370

>>6234343
Yeah no shit Sherlock, that's why they call it eudaimonia, after all.

>> No.6234616

>>6234233
is the altruistic cause not lending itself towards the general cause which in turn is not lending itself back to my own cause?

>> No.6234639

>>6227629
>People want to be "good"
They want to be perceived "good" so they can get to eat and have sex.
think about it

>> No.6234702
File: 290 KB, 2308x1731, BASEDPUTIN.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6234702

>>6228979
>the man who abused the power of the Ring of Gyges has in fact enslaved himself to his appetites, while the man who chose not to use it remains rationally in control of himself and is therefore happy

>self control leads to happiness

>mfw socrates has never even been to a bacchanal