/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.7080637]

Is morality just a religious concept?

How can atheists consider morality to be anymore objective than aesthetics?

[Anonymous No.7080652]

Terrible Bait: The Thread

[Anonymous No.7080654]

>>7080637
Morality does not have to be objective to be worthwhile

[Anonymous No.7080658]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AjvIr3I4qQE

[Anonymous No.7080664]

How can religious people consider morality to be anymore objective than aesthetics?

[Anonymous No.7080678]

>>7080664
Because God didn't give aesthetic laws. Doesn't mean we think it's subjective though.

[Anonymous No.7080681]

>>7080637
Humans are born with a high sense of morality. If anything religion fucks it all up.

[Anonymous No.7080697]

>>7080637
There are atheists with morals, so no. A simple answer for a simple question.

[Anonymous No.7080717]

no, it isn't
but it also can be informed by faith
see agapism

[Anonymous No.7080739]

>>7080637
>Is morality just a religious concept?
No.

>How can atheists consider morality to be anymore objective than aesthetics?
By going Kantian or the like, or accepting that something not being objective does not mean it does not matter.

Also, morality is dictated by God from a religious context, but even then it's not objective. It's God's will and you either obey or get fucked up. It's not any more objective than living under the rule of a king, he just has better surveillance and more power.

[Anonymous No.7080761]

>>7080637
Morality is useful fictionalism. It's like the concept of free will. It doesn't really exist, but life will be very shitty if most people accepted it and stopped living under an illusion. Or at least that's what people say.


Read up on the Moral Error Theory sometime.

[Anonymous No.7080772]

Morality is unnecessary. Empathy and fear of consequences are enough to ensure that society functions properly. Moral rules only make things worse by making people feel justified doing things that would otherwise conflict with their sense of empathy or knowledge of undesirable consequences.

[Anonymous No.7080807]

If you cant see how morality arises from human instinct you are too wrapped up in bullshit to look at life objectively, or youre trolling

[Anonymous No.7080825]

>>7080772
>Empathy and fear of consequences are enough to ensure that society functions properly.
And yet history is one long road full of of hatred, discrimination, war, suffering, avarice, and self-induced suffering.

[Anonymous No.7081261]

>>7080825
And morality.

[Anonymous No.7081265]

>>7080761
ebin B)

[Anonymous No.7081277]

[Anonymous No.7081295]

>>7080637

>stupidest OP i've seen today.

And I browsed /pol/ earlier.

[Anonymous No.7081325]

>>7081295
It's not really stupid, it's just the first question people ask when they fall from religion.

[Anonymous No.7081340]

Because aesthetics is all that really matters.

[Anonymous No.7081358]

>>7081325

>fall

Interesting use of that word.

Anyway, are you quite sure it's the first question they all ask? Falling into uncertainty isn't often what people seek. (An answer to that question may lead to the "fall", perhaps.)

[Anonymous No.7081369]

>>7081358
>Anyway, are you quite sure it's the first question they all ask? Falling into uncertainty isn't often what people seek. (An answer to that question may lead to the "fall", perhaps.)

>look at me momma I'm splitting hairs all on my own

[Anonymous No.7081372]

>>7080637
Pleasure and Pain are undeniably good and bad, this is the foundation of Utilitarian ethics and I point I personally believe to be immovable.

I ground my ethics in gearing my actions towards being the kind which produce the more pleasure than pain as a consequence.

[Anonymous No.7081382]

>>7081369

>i said sumfing stupid
>let me cover muh tracks

[Anonymous No.7081387]

>>7081372
Sometimes pain is necessary.

[Anonymous No.7081390]

>>7081372
for yourself, for a certain group, for all people or for all beings?

how do you measure pleasure and pain in others to determine which act leads to the most net pleasure

[Anonymous No.7081394]

>>7081387

>thinks something cannot be both necessary and bad

[Anonymous No.7081396]

>>7080637
Yes, morality is a label applied to religious and prescriptive ethical systems that lack sufficient justification to simply be called ethical schools of thought. You're asking a semantic question.

>how can atheists consider morality more objective than aesthetics
A. Utilitarianism
B. They don't, because they believe both ethics and aesthetics are resultant from the human brain. Not being psychopaths, they then go about their days not fucking up other peoples' lives.

[Anonymous No.7081400]

>>7081394
I AM NOT UPPER CLASS TWIT OF THE YEAR!

[Anonymous No.7081406]

>>7081396
mirin that image

[Anonymous No.7081407]

>>7081372
pleasure and pain are immeasurable.

your move JSM

[Anonymous No.7081409]

>>7081407
That will soon no longer be true.

[Anonymous No.7081412]

>>7081407

>pleasure and pain are immeasurable.

Try reading Bentham. He attempted to quantify both.

>>7081409

Invasive neuro-chemical readers?

[Anonymous No.7081414]

>>7081412
Non-invasive would be nice.

[Anonymous No.7081438]

>>7081414

Lots of vings vood be nioce. Now settle down vor yhour procedure, sir.

[Anonymous No.7081441]

>>7081412
Objection!

May the court record read that Bentham failed, and there is still no substantial or empirical way to measure 'pleasure' or 'pain'

[Anonymous No.7081460]

>>7081414
those readers wouldn't read pleasure or pain, but rather the synapses in your brain.

it would thus be 'painful' to deny a drug addict his drug, even if it were to not be assisting him in quitting his habit.

[Anonymous No.7081487]

>>7081460

>it would thus be 'painful' to deny a drug addict his drug

No, it would just be less pleasurable.

>even if it were to not be assisting him in quitting his habit

You would really have to assess whether use of that particular drug has an overall detrimental effect on this person's life.
Does it close of opportunities and appreciation of other activities? If so, quitting that drug is good in order to achieve and access those other (often higher) pleasures.
If not, keep puffing/shooting/ingesting away, comrade.

[Anonymous No.7081503]

>>7081487
>No, it would just be less pleasurable.
Confirmed for not understanding drug addiction and talking out of your ass.

[Anonymous No.7081512]

>>7081503

>implying there's any scientific consensus on "addiction"

Keep trying, pleb.

[Anonymous No.7081523]

>>7081512
>Death from withdrawal isn't 'objectively' painful

Really nigga?

[Anonymous No.7081526]

>>7081512
Now you're just embarrassing yourself. Time for you to stop posting.

[Anonymous No.7081532]

>>7081523
>>7081526

>being this rattled

Define addiction.

[Anonymous No.7081534]

>>7081487
You're a degenerate for 2 reasons.

First, because you encourage harmful drug abuse
But primarily because your philosophy is weak as fuck

[Anonymous No.7081536]

>>7080681
Nope, it gives objective ground.
>>7080739
God is absolute goodness.
>>7081372
>Pleasure and Pain are undeniably good and bad
I deny your dichotomy, try again.

[Anonymous No.7081539]

>>7081532
No, you define addiction.

Let's play this game on your terms.

[Anonymous No.7081543]

>>7081534

>first, because you encourage harmful drug abuse
>But primarily because your philosophy is weak as fuck

Now that's just silly.

Also:
>implying you know what my philosophy is

>>7081539

>somewhat missing the point

I can't define addiction objectively and neither can you.