/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.19404439]

Assume no emotions, desires, or preferences exist. Then morality cannot exist, as no one would benefit nor be harmed by any action. Now imagine that an individual has preferences, but the world does not. Then he will certainly prefer some actions over others, even believing that other people have preferences as he does, but in the end, he’s only acting out of his own, irrational preferences. Now imagine that he does not have preferences, but that the world does. Then, to him, it does not matter what he does, as all experiences and therefore actions are equally preferable to him.

So it is clear that morality, if it can be said to exist, is wholly dependent on subjective preferences, which are beyond rationality. The only moral axiom that could exist is that I should do what I will have preferred in the end, though this is circular, as the only justification for why I should do what is preferable is because I prefer it. But any other formulation of morality is no less circular, and certainly more absurd. The word “should” is an odd word, but it can be clarified if you remember that it is based on some goal. For example, if you want to go to sleep early, you should stop using electronics before bad. But everyone wants to have the least regret, everyone wants to live a preferable life and be happy, so “should” in a general sense is based on this goal. We can say with confidence that certain things are healthy and good for us, but of course, no one truly knows what is best in the long run for the self, just as the utilitarian does know what is best for the world. After all, any “gray area” in moral decisions is nothing other than the result of not knowing which choice is better for the self.

[Anonymous No.19404446]

>>19404439
forget the lever, put the one guy on the track with the other people so there are no witnesses.

[Anonymous No.19404457]

>>19404439
This would be true if god didn’t exist

[Anonymous No.19404462]

This picture of morality is rather simple, and it should be. However, it is a little more complex when considering transcendent lifestyles, spiritual enlightenment, etc. To the enlightened being, everything is perfect, there is no resistance to what is. But it may even be argued that all people are on a long spiritual journey that is going as it should, so that every experience was meant to happen exactly as it did. Then morality becomes somewhat meaningless when you zoom out.

[Anonymous No.19404467]

>>19404457
I don’t see how that changes anything. People worship God for ultimately selfish reasons. The man who has no preference for heaven or hell cannot be punished or rewarded.

[Anonymous No.19404567]

>>19404439
>Assume no emotions, desires, or preferences exist.
stopped reading right there

[Anonymous No.19404611]

>>19404567
It’s a thought experiment

[Anonymous No.19404668]

>>19404611
ok, just to know before I read it all, are pleasure and pain accounted in 'emotion'? and what does 'no preference' mean? can't I prefer to not harm someone else given the choice, or am I assuming total indifference?

[Anonymous No.19404686]

>>19404439
leave morality to me

[Anonymous No.19404687]

>>19404668
to be without preference of experience is to not prefer any state over another. So literally any action would be no more preferable than another. Therefore, any choice is irrelevant, since the outcome is essentially the same.

[Anonymous No.19404823]

>>19404687
but wouldn't action itself be a preference over something else? how do you account for any action if there's no preference?

[Anonymous No.19404832]

>>19404457
so in other words, it's true

[Anonymous No.19404841]

>>19404823
Good question. It really is absurd, but it doesn’t change the point. Action is predicated on preference, and so morality must be as well

[Anonymous No.19404887]

>>19404439
I do not touch the lever. Fate surely had a good reason to put the trolley on its default path, and I'm not messing with that. But I do help the survivor(s) deal with their guilt, or I will shame them if they feel none.

[Anonymous No.19404905]

>>19404887
So you yourself do not participate in fate? Surely if you had touched the lever, it is because fate decided it. Why do you do anything at all?

[Anonymous No.19404921]

>>19404905
Fate decided to put an a hands-off asshole like me in that scenario for a good reason. I am merely a pawn in the grand scheme of things, thinking about such decisions logically would be futile, so I go with feelings.

[Anonymous No.19404937]

>>19404921
so then you didn’t really provide a good reason for why you decided not to pull the lever. It has little to do with fate, since every event is governed by fate. You didn’t pull the lever because of your own characteristics and motives. By your reasoning, you would allow the raping of a little girl over the arrest of the man because “fate had a reason for it to happen.” I hope you get my point

[Anonymous No.19404955]

>>19404439
you are pressuposing that morality means either 'bringing benefit' or 'avoiding harm'. You believe that, were the Good to not bring benefit to anyone, it would not be the Good?
Say there's a goblet on the table. Say for whatever reason you dislike this object, the goblet. Would it be right for you to say:
>That object does not exist, neither it is a goblet, for I will it not to be so
Now both me and you, if being honest, agree that this object, namely the goblet, does not 'cease' to be itself because you dislike it, or because it brings no benefit to you that it is itself.

Why would the Good be any different?

[Anonymous No.19404968]

>>19404937
>By your reasoning, you would allow the raping of a little girl over the arrest of the man
But I don't know if any of the people in the trolley scene are guilty of anything. Maybe I am saving 5 rapists and killing a saint. In your scenario I am going to try to stop the rapist because it is evident to me that one is inflicting pain upon the other.

[Anonymous No.19404996]

>>19404955
>You believe that, were the Good to not bring benefit to anyone, it would not be the Good?
Yes. How can it be “Good” ? What does that even mean?
>Why would the Good be any different?
First of all, it can be argued that the existence of a thing and the perception of a thing are the same. But anyway, this is another debate, and until you define Good, I would rather not go down this route yet

[Anonymous No.19405022]

>>19404968
The trolley problem is just a specific type of the general problem. The real problem goes something like this: suppose 5 people are about to be accidentally killed, but you have the power to change this so that only one person is killed. It is the difference between allowing 5 people to die and killing someone to save 5 people.

But to respond to your point, surely if these people are guilty, then they can be killed later. And it makes no sense for the saint to be tied up as well. And what if there are 5 saints against 1 saint? You can ask all sorts of questions like these. So you should not focus on the literal setting of the problem

[Anonymous No.19405072]

>>19404996
It is said of objects that they can have properties.
Say, matter (in general). Matter has any number of properties, one of them that it has Mass. Now Mass is not a 'thing', like say a goblet or a sparrow are things. Yet by the definition of Matter (which necessitates Mass) we know that all Matter must have Mass, otherwise it would not be Matter.

The same is true for all properties - say a goblet is blue. It has any number of properties, at least one of which is 'being blue'. This blueness is not a 'thing', like the goblet is, yet it is a property, and an object - an abstract one, truly, but an object.

See you can say that there is an object called 'my (personal) Good'. That object (which is not made out of stuff, it's abstract) will be defined as having at least both the property of 'being yours' and 'being good'. So it is clearly neither 'yourness' or 'goodness' pure. Now there must be an object that has not the property of 'being good' per se but rather IS the Good, the property itself.

THAT is the Good I am talking about. It is, indeed an object, and it does not stop being itself just because it brings you no benefit

[Anonymous No.19405077]

>>19405022
>suppose 5 people are about to be accidentally killed
There's nothing accidental about this. They have all been carefully tied up on the trolley tracks. They are all also been selected to be identical looking people, all nondescript white males of the same height, dressed the same.
I have no criteria to proceed with. Were some of them an ethnic minority, women, uglier or prettier, or expensively dressed or poorly dressed, or below 6 feet of height, or crossdressing, I would have been able to draw a decision based on my own prejudices and world views. But here I'm looking at 6 white men who look exactly the same. Or 6 taiwanese female midgets who look exactly the same, it wouldn't change. I can only make a decision based on quantity: are more lives better than one? It's not enough to decide, so I cannot act. Now if I had the time to interact, I would yell, "quick! who do I save?" and based on the answers I would kill whoever says to kill the other party, and if both answer that, I set the trolley to kill as many as possible.

[Anonymous No.19405078]

>>19404439
>Assume no emotions, desires, or preferences exist.
I would prefer not to.

[Anonymous No.19405097]

>>19405072
I like vanilla, my friend prefers chocolate. How can you say that tastiness is a property of the thing itself? It is only I who says it is tasty. Sure you may find an “object” that benefits most, if not all, people, but it would only be because it is subjectively good for all of them. Take away their preferences and the thing is no longer good. Take away my taste and all food is the same. Take away all my senses, and the world ceases to exist for me. I cannot escape myself.

You still haven’t defined good

[Anonymous No.19405102]

>>19405097
A vanilla ice cream tastes of vanilla. It is tasty.

[Anonymous No.19405112]

>>19405097
Not him but the balance is tipped by whether or not I agree with you or I like you more than I like your friend. It is where the inner worlds touch that reality is shaped. Reality is not within but liminal.

[Anonymous No.19405133]

>>19405097
>I like vanilla
That is a true statement.
>This ice cream is vanilla flavored, I like it because of the aforementioned
Both true.
>therefore vanilla ice cream is good
That translates as
>this particular Object has any number of properties, amongst which are "ice cream"ness "vanilla flavour"ness, the property of 'being liked (by you)' and the property of 'being your good'
Now the property of 'being your good' has these properties
>being yours
>being good
Again, this demands that 'Good' be a property that can define objects of reality. It is a category - it does not stop being itself just because you like it or not. You cannot 'abolish' the Good because you don't like it or because it brings you no benefit.

Now we can discuss WHAT is the Good. It may or may not be beneficial. But that is a different discussion. What you are saying is that the Good must bring benefit, or do away with harm. The Good is the Good, it does not matter if it brings benefit or harm or does away with either.

[Anonymous No.19405138]

>>19405102
It has vanilla. It is only tasty to those who find it tasty. Your statement is completely false for those who lack the ability to taste.

[Anonymous No.19405147]

>>19405138
Why is it "tasty to those who find it tasty"? Why isn't every tasting of this ice cream absolutely different from every other?

[Anonymous No.19405151]

>>19405133
you still haven’t defined good

[Anonymous No.19405154]

>>19405138
>>19405147
Why the fuck would you allow someone with no tastebuds to speak about food?

[Anonymous No.19405156]

>Then morality cannot exist, as no one would benefit nor be harmed by any action.
Maybe if you're a brainlet manchild who believes in utilitarianism

[Anonymous No.19405172]

>>19405147
It consists of certain molecules, the person’s taste reacts to molecules in a certain way (and even this isn’t constant). So the only facts here are that the ice cream has certain chemical properties and that a human’s chemical receptors may lead to a pleasurable experience with the ice cream. It’s possible for one person to always enjoy the ice cream if his taste deception does not change, and this is subjective. Flies eat literal shit, this stuff should be obvious

[Anonymous No.19405175]

>>19405156
Then explain how morality could be meaningful in that context

[Anonymous No.19405177]

>>19405172
Which ones are the tasty molecules?

[Anonymous No.19405189]

>>19405177
what’s the point of this question? Let’s say a person likes molecule A. That doesn’t mean molecule A is objectively tasty. It just means that when the person taste molecule A, they have a pleasurable experience. In common terms, this person find molecule A tasty. This person likes molecule A.

[Anonymous No.19405191]

>>19405189
Person A likes vanilla ice cream. I'm afraid he has never tasted such a thing as a molecule.

[Anonymous No.19405192]

>>19405175
Morality is ultimately a set of states or goals which an entity considers "good." There are no constraints on what those goals can be, nor any rational derivations of them. For a rationalist utilitarian baby his morality is based on his own preservation and pleasure, for a particular kind of psychopath it revolves around hurting others, for an autist it might be some arbitrary structure he fetishizes and wants to continue, for the depressed it's self destruction. Base level belief and motivation are completely outside the bounds of reason.
>w-well I'll just redefine "benefits" to mean "furthers anything someone wants"
Fuck off

[Anonymous No.19405206]

>>19405191
ok, it is a group of molecules. How do you think taste is processed? On a chemical level. I don’t understand your point.

[Anonymous No.19405214]

>>19405192
So in other words, morality is determined by what people prefer, as I said. Ok got it

[Anonymous No.19405221]

>>19405206
The "group of molecules" is an abstraction you have created outside the bounds of the real human subjectivity you have made built your argument upon - the taster

[Anonymous No.19405229]

>>19405221
The molecules are independent of the taster. Some people find them tasty, others don’t. If it’s possible for someone to not find it tasty, then it can’t be said to be tasty objectively.

[Anonymous No.19405232]

>>19405229
How are they independent of the taster if there's no taste without a taster to taste them

[Anonymous No.19405243]

>>19405232
The taste exists in potentia between taster and molecule.

[Anonymous No.19405247]

>>19405243
"A mechanical ferret which says the n-word exists in potentia between the taster and molecule"

[Anonymous No.19405254]

>>19405232
It doesn’t matter if I can taste or not, the ice cream is still in my mouth. I can find it tasty, disgusting, neutral, or have no taste at all, but no matter what I won’t deny that there’s ice cream in my mouth. The molecules never lose their basic chemical properties, but they don’t have an objective property of being tasty

[Anonymous No.19405260]

>>19405254
Where does the leap from your own recognition of the ice cream existing, to these things called "molecules" existing independently, come from

[Anonymous No.19405267]

>>19405214
No, you used the words "benefit" and "harm." You can redefine them to be compatible with what I said if you REALLY want to, but that makes you a faggot who twists language to fit his biases instead of trying to see reality for what it is.

[Anonymous No.19405271]

>>19405260
I’m only demonstrating that it’s not objectively tasty as it’s possible to eat ice cream without tasting it. Imagine a planet where, for some reason, the people cannot taste ice cream. They might believe that ice cream is objectively tasteless. Or maybe they all hate the taste of ice cream, and universally find it disgusting. It’s all subjective. It should be obvious

[Anonymous No.19405278]

>>19405271
Imagine a planet where, for some reason, people do not believe in the existence of molecules

[Anonymous No.19405281]

>>19405267
To benefit is a simpler way of saying “to tend to a more preferable life” or something like this.
> So it is clear that morality, if it can be said to exist, is wholly dependent on subjective preferences, which are beyond rationality. The only moral axiom that could exist is that I should do what I will have preferred in the end
So I still don’t understand why you think morality can somehow exist if people don’t have preferences, that is, it’s possible for some actions to be more preferable (benefit) or less preferable (harm)

[Anonymous No.19405288]

>>19405278
So? In either case, ice cream isn’t objectively tasty. You can say things don’t objectively exist, I won’t disagree with you. But my main point is simply that things do not have an inherent property of being “good” or “tasty” etc.

[Anonymous No.19405312]

>>19405288
If it's the case that the molecules aren't objectively real either, how is it even possible to have a consistent procession of experiences of ice cream which taste roughly similar? I'm asking you to defend the integrity of the experiencing subject, since your position eliminates everything else.

[Anonymous No.19405319]

>>19405281
>I'm gonna redefine words so that I can continue to abuse connotations associated with the original definition while not technically being wrong
Faggot

[Anonymous No.19405320]

Life + consciousness can’t exists without preferences. DNA fundamentally encodes electrical, chemical, and physical processes that reinforce and “prefer” or select for preservation.

[Anonymous No.19405324]

Mom made spaghetti!

[Anonymous No.19405325]

>>19405320
Yeah "preferences" are pretty much a consequence of any kind of heterogeneity at all.

[Anonymous No.19405327]

>>19404439
Retard fag post

[Anonymous No.19405345]

>>19405312
when the subject is tasting what it perceives to be ice cream, it produces a certain sensation. That’s all that’s going on. It cannot be objective because it depends on the subject. Likewise, no action can be inherently moral or immoral. How does it make sense to apply human morality to that of lions and crocodiles? This is a clear example of the subjectivity of morality. Humans simply tend to have overlapping subjective preferences (as well as between humans and animals). It can only be defined by the subject. It does may matter what other people prefer, the only thing that matters to me is what I prefer.

[Anonymous No.19405355]

>>19405345
How can I go to the same ice cream store on 2 different days & have the vanilla 2 scoops taste the same, if my tasting it is "all that's happening"?

[Anonymous No.19405365]

>>19405355
because some part of the subject (you) remains constant. That is, when it thinks it’s eating ice cream, it produces a constant sensation.

[Anonymous No.19405371]

>>19405365
Where does the constancy of this part come from in those who aren't aware of it?

[Anonymous No.19405523]

>>19405077
>Now if I had the time to interact, I would yell, "quick! who do I save?" and based on the answers I would kill whoever says to kill the other party, and if both answer that, I set the trolley to kill as many as possible.
based

[Anonymous No.19406084]

>>19404439
>assume morality is subjective
>So it is clear that morality is wholly dependent on subjective preferences!

OP sucks cocks

>Now imagine that an individual has preferences, but the world does not.
Physically impossible: individuals are part of the world since they are made of the same substances the world is made of. The substances have preferences as shown in the physical laws of nature, so for the individual to have preferences so does the world need to have preferences. Likewise if the world has preferences so will the person. This hypothetical is a useless one. Where at least emotions, desires, and preferences rely on sentient creatures and their nonexistence, though unlikely, is physically plausible, you cannot conclude anything from the impossible scenario.

[Anonymous No.19406258]

>>19404439
What if both the world and the individual have preferences?

[Anonymous No.19406499]

>>19406084
Where did I assume morality is subjective?
> Now imagine that an individual has preferences, but the world does not.
the world = everyone else
>>19406258
it is equivalent to only the individual having preferences. Imagine if everyone else were simply automatons, acting and seeming like humans, but without any preference of experience. It would be functionally equivalent to the world where everyone is real. The individual will still rely on his preferences alone. It is impossible to escape it.

[Anonymous No.19406724]

>>19405072
>It is said of objects that they can have properties.
>Say, matter (in general). Matter has any number of properties, one of them that it has Mass. Now Mass is not a 'thing', like say a goblet or a sparrow are things. Yet by the definition of Matter (which necessitates Mass) we know that all Matter must have Mass, otherwise it would not be Matter.
>The same is true for all properties - say a goblet is blue. It has any number of properties, at least one of which is 'being blue'. This blueness is not a 'thing', like the goblet is, yet it is a property, and an object - an abstract one, truly, but an object
This common distinction has one problem: it always takes the classification of just what a "thing" is as given. How is a goblet any less of a property, just being a set of abstract qualities? You might reply that we are talking about a specific goblet, but such a specific goblet would, yet again, be nothing but a set of classifications, distinctions, and properties.

[Anonymous No.19406742]

>>19404841
What do you mean by ‘preference’? Obviously the universe has preference over systems that are simpler than other ones, or combine and reproduce itself easier than others, so that in some Darwinian sense—through natural selection—nature itself has preferences. And yet these are innate and lifeless actions, which are preferred through the substratum of already-existing laws of physics and chemistry and biology. Without preferences you get no intellect, without intellect you get no morality, and along with no morality, you get no preference to ask this question in the first place.

[Anonymous No.19406898]

>>19406742
Preference of experience, or a sum of experiences. A lot of people would prefer to live the life of a famous, rich person that lives by doing what they love. On a smaller level, people prefer the state of being healthy, attractive, in love, content, etc. “Preference” is like happiness/pleasure but in a more general sense. So it is like hedonism but in the ultimate sense. Instead of maximizing short term pleasures, we’re maximizing life enjoyment. The most moral life is the life that you would prefer to live over all other lives.