/sci/ - Science & Math

None. The best kind.

inb4 divine command theory bullshit

mine is "be excellent to one another" and "don't be evil".

I ABSOLUTELY DETEST THIS IDEA OF NAMING YOUR MORAL STANCE USING A PREDEFINED STRUCTURE WITH A NAME TAKEN FROM SOME CUNT WHO IS MOST PROBABLY DEAD

Fuck you and get out of /sci/

the ones bestowed upon me by my parents

The rule of fair reciprocity.

Kantian ethics mixed with Aristotelian virtue ethics.

>>2369383
I also dislike labels, and feel that no one label applies to me. But how about describing what types of arguments or ideals you agree with, and which you don't, instead of just having a bad temper?

>>2369381
I dislike 1, and 2.

Mine is be evil to people and profit from my cruelty. I'm a banker.

>>2369367
Future-utopian-buddho-utillitarianism

>make people think
>eat animals I don't give a fuck

>>2369367
self made, and modified over time, but largely static now.

basically its 'avoid causing suffering to humans at all costs' (encompasses: do not rape, murder, torture etc. this is the main rule)
'do not lie'
'do not gamble' *just because logically the odds are against you, so it is unwise)
'do not steal'

>>2369383

This. Except he mad.

>>2369392
>implying money = happiness
LOL
You keep telling yourself that. After a modest middle-class income, more money gives you a better view of your own "success", but it doesn't make you happier. In fact, "mo' money mo' problems" begins to kick in.
http://www.time.com/time/business/article/0,8599,2016291,00.html

>>2369399
Isn't the 'do not lie' rule a bit too strong? Lying doesn't have to be bad per se.

>>2369383
HEY! FUCK YOU BUDDY. WHAT'S WRONG WITH BEING DEAD?A LOT OF GREAT PEOPLE ARE DEAD.

>>2369399
Don't "lie" and "steal" fall under "don't cause harm to others", and doesn't "gamble" fall under "don't cause harm to self"?

>>2369406
>implying that study wasn't done by a bunch of jealous fags.

>>2369407
yeh, this is the one i slightly modified over time.
avoid lying in most situations, but assess the situation:
if you can cause less suffering by lieing, and the lie is unlikely to be discovered, then do it.
if the lie will cause equal or more suffering compared to not lieing, then do not do it.

>>2369411
i hadn't thought of it like that before... i agree. :)

>>2369413
Which is more likely? That, or that you're simply trying to discount data that oppose your predefined measuring stick for personal success? It's hard to be told you're barking up the wrong tree.

secular humanism.

>>2369435

>replace God with future version of perfected humanity
NOPE.avi

>mfw this thread and everyone in it is going to involuntarily shit on themselves.

>>2369451
how so?

Also, what's your take on the Prisoner's Dilemma as it relates to ethics and society?

>Talking about morals on my 4chons

>>2369464
Reported.

Rules keep the world from going to shit.

>>2369444
>future version of perfected humanity

do you even know what is secular humanism?

Dude.
there, I went on wikipedia for you

>Secular Humanism is a life stance that focuses on the way human beings can lead happy and functional lives.

>Though Secular Humanism posits that human beings are capable of being ethical and moral without religion, or God, that is not to say it assumes humans to be inherently or innately good.

>>2369471
>implying it isn't shit.

>>2369391
I hate you fucks. Oh noes! Can't have labels! Why define anything? Pattern recognition isn't one of our motherfucking human traits or anything.

>>2369483
Why so mad? There is a point where labels are damaging.

>>2369483
>Pattern recognition isn't one of our motherfucking human traits or anything.
Uh, actually, it's one of our defining abilities as a species. But I would agree on having broad terminology to allow just about any form of ethical beliefs to be expressed accurately.

Just like I'm not a Republican or Democrat. I don't have much faith in the intellect or honesty of people who can say that either party platform completely represents their own values.

>>2369475
I don't know about you, but my country isn't like Somalia at the moment. Grow up, kid.

>>2369499
>implying I don't live in Italy.

>>2369406
Actually, the amount of money is irrelevant. What makes us happy is financial equality. We don't care how many sparklies we have, as long as the other guy doesn't have more sparklies than us.

>>2369497
You're not good with sarcasm, are you...

>>2369510
That's a factor, but I don't think it's at play here. The study contradicts your statement, unless you're saying that 75K/yr gives them a good "keeping up with the Joneses" buffer.

I personally don't give a shit about the Joneses. Materialism is a snipe-hunt. You don't find happiness that way. I use much less money than I spend currently anyway.

>>2369521
*less money than I make

>>2369483
>BAWWWW why do people have to point out reality isn't as simple as I pretend it is BAWWWWW

>>2369451
>mfw hes right.

>>2369367

I personally follow a sort of Neo-Aristotelian virtue ethics.

Ethics? I don't have ethics. I'm a scientist, for fuck sake.

>>2369510
It's not just that.

What that and other studies have found is different.
Creating things with our own hands makes us happy(literally activates areas in our brain that make us feel good).
Doing good actions toward others make us feel better. It releases endorphines in our brain.
Having friends and people to talk to.

The thing is, our brain is fundamentally still the same brain that evolved to let us live in small tribes of 20-30 people, hunting, and making small woodworks.
Our current society(but even the one the romans lived in 2000 years ago), is much wider than what our brain is capable of handling.

My ethics are as follows:
>I do what I must because I can.

Its helped me bypass bullshit.

>>2369541
I approve.
>>2369388

People are inherently valuable, and becoming a good person (developing and achieving valuable aspects of human potential) is the greatest good.

>>2369496
>>2369497
I mad because these "Don't label me" assholes are pretentious and ignorant. Labels are a part of language, and how we recognize and define the world. Weather you like it or not, you exhibit patterns, and you fall into niches. You can't "not believe in labels", because it's like not believing in using numbers to quantify.

>>2369373
>>2369548
Right. So, you'd be fine if everyone else felt exactly the same way? Would you want to live in that society?

Kant saw through this bullshit. Stealing is wrong because you don't want to live in a society full of thieves.

>>2369568

>>2369568
Oh, sure. I just don't think you should go the other way and subsume your entire identity in one label. It would make me suspect you didn't have any thoughts of your own in the first place.

>>2369568

we should call them antilabellians or something like that.

>>2369584
We should call you something too. Oh right. Conformist. Always stuck within the box they are given.

>>2369584
A label for the anti-label? Nice.

Next up: An organization for anarchists.

>>2369557
"we do what we must...because...we can.

>>2369594
Please. No one is being "given" a label. But if someone finds that Kantian ethics, for example, pretty much describes their worldview, why can't they claim it?

Few people ITT have claimed just a single descriptor for their ethical views anyway.

>>2369600
>Few people ITT have claimed just a single descriptor for their ethical views anyway.

Alright how about this one, faggot. My moralistic viewpoint:

"Independent"

>>2369600
I personally don't object to being able to fall under multiple ethics. I could easily. However just like telling a patient they're depressed and they feel more so for being depressed. I don't want to be influenced by putting too much faith into the fact.

>>2369568
Except people don't treat those labels as categories but as actual qualities.

If the purpose of labels is to aid communication, and it ends up confusing communication instead, why do we have them again?

I do things that make me feel good, how much and how long is based on personal experience.

>>2369612
You never went to /new when it still existed have you?

>>2369616
Emotionalism.

>>2369604
It's a non-descriptor, and you are an intellectual coward.

>>2369632
A coward hides behind a mask.

Kantian deontologism.

>>2369367

Don't give a fuck OP, I'm not a pretentious faggot who needs to use big words to try to sound smart.

Go back to your slums, bourgeoisie.

>>2369632
>intellectual coward.

What the fuck are you on about? And are you a faggot? Because you sound like a gigantic faggot.

>>2369636
Please.
Refusing to express your views is intellectual cowardice. Pretending superiority because you "don't accept labels" is just sophistry.

Just what kind of hiding-behind-a-mask are you possibly referring to? That people don't show their genuine beliefs, and pretend to hold another set? That, also, is intellectual cowardice.

>>2369652
What do you call someone who won't take a stand on what they believe?

ITT PSEUDO INTELLECTUAL PHILOSOPHICAL BULLSHIT = NOT SCIENCE AND MATHS TT PSEUDO INTELLECTUAL PHILOSOPHICAL BULLSHIT = NOT SCIENCE AND MATHS TT PSEUDO INTELLECTUAL PHILOSOPHICAL BULLSHIT = NOT SCIENCE AND MATHS TT PSEUDO INTELLECTUAL PHILOSOPHICAL BULLSHIT = NOT SCIENCE AND MATHS TT PSEUDO INTELLECTUAL PHILOSOPHICAL BULLSHIT = NOT SCIENCE AND MATHS TT PSEUDO INTELLECTUAL PHILOSOPHICAL BULLSHIT = NOT SCIENCE AND MATHS TT PSEUDO INTELLECTUAL PHILOSOPHICAL BULLSHIT = NOT SCIENCE AND MATHS

>>2369666
What board would you suggest is more appropriate for a discussion of ethics?

IMO, ethics is the science of making human societies function well.

>>2369666

ITT PSEUDO INTELLECTUAL PHILOSOPHICAL BULLSHIT = NOT SCIENCE AND MATHS ITT PSEUDO INTELLECTUAL PHILOSOPHICAL BULLSHIT = NOT SCIENCE AND MATHS ITT PSEUDO INTELLECTUAL PHILOSOPHICAL BULLSHIT = NOT SCIENCE AND MATHS ITT PSEUDO INTELLECTUAL PHILOSOPHICAL BULLSHIT = NOT SCIENCE AND MATHS ITT PSEUDO INTELLECTUAL PHILOSOPHICAL BULLSHIT = NOT SCIENCE AND MATHS ITT PSEUDO INTELLECTUAL PHILOSOPHICAL BULLSHIT = NOT SCIENCE AND MATHS ITT PSEUDO INTELLECTUAL PHILOSOPHICAL BULLSHIT = NOT SCIENCE AND MATHS

Quit trying to talk over peoples heads you prick. It doesnt make you look smart, it makes you look like a jackass.

>>2369671
>What board would you suggest is more appropriate for a discussion of ethics?

/soc/ - social

No joke, no troll. 100% serious

screw this, morals and ethics are for faggots who can't think for themselves.

>>2369680
no, /soc/ would be shit for something like that.

...there really should be a philosophy board though.

>>2369682
No, you're just rejecting the idea of adopting someone else's ethics wholesale. That isn't the same as not abiding by any ethics at all.

What are *your* ethical principles? I.e., the rules you follow (and others should follow) to not be miserable?

>>2369679
You're angry because you don't understand the terms he's using. That's fine, I didn't either before looking them up. But what if they're simply the quickest way to sum up what he thinks?

He's only being a prick if there's a simpler way to say it.

This is the worst thread ever.

>>2369690
>/soc/ would be shit for something like that.

You're telling me a board titled "SOCIAL" would not lend itself well to discussions on the subject of SOCIAL Science such as morals and ethics?
You really are a fucking faggot tripfag cunt fuck

And if you are talking about the level of faggotry that exists in /soc/ then maybe you are on the WRONG FUCKING WEBSITE FOR CIVILISED DISCUSSION ABOUT SOCIAL SCIENCE

>>2369704
I take it back, OP could have said things more simply and clearly. It is kinda dickish.

antilabelists are so annoying.

>>2369708
>Tautologic
>calling a thread bad

>>2369719
I know! Such arrogant faggotry. "Look at me, my views are too complex and superior to be described in English". Psssssh. Yeah right.

>>2369719
>antilabelists are so annoying.

I bet you're one of those faggots who sit on /mu/ complaining about the modern wave of post-idm noise-step.
God I fucking hate you

I'm not big on philosophy. Although I have been told by others that my views are some weird combination of Confuscious, Ayn Rand, and Nietzsche. Only one of which I've actually read.

I'm writing a book about my philosophy, it's more of a self help guide really. Basically it separates the world into two distinct evils. The socially ostracized evil, which is good. And the accepted evil, which is bad.

It's too much to go into in one post, but basically, the more society accepts it, the more "consent" is involved, the worse it probably is. Rapists and serial killers have more ethics then your average slob.

>>2369745
The last half of your post makes no sense. Start making sense.

hegel/spinoza mashup

>>2369699
As I don't consider life to have a meaning or a purpose, I just care about having fun. That is, I wouldn't mind doing terrible things to people as long as I'm not bound to face harm or pain as a consequence. About other people, it would be best if they just did whatever I tell them. Yeah, I realize this can be considered as an ethical code, although not a moral system. But I do think this is the only natural condition for individuals and that any different ethics is just a lie with the purpose of not being hated by people. I myself, sometimes, tend to lie about ethics.

/lit/ is the best board for philosophy. seriously.

>>2369774
A society filled with people who think as you do is not favored for success.

>>2369745

BEHOLD: the typical /sci/ visitor.

>I'm writing a book about my philosophy
>it's more of a self help guide really

>fails to convince anyone of any of his far-fetched concocted ideologys.

failing bookwriters like you need to stfo for real not a single publisher is intrested your work anyway.

>>2369745

BEHOLD: the typical /sci/ visitor.

>I'm writing a book about my philosophy
>it's more of a self help guide really

>fails to convince anyone of any of his far-fetched concocted ideologys.

failing bookwriters like you need to stfo for real not a single publisher is intrested in your work anyway.

>>2369367
If you can name or list your morals or ethics based on some predefined list you have neither.

>>2369792
I know, and that's why morals were invented. But think about it... this is the way nations think in regard to each other and the way species think in regard with each other. The fact is, by not having a moral code or a concept of what is right and what is wrong, I can exploit society like a parasite (if I want and manage to do so) and not feel any bad. I'm lucky that most people don't think like me, but I don't really mind when they do, as long as they don't bother me.

>>2369861
But what about saying your views are similar to components of X and Y? What's wrong with that?

1. Make the world better
2. Minimalize harm
3. Do onto others as you would do onto them if you were them and they were you

>>2369896
Sounds great, but not very well-defined.

What is "good" for humanity? And what things constitute "harm"? That's where a lot of ethical systems diverge, I think.

I like the idea of not having any predetermined absolute law for morals and ethics. Instead of trying to replicate what religions do with base laws, why not try and only rely on convincing someone that your morals would be beneficial to everyone to accept.

One way to do this would be kinship. Evolutionarily, it is shown that cooperation and care for one another reciprocates in an easier lifestyle for both parties. If we act on empathy and teamwork, we are sure to live better lives and ensure a safer environment for our genes (children).

You see what I did there? I gave a reasoning for my morals. That's what we all should do to allow for a fluid and healthy exchange of ideas rather than dogma and absolute rules. Our morals have drastically changed over the centuries and it just goes to show you that (like scientific understanding) we don't actually know what's right but we are getting more and more correct every time we try. Our morals should always be put into perspective and tested just like our theories.

>>2369896
but they're not you.

>>2369909
how can you be sure?
Everyone except you is me. Prove me wrong.

>>2369909
This is just avoiding the obvious hurrdurr interpretation problem with the Golden Rule - we don't all want/enjoy the same things.

Of course, what it means is caring about other people's desires and well-being.

Logic is far supperior to a system of morality derived from teaching unevolved apes how to maximize tribal cooperation

>>2369920
Non-statement. What principles and rules do your "logic" tell you would make a modern society run well? That's your preferred ethics.

Everybody has morals and ethics. However to explain them is only for personal pleasure.

>>2369919
exactly.
>>2369896
is bascially saying "put yourself in someone elses shoes, and understand how to further your goals without harming theirs"

>>2369927
... or because you believe that things would be better if other people adopted the ethics you believe to be best. Which I think is the primary reason people talk about ethics.

Not sure about philosophers though.

OMG this thread is so retarded even the residents of some mental hospital would come up with better viewpoints.

you guys are the prime example of why nihilism and atheism is the most destructive set of ideologys after islam.

>>2369953
People would be so self-righteous? What planet do I live on again?

>>2370002
What? What the fuck?

If you believe that a given set of ethical rules is a good idea, that also implies you believe it would be a good idea for others to adopt them. What's wrong with that? For instance, I believe that self-mutilation is a bad idea, and that people who feel it is a good idea should be persuaded otherwise, if possible. To say nothing of mutilating OTHER people.

>>2370009
Let me put it this way. People that stupid didn't get humans where they are now. Let them die. A person who relies on another person isn't a whole person themselves.

>>2370023

>A person who relies on another person isn't a whole person themselves.

Doesn`t understand representation.

Relying on people who you have trust in has always been an important aspect of human society and always will be.

Anyway you`re a complete retard judging from that one sentence.

>>2370084
>Tautoulogic calling someone else a retard
Oh the irony.

Pretty much liquid.
I'll condemn something one minute and endorse it the next.
No, I don't see any problem with this.
Morals and ethics are subjective.

I try not to hurt people, but I don't feel bound to that.

Egotistical Hedonism: Something is good if it positively affects me, something is bad if it negatively affects me. My entire life is governed around this.

>>2370125
Bravo.

>>2369751
Why doesn't it make sense? Just because I said rapists and serial killers are more moral?

Look around you man. Not one of these motherfuckers has an ounce of integrity or honesty in them. Whether or not you want to admit it, the criminally insane are who they've always been. They don't have to put on an act, they don't have to adapt, they just ARE. They exist to exist.

Life should be about protecting the people love, slitting the throats of people who wrong you, and just living. The pursuit of a less stressful, more fulfilling life should hold paramount over image.

There is no rational basis for objective morality.

/thread

>>2370125

.gif

Also Jim Profit is THE greatest troll to infect 4chan. Don't even try arguing with him.

Are you still pretending to be a libertarian bro?

This philosophy suits you better I think.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egoist_anarchism

I act in my own interest, with the understanding that the ultimate aim in life is to propagate my genes for evermore.

>>2369896
>>do unto others as they would do unto you
>>next time you find yourself alone with a pretty girl tear her clothes off and fuck her

>>2370165

>they just ARE. They exist to exist.

yea i would probebly hold the same views, if i was born as an arrogant mr. know and failing book writer living in u.s.a.

As a side note, I've had a suspicion for a while now that a certain chunk of society is evolving to be more solitary animals. When was the last time we had anything resembling a tribe? Even families are getting smaller. Another theory, we're evolving into colony organisms, represented as large businesses or corporations. These are both probably bunk, but it'd be interesting to see how they affect ethics if they're true.

>>2370433
Sorry, hypothesis, not theory.

I be a Buddhist

buddhism

>>2370433
>>2370437
Genetic evolution is very, very slow compared to human timescales. It's basically irrelevant. You're witnessing cultural evolution, which is nothing new.

I live after the two commandments of George Carlin.

Thy shalt always be honest and faithfull, to the providing thy nookie.

Thy shalt try really hard not to kill someone, unless they pray to a different invisible man in the sky from the one you like.

>ask yourself how would you feel in the position the other person is in.

>>2369367
so,what are you then?

http://www.middle-ages.org.uk/knights-code-of-chivalry.htm

that

The Moral Landscape- Sam Harris

Very interesting read. Apparently science CAN into morality. This is the unifying way forward.

just read some random quotes, by Laotse, Lu Bo We or some other people. They have interesting points and from time to time I take those I find rational and useful

i am a moral isolationist 8D

>>2370598
>1. Are there right and wrong answers to moral questions?

>Morality must relate, at some level, to the well-being of conscious creatures. If there are more and less effective ways for us to seek happiness and to avoid misery in this world—and there clearly are—then there are right and wrong answers to questions of morality.

>2. Are you saying that science can answer such questions?

>Yes, in principle. Human well-being is not a random phenomenon. It depends on many factors—ranging from genetics and neurobiology to sociology and economics. But, clearly, there are scientific truths to be known about how we can flourish in this world. Wherever we can have an impact on the well-being of others, questions of morality apply.

THAT'S what I'm talking about. Moral relativism pisses me off almost as badly as solipsism. Solipsism can just be ignored, at least.
http://www.samharris.org/site/full_text/the-moral-landscape-q-a-with-sam-harris/