| if morality is real then why do bad things happen |
 This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
Cei_Von_Velsia said: you basically just said the thing, but unironically. StarfireDragon said: if morality is real then why do bad things happen if morality is needed, then why was there less violence when we were more assholes, more aggressive ? if morality is real why was there less violence when we were more violent? It's not like asking a Christian "but why do bad things happen". It's not so much a nebulous and fictitious concept. The consequences of a poor moral framework can actually be empirically measured. And it typically presents itself in suffering for most of those who are involved. If theft, arson, murder, etc are not morally reprehensible, then they are permittable. It is not only morally, but also pragmatically dangerous to think in such a way. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
Cei_Von_Velsia said: And they typically get penalized for it. Wow, shocker. We literally live in a world were killing rapists is wrong... murdering their babies is wrong. Then ofcourse so many women get molested and raped. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
| take a selfie with "morality" and post |
 |
| the way u r looking at how morality, culture, society emerge is totally incoherent and insulting to monkeys |
 |
"Hmph, don't come at me with these low level arguments, you're not even starving! Your concerns in life are things like gout disease, whereas mine is malnourishment, I definitely have better answers to societal ills or maladies of the human condition" :^) |
 |
| This is why I like Mal forums, there is never a shortage of high quality baits |
 |
Cei_Von_Velsia said: Then this is a problem with the justice system. I don't know what you are basing this on, but clearly the framework is still there.StarfireDragon said: And they typically get penalized for it. Wow, shocker. They don't. on average a rapist must rape at least 6-7 victims before he is even forced to see the court. and only around 43% of them get punished since for most cases there is not enough proof.. You can rape a dozen women and sleep nice dreams at night knowing your chances of ever seeing jail let alone prison are very slim. And if someone kills you because you are a rapist... they are punished. If you have some problem if someone gets punished for killing a rapist... well, that is a moral statement in of itself. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
Auron_ said: it's an historical quotation from ancient prostitutes being punished for aborting... even tho those prostitutes were sold as slaves and had to endure being sexual tools to survive.... and their punishment came from fat nobility. "Hmph, don't come at me with these low level arguments, you're not even starving! Your concerns in life are things like gout disease, whereas mine is malnourishment, I definitely have better answers to societal ills or maladies of the human condition" :^) |
Cei_Von_Velsia said: Are you making the statement that it is morally wrong to rape? It sure sounds like you are.StarfireDragon said: I don't know what you are basing this on Just read crime statistics on rape, your own country should have an official pubblic website with various details from your own justice system, each country has one.... The system is rigged to let rapists win. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
Cei_Von_Velsia said: If there was no such thing as morality, they wouldn't be compelled to kill the rapists in the first place, on the grounds that everything goes. If murder is permitted because there is no morality, then the same certainly goes for rape. If not morality, that makes them think rape is wrong, what is it, then?if you remove morality and let people do what they want.... rape would certainly decrease as more fathers... brothers... mothers will kill more rapists Auron_ said: Ahh yeah the oppression Olympics is starting. I'm fired up!!"Hmph, don't come at me with these low level arguments, you're not even starving! Your concerns in life are things like gout disease, whereas mine is malnourishment, I definitely have better answers to societal ills or maladies of the human condition" :^) |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
Cei_Von_Velsia said: You seem to be conflating law with morality. And while one begets the other, they are separate entities. No, obviously I don't need to rely on what some jury thinks. But what I am asking, is what is it, at our core that makes us value the lives of other people in this way? The only thing I can possibly think of is morality. StarfireDragon said: If there was no such thing as morality, they wouldn't be compelled to kill the rapists in the first place, on the grounds that everything goes. If murder is permitted because there is no morality, then the same certainly goes for rape. If not morality, that makes them think rape is wrong, what is it, then? Ahh yeah the oppression Olympics is starting. I'm fired up!! if I stab you in the chest, does your father need a morality system to hate me? or better if I stab you in the chest... do you need a morality system to feel pain and try to stop me... to struggle to survive? do you need a fat cunt with a cross necklace or a neckbeard behind a jury to tell you that what I'm doing is painful to you? There is also a difference, depending on whether or not I am the victim, or someone else is. If I'm the one getting stabbed, then I am going to be aware of the implications of it, no doubt, and I am going to panic. That's survival instinct. But that's not exactly the same when it comes to others. If you have no moral inclination to help someone else, or feel any kind of empathy to their situation, well, that's not a survival instinct necessarily, since it's not affecting you. Clearly, there is more going on, then pure survival instinct at this point. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
| Calm down there Max Stirner. Morality is based on more than just people saying random stuff. As well, how is it somehow the fault of morality if people act immorally? How is a technological and cultural process linked to ethics as a construct? As well these arguments don't make any sense, do you have a study showing how not beating children is linked with children growing up to be murderers? While abortion is a heavy topic, countries in which children grow up to work in sweatshops usually don't even have available abortion clinics for poorer women. As well in poorer countries there is a dependency on children due to there being a lack of support system for the elderly. This has no correlation with abortion laws frankly. How would stopping technological progress and even regressing fix any of these problems? How are these things even linked? As well what do you mean by the introduction of culture, society, morality, and ideals? Are they not inherent to human thought? Are you suggesting people should just be forced to dumb down so they could not even imagine such concepts? Even if you could get rid of them, would that not just mean instead of being killed by fellow humans we get killed by the elements? This is all ignoring that the reason humanity is even able to survive is because of our group mentalities. And yeah, their brains were bigger but they certainly weren't smarter because of it. This post makes no sense to the point no one could frankly believe you are genuine, but then again worse ideas exist. |
 |
Cei_Von_Velsia said: Was this happening concurrently with adults killing children much less?They made it illegal for teachers to beat kids, now kids kill eachother,  Cei_Von_Velsia said: And yet we don't kill each other as much despite having the ability! Three cheers for modern morality, I say.with the introduction of culture, society, morality and ideals.... we started killing each other more... we torture each other more, we destroy more lives now than we did when we were cavemen...now we can kill by pressing button, we can destroy by sending a message. |
Freshell said: Cei_Von_Velsia said: Was this happening concurrently with adults killing children much less?They made it illegal for teachers to beat kids, now kids kill eachother, Cei_Von_Velsia said: And yet we don't kill each other as much despite having the ability! Three cheers for modern morality, I say.with the introduction of culture, society, morality and ideals.... we started killing each other more... we torture each other more, we destroy more lives now than we did when we were cavemen...now we can kill by pressing button, we can destroy by sending a message. Shit dude I didn't know systematic morality was invented 8 years before my birth.... am I this fucking old? Look up actual convictions of murder from medieval times versus modern times.... 800 years ago it was around 24-30% now we are talking 59-61% Violence and Murder in Europe (Chapter 16) - The Cambridge World History of Violence Which means back in 1200... 1 out of 4 prisoners was a murderer..... nowadays almost 1 out of 2 prisoners is a murderer. |
Cei_Von_VelsiaJun 2, 2023 11:39 AM
Cei_Von_Velsia said: Do you believe child beating went up or down from 1990 to 2019, Mr. "They made it illegal for teachers to beat kids, now kids kill eachother?"Freshell said: Was this happening concurrently with adults killing children much less? And yet we don't kill each other as much despite having the ability! Three cheers for modern morality, I say. Shit dude I didn't know systematic morality was invented 8 years before my birth.... am I this fucking old? |
Freshell said: Cei_Von_Velsia said: Do you believe child beating went up or down from 1990 to 2019, Mr. "They made it illegal for teachers to beat kids, now kids kill eachother?"Shit dude I didn't know systematic morality was invented 8 years before my birth.... am I this fucking old? read my edited reply and also google school shooting statistics... bullying statistics, student suicide statistics. also guess what? 2020-2030 and we have the highest homicide rate in the last century... for the last 3 years we murdered each other more than we did since 1920. You are one of those guys who love to cherry pick shitty statistics to prove your biases. it is a factual thing that more children are killing themselves nowaydays because of bullying than 10 years ago or 20 or 100 years ago... it is a matter of fact that more children are killing other children now than in fucking medieval times. we have more children shooting, stabbing, beating to death or pushing to suicide other children now than EVER |
Cei_Von_VelsiaJun 2, 2023 11:41 AM
Cei_Von_Velsia said: yet this is the guy who wants people to kill other people... who is now complaining about kids killling people? Freshell said: Do you believe child beating went up or down from 1990 to 2019, Mr. "They made it illegal for teachers to beat kids, now kids kill eachother?" read my edited reply and also google school shooting statistics... bullying statistics, student suicide statistics. also guess what? 2020-2030 and we have the highest homicide rate in the last century... for the last 3 years we murdered each other more than we did since 1920. You are one of those guys who love to cherry pick shitty statistics to prove your biases. it is a factual thing that more children are killing themselves nowaydays because of bullying than 10 years ago or 20 or 100 years ago... it is a matter of fact that more children are killing other children now than in fucking medieval times. This has to be a troll. The logic is all over the place. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
StarfireDragon said: when you can't defend the system you attack the messanger, sheeple behaviour. Cei_Von_Velsia said: yet this is the guy who wants people to kill other people... who is now complaining about kids killling people? read my edited reply and also google school shooting statistics... bullying statistics, student suicide statistics. also guess what? 2020-2030 and we have the highest homicide rate in the last century... for the last 3 years we murdered each other more than we did since 1920. You are one of those guys who love to cherry pick shitty statistics to prove your biases. it is a factual thing that more children are killing themselves nowaydays because of bullying than 10 years ago or 20 or 100 years ago... it is a matter of fact that more children are killing other children now than in fucking medieval times. This has to be a troll. The logic is all over the place. return to monke.... not to sheep. |
Cei_Von_Velsia said: Click my signature for a surprise. It is a little known secret since literally no one has viewed it. StarfireDragon said: when you can't defend the system you attack the messanger, sheeple behaviour. yet this is the guy who wants people to kill other people... who is now complaining about kids killling people? This has to be a troll. The logic is all over the place. return to monke.... not to sheep. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
StarfireDragon said: now we are friends.Cei_Von_Velsia said: Click my signature for a surprise. It is a little known secret since literally no one has viewed it. when you can't defend the system you attack the messanger, sheeple behaviour. return to monke.... not to sheep. character limitations are being respected |
| The morality you talk about are nowadays stuff, meanwhile morality and moral actions can be tracked back to Stone Age, Bronze Age too. Oh you'd be surprised about the killing part made by "Cavemens", just check any kind of items found in archaeological sites of Stone Age era you'd be surprised how many items have a purpous of killing x). |
Cei_Von_Velsia said: That's an interesting indicator of how high homicide is. I could also make the number of people in prison for murder drop in trivial fashion. Just convict more non-murderers, say potheads for smoking dope, and convict less murderers. Do you think this would raise or lower homicide rates?Freshell said: Was this happening concurrently with adults killing children much less? And yet we don't kill each other as much despite having the ability! Three cheers for modern morality, I say. Shit dude I didn't know systematic morality was invented 8 years before my birth.... am I this fucking old? Look up actual convictions of murder from medieval times versus modern times.... 800 years ago it was around 24-30% now we are talking 59-61% Violence and Murder in Europe (Chapter 16) - The Cambridge World History of Violence Which means back in 1200... 1 out of 4 prisoners was a murderer..... nowadays almost 1 out of 2 prisoners is a murderer. Your source didn't mention anything about 1200 AD specifically. It also didn't attempt to estimate what the homicide rate was like. It did have this to say though: The courts tended towards leniency also in cases of homicide. In late medieval England, acquittal was the norm. Conviction rates for homicide ranged between 12.5 per cent and 21 per cent.Footnote24 On the continent, the figures were much higher. For example, fourteenth-century Milan boasted an 80 per cent conviction rate.Footnote25 Despite the broad disparity in rates, the actual numbers of those punished remained roughly the same. The distinction lay in the law’s approach to flight. The vast majority of murderers in the Middle Ages fled the scene immediately after the crime and were never heard from again.Footnote26 The English reacted to flight by outlawing the accused. That is, rather than trying him in his absence, after a series of four unanswered summonses the accused was ousted from the protections of the law. Because of this process, English conviction rates do not include outlaws. Roman law, on the other hand, treated flight as a confession of guilt and proceeded to trial and conviction in the perpetrator’s absence, inflating continental conviction rates. Further on downFor those who stood trial, there was still a good chance of acquittal. In general, medieval men and women did not often see death as a fitting punishment for homicide. Far too many homicides resulted from a ‘fair fight’. Such a death was better punished through indictment and time spent in prison awaiting trial than through the death penalty. Moreover, the legal definitions of ‘self-defence’ would have transformed most reasonable men into cowards; thus the popular imagination supported an expanded version. Conviction was significantly more likely to be the outcome when the crime was premeditated, marked in England by the use of the term ‘murder’ as opposed to ‘homicide’. Homicide convictions in fourteenth-century Venice nicely document this trend: 49 per cent of homicides of passion ended in conviction, while 85 per cent of premeditated murders did.Footnote27 2020-2030 and we have the highest homicide rate in the last century Can't find anything global on that. When looking for what the US homicide rate was in 1920, it was higher than it is now. Was higher just before that as well. Feel free to mention another source, because that's been working well for me so far. ;) |
Cei_Von_Velsia said: lmaonow we are friends. good to have you aboard EyeAmTheI said: In a purely rational sense... yeah this is a really well constructed argument. I don't have much in the way of counterpoints. So, in your view, morality is more so purely just a name we give to our rational instincts? On some level, I feel like it goes deeper then that, but I guess I can't fully describe it.I distance myself from whatever @Cei_Von_Velsia said. However, I would like to reflect on this one particular sentence out of the context. The answer is pretty complex and it can have a lot of reasons. Let me give you a few illustrative example, because I think it is easier to understand what I'm talking about: -Why we don't kill each other? Self-preservation. How is it self-preservanion? Ok, you kill me, but my friends or parents may kill you in return, aka fear from repercussion. -Why we don't kill each other answer #2? Fear from a different perspective. If you try to kill me, I'll defend myself, and why would you risk yourself, if there is no reason -Why we help each other? You may ask how selflessness can be self-interest? Well, you may make friends in the process, who will defend/help/avange you (ok, the last one is only relevant, if there is no laws). -Why we help each other answer #2? If one member of our group is successful, it usually benefit the whole group (and the group size can be even the whole humanity), hence we'll benefit from it indirectly. -Why we help each other answer #3? Losing a member of our group is makes the group weaker, hence in the long term your best interest is to help each other (that's why emotional attachment exsists) -Why we hate each other? Our brain evolved in a timeperiod when resources were scares. Hence pretty often one's group survival were dependent on the other groups destruction. We can ask any question, but in the end, all the answers can be traced back to evolutionary benefiting behaviours. We are wired to act in a certain way. Can we call it morality? Sure, we can, it just semantics, but I do think under the hood morality is nothing more than instinctual altruistic behaviours with which we all born. Except the psychopaths (and a few more psychological case), but all of their actions are the definiton of self-interest. They have no concept of morals, because they have no concept of altruism. PS: So instead, I usually ask, what makes these instincual behaviours breaking down in some people? It is much more interesting and important question, if we want to find the sollutions. So yes, I think every human is instinctively morally rigtheous, but some people lost in the maze of life. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
StarfireDragon said: I would very much agree that ethics are a little deeper than just survival instincts, at least when it comes to philosophical discussions. I personally hold the view that there are truth values to moral statements, also called moral cognitivism. For example, I believe a saying like "murder is wrong" can hold truth. The contrary, often called moral non-cognitivists or moral subjectivists, would believe that there is no truth or falsity in the statement "murder is wrong" or any other moral statement. On some level, I feel like it goes deeper then that, but I guess I can't fully describe it. There are many reasons why people would believe that morals are based on factual statements and why some just dont. Mabye, you feel like it goes deeper than that because what was identified as morals here is just one of many theories in meta-ethics. The idea that morals are informed by our instincts/intuition is called Intuitionism. "intuitionism, In metaethics, a form of cognitivism that holds that moral statements can be known to be true or false immediately through a kind of rational intuition." The reason this might not seem convincing at all is due to the fact that individuals seem to make wildly different choices even in the same situations, making it kind of idiotic to believe that there are moral truths but that moral truths are not constant due to different people all having different things being told to them by their intuition. It would actually make more sense to have a reverse intuitionism, so like that moral truths don't actually exist, and that we just call our intuitions morally right. I think this is what is being described here by you two. The problem here lies in the fact that, if morals are established by intuition/instinct, we would have to believe that all human thought stems from instinct. Because we would have to believe our instinct is reinforcing every possible value we could have. If you for example believed that instincts arent that absolute, that we as humans are able to make decisions beyond our intuition, then we cannot use intuitionism to describe ethics. Because if you for example think specific moral judgments, like for example that not being religious is bad, are not actually established by instincts or intuition, but by maybe something else (upbringing, logical argumentation, God, etc.), then you cannot believe ethics is only a consequence of rational instinct. So to again illustrate what we are talking about, this is the argumentation for this specific kind of intuitionism: p1. Instincts tell us what is in our best interest p2. Instincts are not consistent depending on the individual, therefore there is no moral truth in our instincts p3. Our instincts inform all our decisions p4. We conceptualize our instincts by calling them moral c. Therefore our morals must all inherently be our instincts I think when looking at all the points I think it is easy to see which ones are disagreeable. So yeah I hope this might explain why you dont feel satisfied with that answer. |
|
| The police invented morality? Good to hear |
 |
| I think, I disagree with Cei_Von_Velsia on his vision of what a desirable society should look like. I think he prefers a some sort of hierarchy based on age. At least I got that kind of impression from what he posted. I instead prefer more of a cast system based on various parameters such as gender. With relationships within castes are equal, but between casts are not. Men would be ruling master caste and women subservient slave caste. I will make a separate topic to go about it in detail. More on individual issues he posted: I do not believe that teachers should be entitled to beat anyone. They should respect their students and treat them closer to equals. Well, unless the students are female, girls need spanking. Generally girls should be told their role is always subordinated to a male. Abortions should be legal, here I totally agree with Cei_Von_Velsia so that kids would not end up in sweatshops and other such horrible locations. However mothers just killing kids is not really ok (well depends on age but not after significant time after birth, say not after 6 month since birth). |
| Buy my awesome BDSM male domination book here https://www.smashwords.com/books/view/1174760 Visit my Discord https://discord.com/channels/1047490147794550844/1047490149161898039 I am not there most of the time but you can leave a message. Or my blog here https://BDSMAnime.blogspot.com/ Or here https://BDSMAnime18.blogspot.com/ Submit to me and become my subject here https://myanimelist.net/clubs.php?cid=88107 |
Fluffygreygrass said: This is why I like Mal forums, there is never a shortage of high quality baits MAL alts are anything but high quality. |
 |
| Alex Jones had a guy on this show that said that Humans came from Pigs. So you are correct actually. |
 |
| i miss when baiters werent afraid to hide behind alts mal personalities were more fun |
| @EyeAmTheI So basically I wrote this response to your original comment and now after finishing it I realized you made a new one that kinda makes certain stuff here obsolete. I just saw this and honestly, fuck this I dont care anymore, Im just going to post my original comment because I cannot be asked to write a new one. So yeah everything below this will be past me. - I'm not sure if your comment was an argument or explanation of what I have said More of an explanation and then an argument to explain why the view, that ethics are based on instinct, might be unsatisfying.and I think these learnt behaviours are the reason why "morality" fails in certain cases Quick question, but what do you mean with "fail" exactly? Do you mean morality failing by leading to immoral actions? I am not really sure I understand if you mean that or something else entirely. So we are way less concious than we belive we are or at least we are way less concious in the sense we think we are. I guess this is kind of the core of the like kind of argument here. By the fact that we have a subconscious, which by your definition is heavily influenced by instinct, that would mean instincts are pretty much the determiners for what our decisions are. I will just write the argumentation down for the presentation's sake.p1. The human mind is split between conscious and subconscious p2. The subconscious is more heavily influenced by instinct than external forces p3. The subconscious is the main decision-maker in our mind p4. Our morals are the decisions we make c. Therefore instincts determine our morals I hope this is accurate enough I find myself having problems with p2, p3 and p4. p1 seems to just be a factual statement to me. So lets start. P2: First let me explain what I understand under instinct/intuition, I see it as basically a factory setting of the mind. These are values/thoughts we have that we basically have when we are born. If we for example had a human and he somehow did not have any experiences with the material world at all, he would have only these predetermined values given to him by his intuition. Very importantly, instinct is static, it does not change over time, if it does change we cannot call it an instinct anymore, because for it to change it would need outside stimuli, making it an informed judgment outside the realm of pure instinct. So for example, the instinct that tells me that death is bad for me would never change, unless it was overwritten by an external force teaching me the opposite. What I find to be a problem, is the assumption that external factors are less dependent on our values. In that sense wouldn't it be incredibly rare for someone to change their moral stances on anything? Especially when you claim that the subconscious often picks intuition above anything else. But we find ourselves in the position of most of our morals being taught or informed by some sort of experience. People are very much capable of changing their ethical beliefs to be the complete opposite with enough time, something that is impossible for an instinct to do. And after a change of value, it seems like those people act as confidently with these values as they were with their old ones, which doesnt really make sense if the subconscious has a bias for the prior ones that would have been more heavily influenced by intuition. To make an even shorter argument that is as effective, just by the virtue of instincts being able to be overwritten, does subsequently mean that there is more to ethical thinking than instincts, they cannot purely be our instincts then, meaning the assumption of saying every decision is informed by instinct is false. P3: I do not find disagreement with the fact that the subconscious is the main decision-maker. But I would say it does not matter if the subconscious or conscious is. Even tho we seem to want to distance our subconscious from "ourselves" by referring to it as this more alien entity to our "true selves", in actuality, our subconscious is a part of us just like how your leg or arm is. You already demonstrated before that the subconscious does seem to be able to at least consider outside stimuli, and I have as well argued that in p2. So there is no inherent argument for the fact that this somehow makes all our decisions based on instinct. This point is very much dependent on the previous one. Basically, if the conscious or subconscious decides does not matter. Both are still our bodies making a decision and both seem to have rationalization capabilities. Even if you claimed the subconscious does not have any ability to rationalize anything, and that it basically cannot use sophisticated logic, I can still argue one thing. By that, we would have to assume the conscious is the one capable of sophisticated and logical thinking because it has to come from somewhere. So if for example, a conscious mind created an ethical theory and then imprinted that ethical theory on someone's subconscious by teaching them, then it would follow that now this person would act in accord to a logically constructed ethical theory. This would in a way be a loophole to circumvent any intuition-based thinking. Of course, this entire imagined scenario is kind of weird, but it does certainly prove what I want it to prove: decisions and therefore morals do not have to be intuition based. (I at least assume that you are a materialist, it would actually be really weird for you to argue anything like this if you weren't so that is why I am assuming. In the case you aren't then I guess not much of what I am saying here would matter. Putting this here because I forgot to mention it anywhere else and idk where else to put it. Too lazy to restructure this whole thing.) As well, one last thing about p3. If we really go with the outset that consciousness is "us", that my identity and whatever I am right now typing to you and whatever you are reading this right now, is this upper consciousness. And if we also went with the assumption that our subconscious is like an alien being almost, that informs our decisions without us having any control, then I think we run into a weird dilemma, which is still solvable tho. (I dont really assume you think this, but I am covering it anyways out for my own enjoyment). Simply said, it does not matter if our actions are determined by an outside force for them to be considered moral or not. The one contradiction is the fact that if it is possible for our decisions to be against our will (our subconscious making a decision that our consciousness does not want to do), then we cannot assume intuition can have anything to do with morals. Because if I can disagree with my intuition like this, I would obviously not see it as moral, and therefore there is no reason to even claim it is. So in the prospect of this whole argument hinging on the fact that morals are subjective and that there are no moral truths, this would not make any sense to say. This could only make sense if we said whatever our subconscious chooses, would be a moral truth by virtue of it being chosen by our subconscious (which is informed by our intuition). P4: This might be more of an arbitrary point since you dont really mention it in your reply, but I do think it is central to a lot of what you are assuming here. Based on the fact you are willing to say instinct can be seen as the essence of morals. To be quick here, we do not have to perceive our own decisions as moral. I mean we are very much capable of finding our past actions abhorrent. So then I would beg the question, if our decisions are what is moral, then even if I disagree with my own action in the past, would my decision in the past still be moral? I mean logically speaking here, it would still be because we assume our decisions to be what is moral, so in that place in time when I did this certain thing, it was moral due to it being my decision. Of course, we say decision as a shorthand for our intuition, due to us claiming our decisions are influenced by our intuition. So this leads is to the big question, why do we even assume in the first place that our decisions are what we think to be moral? It clearly does not seem to be the case that people believe every single one of their decisions to be moral, most often than not they especially are not proud of the decisions they made when they felt like they had "less control", situations where they maybe were influenced by instinct. So we cannot claim intuition is the essence of morals when so many seem to disagree with the fact that their decisions/intuitions brought about something morally good. So in line with moral subjectivism, this would make no sense. Funnily, we are talking here not because we are that damn smart, self-conscious or logical, but because we are kinda dopamine addicts and our brains expects to have the next dose :D At least that's what the experts says. I mean us doing this here for those reasons that seem "external" is not really that important, actually, I believe it to not matter at all when discussing our agency as individuals. I already am a determinist so I can tell you, not having free will is just the standard for me.So yeah this is the end. I dont really think you believe every point here in the way I have presented it, because obviously, I cannot make out your position on this by 2 forum posts. I only wrote this to just make my general position on this clear. Basically, I only wrote this for my own enjoyment, not to really change anyone's opinion. Hope it was at least enjoyable to read. |
|
CTRL+F, search "rape"... 1 of 44?! 😳  "rapist" is even higher 😅 |
EyeAmTheI said: I think I do tend to come to this line of thinking every so often. Though not fully, because it is often challenged, when I see others who seem to be more interested in appealing to others, as opposed to following their own self interest. Granted, I can't see inside their head, or anything. In some sense, the gratification could just be their self interest being that it makes them feel good, I'm not sure. StarfireDragon said: lmao good to have you aboard In a purely rational sense... yeah this is a really well constructed argument. I don't have much in the way of counterpoints. So, in your view, morality is more so purely just a name we give to our rational instincts? On some level, I feel like it goes deeper then that, but I guess I can't fully describe it. Well, strictly speaking yes. There are some room for argument, but in the end it those arguments feel more like wishful thinking at this point. Understandably though, we want to feel ourselves more than just some biorobots (myself included). Also, I do think morality is important as a word which describes something vitally important which makes us human. @Text101 When it comes to those who believe there is no truth, I think most of the time it boils down to them simply not wanting to think about it, or be proven wrong. If i'm understanding this term correctly, is this more so saying that morality is more so akin to what seems right to us, based on our intuition? If so, I'm not fully sure I agree with that, since there are a lot of facets that need to be determined, and sometimes something that may seem immoral at the time could be better off when given the proper time to flourish. But please correct me if I got anything wrong there. Yes it's true that different people might make different decisions, but I would say that not every one of us is "on" at all times. And so some things in the heat of the moment could really be egregious later. So I would say that the ideal to be "moral" in this sense, would still be present, it is simply just misguided by our current situation and mindset. Now I'm not fully attuned to all this terminology, but I think that's my take on it. I believe there is a moral good that we strive for, however certain factors get in the way. I suppose it may be shaped partially by religious background but I think that religion is more so just a certain lens to view these sorts of things, anyway. I am not personally religious myself, however I do believe there is some kind of soul within us. Now again, it's hard to really explain, but yeah This might be rambly, I have no idea if it makes sense, because I'm sort of still piecing it together lol. |
This ground is soiled by those before me and their lies. I dare not look up for on me I feel their eyes |
Oh yeah, this is a certified USA moment. |
| Location: Turin, Italy |
StarfireDragon said: The OP starts this thread by saying morality is a bad thing. Afterwords they say rape is wrong. This doesn't make sense.Cei_Von_Velsia said: Are you making the statement that it is morally wrong to rape? It sure sounds like you are.Just read crime statistics on rape, your own country should have an official pubblic website with various details from your own justice system, each country has one.... The system is rigged to let rapists win. I agree with the starting statement that morality can be a bad thing rather than a good thing. Not everybody agrees anyway. |
 |
| There is nothing,” he pursued, ‘either fundamentally good, nor anything fundamentally evil, everything is relative, relative to our point of view, that is to say, to our manners, to our opinions, to our prejudices. This point once established, it is extremely possible that something, perfectly indifferent in itself, may indeed be distasteful in your eyes, but may be most delicious in mine; and immediately I find it pleasing, immediately I find it amusing, regardless of our inability to agree on assigning a character to it, should I not be a fool to deprive myself of it merely because you condemn it?” - Marquis de Sade |
“Villainy?” he interrupted. “My dear child, all that’s mere verbiage, prattle. Nothing’s villainous if it causes an erection, and the single crime that exists in this world is to refuse anything that might produce a discharge.” |
More topics from this board
» What makes you automatically not trust a MAL user ( 1 2 )Daokoscake - Mar 4, 2021 |
83 |
by MalchikRepaid
»»
4 minutes ago |
|
» Favorite places in Japan(to thos who have been to Japan) and where would you like to visit in the future when you go again?KiraraFan - May 7 |
20 |
by GinIonSui
»»
5 minutes ago |
|
» Favorite MAL thread maker?barababas - May 4 |
35 |
by Daviljoe193
»»
24 minutes ago |
|
» What is the first thing you see in the morning?Shizuna - May 11 |
38 |
by 3miL
»»
31 minutes ago |
|
» I buy drugs without prescription where I livescarydragon - 6 hours ago |
9 |
by MalchikRepaid
»»
36 minutes ago |