Degeneracy and Athiesm

Morality arises from the material conditions of a country's particular state and position in the world. Morality is different for each class, however the "barrier" is crossed depending on different factors (media, education, interaction).

Why is eugenics horrific? Why do you think its wrong to slaughter innocents? What basis do you have to make these ethical claims? At best you can say you have a distaste for them but you can't say they are objectively wrong. If morality is subjective and relative to the individual, how can you say that another persons sense of morality is wrong?

I dunno. The "golden rule" or "principle of reciprocity" seems to work for me and I'm agnostic about religion. "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you." It seems to be sufficient for me but I haven't thought that deeply about it.

The other golden rule is "he who has the gold, makes the rules" which isn't a moral code but a description of how the world works. Seems accurate to me.

Attached: golden_rule.png (500x612, 125.42K)

They are not objectively wrong. They are against human progress, parts of human nature (empathy), our scientific understanding of the world, etc. We are humans, a form of life that has evolved to have feelings of fear, pain, danger.
It is to our collective interest to build a society that reduces them by changing the conditions every one of us lives.

The question should be wrong for who?

On what basis can you even use the word progress though? That implies that there is a good and bad dichotomy of morality. If there are no standards of good and bad then how is it progress and not just a change in morals?

Why would you want that?

Attached: zzUUNVo[1].jpg (2048x1382, 276.51K)

Progress as in conditions of living, understanding of the world, technological advancement.

Nihilism is idealistic. If someone truly was a nihilist, he wouldn't care for his life.

So if we were given the proposition by a trillionaire that he would donate all of his wealth to drastically improve the living conditions of billions of people at the cost of slaughtering 10 innocent babies. Would that be moral? How about 1 baby? Do we have any moral absolutes that we wouldnt break in the name of progress?

It's "if you are nihilist you must commit suicide" episode.

Attached: Niet_and_stirner.jpg (1024x416, 77.6K)

I didn't say you must do anything, I just said you wouldn't care for your life.

Your example-mongering trolley problem assumes someone would kidnap and threaten to slaughter 10 babies to blackmail a billionaire in the first place. This isn't a moral issue people would normally encounter. It's not a realistic situation and basically says "here's an extreme situation where any positive thing you do will result is a horrible disaster." Now, what would I do in that situation? Who's doing the slaughtering? I'm not going to slaughter any babies. Is someone else going to do it? Then how am I morally responsible?

Well, the problem with slaughtering 10 innocent babies for a government is really the calling it out part. Every decision has complications that might include innocents dying for a purpose that serves some interest.

When the USA decided to nuke japan they didn't say "We're gonna kill all these innocent babies!". They said they were ending the war.

People care about their lives because of a biological urge to live.

Lmao get a load of the spooks on this kid. No, if I believe in a godless universe devoid of objective morality, then I am free to create my own values and pursue those. Read Stirner/Nietzsche.

Attached: 2E11CBF9-EC7F-4F27-B6CA-FA8171F94F93.jpeg (688x726, 67K)

And that's exactly why humans can't be nihilists. We care for our lives and we also care to what happens to those around us.

Worked super awesome great in china and russia

When did Russia and China apply a Nietzschean/Egoist approach to philosophy and morality?

Attached: barf_2.jpg (433x468, 21.88K)

AHAHAHAHAHAHAH
NICE SPOOKS NERD

Attached: 3.jpg (594x395, 76.5K)

...

Its so dishonest it hurts.

technological advancement? healthier living conditions?

this trolley bullshit has literally no basis in reality
go fuck yourself

Attached: stalin reading.jpg (230x315, 20.65K)

You dont think theres a problem with people deciding what is right and wrong for themselves? If i decide that torturing innocent babies for fun is the most virtuous pursuit in life, the formation of that ethic is okay to you?

You can decide that but I will try to stop you.

I wonder why. Could it be that it is wrong and under no set of circumstances would it be right? Or are you saying it is neither right nor wrong and you just distaste it. You can say you don't like it but you can't say it's wrong.

No, I think its icky and it makes me angry if you do it.

uh oh, looks like someone didn't read their daily dose of moral philosophy

Attached: Immanuel_Kant_(painted_portrait).jpg (220x317, 16.73K)

If I don't decide what is right and wrong, who does? What objective basis would my morality be hinged upon?

it's possible to overcome those whodie
they aren't some supernatural force

The only objective basis morality can come from is an all knowing and powerfull god who is perfectly good. Apart from that it is arbitrary and ultimately subjective.

okay? can you prove god exists?

Where is this objective morality? Is it written somewhere? Do all humans share it or know it instinctively? How can you say a god is perfectly good without first having a morality system?

Nothing is provable apart from empirical mathematics but the existence of god is the most likely explanation of the evidence and is by far the most rational position.

there are reasons why a kind of pure utilitarian "kill the old and sick" doesn't work. for one thing, while the logic of not wanting society to be burdened with invalids makes sense there are too many negative consequences of such behavior for it to happen in reality.

its also possible to have a system of ethics and law without engaging in metaphysical morality that requires the existence of god or "the absolute".

Don't forget that the old can still do useful stuff like raising grandkids and doing community work.

Heeeeeyyy guys

Did you see all that the evidence?

Attached: Laughing_Marx.jpg (480x563, 141.2K)

...

Don't confuse ontology with epistemology. Im arguing that objective morals exist, not that everybody knows them instinctively. How you come to know that they exist has no bearing on whether or not they actually exist. I can say god is perfectly good because it is a necessity for objective morality to exist, god authors morality and we learn about it, we dont author morality and attribute it to god.

How is creation ex nihilo more rational than creation with a cause? If nature is all that exists, how can it be eternal or create itself when that undermines the very physical laws that describe it? Its self refuting.

you got it backwards

learn diamat

How does diamat speak to a first cause? I know very little about it

Why is assuming that everything must have a cause rational? We just assume that because that's what we experience in our day to day life but something like the beginning of the universe is out of the scope of our day to day experience.

choose one

Because theorizing against what the evidence of day to day living suggests is unscientific by definition. Taking a more complex explanation over a simpler explanation is irrational.

Why is ex nihilo the only other choice?
We have no comprehension of what is "out" of space-time.
Even the concept of creation outside space-time, is absurd with our current knowledge.

Even if it was god(s), why any particular one?

Why does everybody need to be aware of something for it to be true? He has those attributes because it is nesessary for objective morality to exist, how they are revealed is secondary.

Exactly my point, the explanation gets more and more complex to the point of absurdity.

how? just assuming every event functions under the same mechanics as things in everyday life doesn't sound scientific. if anythings you should investigate with no preconceptions.

it isn't about how complex it is, it's about the evidence provided.

By evidence of day to day living i mean the evidence of the physical laws that we can test and demonstrate. To go against physics is to literally theorize about an alternative reality with what we know currently. To theorize about an alternative reality is more complex and requires a lot more 'faith' than to theorize with what we can test and verify.

Because, for morality to be objective, all people must to be able to characterize an event as moral or immoral the same way all throughout the ages, religions, cultures and nations.

If there's differentiation in opinions, what makes it objective?

I still hold that to characterize god as good with the morality he has authored, means he just calls himself good.
He could be satan or any supernatural being with that ability.

You are using the laws of the universe to try to make sense of how the universe was made… Do you see the problem?

That doesn't play out in any other facet of life, if i believe that 2+2=5 does that make 2+2=4 false because there isn't universal agreement? 2+2=4 whether i believe it or not. Truth doesn't equal universal knowledge of that truth.

But in that case he wouldn't be perfectly good because we can see the moral error in his lies, meaning we would be of higher moral value than god.

by "going against" physics you mean positing a model of the universe where it spontaneously generated (or always existed I guess). Which you then interpret as them proposing another reality's physics instead of something more intuitive like "our current models of physics aren't equipped to answer this yet". though you could also argue this entire discussion Presupposes that the mechanics of the universe have been consistent thought it's entire existence but that falls under the problem of induction which I'm honestly no smart enough to discus with any authority.

Why would you throw out the the entirety of scientific knowledge, the demonstrated laws of nature, before finding an explanation by using them? Its literally the definition of unscientific and irrational in nature.

You can do it if you want but you have to realise at that point it is metaphysics and is based on nothing verifiable. To call it a work of science is to go against the very definition of science. It is akin to any other metaphysical belief like a belief in god.

Humans are biologically logical and that logic is usually cultivated in our societies to some extent.
Math is a language we use to communicate some type of logic. Therefore most humans would all understand and agree that 2+2=4 if explained to them properly. This doesn't apply to morality, you can easily find examples where people make different moral judgments.
Many pagans would offer human sacrifices to their gods and I'm sure considered it morally good to do so. Christians condemn this as evil.

How can you judge that lying is objectively morally wrong if you don't have a moral system already? What if you lie to someone to save his life?
(I assume saving someone's life is objectively good based on your belief.)

It is entirely unscientific to assume that "outside" the universe, the laws demonstrated "inside" apply.

I don't throw out the scientific evidence, there simply isn't any.

so is the issue that they implied the universe could have always existed instead of saying something really exacting like "there is currently no definitive explanation for how the universe was created."

I don't think anyone was doing that specifically. If I have any opinion on the subject it would be doubt on being able to answer the question empirically, which is to say ever knowing the answer. but again I'm not any kind of expert.

*spontaneously generated

Morality is a lot more complex than 2+2=4 though. I think if you take any human from any era and give them all the knowledge of the universe, demonstrating the complete butterfly effect of an action, everybody would come to the same conclusion of the morality of the action. Whether they follow that morality is up to them though.

I do have a moral system, I'm just saying that morality doesn't have its origins from social pressures in a darwinian sense. That may be how we discover them but we are discovering something that already exists.

don't tell me you have a mechanistic view of the universe, user?

suggesting the universe could possibly just *be* isn't metaphysics

It goes against the theory of relativity, 2nd law of thermodynamics, expansion of the universe and the radiation echo

Yeah basically, perhaps im ranting.

I still disagree but I can see how belief in god brings objective morality along.

Morality as I see it has a class base. What is moral changes depending on the socioeconomic system.

The dominant morality of the ruling class always favors the status quo:
Slave ownership was moral under slavery.
Kings were appointed by god.
Today the dominant morality claims that private property rights are "holy".

So would you say that morality is what benefits the self/collective? If eugenics for example could be shown to have a vastly more beneficial effect on society as opposed to its negatives, would that be moral? Not strawmaning here im legitimately curious

I think morality benefits the ruling class. Sometimes it is beneficial to others too. For example, in a capitalist society, killing someone is considered evil most of the time because letting people kill each other would disturb the status quo.
This benefits everyone in their everyday life as they are protected.
I don't think it would be considered moral just by that fact.

I'm pretty sure that if the Nazis won WWII, then most people would actually believe eugenics was a force of good, even if it wasn't objectively scientifically beneficial.

I personally wouldn't agree that eugenics is moral, even if they were shown to be beneficial.

What is your definition of morality because it seems to me that it is just calling the outcomes of natural selection good. Why would eugenics be immoral if this is the case? If it could be shown that certain genes produce behaviour that will result in a net deficit in progress and health for the species, why would eliminating it be wrong?

To be clear im not a eugenics advocate haha

It is not natural selection, it is the development of human society.

While there is a "randomness", the general trend is that when a new socioeconomic system develops, humans life improves compared to before.

The morality system of each society is not objectively good, it is just good for the stability of that society.

For a king, the best morality is the one that will keep the peasants from revolting. Because the king is rich and has influence, he is able to make the peasants believe that they will burn in hell if they revolt against him.

I don't say morality ought to be this way, I just observe that it is this way.

My own sense of morality has to do with my worldview, that holds that people shouldn't be restricted based on the way they are born. Eugenics goes against my morality. Of course my morality is not static I have often changed my opinion in the past.

And is your more egalitarian view of morality grounded in the fact you think it will provide a better condition for human life defined around common principles of 'good' morality like peace, equal opportunity, absence of slavery? Or is it based on producing a more stable society with less revolt like the king example? In either of these instances i dont see how eugenics could be viewed as wrong.

Morality in each system is created to impose the system's narrative. This overarching morality is not what every single person believes, but it is propagated in every way possible by the ruling class, and everyone is more or less affected by it.

For example, a worker's strike would be considered a bad thing under capitalism, as "it damages the economy, displeases investors and customers and stops the creation of jobs".

I don't claim that my view of morality is more egalitarian or is defined around principles of betterment for humans.
The US government has its people believe that the wars it undertakes are for spreading freedom and culture to the counties it attacks.

Morality is not objective principles that if followed will lead to the betterment of humanity, but the inverse:
The betterment of humanity forms the principles that lead to a more egalitarian morality.

Only reactionary governments such as the Nazis would make eugenics morally acceptable in the modern age.

over 99% of species are extinct,

eugenics is artificial selection, why would that be the logical outcome ?

or more likely provoke a conflict that leads to self-extinction,

capitalism as a mental disorder ? private property as sickness ? love of money as a weakness ?

morality means what ever you want it to mean

Im struggling to see why the betterment of humanity would be considered good under your view of morality unless you just say that it is objectively good to value human flourishing like a humanist would.

And if it is just purely an artificial social construct, how does that relate to your experience? Do you live and feel as if things are good and bad? If it is purely an illusory spook then why would you trust your eyesight any more? Couldnt the material world just be an illusion and you are just a brain in a scientists lab?

that pic is cringe