Are there unironically people who believe in morals and that some things are actually “right” and “wrong”? No matter how hard moralist retards claim that something is “scary and bad” or how we must do this or that as a duty, the moral nihilist patrician laughs in pity at the plebian mass. The Zig Forumsyp is forever bound in his slave-morality
and sacrifices his own interests for spooks.
When did you take the true redpill and ascend beyond human moralizations and all spooks?
Morality is not a abstract construct that you can just throw away at your discretion. It is codified reality enforced by the agency of state in format of laws, by communities as norms and taboos. Even if you were to belong into that select "enlightened" few why would you ever want to admit that and commit partial social suicide as psychopathically aligned person?
Why is one bound to submit themselves to arbitrary moral rules, whether codified by the state, communities or religions when it is against what you judge to be your self-interest? The two can at times align and sometimes it is better for one’s interest to follow the law, but to submit to all arbitrary laws, taboos and morality is silly and willingly stripping yourself of your own autonomy
I, we, have desired results we could all agree on, so acting, and I prefer the word, ethically towards a more –nice world, is what we all ought to do. Not with a sense of duty at all. Just for maximizing –niceness.
Recently and a long time ago.
Its not silly but means to spread virtue. Clinging to notions of autonomy at all costs is an foolish path when you could covert virtues into tools for greater good of humanity.
You're an idiot if you don't think you have goal directed behavior and that those goals aren't your conception of the good.
What you're really saying is that you're a subjectivist, which is an untenable, self-defeating position.
This is all meaningless drivel. What are you really saying – nothing at all. Virtues? Abstract humanity? What good is it to devote myself to meaningless things like “virtue” or “humanity” at large? I’m not trying to be edgy / contrarian / misanthropic either, I’m serious. These are all just spooks
Well, admit that's your position, and then I'll go ahead. Otherwise I'll just be arguing against something that you say you aren't.
I’m merely saying that there is no such thing as right or wrong that humans do not themselves create or declare to be right or wrong. Things just “are”, moralistic language is meaningless. If there is a term for that, I don’t know what it is
So raping a bunch of infants and then burning them up in a nursery has the same value as picking your nose?
What makes either of those worse than the other? People may say it is bad but why is it bad? Saying that other people are harmed is not sufficient, that implies all human life is valuable or worth preserving
I just asked you. Do they have the same value or not?
This should be an easy one for you Mrs. Nihilist.
Of course they have the same value, as I said in my first reply.
Then why do anything at all? Why are you replying to me? Why feed yourself?
There are natural human values that uphold and maintain and are also upheld and maintained by morality, read more Kant and Aristotal and less Sartre
Because I want to and enjoy living
So do things you enjoy and want to do have the same value as things you don't enjoy and don't want to do?
...
Just answer my questions instead of trying to play 4D chess please.
Do things you enjoy and desire have the same value as things you don't enjoy and don't desire?
If you had reading-comprehension you would realize that I answered your question already
I know you think you did, but can you go ahead and answer so I can understand?
Do things you enjoy and desire have the same value as things you don't enjoy and don't desire?
Virtue is something that can be subjected to social engineering and turned into a tool of the bodypolitik, where as your interested in humanity should be self-evident since most group animals are invested in the survival of their kin-group.
Are you thinking having me admit that people have preferences for certain things and activities is going to refute my position that morals don’t exist independent of people and that people should persue their own self-interests?
No. I'm just trying to understand what you believe. Why wouldn't you just say what you think? Why make it harder to understand your position if your position is correct?
Do things you enjoy and desire have the same value as things you don't enjoy and don't desire?
I literally answered this question three times now. Are you a native English speaker?
No, you attributed positions to me that I didn't state, answered questions with questions, and accused me of bad faith.
A simple and clear yes or no would suffice. If you want to elaborate a little, that might also be helpful.
Do things you enjoy and desire have the same value as things you don't enjoy and don't desire?
This whole thing is just a philosophical game, and utterly useless. I have morals, because there are things in this world that I love wholeheartedly. It fills me with a simply good feeling to support these things. The reality of morality is incredibly solid. Anybody who has ever felt has felt morality. People denying it are just that, people denying something. They have nothing to bring to the table, other than denouncements. Have fun shitposting.
Moral nihilism is a sign of dishonesty (you really do have moral opinions but pretend not to because of edge), intellectual laziness (you're too stupid to realize what you're arguing for) or sociopathy (you legitimately don't believe that any actions are wrong, you have no moral objection to Mengele or Manson).
Morality is entirely environmental and context-sensitive. The evolutionary explanation for altruism and/or morality falls flat because if humans evolved differently than murder might have been a "good" thing to do today.
Read a fucking book and embrace virtue ethics you dumb faggot.
Even animals have morality. It's just humans have skewed things poisoning their minds with concepts, self serving, and literally drugging themselves into a stupid on a molecular level
If you aren't a good person to friends and family that are good to you, it's gulag time
Violence and the implicit threat thereof. That and ostracism. If you're being properly materialist you have to recognize that morals exist to the extent that you are made to follow them.
Why does morality need to be "objective". I think morality is more meaningful if it made by humans for humans, rather than being imposed by a God or some inherent part of the universe.
stirnerfags are "anti-ideological" enlightened centrist tier
Virtue ethics is pretty legit. Other normative accounts are shitty, utilitarianism is strictly alright for governing and long-term social questions, as a personal code it's horrible.
Because a moral made just by people without any outside justification is not fancy enough for most people
Outside justification is the only actual ethical justification possible.
All subjective ethical frameworks do not give justifications and are not interested in prescription, the entirety of ethics that has any value whatsoever.