Is there a natural moral order or law /b/ Reasons for and

>>578082048

Yes.
Because God.

You're born with your morals.

File: bithces-love-anarchism_o_2062417.jpg (72KB, 338x462px) Image search: [Google]

72KB, 338x462px

>>578082048
There is only self interested individual actors in a market of shared spacetime.

>>578082048
Yes in a way. Most morals are learned, but there are instinctive reaction embedded by nature, like protecting children or fighting about a partner. But shit like "human rights" is a social construct to justify actions in your advantage.

File: 2834017-ubermensch.jpg (96KB, 385x500px) Image search: [Google]

96KB, 385x500px

>>578082048
psh

>>578082048
If its a social construction does that mean that a solitary human (that hypothetically just appeared on a planet with no other humans) would or would not have morals ?

No. What's good for a man could be bad for another. What's good for both could be bad for an animal or plant. What's good for an animal or plant could be bad for a man, or for other animals or plants.

Also, by good, I mean beneficial since it's the primary distinction between good and bad

File: bc2.png (79KB, 429x410px) Image search: [Google]

79KB, 429x410px

>>578082616
Like i said >>578082381
He would have "nature given morals", but mostly he would decide whats right from the influence arround him. When he sees a human or ape (i.e.) eating another human, he would assume this as normal and wouldnt have a problem doing the same.

1. read Kant
2. ???
3. profit

>>578082730
So you suggest breaking the so called "golden rule" (Do onto others as you would have done onto you. For those who dont know). So you would suggest all morals are created by humans for the benefit of the surrounding social environment ? Now we are getting places :) Share Readings also where necessary! let us enlighten /b/

>>578082048
Who fucking cares?
As if anyone is ever gonna toss away the SJW laws we're being flooded with now.

>>578083152
Duty ethics? Those are fucking stupid an dont exist.

>>578083152
Kant has many many flaws
>>578082381
Nietzsche's my nigga

File: old.jpg (8KB, 291x173px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 291x173px

>>578082048
There is a natural moral order, but it's a very loose and fuzzy order.

The kind of common laws that, generally speaking (although most /b/tards would typically qualify as the exception) every person can agree on. For example, and I'm going to reiterate the word "generally" here because I know there are some fedora tipping faggots who are going to give me some ridiculous fucking counter example, generally speaking don't kill people. These kinds of common laws that people can agree on are the concrete evidence that a natural moral order does exist.

When a person violates these natural laws, one of two things happens.
1.) They justify their behavior
2.) They make no attempt to justify their behavior

Most people fall into the first category. "It's not a big deal if I steal this because nobody will miss it." "I am going to hurt that person because they deserve it, because they hurt me." "I was given an unfair disadvantage in life and that justifies why I act immorally." By justifying their actions they are admitting that such a moral order does exist, even though they intend to violate it. In their minds, their actions shouldn't be considered a violation of this law because they have experienced what they believe to be extenuating circumstances. That doesn't change that their decisions are effected by the natural moral order.

The second group of people are seen as sociopaths, which is a mental disease that can basically be summed up to "people who cannot recognize the natural moral order."

>>578082181
Does God define what is good, or does what God define things as good because they're naturally good? What if God defined murdering kittens as good? What if he defined charity as bad?

>>578082048
Do you seriously care?

>>578083287
there's more to Kant than the categorical imperative. he discusses the occurrence of evil in the human nature in depth and with a way stronger focus on society and coersion than most people think

>>578083209
Some would argue that without artifical moral enchancement we are ...well fucked :P

>>578083431
God is evil.
Is explained quite a while ago in a thread now long lost

>>578083431

The former, and yes, only it wouldn't be murdering kittens then, it would be killing them.

>>578083152

If reading Kant didn't give you the knowledge or ability to concisely answer OP's question, why should anyone else?

>"Go read x" is a cheap cop-out answer people give when they are clueless but want to appear intelligent

File: fbe.jpg (34KB, 323x355px) Image search: [Google]

34KB, 323x355px

>>578083559
see
>>578083427

You dont need to enchance morals. In the contrary, by telling so you put your morals over others... wich pretty much means you think you know it better then the rest.

>>578083550
Either way there are no universal moral laws. We are animals that are here by chance. Our nature is to survive and procreate. Sometimes we deviate from that and murder for no apparent reason. It's animalistic behavior (which is what we are). That obviously doesn't make it good but it is the way things are.

>>578083559
I'm not talking about basic human rights, but
when the whole 'innocent till proven guilty' is
thrown out the window in a rape case,
or when laws are based on 'muh feelings',
I cannot possibly respect these laws or the people who abide by them.

Laws should be there to protect us from ourselves/each other. Not to give some people benefits over others.
(Yes I'm looking at yoooouuuuu, Gay marriage)

>>578083821
Nah you gotta drop the words "categorical imperative" if you want to look like you know some shit

>>578083821
go read X is more kind of the thing you say when you are spending your work time on 4chan with the risk of getting caught

>>578083846

A pretty correct summary of a logical atheistic worldview, but do you really believe it?

Do you ever say "you should be nice to your sister" or "you shouldn't rape children?" , "should" meaning anything more than "if you do those things you might get in trouble?"

>>578083643
So, God doesn't define natural morals. He defines morals. Meaning God isn't a naturally moral source, as the definition of what is morally good can change in an instant should God choose.

>>578083427
Aha ! I like this, You're in my opinion spot on about the sociopaths but wouldnt their existence make them part of the "natural" and the fact that they don't have this innate sense of right and wrong poke a few holes in that idea ? Or are you suggesting that everything we perceive is not natural ?

>>578084087
I do believe in it wholeheartedly. Could you elaborate a bit on your last point?

>>578083846
the difference is that even if you admit that there are no universal laws, we still have reason and that made us end up in relative secure and violent free societies. or, like Kant wrote "those rules are so evident that even a people of devils should decide to live them, if only they have reason"

>>578082048
You decide. I thought it was pretty obvious.

>>578084193

I would say God defines ethical standards of right and wrong. I think OP and the rest of us are playing a little loose with the term "morals."

If morals are the sense of right and wrong we possess, then yes, that's ambiguous and not directly given by God. We are born with very selfish desires and tendencies and those are only sometimes trained out of us, with difficulty.

Not sure if that's what you were asking.

>>578084225

If you knew I took your wallet but you lacked the evidence to pursue the matter legally, would you still tell me that I should give it back?

>>578084392

How about a better way to determine whether something is morally sound would be to run a simple formula through your head.

"Is what I'm doing directly adversely affecting somebody else. Is it in a malicious form, or a superficial?"

That is what I ask myself when I have any doubts of my intentions. I tried to use God as a source of morally goodness, but when I saw how people used the moral groundwork God laid out for their own advantage, I didn't like it.

Check out Murray Rothbard's The Ethics of Liberty. There's a good section in there that talks about natural law and what it has to do with one's behavior

>>578084230
Of course we have reason and that is why we have laws but that does not mean that there is punishment beyond the legal system, which is really what morality and ethics deal with.
>>578084535
Of course I would because it belongs to me. That really doesn't prove anything other than I want my wallet.

File: 255533.png (571KB, 419x556px) Image search: [Google]

571KB, 419x556px

>>578082048
Nope.
There is not.

We are just matter and energy. And our choices as humans is made by electrical and chemical signals in the brain, evolved to respond correctly to certain situations.
Often called instincts. And this is what morals is derived from, a more advanced base of instincts influenced by culture, religion, history, ect.

If you do belive that there is some deeper moral purposes in life, you are just someone who belives in the supernatural and whom thinks the entire universe somehow revolves around us as humans. A rather selfish thought.

>>578084197
Natural is a pretty broad definition I guess. I wasn't trying to imply that everything we perceive is not natural. I mean we have certain expectations of what a human should be, and one of the expectations is "not a sociopath." So in this case my definition of natural allows for unnatural things to happen naturally. With so many people on the planet of course there will always be exceptions.

>>578084603
>Is it in a malicious form, or a superficial?

The meaning of this isn't quite clear to me, but I'll point out this - if you are trying to determine if your actions are evil, and your test is "are they malicious," you are simply asking yourself if you have evil intent.

It's tautologous and doesn't inform us as to the actual origin of your ethical standards. There's a definition of evil somewhere that you are following, but this doesn't reveal it.

>>578083559
I hear what you're saying but when it comes to laws and ethics its a different ball game to just what is right and wrong. I don't think anyone will argue that just because something is legal doesnt make it right and visaversa
>>578082048
I see where you are coming from but do you think thats really a sufficient answer ?
>>578084193
If God defines ethical standards of right and wrong, which god? which time period? which social construct and is it in relation to race/species or general?

>>578084757
>Of course I would because it belongs to me. That really doesn't prove anything other than I want my wallet.


I disagree. There's a huge difference between "I want my wallet" and "You should give me my wallet."

One is a statement of your emotions. The other is a suggestion of an ethical standard that I'm compelled to follow.

So are you going to abstain from telling people that they "should" or "should not" do things from now on, and instead more accurately say "I want you to do or not do x?"

>>578084757
Yeah but in the animal kingdom there is no "should." If you were eating a zebra and I came up and started eating your kill, the only reason I should give it back is if you were bigger than me. So the question isn't whether or not you want your wallet back. The question is, did he wrong you by taking your wallet? Or are you just an animal, here by chance, and a bigger animal just happened to take your bounty, by chance?

>>578085249
I will continue to say things however I please, and no I'm trying to be a dick but people usually do not know the difference anyways.

>>578085456

I thought so. Because while you claim to not believe in ethical standards, you really do, especially when they work to your advantage. Even though it's at odds with an atheistic worldview.

>>578083163
Not really, I'm saying that even when you think you aren't breaking the golden rule-the most basic of them all- you still are breaking it in some way

>>578085456
I think you're actually trying to not understand this correctly. Even in the face of a clear explanation you've decided you don't want to change your views, and so you won't answer the question. I think you're the one that doesn't know the difference, or at least doesn't want to be proven wrong so you won't allow yourself to know the difference.

>>578085059
By malicious, I mean do my actions harm others. There's a fine line between malicious and superficial. Calling somebody a fucking cunt, may "hurt their feelings," but it isn't a malicious harm. It's superficial. Beating somebody half to death because I didn't like their sneakers, or stealing their car keys, would be a malicious injury.

I define my morals in that way. If I am doing somebody that causes somebody else an injury, or a loss of property, I am comitting an evil act. If I am doing so unintentionally, then I need to do whatever I can to change that course, and to try and make amends if the person wishes.

>>578085349

Entirely correct. "Should" is never a concept found from scientific observation of things that happen.

If someone observed a man raping and murdering a child from a purely scientific perspective, he might accurately conclude "men sometimes like to rape and murder children" or "the child didn't seem to like that," or even "the man might experience severe displeasure as the result of his actions in the future,"

but nothing about the circumstances he observed would give him the basis to observe "the man should not have done that."

>>578085670
I really do believe in the views I have presented, this is the Internet so I expect to be met with skepticism.
>>578085740
How can saying "you should" be wrong? Because I can follow it with "...you should or I will xxxxxxx(kick your ass, steal your stuff, etc.)

>>578084779
Wow wow wow, Slow down buddy. I have not giving an opinion here, Just cruising for thoughts. But you're right about the chemical signals etc but that's hitting on more of our limit to freedom and are we truly free. Surely someone has thoughts on this ? ( my biologist gf nods head are your comment)
>>578084197
Makes sence, I like the point perhaps then at one stage there may of been a natural moral order but due to the expansion of the human race it has evolved and perhaps mutated like the sociopaths ?
>>578084613 I surely will thanks for the suggestion.

>>578085778

First, you are treating "malicious" (literally meaning having evil intent) and "superficial" (literally meaning shallow, slight, or occurring on the surface) as related opposing concepts, and that's confusing because they aren't really.

Next, you are still following some kind of ethical standard that is higher than your own desires. As you said, you might discover your desires led you to harm someone - at that point you conclude your desires were "evil" and that you should correct your behavior. Where does that ethical standard come from, and why do you feel compelled to follow it? If it just comes from you, that wouldn't make any sense at all - why should your latter inclination be more authoritative than the former?

>>578085943
Right but the fact that a person can "observe" such an event and come up with the non-scientific conclusion that "the man should not have done that" is evidence that we're not animals like >>578083846 this angsty young atheist likes to say that we are.

>>578086127
I'm not skeptical because I'm on the internet. I'm skeptical because you explained that your actions are entirely inconsistent with the views you claim to hold.

>>578086128
Don't want to butt in to much on your conversation but I just want to purpose the idea of a difference between should and ought. Keep it up, im enjoying the read :)

I don't know if there is a "natural" moral order/law; however, throughout cultures, there is one common moral-code found: The Golden Rule.

But, it's interesting in that The Golden Rule is mutual-egoism; so, I would say the basic moral tenet that seems to be prevalent is mutual-egoism -- and if a gun was to my head, I suppose I would have to wager it's the "natural" moral law.

>>578086570
In what way!? I just explained.

>>578086668
I must confess I am a firm believer in Egoism and the idea of mutual-egoism holds a strong place in my heart :)

>>578086410
It comes from the basis of that I acknowledge that my malicious actions can cause others pain and suffering. That is an understanding of empathy, which should be the basic for morality. Morality should come from empathy, as it would put in perspective the consequences of our actions.

As for the former point, I treat them differently, as a surface abrasion is different from internal trauma. The former will heal in days, while the latter will not. Metaphorically speaking in regard to the injury speak, of course.

>>578086160
It was my opinion.

And as stated. As far as we as humans know. there is nothing more to it.

And against it comes the religious and spiritual arguements. Which is to be considered wishfull thinking rather than objective facts.

File: Core concept.jpg (9KB, 259x194px) Image search: [Google]

9KB, 259x194px

>>578086127
Please don't misinterpret what was written. The point I was making, is "you should" is phrase that implies certain agreed upon expectations about what "should" or "should not" be done. The only way one person can say to another person that they "should" do something is if the speaker has the expectation that the listener will agree with them on some sort of standard about normal human behavior. This, in most cases, is not a result of threats like you said. I don't follow my daily routine thinking, "oh I should do this thing, or harm might come to me."

You see me take a toy from a young child with intent to keep it from myself. No harm has come to you, and the child cannot kick my ass. Should I give the toy back?

>>578086675

You first claimed not to believe in ethical imperatives, but then you said you would certainly affirm them and call others to adhere to them ("you SHOULD give me my wallet.")

So I reasonably conclude you really do believe in them, you just don't know why.

>>578082048
Yes there is a positive way to act that benefits you and everyone now and in the future. Immoral things benefit only you at the expense of others or have short term benefit for everyone but terrible long term consequences.

>>578082048
Dumb question. The only where there could be any kind of objective truth would be if there were some sort of God that had the power to define it as such. And even then, variance in acceptance of that truth prevents it from being a Perfect truth.

Also I would suggest looking up Democritus.
He was among the first to theorize atoms (he lived in ancient Greece, so don't expect them to be modern-day atoms, but they are similar), and he explained how he believed there was no "objective" to anything (whereas many others including Aristotheles believed so) but instead that these atoms simply responded to mechanical and physical stymuli.

I think it's related to the thread because following this logic defining "good" and "evil" doesn't have much sense. It's similar to what >>578084779 said

>>578082730
This.

Everything is a matter of perspective an relativity.

>>578082048
Things like good and evil are subjective, but things like social morays develop naturally as an effect of humans desire fro social interaction.

File: Astrosloth.jpg (143KB, 417x600px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 417x600px

>>578083923
how is giving some poeple benefits over others even related to gay marriage?
Hell, if anything, it gives them less benefits

File: deus ra.jpg (144KB, 827x966px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 827x966px

>>578082048
that reality exists at all should be evidence of peaceful evolutionary freedom. That a part of my brain has specifically evolved to seperate and distinquish between me and my environment tells me for fact of matter that we are all not "One", intelligence is the divider. Frederick Bastiat's The Law is fundamental reading for the self proclaimed "illuminated".

Gotta leave, /b/ros. Keep up the good talk. Anon I was talking with, see you some other time.

>>578087095
>cruising the internet
>see a topic on philosophy
>ignore topic
>complain about religion
>toss in some phrases from the first paragraph of some of my favorite wikipedia entries

You're not really on point here champ. You wanna try taking another swing at "moral order" instead of reciting what you read from Dawkins?

>>578082048
yes, i think being nice to others and not harming them on purpose is natural
now we only need to quantify these effects

>>578084087
following a cold, mathematical logic: yes

but even though we acknowledge the fact that we are animals here by chance that doesn't mean we don't think of ourselves as animals, and as such that doesn't mean we shouldn't follow our basic human ethics.
What I'm trying to say is that we do follow our instincts, we are just aware that we do and that these instincts aren't good or bad, they are simply instincts that exist

>>578087046
>empathy, which should be the basic for morality

Again - who says?

If when you get up in the morning you feel like your self-interest should be the basis for morality and you carry out a few actions on that basis, why (later in the day) do you then repent and decide it's better that empathy should be the basis for morality? What reason do you have for favoring one over the other?

File: akslj.jpg (210KB, 600x865px) Image search: [Google]

210KB, 600x865px

>>578082381
>like protecting children
This is a fallacy. My experience tells me some children are definitely better off ceasing to be, it is a gut evolutionary instinct, inherent to natural law and self conduction as an animal, part of this earthly kingdom.

>>578087359
Oddly enough they are usually things like subversively manipulating people to change their behavior and stealing people's work in order to redistribute wealth.

>>578088183
>protect the children
>send them to school to get brainwashed
>sell them thug culture
>beat them into submission
>kick them out at 18
>put them into unreasonable amounts of debt and lie to them about how to be successful
>spoil their minds with unlimited' the internet and video games

>>578088135
could you say that again without quite so many negatives and double negatives? Not to be a dick, I'm just not sure what you mean.

>>578082048
Morals are only learned because humans want to survive and are lazy thus laws being created. We've just evolved from that and have genetically and environmentally been taught the same. That is why psychopaths have no morals. They do not fear death.

File: 325.jpg (821KB, 810x1080px) Image search: [Google]

821KB, 810x1080px

>>578088194
>stealing people's work
Theft is a sin, if property and right of self ownership is a social more/dictate. At a certain point of judgement that person is beyond reform, their lives become forfeit. There is a line in the sand I belief an educated inner circle could with benign benevolence dictate from free of fear of any form of negative repercussion. Punishment is a virtue to for whom remain.

>>578087359
What if you actually save 7 people by harming one very badly, an otherwise those 7 people would be severely harmed while the other stays at peace.

Which option would then be morally acceptable? Who are you to decide harming less people is better than harming one person, or vice versa?

>>578082048
easy: me good u evil

>>578082048
Yes, because morality/good/evil etc are just words. Words to describe certain actions, actions we don't like.

We can say things like murder is good, love is evil. But that wouldn't make it so, this would just make "evil" the thing we want you to be. Because we can't just decide what we see as desirable.

If you want to be evil, you can be, there is no objective reason why you can't. But you'd still be evil, because that's what words are for.

There are actions that objectivelly help or hurt. And we like and want people to do the things that help, everything else is semantics.

>>578086457
>Right but the fact that a person can "observe" such an event and come up with the non-scientific conclusion that "the man should not have done that" is evidence that we're not animals


Wrong. If a person draws such a conclusion, it is solid evidence that he is basing his conclusion on more than simply the facts and circumstances he is observing. He is applying an ethical standard that he claims is authoritative over every human, and therefore cannot originate with individual humans themselves.

captcha: Largod doctrine

>>578088549
It would be difficult as a human who has not been through much, or who has not put themselves through difficulty and poverty for the purpose of reform, to decide when a life has become forfeit. Capitalizing an idea and creating a patent farm is the antithesis to the point of protecting our ideas. Protecting our ideas enables us to give resources to those who should be getting them.

File: 64.jpg (63KB, 500x333px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 500x333px

>>578088481
>That is why psychopaths have no morals. They do not fear death.
I agree with this.

Laws ultimately as an institutionalised established wink & nod, an agreance of human farmers to get the populous to go along is ultimately redundant beyond Frank Zappa's "brick wall at the back of the theatre". Its just a game of scarcity, limited human resource, the control of such.

>>578088761
>he is basing his conclusion on more than simply the facts and circumstances he is observing
That's my point exactly, when I said non-scientific I meant it could not be objectively observed. When I observe a child being raped, I can come to the conclusion that this is below the ethical standard that humans should act according to. This is what makes us more than "just animals." Not science. The scientific method is a process of learning, all animals go through learning processes.

>>578088063

I have not in any way tried to recite or explain anything related to dawkins.
I may have been influenced by him, the same way you have since you would bring the name up in the discussion, but that's something else.
The same goes for everything I've ever experienced. And that goes for everyone:
I don't think it's possible for any human to be truly objective.


The way I see it if you want to try to find any true "natural moral" or defini.ton of good or evil, you need only ask a rock.

The reason I brought religion up is because that's the only place I've heard the concepts of stuff like "true morality" or "good or evil: who decides".
The latter which is stated in OP's question is asked in such a way that there is undeniably someone or something that makes these laws.

>>578088709
There is more to the issue than that. Things that are 'evil' lead to a poor conclusion. Generally these are subversive efforts against others in order to produce a behavior, spying to steal or stealing to spy, murder, or knowingly participating in spoiling a marriage, or actively trying to destroy the family.

These are things in which the act itself is most likely going to be seen as bad and will have a larger negative effect on others.

>>578089037

false. psychopaths fear death. they fear it so they try to experience it through other people.

but their real problem is they do not fear /b/.

>>578089262
Also, not having any self control is a very good indicator of a person's potential for evil or chaos. This isn't to say their intentions are bad, just that they might be able to justify poor action thinking it may be good while actually influencing other negative events.

>>578082048
If morals are learnt where did we learn them from ?
if from other humans they must of learnt it from somewhere, if they learnt it from animals they must of learnt it from somewhere.If through this logic everything has a preceding cause, eventually a first cause must be established. So where do we draw the line ?

>>578089230

Okay! Then when you come to that conclusion, what basis are you using to propose that ethical imperative (that he "shouldn't" do that)? Where are you getting that information?

>>578089593
I think your lord comes every once in a while to tell you how to act so you don't all kill yourselves. You are like lemmings that build a system beyond your own control.

>>578089230

i'm an unjust animal, bitch

>>578089593
>OP replying to OP

File: 767521-bigthumbnail.jpg (146KB, 450x281px) Image search: [Google]

146KB, 450x281px

>>578088709
>semantics
Our symbiotic evolutionary relationship alongside natural psychadelic substances is what gave rise to our linquistic development and socio interactions we coin civilisation. If it wasn't for drugs and words, all we would have is sticks & stones.

>>578088851
I think the screening process would have to come down to either numbers of Blood comparison or whomever has access to the biggest gun at the time. Democracy won't suffice beyond continued inefficient demagogy into democide. Never has a piece of paper been adhered to by a criminal, from the magna carta to the constitution, just ever grading fractional degrees of pseudo access to free kingdom by slave masses. The line in the sand to master (as I perceive) long lost. Love Stefan Molyneuxs' history of the story of your enslavement. How is a debt contract any morally, socially just, ethical & virtuous compared to a anarchist adherence to the Non initiation of force/aggression principle? Explicitly as a foundational premise on which to build a Grand or Utopian society (self inherent obvious end of the human species evolutionary 'experiment'); that I take as a given..

>>578082251
Wrong.

>>578089594
From the natural moral law.

>>578087161
>>578087238
I do see now where I made the mistake. You guys are just discussing semantics though. You SHOULD give the toy back because it doesn't belong to you. If you do not give it back then you don't. I would not notify the authorities seeing as it is just a toy and you are likely a dick.


Do you understand now? At times I still have feelings about karma existing but after I realize that those are just man made concepts. When we die it is over and nothing "bad" that we did matters anymore. I just don't do "bad things" because I do no like causing harm or discomfort to others, not because I fear that I will someday be judged for my actions by a higher being.

>>578089890
>From the natural moral law.

As laid out where - in your imagination? In a book? From what your parents tell you?

If you haven't noticed, lots of people have different ideas of what a natural moral law looks like.

Morality is an illusion.

>>578089556
>potential for evil or chaos.

As seen from a human perspective.

>>578088405
Sorry I was playing LoL and I fucked up the whole post

>Do you ever say "you should be nice to your sister" or "you shouldn't rape children?" , "should" meaning anything more than "if you do those things you might get in trouble?"

Looking from above at the grand scheme of things, yes.
But although we can see that animals have these instincts that have no "true meaning" behind it we still ARE animals and as such it is not "stupid" to follow our instincts

So yeah, we are not disobeying a universal law by raping children, but I still consider it despicable

social construct. there is not a single action considered morally bad, that isn´t considered morally acceptable in another culture. Thus, moral laws are local, affected by history and tradtition.

>>578089993
As I described here: >>578083427

>>578089914

No, we're pointing out the difference between observing that I have a toy that someone else wants and used to have, and you taking a further step and claiming that some unseen law of right and wrong compels me to actually give it back.

The fact that it doesn't belong to me is not in and of itself a reason to give it back. It's just an observation about the toy's history.

>>578090112

And the other people that follow their instincts that lead them to conclude raping children is fine and dandy - are they just as right as you?

>>578089782
It is very true what you say about the criminal. Part of the issue here is that power is consolidated and separated from the ruled class and was done so on purpose for the last 80 years. Over time, the experience of life between the ruled and the rulers have become more differential. How is it that we can expect to accurately measure when what is the matter cannot be counted or, in our case, is not being counted. The debt contract is not a sustainable economic model and sustaining it encourages a frail and weak minded population. The greed of the debt creators will prey upon our valuable members and corrupt our prospects for a glorious future. We are in for a rough ride as those who do not change whine and squeal.

File: image.jpg (5KB, 265x191px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 265x191px

>>578090164

So from your imagination then?

Because that's just, like, your opinion, man. Not very compelling.

>>578089997
Morality is the best way to act for humanity. To call it an illusion is to be blind to reality.

>>578089914
>If you do not give it back then you don't. I would not notify the authorities seeing as it is just a toy and you are likely a dick.

The toy is just an example because it's easy for parties of opposing viewpoints to agree on the innocence of a child with a toy. But imagine if it were something much bigger, much more dire? It's like you're afraid to admit that there might be good in your heart because you don't want to be associated with religion. I understand you're an atheist but having that as the centerpiece of your belief and then stemming your understanding of the world outwards from there is just as bad as a religious person doing the same thing with their god as the center. Drop the atheist-bible and think for yourself, why don't you like causing harm or discomfort to others?

>>578090694
>Morality
>(what I call being good)
>is the best way to act for humanity
>(is what I call good)

Got it.

>>578082048
Shut up moralfag

>>578090694
Morality is an illusion because you think it's the "best way to act for humanity."

>>578090293
Yeah I guess that does make sense. I should drop that type of appeal to emotion. I still don't believe that morality exists outside of our creation.

>>578090970

So is it okay for me to take your stuff, punch you in the face, and rape your relatives, assuming I'm comfortable with the legal and social risks involved?

>>578090663
No I don't think that came from my imagination, that came from careful observation. Of course it can't be scientifically qualified, but of we're only concerned with just such an answer than we could have closed this thread a long time ago.

>Is there a natural moral order or law
>Not one that can be scientifically proven
/thread