>>59944473 morality is 100% objective. its based on nothing but truth. morality is the principles (truths) concerning the difference between right (true) and wrong (false). its quite simple, lying or hiding your true intentions is immoral. the new age movement has been so deceived as to try to assign new meaning to words.
We are all the same; one soul, one consciousness. Any other person is really just me; anything hateful I say toward them, any theft I commit against them, any act of violence I commit against them, I'm really just committing against a different manifestation of my spirit. Therefore, I speak no hate, steal from no one, and commit no violence.
>don't be a dick >don't worry about what other people do unless it hurts me it's pretty much libtard morals but it's so much easier. I don't have to constantly get butthurt even though abortion is fucked only thing I care about is freedom
>>59947894 Meh, horde empathy is really relative. For myself, kin relations, then work relations, maybe a tiny percentage of nationalism but has been fading for years, everything else is do what thy will while sticking within the bounds of society as to not stand out too much. I know life isn't a spectator sport but sometimes its better that way. I take myself in and out of the rotation on my own terms.
Hunter-gatherers tend to have an egalitarian social ethos, although settled hunter-gatherers (for example, those inhabiting the Northwest Coast of North America) are an exception to this rule. Nearly all African hunter-gatherers are egalitarian, with women roughly as influential and powerful as men.
The egalitarianism typical of human hunters and gatherers is never total, but is striking when viewed in an evolutionary context. One of humanity's two closest primate relatives, chimpanzees, are anything but egalitarian, forming themselves into hierarchies that are often dominated by an alpha male. So great is the contrast with human hunter-gatherers that it is widely argued by palaeoanthropologists that resistance to being dominated was a key factor driving the evolutionary emergence of human consciousness, language, kinship and social organization.
Anthropologists maintain that hunter/gatherers don't have permanent leaders; instead, the person taking the initiative at any one time depends on the task being performed. In addition to social and economic equality in hunter-gatherer societies, there is often, though not always, sexual parity as well. Hunter-gatherers are often grouped together based on kinship and band (or tribe) membership. Postmarital residence among hunter-gatherers tends to be matrilocal, at least initially. Young mothers can enjoy childcare support from their own mothers, who continue living nearby in the same camp. The systems of kinship and descent among human hunter-gatherers were relatively flexible, although there is evidence that early human kinship in general tended to be matrilineal. A few groups, such as the Haida of present-day British Columbia, lived in such a rich environment that they could remain sedentary or semi-nomadic, like many other Native Americans of the Pacific Northwest coast.
>>59949032 This I try to act as ETHICALLY as possible in my every day life. Morality is like a sports team you stand behind no matter what, just like religion it just gives people a soap box to stand on and the ability to shut off their brains and let the doctrine do the talking
>>59949491 Yeah and our societies are so much more massive and complex than tribes. I would never steal from my family, friends, acquaintances or people in my community, but it's justifiable in many cases.
You are an animal that runs on instinct, we all are. You are more closely related to a chimp than a chimp is to a gorilla. Nearly everything you do, think and feel can be traced back to an evolutionary biology function.
>You are an animal that runs on instinct, we all are. You are more closely related to a chimp than a chimp is to a gorilla. Nearly everything you do, think and feel can be traced back to an evolutionary biology function.
Yet we don't sit in trees eating shit and howling at each other, while eating the dead young of our neighbors. I wonder why that is.
>>59950014 No, under moral relativism, you could easily justify anything, because "lel morals are subjective."
>>59944473 To answer the OP though, I've developed all of my personal morals myself through life experience. I base them on if their mine or not. If it's my moral belief, I should be able to argue in support of why it's good. If it's not mine, it's wrong and I should be able to argue against it.
Morals only turn sour when you have retards like >>59950220 believe in absolute moral guidelines that can't be held consistently.
>>59950368 >If humanity had differing morals based on culture, only the ones who had similar morals would survive.
>There is a right, and specific set of objective morals, and every human being is alive today because of them.
>Otherwise you would have been murdered and fed to your siblings to ease someone else's burden.
Already addressed this. Beyond a group of 100-200 people in your life, your morals are almost entirely constructed for you. You inherently don't want to hurt or steal from that small group, outside of that it gets blurry.
>>59950790 I find it crazy how completely alien this idea is to you guys. I assumed that by adulthood most people have this figured out. If every culture has different norms, rules, laws and morals, morality is subjective.
I'm a bit of a cunt to people but it's hard to soar like an eagle while you're surrounded by turkeys ect. I like to think I have a good moral compass, I have always had a positive impact on my local community, I volunteer doing different stuff, used to be environment but more working with kids now due to the nature of my business which also does a bit of work for underprivileged kids. That being said I wouldn't hesitate to click my fingers if it meant every muslim or nigger dropped dead, my justification would be that it is for the greater good.
>>59950913 I never questioned the legitimacy of the concept. You're right. It's relative and subjective. So fucking what? Does that mean I should just ignore my morals and let people do what they want because it's subjective? Fuck off faggot. My morals are the best, if you disagree, argue with me.
>>59951359 I don't get the whole "the ends don't justify the means" conflict.
It all depends on how you define the means case by case. Killing a human is wrong, but killing in self defense is just, because you would argue the means were killing a potential murderer which is separate from "killing a human."
Doesn't this just boil down to how you define the terms?
>>59949520 > I try to act ethically and I try to calculate mathematically.
Ethics are standards that govern the conduct of a person, so basically you are saying you are trying to act according to a standard. Congratulations on not completely acting randomly (unless randomness is your standard you act along in which case >>>/b/ is that direction).
You have a very shallow way of looking at ethical standards if you think it is just a soap box to stand on. That is exactly what a moral relativist would say.
The opposite, a moral absolutist, would say that his moral standard is the only reasonable way of acting. Which is ridiculous since you can always come up with a particular situation in which any moral standard does not work.
Yes, because the others would have killed each other off.
>Already addressed this. Beyond a group of 100-200 people in your life, your morals are almost entirely constructed for you. You inherently don't want to hurt or steal from that small group, outside of that it gets blurry.
So you are fine with killing/harming others because you simply don't know them? You have no idea how this could in turn cause harm to you?
It's amusing how intellectually undeveloped moral relativists are.
>>59951927 I was just making an example. War could still be justified without invoking "the ends don't justify the means." It all depends on how you define the means and again boils down to personal morals/beliefs. If someone thinks that war isn't wrong, you can't call them out and say "the ends don't justify the means" because they don't think the means was wrong in the first place.
I am a moral relativist. I do believe in the various representations of Will as a basis of one's behavior though. So on a personal level maybe I do believe in morals. But they're not the same for everyone.
>>59952160 Did I do that? No, I just said the lines get blurred beyond that tribal sized group. I don't advocate the killing of people and this is the most extreme example you could use. Lying and stealing are very much dependent of whether or not that person is outside your tribe.
>>59952238 I can already tell you're the type of person to reduce any argument to an absurd level where we're not saying anything.
>>59944473 on a few simple things: approach everyone with best intentions, common sense, fairness and modesty whilst not being naive, essentially looking for win-win solutions to life's problems works for me
>>59952384 >I don't advocate the killing of people and this is the most extreme example you could use
Moral absolutes are not complex things, but they are constant. The moral aversion to violence without reason or justification is one of them.
>Lying and stealing are very much dependent of whether or not that person is outside your tribe.
And what if the other tribe can do you harm in turn? It's not simply a matter of familiarity or closeness. It's about SURVIVAL. Morality is absolutely linked to behaviors which ensure survival. And that means avoiding harm unless you can give a justification for it, which typically swings around to self-defense in some way.
>>59944473 The Bible and Holy Spirit as a guide and teacher. Faith to understand my personal limits as well as others. Honesty to control the motivations and ends of my behavior. Common sense and reasoning to discern implicit moral claims of others.
But it's not. It's based on tangible consequences.
>Rural blue collar, likely christian conservatives have a very different moral code than urban or suburban middle class, non-religious liberals. Is this news to you?
Things like believing homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry isn't exactly a moral issue anon. It's a religious belief. It's also heavily tied to government practice, which has absolutely nothing to do with right vs. wrong.
>>59953425 >That is a difference in subjective morality regardless of whether religious beliefs have anything to do with the disparity.
Believing certain people shouldn't be allowed to be married in your religious institution has nothing to do with right vs. wrong. THEY MADE IT UP, THEY CAN DECIDE WHO CAN OR CAN'T BE MARRIED. Just like the state can decide who can be officially recognized.
Morality has fuck all to do with religious beliefs.
The brain is sacred and shall not be tampered with. No drugs, no alcohol. No anesthesia. It must be left in its pure state, people who alter their brain recreationally are degenerate and both unable to tap into the true potential which their brain holds as well as willing to sell off their independence to foreign substances.
Private property is a holy right and burglary is not only a crime but a demonic act. If someone breaks into your house, it is not only your right but your duty to kill them and send them to hell. The worst crime you can commit is to harm someone in their own home.
Devotion to God rather than denial or apathy. Atheists aren't people who don't believe in God, they are merely people who deny the fact that they pray in secret. To be a holy person you must use prayer and magic in your daily life.
A righteous government is formed not by competent leaders but by the people who enable it, therefore a degenerate society breeds terrible leaders while a holy society breeds good leaders. When a good government comes into place, it is a sign of prayers being answered, and the state is therefore holy and deserving of worship as an envoy of God.
>>59954218 Anon I'm not arguing about this with you, I'm just telling you that morality is subjective and strongly influenced by your religion and belief system. I'm not all over the place, you are just pretty dumb.
>>59947894 Psychopaths have been shown to be good members of society, even while lacking empathy.
>>59947920 The test is very subjective; it doesn't take into account of other factors. Besides, is loyalty necessarily a moral trait? How can it be quantified?
>>59948566 This is obviously flawed. What makes a word have authority? Because God said so?
>>59949140 The self interest to flood the market with the demand of cuckold porn, if you're rich of course.
>>59949491 You had it half right then defeated your own argument. Yes, murdering and stealing damage the social structure, but can be a blessing if we do these things for the benefit of good. But animals have this instinct as well.
>I'm telling you morality is subjective, without giving examples, and with assertions that certain groups of people believe different things, therefore morality is subjective >also we're all apes therefore we should behave as such
>Yes, murdering and stealing damage the social structure, but can be a blessing if we do these things for the benefit of good. But animals have this instinct as well.
That's why justification matters. We don't call it right or wrong to do those things until we hear the reasons why. Our morality tells us they are negatives otherwise.
High culture, technological advancement, and competence, especially intellectual competence.
To further and protect these things is the only morality I care for. I care little for suffering or happiness, although a successful civilisation will naturally lead to happiness and minimise suffering.
I base my morality on how I can enjoy my time on earth to the fullest, directly and indirectly.
With indirectly I mean how I would choose not my own interest to respect other's interest (do unto others as you would have them do unto you) in the (sometimes vain) hope that others will respect my interests as well.
For me the idea of doing a good deed by helping others enjoy their time on earth is quite powerful so I try to help other people from time to time.
In my self-interest I won't help any beggar on the street, since my life is finite and I want to enjoy some quality posts on /pol/ as well while I'm on this earth.
>>59954755 I also used your example of gay marriage but you wrote it off as not a question of morality because one side is influenced by a religion, which to you is separate from morality. You are special.
>>59955180 In that case, it's morally objective to force people against their will to be hooked up to a machine that provides them eternal ecstasy. I feel shitty just thinking about that. It doesn't sound like a good idea, no matter how good chemical ecstasy feels. It doesn't make it "good", even though it could be eternal happiness.
>>59947579 >what makes lying immoral? try looking up the definition of the world morality. lying is immoral because you didnt distinguish the difference between what was right and what was wrong. you just said the wrong. i know you relativists think that morality is whats "good" but thats not what the word actually means. "good" is a social construct that most of the time manifests itself through truth so it is lumped in synonym with right (truth). moral relativism can not exist unless you are deceived into believing that no truths exist. which some people actually do believe.
I said it's not a question of morality because marriage is a union created by the religious institution. They can marry whoever they want.
It's an issue to you because the state is involved, and there are tax breaks to be had. That has nothing to do with morality or right vs. wrong. It's about your perception of fairness. It's only "wrong" to deny gays the ability to marry because you think they deserve the same privileges. Is it morally wrong though? Are christians justified in protecting their beliefs or are you justified in demanding equality at their expense?
I'm saying it's not a moral issue. No one in this case is right or wrong.
>>59955790 did you mean morally imperative instead of objective?
The flaw in that reasoning is that holding people somewhere against their will is not bad. While if you are held somewhere against your will, how can you be happy? Your example is too hypothetical imho tbqh senpai
> It is a wrong and evil thing to cause harm to another person, where harm is defined as the infringement of the natural rights of life, liberty and property that all people possess, or the willful abandonment of an obligation one has taken > Where harm has been committed, it must be redressed as soon as possible. > The redress of wrongs should be limited in scope to the harm committed > An evil person is someone who causes harm to other people without remorse or attempt at redress > A good person is someone who takes on obligations to assist others in avoiding or mitigating harm
>>59956168 I try to not care about what other people think but it's hard sometimes and I consider myself much more independent than the average person I still notice that I'm limited in not caring about what other people say.
I am only ironically a fascist by the way, I detest any totalitarian regime as I live quite a comfortable life and anything that infringes with my self-actualisation I detest.
>>59956027 So is killing someone because they looked at you funny right or wrong? (Note that is the murderers true intention) Youve defined morality in a way that only applies to things which can be distingished as true or false.
In case anyone is wondering what my opinions are; I have a strict set of principles.
I base my morals on 2 principles and 3 tenets. 1st) Society is the standard of morality, lest: pleasure lead to degeneracy (Hedonism), and the might of one kills us all (Authoritarianism).
2nd) My well being, while being of secondary importance, is still important as long as it doesn't contradict the first principle.
1st Tenet: Physical likeness- Common identity and kinship are important; our likeness is our strength, lest we treat insects equal to our own, such as in moral relativists, or we de-personify (dehumanize) someone, such as in racism.
2nd Tenet: Cognitive empathy- Morality is a form of body language; we need to be able to figuratively "read and write it" to establish a good moral connection, lest our communication becomes decoherent, in which case we harm others without knowing what it means, such as in Autism.
3rd Tenet: Emotional Empathy- Empathy is a translator of our individual needs and desires into the language of morality, and we use it to establish a moral baseline, lest one feels no guilt from murder, such as in psychopathy.
Without any/one of those 2 principles or 3 tenets, we cease to be moral humans.
I use this system to really analyze a position I should take in daily life, and I've always taken a stronger position, because it always tends to be the more moral position.
>>59956184 You can be eternally happy if someone kills your family and hooks you up to a machine that doesnt allow you to think for yourself (therefore forgetting you had a family) while also giving you a contious flow of feel good chemicals that make you feel constant happiness and ecstasy. By definition, a "Persuit of happiness" approach to morality causes this kind of fucked up behavior.
>>59957057 its a wrong because you have no moral (true) authority to kill someone if they have not committed falsehoods against you. i was born with the capability to defend myself, just as you were. that is a fact. a truth. i cant change this just because somebody looks at me funny. so yes, it is an immoral act because it promotes falsehoods by infringing on anothers existence. you are now going down a very advanced road that requires time for reflection and confirmation to realize these truths. a more basic example of an immoral act is, when a church tell you your donation money will go to feed the hungry and build schools when in reality they are using the money to fund vacations for themselves and lavish lifestyles. because that act is based in deception, it is immoral. reiterating on the original question, intent means nothing. the action is what manifests into reality. and the action is immoral because it is not distinguishing truth from lie. all actions have consequences, a fundamental truth engrained into this existence. morality deals with universal truths, known as natural law. and these laws apply to others as well as yourself so infringing on truths is automatically immoral. how do you infringe on a truth? promote a lie. killing an innocent person is promoting a lie because you have no truthful authority to commit such an act. psychopaths say "do what thou wilt is the whole of the law" because they are born with the desire to infringe on others. they see no reason to be placed here and suffer by not doing what they want. i have no problem with people pursuing their desires. and they do pursue their desires to control. very effectively by promoting deceptions such as moral relativity so that their wills are somehow "justified". as long as people think that truth is subjective, people will be controlled by people with greater willpower and more force to implement that will. that is the truth of reality.
>>59958833 this is a typical rebuttal from a retarded serf-tier plebeian. my premise is not wrong. if my premise was wrong, those with greater force would automatically be correct in everything that they do. which is what the modern slave believes and why the state has become a god to most. i was born capable of self-defense. not helpless. now cherrypick some more so you dont have to face uncomfortable reality.
>>59948966 You obviously never heard of Daisy's Destruction. >>59949000 Hmmm, hope you realize that the feeling that comes from "the goodness in your heart" depends upon the individual's understanding of and what the collective deems as it.
>>59951874 I get what your saying but by the same token ethics are just a way for society to reconcile bad behavior, "oh you fucked, but I see you did do xyz and _ so please dont do it again lets carry on"
morality and spiritual knowledge are the most vital type of knowledge to a community
>>59958673 I don't necessairily have "Nazi morality".
If you read my point in >>59957519 It says that basically, likeness, cognitive empathy and emotional empathy go hand in hand with eachother, and that neither of those tenets can be traded off. For example, if I said that Jews were a poison to every society, it's essentially breaking the first tenet of "Natural likeness"; in no way, shape, or form, should another human be stripped artificially of their likeness in society, neither should we liken the least of men to the most (treating everyone the same). Human likeness and human natural perception of likeness is a strong tenet of my morality, and cannot be broken.
>And why do you detest authoritarinism as a nazi? Because I'm not exactly a "Nazi"; Nazism started with the same precepts though, that the likeness of the german people, and the likeness of the church, and of the Japanese people, and generally all humans, are worth preserving, and that the hedonistic and decadent nature of Capitalism, which is anti-social, is wrong, and that the egalitarianism of all people in communist societies is also wrong, that there's a balance of goodness throughout society, and that the humanitarian nature shouldn't exceed or be beneath that of society's standards.
What it necessary is good, what is unnecessary is bad. No issues with violence, but take issue with needless death/infliction of unneeded suffering. Pretty basic. My worldviews are naturally Christian, seeing as I'm a Westerner, and I see the existence of God as unimportant, but the idea of God as fundamental in human culture and social cohesion.
>>59960221 you've got be extremely careful with that statement. people in positions in power with the means to spread lies can convince others that many things are necessary. when in reality, its only perceived as necessary because of brainwashing and deception. its a true statement, but the word "necessary" can be hijacked and applied to unnecessary things.
Thread replies: 204 Thread images: 32
Thread DB ID: 387650
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.