Daily reminder that if you think killing people or stealing is

daily reminder that if you come up with complicated ideological critiques of morality but then just live a regular life you're wasting your time and nobody will ever care what you think

>>2183021
in the culture we live in killing and stealing is in fact immoral in most cases. They are not inherently immoral, however. But humans must and can only act in self interest, and following cultural rules is usually in self interest.

>>2183087
I don't think I've ever met anyone this spooked before

>>2183021
If I steal vor kill I feel bad ergo I don't do it.

I don't mean to be pedantic but don't you think you meant to say

>If you think x is wrong you're spooked

and not what you did say, which was

>If you x is wrong because of morals you're spooked

I ask because thinking something is right or wrong is always already a moral opinion - it isn't extra spooky to thing x is right or wrong BECAUSE of morals - its just spooky to think x is right or wrng at all. It just seems like "...because of morals" is an unnecessary addition to your sentence.

File: renrits.png (25KB, 200x237px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 200x237px

Daily reminder that if you think killing people or stealing is right because of "muh morals," you are about as spooked as you can get.

>>2183021

every wonder why this guy has only 1 pencil sketch made of him? its because he was a crazed fool who was a laughing stock. his philosophy boils down to that everything is made up and nothing is real.

>>2183639
He is right though. If you are perceived to be a deviant, society will close some doors to you. This restricts your freedom somewhat, so it is reasonable to consider the costs of social compliance versus the costs of the swimming against the stream.

It is bad because I dislike the sight of the dead and dying, and therefore prefer to prevent it

>>2184194
this

>>2184208
>his philosophy boils down to that everything is made up and nothing is real.
You haven't read Stirner at all.

>its because he was a crazed fool who was a laughing stock
No, most philosophers were afraid of adressing him. Mostly because they were pushing some ideology concerning ethics or politics or religion and Stirner nuked such ideology.

>>2184758
>You haven't read Stirner at all.

That is absolutely how he is applied.

>>2183021
"I love people because loving is natural to me" - Max Stirner

File: le spook man.jpg (15KB, 150x387px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 150x387px

>>2184733
self-interest is a spook.

>>2184935
Only if you hold it to be something sacred. Otherwise it's just an aspect of you.

>>2184766
Open up a thread on Stirner and there's a bunch of people disagreeing on what he stood for: >>2177917.

Stirner didn't say we can't have morals, retard.

Why does everyone who posts Stirner know nothing about his philosophy?

>>2183021
you sound like a nigger which found a wordbook

a negrolectual

>>2184989
I'm 19 years old.

I am handsome, smart, athletic and virile.

I have a novel that is in it's final editing stage, and a creative writing professor at my college has read the first draft and thinks it's saleable.

I have a girlfriend who is confident, articulate, playful and spontaneous.

I have a small group of interesting friends from different social and academic backgrounds, and

I also have many other acquaintances who see me as a reliable source of humour and good company.

Both my parents are alive and in good health.
I have no regrets.

I have already experienced three existential crises, the latter of which was described as having the depth and profundity of a man twice my age.

I am a passionate lover, a sharp thinker, and a trader of witty repartee.

I am not self-pitying, meek or needlessly humble.

I will live a good life at your expense.

>>2184767
I love men too — not merely individuals, but every one. But I love them with the consciousness of egoism; I love them because love makes me happy, I love because loving is natural to me, because it pleases me. I know no “commandment of love.” I have a fellow-feeling with every feeling being, and their torment torments, their refreshment refreshes me too; I can kill them, not torture them. Per contra, the high-souled, virtuous Philistine prince Rudolph in The Mysteries of Paris, because the wicked provoke his “indignation,” plans their torture. That fellow-feeling proves only that the feeling of those who feel is mine too, my property; in opposition to which the pitiless dealing of the “righteous” man (e.g. against notary Ferrand) is like the unfeelingness of that robber [Procrustes] who cut off or stretched his prisoners’ legs to the measure of his bedstead: Rudolph’s bedstead, which he cuts men to fit, is the concept of the “good.” The for right, virtue, etc., makes people hard-hearted and intolerant. Rudolph does not feel like the notary, but the reverse; he feels that “it serves the rascal right”; that is no fellow-feeling.

You love man, therefore you torture the individual man, the egoist; your philanthropy (love of men) is the tormenting of men.

If I see the loved one suffer, I suffer with him, and I know no rest till I have tried everything to comfort and cheer him; if I see him glad, I too become glad over his joy. From this it does not follow that suffering or joy is caused in me by the same thing that brings out this effect in him, as is sufficiently proved by every bodily pain which I do not feel as he does; his tooth pains him, but his pain pains me.

>>2185021
That's good pasta.

By this logic you, OP should die because I want to and I don't care about your opinion because it's wrong