>Utilitarianism, NAP, UPB, scientific morality, secular objective

>>2644070
Because they aren't illogical, emotive faggots like you.

>>2644078

>thinks morality is a real thing
>isn't illogical

>>2644070
they are impious, like christians and hindus

>>2644093
It's pretty logical for me to think that it's objectively wrong to rape someone else, as I wouldn't want myself to be raped.

Morality is socially useful and egoistically beneficial.

>>2644103
>egoistically beneficial.

This is what I was thinking. People get narcissistic pleasure from it.

>>2644100

That's subjective by definition.

>>2644120
It's not even narcissistic. Morality serves a role in establishing your own sense of personhood and identity by defining what you're for and against, thus saying what you are by what is like you, and what you are not by what is counter to you.

Beyond that, it serves an egoistic purpose in that it provides a useful system for evaluating the world around you as it is, and establishing what you wish it to be.

It's not necessarily "real" but it's still valid, if not in a universal sense.

>>2644100
>it's objectively wrong to rape someone else, as I wouldn't want myself to be raped.
This doesn't make any sense.

>>2644142

That's not morality though. Morality is a religious concept.

>>2644157
That's fucking stupid. Morality is found outside of religion just as much as it's found within it.

>>2644165

What you described is likes and dislikes. Morality is an official list of ought and ought nots that comes from religious dogma.

This thread is just pointing out how stupid it is for non-religious to want an official list of rules.

>>2644183
No, that's just how certain religious theorists use the term. And there definitely should be an "official list of rules" even for non-religious people, because otherwise every interpersonal dispute will lead to anarchy.

>>2644183
im not sure why youre putting so much effort to pretending to be retarded when just a dictionary word search proves you retarded.

>>2644190
2 + 2 = 4

>>2644192
huh?

>>2644190
>And there definitely should be an "official list of rules" even for non-religious people

And who the hell decides that? That sounds like some Orwellian shit.

>>2644201
Who decides that theft, murder, and rape are wrong? Do you think the existence of laws against those things is Orwellian?

>>2644198
2 murderes + 2 murderers = 1 man standing

>>2644207

Laws are not morality. Laws are invented to endow citizens with freedom and agency. Morality is the religious idea that some things are objectively virtuous and not.

>>2644183
>Morality is an official list of ought and ought nots that comes from religious dogma.

NO IT FUCKING ISN'T.

Most moralists throughout history have been philosophers, who weren't expressly religious.

Your likes versus dislikes forms the core of morality, it is from these that you decide what is "right" and "wrong." You're expected to come up with cohesive reasons for why this is the case, but it doesn't make this fundamental basis any less a form of morality, you goddamn dipshit.

>>2644213
I don't understand.

>>2644220
How do you define "objective virtue" though? What is its inherent value?

>>2644229
>I don't understand.
2 farmers + 2 fishermen = 1 society

>>2644229
>How do you define "objective virtue" though? What is its inherent value?

That's exactly my point. It's a completely incoherent idea. It's especially absurd if you believe in this kind of thing and are not even religious.

>>2644228

Calm down hot head.

>>2644228
>Most moralists throughout history have been philosophers, who weren't expressly religious.

That's probably because they mistakenly thought morality was a real thing.

>>2644070
They're socially and biologically conditioned to.

>>2644264
>biologically conditioned

Not really.

>>2644261
1 murder + 1 farmer = 1 hungry murderer

>>2644269
Empathy.

>>2644277

Which is a product of abstract thinking.

>>2644272
Only if the murderer is stupid. Smart murderers use the threat of violence to coerce resources out of other people, without killing everyone else.

>>2644288
1 murderer + 99 farmers = taxation

>>2644295
And that's why the existence of a state is, well, the natural STATE of human society.

>>2644304
1 murder + 99 farmers = 1 society
1 society + 1 society = 1 murderer and 198 farmers

>>2644312
Are we going to sit here an enumerate the entire set of potential society-level interactions?

>>2644324
1 + (-1) = 0

>>2644282
No it's not.

>>2644100
Something being universal doesn't mean it's objective.

>>2644220

Laws = designed to protect you (usually)

Morality = What's good in a "God's" eyes, which can be as nonsensical as it being forbidden to cut your hair.

>>2644340

Yes it is.

>>2644354

This.

In order for morality to be objective, it would have to be embedded into the universe like the laws of physics. "Immoral acts" would have to be physically impossible.

>>2644360
Your brain has systems that cause you to feel emotions when you observe others feeling that emotion.
There's no abstract thinking involved.

>>2644228
Cool bro, problem is the vast majority of people could give a shit what some asshole thinks is right or wrong. That's why religion exists, it provides the authority necessary to get people to agree on a set of moral principles.

You're not accounting for the fact that no matter how logical your basis of morality is, people have no reason to stick to it unless there is a higher authority than some random philosopher. You might well have a cohesive rational moral code, but what stops ancient greek Chad from just bashing your head in when he doesn't feel like following your rules anymore?

>>2644366

Those would be called mirror neurons, and their role and existence are highly controversial and debated. It's a hot pop-sci article trend to propose that mirror neurons explain empathy but this isn't actually true.

>>2644364
1 pride + 1 herd = circle of life
10 prides + 1 herd = lucky buzzards

>>2644379
I didn't say mirror neurons and I'm not claiming to understand the mechanism by which it works.
For the vast majority of people this happens, when you feel sad after seeing a parent mourn for their child you're not engaging in abstract thinking.
Additionally many experiments using different observation technology show the same areas of the brain are active when you personally feel an emotion and when you observe another person feeling it.

If you don't have this you have some defect.

>>2644078
>lawjik is good cuz i sed so
>all des tings r lawjikal cuz i sed so
>>2644165
False, there is no morality without God.

What you children have is instead 'muh fickle feelies'
>>2644190
And who decides that list? You have no objective source.
>>2644277
Doesn't exist.

>>2644364
Laws of physics aren't universal, they're the systematizing nonsenses of glorified redditors

>>2644409
>Doesn't exist.
t. psychopathic knuckle dragger

>>2644392

It's just habitual. You learn at an early age to use logical reduction to determine what someone's inner thoughts and feelings might be in relation to a circumstance.

See: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

>If you don't have this you have some defect.

I guess you think all 1-3 year olds have a "defect".

>>2644418

>muh psiykopathzz

Grow up.

>>2644418
abloobloo how DARE you reject my humanist ideology?!!!

>>2644473

You just reminded me of how much I hate secular humanist. Those guys are such faggots.

>>2644495
secular humanism is like a fish who doesn't know what water is.

Morality has no objective basis, but it's useful to at least appear consistent to some kind of moral framework to possibly convince others to adhere to systems which benefit you.

For example, promoting a moral framework which discourages murder is generally useful to convince people to believe in, even if it technically has no objective basis.

>>2644542
Essentially, to answer OP's question, morality doesn't enslave anyone who is aware that they choose it, and that they can use it as a tool, rather than let it use them.

>>2644542
this is what atheists actually believe

>>2644542
>>2644547

This is still not morality.

File: peterSingersBasement.jpg (301KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

301KB, 1000x1000px

>Utilitarians

>>2644604
Who made you boss?

Y'all gotta check out Legalism for a philosophy that really throws morality out the window.

>Fǎ-Jiā (法家) or Legalism is one of the six classical schools of thought in Chinese philosophy that developed during the Warring States period.

>Largely ignoring morality or questions on how a society ideally should function, they examined contemporary government, emphasizing a realistic consolidation of the wealth and power of autocrat and state, with the goal of achieving increased order, security and stability.

>Legalists were political realists who sought to attain a “rich state with powerful army” and to ensure domestic stability in an age marked by intense inter- and intra-state competition. They believed that human beings—commoners and elites alike—will forever remain selfish and covetous of riches and fame, and one should not expect them to behave morally.

>The people covet wealth and fame; they are afraid of punishments: this is their basic disposition . This disposition is not to be altered but to be properly understood and then manipulated. A viable sociopolitical system should use a system of munificent rewards and harsh punishments to allow individuals to pursue their selfish interests exclusively in ways that benefit the state, i.e. agriculture and warfare; while a proper administrative system should allow officials to benefit from ranks and emoluments, but also prevent them from subverting the ruler’s power.

>Both systems are unconcerned with individual morality of the rulers and the ruled; rather they should be based on impersonal norms and standards: laws, administrative regulations, clearly defined rules of promotion and demotion, and the like.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/chinese-legalism/

>>2644711
So basically, you're a slave.

>>2644070

Most people are beta NPCs. The same type of people who have kids and then have the nerve to complain. The same type of people who get excited over doritos and soda. The same type of people who give a shit about television programs. The same type of people who read Harry Potter. 90% of military men who are mindless sycophants for the local base bureaucracy. The same faggots who like Red vs Blue.

In other words, the cocksuckers of life.

>>2644100
>I wouldn't want
Anon this is the actual definition of SUBjective...

:^)