I've finished my first semester and took Philosophy as a

>>3308368
No

>>3308368
>I'd love to argue that morals are based on our human insticts and act as axioms and therefore can not be concluded from itself or anything else.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but are you stating that human morals generally stem from the idea that they believe if it will be self-beneficial to them or not?

File: 3e5.png (105KB, 500x583px) Image search: [Google]

105KB, 500x583px

>>3308368
the absolute state of this board...
& Humanities is to blame.

File: t3_6w9gp7.jpg (481KB, 783x1200px) Image search: [Google]

481KB, 783x1200px

>>3308395
What I meant is the idea that moral can not be rational and is always depended on humans.

For example let's try to define when something is "moral". So what does "moral" even mean? Obviously something moral is always something good. That is something that's true a priori. Of course it only goes one way so while not everything good is moral, everything moral is good. Like for example you wouldn't call good food "moral". One can imagine different kinds of moralities like being moral before god or in the treatment of animals, but to make things simple we should define that one can only be moral in the interaction with other humans. Mind you that I'm not excluding the other cases.

So being moral means being good in the interaction with other humans.

Now what does "good" mean? When do we think something is good? If we go by dictionary it's something that's desirable and pleases us in a way. A good meal is yummy and a good game is fun. One can not really imagine something being good and not effecting is in a positive way. So we should be save to conclude that being moral means having desireable and pleasing interaction with other humans. For the sake of classic moralism it we can pretend that the interaction must be desireable and pleasing for any parties. Now we can analyze what desireable and pleasing means for a human but basically I would like to show that it's mostly the fear of death, pain and other uncomfortable things that can not be proven logically.

The basic idea is that when we try to define "good" there is no way to rationaly assign any value to it other than to look at the human itself with his irrational instincts.

I'd like to note that I'm not trying to convice anyone, nor do I want to soapbox here. It's just an interesting thought and I'd like to explore it a bit more. That's why I'm asking if anyone read something similiar and can provide an author or two.

>>3308409
W-what do you mean, anon?

>>3308553
Sorry for the typos by the way. It's getting a bit late and I'm dizzy.

File: stirnerrrrrrr.jpg (5KB, 200x175px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 200x175px

>>3308553
I'd say you could showcase that some people are "moral" for the sake of their own benefit. An example would be "The Ego and Its Own" by Max Stirner, where he implies that it is irrational to not do something out of one's self-interest. What is self-interest? It is up to Man to decide, since everyone is an individual, thus, an egoist. That means an egoist can be altruistic, not because he is "good", but more of that he sees the benefit in being "moral".
What I'm trying to say is you could perhaps use Stirner as a means to show that not everyone is "moral" because they want to be "Good". But more of them being "moral" will provide them with an outcome that will be beneficial to them, the individual.
Aside from the memes, Stirner's philosophy might actually help you in this, while he is amoral, he also showcases that a person can act morally if it is in his self-interest, or if he fears his own conscience and works against his self interest (i.e he justifies not doing something because that would be immoral).

File: thanks.jpg (31KB, 341x428px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 341x428px

>>3308583
Thank you, I almost forgot about Stirner!

Do you think it would be a good idea to take one of Plato's works as a comparision? It would be nice to analyze the contrast between both definitions of morality and Kant seems too complicated for the time limit I have.

>>3308636
Dunno about that, I'm not as read on Plato as I am on Stirner. I guess you could compare Plato's idea of an ideal state (rulers understand how to achieve the most happiness/good) and Stirner's "Union of Egoists" (the community must act out of conscious egoism, if a member begins suffering but keeps up the appearance he isn't, the community degenerates into something that is not egoist). Again not much read on Plato, but you could check out the "Union of Egoists" idea by Stirner and find any contrasts in Plato or another philosopher.

File: Mr.Spooks.png (194KB, 1008x390px) Image search: [Google]

194KB, 1008x390px

>>3308583
>"The Ego and Its Own" by Max Stirner

>scientific papers/books
Tell them to fuck off about forcing you to fit yourself within popular ideology.
It's disgusting, but what's worse is you falling for that nihilism.

>>3308715
If it's in your self interest to raise children in such a society, Stirner wouldn't have a problem with it. You need to realise "only you matter" is subjective. Hence why I mentioned "altruistic" egoist. If it's in your self-interest to live in a society, go ahead.

>>3308737
>>3308715
The thing about society is the notion itself is a spook, and what matters are the individuals in that supposed "spook". It doesn't mean Stirner doesn't want a functioning community, it's just that the individuals are the supposed "reality", and not the concept of "society"