Help me understand moral philosophy better Last night I was

Say they're spooked faggots

>>8838396
/thread

You sound like a total edgelord, but you are correct to press the button. However, you are incorrect to tell a group of middle class white (presumably) people who want to feel good about themselves for 'caring' about the whole world that you would press the button, that was a dumb call. Anybody realistically presented with this scenario would do it, because it eliminates the muh feels of actually killing someone face to face as well as any possibility of getting caught, which are the two reasons why most people in the world aren't killers

>>8838476
Naw, you're just an edgelord too.

>>8838390
Ask a good friend to push the button without telling him the downside.

You are now the president of the free world

https://youtu.be/LJQ-LZYAMBQ

You have no idea that $1 million would make you 'happier' than the act of taking a life making you feel 'bad'. In taking someone's life, the one thing we all share as the one reliably true experience, for your own hedonistic pleasures, makes you a limp-willed slave to consumerism - a cuck if you will

>>8838551
From a hedonistic/nihilistic standpoint, is there any reason why I shouldn't be a slave to consumerism if it makes me feel good?

abortionary jackpot

>>8838513
Don't forget to buy a cup of coffee at starbucks throughout the month of december! A dollar from every purchase goes toward helping starving children in Africa, buy now!

>>8838551
lol

Taking advantage of your lucky circumstances, having been born in a modern western democracy, buying products produced via third world slave labor, and then sitting on ass babbling over the internet about morality, that's what makes you a slave to consumerism.

I would do it too OP, but your reasoning (and probably any reasoning on this topic) would give off edgelord vibes. My reasoning would be that I don't really care about some random person, but I care a lot about myself. That probably sounds edgy, but it's how I honestly feel and how I think most people feel if they were to be honest with themselves. Otherwise how else would you justify the idea that we all lead our lives without the perpetual concern and dismay for the thousands dying from disease and starvation each day. Why are we not all humanitarian peace corps activists?

However, it's pretty fucked up for your friend to have introduced that question if the universal assumed answer was going to be 'no' by everybody. In that case, it's literally posing a hypothetical question with a readymade answer for the sole purpose of virtue signalling if they never planned to even entertain the alternative argument, even as a thought experiment

I wouldn't. Killing is bad and I don't need a million dollars.

Why are you all such immoral shitheads? I thought /lit/ was a Christian board.

>>8838849
you are tacitly involved in the deaths of everyone by not actively working against their occurrence. From there it is merely a continuum of moral agency toward actively causing death with your own hands, on which continuum this 'button press' is somewhere in between. Look up the trolley problem, just because you opt not to touch the lever, you are still culpable for the outcome simply by being aware of the variable of change

File: 1480166859789.gif (2MB, 425x481px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 425x481px

>mfw I press the button more than once

File: 1480849619165.png (2MB, 769x1074px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 769x1074px

>>8838889
>press button
>you die

>>8838390
>I,I,I, me, me, me...
>the badness IIIIIIIIIIIII would feel
>the goodness IIIIIIIIII would have

Why don't you try thinking about someone else for once?

>>8838987
Why should I? For all I know you all don't even exist and I'm just in a simulation. If I'm not, what are human beings other than a cool thing that dirt does(Carbon, hydrogen, oxygen, nitrogen. i.e., the most common elements in the universe.) Why should I give a fuck about anything outside my own experience?

>>8838999
I think r/atheism is more your speed my little friend. It's ok, once you get over this little angry hump of Linkin Park-tier whining, you'll gradually start to work empathy into your pitiful view of the world

>>8839011
This is the standard response I get from everyone but I have yet to hear any argument that does deeper than "stop being an edgelord".

>>8838999
>for all I know

Then make a choice base on probability:

-either the pain, misery and suffering that ever means of perception you possess points to is just a figment of your imagination

or

-it really does exist and you have an moral obligation to care


maybe your philosophy that so conveniently places yourself at the centre of the universe isn't, in fact, base on reason; but is actually the consequence of your psychological preoccupation to only care about yourself.

>>8838999
What if the random person is your mother or your child or even you?

>>8839018
If it was me then I wouldn't care because I'd be dead. And the question was really about the moral guilt of killing a random person rather than the potential for that person to be a loved one.

>>8838695
Kek. I bet you think you're "redipilled" too.

>>8839016
Based on the knowledge I posses, there is no possible way I would ever be able to experience others' pain and suffering, so it is illogical to be concerned about it for any reason other than the guilt I would feel from the natural or learned empathy I have.

>>8839038
The point is that they; other living organisms; feel pain, and pain is bad; that it isn't about you.

>>8839053
Why is pain bad?

>>8838865
>trolley meme
not pushing the button in this instance does not imply that anyone will be harmed, whereas not pulling the lever in the trolley problem will inherently cause harm

>>8839027
Nope, but I do think that I'm being honest with myself about who I am. Maybe you are too and wouldn't do it because you genuinely care about every human on this earth more than you care about getting a million dollars for yourself. Cool I guess. I would take the million dollars

>>8839061
what if I were to donate a third of my winnings out of a guilty conscience toward vaccines for hundreds of African children, effectively saving their lives from hepatitis or whatever the fuck. Is taking the money and pressing the button still immoral?

>>8839059
because it causes suffering, and is the axiomatic foundation to ethical reasoning and something called 'progress'.

>>8838716
I never said I wasn't bumboy. But I don't watch TV, I dont pay taxes and I recycle aggresively. I buy clothes manufactured in the UK/US/JP/Portugal (because I'm very fashionable) I cook farmers market produce with my girlfriend and pirate every book I read. If I'm going to be a slave I want to be one that's at least somewhat self aware.

>>8838396
>when the first reply is always the most correct and on point

>>8839085
>It's ok because I KNOW that I'm a slave

great justification

>>8839078
Why is suffering bad >:)

>>8839078
why is suffering objectively bad?

>>8839121
because you don't like it. By empathic extension, other people are capable of suffering and wouldn't like it either. While there is no imperative that you try to prevent or mitigate suffering in others, it is a process that theoretically provides reflexive benefits to yourself if your community were to participate in this type of mutualist prevention of harm.

You probably find it easier to deny any need to involve yourself in this implicit group egalitarianism because you are spoiled and probably live in a comfortable house off of your parents' or the government's backs, but were you actually destitute, you might think the idea of other people looking out for one another is pretty crackerjack

>>8839105
Don't run away with your win kid, heh. The only justification I'm concerned with in this thread is the random murder of a mystery person for a mil. If you agree then cool, if you don't then you're edge.

>>8839121
>>8839143

Because it is demonstrably the case that the only rational justification for any action is the net elimination of pain.

Like some mathematical conjectures; everyone knows that the case is such, nobody questions that the case is such, but it cannot be proved. Despite this nobody changes their mind because the conjecture is so obviously true/false that you would be re-homed in a mental institution for questioning it.

I'm not debating whether pain is bad with you.

>>8838390
u were right desu

>>8839158
>people who agree with me are right and people who don't are a pejorative insult that doesn't really mean anything other than 'something I don't like'

man oh man your arguments are sound

>>8839160
>everyone is utilitarian and it's impossible to disagree or question utilitarianism.

>>8839160
So it just is? Wow, very convincing.

>>8839157
So than it IS all about me. Your justification for pain being bad is because YOU feel bad when you see others in pain.

>>8839160

>Because it is demonstrably the case that the only rational justification for any action is the net elimination of pain.

Agreed. Let's exterminate humanity.

>>8838390
You're being ripped off.

https://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/policy_guidance/benefit_cost/media/econ-value-section-2-tx-values.pdf

For this year, the FAA's value of a statistical life is $9.6 million. That's the value they use to do cost-benefit analysis when deciding whether to implement potential safety regulations. Each federal department that regulates products has a value they rely on, and they go up over time with inflation, life expectancy, and other factors. Corporations do the same calculations for product recalls and non-required safety features.

At $1 million, you're taking just over ten cents on the dollar for every button push. Unless you're getting $8.6 million worth in sick kicks out of killing random strangers, which would put you firmly into edgelord territory, I just don't see the value in it.

>>8839157
Why does my not liking something make it bad as well as disliked? Why does something benefiting me make it good?

>>8839160
>Because it is demonstrably the case that the only rational justification for any action is the net elimination of pain.

How do you explain the existence of flagellants?

>>8839195
When you are a bit older you will realise that everybody above a certain age in this thread, by virtue of experience alone is capable of anticipating every response that you will make and every line of reasoning that you will follow.

You imply, like a 16 year old, that it is intelligent to state that axioms can't justify themselves.

Any progress that is made; in logic, mathematics, science or ethics; has axioms.

Axioms are what is unquestionably true. If pain being a net negative is not unquestionably true to you, then start again.

>>8839193
If you are rational, yes. Answer the question: If you were God what would you do with your power ethically?

>>8839206
If your comment is critically sarcastic, then answer the above question.

>>8839222
They're Irrational :^)

>>8838390
>Being honest with people is always a mistake, especially liberal people in public. Are you going to tell them your real views on black people and trans women too?

>>8839204
I never said anything about something being 'bad'. I made an argument that because you wouldn't like to suffer, it makes sense to think that others also wouldn't like to suffer, and then it would be logical to safeguard each other's suffering because in many ways you and they are not all that different, only insofar as you happen to occupy different corporeal vessels and have different subsets of experiences. Of course it is the case that your interpersonal relationships are valuable because of how they make 'you' feel, but that doesn't invalidate the value of the individuals in question just because you've redundantly managed to establish that phenomenological experience is based in the subject. When you love someone, their suffering makes you feel bad because you know it makes them feel bad. The relationship is not devalued because the locus of your feeling is you

>>8839225
So you admit you're unable to argue for it! Even your definition of progress in this case is dependent on your chosen axiom. You're unable to convince me it's true, or that any other axiom, however arbitrary, wouldn't also serve. Is funny.

>>8839213
I am >>8839157
and not any of the other posters. I think you're mistaken to think of 'good' and 'bad' as anything other than personal value judgements. 'Good' means 'desirable to me' and 'Bad' means 'undesirable to me'. That's all they mean, there is no inherent good or bad

>>8839239
lol holy shit dude you could not come off as more of an edgy 16 year old right now, thinking you have the whole world figured out and shit with your exclamation marks. I'm not the anon you were arguing with but I felt I had to say it, you're a cringey faggot

>>8839239
>You're unable to convince me it's true

The point is that it is impossible for any axiom to justify itself.

So continue to spit on and deride progress while others make it; and continue to contribute nothing.

>>8839257
When did I say I've figured the world out? I haven't made any positive claims beyond the obvious. Besides, aren't you more embarrassed to resort to insults?

>>8839258
Those words are so empty now you've shown what's beneath them. Alack-day. Enjoy your crusade, I guess.

>>8839287
I don't know what that means; of course meaninglessness is your speciality.

I want you to know that I stayed up especially late for this argument, and am very triggered.

If you are a troll then well done.

I will check the thread tmrw and reply then if anyone has contributed any more.

Have a good day.

Regards.

>>8838390
please read books

>>8839319
What's funniest is I'm not a nihilist or even a skeptic about morality. I just think the abhorrence of suffering that's so fashionable at the moment is effete and contemptible.

>>8839225
Moral questions are harder for men to answer than gods. Consider two average people dying who need organ transplants. A utilitarian god would heal them, hard to complain. A skilled utilitarian doctor would kill the average person should they be on hand if needed to get the organs to save them. However this behavior would be condemned by western society. I would rather be just than good.

>>8838390
Is a million dollars in this fleeting corporeal world worth an eternity of damnation?

>>8839406
>eternity of damnation

wot?

This reminds me of a twilight zone episode with the exact same scenario.
It was a nice episode indeed.

From a Kantian perspective.

"If I have a magic box, I will push the button, to get a million dollars" is not a universalizable maxim. If everyone would get the magic box (and why not it's magic) then everybody would push the button and everybody would be dead and nobody would have a million dollars, which contradicts the goal.

Also this obviously violates using the second formulation as it uses someone as mere means to an end.

>>8839544
That's only if they all push the buttons at the same time. The faster ones will ensure an asymmetry in number of deaths/people with buttons.

>>8838695
Or just actually donate through your preferred and well researched charity like a normal person.

>>8838390
"The essence of the principle of equal consideration of interests
is that we give equal weight in our moral deliberations to the
like interests of all those affected by our actions. This means
that if only X and Y would be affected by a possible act, and if
X stands to lose more than Y stands to gain, it is better not to
do the act. We cannot, if we accept the principle of equal consideration
of interests, say that doing the act is better, despite
the facts described, because we are more concerned about Y
than we are about X. What the principle really amounts to is
this: an interest is an interest, whoever's interest it may be." - Peter Singer's Practical Ethics.

>>8839038
Guess you have never heard of "empathy" or "mirror neurons"?

>>8839564
Did a simple calculation and I estimate that of the 7.4 billion people alive today, 2.2 billion would survive and become millionaires. The real problem is there isn't that much money in the world.

>>8839406
implying OP isn't already going to hell for being a faggot this is a no-brainer from a christian perspective

>>8838390

I am pressing buttons right now, and people are dying. It has no causal relation to my typing. They were going to die anyway. Look at the stats if you don't believe me. People die all the time.

>>8839662
>no causal relation
That's also why no one is paying you assassination money. If you're gonna ignore the premise of a thought exercise, why bother with it at all?

>>8838390
>oh noes if you press it SOMEONE, SOMEWHERE WILL DIE
kek people die all the time. One life is barely anything.
>inb4 nothin personnel kid
It's in my self-interest.

>>8838390
Random acts are irrational. Killing a random person is a random act. Therefore, pressing the button is irrational.

>>8838390
You already have pressed the button. Let's assume you live in America, and will live in a reasonably comfortable household, drive a moderate vehicle, and utilize technology to an average degree.

What you don't see is the degree on which your entire life is built upon the suffering of others. Statistically speaking, the absurdly small percentage of us who are here bandying about hypotheticals on the Internet are very likely to make and spend $1 million over our lifetime, and it is almost certain that someone in another country who is treated like a machine in order to produce the necessary labor to support us will either die prematurely or kill themself.

That button is just the part of our brain that stops thinking about that, and we press it all the time.

Of course, there's a basic information problem with your scenario, because without knowing who will die or what the consequences of that will be, you can't make an informed decision. Hell, what if it killed a philanthropist who would deem you worthy of a billion dollars one year from now? It's pretty stupid, really.

So yeah. Just here brightening your day, OP. You're welcome.

>>8840112
Wrong

Trading with first world countries benefits third world countries.

>>8841004
>capitalism is socially beneficial for the poor
nice one

>>8838577
Because people who have experienced both sides all agree, there's greater happiness in not being a slave.

>>8838716
> lol your argument is invalid because you're a white male
What a terrible thread. OP read some Hume if you want to be a skeptic who's not an asshole.

Heres a few ideas, maybe you'll like one of them.

Morality is, by nature, the question of how we ought to act towards others. By your original post it does not sound as though you believe there is any moral law, and thus there is no reason to behave a certain way towards others. Why is it that you don't commit to this philosophy and attempt to gain this sort of position, where anonymous murder would gain you money? You say that normally it would make you feel bad, but why haven't you tried to rid yourself of these feelings?

Would you be comfortable living in a world where other people had this button? I imagine you would disapprove of 99% of people using it, because you might die. Not that you simply prefer to live in a world where they don't press the button; if you had knowledge that they were a real, sentient being, living in the same world as you, you would disapprove of their actions because of the risk.

If the world is how you describe it, you have total freedom as to what to do. This includes a certain amount of freedom in choosing what makes you happy. Look at the kinds of people in the world who are petty and self interested, and those who are compassionate and friendly. Which type seems happier to you?

>>8841004
Found the murrican

>>8838390
Read the selfish gene.

/thread

>>8841528
This for a well structured argument on the place of altruism in an indifferent universe.

File: Functioning Moral Choice in Society.png (22KB, 770x556px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 770x556px

>>8838396
>>8838476
Shhhhhh, the adults are talking.

>>8838390

To understand morality outside of religious faith, you need to start at the foundation of civilization (metaphorically) - the founding of Plato's ideal nation-state, Rousseau's social contract, Locke's "man in a state of nature," and other such examples.

When you begin with a rudimentary society - a lone family, then a pair of families, etc., etc., or alternative versions of this - there are always modes of action leading to greater levels of collective benefit and methods which lead away from this or destroy the existing harmony.

Morality, is essentially the shunning of actions which generally lead to a destruction of existing social harmony, or which prevent the establishment of social harmony.

Civilization is essentially the balancing of human interests for the greatest collective benefit. In a pure sense, of course.
Realistically, there are always self-interested individuals who seek to manipulate systems to their private advantage at the expense of others within the system.

The reason this is "morally" wrong, is that it is a rejection of the system itself. The system is built on a balance of interests. To reject the balance and seek only self interest is the luxury of an isolated man. This is why society rejects those whose self-interested action poses a threat to systemic harmony via jailing, exiling, and executions.

These individuals choose to reject the system (which is their right) however, even while rejecting it they seek to remain within it to reap its benefits. Pure infantile insanity.

There is, of course, always an element of subjectivity to everything (as in, murder is wrong, but in circumstances a, b, and c it is right, etc.,...) the purpose of morality is the same as Plato's searching for ideal forms. We seek to get as close to Pure Objective Truth of right and wrong while recognizing that we will always be working within subjective subsets within the over-arching domains.

The reason an action like Murder can be considered morally "wrong" is simple: the byproduct of unrestricted murder is a breakdown of civilization and a return to barbarism.

It is literally that simple. The objectivity lies, not in our ability to be completely separate from human experience, but to look objectively at the byproduct of specific modes of action within the subjective domains of human interaction and civilization.

The "wrongness" of your choice to press the button, comes from your willingness to destroy social harmony for transitory, personal gain.

Personal "Good" v. Collective Good
Social Harmony v. Anarchy
Barbarism v. Civilization

This last of the dichotomies listed is really what the person choosing to push the button is deciding.

Anyway, I'm kind of rambling - I just woke up, but I hope this makes some sense and am willing to discuss it further.

>>8838390
Every human life has an end. "So what if I cut one short?" you say. All of us, participating in this delusion of significance, are pressing that button every day of our lives friend.

Your eyeballs pay for television programming, state/corporation-approved propaganda, which promotes the dehumanization of and figurative and literal destruction of your fellow man. We've all had a taste from this fountain, and I should be lucky to be paid for my sins.

>>8841563
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XU-6ioKKYHY

>>8841575
I don't speak Soviet so your response is a non sequitur. I'm assuming you're the long-winded chap above me, mad that I condensed your soliloquy into reasonable terms.

>>8838390
Chance me, my wife, or one of our immediate family members dies: 1 in 1 billion
I can think of maybe 250 other personal relations whose deaths would upset me and 100 artistic or political figures whose deaths would be a tragedy.
Chance one of those people dies: 1 in 3.5 million

With that in mind, the question becomes not would I push the button, but would I stop at 1000 presses? As long as the deaths are inauspicious and evenly spread throughout the human population, the chances of me even hearing about the consequences of 1000 presses are slim.

>>8839570
Good contribution.

File: kierkegaard1.jpg (450KB, 1661x2168px) Image search: [Google]

450KB, 1661x2168px

>>8841552
So, would you say that the inner (the subjective) is less important the the outer (the objective)?

>>8839570
Isn't this the same man who advocates for chimpanzee's having greater rights than the mentally retarded?

>I am a nihilist

Cringe. Stopped reading there.

>>8838390
>would you murder someone for $1 million dollarydoos
>woah a million bucks wowza!!!! yowza!!!! imma millionarie wahooo
yeah it's such a moral dilemma.

>>8841784
Yes, but their relative importance is also subject to the situation.

However, in order to understand the inner (subjective), as you say, one must first grasp the outer (objective), so in that sense, the outer is more important as it allows you to define the inner by comparison, i.e. ratio, i.e. rationality.

>>8841802
Y'know on second thought I would like to amend my statement.

Neither one is of greater importance.

A man, to reach his full potential, must grasp both the objective domain and the subjective domain.

In all circumstances, there are elements of subjectivity (how do I feel in this situation, what do I want, how are others involved, etc.,.) and objective elements (what are the potential ramifications of the alternatives presented, what are the ethical implications (and even ethics are, to varying degrees subject to man and cultures), etc.,.).

Man will never be able to live a purely objective life. He can however live a life in pure subjectivity - which is to say, he can live as an animal.

Yes, a man can live purely subject to the needs of the body, pleasure-seeking, etc., but to live this way is to be a beast and on one extreme of the spectrum.

The other extreme is to be so abstracted from human experience as to be useless to man, and foreign even to oneself - like the Laputans in Gulliver's Travels.

Man is at his "most human" state when he is in between these two extremes. He is not so abstracted from what it means to be human as to become a sojourner in his own domain, and he is not so earthy as to reduce himself to the hedonistic state of an animal.

However, one can also say that certain moments in life will call for one or the other of these two extremes, but that is what I meant when I spoke of the subjectivity of circumstance.

>>8841552
>Morality, is essentially the shunning of actions which generally lead to a destruction of existing social harmony, or which prevent the establishment of social harmony.
Is abolition in America considered immoral due to this definition? Is the beheading of homosexuals in Saudi Arabia considered not immoral? I have not read Locke or Rousseau but it seems that society can many forms in order to be stable. Does not it make morality just a product of social whims, to an extent?

>>8841786
And you don't?

>>8841970
I mean moral within the context of any given society.

Within an Islamic society, beheading of homosexuals is considered moral, yes.

Outside of that context it is not. This is why the subjectivity of environment is important when considering ethics.

To create an argument for why the beheading of homosexuals could be considered immoral, even in the context of an Islamic nation, would be to attempt to supersede the subjective context of that society and provide an argument which was more objective because it would necessarily deal with a larger domain - such as being a human, in general.

By "abolition," I'm going to assume you meant "abortion," in which case, no, I would not think social harmony is the main reason for opposition of abortion. I think social harmony plays a role, in that coming to a compromise between tradition, Christian-influenced viewpoints, and more existential, secular points of view is what is taking place. Achieving a balance which is largely acceptable for both sides is the edifying of social harmony which legislators must strive for.

Also, my definition of morality was just me spit-balling a definition, not looking one up. It isn't some "widely held by scholars" view - just my own simplification of a complex subject.

Morality could be a product of whims, or feelings and their justifications, on a small scale - like one person.

However, the larger the scale, the less a product of whims it is because there is a perpetual process happening of coming to a consensus, society changing which necessitates the need to reach a general consensus once more, and this takes place over and over and over on a near infinite number of issues, or minutiae within reemerging issues.

Over time, this continual striving for consensus creates certain beliefs, for lack of a better term, which become generally accepted as true or right. This becomes a basic sort of moral code, and each society has it's own variations of these moral codes - though their cores would overlap in many places.

Think the flower of life diagram, except each circle represents a moral code of a different society, and each general section could represent a broader category. You could even expect to be able to zoom in to a specific circle within the diagram and find within it another flower of life ad infinitum.

If this doesn't make sense, I'm sorry. I'm probably doing a poor job explaining what I mean.

>>8841552
Descriptive morality does not equal prescriptive morality. If everybody was jumping off a bridge, would you do it?
>inb4 yes, I WILL take your video games away this weekend

>>8842507
That is not what I'm getting at.

Mass suicide by jumping off a cliff is not an act with any root in morality either. It is an act of faith.

>>8842530
>That is not what I'm getting at.
Do not back talk me. You are being a descriptivist and a relativist whether you realize it or not.

>>8842507
I would also like to add I am not talking about mere imitation.

I am talking about the largely subconscious establishment of an ideology about what is generally considered right or wrong. A process which goes on indefinitely, the world over.

>>8842536
Adding isms is not an argument.

Give me superior rhetoric, not definitions, and I will concede your point of view.

>>8842507
>Descriptive morality does not equal prescriptive morality. If everybody was jumping off a bridge, would you do it?

It doesn't matter if I would do it. Some idiot out there would.

You're ignoring the fact that all of human knowledge is passed on by imitation. Descriptive IS prescriptive.

>>8842538
>>8842545
>>8842549
Wow you're a cutie. Smart too, would date.

Prescriptive morality is the concept of a wholly rational basis for action. Killing somebody is wrong, it's illogical, because it causes suffering, and humans exist to seek pleasure and avoid suffering. Something like that.

But Hume destroyed everything. He discovered the Is-Ought fallacy, building a moat around prescriptive morality. It holds that just because I do something, or just because I think something is morally right, I am not given a rationally compelling reason to do something or think something is morally right. If I avoid suffering, why do I avoid suffering? Because I do. Well that's circular and irrational. We have no access, in our senses, to any rationally compelling basis for action. The world is full of facts, and we care about them and move towards them in certain ways, but the care and the movement are subjectively motivated by things that are not, at base, reason.

There have been contenders- most famously Kant. But, to not believe in prescriptive morality is to be a nihilist, and it is very hard to be anything else (other than some religious type). You are not all wrong about how societal notions of right and wrong develop, but societal notions of right and wrong are not meaningful information when deciding what to do, and certainly not on the level of some prescriptive morality, were it discovered and adequately defended.

>>8842580
Only the first two of those were me.

Now, I did not understand what descriptive morality v. prescriptive morality meant, for certain, when you mentioned them, so I went and read a bit. Now that you've explained (thank you) I believe I understand the distinction.

I think you are misunderstanding me. If a descriptivist perspective is one which would suggest no rational basis for action, then am I not that.

I am arguing quite the opposite.

What I am saying is, irrespective of personal rationales, there are group dynamics at work.

These groups also have their own reasons, and ultimately it is reason, on individual and collective scales, colliding which births moral codes.

However, it is not reason alone. Not in the purest sense. Emotion is at work on large scales, and these emotions influence reason as well. I'm not suggesting you didn't understand this; I just want to be clear.

To think societal morals are not relevant to your own choice is simply not logical.

If you murder and are found guilty can you not be executed? If you steal can you not be thrown in prison?

Even within the minute context of a family, there are acceptable modes of action and unacceptable, and you ignore these at your own peril. It is no different in the work place, or even in a two person relationship.

Man is not an isolated being, save in rare cases, and cannot, therefore, ignore the ideology(ies) held by those around him.

Wholly rational action is one part of the equation, but, as I have said earlier man cannot live as a purely rational being. Even if there was such a man, he would likely be forced to deal with other men, who are likely to be as motivated by emotion and physical urges as by rationality (for the purposes of this conversation I am putting a distinction between physical urges and emotion, even though emotion is as much a physical things as any other bodily urge).

A prescriptive morality is theoretically possible, but the more rigid it becomes in definition, the more dead and useless it will be, as societal definitions of what is right and wrong are always changing. Only a very small moral core can be so unchanging - which is the portion of morality I was alluding to when I mentioned the flower of life example.

It would, theoretically, be the place at which the morals of all times and cultures overlapped. (I realize this is highly unlikely in reality, however.)

There are other points in what you've said that I would like to address, but I need to think on it a bit more.

Now, I should be clear (although you can probably tell), I haven't read Hume. Perhaps when I do, I'll understand better what you mean.

>>8842718
One more thing I should add.

I'm not speaking on how people ought to act v. how they do act.

I'm talking about the process by which we discover how we "should" act, as well as what morals are - in a broad sense.

Okay, I'll shut up now. Lol.

File: 1455639856328.jpg (76KB, 594x395px) Image search: [Google]

76KB, 594x395px

>>8841552

>>8842718
>A prescriptive morality is theoretically possible, but the more rigid it becomes in definition, the more dead and useless it will be, as societal definitions of what is right and wrong are always changing
To the believer in prescriptive morality, how societies view morality is irrelevant. If several people answer a question incorrectly, that doesn't mean there is no right answer.

>If you murder and are found guilty can you not be executed? If you steal can you not be thrown in prison?
You can be executed or thrown in prison, but those are the facts of your situation, they are not a logical basis for what to do. There is no rational basis for staying out of prison, being happy, being free, having sex, doing anything at all. Nihilism is this understanding. The directions we follow are largely biological impulses and cultural habits that are not rationally founded and are not right or wrong to pursue or deny.

>The way of objective reflection turns the subjective individual into something accidental and thereby turns existence into an indifferent, vanishing something. The way to the objective truth goes away from the subject, and while the subject and subjectivity become indifferent, the truth also becomes indifferent, and that is precisely its objective validity, because the interest, just like the decision, is subjectivity. The way of objective reflection now leads to abstract thinking, to mathematics, to historical knowledge of various kinds, and always leads away from the subjective individual, whose existence or nonexistence becomes, from an objective point of view, altogether properly, infinitely indifferent.
-Soren Kierkegaard

>>8842820
>>8842828
>>8842847
Very cute poster.

>how we discover how we "should" act
This is the learning process for descriptive morality, which is what I thought you were going on about initially. Not quite the same as prescriptive morality. I hope this post helps a bit.

>>8842496
Thanks for the explanation. Also abolition means the stopping of the african slave trade/slavery in general.

>>8843675
It does help.

I continued to think on it after I answered your post from before, and your replies seem to support my train of thought.

Prescriptive Ethics, then, amounts to an idea that ethical action can be defined nearly akin to a Platonic Form - as something that exists, abstractly, outside of the human domain and independent of it?

In other words, the Moral will always be the Moral whether man realizes what is moral or not?

If that is the case, then I don't consider that an impossibility, in fact, I consider it likely. However, as we are always within the human domain I deem it more efficient to look at things with regard to functionality.

Although, you could argue that the highest level of functioning could only be attained by defining the true form of The Moral.

Anyway, my application-focused approach doesn't mean I disdain concern for things like right or wrong with regard to The Good.

I also acknowledge the inherent superiority of an ethical system which could be derived from pure abstraction. I consider the existence of such a Morality hypothetical, if not religious, however.

Not that there is anything improper in that.

You were right then. By those definitions, I would certainly be more relativist and descriptive then I would be prescriptive.

That said, if a normative definition for any moral code could be actually proven to me, I would probably accept it.

I would certainly strike it again and again, searching for cracks, but if it held, I would hold it.

I enjoyed this conversation. I love the quote too. It is undeniably true.

I'll end my post with a quote as well.

>"Of course not, Socrates. I did not realize what nonsense I was talking."
- Simmas; Plato's Phaedo

>>8843978
Oh, okay, you literally meant "abolition." My mistake, I knew what it was, I just thought that was a typo.

So did you mean, is abolition considered "moral" instead of "immoral?" Or do you mean, "under this definition, we could say abolition was immoral."

In that case, you would be able to argue that position. I doubt it would hold up to scrutiny, because the opposing side would be able to argue their case using the same logic, but it could be looked at that way.

Very interesting, actually.

>>8838390
I'm gonna try to lay down an honest and accurate answer OP, but I'm not an expert on this stuff.

You will likely never get a intellectually satisfying answer to this question. There are essentially no arguments against nihilism because any possible reason someone could give to refute it can itself be called meaningless or questioned into a corner of pointless abstraction. So as long as you are taking a (pretty much) nihistic perspective and claiming that you are only interested in serving your own desires, then no one will ever be able to make an argument that will convince you.

I will tell you this, however. The nihilistic rabbit hole is bottomless. You will never reach any sort of foundation or truth with it. You will simply continue to spiral down until nothing means anything, and even having conversations like this will lose appeal. I am not being condescending at all when I say that you will likely emerge at some point in the future from your nihilistic labyrinth and a loose and vague moral system, colored almost entirely in grays, will find its way into your worldview, even if it is unconscious, in a very subtle and organic fashion. You will know in your mind that nihilism is still undefeated, but you will not feel the way you feel now in terms of moral issues.

Now, whether or this is to be viewed as a dulling of the intellect or an act of conforming to human nature (whatever that may be), is not certain, but it is what it is. That is my two cents, so my answer is that I cannot offer you a refutation all argument, but let your nihilism run to natural course, and you will probably develop some sort of moral views beyond self interest. Congrats on one of the less shitty threads on this board right now OP, and thanks for taking time to read this rambling (if you do).

>>8844115
Wow, there are so many typos in that post. Pls ignore.

>>8844029
>Or do you mean, "under this definition, we could say abolition was immoral."
I meant that. If you look at the civil unrest and the civil war that was caused due to the abolitionist movement in America, could you say that abolitionists are indeed immoral? Could you argue that slavery was moral if it was beneficial for the society as a whole? I understand that others would use the same logic but do you think it makes a formidable case for against anti-slavery? Or pro-slavery?

>>8841004
>implying America isn't a third-world country
>literally invoking the McLaughlin bit from mid-nineties SNL (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6sdVx5gQz6w)
You're adorable <3

>>8838390
the person that dies immediately effects the people that they knew. Therefore increase the net badness of their family as a whole.

Dick move bro.