>I am primarily the creator of a new code of morality which

by shooting a huge piss geyser into the air and catching it in my asshole

>>8956489
I would tip my fedora enthusiastically

>>8956489
Telling her that the Fountainhead was a terrible book.

It isn't hard to do. You just need to replace 'good' and 'bad' with beneficial or not to humanity (or beings in general), which is an arbitrary decision if you think about absolute terms, but a rational one coming from a human.

File: 1235467890.jpg (47KB, 403x392px) Image search: [Google]

47KB, 403x392px

>>8956532
GET OUT

>>8956489
I would pull a Socrates and ask them to define "reason", then take him apart from there. Easiest way to deal with shallow thinkers like in OP.

>>8956545
Go back to /pol/

>>8956556
Not from /pol/, just not a retarded objectivist like yourself.

>>8956489
>How would you reply?

Can you Kant?

>>8956582
I'm not an objectivist. I just favor losing all notions of absolute good and evil, and proposing a 'morality' that merely tries to find out the best courses of action in order to avoid as much pain as possible in living beings.

>>8956489
where does writing bodice rippers come into this reasoned morality? not that I object to the rape scenes, they are some of the best part of your work, i'm just not seeing the connection, ayn.

>>8956831
I take it you are Christian then?

>>8956933
Why would you think that? Christians worship the absolute.

>>8956489
That Nietzsche preemptively obliterated you.

>>8956582

You can have objective morality, in the sense of it being independent and giving causal feedback, without it needing to be categorical.

>>8956968
>Why would you think that? Christians worship the absolute.

"the best courses of action in order to avoid as much pain as possible in living beings"

Sounds pretty absolute

>>8957056
No. Just the general goal. It is admittedly arbitrary, simply based on the premise that 'suffering' (in a broad sense) is undesirable.

>>8957153
>No. Just the general goal.
Oh, just that general non absolute goal of absolutely ending all human suffering

>>8957242
It's not an attainable goal. Simply the direction in which all 'moral' efforts should be pointed.

>>8957242
You don't get what absolute means. To strive for the highest possible reduction of human suffering is a minuscule goal, if you compare it to the moral absolute of the concepts of good and evil applied to the whole fucking 'creation'.

>>8957242
The only one being absolutist here is you.

>>8956489
Abortion? Yes or no?

>>8957315
I think it's time this thread moves to >>>/pol/

>>8957317
I don't want to discuss it but it's something that can't be decided "not based on faith, not on emotion, not on arbitrary edicts, mystical or social"

>>8957274
>the moral absolute of the concepts of good and evil applied to the whole fucking 'creation'.

What does that mean? To the whole creation, applying good and evil to the whole creation, what do you mean?

Besides the reduction of human suffering: what are morals for?

>>8956489
>having an affair with nathanial branden
>calling it "rational"
top kek ensues

>>8957493
Christian morality applies to everything. That's absolute for you.

>>8956532
>You just need to replace 'good' and 'bad' with beneficial or not to humanity

How do you define "beneficial"?

When you say humanity, do you allow a special place for the outcomes for the actors involved? Why humanity and not just a certain community?

Can you even know for sure how your actions would impact the world in such a wide scope? How can one determine a rational/ethical course of action in this theory?

This arises the question of intentions: Is someone who sets to do evil but ends up "benefitting the whole of humanity" through incompetence in carrying his evil tasks necessarily a good person? What about someone who is trying to do good but does the opposite by an unforeseen circumstance?

Isn't that exactly what Kant tried to do?

>>8956489
Well, reason would suggest that we must recognize our own limits as human beings and cede power to a superintelligence that we bring about through the building of machines that are the product of reason. Any honest reckoning with human history would suggest that it is exactly our belief in our own ability to attain some kind of objectivity (or, dare I say, objectivism) that causes our greatest suffering, which is at its root the mere consequence of being in separate bodies. Humanity is incapable of determining what's best for it unless it can step outside the system of linear causality in which it has historically been trapped. Ironically, then, all we are left with as humans is our capacity for empathy the and growing, painful awareness that compared to a non-linear superintelligence, the apparent chasm between the "smartest" and "dumbest" humans would be like the "pinnacle" and "nadir" formed by the highest and lowest points on a cue-ball shrunk down to the size of the earth. It is mere egoist hubris that convinces us we are better than any other human - or, from a grand enough perspective, any life at all, and we'd do well to huddle together in the face of the coming storms and hope for a painless transition into the post-Anthropocene.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Atlas hasn't even began to shrug yet.

File: d86ed8a41eac9d734381d022faba78b7ccb73c4a.jpg (104KB, 524x400px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 524x400px

>>8956831
get the fug out

>>8956489
Remind him reason is a means, not an end, and his moral system is incomplete until he specifies a goal. Obviously.

>>8956489
Reason cannot lead to imperative claims about the world unless it begins with emotions.

>>8956489
>morality
>created

Nice meme.

I would argue that in order for the logic to function properly empathy would have to be involved and would need to feed off certain emotions.