Why do you make value judgements when all value judgements are

>>129693297
>objectively
Stopped reading there.

>>129693297
lemme smash

>>129693667
You probably misread what I said. I did not claim that what my post said was objective, I claimed that you cannot judge a value in an objective way. If I am wrong about this and you understood me correctly then you are not worth talking to.

>>129693297
capitalism is objectively superior to communism. the real world gives credence to that. also meritocracy is objectively better than aristocracy, and secularism is objectively better than religious fundamentalism

>>129696061
What measure are you using to determine whether one thing is "superior" or "better" than the other?

Moral relativism is the shit. Only once you see that morality only creates a them/us juxtaposition are you truly redpilled.

Congratulations

You have attained weed smoking teenage philosopher status

You DONT really have to listen to your dad amd go to bed before midnight. You CAN eat ice cream for dinner. Nothing is real.

Next stage: adulthood/neo-traditionalism

>all value judgements are baseless an cannot be judged objectively

Do you have an argument in support of this claim? Because you've not justified it in your post.

I have never claimed what I believe in is based or grounded in "rational" thought. It is precisely based on my experiences, that's why it's real and valid to ME, regardless of what others think of it.

>>129693297
>all value judgements are baseless an cannot be judged objectively

That right there is a value judgement.

>>129696776
human technological advancement and living standards are better under capitalism than communism. compare western europe vs USSR and eastern europe, or japan/south korea vs north korea,maoist china

>>129696776
the measure i use is utilitarianism and technological advancement. if it enhances society's success, improves people's health and prosperity, enhances our understanding and control of the universe, if it alleviates mass suffering, it is good

>>129696776
meritoracy is objectlevly better than non-meritocratic. meritocratic societies have better and more dynamic economies, corrupt and hereditary societies are less innovate, and its people are less well off, which makes sense if u don't give smart people the chance and recognition they deserve. secular societies are also better than hyper religious societies. the embrace of secularism and science put the west ahead of the rest of the world. even now, we see secular societies endowed with less sectarian conflict and endowed with more innovation and better living standards

>>129698200
I meant value judgements within the realm of morality, so it's not a value judgement in that sense.

>>129697865
Value judgements arise out of power relationships and good is used to describe those in power. Since those in power change all of the time and different types of people are in power simultaneously in separate places such value judgements are relative and are strictly nominal.

>>129698278
>>129698458
>>129698841
Those measures are arbitrarily being used. There is no objective reason for using those as measures to determine whether or not something is better than something else.

>>129699250
>doing what is most beneficial for society and humanity is not objective

ok mate. its not arbitrary, its rooted in consequentialism. they're like rules of the universe, u can prove them correct. arbitrary would be me making a normative statement, without any proof or justification why it is the case. e.g we should make everyone equal. that wouldn't be objective,as there is no reasoning behind that to do so.

>>129699557
Consequentialism is strictly anthropocentric. It is entirely arbitrary to focus on humans.

>>129700036
no it's not. it's ingrained in humans to work towards preserving and aiding the human race. ever heard of the selfish gene? its not arbitrary, its the moral code of the natural world itself, endowed on us by the mysteries of the universe. creation's will made manifest

>>129700258
It is arbitrary for you to give importance to what is ingrained in humans. As I said before, it's strictly anthropocentric. There is no objective reason to give that the focus of attention in these matters.

>>129700444
anthropocentrism isn't arbitrary, its reason itself. you are human, so you work towards serving the collective u are part of. at this point u r basically denying reason is even a thing. u claim no-one's world view is built upon reason, but u haven't even defined what it is, thereby creating an unwinnable argument as u fail to define the basic crux of your argument, reason

>>129693297
I would love to rape Ivanka. If you catch my drift.

>>129700853
You've state utility is somehow the ultimate goal, which is subjective in itself. Taking a human life to harvest organs is utilitarian, so that, according to you, should be an objective goal.

>>129700444
There's no objective reason to give attention in any matters if you're using those standards. Everything will fade away and return to the way it once was.

>>129701116
indeed it is. if u aren't gonna be using it, it may as well be taken so someone else can. compulsory organ harvesting for the deceased and criminals on death row

>>129701339
Why not for anyone? Criminals often have genetic flaws and organs abused by a life of degeneracy. The organs of must use would come from the young and healthy.

>>129701590
because the young and healthy hold intrinsic value within a society

>>129701590
criminals live are largely unworthy. they are a detriment to themselves and society. as we are working on an anthropocentric utilitarian framework here, it should be abundantly clear why

>>129700853
Take time to digest what I said in my past posts because none of what you have said is getting around that at all. Also I agree with this part of what >>129701116 said:
>You've state utility is somehow the ultimate goal, which is subjective in itself.

>>129701590
not every criminal would have worthy organs, but if they do and are about to be executed or are in prison for life, they're organs may as well be requisitioned for society's benefit

>>129701781
Yes, as potential organ donors. If they are not breeding and perpetuating the species or creating something that eases or promotes that end, then using the very criterion of utility they should be used as fertile ground for organs to be distributed to those willing and able to endeavor for the species

>>129702066
seeing as u still fail to define objectively or reason, i'll do it myself. objective values stem form what can be proven to work for the benefit of society or humanity. trying to argue with u is trying to hold slime, as u fail to define what reason of objectivism is, u can always claim my ideas aren't objective or rational

>>129701976
Unworthy of what? Perhaps they breed well and we're endeavored in perpetuating the species, your earlier stated highest criterion. They are arrested for tax evasion, but a NEET who is sterile gets the criminals organs?
Try again.

>>129702613
if a criminal is on death row they did a hell of alot worse than tax evasion. they'd have to be guilty of murder, pedophilia or rape, or be an enemy of the state. u don't just execute people for breaking the law in all cases

>>129702468
That is not objective. Objective facts are a priori facts. Are the Neumenon rather than phenomenon. The thing in itself, rather than how sensuous experience defines it.
Read moar.

>>129702468
Again you are just repeating yourself without addressing the point I made.

>objective values stem form what can be proven to work for the benefit of society or humanity
That is your position and you have offered no explanation of why your measure is not arbitrary.

I don't know if you've read what I said here >>129699250 but this is relevant to our discussion:
>Value judgements arise out of power relationships and good is used to describe those in power. Since those in power change all of the time and different types of people are in power simultaneously in separate places such value judgements are relative and are strictly nominal.

>>129702906
humans live and exist independent of a moral or cultural frameworks. a human starving or a society crumbling is not an abstract concept of the mind, its an objective reality with real world consequences

>>129702319
That would spark contention within a society if the government starts deciding who should be killed and who shouldn't be. Societies that do not, in a broad sense, perpetuate the values of those living within the society are not affective at sustaining maximum utility.

The possibility that you will be harvested for organs if you do nothing for society will either insentivise you to do more than nothing or fight against the one who established that rule.

>>129702961
many value judgement might arise from power relations, that does not mean an objective truth does not exist. the objective is determined with historical proof and comparison of what works most effectively in achieving societal goals and maximizing welfare

>>129693297
>Opinion is subjective therefore you shouldn't have an opinion
This is the dumbest shit I've ever heard and this type of thinking is responsible for the decline in values in the west. Just because belief is subjective doesn't mean that you should accept anything. Regardless of subjectivity we still have preferences on how we want to live and how we believe we should progress. Not having any beliefs is not knowing how to live, and on a societal level, is society not being able to come to a consensus, which equals chaos. If people in society don't have beliefs then either chaos will emerge (which can be seen now in society) or a more dominant tribe will decide for you (which can also be seen in society). People try to justify things for two reasons, because they want to test their ideas, and because they have an idea they want others to agree with. For example I am responding to you right now because of the second reason, cause that was some serious shitpost you just made.

>tl;dr yes culture shapes our beliefs, beliefs are necessary on an individual level and societal level. Just because it's subjective does not mean it isn't necessary. People justify it out of interest or because they want people to agree.

>>129702794
You've conflated from criminal to death row. Stop goal post moving. Either ALL criminals get this treatment or death row inmates. You stated the one earlier, now shifted to this criterion. It shows a weak argument.>>129703136

>>129703136
Consequences for who? Those involved, nothing more. The weakness of individuals are the strength of the collective, so stating one group starving or another society collapsing as bad is subjective. To some it may not be

>>129702961
>Why do you waste so much time trying to justify what you believe in on rational grounds when none of what you believe in is grounded in rational thought?

Rational thought (at least for humans) falls in line with the perpetuation of information (within genes), the best way for humans to do so would be to establish societies based around general utility.

If you say that is anthropocentric then you are disregarding what rational thought for humans is, in which case you are disregarding the importance of existence. In that case, what's the point of anything? You're arguing semantics.

Because I think life is better than death, surviving and thriving is better than dying and decay, flourishment is better than not.
If you don't agree with this, we cannot share the same space, and you should kys

>>129693297
>when none of what you believe in is grounded in rational thought?
In this sentence you judged value of what you subjectively believe others believe. So why do you do the same thing you asking?

>>129703821
typical western mindset. no room for nuance, only universals. criminals are punished accordingly to the degree of their transgressions. small transgressions are punished less as the individual still has a chance to be reintegrated into society to be useful. but for serious transgressions there is no reintegration, only death

File: [DISDAIN FOR NORMIES RISING].jpg (8KB, 231x219px) Image search: [Google]

8KB, 231x219px

>being a post modernist

>>129704033

when it undermines the long term prosperity and survival of the human race its objectively bad. the consequences inevitably reverberate, especially if a whole society is burning. that wasted human potential and accrued human knowledge in that society burning up, failing to benefit humanity

>>129703419
Let me remind you that this talk originated with you claiming certain things are better than other things >>129698278
I am pointing this out because what I have been saying in these last several posts have only been about questioning whether or not you have an objective measure for your claims that something is better or superior to another thing.
My original post said that these sort of beliefs are based on arbitrary preferences and I have been arguing that with you in relation to what you said about human affairs.
You attempted to explain how focusing on human affairs is not arbitrary in a very half-assed way and did not get around the central point I was making that you have no real reason to look to how humans are impacted as a measure for whether or not something is better than something else.
One could look say that communism is better than capitalism because it is a system which has the most potential to rid the earth of humans and that is good because humans are a parasite on planet earth.
That is just another example of an arbitrary measure that could be used to decide which of two things are better. It is as groundless as the one you are using.

>>129704164
You are misunderstanding what I said. I basically said that beliefs arise out of non rational tendencies in humans so it is silly to attempt to justify them on a rational basis. People have preferences for things and those preferences were not rationally decided on so any justification claiming so is just a rationalization.

>waste time trying to justify what you believe in on rational grounds

>none of what you believe in is grounded in rational thought

oh look, OP is a nigger who broke my fragile world mind-world with his clever-speak

>>129705082
I am not sure what you are trying to say in this post but you should read this in case you misunderstood what I meant: >>129705023
>You are misunderstanding what I said. I basically said that beliefs arise out of non rational tendencies in humans so it is silly to attempt to justify them on a rational basis. People have preferences for things and those preferences were not rationally decided on so any justification claiming so is just a rationalization.

You people who are trying to argue against the notion that morals are subjective are silly. The real retort is that civilization was created specifically on pretenses of cooperation and non-hostility, so people who don't fall in line with this can either go out into the woods or get shot. Their choice.

>>129705023
Then you're simply arguing against human fallibility.

File: IMG_4388.gif (3MB, 360x203px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 360x203px

>>129693297
First of all, lets assume we have at least some of the same basic goals: To have sufficient resources to live comfortably, to be able to have a family, enjoy some luxuries etc.

Now there will be different societal models which can achieve this to a varying degree of success. However there are also clearly many which will not work, so they can be judged to be inferior.

Contrary to what leftists believe, a society isn't just for ed by its laws, but also, if not primarily, by its culture. People should choose to have children, to not litter, steal or commit crimes etc.

Whilst for any one individual person it might be logical to not have children, or to just drop his rubbish on the floor etc., if everyone does it we have a problem. That's why having a system of values is important. These values may seem illogical if viewed on their own, and like they encourage people to act against their own self interest, but if held by most people in society will allow for a safe and prosperous nation to exist.

So whilst you can criticise individual elements of our cultures, clearly overall they work quite well. A society without values will not work nearly as well, and whilst you will have less "illogical" things to criticise in their attitude it is illogical to have given up your values in the first place

>>129693297
why would i believe in you

>>129705911
>lets assume we have at least some of the same basic goals: To have sufficient resources to live comfortably, to be able to have a family, enjoy some luxuries etc.
There is no reason to assume that. Those goals are completely arbitrary and there is no reason for advocating them.

>>129706310
People have instincts, and the vast majority of people will have fairly similar instincts.

At the very least, most people want to continue living, avoid pain and overexertion, have enough food, shelter, sex etc.

The remainder of the argument will be fairly similar to my original post, in that you would want to build a society which can achieve that

The basis of meaning is to ensure life of yourself and your kin, and to ensure the perpetual survival and advancement of your lineage over time.

>>129706587
Are you making the case that those goals are not arbitrary, meaning there is a real reason to advocate those specific goals instead of other ones, due to the fact that most people agree with those goals?

>>129706875
What do you mean by "basis of meaning"?

>>129706587
Some people do terrible things out of instinct, like rape or murder. Why should instinct be some gold standard that justifies your behavior?

>>129693297

Because some of us are empaths and can judge objectively, anon.

>>129706875
That's not the basis of meaning. You wouldn't say that the life of bacteria is meaningful just because it tries to survive.

>>129707039
how we go about determining value.

>>129707355
>My judgments are objective because my feelings produce the best results
You're the most arbitrary of all. One who calls for standards without regard for standards.

>>129707660

>my feelings

Are irrelevant.

Judgement is based on the motives of the actor.

>>129707514
are you and your kin bacteria?

>>129707780
Did you just admit that your "meaning" stems from the subjectivity of being yourself? If you're going to change the goals, warn me first.

>>129707261
Maybe I phrased it poorly, "base needs" or something may have been better. That aside, the reason murder is not allowed is because it goes against most peoples interests, and allowing murder, theft, rape etc would not allow for a stable society to exist

>>129707039
In a way everything is arbitrary, another type of creature may require other things, and even simply other people may want other things. However all living things have needs, there really isn't any deeper reason to that than the ones who fo not have any wants or are not fulfilling them not surviving and passing on their genes.

What I'm saying is that if I want something, and so do most other people, it makes sense for us to cooperate in a way which achieves as many of these goals as possible

>>129707768
Didn't you say that you can judge objectively because you're an "empath"? You can't just turn around and say that your feelings are irrelevant. Feelings were the basis for your argument.

File: drivel.png (147KB, 288x351px) Image search: [Google]

147KB, 288x351px

>Why do you waste so much time trying to justify what you believe in on rational grounds when none of what you believe in is grounded in rational thought?

>>129708052

I said my feelings are irrelevant.

You implied that they have any bearing of judgement.

They don't.

>>129693297
>when none of what you believe in is grounded in rational thought?

And that's where you're wrong, just because your tiny female brain isn't capable of processing rationality doesn't mean there's no rational thought behind my ideas.

>>129696776
efficiency, maximization of freedom, and general social health.

you're not as intelligent as you think you are

>>129707947
Why should bulk majorities decide the whole of human behavior? Do you know how many people murder? It's not less than 10% of the population. You use a Nazi flag. Do you think that Nazism should be banned because it's unpopular? Besides: Everything has a base need. Even bacteria have base needs. Are antibiotics immoral?

>>129707355
/thread
OP:
>"why does the world exist in my head and im the only one figuring it out"

this is the only sensible answer to this mental masturbation drivel

>>129708211
Why are you contradicting yourself so easily? You can't just turn around and start saying the opposite of what you were initially saying. Admit that you were wrong.

>>129708211

I.E: right now, you're being willfully obtuse, arguing for the sake of arguing. My feelings have nothing to do with that.

>>129693297
It is and I don't try to justify it. But here's the thing:

My preferences > everyone else's preferences

>>129707886
nothing about my argument has changed, you just seem to have a hard time understanding. It is not subjective but it takes into account our subjective perspective of the world.

In short: any dermination that you make that is more accurate to how reality is, the greater your chance of survival. The least accurate you are, the lesser that chance is.

>le everything is arbitrary

you can't be over the age of 18

>>129708374

>>129708385

I knew what you were thinking, OP.

It's okay if you don't understand the machinations, but you must understand that they exist.

>>129708288
>not less than 10%
Woops. That's obviously not true. I meant the total number of people in prison, but even that's less than 10%.

>>129693297

she is a fascist

>>129708288
I use the nazi flag because the other flags are lame, I'm not actually a nazi

That aside, I am not arguing that there is an objective morality. I am saying that society will be shaped by what most people want, and that values are useful in achieving that. Again, it is not that most people should decide for everyone, but in praxis they will do so. And if a few people want to pursue actions which harm the majority then that minority may be jailed, killed or otherwise neutralised.

And it's most definitely under 10% of the population who committ murder, at least in the west

>>129708607
You're unwilling to admit that you said something wrong because you have your head up your ass. Just say "I didn't mean to say that. My mistake." You started out by saying that you can judge objectively because you have empathy, which grounded your argument in terms of emotion. Now you're trying to forget that you ever brought up emotion because you realize how subjective it is. If you want to change the terms of your argument then first admit that you made a mistake.

>>129693297

Post-Modern relativism has failed, miserably. Evidence always trumps theory, and even on strickly biological grounds of reproduction, Marxism is sterile. Bare rationality has only succeeded in slowly suffocating as it cuts off it's own oxygen supply. Your disdain for Christ, Christian Religion, tradition, family and Nation is appalling.

Those of us not so deluded by this inane intellectual garbal will inherit the earth, we are the strong, we are the courageous and masterful and honorable. We have no use for you, you have cast yourself by alignment with moral relativism into the outer dark.

There is nothing more to be discussed with a man that gouge's out his own eyes and claims he can see.

Fuck off.

Sincerely, the West.

Why do you assume what believe in? I don't believe in shit. I only see the shit that happens in front of me. and I'll be gone in a minute anyway. I don't try to make sense of this shit.

>>129708914
It's worse to have a nonfunctional morality that you try to impress upon people. Bulk majorities are meaningless. A long time ago the majority of physicians would have tried to treat you with leeches. A long time ago there were more people outside of civilization than within it.

>>129708288
>>129708693
I should add: The reason our crime rates are so low in the west, is because we consider crimes to warrant punishment, also focus on the practical aspect of rehabilitation and of course also simply have a culture in which crime is (generally) looked down upon. Hell, may people will hand in a wallet if they find it. That isn't logical, but because people do it that further lowers the amount of crime and issues with lost IDs, bank cards etc.

>>129707550
Now that I know what I meant can you tell me how you came to that conclusion?

>>129707947
Your explanation boiled down to "it makes sense" to act on what the majority wants. Sorry but that just isn't a proper explanation.

>>129708282
Explain how those are not arbitrary measures.

>>129708607
I'm just pointing out that that isn't op.

>>129708919

I didn't say anything wrong, anon.

Your world view is wrong, and you're unable to come to terms with it.

You made this thread with your assumptions in tow. Empaths feel what other people feel. They are able to segregate what another person feels versus what they feel about a situation.

It really isn't that hard to understand. It doesn't have anything to do with their feelings. It has to do with the feelings of the actor being judged.

>>129708982
God isn't a fool. His existence predates yours. God resided in abject nothingness until the universe was created. If you don't realize that God would agree that without Him there is nihilism, then you're insulting His intelligence. You're saying that God can't bear to think about what might otherwise be. You're implying that God just tried not to think about things before He created the universe.

>>129709211
>worse

By what standard? You argue against a moral framework, but are using one yourself

Majorities are not irellevant, if the majority condones crime, has a poor attitude to work etc. this will lead to poverty and everyone will suffer

Also, for the majority of human history the majority of people were part of some tribe which had values and rules. It doesn't have to fit your idea of a civilisation for the argument to apply

>>129709586
The fact that you don't even realize that I'm not the OP proves that you aren't very smart. The fact that you are currently turning to an argument derived from emotion in order to respond to my accusation that your argument is derived from emotion further proves that you aren't very smart.

>>129709405
What exactly is wrong with that? You seem to want to argue against there being some intrinsically right values, but I'm not arguing for that position.

This entire retard's argument summed up:
>MMMUH ARBITRARY VALUE

Stop responding to this bait thread or sage.

>>129709686
That's a circular argument because you're imagining that the majority's definition of "crime" is not arbitrary. Deriving strength from majority rules is a terrible practice. A society needs order in order to be effective. When civilization shifted to stone walls, tribes stopped being the standard for civilization.

>>129709972
I'm arguing that it is baseless to judge societal models using the measure of how well it is successful in obtaining the goals you are advocating.

>>129693297
Without a higher power assigning value to things and saying "respect this or I roast your soul over a fire fueled by your own corpse", there is no value and nothing to derive purpose and proper use from. There is NOTHING.

In the atheist world, you are either a nihilist or completely accept your self determination, the validity of your will, and the invalidity of the "objective". All things are subjective, relative to the observer, even supposedly hard facts like measurements. That more than one person agrees on the definition of a centimeter is quite an achievement, when measuring your penis as "5cm long".

Pick one if you don't want to kill yourself in the future:

>Why
>because God says so

>Why
>because I think so.

>>129693297
I don't try to justify my fundamental values with reason. I assert them, like everyone does, only most are not conscious of being the source of valuation.

It is not "arbitrary". There is no unique soul that came before my own culture and my own body. It is not an injustice that I was born this way, and some other another way.
>>129699250
>Value judgements arise out of power relationships and good is used to describe those in power. Since those in power change all of the time and different types of people are in power simultaneously in separate places such value judgements are relative and are strictly nominal.
Straight up wrong. Usually evil is used to describe those in power, by those not in power.

The fact that value judgements are assertions doesn't stop us from asserting our own values. We don't need objective morality. The so-called arbitrariness of judgement is not an issue.

Values are useful, arbitrary or not. If they're all arbitrary it's a non-argument against any type of value as it applies to them all. The question then is, to be useless or not. I'd rather choose not.

>>129704635
None of what you said addresses the goal post you moved. You went from endorsing organ removal from "criminals" to "certain" criminals.
Fail.

>>129710287
No, it's pragmatic. I will advocate a soceity ehich achieves my goals, and if enough other people also want it we will make it happen. If you try to go by some objective measure someone else will just create their society and you will lose out. This isn't a philosophical argument, it's about what is practical.

>>129710058
I don't imagine that the definition is not arbitrary, to some extent it is. That having been said, most societies worldwide consider murder, theft as well as rape and assault in many circumstances a crime. That is just the result of our very basic instincts, whilst things like freedom of speech etc are more abstract and hence more subject to cultural and individual differences

To some extent you will always need a majority, or at least a group of people you agree with. That is needed to have order in the first place, how fo you think order would be achieved if most people thought it is cool to steal and fun to murder?

>>129693667
This
Fuck off OP you fucking /int/nigger

>>129693297
Oh, look, juvenile post-modern relativistic nihilistic tripe. If you really believe your own bullshit, move to the depths of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

No? Wow, I wonder why that is...

>>129710690
>Usually evil is used to describe those in power, by those not in power.
You misunderstood what I was saying. I was not saying that people in modern times describe people that way, I was talking about how value judgements first originated. I agree with you that that is how people in the west now value things, but my post was about how value judgements originated, that is what I meant by "arise". What you describe arose out of a reaction to those original prevailing value systems due to ressentiment felt among those not in power.

I'm not sure why you are bringing up that stuff about asserting values, so what of it? If you don't try to justify your values with reason then I have no problem with that.

>>129711341
Okay well now you're doing what the person above in this post ^ is doing. Not trying to justify their beliefs rationally and just asserting them. Like I said I have no problem with that.

>>129711734
To bring this back to your original post:

The reason these values must be stated as though tey werde indeed intrinsic, is so most people will follow them. Moral relativism can work for small groups of reasonable people, but cannot work for a large society

So whilst I know perfectly well that there is no objective right or wrong, I do communicate with people as though there is

>>129704967
The long term prosperity of the human race is achieved by subjective means. It is not worthwhile universally, only to the species in question.>>129710296

>>129710296
/thread. You have studied your Heidegger well.

>>129702906
>>129702906
Emmanuel Kant is about 150 years out of date friendo. Yeah a priori knowledge is great, if you want to climb in trees and worry about the now forever. The dude came up with his Critiques to explain god, to try to disprove the idea, and he himself failed at the endevour. He found that once you define exactly what a priori knowledge was, it starts to morph past what we inherently know for our survival and into what we inherently know for our flourishing.

Humans aren't the chipmunks or bonobos you wish we were. We are divine by nature. What that divinity is or how it is transposed isn't important, what is important is that we operate on a different level than all other animal life on earth. We are literally a tier above. We cannot see and judge yourself on their base standards.

>>129693297
>all value judgements are baseless
the value of a human being is not intrinsic but instead a function of their service to their family, community, and nation. I judge the actions of myself and other based on how i perceive their actions would effect the greater society should everyone participate in them.

No moral code is completely objective and absolutely correct for all situations but we have the benefit of history to tell us which actions are most detrimental to a functional society (ie: stealing, drug use, disrespect of elders, murder, etc) so that we may avoid and sanction those actions.
Post-modernism and the nihilism it brings is a path to neither truth nor happiness. Find your moral compass anon and use history to ensure that it's pointing in the direction that leads to an ordered and ethical society.

>>129712601
So, you're crazy then? Let me know when the magical sky king fetches you.

>>129699250
Why not just kill yourself and be done with it? That's where your fatalistic logic is headed, you know.

The rest of us will choose to define good and evil in terms of human progress, and call that which furthers humanity's spread through the universe objectively "good" and that which hinders it objectively "evil"

>>129712271
and that is just in relation to your goals. it's not an actual justification for that independent of those sort of goals

>>129712704
You haven't explained why it actually matters how well a society functions. That is just your preference, you prefer societies to function in a certain way. I view that as a baseless position and I am just saying that attempts to justify it rationally are baseless.

>>129713041
The fact that you need an "us" the appeal to populum, pretty much negates your argument. Fallacious on its very structure.

>>129711734
Why haven't you moved to the Congo yet? What if I paid your ticket on the condition you stayed there?

That's right. You won't. How do you reconcile that with "all value judgements are baseless an cannot be judged objectively"?

The thing about philosophy 101 is that even solipsists step in dog shit. Reality > theory, regardless of arguments about brains in jars, shadows on walls, etc, etc.

Just think of all the Swedish women who're being pumped by Africans and Arabs right now....

>>129713480
why do you think moving to the congo has anything to do with what we are talking about

>>129713165
Yes that's right, but then again I wasn't arguing that in the first place

>>129713651
yeah I was just making clear that I agree with what your post said but wanted to clarify that I wasn't persuaded into agreeing with those goals or whatever

>>129713480

bro i will contribute $10 to send this post modernist faggot to the congo for life.

>>129713650

your nose is showing.

>>129713165
A society is at the height of its success in functioning when an individual isn't slighted when being a part of society and society isn't harmed by individuals existing. That mode is achieved when the society respects the morality (morality is not subjective, actions are clearly bad or good, not our fault if your soul is so damaged you are incapable of doing good and lash out against the very notion) of the individual and the individual recognizes the moral value of the society.

The entire crux of this being healthy is people having the freedom to do things that are not good, but choose of their own reason and free will not to do it.

Our society isn't there yet. We were going decent up into the 90s, then it all fell apart. We enable actual mental illness as a matter of course in today's society. That is objectively wrong to do.

>>129713877
Why haven't you moved to North Korea? Why do you misuse the term solipsistic? Why can't you make an actual argument? Why do kangaroo niggers think they are edgier for saying nigger when they'd shit themselves if they saw one?
Many questions, none with a certain answer. It's like Heisenberg personified.

>>129706310
>There is no reason to assume that.
you seem to spend the majority of your time here shooting holes in the ideas of others. How about making a statement of what you positively believe.
>I believe everything is random and arbitrary with no moral basis
ask yourself what can your society build if this is it's central philosophy?

>>129713650
You stated "all value judgements are baseless an cannot be judged objectively".

But your behaviour doesn't match your statement, because if that were true living in the Congo wouldn't be a problem.

How do you reconcile that?

>>129693297
The is-ought problem is quite serious, but if you think you can live with values youre wrong. By trying to be "valueless" you just wind up with unconscious, very stupid values instead of explicit ones.

Are your explicit values going to be objective? No. But your experience of being is subjective, and its not *completely* arbitrary. Your morals are constrained by your humanness; I implore you to try and "change" your values to some arbitrary thing and see if you can actually live them out. You'll find its actually much trickier than the word "arbitrary" leads you to believe

>>129699250
>>129693297
>>129693667
>>129696776
Reminder that literally everything in the universe can be objectively measured and judged.

Reminder that science will only continue to parse out and quantify everything in the known universe, and we will be able to state exactly why one flower is more beautiful than another, why one film scene is better made than another, etc. with objective certainty. Literally nothing is actually subjective, it's just the word we give to things that we can't measure yet.

Reminder that OP is most likely on the autism spectrum, and mostly has libertarian leanings (same thing), and that he and all like him are nearly as detrimental to human civilization as marxist liberals, and if they were all gassed, humanity would be better off.

>>129714560
>Reminder that literally everything in the universe can be objectively measured and judged.
it's never possible to measure anything objectively because when we measure something we do it through the subjective lens of our senses.

>>129709405
>Explain how those are not arbitrary measures.
without a divine lawgiver (real or imagined) all measures are arbitrary. your philosophy, while absolving you any responsibility for your actions and thereby easing your guilt, will eventually corrode your ability to value anything and leave you alone with the inevitable suffering of your life and trapped in a prison of hubris.

>>129715023
And now we're back to "brains in jars" territory. Yay.

>>129693297
i was like, dude! socrates!

Humberto Maturana, a chilean philosoper/scientist argued in favor of this kind of reasoning back in the 70's I think.

>>129715210
is it wrong though? it's a pretty fundamental problem to this entire objective/subjective thing, and there's no way around it other than taking it on faith that what you experience is true. which leaves you walking round with an axiom that is fundamental everything that follows that is based on nothing but chosen belief, which isn't steady ground at all.

>>129714009
thanks for expressing your opinion. I would have preferred that you offered some justification for your opinion though

>>129714242
All three questions in my original post contain beliefs I have they are just formatted as questions. I don't know what a society could build based around my philosophy and I also don't see why that matters at all.

>>129714316
none of your first two lines come to the conclusion that I must move to the congo to somehow be true to my beliefs


>>129714394
>You'll find its actually much trickier than the word "arbitrary" leads you to believe
what do you mean by this exactly

>>129714560
This is wrong because science is based around empiricism and there are many things outside of that domain. Science is limited by that and its range cannot be expanded beyond it.

>>129715125
so you agree with me that they are arbitrary then, why are you being so argumentative if you agreed with what I said?

>>129693297

Fuck off commie post-modernist. EVERYTHING is objective.

>>129714212
huh? i never said anything about solipsism or niggers.
itt. i sense you shills are trying some high brow semantics. sorry but that shit don't fly in a a black and white world baby. take your disgusting rat tactics elsewhere, i fear there is only gas for you here.

>>129715508
You're right, but at some point you must take some axioms as given. As far as we know, reasoning is flat impossible without it.

See also: Gödel's incompleteness theorems

The brain in a jar is an interesting mental chewtoy, but otherwise it is utterly useless.

File: 1490281525950.jpg (159KB, 500x375px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 500x375px

>>129713165
>You haven't explained why it actually matters how well a society functions.
Do you even listen to yourself? Is your position is that the state of the society in which a person lives has no effect on that person? that it is the same to live in Aleppo as it is Heidelberg? Ask yourself what philosophy drives people to uproot and travel across continents.

>>129715357
Can you point me to something he said which is similar to this? I'm not familiar with him.

>>129716365
>>129716365
>Is your position is that the state of the society in which a person lives has no effect on that person?
No it isn't. I know that it has an effect on people but so what? Why is that so important to you?

>>129716184
doesn't it make more sense to believe not that there is an objective and subjective reality, but that everyone you experience is real? and then to just pretty well leave it at that. otherwise you have a logical flaw at the heart of everything else.

>>129715962
Sorry thread is right up top. Not being able to face reality is a recurrent problem with you.

>>129715653
>I don't know what a society could build based around my philosophy and I also don't see why that matters at all.
nihilism doesn't build societies; it simply tears the individual away from the community.

>so you agree with me that they are arbitrary
read the second sentence junior

>>129715653
Listen fag, you are playing the "lefty game" of contorting and conflating everyday meaning that numerous anons have all independently answered you with, they all have the same ring of truth. That is an ideal that humans with a brain will come to every time. You know how everyone is just calling you childish? Its because you reason on the level of a child.

Its all foreign and scary to your mind because its hard to make that realization come thru into reality. We understand it is a hard endevour but continue toward that goal, because it is right. We don't need to explain it to someone who obviously cannot grasp it. We are wasting our time.

explain why you hold the values you hold, then maybe we could reason with you on common ground. But you either can't or won't, both should be as troubling to you as it is to us.

Even the worst nihilists still come around to the notion that they should do "good" instead of "evil" even though none of it matters in the end. That's because they understand the entire world doesn't hold their value system. They hold an "outsider" value system, yet still concede to the whole that it works better without their disruption. That is passively understanding and accepting their nihilistic value system is more flawed than what the masses have agreed upon, but they are too afraid to abandon it. Because the other side is hard.

That makes you less than us, objectively. You aren't even in a stage in life where what I'm saying will get thru to you. Other anons have seen it and gotten past it, those are the same anons arguing with you here. They do it out of a moral need to improve you from where you are, where they had been and decided (with the same skewed values you hold now) that is was ultimately harmful to them and those around them.

The fact that you let it all wash off you like water is more scary than that you hold your values to begin with.

>>129716869
/thread

>>129693297
What's ironic is that you disapprove of value judgements which is itself a value judgement.

>>129716833
>nihilism doesn't build societies; it simply tears the individual away from the community.
okay, so what?

and I had already read the second sentence. it's just that you were arguing against something entirely separate from what I said

>>129716869
There is no "we" kid. You're clearly the one scared since you have constantly invoked an unseen crowd to back your subjective argument. It's the tactic of schooling, what small fish do to help against predation. When confronted with the objective unconcern with your species that the universe holds it is the instant tactic you take.
It says all that need be said about your mindset and the mindset of those who espouse your... ideas.

>>129716869
thanks for letting me know how upset you are but don't bore me with these kind of rants I'm here to discuss things not listen to you beat your chest

>>129717273
see: >>129699250
>I meant value judgements within the realm of morality, so it's not a value judgement in that sense.

>>129716779

>>129716779

ok jaden but how can mirrors be real if our eyes arn't real?

>>129693297
>129693297
Nihilism is fucking cancer
>Arbitrary
Its quite the opposite
>Objectively
Your nihilism can be judged objectively, and it's something that's being rejected roundly. And yes, our cultures can be judged objectively because of the results we ha e in comparison to, say, Indians shitting in streets and washing/drinking from a river with rotting corpses floating in it.

>>129717479
>it says as it types in english, on a computer, to communicate its thoughts to the outside world.
Looks like you were more passive in agreeing to play the game than you think you were.

>>129717660
Upset? I think the concern was clearly overt. Concern and anger are not similar emotions friendo, but you don't understand emotion do you? You took a general appeal to your humanity, and spit on it, then greased it into your hair like a feather in your bonnet. I am sorry for your existence. If I, like Jesus, could take all your sins into myself I would. Because I'd be able to handle it where you so clearly cannot.

You are an animal, a base mongrel. And I still feel pity for you.

This anon is right on the money. Everything is relative. Being displaced and spiritually broken is just as good as thriving.

>>129717479
Except the "we" in tis case is true, and the evidence is in the thread. So much for being logical and objective.

>>129718096
>>129718350
wtf I hate myself now!

>>129715653
> none of your first two lines come to the conclusion that I must move to the congo to somehow be true to my beliefs

It would prove you actually believe your own claims. Your current country is conveniently convenient, n'est pas?

But you won't move, despite all the rationalisations you'll come up with. We all know it, and we all know why.

You don't believe your own bullshit when push comes to shove.

>>129717479
>>129717660

you shills are like antibiotics. you are only making the resistance stronger... perhaps you are not shills after all but simply trolls. if so well baited. 9/10

>>129698278
east Europe and Japan are far less cucked.

Ussr was less degenerate than the west your answer is btfo

>>129718899
seriously you are the most confused person in this thread. how does it follow that I must move to the congo just because I believe value judgements are baseless?

>>129719257
Me confused? no u

Put up or shut up fucknugget.

>>129693297
> "Objectively"
No i'm pretty sure it's about genetics and the fact that blacks have low IQ and will ruin western society, as will Islam.

>>129719257

because everything is objectively the same so why not? your proceeding anal rape and tire burning is no different to living in a safer white civilization.

i will now contribute $20 for your ticket.

>>129719446
there is no difference between life or death
>then why dont you die?
because there is no difference

>>129719830
stop fooling around. you must be able to see that a lack of a "why not" does not imply that it must be done. you could be saying that there is no "why not" for moving to any location but no, for some reason you are singling out the congo as the one place I must go to due to my beliefs

>>129720113
>for some reason you are singling out the congo as the one place I must go to due to my beliefs
It's as good as anywhere else since all things are equal in your estimation. Show us the strength of your believe and conviction and relocate to Liberia. All societies are the same desu.

>>129720113
Different poster, fucknugget. I'm over here.

You're right: stop fooling around. Time to prove you believe your own bullshit. It's time for the Congo rapetrain choo choo!

>>129720113

because doing so would be be the objective proof to your idea that there is no objective truth.

you are a good troll. 10/10

goodnight well played.

>>129717660
You're saying we should not make arguments about morality because it's subjective which is itself a moral argument - you think objectivity is virtuous even though there's no reason to value it over subjectivity.

Why are you calling morality arbitrary? It's a categorization of real things, just like our concept of colors is. The only difference is while one categorizes wavelength of light, the other categorizes human thought and behavior. If I think you pretentious, that's not the same as thinking you profound. If I slap you for being a dumbass, that's different from giving you a pat on the back. They are different, that difference is real, we can agree to that right?

Now what do you mean by it being arbitrary? It's the complete opposite. Moral systems aren't random or subjective. They're an attempt at making logically consistent laws for the categorization of thought and behavior. It's the means by which to make value judgements not be arbitrary.

>>129693297
>Why not admit that all of what you believe in is rather your arbitrary preference given to you by the culture in which you grew up in and the body in which you inhabit?

Doesn't apply to those from winning cultures. We know it isn't arbitrary because we see how much better off we are than everybody else.

>>129693297
>value judgements are baseless an cannot be judged objectively?

Post modern bullshit they can absolutely be judged objectively.

>>129709603

No. You missed my point. I'm arguing against moral relativism and godlessness. I'm a Christian.

Wisdom was the first of creation. Where and how and what God dewlt before the beginning of time or anything else is a useless question. You can assign a name to nothingness but it has no meaning.

If you're question is why did go give us one moral system over another, you might start with whether there are internal contradictions within any moral system.

>>129696776

The expansion of human life and freedom.

>>129696776

Also that any centrally managed economy collapses after committing atrocities.

>>129718350
> it says as it does zero to advance the species, the stated purpose of your life.
To transcend your programming is as close to being a god as you can come. There is no sin to being thrown into a world not of your making, only to remain there once it is observed to be nothing.

>>129718508
Only it hasn't. We is a concept and you stand alone trying to embrace it.

>>129709405
>Explain how those are not arbitrary measures.

Human consciousness is the most valuable thing that we know of in existence. Most would consider it divine even if they dont realize it. As near as I can tell religion exists because or and to facilitate it. And its our only existence in the universe on which everything depends.

Essentially our existence demands we hold it as valuable.

>>129720793
an argument that relates to morality is not the same as a moral value judgement
>you think objectivity is virtuous even though there's no reason to value it over subjectivity.
no I don't, not sure how you came to that conclusion. I'm just pointing out that we can't make objective value judgements. It should be clear that don't value that over our subjective judgements because I don't think objective judgements even exist in the first place

>>129720960
By arbitrary I just mean there is no real reason to advocate one set of moral system rather than other ones. Also, see >>129699250
>Value judgements [originally] arise out of power relationships and good is used to describe those in power. Since those in power change all of the time and different types of people are in power simultaneously in separate places such value judgements are relative and are strictly nominal.

You are just romanticising how moral systems actually arose by saying they were an attempt at making logically consistent laws for the categorization of thought and behavior.

>>129722072
Tell me what measure you are using to determine how you are better off than everyone else and explain to me how it isn't an arbitrary measure.

>>129722356
Explain to me how that isn't an arbitrary measure.

>>129722452
so?

>>129722767
Explain to me why human consciousness is valuable, all you said is that "our existence demands that" but I see no reason to believe that.

>>129722598
>stated purpose
Who stated it and under what authority do they lay that claim?

Also, all my posts were trying to save a single person who has misguided views on society and I was trying to right his ship. Even going so far as to assume the identity of Christ to help him if I could.
Yeah I could see that as not trying to advance the species. Fucking idiot.

>>129722977
>>>129722356 (You)
>Explain to me how that isn't an arbitrary measure.
>>>129722452 (You)
>so?
>>>129722767 (You)
>Explain to me why human consciousness is valuable, all you said is that "our existence demands that" but I see no reason to believe that.

Without it we have nothing. You need to start with something to get anywhere. And potential is greater then nothing. You agree or you would have killed yourself by now. The only thing you can depend on is your own consciousness. From there you need to build. To be denied the freedom you understand yourself and control yourself is a crime against the thing we must hold highest. The divinity of consciousness.

Also atrocities plus collapsing societies are bad because they destroy people each one of which holds potential and a piece of the divine.

>>129723702
You're just raising more questions with your answers. Why does it matter whether or not we have nothing?

>>129724018
>Why does it matter whether or not we have nothing?
Give away all your possessions and get back to us when you've learned. Of course you won't because you don't actually believe the ideas you're espousing.

>>129724388
You're making the same foolish mistake that this confused individual was making >>129718899
this is what I said to them:
>how does it follow that I must move to the congo just because I believe value judgements are baseless?

in your case I would change that to:
>how does it follow that I must give away all my possessions just because I believe it doesn't matter whether or not we have nothing
a lack of a "why not" does not imply that it must be done

>>129697573
/bravo

>>129693297
You first need to learn what universality is. Then what principles are. Then a respect for one's life and body. Then you realize that Private Property Ownership and the Free Market are objectively the most moral and just systems.

File: eyJ1cmwiOiJodHRwczovL2Rpc2NvcmQuc3RvcmFnZS5nb29nbGVhcGlzLmNvbS9hdHRhY2htZW50cy8yNjE4NTMzMDI3Mzg2NDkwOTEvMjk5NTcwMTc2MTM3ODg3NzU0L2Jpbl9iYW5lci5QTkcifQ.png (159KB, 467x467px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 467x467px

Stand up and be counted, go with the Ku Klux Klan!

If you hate niggers, jews, spics, arabs, faggots, commie scum as much as we do and you want to raid some tranny server once in a while, you should join the official Moon Central Discord! White people only. Introduce yourself in #introductions to get unkiked.

https://discordapp.com/invite/rDSBTgq

1, 2, 3, 4 I declare a race war!
Join us and lynch a nigger tonight!

14/88,
The Triple K Mafia

P.S Fuck Niggers

File: CG_Jung_subjective_objective.png (466KB, 611x738px) Image search: [Google]

466KB, 611x738px

>at all events the epithet "merely subjective" is brandished like a weapon over the head of anyone who is not boundlessly convinced of the absolute superiority of the object.

>>129724018

Because potential means something can happen. And something can be better than nothing. Once you have that potential it is a matter of realizing it. If you would like something more real world look at the fact that nature and the universe produces potential.

File: 1494552164672.gif (2MB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x300px

>>129693297
I agree with you, but see no reason that you should care any less about anything. I've seen this point brought up a few times and always laugh heartily at the spineless pissants this society has raised.

In fact, the revelation that everything is just arbitrary bullshit generated by others energizes me to push even harder to destroy your stupid arbitrary bullshit in favor of mine.

Buckle up buttercup.

>>129725075
You don't have to do anything. That said, if you're willing to say it doesn't matter if we have nothing then it would seem reasonable to test that hypothesis personally to determine if it is, in fact, true. Of course you won't because you've no interest in determining if your philosophy is actually true; you just enjoy the attention that being contrary gets you. You're like the kid on the playground that will eat dog shit so the other kids will have to pay attention.

>>129697573
this

>>129696061

They are both puppet ideologies put forward by the ruling class. The same corrupt minions occupy the top jobs in either case. Every single movement.

>>129725700
>And something can be better than nothing.
I don't believe that is the case, explain how something can be better than something else


>>129726181
your "test your hypothesis personally" idea is faulty because you are assuming that if I had negative feelings about it that I would conclude I was incorrect. that isn't the case because I don't consider how I feel about something to be a non arbitrary measure for testing the validity of such things. I've been robbed before and I didn't like that but that doesn't mean robbing people is objectively a bad thing to do or that it is objectively better to have things rather than have them robbed from you.

>>129722977
>By arbitrary I just mean there is no real reason to advocate one set of moral system rather than other ones
That doesn't make moral systems arbitrary. That makes the choice between them arbitrary. Like it or not you make value judgements with or without a logically consistent system by which to evaluate thoughts and actions. The codification of the arbitrary(completely subjective) value judgements which we instinctively make into a set of logically consistent laws is a way of addressing the arbitrary nature of value judgements, not causing it, you idiot.

Do you think colors are arbitrary? They aren't. The categories are arbitrary. The limits of them are arbitrary. Is the system of categorization arbitrary? No. It's a mapping of the visible spectrum of light into discrete categories. A surjective function, entirely logical, defined by rules. The very opposite of arbitrary. You could construct a different system for colors. What one calls red another might call blue. That doesn't make them the same, because it's based on a real difference. They're different wavelengths.

Morality is the same, any moral system is a surjective function from the set of all possible human thoughts and behaviors onto a set of discrete categories, usually good or bad. The thoughts and behaviors themselves are objectively different. The alternative to adopting a moral system is relying on instinct. You do make value judgements. Even rats do, it's ancient. Older than trees. Living like a fucking animal is not so good. It makes people's value judgements seem very arbitrary, being the mapping of all possible thoughts and actions onto the set of human emotions in all their variety and intensity. That is arbitrary, seemingly random from an outside perspective due to the complexity of the human brain, and wholly subjective. You could use it as the definition of arbitrary.

>>129722977
>>129727210
It's still a surjective function with all its fault. A categorization with arbitrary categories themselves with arbitrary boundaries, grounded in biology instead of logic. The only difference is the value judgement resulting from any one moral system is objective(not subjective, doesn't differ from person to person which emotional reactions sure as shit do) and sufficiently abstract to make it useful in interpersonal relations. Going by instinct may be fine on your own, but you will never make yourself understood using a mapping so high-resolution as to be completely incommunicable. You can't even list all your emotions, never mind tell someone their exact proportions and intensity in any one moment. And they would not understand it, because they are not you and your dumshit dog measure of 1/12th embarrassment, 3/12ths emasculation, 2/12ths rage and 1/2 intellectual insecurity will not feel the same to them because their brain, the biological system which they use is not the same as yours. You could snarl or bark at them and hope to convey some little tidbit but that's all, and that's what body language is. Conveying emotions. Discarding morality is discarding the possibility of any significant interpersonal relations ever. It's a blanket rejection of what allows you to communicate your value judgements. It's rejecting everything human in social interacting, reducing yourself to a fucking animal and nothing more.

TLDR: you're autistic, see help in 50 years if they find some way to give you it

>>129727210
>>129727228
lol

>>129693297
>all value judgements are baseless an cannot be judged objectively?
You fucking retard, did you just objectively say that? Do you realize what a 10 year old you sound like.

File: 1487602672151.jpg (144KB, 618x597px) Image search: [Google]

144KB, 618x597px

>>129727003
>I don't consider how I feel about something to be a non arbitrary measure
>all measurement is arbitrary except my own subjective experience
>my subjective experience is the only objective truth
I think you may be on to something here.

>>129693297
You are using rational arguments to prove your point. Yet following your way of thought, all values (including Rationality) are baseless and cannot be judged objectively.
This is where you contradict yourself.

>>129727590
>all measurement is arbitrary except my own subjective experience
I never said that. I specifically said my own experience is arbitrary

>>129727648
I meant value in the sense of moral values so you just misunderstood me

>>129727003
>I don't believe that is the case, explain how something can be better than something else

Belief is not subjective. The fact that the universe demands it is objective. The fact that the universe created us is objective. And ignoring that without trying to understand it would be willfully choosing to ignore it.

>>129728031
none of your post explains how something can be better than something else, you are discussing the question of whether or not things can be objective

>>129725075
It's not a mistake. You make value judgements, and that is why you won't give him your shit or move to the Congo. Even rats do. It's at least 80 million years old.
Rejecting logically consistent systems for making value judgements in favor of instinctive value judgements only makes them more arbitrary. Rejecting value judgements is rejecting 80 million years of evolution, and probably most of all mammals, and you still don't achieve your goal of escaping them or their being arbitrary. Which they are, unlike morals. See: a fucking dictionary, you monumental idiot. Arbitrary does not mean what you think it does.

>>129728334
le angry swede

>>129728154

My post shows that our environment demands that something is better then nothing be creating something. We do not have a place where nothing exists. This is objective. This isnt even a value judgement. This is just reality. Something will exist. And if we have something managing it to the best possible outcome will be better then not doing so. And in order to have anything we need to value consciousnesses. Which again we did not create.

>>129727853
>all value judgements are baseless an cannot be judged objectively
literally the first line in OP
>I got robbed before and didn't like it

>>129728478
lol are you really saying that since something exists rather than nothing that something is better than nothing? explain how that fact of something turns into your value judgement of it being better than nothing

>>129728541
I never claimed that my subjective feelings are an objective value judgement

>>129728430
Good argument.