There is no morality, there are only actions which DO or DO NOT further one's goals.
>but that's destructive
Acting to further one's goals doesn't preclude cooperation- what it DOES mean is that one should be certain their actions, directly or indirectly
Found not guilty after a fair trial.
>Found not guilty after a fair trial.
So few things make me laugh, but this did it
>aaaannndddd this is why you are destroying yourselves
within 5 years everyone will hate you
sage
Hello, fellow Israeli!
I beg to differ! Morality does exist! Options to do what is GOOD also exist!
>Found not guilty after a fair trial.
Idiot state workers- judge, forensic investigators, prosecutors. All idiots. And the person who got Casey off was an ancient Jew- testifying about the skull
Morality is subjective- it needs to be qualified, as to what type of actions are moral
Morality is not subjective. If you claim that, I would dare you to actually define it. If you are making it subjective by definition, well - then you and I are not talking about the same thing.
Morality, defined by Merriam Webster: "a doctrine or system of moral conduct"
Where "moral" is defined as: "of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior".
Wearing blue socks vs. red socks is a preference. Whether or not you should eat your unwanted baby because you are hungry and it's the cheapest option is not.
>Right
Right for whom?
Am I the only one who wanted to rawdog that crazy bitch every time she was on TV?
>Am I the only one who wanted to rawdog that crazy bitch every time she was on TV?
No. She's hot, would be amazing fuck
Right for everybody, under God.
BECAUSE
God, the author of the conscience, wants the BEST for all of His creation (not what we might think feels best). When you do something for the betterment of His creation, and respectively the betterment of people, you are carrying out a GOOD act.
All conditions are in place to ensure stumbling in pursuit of long term functionality. You're compromised the minute you say it's possible under present conditions. It's down to the authorities and them alone to rectify it. Barring that, political asylum. But they'll just laugh in your face and say we fought the Nazis. So, no go. It's called totalitarianism. They call it civil rights. One can only pursue a mere allusion to constancy. The guarantee is presently illegal. These two moral systems are irreconcilable.
Isaiah 5:20 King James Version (KJV)
>20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!
Proverbs 17:15 King James Version (KJV)
>15 He that justifieth the wicked, and he that condemneth the just, even they both are abomination to the Lord.
Proverbs 18:5 King James Version (KJV)
>5 It is not good to accept the person of the wicked, to overthrow the righteous in judgment.
1 Corinthians 15:33 King James Version (KJV)
>33 Be not deceived: evil communications corrupt good manners.
All choices have consequences, but because of computational complexity you can't definitely calculate the outcome of a choice.
Morality is accumulated rules of thumb on how to avoid unforeseen negative consequences for your actions based on historical patterns.
Why you thinking about this?
>Good & Evil
When you wear a blouse like that, theyre the same thing.
And over here kids, we have the Jew. Observe him in his natural habitat. Notice now in this rare occurrence as the wild jew explains his narcissistic worldview, in hopes that we accept it as our own. Fascinating.
>God
Lmao
>Long term functionality
Long term is a kiss
Kiss = lie
You'll accept it because it's the lense that makes the world clearer
I've investigated the matter of morality very deeply, and I've concluded that the logical positivists were right. Morality without divinity (an objective referee, in other words) is unfalsifiable and even tautological. Nietzsche warned us of the consequences of killing God, but we didn't listen. The old system of referee morality has been replaced with entirely subjective, situational morality with no foundation. Under the present system, right and wrong are mere feelings or opinions, not objective truths. This makes the entire present-day system, from economics to law, entirely meaningless. All economic propositions begin first as ethical ones; giving something in exchange for something else instead of merely taking it, for example. Debt is just a moral obligation. If morality is meaningless, then naturally, we must cancel everyone's debts, because they, too, are meaningless. I recommend reading Thorstein Veblen, Ludwig Wittgenstein, Otto Neurath, and AJ Ayer.
You talking about Judas? What are you on about?
>Religion isn't relative
It is, to whatever the clergy say that godly works proclaim
Spelling error in previous post
Who is this wamyn and what's her story?
The Great Wall of China isn't a lie.
I think she drowned her kids or something.
Killed her own kid
>this is what Stirner spergs and clinical psychopaths actually believe
Well, actually, it goes even deeper than that. See, the general assumption in the previous, theological system of morality was that morals came from some deity or another, and that they were absolutely true. In other words, they promoted the idea that there was such a thing as a moral object, like a kind of Moral Platonism (this raises the question of whether or not a moral position stated by a god is just that god's opinion, of course). This can be contrasted with the modern conception of morality (and other normative, abstract things) as ephemeral, having no existence except as speech-acts. Think about it. If someone says "Stealing is wrong", then what is wrongness and how do you detect it? Is there a geiger-counter-like device you can find to pick up traces of wrongness particles? Where is the moral object? This assumption of the transcendence of morality means that human values effectively become tautologies, because we cannot detect or confirm the presence of an objective morality. Good things are good because they are good and bad things are bad because they are bad. The logic is entirely circular. The lack of true/false states for moral events means that they cannot be treated as propositions in first-order logic, only as mere subjective feelings of something that "might" be the case, but can never definitively be confirmed as such. The problem of moral anti-realism has analogues in linguistic relativism and mathematical anti-realism. For instance, we take for granted that numbers are real things, but numbers are, themselves, merely an extension of counting. If you have a set of two items, there is no need for the universe to recognize the twoness of the second item in any way, shape or form. In other words, math itself may be a form of fiction, or an illusion, and such things as abstract mathematical objects may not even exist. In other words, math isn't real.
Cont.d.
The reason for all of this, of course, is because human beings are limited by sensory data and qualia and have no ability to transmit concepts from one person to another in an objective, concrete way, only linguistic generalizations about what our senses are telling us about something. This ties into all sorts of troubling issues like the Hard Problem of Consciousness, Hume's Fork, P-Zombies, Monism versus Dualism, Kantianism, and so on and so forth. The reality of moral propositions and whether or not they are testable things has been bugging philosophers for centuries.
True- math's rightness is the fact that we use it. Good to have company who doesn't hold unqualified beliefs. I'm out though, will read later if you respond.
Cont.d.2
What I believe is that the problem lies not just in the way humans communicate, but in our incomplete theory of the human mind. All thoughts surely have a neurological basis, and from that standpoint, we can assume that morals are real insofar as they are impulses in a brain. A more complete theory of mind and a better understanding of concept transmission might lead to a revolution in thinking in this area. In short, psychology is just neurology without scientific rigor.
>There is no morality, there are only actions which DO or DO NOT further one's goals.
Is betraying white people trying to genocide them with obvious propaganda furthering one's goal? Obviously the backlack points to no.
These are the same book.
And Rand and Kant aren't actually necessarily opposed.
I can respond to this later/tomorrow. Too bad you didn't come earlier.
If there is no God there is no morality (this is true and that's why people got so mad at Steve Harvey and his "moral compass" theory, atheist can't stand the idea that their morals are invalid without God).
But if there is no morality that doesn't mean there's is no practicality. Hence the concept of "the natural order of things".
That means, is cutting your penis to look like a mutilated girl wrong? You can't justify that it's wrong from a moral standpoint if you don't have a God to back your claim. It's that person's body why do you care.
But there's a practicality point of view. That's harmful for that person, and if that practice is normalized it's going to be harmful for more people. The more the harm extends the worse society is as a whole. If society crumbles we will have less support to live our lives the way we want. If the social fabric breaks we will be affected as individuals by the consequences.
So, following your premise: yes, I would agree to a fascist Goverment that furthers the most practical goals for everybody from the natural order of things' POV.
Notions of god have nothing to do with morality you absolute brainlet. People who claim to speak for god (and often in their own self interest) appropriate notions of normal human morality as if mortality comes from on high. It doesn't. It comes from within and from societal beliefs and practice.
*morality
No doctrine or system of moral conduct can justify itself objectively. If it could there would be no debate whatsoever. Thus there is no "morality."
whoa whoa whoa NOW we're talking about some god? lmao moralfags are hopeless
>SPOOK A exists because SPOOK B says so!
Y I K E S
really makes you think
You're trying to equate morality to social norms.
Correct to a large extent. A baby instinctively knows its bad to kick a well behaved dog but does not instinctively know its bad when mummy invites the milkman in for a quickiy. Some morality is inherent and some is learned.
>Jew promoting moral relativity
surprise surprise
You're the proof that jews are satanist.
Morality is a construct and its basis comes from genetics. All "morals" are just the most effective way to keep a bunch of your tribesmen cooperating with eachother to ward off some other assholes.
there is objective evil, it is basically "confused anger"