>he uses the word “morality” to vaguely suggest some system of right and wrong, but doesn’t bother to understand what he means by the words “right” and “wrong” or why anyone should do what is “moral” or “right”
He uses the word “morality” to vaguely suggest some system of right and wrong...
Julian Cook
Blake Thompson
>still thinks in terms of hypothetical imperatives when asking about the nature morality would have if it exists
Dumb.
Brayden Edwards
I don’t get your meaning
Jason Johnson
OP ends by asking
>why anyone should do what is "moral" or "right'
Which is the wrong way to think about morality. If morality exists, it's not going to have its pull just as a means to some ends. So it makes no sense to ask "why" one should do it, unless your answer is "because you ought to." So basically OP is presupposing that anyone who believes in morality should explain why we ought to be moral, but if morality exists there shouldn't be a further reason for being moral.
Ryan Lee
>but if morality exists there shouldn't be a further reason for being moral.
You’re gonna have to elaborate. What does it mean to be moral, and why should one be moral?
Jordan Walker
Do I truly need to elaborate, or is there something you don't want to consider possible? Namely the idea of there being things we "ought" to do without prior reasons as to why (the only sense in which we can answer the "why" question being, "just because")?
Asher Rivera
>He unironically posts anime reaction images
Brody Harris
This is exactly what I’m talking about. You’re adhering to this vague thing called morality that you don’t understand, and you don’t care. You suggest that there are things we should do, but you don’t even know the reason for why we should. How is this not absurd?
Kevin Garcia
No no no. There's two things you're mixing up. One is the epistemological basis for believing morality exists, and identifying what the moral laws are. Another is expecting morality to be like other things where you only do them because there's some end to meet that they serve the purpose for. I'm only criticizing the second half. When it comes to epistemological basis for believing in morality, I think it's similar to the epistemological basis for believing in the external world. Morality might not exist, and the external world might not exist; our experiences wouldn't fail if either didn't. But we sort of can't help believe in the external world, at a sort of basic subconscious level, even if you're a super-skeptic. The claim some people make is that something similar happens with morality. The last move is to say: if we are justified believing in the external world, and even irrational to doubt it, then by parity of reason same goes for some basic universal moral intuitions. Does this irrefutably prove morality exists? No of course not.
Benjamin Diaz
When you say “morality,” what do you mean?
Ethan Parker
Whatever things we ought to do categorically (without some means-ends "reasoning" being why we do them), when we do them for the sake of doing them and in accordance with doing them, though we get some credit for the intention (if the deed is interrupted contrary to our will) rather than the success alone. If you want literature talking about this definition, read Kant's Groundwork.
Dominic Peterson
The reason to act moral is implicitly given by it being moral. If you don't think something should be done for the sake of itself, then you don't truly believe it is moral.
Jason Reyes
dumb poster ignore his posts
Tyler Thompson
How can you accept this? Do you actually believe that we should do something without understanding why we do it? And how can we determine what actions we should do for a reason and those actions that we should do without a reason? Why be moral at all? How can you convince someone who knows nothing about “morality” to adhere to it? You have no reason at all, your only answer is “just because.” You’re living a delusion.
Liam Campbell
do you understand why you exist? if not, why do you?
Oliver Baker
It all goes back to the system we live in. The universe selected for humans to be generally domesticated by technology so that humans may better advance technologically as a society. This in turn produces higher quality tech, until the tech is able to outperform and replaces the human. That is why we have morals, to fulfill our determines temporal fate.
David Murphy
>He thinks that morality is more than not doing things to people that you wouldn't want them to do to you
LMAO
Angel Cruz
What kind of question is that? I exist as a logical consequence of the rules of our existence.
His thinking is very common, but many people simply live with these thoughts without analyzing them or being questioned.
William Cook
This principle isn’t specific enough to cover all cases. For example, a suicidal person might not want to be saved from some freak accident, so he might not save someone in danger, even though that person might actually want to be saved. Furthermore, why SHOULD one follow this principle?
Jayden Collins
Circular non-sense
Eli Garcia
>His thinking is very common, but many people simply live with these thoughts without analyzing them or being questioned.
Dunning-Kruger effect. Not everyone who disagrees with you has failed to think about things you think hard about. Many have thought about it harder and longer than you. Some even used to agree with you before moving past your stage.
>thinks others, not him, live the unexamined life, but doesn't know Kant yet
Brayden Reyes
Yet when you actually write out your beliefs, they sound ridiculous and unexamined. Why don’t you try defending them instead of beating around the bush?
Jacob Adams
You are in high school, yes?
Noah Cook
No
Samuel Morgan
The suicidal person doesn't know the other one wants to be saved and assumes he wanted to die, the suicidal person did nothing wrong from his perspective. Fucking kill yourself trying to create an objective morality system that judges everyone based on what you think.
Ryan Price
Morality is nothing more than the maximization of self-benefit. The most moral action is simply that which benefits yourself the most. That is why we should do this or that, because it benefits us.
Adrian Morris
He has revealed himself
Sebastian Butler
test
Jace Smith
That has nothing to do with morality, mongrel. Check a dictionary.
Kevin Lewis
Morality concerns right and wrong. The right action is that which benefits you, while the wrong action is that which harms you.
Connor Garcia
Morals are defined by a system, if that system is yourself then you define right and wrong. It is as simple as abiding by your defined moral code. You can look at other systems to draw morality from. The idea of morals existing is like saying there are rules in football that we must abide by to play. If you wish to live a life of being 'morally right' you can define your own morally right but don't expect everyone to agree with your definition of right. You can look at cultural influences for right and wrong to determine what cultures/societies see as right and wrong and create your system that way.
Jordan Rivera
For this we need to do a marxist analysis. Morality exists in a society, it's caused by the super structure created by the real material condition. Think of it like evolution, societies that upholds a moral code that contradicts the tennents of capitalism has a lower fitness, meaning that there is a benefit to have moral values that coincide with capitalism. Becuase of this, the capitalist society promotes moral values that make it more profitable. For example, womens rights and the abolishment of slavery where due to economic pressures. What does this has to do with the current discussion? Well by examining moral systems in their relation to the material conditions of society, we can then reveal the material basis of them. For example, egoism is a rather capitalist morality. Becuase moral sentiments can't be seperated from the current historical zeitgeist, its for the best to have a purely descriptive political theory.
Leo Adams
>You’re gonna have to elaborate
David Cox
Imagine being THIS much of an amateur
Josiah Mitchell
>I have no argument
Aiden Richardson
Not quite. Morality is a social strategy -- it's about finding compromise that benefits the collective. The notion of moral consideration would be truly meaningnless for a lone being.
Hudson Young
Of course the individual seeks the benefit of the collective, not only for basic biological reasons, but because the individual benefits when the collective does. This is why it’s moral to help others and improve the community.
Dylan Parker
Morality from an evolutionary perspective is very interesting. Im not claiming that's the whole story, cultures clearly create moralities that are not just embedded in genes, but there is a basic template of human moral tendencies, and the way it came about is fascinating.
Adam Thomas
newbs don’t deserve anything from us
Bye :)
Parker Myers
Why is the right action that which benefits you, and the wrong that which harms you? You haven’t given any reasoning for this, it seems like an unsupported assumption.
Carson Ramirez
This is a poor mans moral code. Don't even engage with such an elementary argument.
Blake Cox
Because you should do what benefits you, and you shouldn’t do what harms you. This is all that morality is.
Nathaniel Mitchell
No thats just biology you fucking retard
Charles Rodriguez
>us
dilate
Jaxson Hill
'should' is just what people say when they conflate their preferences with external reality in order to manipulate others. it doesn't mean anything.
Jordan Foster
Because other people will fuck your shit up if they find you not being moral, or are in the process of devising a plan to fuck your shit up.
Colton Robinson
Imagine, you made this thread in /his/ too and got BTFO and now you got BTFO here, wew, suicide may be the only option for you.
Caleb Thompson
amazing. how does it feel, op?