Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

[Serendipper]

If morality exists outside of human construct, then what is it? A law? Like gravity? Well gravity has immediate consequences, but immorality does not. If morality existed in the form of a "law" then immorality would not be possible.

If the light breaks the speed limit, does it get a ticket and have to appear in court? What would be the punishment? And how would punishment rectify the broken situation? Maybe instead of light learning its lesson, it would outrun the cops next time.

God cannot go back in time to reverse immorality and, if he did, it would mean immorality never happened and there is nothing to complain about. God punishing the immorality does not fix the immorality. Morality is a human construct.

[URUZ]

For sure man.

[Silhouette]

Why is this thread called "Morality is fake and doesn't exist" when it's moralising about how you should moralise?

[Magnus Anderson]

Yeah but this doesn't work very well for moral imperatives.

A moral imperative expresses a preference for certain kind of behavior. The preference it expresses either exists in reality or it does not.

Your second point is trivial. For it is a certainty that anything we symbolize either exist or it does not. The Big Question is of which is which.

Well, moral statements are symbols and preferences or ways of behaving are the symbolized.

[URUZ]

Why is this thread called "Morality is fake and doesn't exist" when it's moralising about how you should moralise?

Because you're apparently a dipshit retard who makes shallow claims based on absolutely nothing.

Funny twist of words you use, I am "moralizing about how you should moralize", when in fact that is literally the exact opposite, the exact opposite, of what I am doing with this thread.

[Faust]

Humans didn't just wake up one day to find a full-blown language to use. It grew from single expressions, some not verbal. Likewise with morality. Everyone has a sense of being wronged or being helped without immediate gain going to the helper. That's what morally is - it's a ledger book of behavioral transactions, undertaken with a long view.

Philosophers and politicians eventually fucked this up by introducing gods or by reifying reason. Like language, morality is always evolving, an evolution that is self-limiting to an extent, but which will always be helped or hindered by someone, the way usage manuals and dictionaries, poets and scientists help or hinder language change.

Languages do not exist, but they're not supposed to. Individuals express themselves and in a very sloppy and incomplete way, language is the codification of these expressions. Individual expressions are not dependent on language - it's the other way 'round. Of course, you need arbiters. Human society has never been short of those.

Arbiters very much do exist.

[URUZ]

"a ledger book of behavioral transactions, undertaken with a long view"

^ That is part of it, absolutely. But this also points to why I am saying that morality is fake, and does not exist. "Morality" is meant as a concept, as used in philosophy and in regular meaning by regular non-philosophers, to mean far more than just this. We can do the whole Nietzschean reduction thing if we want, try to isolate some basic aspects of what is called morality, but doing that is exactly why I am saying morality does not exist, because it is not treated as this sort of thing which we are treating it as here.

Once you strip away the veneer and reification and emotional reactivity and false piety and all of that shit, you get to the place where you and I are at, Faust-- just looking at what is there, objectively. What we are doing with this thing "morality" is not at all what is meant by the concept of morality. So you can call the two by the same name if you want, but either way I appreciate you coming to this thread and offering your ideas, since they are further demonstrating my point for me.

[URUZ]

Except for when you say things like "rules do not exist" or "languages do not exist". Stop saying stupid things like that. Obviously rules and languages exist. But I suppose you can offer your definition of what "exists" means, since you are the one claiming these things which we can understand and explain, use and define and discuss somehow do not, in fact, exist for us to do those things with them.

Sort of hard to understand, explain, define, use, and discuss something that doesn't exist.

So go ahead and explain yourself, on this. We can then move through that sticking point and begin the more fun sort of work of the topic here.

[Faust]

"a ledger book of behavioral transactions, undertaken with a long view"

^ That is part of it, absolutely. But this also points to why I am saying that morality is fake, and does not exist. "Morality" is meant as a concept, as used in philosophy and in regular meaning by regular non-philosophers, to mean far more than just this. We can do the whole Nietzschean reduction thing if we want, try to isolate some basic aspects of what is called morality, but doing that is exactly why I am saying morality does not exist, because it is not treated as this sort of thing which we are treating it as here.

Once you strip away the veneer and reification and emotional reactivity and false piety and all of that shit, you get to the place where you and I are at, Faust-- just looking at what is there, objectively. What we are doing with this thing "morality" is not at all what is meant by the concept of morality. So you can call the two by the same name if you want, but either way I appreciate you coming to this thread and offering your ideas, since they are further demonstrating my point for me.

Well, college football is made too much of by some. That's just gong to happen among humans.

[Faust]

Except for when you say things like "rules do not exist" or "languages do not exist". Stop saying stupid things like that. Obviously rules and languages exist. But I suppose you can offer your definition of what "exists" means, since you are the one claiming these things which we can understand and explain, use and define and discuss somehow do not, in fact, exist for us to do those things with them.

Sort of hard to understand, explain, define, use, and discuss something that doesn't exist.

So go ahead and explain yourself, on this. We can then move through that sticking point and begin the more fun sort of work of the topic here.

I thought I mentioned that I am a nominalist. When you begin by claiming that rules literally exist, then you have to come up with some way of destroying those that you do not like. It's much easier to destroy that which empirically exists (we may be able to destroy the entire planet some day, after all) than to change the acceptance of some moral rules. And destroying some moral rules is far from permanent. You can melt a bad penny, though.

Philosophers have forever been concerned with making the unreal realer than the real, precisely because the unreal is much more difficult to assail.

[URUZ]

Except for when you say things like "rules do not exist" or "languages do not exist". Stop saying stupid things like that. Obviously rules and languages exist. But I suppose you can offer your definition of what "exists" means, since you are the one claiming these things which we can understand and explain, use and define and discuss somehow do not, in fact, exist for us to do those things with them.

Sort of hard to understand, explain, define, use, and discuss something that doesn't exist.

So go ahead and explain yourself, on this. We can then move through that sticking point and begin the more fun sort of work of the topic here.

I thought I mentioned that I am a nominalist. When you begin by claiming that rules literally exist,

What does "literally exist" mean as opposed to "exist"?

then you have to come up with some way of destroying those that you do not like.

Why is this the case?

It's much easier to destroy that which empirically exists (we may be able to destroy the entire planet some day, after all) than to change the acceptance of some moral rules. And destroying some moral rules is far from permanent. You can melt a bad penny, though.

Philosophers have forever been concerned with making the unreal realer than the real, precisely because the unreal is much more difficult to assail.

So we have vague, undefined use of terms exist, literally exist, and real; then we have a reference to how it is easier to destroy a physical object than to change an idea (I do not concede this is always the case, sometimes it is far easier to change an idea than to destroy a physical object)

Really, I thought there would be more.

[URUZ]

Why not just admit you are a materialist, and that you only consider "physical stuff" to be "real"? Would seem more consistent of you.

[Magnus Anderson]

Why is this thread called "Morality is fake and doesn't exist" when it's moralising about how you should moralise?

Because you're apparently a dipshit retard who makes shallow claims based on absolutely nothing.

Funny twist of words you use, I am "moralizing about how you should moralize", when in fact that is literally the exact opposite, the exact opposite, of what I am doing with this thread.

I think he's right. That's what you're doing in this thread. You're telling other people how to live their lives. And you do so by using hyperbolic language.

"If you do no subscribe to my values, you do not even exist!"

You're also highly reactive emotionally. But that does not stop you from accusing others, who are far less reactive, of being reactive.

[Faust]

Firstly, U, I am not trying to hide that I am a materialist. I'm also a Gemini, a registered Republican and right-handed, except for when I deal cards. I'm not trying to hide anything.

All manner of stuff "exists" in some way, at least according to the English language.

You destroy moral rules that you don't like if you re doing moral philosophizing. As a philosopher you do that.

As for there being more, there is more in what I have already said than you seem to be discerning.

As for changing ideas - assuming you are a straight male (but it's easy to make the required corrections) - your wife or girlfriend discovers what for all the world looks like a "love bite". Which is more likely to fade first - the mark or her suspicions?

[URUZ]

This is a perfect moment to introduce a basic tenant of Tectonic Philosophy: it is a very low and inaccurate standard of "existence" to claim, directly or indirectly, that only "dur, like, physical stuffs" exists. Something exists if it exists, it is real if it is real, the entire concept of existence/reality is tautological. And the word "truth" is simply another word for that. Truth simply means whatever exists, whatever is real, whatever is the case and includes the how/why of that being the case.

Truth is simply the concept of all concepts, as someone once said. Don't read that through Wittgenstein by the way.

So what are physical objects? Stuff that resists with force when you encounter it, something made out of atoms with a nice outer edge full of negative elections which repel the negative electrons at the edge of your hand, for example. Because of this power of resistance and mass (substance), it takes some energy to encounter and move physical things. But this is just one standard, and there is no reason to suspect that "moving physical things by exerting force by pushing two different groupings of electron clouds together" has much to do with Ontology.

Obviously rules exist. So do languages. So do ideas. So do chairs. So do photons, and numbers, and emotions, and and and and. Keep going, whatever you like. If you can name it, then it exists, at least as an idea about which you can make an utterance. Just because you cannot define a rule or a language in terms of how you can define a physical object as a bunch of atoms or whatever, does not mean that things like rules and objects do not exist; nor is it very helpful mudding the waters with introduction of undefined additional terms like "literally exists". Things which exist, exist. That is all. This is not complicated.

[URUZ]

Why is this thread called "Morality is fake and doesn't exist" when it's moralising about how you should moralise?

Because you're apparently a dipshit retard who makes shallow claims based on absolutely nothing.

Funny twist of words you use, I am "moralizing about how you should moralize", when in fact that is literally the exact opposite, the exact opposite, of what I am doing with this thread.

I think he's right. That's what you're doing in this thread. You're telling other people how to live their lives.

An absolute lie on your part. I never did that.

So you are a liar, nice to know. I will delete the rest of your reply here and not bother reading anything from you in the future.

[Magnus Anderson]

So called universal morals are just additive positive valuations that a lot of people have made in the past, leading that valuing type to become more common. This is a sign that something important exists in those common valuations, otherwise they would not be common. So find that deeper importance and understand it, then you can revalue the common and uncommon in accordance to the greater standard and meaning. By doing this you increase your self-valuing; by automatically following common moral prescriptions you at minimum maintain your being where it is, and risk lessening it. Living secondarily by assumed moral codes is just a form of vicarious denial, deny the actual realm of meaning that is the basis for moral codes and then distance yourself from how you have denied it by pretending like you had no choice in the matter, this is accomplished by submerging yourself in the common morality as if you and it were indistinguishable.

Try not to do that. You actually do exist, you know.

The forum must be deceiving us.

[Faust]

it is a very low and inaccurate standard of "existence" to claim, directly or indirectly, that only "dur, like, physical stuffs" exists. Something exists if it exists, it is real if it is real, the entire concept of existence/reality is tautological.

Low compared to what? Let's say you have a TV. Displayed on the screen is a list of rules for the safe handling of a TV. You're with a couple of friends and you pick up the TV, without unplugging it. A you drop it on your instep. That would be a very difficult moment to claim that it does not exist. It hurts. Does it hurt more because that list of rules is on the screen? Clearly, when we say that the list of rules exists, we are saying something very different from saying that the television set does. If we turn the television off, does the list still exist? The television does.

Now, will the television always exist? Assuredly, it will not. Will the list exist, in whatever way, forever? If not on TV's everywhere, than in the collective memory of the human race? Beyond that? What would destroy the list?

These are two different kinds of existence. It matters in philosophy and has, ever since there was philosophy. This "low standard" has been at the center of the debate since there has been a debate. If it is unworthy, what shall replace it? Realism? Moral realism? Metaphysics? Rationalism? Where should this debate be seated, if not here?

[Peter Kropotkin]

I think one of the problems with this kind of thread is its attempt
to isolate, separate morality from everything else..... Morality isn't
something that is separate from us and exists independent of our actions...
morality IS our actions.... to say something is "good" or "evil" is to ask
from where or how do you understand "good" or "evil"...... like "good" and
"evil" have some separate and independent existence....

Nietzsche attempt at a morality was simply an attempt to understand
morals without any recourse to god or religion.... what does "moral"
mean when we don't have recourse to a god?

there is no "objective" look at morality because morality is simply
an artificial attempt to understand our relationship with each other.....

take sex for example..... we have "morals" or rules for sex....
keep it private... no violence... not in front of the kids......
and yet, those roles are different for everyone...
some believe in public sex and some get into sexual violence
and some believe its natural to have sex in front of the kids.....

which rules are the "proper" rules for sex? I can't say and neither can you....
so which rules are proper for society at large? for the members of society?
which rules should we follow and which rules are "fake"? it seems to me that
we collectively decide on what rules to follow.... for example, gay sex....
it was against the "rules" to have gay sex for centuries and today it is not against
the rules and how did we come to decide that gay sex wasn't against the rules?

some sort of collective agreement that was really kinda of unspoken about.....

can you point out where or when did gay sex actually became acceptable? I can't..
and that is the point..... "morals" "rules" "laws" are just shifting glimpses of
what we find to be acceptable or unacceptable in regards to our actions to each other.....

and that is the point... that morals or rules or laws, shift and change with time
which means they are by nature, "fake" but what they really should be called is
not "fake" but temporary.... impermanent.....

Kropotkin

BTW, good to see you Faust... missed you....

[Faust]

Yeah, Peter. Philosophers like to believe that morality exists in a vacuum, or that it was born in one. Or, you know, in heaven. Or in pure reason. Or something that is not a function of human society. Morality cannot be, and in truth never has been, separated from politics, because it's about power within the social sphere. Nietzsche's greatest lesson here is that everything exists on a continuum, including what we know as "real". That's difficult to explain in a message board post. But causation, "realness", moral good (if we must) and moral bad - it's all best understood on a spectrum, as part of a continuum, "in motion". That absolute right and wrong doesn't make sense doesn't mean that right and wrong never makes sense. Lying is probably as good an example as sex. There are lies and there are lies. We don't regard them as all the same.

Even communists aren't all bad.

Always a pleasure, old friend.

[Jakob]

Jake - I beg to differ. Rules do not exist. But sure, moral rules stylize revenge, for instance. The more immediate problem with eating children is that they often belong to someone who values them. Morality has always been an aid to a well run economy.

I meant eating ones own children. Anyone who does this will fail to have his lineage continued.
Is this not a basic form of morality?

Probably most people shouldn't try to be a step ahead of the morality that their group lives with. Most people aren't that creative. But those who are successful probably have the most fun overall.

Indeed most that try become simply outcasts or worse.

U/Faust - indeed thoughts are also things, and things that are very hard to destroy.
To attack a thought often makes it stronger.

Or: Jesus is dead and gone and may never have lived, but the idea of Jesus will probably survive as long as mankind does. It is indeed nearly impossible to kill an idea if people are emotionally invested in it.

(I know im not saying anything that is new to either of you)

[Faust]

I meant eating ones own children. Anyone who does this will fail to have his lineage continued.
Is this not a basic form of morality?

My own view is that the psychological foundation of morality is the life-saving admonitions that mothers impart to their children, so yes. i would say not eating your children is in a way the most basic.

Indeed most that try become simply outcasts or worse.

if they are not clever, yes.

U/Faust - indeed thoughts are also things, and things that are very hard to destroy.
To attack a thought often makes it stronger.

Or: Jesus is dead and gone and may never have lived, but the idea of Jesus will probably survive as long as mankind does. It is indeed nearly impossible to kill an idea if people are emotionally invested in it.

Yeah, I just made that very point. Unreal things are far more durable than real things, which is why philosophers (and sometimes American presidents) prefer them.

[Jakob]

I meant eating ones own children. Anyone who does this will fail to have his lineage continued.
Is this not a basic form of morality?

My own view is that the psychological foundation of morality is the life-saving admonitions that mothers impart to their children, so yes. i would say not eating your children is in a way the most basic.

Good. A fine thing to have established, the most basic of moralities.

Indeed most that try become simply outcasts or worse.

if they are not clever, yes.

And isn't cleverness concerning morality a rarity among rarities?

Or: Jesus is dead and gone and may never have lived, but the idea of Jesus will probably survive as long as mankind does. It is indeed nearly impossible to kill an idea if people are emotionally invested in it.

Yeah, I just made that very point. Unreal things are far more durable than real things, which is why philosophers (and sometimes American presidents) prefer them.

Where we disagree is the un/reality of thoughts.
I say a thought is perfectly real. If it wasn't, would it withstand what is real? I don't think that argument can be made.

The idea of Jesus is real, a real idea.
Democracy, the Republic, Civil Rights, Freedom, all the same concept. Ideas as real things. America is an idea. "President" is an idea.

[Silhouette]

Why is this thread called "Morality is fake and doesn't exist" when it's moralising about how you should moralise?

Because you're apparently a dipshit retard who makes shallow claims based on absolutely nothing.

Funny twist of words you use, I am "moralizing about how you should moralize", when in fact that is literally the exact opposite, the exact opposite, of what I am doing with this thread.

Sure...

Try not to do that. You actually do exist, you know.

A recommendation about how to act consistently with the fact that you exist: a way to live: a morality.

Morals: derived from the Latin moris meaning customs or one's disposition - the equivalent to the Greek ethikos, which of course is where we get the terms ethics and ethos, meaning exactly the same thing. You are making an ethical point, you are speaking in moral terms about how morality is fake and doesn't exist and this is a dipshit retard kind of thing to do.

Just pointing out the obvious, you tend to miss it.

Of course, I also know what it is that you're trying and struggling to get across - the standard leftist stance of Moral Relativism as Serendipper was quick and correct to point out. There is no absolute Morality, we agree on this - I am sure you will be loathe to be told. You make your own morality - Existentialism already covered this, you don't need to dress it up in all this VO nonsense, it's simple stuff. "I'm am Existentialist with tendencies towards Deconstructionism" would have saved you your three posts in exchange for just a few words like you're used to.

You and me both, bro! Nice and cosy.

I noticed you mentioned that term "Tectonics" that someone was trying to make into a philosophy before I left ILP last - I remember you. Can't remember your name though, I'm sure you used to be alright - what happened?

[Peter Kropotkin]

I meant eating ones own children. Anyone who does this will fail to have his lineage continued.
Is this not a basic form of morality?

My own view is that the psychological foundation of morality is the life-saving admonitions that mothers impart to their children, so yes. i would say not eating your children is in a way the most basic.

Good. A fine thing to have established, the most basic of moralities.

K: ummm, not really.... we can have a society with the "morality" of eating children....
there is really nothing out there that prevents it... it is just us and how we collectively
decide to act....

Indeed most that try become simply outcasts or worse.

if they are not clever, yes.

And isn't cleverness concerning morality a rarity among rarities?

Or: Jesus is dead and gone and may never have lived, but the idea of Jesus will probably survive as long as mankind does. It is indeed nearly impossible to kill an idea if people are emotionally invested in it.

Yeah, I just made that very point. Unreal things are far more durable than real things, which is why philosophers (and sometimes American presidents) prefer them.

Where we disagree is the un/reality of thoughts.
I say a thought is perfectly real. If it wasn't, would it withstand what is real? I don't think that argument can be made.

The idea of Jesus is real, a real idea.
Democracy, the Republic, Civil Rights, Freedom, all the same concept. Ideas as real things. America is an idea. "President" is an idea.

K: they are real as long as we accept their "realness" once we no longer believe, they
go away..... think of the Egyptians and their belief in Ra..... who believe in Ra today?
that "real" concept no longer means anything....and once christanity goes away,
the idea of Jesus goes away also...... times change the believes of our mind...
our said another way... we change our beliefs to match the current situation....

Kropotkin