Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

[URUZ]

Yeah, it is pretty fucking obvious that morality exists.

Nice absolutely black and white reduction of everything I had said so far in this thread. Obviously you read very little here, and thought about it even less.

[encode_decode]

Nice absolutely black and white reduction of everything I had said so far in this thread. Obviously you read very little here, and thought about it even less.

Now, don't be like that. Wheres your sense of humor anyway?

Next - how can you be so sure that it is obvious I have read very little here, "and thought about it even less"? I dont see how you would get that from what I wrote.



I can assure you that I have thought in depth about the existence of morality. I am not limited to older philosophical ideals.

[URUZ]

Nice absolutely black and white reduction of everything I had said so far in this thread. Obviously you read very little here, and thought about it even less.

Now, don't be like that. Wheres your sense of humor anyway?

Next - how can you be so sure that it is obvious I have read very little here, "and thought about it even less"? I dont see how you would get that from what I wrote.



I can assure you that I have thought in depth about the existence of morality. I am not limited to older philosophical ideals.

Platitudes spoken reveal the equally shallow minds that speak them.

[Silhouette]

Nice absolutely black and white reduction of everything I had said so far in this thread. Obviously you read very little here, and thought about it even less.

Now, don't be like that. Wheres your sense of humor anyway?

Next - how can you be so sure that it is obvious I have read very little here, "and thought about it even less"? I dont see how you would get that from what I wrote.



I can assure you that I have thought in depth about the existence of morality. I am not limited to older philosophical ideals.

In the case that he has either blocked my posts (can you do that?) or doesn't read them anymore, he may have missed why your response wasn't at all an absolutely black and white reduction of everything he said so far in this thread.

[encode_decode]

Platitudes spoken reveal the equally shallow minds that speak them.

If I were forced to guess, I would guess you are either half my age or on drugs.

[encode_decode]

In the case that he has either blocked my posts (can you do that?) or doesn't read them anymore, he may have missed why your response wasn't at all an absolutely black and white reduction of everything he said so far in this thread.

If you are on his "Foe" list then your posts will not show by default - he would have to purposefully click to show the post.

[Serendipper]

Nice absolutely black and white reduction of everything I had said so far in this thread. Obviously you read very little here, and thought about it even less.

Now, don't be like that. Wheres your sense of humor anyway?

Next - how can you be so sure that it is obvious I have read very little here, "and thought about it even less"? I dont see how you would get that from what I wrote.



I can assure you that I have thought in depth about the existence of morality. I am not limited to older philosophical ideals.

In the case that he has either blocked my posts (can you do that?)

Yes he's all about censorship viewtopic.php?f=6&t=193931#p2697763

[Silhouette]

Yes he's all about censorship http://ilovephilosophy.com/viewtopic.ph ... 1#p2697763

Jesus, that would be ironic wouldn't it!!!

[Serendipper]

Jesus, that would be ironic wouldn't it!!!

He certainly isn't deficient in irony:

Racists are scum but morality doesn't exist.

Free speech is an inalienable right but we must censor the immoral racist scum.

Then he uses words like "kek", but he's not racist.

This is all so confusing Perhaps he's pms-ing?

[encode_decode]

This is all so confusing Perhaps he's pms-ing?

Funny you should say that - I was thinking the same thing.

[Serendipper]

This is all so confusing Perhaps he's pms-ing?

Funny you should say that - I was thinking the same thing.

Yeah and to think I was trying to be his friend. I tried to look on the positive side: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=193901&p=2696233&hilit=urgod#p2696233

His parrot, UrGod,

You noticed that too? I don't want to be mean; he's making good progress I think.

Oh boy was I wrong.

I never took a racist position and I simply asked for clarification. Those two squirrels just assumed I'm a Brother Nathanael fan (whatever that even means). I'm a Colorado fan and have seen some BN videos, that's all. I like trees and mountains and that was the subject until FC made it about race.

In light of the circumcision thread here http://onlinephilosophyclub.com/forums/ ... =1&t=15188 I'm not much of a fan of Christianity either, which is what Brother Nathanael is promoting.

People assume too much then overreact and if urgod and FC were drowning, I'd just assume throw them an anchor. I assuming it would only take one since wherever one goes, the other follows.

I'm still not clear on whether they are racist or not. It seems that someone would have to be racist to be worried about being traitorous to ancestors. And is treachery immoral? Heck, I guess they swing both ways: Morality doesn't exist except when they need it and they're not racist unless it conveniently happens to be moral and instead of bringing clarity to the matter, they resort to censorship and congratulate each other for being guardians of speech. I think we've departed the realm of stupidity and entered into that of insanity.

Anyway, I'm glad neosophi is back up and I can use the time that I'm not going to spend on loonieland to instead make contributions there (that black background with white font was messing with my eyes anyway).

[URUZ]

Racists are scum but morality doesn't exist.

Now you’re starting to get it.

[URUZ]

Morality is the idea that judgement itself somehow exists outside of the one who judges. The idea that some god cares, or that the universe somehow cares. It doesn’t.

Judgment begins and ends with beings who judge. Namely, you.

[Silhouette]

Morality is the idea that judgement itself somehow exists outside of the one who judges. The idea that some god cares, or that the universe somehow cares. It doesn’t.

Judgment begins and ends with beings who judge. Namely, you.

Morality is a description of the behaviours of the people who have benefited society and helped it succeed in the way it has - it's only the Conservative use of morality that is prescriptive about how you should act in these ways that always used to work. You're advocating the Liberal way as has been pointed out to you a few times now, that considers morality as relative and progressive - changing according to how individuals want to act differently to adapt to the changes that have occurred since the Conservative ways used to work best.

It's just so dumb that you think you're so anti-leftist when you think you're saying something new by saying exactly what the left have always been saying - at this point it's just willful blindness on your part that you can't accept this, since you seem to have set every fibre of your being against what you're actually advocating.

[WendyDarling]

Silhouette,
What are some examples of liberal left morality?

[Silhouette]

Silhouette,
What are some examples of liberal left morality?

"Liberal left morality" is defined as not being any particular way, but instead any way that moves beyond established particular ways.

Your question is the same kind of question as "what do atheists believe?" Atheists don't believe one thing, they just don't believe in any God, they can believe in any number of other things, none of which exemplify "Atheism".

Make sense?

[Serendipper]

Essentially the left has no moral underpinning since they're tolerant of everything except intolerance (claim of an absolute right and wrong). So the left is anti-moral, as it were. This was a line of thought I took to theorize why the left is more prone to violence while banning guns and the right chooses to own guns, but are less violent. The right is more dogmatic since they accept that a right and wrong exists and it's not open for discussion; therefore they can't initiate force against someone as easily because it's impossible to justify it cognitively. The left is more open-minded and see the ends justifying the means, so they're more likely to resort to violence to achieve a higher goal that they perceive as righteous. Because they know that about themselves, they naturally want to ban guns to prevent violence (since they have no internal mechanism). The right doesn't seek to ban guns because they have a mechanism (unwavering dogma of right and wrong).

The left tends to be more educated due to the open-mindedness. The right tends to be "deplorable" due to the dogmatism. The right is trustworthy and the left is underhanded. So, pluses and minuses.

Basically, do you believe there is an absolute right and wrong or do you not? I think that's the philosophy differentiating the two types of people. Everything seems to fall into place regarding the groups if you keep that in mind.

[Serendipper]

It's just so dumb that you think you're so anti-leftist when you think you're saying something new by saying exactly what the left have always been saying - at this point it's just willful blindness on your part that you can't accept this, since you seem to have set every fibre of your being against what you're actually advocating.

Well said!

"Do as I say, not as I do"

[Silhouette]

Essentially the left has no moral underpinning since they're tolerant of everything except intolerance (claim of an absolute right and wrong). So the left is anti-moral, as it were. This was a line of thought I took to theorize why the left is more prone to violence while banning guns and the right chooses to own guns, but are less violent. The right is more dogmatic since they accept that a right and wrong exists and it's not open for discussion; therefore they can't initiate force against someone as easily because it's impossible to justify it cognitively. The left is more open-minded and see the ends justifying the means, so they're more likely to resort to violence to achieve a higher goal that they perceive as righteous. Because they know that about themselves, they naturally want to ban guns to prevent violence (since they have no internal mechanism). The right doesn't seek to ban guns because they have a mechanism (unwavering dogma of right and wrong).

The left tends to be more educated due to the open-mindedness. The right tends to be "deplorable" due to the dogmatism. The right is trustworthy and the left is underhanded. So, pluses and minuses.

Basically, do you believe there is an absolute right and wrong or do you not? I think that's the philosophy differentiating the two types of people. Everything seems to fall into place regarding the groups if you keep that in mind.

I despise Stefan Molyneux, such a gigantic sense of self-worth and superiority with nothing but flawed arguments to back it up. Even Ben Shapiro is more sufferable than him, at least he has a brain.

I think the left fails to appreciate the point of the right - it's so obvious to the educated and open-minded that the right are lacking in the intellectual domain, and that things could be improved in innumerable ways without them, that the value in what we have in the first place is forgotten. It's a very human psychological strength and weakness that we tend to ignore what we take for granted, we don't need to constantly worry about and be grateful of things that just seem to operate in the background without our knowledge. The right are perhaps more aware and fearful of these things, they also tend to be the ones most involved in maintaining them because more open leftist minds would rather create new things, not maintain old ones. But it's a fact that we need to maintain what we have, and that it really could all fall apart if all we cared about was the future at the expense of the past and present. Just because notions of absolute moralities are a baseless infinite regress, doesn't mean that treating them that way doesn't solidify a robust way of behaving. Of course it isn't always best to adhere to an absolute morality, but you're still inadvertently adhering to it when you are simply acting normally without realising. I don't think the left are necessarily amoral or anti-moral, just because they are in favour of thinking and acting outside of the box - their moralities are just self-made and fluid, justified by current experiences, not tradition, but they are probably more traditionally moral than they might assume through their day to day actions that they aren't thinking about, as learned in a continuous process through the ages that can't simply be "removed" and entirely replaced by something new and radical.

At the same time, it's just as much of a fault of the right to not tolerate the potential of the left to improve and adapt current ways. Less ignorance and more appreciation of where the other "wing" is coming from would do everyone a favour.

[Magnus Anderson]

Morality is the idea that judgement itself somehow exists outside of the one who judges. The idea that some god cares, or that the universe somehow cares. It doesn’t.

Judgment begins and ends with beings who judge. Namely, you.

That's not what morality is. That's how you define morality. Most people don't define it that way.

[Magnus Anderson]

Which version of nominalism is that?

Nominalism rose in reaction to Plato's theory of forms. Plato had this strange idea that forms (i.e. universals) exist in a non-physical and a non-mental way. Nominalists responded to Plato's confused language with their own version of confused language. They had to lose their common-sense in order to fight Plato. This common-sense is that some universals do exist. We say it all the time, "There is a table in my room." It's obvious. But nominalists had to deny this in order to deny Plato. They had to say bizarre things such as "There are no tables out there in the world, these are just symbols in our heads." Completely unnecessary. So when you come along and say something like "Morality does not exist" you're doing nothing but introducing unnecessary complications.

[Serendipper]

I despise Stefan Molyneux, such a gigantic sense of self-worth and superiority

I agree. Hypocritical too.

with nothing but flawed arguments to back it up.

I wouldn't go that far. He makes some good points and does change his mind when wrong. I think one has to be a bit of a narcissist to be a youtube personality.

Even Ben Shapiro is more sufferable than him, at least he has a brain.

Molyneux is a jerk, hypocritical, and has a few undersupported arguments, but how can you believe he is stupid? Surely he has some value, if you can get past the former.

I think the left fails to appreciate the point of the right - it's so obvious to the educated and open-minded that the right are lacking in the intellectual domain, and that things could be improved in innumerable ways without them, that the value in what we have in the first place is forgotten. It's a very human psychological strength and weakness that we tend to ignore what we take for granted, we don't need to constantly worry about and be grateful of things that just seem to operate in the background without our knowledge. The right are perhaps more aware and fearful of these things, they also tend to be the ones most involved in maintaining them because more open leftist minds would rather create new things, not maintain old ones. But it's a fact that we need to maintain what we have, and that it really could all fall apart if all we cared about was the future at the expense of the past and present. Just because notions of absolute moralities are a baseless infinite regress, doesn't mean that treating them that way doesn't solidify a robust way of behaving. Of course it isn't always best to adhere to an absolute morality, but you're still inadvertently adhering to it when you are simply acting normally without realising. I don't think the left are necessarily amoral or anti-moral, just because they are in favour of thinking and acting outside of the box - their moralities are just self-made and fluid, justified by current experiences, not tradition, but they are probably more traditionally moral than they might assume through their day to day actions that they aren't thinking about, as learned in a continuous process through the ages that can't simply be "removed" and entirely replaced by something new and radical.

I can agree with that. Well said. I could add that traditions are questioned as generations lose sight of the reasons those traditions existed. For instance family values and why women need to be women and men, men. In light of all the technological and economic progress, it's hard to see why gender identity is necessary and is increasingly viewed as oppressive. That's the idea that leads to the meme: strong men make good times, good times breed weak men, weak men make bad times, bad times make strong men. Prosperity leads to its own destruction as generations lose sight of the traditions/ethics that led to the prosperity.

The forgetfulness principle works in the stock market as well since generations involved in losing substantial amounts of money will be hesitant to invest in stocks and generations that have never witnessed a bear market will be too brazen by not seeing the value in moderation and caution, which then leads to their destruction and restarts the cycle. Bubbles are built on the backs of the blind

At the same time, it's just as much of a fault of the right to not tolerate the potential of the left to improve and adapt current ways. Less ignorance and more appreciation of where the other "wing" is coming from would do everyone a favour.

Yes I agree, but every advantage has a disadvantage. Dogmatism has it's perks and prickles. The people who drive me crazy with bullheadedness are the most trustworthy I know: they hold themselves to high standards and always keep their word. But if they believe, for instance, that microwave ovens cause cancer, a whole stack of science books isn't going to change their mind.

[Magnus Anderson]

Back to the problem of universals.

Here's a down-to-earth description of the problem:

Tom, Dick and Harry are particulars, individuals. Man is a universal. We know that Tom, Dick and Harry are real; they actually exist. But does man exist?

Of course, Tom is not much of a particular unless it's a reference to some specific point in time. In general, we say that the person that existed yesterday is the same person that exists today. In other words, we treat prrsonal names as a kind of universals. There probably is no clear-cut distinction between universals (general descriptions) and particulars (specific descriptions.) Descriptions are probably only more or less specific/general, particular/universal and concrete/abstract. But that's not the important bit.

The important thing is the question "Does man exist?" Pretty dumb question, isn't it? What does it mean? It makes sense to ask "Do men exist?" That question is rather easy to answer - yes, they obviously do. But is that the question that is being asked? Probably not. What is being asked is does MAN-NESS exist where man-ness is not clearly defined.

We can say man-ness is a reference to the concept of man. The question whether man-ness exists can then be answered with a big yes: man-ness exists in the form of concept.

So there are men, instances of the class "man", and then there is the class "man", which is just a concept.

The same applies to moraility. There are behavioral instances of the class "morality" and then there is the class "morality". Both exist.

[thinker4life]

What exists are values in relation. You as a valuer ascribe value to things, and then you value them also in terms of each other because quite often values are interwoven through each other or you at least need to make choices between them; “morality” is the false deification or primacy of one value over others and without having engaged in that comparison and ranking of values with each other. Morality is nothing more than a word for how people refuse to actually engage their values honestly in relative terms of each other.

Morality is built on an emotional foundation, it is basically a half-emotion that stirs up your feelings at certain times when you would otherwise be required to engage in a value analysts and hierarchizing of values but instead the emotion of morality hits you and destroys your attempt to more deeply understand and rank your values.

Morality as false emotion, morality as laziness, morality as ideology.

Nothing is “right or wrong” unless you say it so, and unless it really is according to you. What are the how’s and why’s of right and wrong according to you? Don’t you feel strange being compelled by morality when you haven’t even worked through that hardly at all?

Morality is the equivalent of an instinct, it is an instinct; a compelling force of feeling that shuts down mental processes that would otherwise have taken place.

And realizing that morality is bullshit doesn’t mean you now have to do all this crazy shit that you thought or still think is wrong, you don’t lose your ability to do value-calculus when you understand the falsity of morality, rather you actually gain the ability to do that value-calculus for the first time. If something seems right or wrong to you then find out why, and compare that to other values and possibilities. Push the analysis as far as you can toward whatever goal you’ve determined, whatever highest value you have.

Morality is blindness and silly religion. When we act according to what seems and feels right or wrong, we are not acting according to morality, we are acting according to our own estimations of values and how and why we self-value as we do, as we must. There is nothing right or wrong outside of what is so for you; after acknowledging this we can then get together and find some agreements or disagreements on that.

Let me ask this for you as a moral relativist: If a moral was agreeable to any and every rational human being would you agree its a universal moral, and that morality was not in fact simply relativistic? (This is one of Kant's definitions of morality... he has two)

[URUZ]

Kant is -- was -- a walking lobotomy.