Christians are hypocritical when they pretend to care about “violence” in and of itself, when the only reason there is a church there in the first place is because of their violence
Odinists are hypocritical because nothing is rightfully anybody’s in reality outside of human society, and they themselves had to conquer that land from somebody else just like Christians conquered before them.
The guy in the video I linked is Vikernes and as far as I know he writes books, makes videos and music about Odinism so yeah, I’m fairly certain he didn’t just use it as an excuse or justification or something.
All subjective actions and their effects happen in an objective world.
There is one set of moral principles which facilitates survival. A different set of principles does not facilitate survival. If both sets are subjective, then what makes one better than the other (in an objective world)?
Are you going to argue that the set which facilitates survival is no better than the other set?
I’ve talked about this extensively with the chimp. What is objectively better can be determined only after you decide on some goal, but the goal itself is subjectively chosen.
If you choose survival as a goal, as something you value, then yes, a set of principles facilitating survival is better. If you value self-destruction and seek to kill yourself, then a set of principles facilitating survival is objectively worse for you.
So the goals in morality are subjective but the principles and the actions they inspire are objective in the context of the goals.
Is that the difference between your views and the views of subjectivists who would say that all of morality is subjective?
Okay, now consider this … evolution has filtered out (most) people who subjectively chose not to survive. They did not pass on their genes. The “survivors” have genes and/or physical chemistry which predisposes them to pick survival as a goal. A physical trait must be objective so the survival goal can be considered objective.
Like I said, subjective and objective do not exclude each other since all subjects are necessarily objects. I do not consider subjective and objective to be contrary to each other and objective morality to me is simply an impossibility for reasons I stated above. Moral rules cannot apply and have validity independently of humans because they are dependent upon humans for their very existence - they are constructed and maintained by humans, and they die with humans. Morality is basically a set of oughts (and ought nots), and oughts cannot be correct or incorrect independently of a particular human’s judgment (which I presume you mean by objective) in the same way statements of what is can be. And the reason statements of what is can be so is that they refer to something outside of human subjective desires and projections, they refer to the objective world.
Obviously we are talking about ‘human morality’. That does not mean that it’s not objective. We can discuss ‘human biology’ and nobody would think it’s astonishing to call it objective. Human biology will also “die with humans”.
As for considering something “constructed and maintained by humans” as somehow outside the realm of the objective … humans can construct a wooden bridge and it will eventually rot and disappear. That doesn’t mean that it was somehow subjective.
BTW, all social animals seem to have some kind of morality, so it’s not entirely restricted to humans. It seems to be an evolutionary adaptation.
When you write stuff like this, you sound like Iambig. This is basically his dasein philosophy. I’m not sure what the difference is between the two of you.
That’s Iambig’s distinction between objective fact and subjective value judgements/identity.
Is there only one morality that people adhere to on this planet?
And even if it were the case on this planet, would it also hold true on another planet? Is it a human thing? A self and socially aware cognitive functions thing?
Was there a universal morality among man in the past?
Will there be one in the future, when man has finally stopped changing because all have fallen to dust?
If we find a universal morality, will it have to be so non-distinctive, such a grand principle of all life forms that it’s ultimately not a morality but a simple observation about living organisms.
Like oxygen is good.
No wait, there might be some bacteria who don’t need oxygen.
Like self-ordering is good.
To me as a layman it would seem that morality has to change if a group wants to survive as the environment changes.
Like if there is a metaphorical cadaver of a civilisation then it’s good to be a maggot and to a maggot cadavers and dead flesh is good.
For the non-maggots there will be different moral frameworks which arise to handle the situation.
But then again maybe morality is to someone else something ideal, something platonic so to speak. Something out there to be discovered like an idea-thing.
If it’s not universal morality then it must mean that any morality will just do fine and there is no truth and all is equal and meaningless, right?
Nope.
The thinking goes like this:
If not everybody da same then everybody is unique snowflake free from reality.
Because reality is social oppressiveness - muh dasein, as some would misappropriate and use that term.
Collectivism or Individualism…
Cannot think outside this dichotomy…
Kaczynski was right, a bunch of over-socialised wretches.
FYI, my posts were not referring to you personally.
But since we are here, yes, there is quite some overlap between those words in what I wrote, I intended so anyway.
The reason why I said that the principles don’t do much themselves is to express that I don’t think that ‘thoughts’ or ‘principles’ themselves exist.
What exists are people who are thinking certain thoughts and people who have and or share certain values, certain principles, more or less.
I said this because I think that the thinking that morality exists as this ‘thing’ is a main component of how they arrive at their thoughts and conclusions about universal morality. Which is fine that they do, but there might be some who are interested in a different kind of thinking.
As for my stance on morality.
It’s not universal, that means, it’s neither god given nor is there a best morality shared among everybody/every group/emerging group.
But btw. that doesn’t mean that I share Biggies outlook on morality.
First of all, just because it’s not universal, doesn’t mean that I think morality is arbitrary or meaningless or that because it’s not universal it’s a failure.
Not at all.
Likewise I don’t believe in a unifying theory in physics. As in, there will ever be one - but that doesn’t mean that I see this as a failing of physics.
Human biology makes claims of is, not ought. That is why it can be evaluated independently of any particular subject. Any type of morality makes claims of ought, and what ought or ought not happen can only be evaluated by other moral agents in accordance with their own needs and desires.
As for iambiguous, I couldn’t give less of a shit what he thinks about anything or if any of my positions overlap with any of his.
iambiguous doesn’t stay consistent with regards to is/ought distinction. He rejects many facts (what is) as if they were subjective and he maintains that we are all obligated by some oughts, namely, “we ought to have a democracy”, despite his nonsense about dasein. The intention of my deconstruction of morality is to see world as it is, underneath all the social constructs. The intention of his deconstruction is to promote his particular set of ideals, including “democracy”, this is why he has to reject certain facts which would prove the ineffectiveness of democracy, and this is why he has to claim the moral highground to promote democracy despite the implication of his deconstruction being that nobody has a moral highground.
And yeah, I don’t think you’ll ever see me interacting with iambiguous again in future, so if laughter is what you’re after you might wait a long time.
Iambig’s statement that “we ought to have a democracy”, is just an expression of his subjective evaluation of the situation.
There is nothing wrong with that attitude within a dasein philosophy. If he changes his mind the next day, there is also nothing wrong with that.
Since you have deconstructed morality and you see the nature of social constructs, then you must see the truth of it and you must agree with him.
“ineffectiveness of democracy” = That’s a social construct that you have adopted but he has rejected in favor of another social construct. (Or intellectual contraption as he calls it.)
No, ineffectiveness of a system can be objectively determined. The problem with iambiguous is that he denies facts like that. Certain things and behaviors are destructive to society and iambiguous denies this as an objective fact (which it is), rather he declares that everybody who thinks like that is “an objectivist” who thinks he has “access to the one true Ideal” etc. etc. Now whether we ought to destroy a society or not is another thing, but it’s just a simple fact that some things contribute to its destruction.
Look, the thing you have to know about iambiguous is that he is inconsistent, and he is inconsistent because he needs to be so in order to achieve his goal of promoting a bullshit system while attacking less bullshitty systems.
So he will say things like ‘I make a division between facts which can be objectively ascertained (what I call ‘is’) and daseiny stuff (what I call ‘ought’)’ but then the moment you mention some fact which makes him uncomfortable or is a bit more abstract than “Mary had an abortion”, he will put it in the same category of daseiny stuff and declare that anybody who acknowledges that fact is an objectivist who thinks they have access to the ideal blah blah blah
Likewise, he will claim all political and moral sets of prescriptions (oughts) are based on dasein and cannot be objectively determined, but the moment you subscribe to anything else but democracy you are an objectivist fascist dictator playing God and you are objectively wrong despite there not being anything as objectively wrong when it comes to prescriptions, according to him.
Again, remember, truth doesn’t mean shit to that imbecile, the sole point of his dasein bullshit is to promote democracy. This implies rejecting facts which are unfavorable to democracy, and it implies rejecting all other oughts contradictory to democracy.
What Christians are you speaking about specifically.
Many today make the mistake of using that word loosely, there are those who profess to be Christian are simply, not.
There are vast differences between the Bible and the Koran and never the two shall meet. For example a woman is seen in the Koran as a second class citizen. She only inherits half of what a man could inherit and in court, two women are equal to one man as a witness.
In heaven, you’ll get a silk sofa, half naked young men to serve you and have many women, 72 to be exact all virgins, but the most glorious is if you die for Allah’s cause, you go directly to heaven. Jesus is not the Son of God and they believe Jesus himself will acknowledge this. At the second coming Jesus will destroy everyone who worships him as God, so only the Moslems will be left.
The origins and history of Islam are interesting, as the wife of Mohammed was a Catholic.
To sum it up briefly what is found in the Koran is, Allah has no Son, he will exterminate all non Moslems and Jesus will testify that He is not God’s Son.
More social benefits in Europe. In the far east there are not even week-ends. Public hospitals are a myth. (Hence the canonization of Mom Teri.) It’s all-out dog-eat-dog world in the far east. Also, man-eat-dog world. Then again, there there is no restriction on human nature. No pretentious piousness and false claims of modesty. You want to screw chicks? You have the money or the power, you do. Have 305 wives if you want to. Nobody will raise an eyebrow. You can murder people at will if you are powerful enough to fend off repercussions.
Of course this is historical reality, up to about the advent of WWI and a bit beyond.
Which is better? I prefer the European system, you know, no work on Sundays, hospitals, employment insurance, health insurance, house insurance, car insurance, insurance insurance. Okay, so I am stuck with the hag I am with, but at least I won’t need to fear for my own life daily. My kids get free education, which is actually something of a mixed blessing. The law protects some of my rights, and I can vote or move residence. I can have intellectual freedom, as much as I can carry home in my cheeks every day. (This was a metaphor.)
Yeah, Europe, with its roots in Abrahamic stuff is better; it is a kinder, gentler place than the far east.
Muslims are incredibly stupid if they are lured by such cheap promises. Sounds more like an American election promise than a real benefit.
Take the 72 virgins, for instance.
What if the dude who died for Allah is gay? These babes will be a sad reminder for him how lonely he is going to be.
And the straight guys… think about it. 72 virgins. If they stay virgins, then there is no fun, is there. So there is an eternity, and he’ll have 72 deflowering. probably within the first few weeks, if I know guys.
What about the rest of eternity?
He’ll have 72 women who are each 84-year-olds in about 50-60 years after his death and ascent into heaven. Some like older women, so 84-year-olds, some who can be well preserved, are still fine.
But what aobut 200 years from then? You fancy yourself with 72 five-hundred-year-old mummies?
And what aobut 20,000 years from then?
And that is just the beginning of eternity.
I am sorry, but I’d rather sign hozhannahs and praise god and call it a day every day than try to get it up with 4945339-year-olds.
People are so stupid for not realizing this. Gods too. People are sold on any idea; God would make the best used-car-salesgod in the world. But He’d fail first semester philosophy or logic.
