Hey /his/,
Why do we still continue to use a non-existent human construct to define the way we behave and think.
Morality is the enemy of efficiency and will slow the progression of our species.
The whole basis of behaving and thinking according to our feelings is the one of humanity's greatest flaws.
Can someone prove me wrong?
>>474866
>morality
Not our problem mate. We do ethics and power and the past as it essentially happened here. For morality go over to /pol/, they handle the "ought"s.
>>474871
And constantly get called a nigger and a jew?
No, i want the actually intelligent minds of /his/ to help me out with this.
>>474876
>And constantly get called a nigger and a jew?
>No, i want the actually intelligent minds of /his/ to help me out with this.
Fuck off mate. Off-topic. Fuck off to where it is on-topic or one of the off-topic boards.
We handle "is" around here, not "ought." That's why we're >actually intelligent.
>>474866
The presumption that emotion is flawed and the implication that cold efficient reason is the right way to progress our species is in fact a series of moral judgments.
>Emotion is Wrong
>Reason is Right
>Progress is Right
>Regression is Wrong
>Morality is Regressive, and therefore Wrong
There are no rational basis for these claims, you are working from a framework of Morality and are not only trapped by your own argument but have incidentally recreated the concept of Original Sin since your attempts to escape Morality require a Moral judgment.
>>474866
Objective morality is so easy to define
If it hurts someone else, it's immoral (cheating on your partner)
If it doesnt hurts someone else, it's not immoral (consensual incest between adults)
Laws obviously dont follow this rule though, as evidenced by the two exemples above
>>474866
You don't even know what morality is you nigger.
> Hey guys, I think we should ditch morality and replace it with this morality
This is what you're saying,
>>474866
Having values is part of our nature. Your post indicates that you have values too, you just need to sufficiently distinguish yours from the one's you don't like so that you know what it is you're really attacking and you can communicate that to others.
>>474871
>>474879
This is a philosophical issue, not politics. "Ought" is a relevant matter whether you like it or not.
>>474890
That doesn't establish an objective morality, it only establishes that you think hedonism is the correct normative theory.
>>474903
>This is a philosophical issue, not politics. "Ought" is a relevant matter whether you like it or not.
Philosophy does ethics, not morality.
>>474879
>morality
>off topic
>on a board that has a sticky expressly mentioning philosophy
Perhaps /b/ is more your speed, anon. I hear they too love to be ignorant.
>>474866
For starters, humans inventing logic and rhetoric kinda renders one of your point moot. Morals are just one of the things that make humans what we are. If humans had no morals, we would be no better than beasts.
>>474908
Many people proved you wrong by pointing out that the exact thing you reject is implicit in our comments.
>>474909
It does both considering that the two terms are mostly interchangeable and in the special cases where they aren't interchangeable, they still fall under the purview of philosophy. Simply stating that it isn't philosophy doesn't erase the fact that it's been part of philosophy for as long as philosophy has existed.
>>474919
Yes i know that.
i was thanking them.
>>474919
*implicit in your comments.
>human construct
>'usable'
>affects our thoughts and behaviors
>'slows progress'
>an enemy of efficiency
>somehow at the same time 'non-existent'
Which is it, Opie? Real or not real? As not real as the computer you're typing on? Or as not real as the words you're typing?
>>474924
ah, okay.
>>474919
>morality is philosophy
I'll thank you kindly to fuck off to your containment board.
>>474930
Morality isn't equivalent to philosophy, it's within the domain of philosophy though and, again, pretending it isn't within the domain of philosophy doesn't actually make it so.
>>474933
It has never been in the realm of philosophy. The greatest Sophist of them all demonstrates why. They make all the American undergraduates read Plato's logs of the incident because sep cunts are way too religious.
>>474930
>Ethics or moral philosophy is the branch of philosophy that involves systematizing, defending, and recommending concepts of right and wrong conduct. The term ethics derives from the Ancient Greek word ἠθιkός ethikos, which is derived from the word ἦθος ethos (habit, "custom").
Pls go and stay go.
>>474942
Dicdefs, the first stop of the cretinous.
>>474940
>It has never been in the realm of philosophy.
It has always been in the realm of philosophy and what follows in your post doesn't indicate anything to the contrary.
>The greatest Sophist of them all demonstrates why.
Are you talking about Callicles? How exactly does he show that?
>>474943
abbrevs, the first stop of the faggot shitposter
>>474866
>"prove me wrong"thread
Gravity was created by the burgoise to exploit the working class' jumping power. Prove me wrong.
Earth is a banana not a globe. Prove me wrong.
Jellyfish are actually jews in disguise that will take over Earth from the ocean. Prove me wrong.
This meme must die.
>>474908
You can't be proven wrong because your question is nonsense.
A mile is green, prove me wrong.
>>474945
>Callicles
Think harder mate. S____tes
>>474951
His question made sense, he just undermined himself.
>>474943
Your intellect shown thus far isn't worth a typed rebuttal. Copypaste from Wikipedia is all you're getting out of me.
>>474958
Socrates wasn't a sophist though. Also, he makes moral arguments. Do you even read philosophy?
>>474962
Keep pushing your list of norms up hill mate, keep pushing. Their universality is guaranteed by a first cause whose person and commands lie well outside of field.
I hope that worms invade the soles of your feet.
>>474962
If you're saying "morality stands in way for progress" you're just saying that "morality stays in the way for my morality, since I value progress". Whatever he claims "morality" is. it's so ill-define I'd claim it's nonsense.
>>474968
I assume you were trying to respond to me. What you're pointing out is what many others already pointed out. He's given the name "morality" to something he doesn't like when, really, he has moral views of his own. For that reason, his point is either contradictory or translates roughly into how you translated it which, yes, would become a matter of lacking definitions. In neither case is that nonsense, it's just poorly thought out.
>>474962
Just stop responding to that guy. He's clearly at a point where he can't grasp just how little he grasps. Combine that with arrogance and you get these sort of guys.
>>474968
Read the comment chain. Your quoted post is a result of suggestions that morals are not part of philosophy. It's not a result of OPs assertion that morality impedes progress.
>>474963
>Socrates wasn't a sophist though.
Lel.
>>474979
You don't seem to read more than the words.
>>474983
Provide some evidence for your heterodox interpretations then and, at the very least, stop assuming that everyone else shares your bizarre views.
>>474979
Might like to start with the IEP article m88 http://www.iep.utm.edu/sophists/
>>474988
Might like to read the third paragraph:
"Plato and Aristotle nonetheless established their view of what constitutes legitimate philosophy in part by distinguishing their own activity – and that of Socrates – from the sophists."
The only other mentions of Socrates are in Aristophanes' satire and the only thing that looks like it would come close to justifying your position is in the fact that the term "sophist" was used very loosely to refer to wise men until it came to have a stricter definition, even by the time of Socrates encounter with Gorgias.
>>474996
The trial of Socrates and Athenian reception of Socrates as a sophist are also, extensively, discussed.
>>475006
Correct. Why do you see that as relevant?
>>475008
Why do you see desperate nationalist 19th century receptions of the sophist Socrates, or Plato and Aristotle's receptions as peculiarly privileged?
>this thread
Jesus Christ you idiots.
Plato, Aristotle, Spinoza, Hume, Kant, Mill, Neitzsche
Read them then come back and have a discussion that isnt god awful.
>>475012
What makes you think I do? I don't know of anyone who has argued that Socrates was a sophist other than in the looser sense which predated his own encounters with actual sophists. The fact that Athenians called him a sophist doesn't actually make him one anymore than someone calling a dog a cat would make that dog into a cat.
>>475016
What a great contribution to the discussion. I've read all of them so I'd be happy to discuss whatever you'd like.
>>475025
>Nor does saying he isn't make him not.
That's right, so since you were the one making the original claim that he is, one would think you'd have a reason for making that claim. Unfortunately, you haven't provided one, let alone one which would be relevant to your broader and even more laughable point that moral philosophy isn't philosophy. Given your temperament and the quality of your previous posts, I suspect you're going to ask me to prove that Socrates wasn't a sophist and, if I can't, then it must mean that you're right. I'd be happy to discuss more reasons why Socrates isn't properly understood as a sophist but we could start with the article you linked me which explicitly distinguishes Socrates from the sophists and which you embarrassingly thought was claiming that Socrates was a sophist in anything but a loose sense.
>>475037
The article's section on 19th century receptions of Sophists points out precisely how the earnest need to produce Socrates as a non-sophist was belied by the character of Socrates in Plato's works.
Reading Socrates as the greatest of the Sophists is a very interesting exercise in and of itself.
>>475044
>Reading Socrates as the greatest of the Sophists is a very interesting exercise in and of itself.
Maybe so, but again, that doesn't establish what it would mean for him to be a sophist, glosses over the important differences between him and the sophists, and has no clear relevance to the assertion that moral philosophy isn't philosophy despite the thousands of years of moral philosophy in existence.
>>474866
Check up the Categorical imperative by Immanuel Kant.
>Act only according to that maxim whereby you can, at the same time, will that it should become a universal law
It's the best test to check if you are morally right or wrong.
"Morality is the enemy of progress"
Lol what a load. The shit you hipsters will come up with. Next time you're hopped up on 3 mocha lattes on a row don't go posting trash like this okay chief
