Is it wrong to kill someone?
How much do ethics even matter?
Whats the point in life besides stimulating your immediate desires?
Raskolnikov pls
>>787407
>is it wrong to kill someone?
Yes. There are circumstances when it can be permissible, but I won't tell you what those circumstances are, because the best way to avoid an unjust killing is to be unsure of yourself and not go through with it at all. If you need to kill someone no matter what, you'll do it no matter what I tell you.
>How much do ethics even matter?
The whole discussion is really fucking important but don't stress to much about the particulars of which ethical code is the right one and if you're a good person or not. You should only worry if you might kill someone, see the previous paragraph.
>Whats the point in life besides stimulating your immediate desires?
What's the point of having a point? If you're given some objective for life, and you complete that objective, you win some sort of prize? So what?
>>787407
>Is it wrong to kill someone?
In general, yes.
>How much do ethics even matter?
Quite a bit.
>Whats the point in life besides stimulating your immediate desires?
To worship God alone, and follow his commandments.
>>787407
>Is it wrong to kill someone?
if you cant rationalize it. Cold blooded murder: no. Self defense/vigilante justice: maybe. all about circumstance
>How much do ethics even matter?
infinitely so with regards to the will they hold sway over. not so much to an alienated other
>Whats the point in life besides stimulating your immediate desires?
well ^that and i guess holding out on ^that in hopes you can fulfill a better desire. all about the most ideal string of events
>>787407
Depends
Sometimes
Stimulating potential long term desires
Any other answers are just someone else is trying to brainwash you.
>>787407
It isnt intrinsically wrong. It's wrongness depends on certain circumstances (was the person innocent?, do you have authority to kill the person?, are you a soldier in a war?, etc)
A lot, they study how human action ought to take place
You shouldnt stimulate your immediate desires, you should first reflect if those desires have good ends as their object.
>>787407
>Whats the point in life besides stimulating your immediate desires?
hedonism is an ethics too, you know
>>787407
>Is it wrong to kill someone?
Yes.
>How much do ethics even matter?
They carve out the difference between life and death.
>Whats the point in life besides stimulating your immediate desires?
To defeat death; here and everywhere, now and for all time, for all things and people. Then to declare a new age where enlightened creative will reigns instead forever.
>>787407
HEDONISTS GET OUT OF MY BOARD
REEEEEEEEEEE
>>787698
>transhumanism
nice fear of death you have there friend :^)
yes
it is ethics that tells you that it is wrong
mostly life for humans is not about the immediate, we don't go through life satisfied with one meal or one hour at a time. that would be like the alpha lion who only works to look intimidating hunt with by using his massive weight and provide a steady gene repository. although it seems the lion are without planning that is a false description since the alpha lion can only live this way if there is a pride of willing female lions it is they who cannot only live in the immediacy and ultimately it is they who picks the next alpha lion
>>787407
Not only is killing not wrong in of itself, it is a vital process to maintain the health of society in the long run. A society incapable of killing in any case is dysfunctional.
>>787407
Morality is subjective.
Using the term "wrong" implies that you are applying a moral value to an action.
In my opinion, killing isn't morally wrong. It's all about the context. If you make an attempt on my life, or attempt to damage my peers in any way i'm going to kill you. But someone can easily stop from being killed by ceasing the inflammatory actions they're taking.
I'm not going to even address your other questions because they are stupid.
>>788263
>Morality is subjective.
Don't state philosophical standpoints as a fact.
>>787407
Most moral philosophers would claim it to be necessary to kill in certain occasions. It isn't contrary to "ethics" as such to kill, but it may be wrong to kill without a sensible justification (what that justification is is when moral philosophy comes in).
>>787433
>because the best way to avoid an unjust killing is to be unsure of yourself
I disagree with this, in general, but not with this in particular.
Being this kind of sceptic could be harmful to society in large. Since this involves a hidden premise of non-agency being morally neutral, and that is a very liberal way of thinking.
Sometimes action is the most neutral way to act.
>Whats the point in life besides stimulating your immediate desires?
I believe in morality as an objective force of "nature" or the cosmos. Also look up writings about vocation within Christianity, Nietzsche/Kierkegaard and virtue ethics etc., they, according to my reading at least, all try to neglect immediate desires to become greater, but not necessarily fulfilling a transcendent good.
>>788301
>morality is subjective is an opinion
Explain please. I'm not going to challenge you until you explain that morality isn't inherently subjective. I'm open to your thoughts but i initially am going to reject them.
>>788301
>ietzsche/Kierkegaard and virtue ethics etc., they, according to my reading at least, all try to neglect immediate desires to become greater,
Delaying gratification is a meaningless & needless vice, anon.
>>787407
No
Nothing
No point at all
>>788550
>Delaying gratification is a meaningless & needless vice, anon.
Your kindred peoples await you in Somalia.
>>788550
Some gratifications will be built into your character as a whole and be remembered until death and ephemeral pleasures will be forgotten tomorrow.
I'd rather be an uberman than masturbate to porn every 30 minutes.
>>788538
I never stated it was an opinion. Whether morality is subjective or not has a truth value, it may be determinable through an inquiry of reason. Whereas an opinion makes no claim on reality, a philosophical standpoint does.
It is also important to realise what "subjective" has meant throughout the ages. The common medieval distinction is that the subject is the one thinking and the object is the thing being acted upon. Therefore, being "objectified" is basically being reduced from a human subject to its mere representation.
Today "subjectivity" is used to describe "non-science" or "up to opinion". It is important to remember that what the subjects experience, and how the subjects experience, in today's terms could be objective facts. It is an objective fact that I am seeing X, or so. It may not be an empirical fact, but in the term we use "objective", it should be an objective fact.
Therefore, it is possible to do objective research (not necessarily empirical) on subjective experiences. Morality may inherently be relative to intelligence (I believe animals are morally relevant but not moral agents, and that persons (intelligent animals) are moral agents and must abide to moral rules) and its object of study can be subjective experience.
I'd say that humans themselves have a faculty of morality; we have an immanent experience of morality and can grasp the logical concept behind it.
Being sceptical of the existence of morality would be like being sceptical of the existence of a world outside of the solipsist's mind. It would be to deny direct experience of something which we reliably track.
If you deny the reality of morality, you may as well deny the reality of reality, since both rely on the same sceptical argument.
>>788782
I see, it basically boils down to you arguing semantics. You know what i mean when i say morality is subjective.
Clearly we can observe moral structure and interpret the values applied to a structure of common morality.
There is no way i'm going to object to morality being a thing. Of course it's a thing. But morality itself is malleable, there are no hard set of rules the exist universally to judge the objectivity of moral values.
The closest things that exist are religions that define morals in their texts which has influenced the general populations morality for millennia. There are also biological reasons for why some people considering things wrong or bad that are inherited from our evolution.
If you deny morality is subjective you deny the world around you. Morality is subjective and though many moral sets may share common ground it doesn't make for hard and fast rules that apply to every single morality.
>Whats the point in life besides stimulating your immediate desires?
I have developed a personal belief on that.
Right now, all existing people must focus on being a productive citizen who is useful to society.
Pay taxes, abide to the law, protect your country and family, breed if you have good genes, work with something that you're skilled at. Be useful to our progress as civilization.
Following these principles we will be marching towards a glorious future for mankind.
With hard work, in the future, it will be possible to make dreams come true. We will build the Matrioshka Brain, will achieve immoratality, we will live in our own perfect little words, made possible by computers, simulations and mind stimuli, like in the Matrix.
So for the unfortunate people who were born in this part of humankind, the point of our lives is to work hard so in the future, other people will be able to experience supreme happiness forever and without having to care about anything.
(so it's wrong to kill)
>>787407
>be human endowed with one of the most precious evolutionary gifts in the universe: a mind
>why shouldn't I live like an animal in the mud lmao
Kill yourself god I hate you faggots
>>790900
>muh glorious mind
>use it to read shitposts on the internet and harbor intense hatred for imaginary people
>>787407
>Is it wrong to kill someone?
yes
>How much do ethics even matter?
if you want to function amongst your peers and keep yourself happy; a lot I suppose
>Whats the point in life besides stimulating your immediate desires?
to learn all you can for your afterlife within the boundless cosmos
>>787407
>Is it wrong to-
ultimately speaking, no
>do ethics even matter?
ultimately speaking, nothing does
>Whats the point in life
ultimately speaking, there is none
but by my own values
>Is it wrong to kill someone?
With the power to show mercy comes the responsibility to do so
>How much do ethics even matter?
That's sort of vague. You mean the study of ethics? That depends on how much you already understand. You mean having ethics? I suppose I value my own ethics quite a bit.
>Whats the point in life besides stimulating your immediate desires?
Stimulating your distant desires you shortsighted piece of cannon fodder!
