Without religion what reason do you have to be moral? Any authors who discuss this topic?
because i'm a pussy and i feel bad when im not nice to people
sam harris
richard dawkins
Sartre
>>7719223
any authors who aren't retards?
>>7719219
Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and a large part of the Canon. Start with the Greeks.
>>7719219
>Without religion what reason do you have to be moral?
Realizing there is no god is the only way to be moral. You don't get credit for doing something only because you fear punishment if you don't.
>>7719235
but how can you claim that there is a moral order and that there is any reason to adhere to it without god?
>>7719219
The presupposition here being that morality is only inherent to religion, outside of which it cannot exist because religion is a closed system with universal moral values? You dare suggest that even the chinamen share the morality of the great Teutonic races?
>>7719244
no mate, im just asking what reason there is to be moral if there is no god
>>7719219
Morality, ethics, right conduct have never derived from religion. Religion is a story, a mesh laid on top. For that reason, religionists, (conventionally in America on the political right), are wrong.
What has always, only, and ever happened up to this point, is that a human nature has persisted. For that reason, Marxists and associates (conventionally in America on the political left) are wrong.
What is actually going on, is that it is scientifically and narratively tenable to speak of a human nature which persists in the absence of religious truth. It happens that this is a much better view of things, and has the happy effect of repudiating both of the above unfortunates.
What is actually going on is that, regardless of one's opinion toward the theory of evolution, the well-formed (and even most of the malformed) humans who have existed throughout history have had an awareness of the future consequences of their actions, especially as relates by the recognized capacity for recognition of same in fellow-species-organisms. Thus the golden rule (which truth some dilettante will now be obliged to snipe about due to its perceived banality, rather than acknowledging why it is an extremely common observation), thus codes of conduct in general.
The reason for being moral has always been the same, just clothed in various obscurantist ways. The reason to be "good", is so that others who will remember, don't fuck with you. Once people know that they can get away with something, most have no problem doing so. Hence abortions, divorces...
This is wonderfully efficient. Even if you get God out of your life, your animal and human nature both still persist, again much to the dismay of the above two groups of idiots. Your animal nature is what obliged you to "be good", back then, as now, as after you've got rid of God. It is no detriment to this train of thought, that Lavey thought along similar lines.
>implying religion gives you reason to be moral
dude, you're missing out on all the good ones >>>/x/
If you start acting like an ass people will just ostracize and eventually imprison you, maybe even kill or severely harm you.
Dosent matter what some book says
Lawrence Kohlberg: Stages of Moral Development
Level 1 (Pre-Conventional)
1. Obedience and punishment orientation
(How can I avoid punishment?)
2. Self-interest orientation
(What's in it for me?)
(Paying for a benefit)
Level 2 (Conventional)
3. Interpersonal accord and conformity
(Social norms)
(The good boy/girl attitude)
4. Authority and social-order maintaining orientation
(Law and order morality)
Level 3 (Post-Conventional)
5. Social contract orientation
6. Universal ethical principles
(Principled conscience)
>>7719284
You realize I can boil all this down to "muh feelings" and summarily dismiss it, right?
>>7719412
Cont'd
This is from an academic paper, not literature ( but who cares?).
>>7719219
Altruism is found in nature, religion is just a container for that.
>>7719323
Societal norms, conformity.
The people in books can codify things so there is a point of reference people can use, so you don't have to always say, "if you kill people , you go to jail...'
>>7719420
Yeah you could, but that's no credit to you. Rather, your choice of appellation of "feels" says more about you than the above correct train of thought.
Anyone can fling shit at anything, Nuh-Uh whatever they want. What is special about what I've sketched is its general application to human history. It is for example not some modern, western fiction about everything, simply informed by prior western fictions, for you to tut-tut. It is the perennial case.
Or if it weren't, then it would be a simple matter for you to explode, but you really can't.
>>7719420
you realize this is just 'muh autusm' and is a shitpost, right?
Why hasn't anyone said Dostoyevsky yet?
>>7719219
> Any authors who discuss this topic?
Yes.
> Without religion what reason do you have to be moral?
It seems that reason on its own is already sufficient for most of the tasks of human morality. For example, secular reason lets us: for laws that can hold for everyone equally, structuring a self-consistent ethical order of interacting moral agents here on earth; come to conclusions about what we want in the world and how we want to behave, judging what kinds of actions are within our power from those we can't do.
This ethical/political order yielded by human reason alone is plenty for guiding human affairs. But such a moral system cannot be grounded upon beliefs about God, because the existence of a god is something that the human mind, by the very nature of its powers for knowing, can neither prove nor disprove. Thus, founding morality upon a religious basis is actually detrimental to morality, because ethics then inherits the uncertainties intrisnsic to religious beliefs. If morality only presupposes reason itself, however, that problem doesn't emerge, because reason is itself the very judge of certainty and uncertainty, consistency and inconsistency, knowledge and error.
>>7719493
> secular reason lets us: form laws
Fixed.
If you don't I'll kick your ass
>>7719219
You need to behave 'morally' for the privilege to live in a society.
>>7719420
u could reduce everything to "muh feelies" if ur autistic enough
go wank off to "muh realies" on /sci/ with the rest of the other autists
>>7719503
Penetrating.
Identify and refute, if you want, these errors - I disagree with Kant plenty. But I'm expecting, based on your derision, that you couldn't stomach enough of his texts to get as deep a grasp as you think you have - an understanding of him from which you could discover some devastating counterargument.
>>7719505
Is this a question?
Your original post should have been: Atheists have no morality : I will contradict all evidence to the contrary
. .
The morality of the Christian is little better than a child avoiding a spanking
>>7719505
but if one chooses to reject the privilege of living in a society does that grant them free rein to act immorally?
Morality is intrinsically religious.
As in, '''''''good'''''' deeds are not good unless motivated by religion.
For whatever reason, fedoralords dislike this truth claiming 'omg ur not rly mrl' and other bullcrap without realizing that it is much better than selfish '''''morality''''''
Any ''''good'''' action done for non-religious reasons are not moral actions because they are entirely arbitrary. Morality is objective, at the simplest level it is an absolute good/evil dichotomy. Morality is objective for the same reasons why secular actions are not moral; because actions done in the name of the self or society or whatever else are arbitrary.
>>7719225
My point exactly; Sartre believed that, somehow, '''''''good'''''' deeds done for arbitrary reasons is somehow superior than the same done for religious reasons.
Despite serving a perfect or at least greater being, being much less arbitrary than serving oneself.
>>7719544
>The morality of the Christian is little better than a child avoiding a spanking
if we're feeling a bit reductive today then
>the morality of the atheist is little better than "I won't kill you because self preservation"
>>7719493
>The ethical/political order yielded by human reason alone is plenty for guiding human affairs.
So, go read The Dialectic of Enlightenment and regret everything you just typed.
>>7719556
> Laws are not moral
Agreed; laws are the conditon of morality; that is, only actions/decisions are moral or immoral.
> they cast judgement and are thereby evil.
Well, they allow for judgments to be cast, such judgments being based off of them in comparison with empirical events. You yourself have just judged, somehow, that they are "evil," which presupposes some criteria by which to judge evil from not-evil (unless everything is "evil" and the word's significance totally evaporates).
Laws of reason are such criteria.
If you're not religious your actions and "morality" are defined by whatever is in your best self-interest, or rather whatever feels good at the time.
>>7719554
atheist "morality" is non existent
>>7719567
>Agreed; laws are the conditon of morality; that is, only actions/decisions are moral or immoral.
No they aren't.
>empirical events
>reason
Arbitrary.
>>7719571
morality exists?
>>7719574
according to the religious yes
>>7719561
> Here's a title from the Frankfurt School.
> Well, that's a sufficient counterargument.
I have no doubt Horkheimer has interesting things to say - I hope to read them myself one day. But until there's some detail and description of a competing argument and worldview, our exchange is going to be damn dull.
>>7719576
Must morality be believed to be objective?
>>7719577
Your entire argument can be refuted by asking you to defend your utilitarianism and pragmatism, you realize this right?
Because neither can be defended without the other; they're mutually-dependant.
Utilitarianism can only be defended by claiming it to be pragmatic, and vice versa.
It's absolutely arbitrary.
It astounds me that people actually make and browse through these threads instead of reading philosophy and actually understanding the different arguments.
>>7719586
Who the hell is talking about utilitarianism? Or pragmatism?
>>7719595
You, It's the basis of your argument.
Or are you admitting your ideological nonsense is all just arbitrary?
>>7719493
I really hate assholes like you, so I'm going to respond.
>reason on its own is already sufficient for most of the tasks of human morality.
Ignoring the fact that you phrased this like a pretentious twat, you're wrong. "Reason", despite how much you want to elevate it to being the voice of "higher-authority" within your structure for how humanity ought to govern itself, falls apart (on a number of levels) when you examine it closely (Do you even know what you mean by "reason" anyway?).
That which we describe to be "reasonable" or a source of "reason" is in a constant state of destruction and creation. "Reason" describes nothing more than the conceptual relationship between ideas within the epistemic framework within which it's employed (ex: It's reasonable to think X because of Y; Humans once thought animals were incapable of feelings and emotion--turns out that's not the case though would you look at that, despite it being "reasonable" at a certain point in time). But the problem that's arisen (thanks a lot Enlightenment) is that now "reason" has been elevated to some form of objective authority, divorced from humanity (despite being created by humans), that can somehow magically determine how individuals ought to act and think correctly in every given circumstance.
tl;dr "reason" is relative with the time and does nothing more than obscure motives and impose an epistemic hierarchy that is flawed and prone to error just like anything else.
>>7719556
>Slave
i prefer pragmatist, its no good rousing up a hive you cant handle
Its not like you guys are making any serious moral statements by jerking off on 4chan, this is all birdtalk
>>7719581
did I say or even imply that?
>>7719603
I can easily "defend" it by
>i have no desire to cause uproars that will neither serve me or those around me
What I am interested in is how that translates as "slave" thinking for you.
>mfw pseudointellectual dorks shit out high-school level moral relativism as if it's revolutionary
>>7719620
fuck i forgot to attach a face to the post oh god the shame
>>7719620
Thats what im saying, then they wake up in the morning to wipe their ass and go to school and work like everyone else
It's fucking bullshit with no basis in action
>>7719622
Le smug anime face
>>7719620
>babby's first EPIC Hitchslap!!!! compilation vol.1
I blame New Atheism for this
>>7719533
nobody rightly believes in the normative reason. it is over for kant.
>>7719238
Why not invent moral order? If God can dictate a moral order and attempt to enforce it, why can't you?
>>7719629
i bet you blame new atheism for a lot of things
>>7719638
>>7719659
Without getting in anyy debate. I would recomend CS Lewis to OP. He's direct, simple and a modern place to start. Then move to more complex
>>7719624
There are real world consequences from not adhering to the status quo, anon. People don't fall in line because they think it's right, it's because they get fucked over if they don't.
>>7719618
That's utilitarianism.
>>7719660
>baby's first epic bitchslap!!!! vol. 2
>>7719596
You're confused if you think that the formalized ethics I described in >>7719493 imply or assume utilitarianism, or consequentialism of any type. Nowhere does it say that rational moral principles arise from how much happiness results from an action, or on any kind of empirical consequence. This is pretty basic consequentialist vs. deontological vs. virtue ethics 101.
>>7719598
You're missing the marks of the relevant issue (Kant's morality built on secular reason) by asking questions and phrasing examples that you probably never would if you knew the material well enough (especially well enough to justify your bickering demeanor).
Courtesy tends to make it better for everyone.
> Do you even know what you mean by "reason" anyway?
In this Kantian context, the faculty of reason is that innate power of the human mind that: draws logical inferences (and is thus crucial for our planning and choosing behaviors and goals in the world); seeks to explain as much as possible about the natural world by always asking about remoter causes and conditions; supplies the rules by which formal systems are internally consistent or inconsistent.
> "Reason" describes nothing more than the conceptual relationship between ideas within the epistemic framework within which it's employed (ex: It's reasonable to think X because of Y; Humans once thought animals were incapable of feelings and emotion--turns out that's not the case though would you look at that, despite it being "reasonable" at a certain point in time)
You're lumping together too many different kinds of judgments under the term "reason;" authors like Kant spend excruciating detail separating the different kinds of conclusions and judgements we form, because such detail and precision helps us avoid problems that would arise from ambiguity. In this case, reason can operate in empirical conclusions about the natural world, and thus might be more or less plausible or supported by evidence, like in the case of the feelings of other animals; but reason also operates in mathematical and logical operations, where the results can be formally proven, not merely scientifically inducted. So at best you basically bring up the well-acknowledged point that reason is more reliable in some domains of application than in other domains. But if you're arguing that the fallibility of some rational inferences invalidates or weakens *all* rational inferences, you've still got your arguing work cut out for you - because as yet, such an argument is itself merely a hasty generalization. Related to this, you run the risk of devaluing reason so much that you undermine your own ability to defend any rational argument at all.
> now "reason" has been elevated to some form of objective authority, divorced from humanity (despite being created by humans
Where have I ever described moral principles that go beyond human minds, human societies, and the human world of earthly events?
>>7719634
Maybe, and maybe for the better - but it's the arguments themselves that are interesting, that matter. So far this thread has had barely any.
>>7719674
>virtue
Arbitrary, and in this context an extension of utilitarianism.
You don't know what you're talking about, stop posting.
You keep trapping yourself into this arbitrary cycle, and think that is sound logic.
By the way: your entire post makes several utilitarian and pragmatic moral claims, you inconsistent bastard.
>>7719238
nobody said there was a reason
>>7719556
^^ this poster is a sperg edge lord
>>7719692
>i cant argue HAHAHA AUTISM EDGY [other memes go here]
>>7719674
Shit posting at its finest.
Welcome to lit, the only place where freshman that took one course over Kant try to defend "virtues" that were created by man for the sake of furthering their own claims to certain actions.
Seems to me like you don't seem to understand Kant and are just trying to employ circular reasoning to justify an arbitrary system of virtues.
>>7719694
I woudlnt waste time arguing with someone that calls people slaves and says society is evil lol
>>7719687
"Virtue" ethics is simply one that is often contrasted with consequentialism and deontology in introductory ethics classes; regardless of its connection to utilitarianism, my point was that your charging Kant with utilitarianism makes it look like you aren't familiar with the basics of ethical terminology.
The real problem is that you didn't elaborate on your views about utilitarianism and Kant with any details or arguments, you just made a claim without defending it.
> your entire post makes several utilitarian and pragmatic moral claims, you inconsistent bastard
And you still havent't defended this claim! You just keep asserting it, but no constructive conversation can come without you providing some actual substance and implications.
> You don't know what you're talking about, stop posting
Yet my posts actually include details.
>>7719412
>punishment
It's shit.
>>7719704
Please stop. You've bastardized Kant enough.
>>7719674
Are you purposefully or accidentally misconstruing his arguments and making leaps and claims that don't exist? (You make the leap that objective authority must imply metaphysical authority; wrong.)
>>7719695
Your presumptions are adorable.
Feel free to display your grasp of Kant; so far I've been the only one to offer any descriptions of his system. The rest of the time I've been trying to get anons to back up their mere assertions; your accusation of circularity is yet another that, conveniently, lacks any supporting examples or inferences.
>>7719723
>presumptions
No, it is more than blatant that you don't understand a thing you are posting and are using an authoritative tone to counteract your stupidity and downright ignorance.
>>7719695
I'm on your side, but I'm smart enough to pinpoint exactly where his reasoning gets circular. Help me out, anon?
>>7719732
*NOT smart enough, oops. I definitely need help!
>>7719720
> misconstruing his arguments and making leaps and claims that don't exist? (You make the leap that objective authority must imply metaphysical authority; wrong.)
This one example is not a leap or an error in Kant's system. The conditions of objectivity for the empirical world are the very conditions that provide metaphysical knowledge; these conditons are the faculties of the human mind - sensibility, understanding, reason, and reflecting judgment. If a metaphysical judgemnt is true, then like any synthetic a priori judgment, it will apply to the *objects* of experience,
Similarly, conditons of practical objectivity - deriving as they do from the faculty of reason - are also bound up with the conditons of metaphysical knowledge and, in the case of morals, practical thought. The fact is that for Kant, there can be objective pronouncements of morality founded on the authority of metaphysics - as is more than hinted at by the title "Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals."
So what misconstruals are you talking about?
>>7719752
>sensibility, understanding, reason, and reflecting judgment.
Exactly what I mean; you list non-existent properties as authorities.
You don't know what you're talking about.
>>7719759
It's literally Kantian psychology. If this is so unfamiliar to you, you're in no place to judge who does or doesn't know what they're talking about.
>>7719769
>unfamiliar
Yes Anon, pointing out the flaws in something means you are unfamiliar!
Kantian does not intrinsically mean 'right'.
all these faggot nerds living in basements won't stfu about philosophy
>>7719773
> Kantian does not intrinsically mean 'right'.
Have you actually been reading my posts?
>>7719533
>>7719681
>>7719723
>>7719732
Let's assume that "reason" is an innate power of the human mind that draws logical inferences, attempts to explain the natural world, and supplies the rules for formal systems.
What determines whether or not something is reasonable (having the quality of being the subject of reason)? Reason?
>>7719786
> What determines whether or not something is reasonable (having the quality of being the subject of reason)? Reason?
The Kantian premise (though not one arbitrarily asasumed) is that the faculty of reason generates its own original laws; reason is an active, spontaneous faculty that functions in the same way in each human mind, allowing all humans to reason together and form basically the same inferences.
Kant would say that we have to start at bedrock somewhere in our philsophical account of the world and the mind - and his perspective led him to attribute that bedrock to the subject's mind itself, which doesn't strike me as any less plausible than attributing some kind of self-accounting principle in matter energy or strings or in God. After all, your mind is ultimately where your judgements come from, after all the options are weighed and all external authorities consulted - and even if you decide that you should question and reflect upon your own mind, it's still a conclusion that your mind drew, using reason to infer what "should" be done. Likewise, if I argue that reason can't be appealed to, I attempt to *use* reason to structure my very argument against reason, and by thus always employing that which I try to demolish, I can't succeed at my attempted goal.
So in these ways (and others that Kant would elaborate) it seems that reason *reveals itself* to be an authority, a spontaneous source of human forms of thinking, that we have to appeal to eventually, and can usefully appeal to as basic.
>>7719848
So, completely arbitrary reasons and based on countless presumptions and fallacies.
>Morality is exclusive to religion
lol
>>7719942
'muh feelings' isn't morality.
>>7719956
'muh skydaddie wants it' isn't either.
>>7719919
> completely arbitrary reasons
Examples you've given: 0
> countless presumptions and fallacies.
Examples you've given: 0
It should be easy to support your accusations of error, since the errors you're finding are apparently so rife.
So why do you instead take the opposite tactic - exactly the tactic you would take if you only wanted to talk big without the ability to back it up? If you're not merely doing this infantile teasing, it should be effortless for you to show it.
Vonnegut
>>7719491
>Why hasn't anyone said Dostoyevsky yet?
What? Because OP specified
>Without religion
"Laws and morals, of themselves, would be very insufficient. Law regulates only fome actions- religion embraces all. Law arrests the arm; religion regulates the heart. Law relates only to the citizen; religion controuls the man.
What would morals avail society, if they remained clouded and obscure in the losty regions of science, if religious institutions did not bring them down, and render them perceptible to vulgar?
Abstract morals, without positive precepts, would leave reason without a standard; without religious tenets, would be like justice without tribunals."
- Jean-Étienne-Marie Portalis -
>>7720932
>le skydaddy ME ME
You're wrong by the way, the laws of an absolute being are in-fact the foundation of morality.
>>7720961
That's not a rebuttal, it's yet another fallacy.
>muh history
>my correct thoughts
Is fallacious at the core, yet you keep using this nonsense.
Damned empiricists.
>>7721129
I've given many examples, sweetie; you just perpetually refuse to listen and instead, stroke your own ego and idol-worship a man who agreed with me.
You are entirely fallacious, yet expect more than simple recognition from me; my lord you're like--somebody who lies or otherwise causes trouble on the internet for attention!
>>7719635
>why can't you?
Because no human is all-knowing?
What you are suggesting sounds an awful lot like dictatorship, which only works with a leader that is perfect in every sense of the word. Like God.
the idea of the just can be ideal in itself, without some label such as Christianity or even Jewish god, as man live as part of society which can be a reason in itself that can invoke without any clear established sources such as the bible the image of the just society to draw from when reflecting on morals issue.
>>7721532
> I've given many examples, sweetie; you just perpetually refuse to listen
Anons are free to read your posts and mine and see which ones contain the many examples.
> You are entirely fallacious, yet expect more than simple recognition from me
I expect the ARGUMENTS to get more than a simple (in this case, simplistic) recognition from you. I could not have been clearer about this, as my posts show. I'm interested in substantive competing arguments - you've shown interest in playing psychologist of egos, obsessed with the arguers.
>>7719552
>Any ''''good'''' action done for non-religious reasons are not moral actions because they are entirely arbitrary
What?
>>7721605
>arguments
There is no need for any such argument because you have no sound argument yourself.
>examples
Another fallacy: "i make bigger posts so im right"
Claiming reason is the reason why reason is the basis of morality isn't sound, you must realize this.
>>7719238
That moral order exists within us, as part of our social nature, what we are biologically. It's a fact of our species as a whole, not one of the universe as a whole.
>>7721634
>Claiming reason is the reason why reason is the basis of morality isn't sound, you must realize this.
Now your counter-argument might be emerging. If you want to argue against the authority of reason, you'll have to address:
>>7719848
>we have to start at bedrock somewhere in our philsophical account of the world and the mind
>>7719674
>you run the risk of devaluing reason so much that you undermine your own ability to defend any rational argument at all.
>>7721648
>Now
Yes, you must be a troll. There was at least one other pointing the exact same thing LAST NIGHT.
>we have to start at bedrock somewhere in our philsophical account of the world and the mind
Defend this or it's trashed; you've only made a statement with no absolute defence.
>you run the risk of devaluing reason so much that you undermine your own ability to defend any rational argument at all.
'Reason' and 'rationality' don't exist, they're myths invented to defend arbitrary ideologies.
Morality exists because other humans exist, and if you sympathize with other people to the point of forming a society,where everyone assumes each person is important for the well being of the rest, you don't fuck with them.
Morality is sociology, not theology.
>>7719238
Why would you need a god to do good?
It's basically all biology.
Humans have a drive to reproduce.
You will not find a partner by doing bad shit.
You will find a partner by doing good shit.
Survival is easier if you know how to cooperate with others than try to survive solo.
Humans are social animals. Group mentality reigns supreme.
A god seems totally redundant to me.
But let's assume there is a god. He doesn't seem to stop people from murdering, stealing, raping, lying and all that other sinful shit. So I really don't think it matters if there is a god or not.
I tend not to believe there is a god, just because it's redundant, there is no proof, and if there was a god, he's either cruel, completely inept or totally indifferent, unconcerned and totally uncaring.
>>7719238
Because humans are a social animal and (aside from the fact that we've evolved to, usually, derive some satisfaction from helping others) there are certain acts that, if they were socially acceptable (e.g. murder, theft, etc.), would cause society to fall apart or, at least, result in the lives of all but the most powerful to be miserable, stressful, and short. Morality should be born of logic (most of it simple). For example: "Stealing, while it may benefit an individual, harms society, as a whole and, if it becomes the norm, is, potentially, harmful to those who would use it to their benefit by making them just as likely targets as anyone else.".
Given, we, also, need some means of reinforcing these rules, since logic just isn't going to be enough for many people. We've established means of punishing offenders, then, and this, along with logic, deters most people from committing crimes.
Unfortunately, there are still plenty of people who get away with crimes, but that's the best that we have. Some people are still going to commit acts that are harmful to the whole and we just have to do our best to maintain order.
Religion gives people another reason to behave, so long as people truly fear otherworldly punishment. Those that don't, those that believe that they can go to church, apologize, and be absolved, and those who are aware that there's no verified examples of a higher power actually punishing offenses aren't going to give two hoots about what priests say.
>>7721668
Nope, that's not morality.
That's 'muh feelings'
>>7721674
>biology
Science is wrong, though.
>and if there was a god, he's either cruel, completely inept or totally indifferent, unconcerned and totally uncaring.
Oh, you're just a troll.
As verified by:
>You will not find a partner by doing bad shit.
>You will find a partner by doing good shit.
Rape.
>>7721680
>humans are 'this way'
Nope; defend this absolutely or stop posting.
>>7721680
The first half of your post is Kants idea that if an action is maximised, everyone does it, and society falls apart as a result it's bad.
The second half is that God is derived from morality, not the other way around.
Your life would be much easier if you wrote your ideas in a more concise way
>>7721690
you are not a very good christian
>>7721690
Not them but I think they meant "muh feelings" is why morality exists at all, not how to judge if an action is moral or not
>>7721710
Then it's not morality.
>>7721718
Correct, there is no such thing as morality. People behave in a given way because of muh feelings, and we justify this using God as a basis for "morality"
>>7721728
Nope, morality exists.
>muh hat means there is no god and no divine law
>>7721728
at this point its seems you talk on different meanings which only shared by symbols.
>>7721731
Nope, morality doesn't exist.
We'll just go round in circles forever.
>>7721744
I think
>will of an absolute being
Overrides
>feelings of non-entity
>>7721690
>says science is wrong
Confirmed troll or just retard.
>>7721752
>science is right i dun seen it!
Empiricism does not confirm empiricism, like rationalism does not confirm rationalism.
A thread full of undergrads, how disgusting.
>>7721751
But the absolute being is a non entity. Unless you can prove otherwise?
>>7721690
>humans are 'this way'
>Nope; defend this absolutely or stop posting.
>absolutes
If you can defend any argument about morality absolutely, your argument is flawed somewhere along the line. Morality is, simply, the name that we give to behaviors that we find advantageous to us, as a whole. It's not tangible and you can't test for it. That's the most accurate answer that you're going to get.
>>7721756
>says empiricism does not confirm empiricism
>nobody ever said it did
you can't even do basic comprehensive reading, go back to school kid
>>7721777
Yes. A perfect being is a non entity. It is an entity that does not exist.
>>7721690
>Science is wrong, though.
You're going to need to back this up, friend.
Given, these are bad arguments:
>You will not find a partner by doing bad shit.
>You will find a partner by doing good shit.
Still, the basic idea is correct: If you do bad things (things that harm the rest of your group), they're going to either kill you or remove you from the group. As humans aren't well-adapted to live on their own, it's in the individual's best interest to either adhere to the group's rules or to not get caught breaking them.
>>7719219
K A N T
A
N
T
>>7721780
Why, your feelings?
>>7721786
>You're going to need to back this up, friend.
Hello, Reddit!
>Still, the basic idea is correct:
Why? First you must absolutely defend the existence of a physical world.
>best interest
Not morality; 'muh feelings' as stated before.
>>7721790
Empiricism is the only way to confirm empiricism, but a method cannot confirm itself and it is thereby wrong.
Thank you for revealing that you are either illiterate or a troll, though.
>>7721777
>The existence of a god is absolute defence.
>MORALITY ISNT REAL WE CANT SEE IT!
Are you just trolling? All I'm hearing is "YOU'RE STUPID BECAUSE I THINK DIFFERENT! AH DURR!". Post an actual rebuttal or leave the thread. You're not contributing anything to the discussion.
>>7721790
what the issue?
the 1st statement argue that its circular reasoning.
>>7721802
Abandon thread, lads. We got baited, hard
>>7721804
And you defend that with the second statement which is circular reasoning.
Dude, you're bad at this. Go back to /b/ please.
>>7721810
I am not even him, if the first its true, its will lead you need outside system to explain it, hence the way you handle research and be explanation in itself.
Its also true to him, unless he verify what he means by god, which I am sure he would be happy to, and maybe even you two will find some agreement.
>>7721823
>and
can't
>>7721812
Ok, so you're completely retarded.
Your claim:
"there is no sound defence for empiricism."
Your argument:
"empiricism it's the only way to defend empiricism"
>never heard of inductive reasoning
>literally philo 101
go back to school kid
>>7721802
>Hello, Reddit!
Nice ad hominem.
>Still, the basic idea is correct:
>Why? First you must absolutely defend the existence of a physical world.
So, your argument is that there is no physical world? What's your reasoning for this?
>>best interest
>Not morality; 'muh feelings' as stated before.
Because that's all that morality is. It's just a set of "absolute rules" that people have created to safeguard their feelings. Saying "muh feelings" isn't an argument, especially when my point is that there is no objective morality. Morality IS just feelings.
If humans were happy with slaughtering one another and if the survivors could thrive in that environment, no one would be arguing that it's morally wrong to kill other people.
Explain to me how morality isn't just "feelings".
>>7721808
>Abandon thread, lads. We got baited, hard
Fuck me. I fell for it.
>>7721826
>>7721830
>YOUR WRONG BECAUSE I DONT LIKE IT
Yup, troll.
>kid
I'm 28; oldest one here probably.
>>7721833
>So, your argument is that there is no physical world?
No? I never made this claim, I am asking you to 'prove' that there is.
Otherwise you have no argument.
>What's your reasoning for this?
Reason doesn't exist.
Morality is divine law, 'muh hat' is not a defence and neither is any of your other ideological nonsense
>>7719219
No good reasons. That is why amorality is patrician as fuck
>>7721846
You're 28 and still don't understand basic philosophical concepts. Your mom must be proud.
And I'm actually older than you. >1984
>>7721846
>Reason doesn't exist.
so god created a random world without any rhyme or reason, so man will left to struggle with the absurdity?
what a terrible creation and evil god you describing.
This thread is great. Why does morality need a distinct causation? Isn't it simply the result of common interests? Isn't that why there are many issues on a global level which contradict one another? Even within cultures there can be conflicting morality so isn't that evidence enough that morality is purely man made and subjective to the whole of a society?
>>7719223
Redditor.
G E T O U T
E
T
O
U
T
>>7721846
>Morality is divine law
You're on my back because I haven't taken the time to, first, argue that the physical world actually exists, but you're going to argue "divine law" as though THAT'S already been proven? It's gonna be a long night.
>>7721880
Says who? You? Why do I care why you think?
>>7721883
>says me
Nope
>>7721846
>I'm 28; oldest one here probably.
Guide to lying about age on internet: Take current age, multiply it by 2.
>>7721868
>This thread is great. Why does morality need a distinct causation? Isn't it simply the result of common interests? Isn't that why there are many issues on a global level which contradict one another? Even within cultures there can be conflicting morality so isn't that evidence enough that morality is purely man made and subjective to the whole of a society?
Have you read the other posts? There's no room for rational discourse in this thread.
>>7721880
> Conflicting morality doesn't exist because there is only one morality.
>screencapped stupidity
Thanks anon, people like you make me feel smarter by just reading your stupid comments.
I don't even believe you're smart enough to be trolling.
>>7721880
>Nope
>>evil god
>Nope, you're actually the evil one.
you said there is no rhyme nor reason for his creation, are you saying he created something imperfect?
>>7721654
> Defend this or it's trashed; you've only made a statement with no absolute defence.
There can be no "absolute defense" if there is an infinite regress of grounds of judgment, grounds of defense; to avoid this regress and provide the kind of defense you're demanding, we must start from some philosophical bedrock. As I said at >>7719848, Kant's bedrock is your mind, which includes your faculty of reason, and I claimed this
> doesn't strike me as any less plausible than attributing some kind of self-accounting principle in matter energy or strings or in God.
Which I went on to defend in the next sentence.
>>7721654
>'Reason' and 'rationality' don't exist, they're myths invented to defend arbitrary ideologies.
> There was at least one other pointing the exact same thing LAST NIGHT.
Since I don't know which post you mean, or how many posts are yours, without a link, these are all the undeleted responses to/after me that I see as relating to the authority of "reason:" >>7719552 >>7719573, >>7719598, >>7719634, >>7719695, >>7719759, >>7719786, >>7719789, >>7719919, >>7721339, >>7721532, >>7721634
only two of which I didn't directly respond to *because they weren't linked in response to me*: >>7719552 and >>7721339
But the second of those posts doesn't even question or attempt to undermine the authority of reason, calling reason "arbitrary" without detailing any further elaborations and arguments; this second post only says that the authority of reason is insufficient without religious mythologies and prophets and traditions to compel individuals, and especially societies, to behave morally.
It's the first post, maybe yours, that calls non-religious reasoning "arbitrary," but morality "objective," without being clear about the philosophical/religious bedrock from which that judgment is cast. But even this isn't a full-fledged attempt to destroy the authority of reason - only the authority of *secular* reason is attacked. But the justification for this attack is the mere assertion that no kind of objectivity can come about when human individuals or human societies are left with their own innate mental and physical resources, and secular philosophies. How religious reason accomplishes this feat that secular reason can't, how it shows that there exists some perfect being we can reliably obey, is left undeveloped and unsupported though, and is only claimed.
>>7721880
>divine law
>The will of an absolute being
>physical world
>Interpretation by imperfect beings
Defining terms isn't an argument. You've, first, got to posit some sort of reasoning for the existence of an absolute being, then posit some sort of reasoning behind the nature of that being (e.g. why it's concerned with humans, at all).
>>7719219
C A T E G O R I C A L
A
T
E
G
O
R
I M P E R A T I V E
C
A
L
You get credit for doing things because they're the right thing to do, not because you fear retribution.
>>7721752
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories
>>7719238
If humans can create a God that gives them back their own moral directives then surely they can create the moral directives without the middleman.
>>7721894
>IF I DONT LIKE WHAT HE SAYS ILL CALL HIM STUPID THAT'LL SHOW HIM
>>7721898
Humans are imperfect.
'reason' is a man-made myth.
>>7721905
>authority of reason
See; more fallacious nonsense by the biggest pseud on /lit/.
>we must start from some philosophical bedrock.
Why? You make no defence for this.
My goodness, do you think logic exists as well?
>>7721906
>reasoning
Nope.
Defend yourself or stop bothering me.
>>7721908
>'right thing'
Why?
>>7721916
God isn't man-made, stupid.
>>7721893
I hope for your sake that you're not 28.
>>7721943
Why?
>>7721928
>Humans are imperfect.
are you saying the greatest creation of god is imperfect?
>>7721928
Kant's reasoning regarding the right thing boils down to (and this is a gross oversimplification), if everyone did this bad thing then we'd all be fucked, therefore you have a moral obligation to not do that thing. And it only counts if you do it with purity of intent, as well.
>God isn't man made, stupid
:^)
I've never seen shit posting of this tier. It's so high level that it has gone around the circuit and become lowest tier. Take any anon from another board and they would see this as such intelligent discourse when in reality there is some mecha troll baiting the shit out of we anons, yet each parties are actually contributing well to the argument. I don't know what to do with myself, this thread makes me feel so stupid for spending time on it yet I feel comfort that I haven't taken part. Fuck
>>7721914
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superseded_scientific_theories
>links wikipedia as argument
Do I laugh or cry?
>>7721914
That doesn't prove that science is wrong, at all. Quite the opposite: it shows that, as we learn more, we're able to ditch our worn out ideas. I assume that you're one of those people who thinks that "theory" means "arbitrary guess".
Instead, you're happier with the notion that, 5000 years ago, the divine truth was revealed to a bunch of sand-dwelling savages and that there's no reason to question the validity of that claim.
>>7721970
>>anything I don't like is shitposting
Help guys I'm not prepared to reply to 'tism of this caliber
>>7721970
>Yes, purposely.
so we back again at evil god that his greatest creation its in fact imperfect creation purposely to make him live in absurd illusions and lies his whole life
>>7721970
With every culture arguing something different, how are we to know that what the divine truth is and what god expects from us, if reason doesn't exist? Honestly, I'm just curious how you've come to your conclusion.
>>7721995
>arguing something different
And they're all wrong; evil in fact.
>>7721957
I tend to assume the sincerity of anons in these kinds of debates/volleys - even if many of them are just baiting, it can be a good exercise for sharpening your understanding of a worldview, and picking out their distractions and evasions.
>>7721970
>reason doesn't exist
Okay, well, I'm out then. I see I'm dealing with someone who won't accept any kind of argument based in reality. That's not to say that human beings are fundamentally rational creatures; they're rather irrational most of the time, as this thread is evidence of.
>according to who?
Vaguely utilitarian considerations of the consequences of said actions, which Kant concluded would be (mostly undesirable). You're going to post some nonsense in response stating that "hurr that moral system can't make everyone happy", as if religion is any better, but I'll be gone by then, freeing you to pollute other people's thoughts with your retardation, as they have the misfortune of reading your posts and being forced to apprehend them, devoting some poor memory cell to retaining it for eternity.
>>7721990
I'm not even trying to win dude I'm just observing the retardation from the side. If you truly believed anything you were saying you wouldn't have replied to me in the first place.
Inb4 a completely non related sequitur about society being evil
Here's a picture of my cat; maybe it'll make you not be so angry anon kun
>>7721990
>>god is evil cuz i dont like thing ;_;
a. his greatest creation is flawed
b. he actively cheat it for his own unknown whims.
Its seems like pretty evil and flawed god, I wonder why would anyone believe in him.
no wonder he need messengers to spout non-sense in incoherent manner at people in anonymous image boards
>>7722001
>arguing something different
>And they're all wrong; evil in fact.
Which one is right, then? Or can we even know which one is right?
>>7721990
>proves he has no idea how the scientific method works
>thinks empiricism is a belief system
>links to an article that doesn't even work in his favor
And Christians wonder why non-believers laugh at them.
You literally know nothing. How could you? All your life you've trained how to believe or disbelief. You don't even know the difference anymore between knowledge and beliefs.
>>7721532
>the laws of an absolute being are in-fact the foundation of morality.
No, they are not. And the reason why we can conclude they are not, is based upon an observation of history. An... appeal to history as you might like, so that you could (wrongfully) dispense with the idea.
Except that this is no fallacy (your favored retort, and wrongly applied), it is instead an analysis. And the reason why it is not, is because what we're doing, when we're doing it properly, amounts to physics. Meaning that there is always a caveat which actually isn't relevant to the pertinent discussion, as you seem to (wrongfully) think that it is, because muh a prioris or muh perfect god or muh rationalism or whatever over irrelevant nonsense you're insisting on. Yes, it is conceivable that the sun might not come up tomorrow, or that god might part the heavens and say "Lol Nope" to all of this.
But that doesn't happen. And that's the point.
What's left to honest persons, then, and particularly to respond to OP's prompt, is inquiry about what is actually the case. And what is actually the case is that pre-columbian, catholic, atheist communist, and muslim societies have all been murderous and at times "moral", and this persists regardless of whatever absolute being is or isn't in the culture. But this banality will soon come to the same correct point.
It's almost as if what's really going on are alternate intra-species competitions and cooperations (going directly to man as a imaginative social animal, emphasis on all three words), with variants of the golden rule laid on top since historical humans have realized that if they fuck with someone, the other person is going to remember it. So if you make the decision to fuck with someone, you need to commit. It's almost as if the god stuff is abstracted clothing laid on top. Because it is.
Now that you've made this admission, I'm fully comfortable in dismissing you. The later "sweetie" helps but it's not part of whatever substance was in your thing.
>>7722012
That's a cute cat, desu
>>7722026
Thanks. His name isHeathcliffafter my favorite book,Wuthering Heights
>>7722011
Before you're gone, hopefully: Kant wasn't a utilitarian or any kind of consequentialist, as some posts have recently claimed - his categorical imperative wasn't meant to show that undesirable consequences would result from immoral actions, but rather that immoral actions result from maxims that are intrinsically inconsistent, because they couldn't be applied in a universal form.
>>7722010
>sharpening
Please stop posting, pseud.
>>7722011
>reality
Ideological nonsense.
>reason
Ideological nonsense.
>utilitarian
Based upon pragmaticism, which is based upon utilitarianism; and so on.
>UR STUPID OMG THATLL SHOW HIM
This is why children and empiricists should not be allowed online.
>>7722015
>I DONT LIKE IT SO ITS EVIL
Your argument, right here.
>>7722017
none are right, I just said that.
Only Divine Law is right.
>>7722018
>no defence
>or argument
>just a defence mechanism triggered by my critique of empiricism
I didn't post that link by the way, maybe you should learn to read.
>>7722021
>history is right
Pseud right here.
Prove there is a physical word before you dare to make an argument based upon history.
>physics
More empiricism
>IM AN EMPIRICISM SO IM ALWAYS RIGHT
^ the entire basis of your argument, you fucking moron.
You have no argument, no actual 'philosophical grounds', you just make posts with no meat to it and accuse others of the same.
>UR WRONG BECUZ I SED SO
>HUMANS ARE THIS WAY CUZ I SED SO
Worthless hypocrite.
>>7722050
Except all your arguments are 'intrinsically inconsistent', yet you still fellate the dead.
>>7722058
>none are right, I just said that.
>Only Divine Law is right.
What is Divine Law? How are we to know it or act in accordance to it?
>>7722011
>devoting some poor memory cell to retaining it for eternity.
That's a depressing realization.
>>7722085
Didn't answer his question about how we are to know what is God's will lad
>>7722058
I'm actually convinced you are the dumbest person I've encountered on this board for a very long time.
I won't even bother trying to argue with you because you literally put your fingers in your ears and scream the same shit over and over.
Different anons have brought up arguments that have destroyed you and you still refuse to accept reality. Well, good luck with that.
>>7722061
>Except all your arguments are 'intrinsically inconsistent', yet you still fellate the dead.
Your echoes speak for themselves now.
>>7722085
>Divine Law is God's will.
I understand that, but how are we to know if we are living in accordance with it or not?
>All this thread
I am glad that i am familiar with Stirner's teachings.
>>7722050
Thank for the clarification, anon. I hadn't thought of it like that.
>>7722091
I can't answer that.
>>7722095
>I DONT LIKE WHAT HE SAYS SO HES DUMB
Yes Anon, very sound. You totally aren't circlejerking right now to further your agenda.
>>7722096
You still fellate the dead and base your entire ideology upon fallacies and circular reasoning.
You are not even consistent in your belief in reason and logic.
>>7722097
Can't answer that.
Or rather, I don't want to because I've seen these ad hoc questions before.
>>7722098
Morality isn't a spook, secular '''''morality'''' is a spook.
>>7719219
>Any authors who discuss this topic?
>Any
>>7722108
>Or rather, I don't want to because I've seen these ad hoc questions before.
And then you come to the realization that your position is too weak to be able to defend it.
Typical theist.
>>7722079
Here's a fun thing. Some theoretical systems of memory hold that you never "forget" anything (i.e., that information cannot be destroyed), only that the paths in your brain connecting the cells devoted to them are weakened over time or get mixed up (thus false and incorrect recall).
So precluding cell death caused by brain damage, every single awful thing you've ever done or been subjected to is all locked up in your brain cells; every shitpost you've ever read, every time you've ever gotten owned by anon, every time you've read an awful book, every time you've felt the crushing disappointment of causing others disappointment, that's all there.
You might not remember—but your brain does.
Sleep tight, anon.
Socrates said we are all born with virtue
>>7722141
>i cant argue so ill insult him!
>>7722147
>>7722187
This is a very funny quotation.
>>7722187
>this guy said it so its true
>>7719219
le bait is magical
>>7719491
Because Kafka
>>7719219
>Without religion what reason do you have to be moral?
No, you don't
>Any authors who discuss this topic?
Stirner
>>7719716
>im not going to defend myself ever!!!
Yeah, this is totally the same as
>Your philosophies are seemingly just based off trying to sound edgy, and I'm not going to bother arguing with you over it
Seriously, do you really think that a statement like "society is evil" is anything more than just edgy? It's a huge blanket statement based on next to nothing.
