ITT: We talk about morality
1. Are morals relative, absolute or something else? Why?
2. Your religious beliefs?
3. Your political beliefs (conservative/liberal/other)?
3. Why do morals change over time?
>>409200
Morality is an illusion.
>>409200
Science and Math faggot
>/sci/ - Science & Math
>>>/pol/
I have a better question
Is repeatedly posting topics on the wrong board a symptom of aspergers?
>>409200
Morals are objective. They're not absolute, though.
Atheist
I don't know. Pretty reactionary.
For the same reason other beliefs change over time
1. Relative to what is "in" in today's society.
2. None, but I relate with existentialism.
3. Idk, probably libertarian.
4. Degenerates are always doing what they can get away with. It was that in that society at that time, and this in this society at this time. Always pushing the boundaries of morals.
>>409269
> Morals are objective. They're not absolute, though.
Is thisin the same way the value of a dollar is objective but not absolute?
>>409203
I think you are at the wrong board.
>>410063
Well it depends on what you think determines the value of the dollar. If it's people's attitudes then no.
Morals being objective means that moral statements are either wrong or right and their truth value isn't dependent on what people think.
Absolut morals means some actions are alwas, in all circumstances, wrong.
Moral absolutists are necessarily moral realists but the opposite isn't true. Consider for example consequentialists.
>>409200
>Are morals relative, absolute or something else? Why?
I think there are key morals (don't murder, don't steal, don't be a general cunt), that should be relatively built on around the culture and religion of wherever this law is.
>Your religious beliefs?
Roman Catholic, converted by myself at a young age, 13 or 14 I think, but my dad (Irish), and his whole family were Catholic, didn't live with me though. I believe that all religions are just distorted visions of the true religion. Perhaps my church could be wrong, and some secluded African religion with <200 followers could be the true religion. But, either way, I believe they're all branches of the same tree.
>Your political beliefs (conservative/liberal/other)?
Very far right. Probably something of a fascist, very close to Mussolini's core beliefs. I disagree on one or two policies, like personality cult, but other than that, yeah.
>Why do morals change over time?
They weren't meant to, but they have, of course. It happens because the majority gets attracted to something, therefore it becomes accepted, like colonization, atheism, homosexuality, just general things that are against the original word but became so popular that it just became accepted. But, the core morals I said about (don't murder, don't steal etc.) seem to stay the same.
>>409200
1. Morals are relative. This is not to say that people can't come to agree on these.
2. None.
3. Private enterprise + social security safety net.
3. Because the people that define them change or die and are replaced by different people.
>>409200
1. Relative, obviously
2. >religion
3. Left libertarian, although it's messy
4. People's desires change and people often retroactively fit morals to their actions
1. Relative
2.Atheist
3. Proper Fascism. I am not a reactionary.
4. Differing levels of comfort and wealth lead people to give up certain morals. Morals have a purpose when they are created by a society, i.e. a woman should be covered up because rape and crime is rife and you can't trust your neighbour. When comfort, security and wealth appears, these morals morph.
>>411826
>3. Proper Fascism.
Is there one definition of fascism that is truer than all others? It seems to me a catch-all term.
>>411772
>is facist
>believes 'don't be a cunt' is a general rule
Not trolling, just honestly interested in how you made that work
>>411852
Not a fascist anymore, but you totally could because within your cultural paradigm 'don't be a cunt' is a general rule, and you can't experience outside your cultural paradigm.
>>411832
Proper wasn't meant to be a pronoun sorry. I just make the distinction between those who claim they are "fascists" when they are just Nazis, ultra-right Conservatives or something else teetering on the far right.
>It seems to me a catch-all term.
That's the problem.
>>411872
Like the ideals of exclusion based on race/ethnicity/whatever seems pretty cunty
>>411887
That would be more of a National Socialist or Conservative standpoint.
>>411897
Then define fascism according to you
>>409200
>picture of the screen
>not even oriented correctly
it's like you're personally trying to fuck with me
>>411907
Fascism is an attempt to use the human virtue of resistance to adversity and discomfort. It seeks to break free of the trappings of more stagnant political movements such as Marxism, Conservatism and Liberalism. These political movements attempt to limit the powers of man in order to keep the weak afloat. Fascism's goal is to create an "ethical state" which brings up men to certain levels of wellbeing. This is the opposite to Marxism, which attempts to limit the powers of certain people in order to achieve a pathetic level of "equality".
Fascism is more of a way of life which is translated into a relationship with a state which reflects these virtues of experimentation and strength. In many ways we can see this experimentation in a country like Singapore (perhaps the most successful fascist state in the world). Singapore is not bounded by ideology in how it should conduct itself. Instead, it is constantly experimenting and finding solutions to problems rather than sticking to a certain guidebook written by people like Marx, Friedman or Smith.
Anyway, that's an incredibly basic insight. I suggest reading Mussolini's thoughts on it.
>>411881
Ah, OK then.
Is there a particular brand of fascism you identify with?
>>409200
"Morals" are little more than acceptable behaviors in any given group.
They are developed over time, based on a variety of conditions, and prove to either help the group to survive, as a whole, or help maintain peace and security for individuals, and the group, as a whole.
That's all they are...
>>411970
So "let the strong develop their talents and fuck the weak"?
I'd argue that's pretty cunty
>>412136
Why not?
Whether strong of body, or strong of mind, you can't argue that strength isn't beneficial to the survival of a species?
>>409200
1. If they weren't, we'd all agree. Since we don't, they aren't.
2. Valisystem is real
3. World-brain internationalist utopian
3. Time is only change
>>409200
>1. Are morals relative, absolute or something else? Why?
Different population groups evolve different objective moral systems in reaction to their environment. So the morals of the Englishman do not necessarily apply to the Chinaman or the Australoid.
>2. Your religious beliefs?
Agnosticism.
>3. Your political beliefs (conservative/liberal/other)?
Fascist.
>3. Why do morals change over time?
Population group's morals change to suit their environment. Morals have quickly changed in the industrial age due to a massive amount of indoctrination from various governments and groups.
>>409200
>1. Are morals relative, absolute or something else? Why?
Morality is a human construction. Without some sort of moral arbiter (e.g. God) then morality is completely subjective.
>2. Your religious beliefs?
Atheist with a small 'a'.
>3. Your political beliefs (conservative/liberal/other)?
Reactionary monarchist
>3 [sic]. Why do morals change over time?
You mean people's/groups' conceptions of morality? Many reasons. Too vague a question, frankly.
>>411772
>>411826
>>412636
>mfw all these fascists on /his/
Can any of you goys point me in the direction of some good literature on Mussolini, perchance?
>>409200
Morals are relative to the fundamental conditions of a system. I define wrong as an action that harms the utility of another individual, and there are levels of wrongness based on how much utility you make the victim lose. Morals are universal in the modern world because the fundamental conditions of the system have not changed drastically through time and they're homogeneous throughout the world.
For example, if I was able to instantly assemble myself if I'm vaporized ala Doctor Manhattan, you vaporizing me, even though that action would count as murder under the conditions of the current world (you would irrevocably destroy both my consciousness and physical body forever if I wasn't Doctor Manhattan), would seem little more than a gentle playful slap to me. Thus actions are morally neutral and only gain moral meaning when you assign a fundamental conditions to them.
1. In one sense (empirically or anthropologically ) morals are obviously relative, HOWEVER most moral claims can be objectively determined to be true or false if we understand the as claims about what rules we should logically follow. So duh people have different moral belief but most are just wrong.
2. Secular
3. Rawlsian Liberal
4. People's beliefs about the facts in the world change, and in general things have gotten less shit with technological developments.
>>412676
>Atheist with a small 'a'
>uses capital A
Why are you such a dumb bitch?
>>412691
Not them, but A. James Gregor is pretty much the guy to go to for Fascist history, from someone at least open to the idea.
Emphasis on idea.
