File: 1668119979618.jpeg (95.64 KB, 799x1200, 799:1200, hellenic buddhisatva.jpeg) ImgOps iqdb
I have the philosophy that for an act to have moral merit,the opposite deed must be realistically attainable.
for example: being peaceful and not killing someone who skrewed you up,is only morally valuable if you CAN kill him
sobriety is only praiseworthy if you can access hard booze
I recently bought a gun with ammo, I confirmed I still crave(cartoon) porn so Im refraining from looking at it.I even got some strong benzos and vodka in a corner.
am I harvesting a breeding ground for disaster?
for example: being peaceful and not killing someone who skrewed you up,is only morally valuable if you CAN kill him
sobriety is only praiseworthy if you can access hard booze
I recently bought a gun with ammo, I confirmed I still crave(cartoon) porn so Im refraining from looking at it.I even got some strong benzos and vodka in a corner.
am I harvesting a breeding ground for disaster?
File: 1668124135908.jpg (32.46 KB, 638x540, 319:270, smug.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>moral merit
Should I be the one to tell him, guys?
Should I be the one to tell him, guys?
All philosophy that doesn't revolve around "existentialism" is absurd and pointless.
Morality is pointless, your absurd philosophy is bringing you pain and despair. What's the point?
Morality, value and similar concepts are worthless. When you're sick and alone in a ditch, whatever "morality" or "value" you have won't help you. And no, I'm not a nihilist.
Morality is pointless, your absurd philosophy is bringing you pain and despair. What's the point?
Morality, value and similar concepts are worthless. When you're sick and alone in a ditch, whatever "morality" or "value" you have won't help you. And no, I'm not a nihilist.
File: 1668127474194.gif (1.78 MB, 498x370, 249:185, I dont really like parties.gif) ImgOps iqdb
Willpower is an individual's own road to travel.
>>267630
You sound like a nihilist though, it seems you don't believe or care about anything, what the fuck are you then?
You sound like a nihilist though, it seems you don't believe or care about anything, what the fuck are you then?
>>267650
I don't need to deny objective morality but morality supporters need to provide some evidence or argument that objective morality exists. For thousands of years they couldn't come up with anything except imagining some divine being commanding things to them.
>>267645
I think he is the utilitarian wizard. He is probably concerned with easing suffering above everything and that's why he said he doesn't care about morality or justice or objective values.
I don't need to deny objective morality but morality supporters need to provide some evidence or argument that objective morality exists. For thousands of years they couldn't come up with anything except imagining some divine being commanding things to them.
>>267645
I think he is the utilitarian wizard. He is probably concerned with easing suffering above everything and that's why he said he doesn't care about morality or justice or objective values.
>>267666
so a life of celibacy is morally the same as a life for fornication?
that proposition is so abominable to mankind and to sentience itself,that it should be dismissed without a second's thought.
we ARE morally superior,for being celibates.
so a life of celibacy is morally the same as a life for fornication?
that proposition is so abominable to mankind and to sentience itself,that it should be dismissed without a second's thought.
we ARE morally superior,for being celibates.
>>267645
>>267650
I am the person you were replying to. Morality is irrelevant. Every philosophical concept that doesn't revolve around the existence of the individual is irrelevant. If you can't grasp the concepts of existence, life or mortality, why overthink stuff like morality?
>it seems you don't believe or care about anything
I care about things that matter, and these things revolve around my existence. I don't care about anything else.
>>267666
>I think he is the utilitarian wizard.
Well I wouldn't exactly use the world "utilitarian". I identify as an existential pessimist.
>He is probably concerned with easing suffering above everything and that's why he said he doesn't care about morality or justice or objective values
Exactly, how did you reach that conclusion?
>>267670
>so a life of celibacy is morally the same as a life for fornication?
Irrelevant. What good does this "morality" bring to you, us or to others? Having a higher moral ground? What can you do with that higher moral ground? What is this higher moral ground giving you while you're in front of a PC screen in an internet forum for broken men?
You are using your head to think, that's good, just use it to think something different, something that actually matters. Have you already faced such existential questions like why you live, what's existence, your mortality, your purpose, the abstract concepts of purpose and value, and what all of these concepts mean to you?
>>267650
I am the person you were replying to. Morality is irrelevant. Every philosophical concept that doesn't revolve around the existence of the individual is irrelevant. If you can't grasp the concepts of existence, life or mortality, why overthink stuff like morality?
>it seems you don't believe or care about anything
I care about things that matter, and these things revolve around my existence. I don't care about anything else.
>>267666
>I think he is the utilitarian wizard.
Well I wouldn't exactly use the world "utilitarian". I identify as an existential pessimist.
>He is probably concerned with easing suffering above everything and that's why he said he doesn't care about morality or justice or objective values
Exactly, how did you reach that conclusion?
>>267670
>so a life of celibacy is morally the same as a life for fornication?
Irrelevant. What good does this "morality" bring to you, us or to others? Having a higher moral ground? What can you do with that higher moral ground? What is this higher moral ground giving you while you're in front of a PC screen in an internet forum for broken men?
You are using your head to think, that's good, just use it to think something different, something that actually matters. Have you already faced such existential questions like why you live, what's existence, your mortality, your purpose, the abstract concepts of purpose and value, and what all of these concepts mean to you?
File: 1668202079061.png (1.28 MB, 768x768, 1:1, 1668049874953790.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>267666
>I don't need to deny objective morality but morality supporters need to provide some evidence or argument that objective morality exists.
A true statement like x = x isn't just true but also right, i.e. it would be objectively morally wrong to claim x = x is false
>I don't need to deny objective morality but morality supporters need to provide some evidence or argument that objective morality exists.
A true statement like x = x isn't just true but also right, i.e. it would be objectively morally wrong to claim x = x is false
>>267671
I WILL NOT allow you to adress me using my nationality term in spanish as it amounts to a mockery of Most Holy latin america
I WILL NOT allow you to adress me using my nationality term in spanish as it amounts to a mockery of Most Holy latin america
File: 1668208020581.jpg (222.01 KB, 1560x1170, 4:3, 2345426547546845.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>pos pinche pendejo wey, yo también soy hechizero carnal, ándale arriba arriba.
>>267679
>but why?
If the statement x = x is objectively true, wouldn't it be wrong to spread falsehood by saying it's not?
>but why?
If the statement x = x is objectively true, wouldn't it be wrong to spread falsehood by saying it's not?
File: 1668216130205.jpg (128.29 KB, 1920x1080, 16:9, E-GElyGVEAE2cSi.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>267682
it doesn't seem apparent to me that it necessarily should. i also don't see why a statement being true also makes it right.
it doesn't seem apparent to me that it necessarily should. i also don't see why a statement being true also makes it right.
That's a hilarious idea. I've considered buying the best junk food and leaving it in my room, not eating it.
>>267682
If you are saying that x = x is false, then there are two possibilities
A) You don't know that it is actually true, but say that it is false anyway. This might be considered morally wrong because you have no idea yet speak anyway.
B) You know it is true, but say otherwise. You can't convince yourself that it is wrong since you know for a fact that it's true, and you can't try to deny reality itself either, so the only situation where you might say x does not equal x despite knowing better is when you are talking to other people, in which case you would be lying to them. I don't think lying is objectively evil, and even if you do there are always important details attached to the act of lying to others. What if the person I lied to just now had lied to me in the past? What if the person wishes to harm me? Considerations like these may lower the "sin" or negate it entirely.
If you are saying that x = x is false, then there are two possibilities
A) You don't know that it is actually true, but say that it is false anyway. This might be considered morally wrong because you have no idea yet speak anyway.
B) You know it is true, but say otherwise. You can't convince yourself that it is wrong since you know for a fact that it's true, and you can't try to deny reality itself either, so the only situation where you might say x does not equal x despite knowing better is when you are talking to other people, in which case you would be lying to them. I don't think lying is objectively evil, and even if you do there are always important details attached to the act of lying to others. What if the person I lied to just now had lied to me in the past? What if the person wishes to harm me? Considerations like these may lower the "sin" or negate it entirely.
>>267678
i have REDEEMD the whole latino lands because i dont masturbate on top of not having sex.
your legal qualm against Creation has not effect,for you battled not against the flehs,but in the souls found therein
i have REDEEMD the whole latino lands because i dont masturbate on top of not having sex.
your legal qualm against Creation has not effect,for you battled not against the flehs,but in the souls found therein
File: 1668245186816.jpg (407.03 KB, 1920x1278, 320:213, Gehling_PLZ106AR_Kruk_OTT_….jpg) ImgOps iqdb
it's high time we spray antipsychotics over latin america
>>267696
but I (I wish I could highly the "I". I have a highest concept of Myself)have REDEEMED latin america trough my highest penance and asceticism(celibacy)
but I (I wish I could highly the "I". I have a highest concept of Myself)have REDEEMED latin america trough my highest penance and asceticism(celibacy)
>>267684
>it doesn't seem apparent to me that it necessarily should. i also don't see why a statement being true also makes it right.
Describing a necessary connection between truth and ethics depends on the model, but given all objective truths are consistent there's no reason to imagine objective morals would contradict what's true. We should note at this point that facts and beliefs fall outside these bounds
>>267694
>If you are saying that x = x is false, then there are two possibilities
States of complicity in lying are certainly relative, but in this case they are only relative to a fixed point if you accept x = x is objective. Ironically despite asking for an argument that doesn't invoke a divine being you're writing about "knowing and unknowing ignorance" like a theologian would
>it doesn't seem apparent to me that it necessarily should. i also don't see why a statement being true also makes it right.
Describing a necessary connection between truth and ethics depends on the model, but given all objective truths are consistent there's no reason to imagine objective morals would contradict what's true. We should note at this point that facts and beliefs fall outside these bounds
>>267694
>If you are saying that x = x is false, then there are two possibilities
States of complicity in lying are certainly relative, but in this case they are only relative to a fixed point if you accept x = x is objective. Ironically despite asking for an argument that doesn't invoke a divine being you're writing about "knowing and unknowing ignorance" like a theologian would
>>267704
>given all objective truths are consistent there's no reason to imagine objective morals would contradict what's true.
it's not about contradicting descriptive factual statements, but about moral statements being of a different kind than those. X is true, is totally different to X is right, or X ought to be.
for example, a statement such as "the cat is on the mat", is true or false depending on an observable or discoverable state of affairs in the world, and if such a state gives then the statement is true, otherwise it's false.
now, for a statement like "the cat ought to be on the mat", how do we know if it's true or false? i can't imagine a state of affairs in the world that could correspond it or any other moral statement, so empirical investigation seems to not be the solution. the only other possibility is if it derives from prior moral statements known to be true. if we were to follow such a logical chain we would eventually have to come to a basic moral statement that is axiomatic and self-evidently true from which all morality is logically derived.
what is that statement? if someone tells me then i'll become a moral person.
>given all objective truths are consistent there's no reason to imagine objective morals would contradict what's true.
it's not about contradicting descriptive factual statements, but about moral statements being of a different kind than those. X is true, is totally different to X is right, or X ought to be.
for example, a statement such as "the cat is on the mat", is true or false depending on an observable or discoverable state of affairs in the world, and if such a state gives then the statement is true, otherwise it's false.
now, for a statement like "the cat ought to be on the mat", how do we know if it's true or false? i can't imagine a state of affairs in the world that could correspond it or any other moral statement, so empirical investigation seems to not be the solution. the only other possibility is if it derives from prior moral statements known to be true. if we were to follow such a logical chain we would eventually have to come to a basic moral statement that is axiomatic and self-evidently true from which all morality is logically derived.
what is that statement? if someone tells me then i'll become a moral person.
File: 1668274526125.jpg (60.64 KB, 286x336, 143:168, Johann_Gottlieb_Fichte.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>267697
>wants to exterminate latin americans
"Si dices que tu conciencia te pide exterminar a los pueblos como castigo por sus pecados, podemos decirte con confianza que estás equivocado, pues nunca se puede ordenar al poder libre y moral que haga algo así."
>wants to exterminate latin americans
"Si dices que tu conciencia te pide exterminar a los pueblos como castigo por sus pecados, podemos decirte con confianza que estás equivocado, pues nunca se puede ordenar al poder libre y moral que haga algo así."
>OP starts thread about his shit morality viewpoint
>thread devolves into latin-american psychotic rants
Genuinely the best imageboard on the planet.
>thread devolves into latin-american psychotic rants
Genuinely the best imageboard on the planet.
File: 1668286991666.png (49.37 KB, 322x375, 322:375, 1603295059701.png) ImgOps iqdb
>>267706
>it's not about contradicting descriptive factual statements, but about moral statements being of a different kind than those. X is true, is totally different to X is right, or X ought to be.
The domains of facts and morals are certainly distinct, and we should additionally be careful not to conflate facts with truths. x = x is true, but is it a fact? That deduction has applications across domains shows their consistency: what is true is factual is right
>for example, a statement such as "the cat is on the mat", is true or false depending on an observable or discoverable state of affairs in the world, and if such a state gives then the statement is true, otherwise it's false.
>now, for a statement like "the cat ought to be on the mat", how do we know if it's true or false?
Whether the cat is, or ought to be, on the mat are questions for their respective sciences. It would be outside the scope of an objective ethics to evaluate a particular action or belief, in the same way it's outside the scope of logic to determine whether a fact is true or false. An argument can be valid with infactual or unknown propositions, such as "the cat sat on the mat for 9 minutes in 1991", but it wouldn't be convincing as we have no way of ascertaining that fact
>what is that statement? if someone tells me then i'll become a moral person.
The question in >>267666 was simply whether there's a good argument for objective morality, and I'm playing devil's advocate by making such an argument. In the course of refuting it you will strengthen your existing position and become more powerful
>it's not about contradicting descriptive factual statements, but about moral statements being of a different kind than those. X is true, is totally different to X is right, or X ought to be.
The domains of facts and morals are certainly distinct, and we should additionally be careful not to conflate facts with truths. x = x is true, but is it a fact? That deduction has applications across domains shows their consistency: what is true is factual is right
>for example, a statement such as "the cat is on the mat", is true or false depending on an observable or discoverable state of affairs in the world, and if such a state gives then the statement is true, otherwise it's false.
>now, for a statement like "the cat ought to be on the mat", how do we know if it's true or false?
Whether the cat is, or ought to be, on the mat are questions for their respective sciences. It would be outside the scope of an objective ethics to evaluate a particular action or belief, in the same way it's outside the scope of logic to determine whether a fact is true or false. An argument can be valid with infactual or unknown propositions, such as "the cat sat on the mat for 9 minutes in 1991", but it wouldn't be convincing as we have no way of ascertaining that fact
>what is that statement? if someone tells me then i'll become a moral person.
The question in >>267666 was simply whether there's a good argument for objective morality, and I'm playing devil's advocate by making such an argument. In the course of refuting it you will strengthen your existing position and become more powerful
File: 1668293527443.jpg (154.89 KB, 1001x975, 77:75, 13297550.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>267717
>we should additionally be careful not to conflate facts with truths. x = x is true, but is it a fact?
i'm guessing by this distinction you mean to distinguish contingent empirical facts from necessary logical relations. x = x is certainly not a fact in the sense that, while being a necessary truth, it doesn't say anything about the world, or even about x itself.
>what is true is factual is right
now i'm confused why you're suddenly saying this. didn't you want to make a distinction between true and factual? also, the jump from X is true (or factual) to X is right still remains unexplained (is-ought problem).
>Whether the cat is, or ought to be, on the mat are questions for their respective sciences. It would be outside the scope of an objective ethics to evaluate a particular action or belief, in the same way it's outside the scope of logic to determine whether a fact is true or false.
what i'm trying to argue in that example is that there's a straightforward method to evaluate the truth of factual statements, which is to find if the state of affairs they describe is the case or not, but that there is no evident way to determine the truth of a moral statement other than whether it derives from more fundamental moral statements. so, unless there's a fundamental axiomatic moral statement, then all moral statements are ultimately meaningless, neither false nor true.
>The question was simply whether there's a good argument for objective morality, and I'm playing devil's advocate by making such an argument.
i get that that's what you're trying to do by proposing that if something is true then it's also right, or that saying that a known truth or fact is false, is morally wrong, but i don't think you've made an argument yet that tries to derive "X is right" from "X is true", and saying that lying or spreading falsehood is morally wrong is clearly not a fundamental axiomatic moral fact.
leaving playing devil's advocate aside, what are your thoughts on objective morality?
>we should additionally be careful not to conflate facts with truths. x = x is true, but is it a fact?
i'm guessing by this distinction you mean to distinguish contingent empirical facts from necessary logical relations. x = x is certainly not a fact in the sense that, while being a necessary truth, it doesn't say anything about the world, or even about x itself.
>what is true is factual is right
now i'm confused why you're suddenly saying this. didn't you want to make a distinction between true and factual? also, the jump from X is true (or factual) to X is right still remains unexplained (is-ought problem).
>Whether the cat is, or ought to be, on the mat are questions for their respective sciences. It would be outside the scope of an objective ethics to evaluate a particular action or belief, in the same way it's outside the scope of logic to determine whether a fact is true or false.
what i'm trying to argue in that example is that there's a straightforward method to evaluate the truth of factual statements, which is to find if the state of affairs they describe is the case or not, but that there is no evident way to determine the truth of a moral statement other than whether it derives from more fundamental moral statements. so, unless there's a fundamental axiomatic moral statement, then all moral statements are ultimately meaningless, neither false nor true.
>The question was simply whether there's a good argument for objective morality, and I'm playing devil's advocate by making such an argument.
i get that that's what you're trying to do by proposing that if something is true then it's also right, or that saying that a known truth or fact is false, is morally wrong, but i don't think you've made an argument yet that tries to derive "X is right" from "X is true", and saying that lying or spreading falsehood is morally wrong is clearly not a fundamental axiomatic moral fact.
leaving playing devil's advocate aside, what are your thoughts on objective morality?
>>267720
>you will be praising the HOLYNESS of latin america
I'm a third-world spic too, don't worry.
Third-world wizchads are strongest wizchads. We see crime, poverty, drugs, violence and hunger on a daily basis. Or that's my case.
>you will be praising the HOLYNESS of latin america
I'm a third-world spic too, don't worry.
Third-world wizchads are strongest wizchads. We see crime, poverty, drugs, violence and hunger on a daily basis. Or that's my case.
>>267723
>we should have a latam thread
I was going to say I advocate for following the rules at all times with no exceptions, and that one of the rules says this is an english-language imageboard but I'm wrong, there's no such rule. I just tried looking it up.
I don't know what board would be more appropriate for it. Definitely not /dep/, people will get angry. To be honest, I consider /dep/ my main board. /dep/ is the essence of wizchan, not /wiz/. What makes us wizards lies on /dep/, not on the other boards.
>we should have a latam thread
I was going to say I advocate for following the rules at all times with no exceptions, and that one of the rules says this is an english-language imageboard but I'm wrong, there's no such rule. I just tried looking it up.
I don't know what board would be more appropriate for it. Definitely not /dep/, people will get angry. To be honest, I consider /dep/ my main board. /dep/ is the essence of wizchan, not /wiz/. What makes us wizards lies on /dep/, not on the other boards.
>>267726
Giving it a shot. It will very likely get deleted though. I'd be surprised if it wouldn't.
Giving it a shot. It will very likely get deleted though. I'd be surprised if it wouldn't.
>>267724
>that obsession with rules
Reddit is that way.
Not sure what did you forget there, you are clearly not wizard and display very unwizardly behavior like namefagging using sage.
>that obsession with rules
Reddit is that way.
Not sure what did you forget there, you are clearly not wizard and display very unwizardly behavior like namefagging using sage.
>>267743
tyrones are chads,they are basically chimps with guns and meth and those big red cups amerikkkans use.
tyrones are chads,they are basically chimps with guns and meth and those big red cups amerikkkans use.
File: 1668363461696.jpg (169.02 KB, 1280x1355, 256:271, 1605112532482.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
>>267721
You guessed correctly. How to get from is->ought or true->right would depend on the epistemic model. If you accept that all objective truths are consistent with each other, then it follows there could be no objective ethics that would contradict the truth. We can imagine actions, facts, or beliefs that are wrong yet still right, so pure ethics would likely only ever be imperfectly applied
>there's a straightforward method to evaluate the truth of factual statements, which is to find if the state of affairs they describe is the case or not, but that there is no evident way to determine the truth of a moral statement
That's fine, it wouldn't be in the remit of an objective ethics to make moral determinations. This division is also present between logic->fact, mathematics->physics, and geometry->surveying without invalidating their respective domains. Exactly how these domains interact is a hard problem, which is why I'll leave it for someone else to figure out
>leaving playing devil's advocate aside, what are your thoughts on objective morality?
Generally I'm skeptical of the primacy of objectivity, as it seems to take the creativity out of everything
You guessed correctly. How to get from is->ought or true->right would depend on the epistemic model. If you accept that all objective truths are consistent with each other, then it follows there could be no objective ethics that would contradict the truth. We can imagine actions, facts, or beliefs that are wrong yet still right, so pure ethics would likely only ever be imperfectly applied
>there's a straightforward method to evaluate the truth of factual statements, which is to find if the state of affairs they describe is the case or not, but that there is no evident way to determine the truth of a moral statement
That's fine, it wouldn't be in the remit of an objective ethics to make moral determinations. This division is also present between logic->fact, mathematics->physics, and geometry->surveying without invalidating their respective domains. Exactly how these domains interact is a hard problem, which is why I'll leave it for someone else to figure out
>leaving playing devil's advocate aside, what are your thoughts on objective morality?
Generally I'm skeptical of the primacy of objectivity, as it seems to take the creativity out of everything
>>267670
I think a life of celibacy is superior to how normals live but I wouldn't say it is morally better. People who want to feel morally superior for some reason or other don't really have anything to be proud about usually, that's why they have to hide behind morality.
The celibate life is higher quality indeed but it isn't about morals. I don't go around telling normals how they should be celibate.
And if we followed your logic, then we should force everyone to be celibate. Then what would be the virtue of living the celibate life when everyone is doing that? Moralists want to create a world where everyone is literally the same bot.
>>267672
>Exactly, how did you reach that conclusion?
Either you are the "negative utilitarian/pessimist/antinat/" wiz I've been having debates with all over this site recently or I simply just thought you were someone else. Anyway, around this place, being fixated on suffering is a recurring philosophy.
>>267673
Morality and philosophy doesn't work like math, though. From what I gather people who adhere to some "objective" morality just project their own values onto what objective morality should be.
If there existed objective morality wouldn't you say people would already adhere to it and keep it? But as things are, when someone mentions morality I always ask: what morality? Morals of jews? Of christians? Of buddhists? Of socialists? Of fascists? The world is full of various moral systems which all claim to be the objective, true morality. One doesn't need a better proof than this to deny objective morality.
I think a life of celibacy is superior to how normals live but I wouldn't say it is morally better. People who want to feel morally superior for some reason or other don't really have anything to be proud about usually, that's why they have to hide behind morality.
The celibate life is higher quality indeed but it isn't about morals. I don't go around telling normals how they should be celibate.
And if we followed your logic, then we should force everyone to be celibate. Then what would be the virtue of living the celibate life when everyone is doing that? Moralists want to create a world where everyone is literally the same bot.
>>267672
>Exactly, how did you reach that conclusion?
Either you are the "negative utilitarian/pessimist/antinat/" wiz I've been having debates with all over this site recently or I simply just thought you were someone else. Anyway, around this place, being fixated on suffering is a recurring philosophy.
>>267673
Morality and philosophy doesn't work like math, though. From what I gather people who adhere to some "objective" morality just project their own values onto what objective morality should be.
If there existed objective morality wouldn't you say people would already adhere to it and keep it? But as things are, when someone mentions morality I always ask: what morality? Morals of jews? Of christians? Of buddhists? Of socialists? Of fascists? The world is full of various moral systems which all claim to be the objective, true morality. One doesn't need a better proof than this to deny objective morality.
>>267742
>that obsession with rules
>Reddit is that way
Ribbit rules are ambiguous and selective. Moderation is not impartial.
Wizchan rules are concrete and our moderation team strictly enforce them. If it wasn't for that, wizchan wouldn't be one of the best quality imageboards out there. Rules are important.
>that obsession with rules
>Reddit is that way
Ribbit rules are ambiguous and selective. Moderation is not impartial.
Wizchan rules are concrete and our moderation team strictly enforce them. If it wasn't for that, wizchan wouldn't be one of the best quality imageboards out there. Rules are important.
>>267786
>strictly enforced rules on wizchan
arent the mods 18 year old sex havers? sorry but i've never been impartially moderated here
>strictly enforced rules on wizchan
arent the mods 18 year old sex havers? sorry but i've never been impartially moderated here
>>267783
>Then what would be the virtue of living the celibate life when everyone is doing that? Moralists want to create a world where everyone is literally the same bot.
ok,lets stop discouraging murder,theft,robbery,so everyone is le different non bot
>Then what would be the virtue of living the celibate life when everyone is doing that? Moralists want to create a world where everyone is literally the same bot.
ok,lets stop discouraging murder,theft,robbery,so everyone is le different non bot
>>267992
I don't discourage any of these things. Murder, theft, robbery like everything else have their own time and place to be performed. Not every murder, theft, robbery is bad. Point in case is: universal morality still stands on weak legs.
I don't discourage any of these things. Murder, theft, robbery like everything else have their own time and place to be performed. Not every murder, theft, robbery is bad. Point in case is: universal morality still stands on weak legs.
>>268182
Basic deontology would say that, but not all systems of morality are deontological.
Most murders are pretty bad though, so who cares about a couple edge cases. We really should be discouraging murder, in my opinion.
Basic deontology would say that, but not all systems of morality are deontological.
Most murders are pretty bad though, so who cares about a couple edge cases. We really should be discouraging murder, in my opinion.
>>268186
Nah, if you ask me, the world needs more murder if anything. Too many normals around. Normals killing other normals is the best thing.
Nah, if you ask me, the world needs more murder if anything. Too many normals around. Normals killing other normals is the best thing.
>>268188
The problem is that the process of being killed tends to be pretty painful. I'm all for the painless killing of people, though. A clean shot to the head, or similar methods. It's kinda pointless anyway, because they'll keep breeding like flies.
The problem is that the process of being killed tends to be pretty painful. I'm all for the painless killing of people, though. A clean shot to the head, or similar methods. It's kinda pointless anyway, because they'll keep breeding like flies.
>>268189
Pain is good if it is inflicted on our enemies and people who wish us harm. And since we are outsiders our enemies are pretty much everyone except for our family or people who make life easier for us.
Wishing suffering on your enemies is healthy self-defense.
Pain is good if it is inflicted on our enemies and people who wish us harm. And since we are outsiders our enemies are pretty much everyone except for our family or people who make life easier for us.
Wishing suffering on your enemies is healthy self-defense.
>>268238
>Wishing suffering on your enemies is healthy self-defense.
Normal, but not healthy.
Holding anger is like swallowing poison to harm your enermy
>Wishing suffering on your enemies is healthy self-defense.
Normal, but not healthy.
Holding anger is like swallowing poison to harm your enermy
>>268242
I'm not angry though. I don't hate anyone. I just don't see anything wrong with torturing those who have ill intentions towards me.
I'm not angry though. I don't hate anyone. I just don't see anything wrong with torturing those who have ill intentions towards me.
>>268245
Craving leads to suffering. But ill-will and wishing suffering I would classify as a form of anger, in my own experiences.
Craving leads to suffering. But ill-will and wishing suffering I would classify as a form of anger, in my own experiences.
>>268259
I would classify it as a form of entertainment. You can wish ill on somebody without getting overly worked up about that person.
I would classify it as a form of entertainment. You can wish ill on somebody without getting overly worked up about that person.
>>268296
I often use the phrase recreational anger to describe the feeling like that, why can't anger be entertaining?
I often use the phrase recreational anger to describe the feeling like that, why can't anger be entertaining?
>>268297
>why can't anger be entertaining?
Because buddhists and stoics thought it was bad and shit so uh, better avoid it, dude.
This just proves that the biggest ascetics are usually the most sensitive and passionate people deep down. They can't handle wrath, envy, sorrow, confusion, fun, entertainment, despair and so they just take up the mask of not feeling anything/permanent peace.
>why can't anger be entertaining?
Because buddhists and stoics thought it was bad and shit so uh, better avoid it, dude.
This just proves that the biggest ascetics are usually the most sensitive and passionate people deep down. They can't handle wrath, envy, sorrow, confusion, fun, entertainment, despair and so they just take up the mask of not feeling anything/permanent peace.
>>268312
Entertainment can be bad,that doesn't seem like a good argument. I've smoked crack, very entertaining.
Entertainment can be bad,that doesn't seem like a good argument. I've smoked crack, very entertaining.
>>268313
Life is about entertainment. Why live if you don't feel good or never experience any pleasure?
Life is about entertainment. Why live if you don't feel good or never experience any pleasure?
>>268336
Lots things that are pleasurable now will extract a painful toll later. If hedonism is what you desire, then you should pick pleasures that are mostly free of consequence. War I argue is not one of these.
Lots things that are pleasurable now will extract a painful toll later. If hedonism is what you desire, then you should pick pleasures that are mostly free of consequence. War I argue is not one of these.
>>268337
Who talked about war? We were talking about enjoying the misery of others I think. What is the negative consequence of laughing at my ex-classmate I disliked in high school when I learn he has cancer?
Who talked about war? We were talking about enjoying the misery of others I think. What is the negative consequence of laughing at my ex-classmate I disliked in high school when I learn he has cancer?
>>268350
You become a person others do not wish to be around, which is par for the course, but it also dims any chance of you making it out of the hole.
It also creates the loser paradox in which if you are on the other side of the situation people will bully you 10x worse knowing what you are.
You become a person others do not wish to be around, which is par for the course, but it also dims any chance of you making it out of the hole.
It also creates the loser paradox in which if you are on the other side of the situation people will bully you 10x worse knowing what you are.
>>268367
I don't care about others and their opinions. What you say is very normcore, that we should be friends with normals because otherwise we will get in trouble.
>implying normals bully me
I bully normals.
I don't care about others and their opinions. What you say is very normcore, that we should be friends with normals because otherwise we will get in trouble.
>implying normals bully me
I bully normals.
Morality is only the judgment of action. Harm done is the unit in which it is measured. Add any more to this and it becomes superfluous and serves only as ego jerking.
Morality's purpose is not law, but as guide that would lead to a world that morality sets out to shape, a world wherein all will is satiated. That's all it is. If you don't care about any will but your own, you don't need morality. If you don't care about even one will, then you don't need objective morality.
Morality's purpose is not law, but as guide that would lead to a world that morality sets out to shape, a world wherein all will is satiated. That's all it is. If you don't care about any will but your own, you don't need morality. If you don't care about even one will, then you don't need objective morality.
>>268350
Be discreet with your desires, so they do never watch your intent. Otherwise exposure will earn its tax from you.
Watch your back, watch your steps
Be discreet with your desires, so they do never watch your intent. Otherwise exposure will earn its tax from you.
Watch your back, watch your steps
File: 1669399513224.jpg (12.63 KB, 431x352, 431:352, give it to me.jpg) ImgOps iqdb
LMAO
>this fucking thread
>this fucking thread
As someone else has already said, be discreet with your intent and exposure.
You can have whatever edgy malicious intent you want, just don't leave any trace on it, specially on an internet forum.
You can have whatever edgy malicious intent you want, just don't leave any trace on it, specially on an internet forum.
>>268481
Right? From philosophy to latinn supremacists to advocating murder should be more frequent and normal.
This thread has it all!
Right? From philosophy to latinn supremacists to advocating murder should be more frequent and normal.
This thread has it all!
>>267625
What are you trying to prove?
You're not gonna magically fix your life by not fapping to hentai. You jack off to cartoons because your life is miserable and it might not even be your fault. Life has robbed you of the chance to live a normal life, so the next best thing is trying to cope with small pleasures. Nofap only benefits chads and normies who actually have sex with succubi, wizards only castrate themselves for no reason.
What are you trying to prove?
You're not gonna magically fix your life by not fapping to hentai. You jack off to cartoons because your life is miserable and it might not even be your fault. Life has robbed you of the chance to live a normal life, so the next best thing is trying to cope with small pleasures. Nofap only benefits chads and normies who actually have sex with succubi, wizards only castrate themselves for no reason.
>>269396
I bet someone could fix their whole life by quiting, probably not most, though. Its a blessing to have some simple problems, I imagine many wizards have what seems more like a constellation of problems, no bottom or end in sight.
I bet someone could fix their whole life by quiting, probably not most, though. Its a blessing to have some simple problems, I imagine many wizards have what seems more like a constellation of problems, no bottom or end in sight.