Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Blackpill Morality Is Ironically Why Society Is Corrupt and Degeneracy is Flourishing

The ideal society would be driven primarily by logic. I think the reason society is so immoral is ironically because we are trying to be moral and not logical.

The basis of all laws that are good for a society, is logic.

Take murder for example, the law should not be "you should not kill because its bad/evil", it should be - "you should not kill because you also do not want to be killed". We should hate murder as a society because if we allow other people to kill others haphazardly, then we might be next, sounds fucked up but if society ran on cold logic like that, then everything would be more peaceful.

Basing laws on morality is ironically why society is flawed, its because MORALITY IS SUBJECTIVE. Even criminal organizations like the Yakuza or the Italian Mob, etc all have "codes of honour", that are things that even the average citizen would agree with. They have their own set of morals, for example the Mob usually doesn't allow killing women and children, its an emotional and subjective "rule", they have let their emotions create an illogical ruleset, but ironically they can kill men, steal from families, sell drugs, etc.

This is the problem with morals, everybody thinks their moral code is "good enough". If we all had to operate on logic, there is no such thing as "my logic" or "your logic", a choice either is logical or it isn't, logic is based on whats objective, not on how something makes one feel. We need a logical society not a moral one, "true morals" are inherent to logic, because logic usually yields the greatest collective rule set

Imagine how much the rates of rape and human trafficking would go down of prostitution was decriminalized, think about it, its completely illogical that paying for sex is illegal, there's no logical reason why it should be, yet despite all the income it would generate for a country if taxable, despite all the people it would alleviate from suffering, society keeps it illegal due to moral reasoning.

You see that slut on instagram, a lot of you moralfags on this site would say that she is being immoral, but you would be wrong. She doesn't kill, she doesn't steal, she doesn't <insert "bad" thing here>. That's her morals, as far as she's concerned "the times have changed" and she can be a slut and "it isn't hurting anyone". She is completely moral FOR THE ERA SHE EXISTS IN.

Again MORALS ARE SUBJECTIVE, they change from person to person, country to country, era to era. Morals are pointless, we need to be driven by logic not morals, morals can be altered and therefore THEY CAN BE CORRUPTED.

You can't corrupt logic, you can't corrupt objectivity. It always is what its going to be, it will never change, any changes to a law based on logic, will also be logical, but changes to a "moral code" can easily become corrupted.

In fact modern society is the greatest example of this, Christians influenced laws using their moral code, that's why gay marriage was illegal, today morals have been changed due to EMOTIONAL ARGUMENTS. People against gay marriage are seen as "bigots", "evil", etc. Now today gay marriage is legal.

ANY LAW WITH A FOUNDATION BASED ON EMOTION, IS "STRUCTURALLY WEAK" AND CAN BE ALTERED USING EMOTIONS.

MORALS CORRUPT A SOCIETY, THEY DON'T HELP IT
 
Last edited:
D

Deleted member 25707

bored
-
Joined
Apr 14, 2020
Posts
12,063
Online
65d 23h 55m
B @based_meme you can't label moral actions as variables. It's just not possible. How do you plan on "well-defining" those variables?

Your idea lacks universality.
 
B

based_meme

I.N.C.E.L. High Command
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2019
Posts
12,002
Online
152d 18h 24m
Grothendieck said:
B @based_meme you can't label moral actions as variables. It's just not possible. How do you plan on "well-defining" those variables?

Your idea lacks universality.

Universality is the goal, albeit seemingly impossible to reach. Defining a variable is labeling an action to it. All actions would be well defined. The action would be the same in all instances, but the values might not necessarily be the same. Stealing to become richer vs stealing to feed your family, for instance. The action is the same. The moral value is different. Of course, you have to factor in things like harm, intent etc., but those aren't defined and that's getting way ahead of ourselves.

Feel free to give your own advice and input.
 
gsmcel

gsmcel

keeper of the downward spiral
Joined
Feb 15, 2020
Posts
46
Online
2d 20h 51m
Logic is not objective in itself. Something can only be logical in relation to something else. If you want to reach a certain goal, it is evident (logical) to take a certain action.

Outlawing something like prostitution is logical if your goal is to uphold a certain moral standard. Allowing prostitution is logical if you don't have any objections to it / or want to do it yourself.

Implying that there is a objective "logical" way to run a society implies that there is a objective moral standard (goal) that logic can be applied to, which would have to be discovered somehow.

Logic is merely a metric. An action is more "logical" to execute if it brings you closer to your chosen goal, and seems "ill-logical" if it places your further away or if there are better options.
 
Last edited:
BlkPillPres

BlkPillPres

I'm Not A Monster, I'm Just Ahead Of The Curve
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Posts
17,558
Online
150d 6h 54m
gsmcel said:
Logic is not objective in itself.

Yes it is, something is ONLY LOGICAL IF IT IS OBJECTIVE

gsmcel said:
Something can only be logical in relation to something else. If you want to reach a certain goal, it is evident (logical) to take a certain action.

Outlawing something like prostitution is logical if your goal is to uphold a certain moral standard. Allowing prostitution is logical if you don't have any objections to it / or want to do it yourself.

1. No that's a retarded argument, its like saying - "cutting your foot off with a hacksaw is logical if you think that foot is possessed by a demon because YOUR GOAL is to not have a demon possessed foot" :feelskek:

Something is logical because it makes sense, I know you want to play bullshit semantic games, but no, not every reasoning "makes sense", some things are clearly illogical, "relation to something else" has nothing to do with anything, because that VERY "SOMETHING ELSE" COULD BE ILLOGICAL (how do you not immediately think of something this obvious?)

Case in point - "my foot is possessed by a demon so in relation to that reality cutting it off by any means necessary is logical"

You literally sound like an idiot with the argumentation you are using, it is DEMONSTRABLY FALSE, I can't believe I'm even humoring this nonsense, in fact I'm going to say a lot less than I planned on saying (you have to be trolling right now lol)

2. Morality is subjective, so nothing done on the basis of a moral code is being done for a "logical" reason, its completely arbitrary
 
Last edited:
get_even

get_even

Major
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Posts
2,016
Online
27d 13h 46m
Shariah Law is not subjective. It's remained the same for centuries. That slut on Instagram would be whipped 1400 years ago and that slut on instagram would be whipped today. Shariah law is conflicting with modern western "morality" which is why the West invests trillions every year in trying to change it.
BlkPillPres said:
You see that slut on instagram, a lot of you moralfags on this site would say that she is being immoral, but you would be wrong. She doesn't kill, she doesn't steal, she doesn't <insert "bad" thing here>. That's her morals, as far as she's concerned "the times have changed" and she can be a slut and "it isn't hurting anyone". She is completely moral FOR THE ERA SHE EXISTS IN.

Again MORALS ARE SUBJECTIVE, they change from person to person, country to country, era to era. Morals are pointless, we need to be driven by logic not morals, morals can be altered and therefore THEY CAN BE CORRUPTED.
Logic is also subjective. Scientists from every country were given the task of coming up with a logical response of combating coronavirus, some said herd immunity others said to shut everything down.
 
Last edited:
Z

zaitar124

Banned
-
Joined
Oct 17, 2020
Posts
39
Online
1d 13h 18m
get_even said:
Shariah Law is not subjective. It's remained the same for centuries. That slut on Instagram would be whipped 1400 years ago and that slut on instagram would be whipped today. Shariah law is conflicting with modern western "morality" which is why the West invests trillions every year in trying to change it.

Logic is also subjective. Scientists from every country were given the task of coming up with a logical response of combating coronavirus, some said herd immunity others said to shut everything down.
I am sorry but this is such a low IQ response
 
BlkPillPres

BlkPillPres

I'm Not A Monster, I'm Just Ahead Of The Curve
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Posts
17,558
Online
150d 6h 54m
get_even said:
Logic is also subjective. Scientists from every country were given the task of coming up with a logical response of combating coronavirus, some said herd immunity others said to shut everything down.

Logic is not subjective

Your analogy is false, you are falsely confusing two concepts

1. Optimal/Best
2. Logical

Logic doesn't mean you have the absolute best/most optimal answer, logic just means that your answer is reasonable

The example you gave is not an example of logic being subjective, all of the answers were logical, the distinction between having the "most accurate" answer doesn't make any of their answers "less logical" it just makes them "less optimal"

The person with the best out of ten doesn't have an answer that is "10 times more logical" :feelskek:, that's not how it works

Here's a simple example:
Some asks - "How do you figure out what is 40% of 1000"

Person A: "Multiply 1000 by 40 divided by 100" = 1000 * (40/100) = 400

Person B: "Multiply 1000 by 0.40" = 1000 * 0.40 = 400

Person B's answer requiring less steps doesn't make Person A's answer "illogical", the reasoning of Person A's solution is still correct and it yields the correct solution, Person B's answer is just more optimal

zaitar124 said:
I am sorry but this is such a low IQ response

That is the sad problem with religious people, they don't really think things through, because they have a God to do the thinking for them, their life is just about listening and following a set of rules, and ironically 1000 years from now all religions will be pale shadows of what they are now (and even today they are pale shadows of what they were before), most people won't even be religious
 
Last edited:
get_even

get_even

Major
Joined
Aug 1, 2019
Posts
2,016
Online
27d 13h 46m
BlkPillPres said:
Logic is not subjective

Your analogy is false, you are falsely confusing two concepts

1. Optimal/Best
2. Logical

Logic doesn't mean you have the absolute best/most optimal answer, logic just means that your answer is reasonable

The example you gave is not an example of logic being subjective, all of the answers were logical, the distinction between having the "most accurate" answer doesn't make any of their answers "less logical" it just makes them "less optimal"

The person with the best out of ten doesn't have an answer that is "10 times more logical" :feelskek:, that's not how it works

Here's a simple example:
Some asks - "How do you figure out what is 40% of 1000"

Person A: "Multiply 1000 by 40 divided by 100" = 1000 * (40/100) = 400

Person B: "Multiply 1000 by 0.40" = 1000 * 0.40 = 400

Person B's answer requiring less steps doesn't make Person A's answer "illogical", the reasoning of Person A's solution is still correct and it yields the correct solution, Person B's answer is just more optimal



That is the sad problem with religious people, they don't really think things through, because they have a God to do the thinking for them, their life is just about listening and following a set of rules, and ironically 1000 years from now all religions will be pale shadows of what they are now (and even today they are pale shadows of what they were before), most people won't even be religious
It still doesnt explain how logic is not subjective. It's fair to assume in the mathematics we use logic to come to a conclusion yet students end up with different scores. What seemed logical to one student seemed illogical to another, when laws are made similarly what seems logical for your reasoning of making laws will seem illogical to another and this time there is no one to mark your logic(working out) and conclusion(answer).
 
gsmcel

gsmcel

keeper of the downward spiral
Joined
Feb 15, 2020
Posts
46
Online
2d 20h 51m
BlkPillPres said:
1. No that's a retarded argument, its like saying - "cutting your foot off with a hacksaw is logical if you think that foot is possessed by a demon because YOUR GOAL is to not have a demon possessed foot"

Yes.

1. You dont want a demon foot.
2. You have a demon foot.

In that situation it is only logical to choose an action that will solve this conflict. Of course one would choose a method which seems to be the best value, and if there are no other options than a hacksaw, and you really dont want a demon foot, well. Logical to take that action. Not doing anything would be ill logical as it would be working against your own stated interest.
To clarify, I was pretty tired when posting yesterday, but I think basically using logic is only a way of reaching a goal. But that goal is subjective, so wanting a logical society is merely wanting a effiecent society, but not clarifying effiecence towards what goal. Could be efficiently killing itself for all that matters.
 
Last edited:
C

ChronicPaincel

Banned
-
Joined
Aug 13, 2018
Posts
3,878
Online
43d 5h 54m
BlkPillPres said:
Prostitution was illegal BEFORE feminism, its religious moral values that made it become illegal in society
What you wrote here is a perfect example of moral-relativism........ SUBJECTIVE morality lol......
 
Last edited:
C

ChronicPaincel

Banned
-
Joined
Aug 13, 2018
Posts
3,878
Online
43d 5h 54m
If people understood and lived by Natural Law OBJECTIVE MORALITY you wouldn't have problems like what you listed.

Individuals actions reflect to the aggregate, making the world more free, or more enslaved. It is common sense.
We live in slavery because the majority believe in moral-relativism instead of knowing the cause and effect relations of Natural Law for example.
 
bigantennaemay1

bigantennaemay1

Autistic social drifter without purpose or home
★★★★★
Joined
Nov 8, 2017
Posts
7,628
Online
43d 15h 55m
I disagree. The reason degeneracy is so rampant is the lack of enforcement of morality, legally and socially. That kind of behavior used to be looked down upon and punished, and that kept degeneracy under wraps for the most part. If you make an example of somebody who does something wrong, others are not as likely to follow in their footsteps. Meanwhile, in modern Western civ, when degeneracy is encouraged all over and there are no legal or social ramifications for being a drag on society, obviously degeneracy is going to flourish.

And corruption has nothing to do with anything. There will always be corruption, no matter what systems are in place, no matter who's in charge, it has nothing to do with the enforcement, or lack thereof, of morality in a society.
 
Honeypot

Honeypot

Wizard
★★★★★
Joined
Oct 11, 2018
Posts
4,442
Online
28d 7h 20m
BlkPillPres said:
Take murder for example, the law should not be "you should not kill because its bad/evil", it should be - "you should not kill because you also do not want to be killed". We should hate murder as a society because if we allow other people to kill others haphazardly, then we might be next, sounds fucked up but if society ran on cold logic like that, then everything would be more peaceful.
LowIQpress

Use evolution and biology for your arguments not shit like this with no scientific basis whatsoever.

Do you know why there are predators/killers animals in our world and also other animals that don't murder? looks no brainer taking fighting capabilities in evolution but being a predator is also a downfall as much as not killing, do you know why? because fighting is a risky evolutionary trait, if you fight and the other fight back you both are dead at the end regardless of who wins because injuries but if you aren't a predator you can just run and avoid a dead end.

This is the origin of collaboration in evolution and some other human traits.
 
BlkPillPres

BlkPillPres

I'm Not A Monster, I'm Just Ahead Of The Curve
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Posts
17,558
Online
150d 6h 54m
gsmcel said:
Yes.

1. You dont want a demon foot.
2. You have a demon foot.

I'm just going to block you for this retarded ass response, there are actually some arguments so stupid that I won't even bother addressing it any further



Honeypot said:
LowIQpress

Use evolution and biology for your arguments not shit like this with no scientific basis whatsoever.
Honeypot said:
Do you know why there are predators/killers animals in our world and also other animals that don't murder? looks no brainer taking fighting capabilities in evolution but being a predator is also a downfall as much as not killing, do you know why? because fighting is a risky evolutionary trait, if you fight and the other fight back you both are dead at the end regardless of who wins because injuries but if you aren't a predator you can just run and avoid a dead end.

This is the origin of collaboration in evolution and some other human traits.


1. How the fuck does "not wanting to die" need a "scientific basis", what you are saying makes no sense (ever heard of occam's razor?)

2. Evolution theory is ironically better used as an argument in favor of complete chaos, another person could alternatively argue that based on evolution theory we should just let the weak die because in the long run that will lead to humans evolving in the most optimal way, people who are physically weaker and less intelligent will die at the hands of crime, poverty, corruption, etc, and people who are intelligent and/or physically fit (and violent) enough to survive in such a world will reproduce and go on to create humans that are the "peak of humanity"

Everyone surviving and "having a fair chance" is the exact opposite of evolution, in fact one could argue our species is devolving as we allow people who are born with physical and mental defects to keep living, we supplement their disabilities with welfare (wasting resources that could go to "better stock") and we allow them to reproduce and keep passing on those defects



ChronicPaincel said:
What you wrote here is a perfect example of moral-relativism........ SUBJECTIVE morality lol......
ChronicPaincel said:
If people understood and lived by Natural Law OBJECTIVE MORALITY you wouldn't have problems like what you listed.

Individuals actions reflect to the aggregate, making the world more free, or more enslaved. It is common sense.
We live in slavery because the majority believe in moral-relativism instead of knowing the cause and effect relations of Natural Law for example.

Retard there's no such thing as objective morality, its exactly why literally ALL moral codes REVOLVE AROUND EMOTIONAL ARGUMENTS

For every so called "objectively moral" stance you could give me, I can give you a scenario in which the alternative could be considered the "moral choice" by some, and everybody has their own "special rules" for morality, its just that retards like you like to proudly assert:

"Well all those other people are wrong, objectivity morality exists, and I'm the arbiter of it, I know what is true objective morality, and IT JUST SO HAPPENS TO BE THE RULES I LEARNED BECAUSE I WAS BORN IN X COUNTY, IN X ERA, IN X FAMILY"

The moral code you have is nothing but the result of a sequence of events causing a domino effect, had you not been born the exact race you are now, in the exact era (as in decade), in the exact country, in the exact family, as the exact sibling (oldest, middle or youngest get different treatment and responsibilities, that shapes your mindset and beliefs), met the exact friends at the exact school, had the exact religion, etc, etc, etc you would not have that same moral code, its completely subjective and it would differ slightly for you if any of these variables are altered
 
Last edited:
Zensfy

Zensfy

An-Nisa 4:34
★★★
Joined
Feb 14, 2021
Posts
3,295
Online
29d 6h 24m
BlkPillPres @BlkPillPres If laws should be made using cold logic, what does cold logic dictate the age of consent should be?
 
Foodistzen

Foodistzen

Jacksepticeye's dad is burning in hell lmao
Joined
Jan 7, 2022
Posts
86
Online
1d 6h 18m
Zensfy said:
BlkPillPres @BlkPillPres If laws should be made using cold logic, what does cold logic dictate the age of consent should be?
the only objective answer would be to not have one. logic is based on objectivity and a rule like an aoc is subjective and based on emotional arguments which is why the number is different in other countries. its like saying a body count of 3 isn't that bad when compared to 5 or 10 when the objective truth is that they are both too high and there shouldn't be a body count in the first place.
 
BlkPillPres

BlkPillPres

I'm Not A Monster, I'm Just Ahead Of The Curve
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Posts
17,558
Online
150d 6h 54m
Zensfy said:
BlkPillPres @BlkPillPres If laws should be made using cold logic, what does cold logic dictate the age of consent should be?
The age of consent should be like holding a mirror up against society. Anonymous surveys will be conducted every 2 years to ask men and women what age their lost their virginity. It will be completely anonymous and worded in such a way to not make anyone (women) feel self conscious.

If we live in a society where women are allowed to be degenerate from a young age then the age of consent will be low, and if society adjusts and the number starts to increase over time, then the age of consent will be high.

Basically peoples actions will determine the age of consent, not their personal beliefs.

If after the survey it comes back that the average age for a female losing her virginity is 15, then the age of consent will be 15.

If society is so outraged by such a low number, then it (the human collective) will be forced to take an honest look at itself and admit that it allowed "degeneracy" to become a norm in society, and parenting will have to become more strict, slut shaming will have to become a norm, etc to police females (and males) into getting the number higher.


If I was going to go with a less complicated and simpler method, I'd pick the average age a female first has her menstrual cycle, I'd let biology decide like it's been deciding for most of our species existence. But I like the above method more because it forces the human collective to be honest with itself and not try to pass around blame. If you think a low age of consent is disgusting then you'll have to acknowledge that it's your fault for not policing female sexuality and letting young girls go around chasing Chad dick.

There are obvious holes in this, parents will likely push their daughters to lie, this is why the survey has to be anonymous and accessible to teens outside of the observation of a parent or guardian.

It takes away peoples ability to complain, because the outcome is determined by peoples collective actions.
 
Misanthropy1

Misanthropy1

Captain
★★★★
Joined
Nov 6, 2021
Posts
1,820
Online
26d 1h 37m
another example would be how moralfags advocate for the worst type of criminals to have all sorts of freedoms, which ultimately lead to them not getting punished at all and thus them being encouraged to commit more crimes. if murder would be actually punished with death there wouldn't be as much cases of people getting stabbed 20 times just to get their phones stolen.
 
BlkPillPres

BlkPillPres

I'm Not A Monster, I'm Just Ahead Of The Curve
★★★★★
Joined
Feb 28, 2018
Posts
17,558
Online
150d 6h 54m
Misanthropy1 said:
another example would be how moralfags advocate for the worst type of criminals to have all sorts of freedoms, which ultimately lead to them not getting punished at all and thus them being encouraged to commit more crimes. if murder would be actually punished with death there wouldn't be as much cases of people getting stabbed 20 times just to get their phones stolen.
This is a perfect example. It's a complete waste of money to keep criminals jailed, fed and clothed anyways. Make it be the death penalty for murder (not accidental, but malicious) and watch how quickly those murder rates go down lol.
 
trying to ascend

trying to ascend

Youngcel KHHV
★★★★★
Joined
Aug 30, 2020
Posts
10,137
Online
246d 3h 23m
This premisse is arbitrary per se, therefore this whole ethical system would be as arbitrary as the libertarian or kantian one. You are just evaluating actions based on a premise like everyone else, it's still morality.

Also, how would you address inaction problems? Once every non consensual action is forbidden under that principe, since you would always not want the action to be done to you (since you would be the non consensual part). How would you deal with situations such as a mother abandoning her kids (thus letting them starve), a father not paying child support, someone refusing to help one that was a car crash victim or even taxation?

Basically, how would you enforce any kind of duty?
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape7
shape8
Top