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

 

[Deleted member 43294]

1. Morality has nothing to do with guilt, it has to do with FEAR. If the bible said - "Obey God's law or you'll make him cry and feel bad" people would be fucking in the streets lol. Humans can't really be guilt tripped, you need fear to control them, that's why "hell" is in the bible.

2. People are going to indulge in degeneracy regardless, logic brings order to the world and balance so that things don't go to far. Also degeneracy isn't a problem, it's "centralized degeneracy" (as in not "fairly distributed") that's a bad thing. If every body could equally take part, pretty much no one would be complaining.

[Hard To Swallow Edition] DEGENERACY Is A Good Thing, Its CENTRALIZED DEGENERACY That's Bad

I see a lot of blue pilled moralfag copers talking about degeneracy this and degeneracy that, you idiots don't get degeneracy is what makes humans wake up in the morning and go to work to slave away their time to make someone else rich, without degeneracy humans would become extremely...

incels.is

This is the same left-wing dumbass argument that banning something like abortion "hurr durr ppl gonna do it anyways!"

Yet they support gun control...it is false logic.

Why do we throw pedophiles, murderers, rapists etc. in prison with that logic "they will just do it anyways"

Nowadays, it is perfectly acceptable for a chick to make decent money while fucking multiple guys in her 20s with no intention of getting married then find a husband with a well paying job that will marry her and put up with everything she did and behaves.

Before, there would be a social cost associated with being a hor. Now its accepted.

 

[BlkPillPres]

This is the same left-wing dumbass argument that banning something like abortion "hurr durr ppl gonna do it anyways!"

It really isn't, in fact banning abortions does work. Less women do it, there will always be women that do abortions, but fear is the ultimate deterrant. Fear is logical, but morality isn't. Morality may employ a "tool" of logic, but it isn't logical in of itself, and that's it's greatest flaw. It's exactly why morals change throughout history based on emotional arguments. The same morals that made people kill gays thousands of years ago is now used to make people accept gays in the modern era. Morality can be corrupted because it's subjective and arbitrary.

Why do we throw pedophiles, murderers, rapists etc. in prison with that logic "they will just do it anyways"

Notice in your example you are using fear to deter an action, that's exactly why it works.

Nowadays, it is perfectly acceptable for a chick to make decent money while fucking multiple guys in her 20s with no intention of getting married then find a husband with a well paying job that will marry her and put up with everything she did and behaves.

Before, there would be a social cost associated with being a hor. Now its accepted.

That's never going to change though. You see it wasn't morality that deterred the behaviour, it was fear of punishment. But since the moral code no longer sees fit to punish women for these things, morality is now a neutered tool, it's useless. That's the problem with morality, it can be corrupted and changed over time.

But laws that revolve around logic will always be consistent.

"Women should not be allowed to be overly promiscuous because it upsets the balance between the sexes and leads to social disorder and chaos"
A good example of this, is what's in this thread:

Andrew Tate Succinctly Explains Why Incels Exist, Why Our Numbers Are Growing, Why Were Violent, & Why More Violence Is Inevitable

Not surprised it's Andrew Tate saying this. He was on the FreshandFit podcast and even though they aren't really black pilled, they are still honest about a lot of sexual dynamics, they don't sugar coat. He said it as plain as day. It's simple biology, you can't deny it, and yet normies will...

incels.is

If "degeneracy" becomes "centralized" and isn't "shared" among the masses of average men. It will lead to widespread male violence. Therefore by law women have two choices.

Make degeneracy more accessible to average men and lower their standards (everybody gets to take part)
Be banned from all degeneracy (nobody gets to take part)

The thing is, they are still going to do it, but fear of punishment will at least push these behaviors into the background of society rather than it being "in your face", because that's what pushes men to violence.

A system like that would never change, because the sexual dynamics of the sexes will never change. But when it comes to morality, it always changes because peoples thoughts and emotions changes over the years.

 

[kretschmer]

This is the same left-wing dumbass argument that banning something like abortion

its not a left wing argument. whatever that means. logic is logic. its neither 'left' or 'right'

 

[gimmedatrope999]

A society based on logic can’t exist. it’s an inherent contradiction.

 

[ResidentHell]

As it appears, morality is subjective. The application of morality would be respective to the standard of behavior deemed acceptable (or detestable) by a concerned person , and social constructionism is pretty much the benchmark that would have to be met by something in order for it to be judged as a moral value by the conventional population.

But the issue is that it's neither possible to prove nor disprove the existence of objective morality , because it would depend on a universally applicable criteria for "good" or "bad" behavior - A criteria that would necessarily apply in any domain at any given time, regardless of whether or not a conscious person is present at the location at a certain time.

Unless someone in the population knows and can apply the criteria that would accurately describe "objective good" or "objective bad" , the moral standards of society would be continually prone to change. But to prove or disprove beyond reasonable doubt that objective morality exists , you have to prove or disprove there exists a standard for "good" or "bad" behavior that is neither restricted by any quantity of time , nor by any domain that would concern the phenomenon of "behavior". It is impossible.

 

[Mambolovania]

Foids use the same reasoning to justify casual sex. Shillpost.

 

[mlcurrycel]

I agree with OP, laws should be based on game theory and psychological studies to maximise happiness without causing weakness or behavioural sink

 

[Cypher]

People became passive and don't fight back against moral degeneracy.

 

[basementLDARcel]

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.

I believe you are confusing "socially acceptable behavior" with "morality".

For example, the blacks were enslaved in the 1800's. You could chat with a bluepilled normie and have the following conversation:

Bluepilled Normie: "They used to enslave the blacks in the 1800's, they were so evil"
Blackpilled Incel: "Yeah but morality changes over time, back then it was okay for people to own slaves"
Bluepilled Normie: "True, morality changes from Era to Era"
Blackpilled Incel: "Yes, so therefore you agree with me, it was morally acceptable to own slaves in the 1800's, but not today"
Bluepilled Normie: "Yeah, sure, basically"
Blackpilled Incel: "Okay, well then going by your logic, it was not evil to own slaves in the 1800's, it would only be evil today, therefore you can't actually call the slaveowners evil"
Bluepilled Normie: "Well uhhhhhh......"

See? What the bluepilled normie misunderstood was that socially acceptable behavior is different than morality.

 

[Shaktiman]

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

Logic is based on Truth but Truth is also subjective!

 

[BlkPillPres]

See? What the bluepilled normie misunderstood was that socially acceptable behavior is different than morality.

No, what you fail to understand is that the moral code is what determines what is socially acceptable, and the moral code changes throughout history, and that's exactly why what is socially acceptable always changes.

You're just another person of the "new modern era" that thinks themselves "better than the people of the past" and thinks they know "what is TRULY moral". Just like all the other idiots of the past that thought themselves better than the people of their past, and that those people were "savages", and that they know what is "TRULY moral".

You clearly lack the self awareness to realize that it's your ego blinding you. You don't know what's moral, the generations ahead of us are going to consider you immoral and uncivilized. The generations ahead of us are going to think of us as "Barbaric" with all the shit that happens today (especially because of the mass shootings).

Thousands of years from now humans will look back and think that those of us in this era are less intelligent, less civilized, less moral period.

Like you, they will also be blinded by their egos, and be blinded to how their own civilization is warped in it's own way, because they are operating based on a moral code (which can be corrupted in many ways), rather than operating based on logic and reason.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Logic is based on Truth but Truth is also subjective!

Truth is never subjective, you are falsely conflating perspective and truth. There is only one absolute truth, peoples interpretation of reality will differ, but only one interpretation is actually the correct one.

For example, "the sky is blue" isn't really the truth, it's an interpretation based on the light reflected and how human eyes take in light. The sky merely looks blue to human eyes, but to the eyes of other creatures is may appear to be a different colour. How we see the sky IS SUBJECTIVE.

The science behind WHY the sky looks blue to human eyes IS A TRUTH, and it is NOT SUBJECTIVE.

 

[basementLDARcel]

No, what you fail to understand is that the moral code is what determines what is socially acceptable, and the moral code changes throughout history, and that's exactly why what is socially acceptable always changes.

You're just another person of the "new modern era" that thinks themselves "better than the people of the past" and thinks they know "what is TRULY moral". Just like all the other idiots of the past that thought themselves better than the people of their past, and that those people were "savages", and that they know what is "TRULY moral".

I never said I know what is "TRULY moral", this is a strawman. All I said, was that morality can't change over time.

Either Slavery is morally fine and the people in the 1800's were right.
-or-
Slavery is immoral and modern people are right.

(Or perhaps you could argue about voluntary vs involuntary slavery if you really wanna get into the nuances, the slavery in the 1800's was involuntary, they captured the slaves from Africa)

Saying morality changes over time implies an action in a certain time period is morally acceptable, but not in another time period.

You clearly lack the self awareness to realize that it's your ego blinding you. You don't know what's moral, the generations ahead of us are going to consider you immoral and uncivilized. The generations ahead of us are going to think of us as "Barbaric" with all the shit that happens today (especially because of the mass shootings).

Thousands of years from now humans will look back and think that those of us in this era are less intelligent, less civilized, less moral period.

Like you, they will also be blinded by their egos, and be blinded to how their own civilization is warped in it's own way, because they are operating based on a moral code (which can be corrupted in many ways), rather than operating based on logic and reason.

See above. I never claimed to know what true morality is for certain. My main point is what morality is (right and wrong), is different than what is deemed socially acceptable.

Socially Prescribed Moral Code (what is socially acceptable) =/= Morality (What is truly moral)

 

[BlkPillPres]

I never said I know what is "TRULY moral", this is a strawman. All I said, was that morality can't change over time.

Retard if you are saying that morality CAN'T change then you are indirectly asserting that you know without a doubt WHAT IS TRULY IS.

How the fuck can you know that it can't change if you don't know what it is?

If you don't know what it is, all you are doing is making the ASSUMPTION that it CAN'T change, you don't KNOW that for sure.

Saying morality changes over time implies an action in a certain time period is morally acceptable, but not in another time period.

Does God decide what is moral?

If you say yes, last time I checked, God has literally sanctioned the slaughter and rape of many people in times of war. Outright telling his chosen to do it.

Or are you ironically asserting that morality exists even if God doesn't, it a world where humans supposedly evolved over millions of years of various creatures stealing murdering, raping, etc?

I don't think you are thinking this through at all.

See above. I never claimed to know what true morality is for certain.

You did, you just don't realize the implications of your words.

See above.

If you say that morality can't change then you are asserting that there is an absolute morality, which you couldn't know. You are self asserting that you know what moral and what isn't.

You keep bringing up slavery but:
Who the hell decided slavery is immoral and why do we have to listen to them?.
What makes them the arbiter of morality?

Are you getting the point?

Through out your responses you have been asserting a moral standard, but who the hell are you to decide that?

 

[basementLDARcel]

Retard if you are saying that morality CAN'T change then you are indirectly asserting that you know without a doubt WHAT IS TRULY IS.

No, what I'm saying is there is some sort of true moral code, I don't know what the exact code is with certainty, but whatever it is, it doesn't change over time, people's perceptions about it do though.

How the fuck can you know that it can't change if you don't know what it is?

If you don't know what it is, all you are doing is making the ASSUMPTION that it CAN'T change, you don't KNOW that for sure.

It can't change because the actions are wrong for a reason.

For example adultery (cheating on your spouse), if we assume is wrong, wouldn't just suddenly be okay in the 2100's, but not the 1600's, because the reason it's wrong is because you're breaking a commitment. The act of breaking a commitment doesn't just go from "wrong" to "okay" in different time periods, that's retarded.

You think people in the 2500's would look at people who cheat in the 2100's and say "that's fine", and at the same time look at those in the 1600's and say "that's evil"? No, of course not. There would be consistency.

Does God decide what is moral?

If you say yes, last time I checked, God has literally sanctioned the slaughter and rape of many people in times of war. Outright telling his chosen to do it.

Yes, he did do that, in regards to slaughter, but he had his reasons for that, for example
https://www.gotquestions.org/Canaanites-extermination.html

God did not order the extermination of these people to be cruel, but to prevent even greater evil from occurring in the future.

In regards to rape, I'm gonna call BS. For example, this a common argument used to say God commanded rape of pre-pubescent girls:
Numbers 31:17-18 KJV
Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for ... Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

Keeping them alive for themselves does not mean they raped them, or even had sex with them as pre-pubescents. It very well could mean they married them and waited til after puberty to have sex with them. You could claim they were war brides and the marriage was forced, but I'm sure you aren't against forced marriages of women, that only makes sense to control women.

The world in which God revealed Himself was very different from today’s world. It was a world in which warfare was common and the consequences for defeated peoples were often terrible. Marrying the men who had conquered you is not a particularly attractive option but it is better than the alternative. What we often find in the Old Testament is a way of doing things that limits harm. Skeptics are dismissive of this. Life was brutal 3000 years ago. The reason why it was brutal is that this is what human nature is capable of, and still is. Christianity offers us the hope of deliverance from our corrupt nature.

Or are you ironically asserting that morality exists even if God doesn't, it a world where humans supposedly evolved over millions of years of various creatures stealing murdering, raping, etc?

I don't think you are thinking this through at all.

Nah, morality doesn't exist in a Godless universe.

You did, you just don't realize the implications of your words.

See above.

If you say that morality can't change then you are asserting that there is an absolute morality, which you couldn't know. You are self asserting that you know what moral and what isn't.

If you're saying there is no absolute moral standard, then you arguing against morality is not actually arguing against morality, but a socially prescribed moral code.

You keep bringing up slavery but:
Who the hell decided slavery is immoral and why do we have to listen to them?.
What makes them the arbiter of morality?

Are you getting the point?

Through out your responses you have been asserting a moral standard, but who the hell are you to decide that?

I was just using slavery as an example, I am not claiming I know with 100% certainty what the exact moral code is, nor am I the one to decide what it is.

However according to the Bible, slavery is allowed in cases where it is voluntary, such as paying off a debt. This could also be known as "indentured servitude". Meanwhile just kidnapping people and forcing them to be slaves, would not be ok.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Yes, he did do that, in regards to slaughter, but he had his reasons for that, for example
https://www.gotquestions.org/Canaanites-extermination.html

Holy fuck religious people are idiots.

If an act that is known as immoral can magically becoming morally acceptable because God decides it is, then that is THE BIGGEST EXAMPLE OF MORALITY BEING SUBJECTIVE.

Instead of you saying that God did something immoral, you will use mental gymnastics to argue that it's moral because God says so.

So morality doesn't even have any meaning to you.


I don't think you realize you've contradicted yourself.

Earlier you were saying that something is immoral regardless of whether or not it's socially acceptable, but if God does something it's moral regardless?

God could rape your mother in front of you and now it's moral because "he's God"?

This is why conversations are pointless with religious people, you guys have no logic. There's no point in continuing this any further, you've replaced your brain with religion, and it's religious doctrine that does the thinking for you.

However according to the Bible, slavery is allowed in cases where it is voluntary, such as paying off a debt. This could also be known as "indentured servitude". Meanwhile just kidnapping people and forcing them to be slaves, would not be ok.

So once again, morality is subjective and therefore doesn't exist. It's just shit people made up that changes from era to era.

 

[basementLDARcel]

Holy fuck religious people are idiots.

If an act that is known as immoral can magically becoming morally acceptable because God decides it is, then that is THE BIGGEST EXAMPLE OF MORALITY BEING SUBJECTIVE.

Instead of you saying that God did something immoral, you will use mental gymnastics to argue that it's moral because God says so.

So morality doesn't even have any meaning to you.


I don't think you realize you've contradicted yourself.

Earlier you were saying that something is immoral regardless of whether or not it's socially acceptable, but if God does something it's moral regardless?

Murder = unlawful killing of another human being. If God grants it and has a reason for it, it's moral. You're gonna act like killing a random person for no reason is different than war to stop evil?

If the government gives the death penalty, that's evil too I suppose and the same as a random killing?

God could rape your mother in front of you and now it's moral because "he's God"?

That's stupid because there would be no reason for that, shit analogy. What would be the end goal? He already impregnated Mary (without sex), in order to bring Jesus into the world.

This is why conversations are pointless with religious people, you guys have no logic. There's no point in continuing this any further, you've replaced your brain with religion, and it's religious doctrine that does the thinking for you.

Nah, you just pussied out because you can't understand nuance. Typical of you.

So once again, morality is subjective and therefore doesn't exist. It's just shit people made up that changes from era to era.

JFL, retarded, you act as if voluntary servitude and involuntary servitude are the same. Your "therefore doesn't exist" is a faulty conclusion. Keep coping with your nihilism you pseudointellectual.

 

[Galvoccc]

All Morality/Perceptions of what is correct and wrong is all the core result of (If not collectivist Societal Culture Civilization and general outside interaction) than Emotion and Perspective as built in as an irrational and illogical Spectrum of thoughts and Persuasive feelings, If humanity could think logically and realize that Pain and Pleasure don't exist in the first place (as proved by Meditation and the process of burning and how Dinosaurs lay in a "Death Pose" when they are about to Die) than I would finally get my wish of an Extinct Planet. I am sure so many of us would as well, no matter the state of our lives and the external reality and world. If you all wish to end Lives. Hatred is not the key as nobody and nothing will cave in if they feel attacked, yet however showing them that they are incorrect about everything they know about death and themselves and the outside world will show them some (if any) sense of truth. Some thing I learned is that no matter who you are: there will always be support and Hatred and then beings like Me/Myself/Eye. I cannot begin to express myself in ways all cannot imagine.

"Nothing is more active than thought, for it travels over the universe, and nothing is stronger than Necessity for all must submit to it"

-Thales Of Miletus

 

[Galvoccc]

Murder = unlawful killing of another human being. If God grants it and has a reason for it, it's moral. You're gonna act like killing a random person for no reason is different than war to stop evil?

If the government gives the death penalty, that's evil too I suppose and the same as a random killing?

That's stupid because there would be no reason for that, shit analogy. What would be the end goal? He already impregnated Mary (without sex), in order to bring Jesus into the world.

Nah, you just pussied out because you can't understand nuance. Typical of you.

JFL, retarded, you act as if voluntary servitude and involuntary servitude are the same. Your "therefore doesn't exist" is a faulty conclusion. Keep coping with your nihilism you pseudointellectual.

In a way you could also argue that it could be considered "Evil" to kill a dog/cat/animal or unborn child who is suffering, yet some murderers/spree killers also justify their victims could be better off dead by that logic as well, therefore it presents more of a gray area in the "mind over reality/matter" and shows that they are not (always) "Evil" or "Cowards" If death is just nothing than wouldn't it be not as looked down upon since their would be no use for any sort of Willpower?? it's like how when you want to go to sleep, you don't want to but when you do you don't remember a single thing. I remember Ted Bundy said something similar but did not elaborate. Randy Stair wanted to put his coworkers out of their misery, this was very close to Adam Lanza's motive as well, and Kip Kinkel killed his parents to spare them from suffering, Alvaro Castillo also thought his victims could be saved from the "Sin" of the world. Speaking Religion Wise, In old texts Jesus did advocate or considerably address some ProMortalist thinking in the Ecclesiastes passages?!?

 

[Shaktiman]

Truth is never subjective, you are falsely conflating perspective and truth. There is only one absolute truth, peoples interpretation of reality will differ, but only one interpretation is actually the correct one.

For example, "the sky is blue" isn't really the truth, it's an interpretation based on the light reflected and how human eyes take in light. The sky merely looks blue to human eyes, but to the eyes of other creatures is may appear to be a different colour. How we see the sky IS SUBJECTIVE.

The science behind WHY the sky looks blue to human eyes IS A TRUTH, and it is NOT SUBJECTIVE.

There is only one absolute truth
Absolutism is subjective!
Every person has their own version of Absolutism

The science behind WHY the sky looks blue
Science is subjective!
The big bang theory just got demolished by the new James Hubb telescope.All science is based on reality and even reality is subjective to time and place!

 

[BlkPillPres]

Science is subjective!

Science is how truth is discovered, it isn't truth in of itself. Once again, you are conflating things.

The big bang theory just got demolished by the new James Hubb telescope.

That has nothing to do with anything, people thought something was the truth and then it was prove false.

You are literally doing what I said and conflating perspective (what people believe) with reality (what actually is).

For example, the Christian God existing COULD be truth, but as of now it is merely a perspective, because it hasn't been proven to be true without a doubt.

All science is based on reality and even reality is subjective to time and place!

Reality is objective, you really just sound stupid right now.

The reason why you can even communicate with me right now is because reality is objective and there are set rules to the nature of reality.

Computers wouldn't even work if reality was subjective. Objectivity is required for technology to work. You really just conflating things right now.

 

[Shaktiman]

Science is how truth is discovered, it isn't truth in of itself. Once again, you are conflating things.


That has nothing to do with anything, people thought something was the truth and then it was prove false.

You are literally doing what I said and conflating perspective (what people believe) with reality (what actually is).

For example, the Christian God existing COULD be truth, but as of now it is merely a perspective, because it hasn't been proven to be true without a doubt.


Reality is objective, you really just sound stupid right now.

The reason why you can even communicate with me right now is because reality is objective and there are set rules to the nature of reality.

Computers wouldn't even work if reality was subjective. Objectivity is required for technology to work. You really just conflating things right now.

If reality is merely an illusion, what could be behind the scenes of reality?

When I wake up in the morning, I feel I have returned to a world of Reality from which I had receded for a while during the sleeping state. As the Chinese philosopher Zhuangzi wondered, “I do not know whether I was a man dreaming I was a butterfly, or whether I am now a butterfly, dreaming I am a man.”

My experiences during sleep, such as I recall, were fantastic, illogical and impossible, but they strike me as such only now when I compare them to the happenings in this normal world to which I am accustomed in my waking hours. My dreams have included such incredible scenes as the flight of winged elephants, the walk in a park with gigantic fish, and watching a debate between Shankara and Plato on Maya and the man in the cave. I did not have the wits to doubt their reality then, for, as the poet Dryden said in The Cock and the Fox, "dreams are but interludes which fancy makes when Monarch-Reason sleeps…." Dreams reveal to us what a world, free from the constraints of logic and coherence, will be. Indeed, as Petronius said, centuries ago, dreams do not descend from God. Each of us makes our own dreams. Most of us spend almost one third of our lives in those interludes.

Philosophers have written extensively on appearance and reality. They ask and answer questions like: What is real? What is illusion? What is imaginary? What is trustworthy? What is deceptive? Each one seems to be quite firm in his or her own grasp of the matter. To me these are fascinating inquiries, but only when I am reading or writing, or presenting a paper in a meeting, or discussing with others. Aside from making me intellectually engaged, as with most people, these questions don't carry me too far.

Yet, the quest for the nature of reality is not trivial. Many take it very seriously. Philosophers do so in academic contexts and religious aspirants engage in it for spiritual fulfillment. Answers to such questions impinge on life and existence. Artists express their visions of truth about Reality through painting, sculpture, music, movies, literature, and the like. Poets phrase them pleasingly. Some people give up life's normal joys and comforts to know ultimate Reality. Prince Siddhartha renounced wife and child in his quest for Truth and initiated a religion (Buddhism) that has touched millions of people. Scientists believe that they are intelligently dedicated to pursuit of unraveling the nature of Reality.

I don't have an inkling as to the nature of Ultimate Reality, but I don't feel any the smaller for this ignorance because I have a sneaking suspicion that very few human beings, if any, do. Though many imagine they have unlocked the puzzle, I doubt that anyone has the right answer on ultimate questions. But I am happy for those who are spiritually content with the answers they have found from venerable authorities.

All I am reasonably certain about is that I undergo a complex of experiences every day, forming an overall picture of the world. Whether these are real or not, I am persuaded that I am sharing these with countless fellow humans. This commonly experienced world may be the only reality available to creatures in human bodies, although all this may be just a grand trick played on the human mind by some unknown entity, or simply by the molecules and forces in the physical world. Whatever its cause, this apparent reality is very relevant in the context of human life spans, only because it is there, and it is unavoidable. It is the only kind of reality in which we function normally. Perhaps it is not all that significant in cosmic terms, but the sensorially experienced world is extremely interesting and quite exciting at times.

We become aware of the world through eyes and ears, nose, tongue and touch. The channels of perception transform physical stimuli into sensations, creating pleasure, pain, and impressions, such as the glory of the sunset and the scent of perfumes, magnificent music, delightful tastes of food, and the softness of a cat's fur.

There is neither music nor color, neither odor nor sweetness in the crass world of matter and energy. In the world beyond our bodies, there are only matter chunks and vibrations, silent and senseless, dark and dreary. The transformation of all this into an astounding world of beauty and fragrance and enjoyment is brought about by the brain, perhaps the most wondrous entity ever to have evolved in the cold cavity of the universe.

The stimuli also generate abstract entities (thoughts). Each one of us is, in Pascal’s phrase, un roseau pensant: a thinking reed. The brain also provokes feelings and emotions: joy, sorrow, exhilaration. The perceptual inputs convey information about the world. The totality of all experiences, impressions, and information obtained through the normal channels of sensory faculties constitute the world of perceived reality (PR). That is the only reality we can be sure of. But periodically these are mixed up in a dream which is not unlike the scribble on a sheet of paper by a child of its version of a scene it has seen.

To normal human beings, the world has two aspects: First, the collective and shared phenomenal world resulting from perceived reality. This is external. Second, experienced internal reality with feelings and emotions. These two aspects are not unconnected, since both arise from the sensory perceptions which activate us as conscious entities.

What reality, if any, awaits us beyond this terrestrial sojourn remains to be seen…….

 

[BlkPillPres]

If reality is merely an illusion, what could be behind the scenes of reality?

You are playing semantic word games. If "reality" is an illusion then that isn't reality, the ACTUAL REALITY is what's "behind the scenes" of the illusion.

You are literally still conflating perspective (what people believe) with reality (what actually is).

This isn't fucking rocket science, it's the simplest thing in the world to get, how are you still not getting it yet? lol

Something that is an illusion is by definition NOT REALITY.

Something that is false is by definition NOT THE TRUTH.

Some people THINKING that an illusion is real, DOES NOT MAKE IT REALITY.

Some people THINKING that a falsehood is true, DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.

REALITY AND TRUTH EXISTS INDEPENDENT OF OBSERVATION, ACCEPTANCE, THOUGHT, PERCEPTION, ETC.

IT SIMPLY IS.

If a tree falls down in the forest it most definitely makes a sound whether someone is around to hear it or not, because sound is a result of vibrations carried through the air. That happens whether or not an organism with ears is nearby to hear those vibrations.

 

[Shaktiman]

You are playing semantic word games. If "reality" is an illusion then that isn't reality, the ACTUAL REALITY is what's "behind the scenes" of the illusion.

You are literally still conflating perspective (what people believe) with reality (what actually is).

This isn't fucking rocket science, it's the simplest thing in the world to get, how are you still not getting it yet? lol

Something that is an illusion is by definition NOT REALITY.

Something that is false is by definition NOT THE TRUTH.

Some people THINKING that an illusion is real, DOES NOT MAKE IT REALITY.

Some people THINKING that a falsehood is true, DOES NOT MAKE IT TRUE.

REALITY AND TRUTH EXISTS INDEPENDENT OF OBSERVATION, ACCEPTANCE, THOUGHT, PERCEPTION, ETC.

IT SIMPLY IS.

If a tree falls down in the forest it most definitely makes a sound whether someone is around to hear it or not, because sound is a result of vibrations carried through the air. That happens whether or not an organism with ears is nearby to hear those vibrations.

REALITY AND TRUTH EXISTS INDEPENDENT OF OBSERVATION, ACCEPTANCE, THOUGHT, PERCEPTION, ETC.

A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality​

Physicists have long suspected that quantum mechanics allows two observers to experience different, conflicting realities. Now they’ve performed the first experiment that proves it.


Back in 1961, the Nobel Prize–winning physicist Eugene Wigner outlined a thought experiment that demonstrated one of the lesser-known paradoxes of quantum mechanics. The experiment shows how the strange nature of the universe allows two observers—say, Wigner and Wigner’s friend—to experience different realities.
Since then, physicists have used the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment to explore the nature of measurement and to argue over whether objective facts can exist. That’s important because scientists carry out experiments to establish objective facts. But if they experience different realities, the argument goes, how can they agree on what these facts might be?
That’s provided some entertaining fodder for after-dinner conversation, but Wigner’s thought experiment has never been more than that—just a thought experiment.
Last year, however, physicists noticed that recent advances in quantum technologies have made it possible to reproduce the Wigner’s Friend test in a real experiment. In other words, it ought to be possible to create different realities and compare them in the lab to find out whether they can be reconciled.

And today, Massimiliano Proietti at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh and a few colleagues say they have performed this experiment for the first time: they have created different realities and compared them. Their conclusion is that Wigner was correct—these realities can be made irreconcilable so that it is impossible to agree on objective facts about an experiment.
Wigner’s original thought experiment is straightforward in principle. It begins with a single polarized photon that, when measured, can have either a horizontal polarization or a vertical polarization. But before the measurement, according to the laws of quantum mechanics, the photon exists in both polarization states at the same time—a so-called superposition.

Wigner imagined a friend in a different lab measuring the state of this photon and storing the result, while Wigner observed from afar. Wigner has no information about his friend’s measurement and so is forced to assume that the photon and the measurement of it are in a superposition of all possible outcomes of the experiment.
Wigner can even perform an experiment to determine whether this superposition exists or not. This is a kind of interference experiment showing that the photon and the measurement are indeed in a superposition.
From Wigner’s point of view, this is a “fact”—the superposition exists. And this fact suggests that a measurement cannot have taken place.
But this is in stark contrast to the point of view of the friend, who has indeed measured the photon’s polarization and recorded it. The friend can even call Wigner and say the measurement has been done (provided the outcome is not revealed).
So the two realities are at odds with each other. “This calls into question the objective status of the facts established by the two observers,” say Proietti and co.
That’s the theory, but last year Caslav Brukner, at the University of Vienna in Austria, came up with a way to re-create the Wigner’s Friend experiment in the lab by means of techniques involving the entanglement of many particles at the same time.
The breakthrough that Proietti and co have made is to carry this out. “In a state-of-the-art 6-photon experiment, we realize this extended Wigner’s friend scenario,” they say.
They use these six entangled photons to create two alternate realities—one representing Wigner and one representing Wigner’s friend. Wigner’s friend measures the polarization of a photon and stores the result. Wigner then performs an interference measurement to determine if the measurement and the photon are in a superposition.


The experiment produces an unambiguous result. It turns out that both realities can coexist even though they produce irreconcilable outcomes, just as Wigner predicted.
That raises some fascinating questions that are forcing physicists to reconsider the nature of reality.
The idea that observers can ultimately reconcile their measurements of some kind of fundamental reality is based on several assumptions. The first is that universal facts actually exist and that observers can agree on them.
But there are other assumptions too. One is that observers have the freedom to make whatever observations they want. And another is that the choices one observer makes do not influence the choices other observers make—an assumption that physicists call locality.
If there is an objective reality that everyone can agree on, then these assumptions all hold.
But Proietti and co’s result suggests that objective reality does not exist. In other words, the experiment suggests that one or more of the assumptions—the idea that there is a reality we can agree on, the idea that we have freedom of choice, or the idea of locality—must be wrong.
Of course, there is another way out for those hanging on to the conventional view of reality. This is that there is some other loophole that the experimenters have overlooked. Indeed, physicists have tried to close loopholes in similar experiments for years, although they concede that it may never be possible to close them all.
Nevertheless, the work has important implications for the work of scientists. “The scientific method relies on facts, established through repeated measurements and agreed upon universally, independently of who observed them,” say Proietti and co. And yet in the same paper, they undermine this idea, perhaps fatally.



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGJjScfG8h4

 

[BlkPillPres]

A quantum experiment suggests there’s no such thing as objective reality
Physicists have long suspected that quantum mechanics allows two observers to experience different, conflicting realities. Now they’ve performed the first experiment that proves it.


Back in 1961, the Nobel Prize–winning physicist Eugene Wigner outlined a thought experiment that demonstrated one of the lesser-known paradoxes of quantum mechanics. The experiment shows how the strange nature of the universe allows two observers—say, Wigner and Wigner’s friend—to experience different realities.
Since then, physicists have used the “Wigner’s Friend” thought experiment to explore the nature of measurement and to argue over whether objective facts can exist. That’s important because scientists carry out experiments to establish objective facts. But if they experience different realities, the argument goes, how can they agree on what these facts might be?
That’s provided some entertaining fodder for after-dinner conversation, but Wigner’s thought experiment has never been more than that—just a thought experiment.
Last year, however, physicists noticed that recent advances in quantum technologies have made it possible to reproduce the Wigner’s Friend test in a real experiment. In other words, it ought to be possible to create different realities and compare them in the lab to find out whether they can be reconciled.

And today, Massimiliano Proietti at Heriot-Watt University in Edinburgh and a few colleagues say they have performed this experiment for the first time: they have created different realities and compared them. Their conclusion is that Wigner was correct—these realities can be made irreconcilable so that it is impossible to agree on objective facts about an experiment.
Wigner’s original thought experiment is straightforward in principle. It begins with a single polarized photon that, when measured, can have either a horizontal polarization or a vertical polarization. But before the measurement, according to the laws of quantum mechanics, the photon exists in both polarization states at the same time—a so-called superposition.

Wigner imagined a friend in a different lab measuring the state of this photon and storing the result, while Wigner observed from afar. Wigner has no information about his friend’s measurement and so is forced to assume that the photon and the measurement of it are in a superposition of all possible outcomes of the experiment.
Wigner can even perform an experiment to determine whether this superposition exists or not. This is a kind of interference experiment showing that the photon and the measurement are indeed in a superposition.
From Wigner’s point of view, this is a “fact”—the superposition exists. And this fact suggests that a measurement cannot have taken place.
But this is in stark contrast to the point of view of the friend, who has indeed measured the photon’s polarization and recorded it. The friend can even call Wigner and say the measurement has been done (provided the outcome is not revealed).
So the two realities are at odds with each other. “This calls into question the objective status of the facts established by the two observers,” say Proietti and co.
That’s the theory, but last year Caslav Brukner, at the University of Vienna in Austria, came up with a way to re-create the Wigner’s Friend experiment in the lab by means of techniques involving the entanglement of many particles at the same time.
The breakthrough that Proietti and co have made is to carry this out. “In a state-of-the-art 6-photon experiment, we realize this extended Wigner’s friend scenario,” they say.
They use these six entangled photons to create two alternate realities—one representing Wigner and one representing Wigner’s friend. Wigner’s friend measures the polarization of a photon and stores the result. Wigner then performs an interference measurement to determine if the measurement and the photon are in a superposition.


The experiment produces an unambiguous result. It turns out that both realities can coexist even though they produce irreconcilable outcomes, just as Wigner predicted.
That raises some fascinating questions that are forcing physicists to reconsider the nature of reality.
The idea that observers can ultimately reconcile their measurements of some kind of fundamental reality is based on several assumptions. The first is that universal facts actually exist and that observers can agree on them.
But there are other assumptions too. One is that observers have the freedom to make whatever observations they want. And another is that the choices one observer makes do not influence the choices other observers make—an assumption that physicists call locality.
If there is an objective reality that everyone can agree on, then these assumptions all hold.
But Proietti and co’s result suggests that objective reality does not exist. In other words, the experiment suggests that one or more of the assumptions—the idea that there is a reality we can agree on, the idea that we have freedom of choice, or the idea of locality—must be wrong.
Of course, there is another way out for those hanging on to the conventional view of reality. This is that there is some other loophole that the experimenters have overlooked. Indeed, physicists have tried to close loopholes in similar experiments for years, although they concede that it may never be possible to close them all.
Nevertheless, the work has important implications for the work of scientists. “The scientific method relies on facts, established through repeated measurements and agreed upon universally, independently of who observed them,” say Proietti and co. And yet in the same paper, they undermine this idea, perhaps fatally.



View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pGJjScfG8h4

How do you not see the irony in saying this not too long ago:

Science is subjective!
The big bang theory just got demolished by the new James Hubb telescope.All science is based on reality and even reality is subjective to time and place!

That quantum theory can also get demolished in the future.

You are literally doing what I just described (conflating the belief that something is true, with it actually being true).

It's called a THEORY for a reason.

 

[based zoomer]

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

If you're a relativist faggot, yeah, that's true. But if you believe that morals are objective, then society wouldn't actually be different. People like to believe that what they're doing is right, but even when they know that it's wrong, they will do it.

 

[BlkPillPres]

But if you believe that morals are objective, then society wouldn't actually be different.

How can you not understand something so simple and obvious.

EVERYBODY THINKS THAT THEIR PERSONAL MORAL CODE IS OBJECTIVE.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHY MORALITY IS SUCH A SUBJECTIVE THING.

Even you right now are ironically asserting that your moral code is objective (indirectly), by stating that society wouldn't be different "if you believe that morals are objective".

You are pretty much right now assuming that your moral code is objective and "accurate", but who the hell made you the arbiter of morality to assert that?

You are just doing what every other moralfag does, assumes that their brand of morality is "right". You are ironically on a forum that celebrates the deaths of "innocents", especially women.

It's scary how many incels on this forum are barely self aware (if even at all). A moral person would not even be a part of this forum lol (if were talking about conventional morality). You clearly have your own moral code that you use to rationalize your thoughts and actions, and therein lies the danger of morality that I talked about. It's completely subjective so everybody thinks they are right.

People like to believe that what they're doing is right, but even when they know that it's wrong, they will do it.

So, like you being on this forum?

Or are you going to make this situation very meta and ironic, by asserting that you think what you're doing is "right", thereby proving my point that morality is subjective and everybody thinks their moral code is the right now.

 

[based zoomer]

EVERYBODY THINKS THAT THEIR PERSONAL MORAL CODE IS OBJECTIVE.

THAT'S EXACTLY WHY MORALITY IS SUCH A SUBJECTIVE THING.

That's just not true. Believing something to be true is not the same as having an opinion. You can back up your claims about the sun being hot but not about apple being the best fruit.

who the hell made you the arbiter of morality

No one, because I don't believe that I'm the arbiter of morality. I believe that God is the arbiter of morality.

 

[BlkPillPres]

You can back up your claims about the sun being hot but not about apple being the best fruit.

The irony, you lack the self awareness required to realize that your belief in God is an example of "apple being the best fruit". You don't know that your specific God is the "one true God", nor do you know if any God's exist period.

No one, because I don't believe that I'm the arbiter of morality. I believe that God is the arbiter of morality.

JFL you are just using God as a proxy, there is no proof that the specific God you believe in exists or if any God exists period. That's the point. The moral code of the bible was just some shit a bunch of old puritanical guys came up with and used it to control people via fear.

You can't say that someone or something is the arbiter when there is no proof of their existence.

 

[Defetivecuckachu]

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.

Do unto others, as you would have others do unto you.

Somebody could really pick that up and run with it.

 

[HomicidalSuicidal88]

Society always likes to think they are good, like how a person kills a robber, and that person becomes a hero, and they get praised on the news or the police shoot a mass shooter, and they get treated like a hero because a few lives were saved. Everyone likes to say murder is wrong to steal is wrong sex is wrong but it's all subjective. No one is good on this planet everybody is a hypocrite always thinking they right, like they can do no wrong they think they the nicest person. Because they contributing to society always looking good just so they can feel fucking special.

 

[BlkPillPres]

Do unto others, as you would have others do unto you.

Somebody could really pick that up and run with it.View attachment 658208

What you are quoting is a moral position, not one based on the logic of survival.

The quote is God stating what one "ought to do" (morality) not what one should do "for the sole selfish reason of survival" (logic).

You are misunderstanding the quote.

The quote isn't saying "you should do good to others because you want to survive by also getting good treatment".

The quote is saying "you should do good to others because you expect others to do good to you, and being a hypocrite is a bad thing".

My argument is that there should be no moral position, we should accept human selfishness and "mutually assured destruction" as the code of conduct.

Nuclear weapons are a good example. The world instantly became safer and more peaceful once nukes became a thing and we understood the long lasting effects of radiation after using them. War has been changed forever because of these weapons, and a lot of people are now hesitant to start wars because of "mutually assured destruction".

If nukes had never been discovered we'd probably have had a World War 3 by now.

Gun laws are another good example. In states with lax gun laws and where citizen gun ownership is high, you have lower crime rates. That's because criminals know that if they try to criminalize certain communities, you are basically going up against a community of armed civilians.

Self interest is how you keep humans in line and ensure order, not appealing to morality, loyalty, honor, etc.

The bible verse you are quoting is an appeal to morality based on a code of honor - "You should treat others as you want to be treated".

My position is that it should be survival based - "You should treat others well in order to establish social norms that increase your chances of survival".

 

[noobmaster420]

Morals built civilization

And not all morals are equal

No they didn’t hunter gather civilisations work together not because of morality but because if they didn’t work together they would all die. This is Logic.

 

[ubermensch666]

>"you should not kill because you also do not want to be killed".
No, for good peoples should be "you should not be kill because it i'nst beneficial for we specie"
For subhuman should be "you should kill him because he are inferior and should be eliminated by the law of selection"

 

[Lifeisbullshit95]

As i always say Morality is a mental illness.

As I've said. Morality is a mental illness.

 

[buci2003]

Jewstagram whores that post sluty pictures but only put out for gigachad should still be sent to a guillotine tho

 

[Lackeys of the evil]

logic

 

[Verxis]

Morals built civilization

And not all morals are equal

No. Murder built civilization.

 

[NormieHater]

JFL without free economy there is no reason to work, I would just be a criminal in a communist country. I'm not going to work hard if I can't reap the majority of the benefits of that hard work.

How about you teach me in a thread

Goodbye bro

I miss you

 

[Vitarius]

Morality is objective. "But there are different philosophical schools of ethics", just as there are different philosophical schools of logic and people disagree about what is logical and what is not.

 

[Murder Mario]

This is some African tribal mentality and is part of the reason why Africa never progressed, "just act on your instincts bro". Morals created boundaries and is what made us humans sophisticated compared to animals, though it may be completely arbitrary, morals is part of the reason us as a species have advanced.

That same logic can be used to justify abortion. One of the stupidest threads on this site. And the retard mods put it in the must read section. Anyone who thinks the mods want incels to not appear as crazy is a complete idiot.

 

[NirvanaFan1988]

Jewstagram whores that post sluty pictures but only put out for gigachad should still be sent to a guillotine tho

 

[NormieHater]

Morality is objective. "But there are different philosophical schools of ethics", just as there are different philosophical schools of logic and people disagree about what is logical and what is not.

Logic can be disproven, to make it illogical, this is why logic exists independant of judgement

When you're in a fight, for some person on the planet protecting yourself is immoral

In a fight, protecting yourself can be immoral, but it can never be illogical to first protect yourself

No one can argue that protecting yourself from imminent danger is "illogical"

If you want to survive, you need to operate on hard logic, not on morality because you can't afford to die because for someone else, it's morally right you're getting punched

If you want a certain outcome, you need to follow logic, if you want to survive that boxing match, you need to follow logic, because morality is subjective and is therefore not real

Logic exists independant of perspective unlike morality, for two people a choice can't be either logical or illogical, it exists independant of perspective unlike morality

 

[NormieHater]

This is some African tribal mentality and is part of the reason why Africa never progressed, "just act on your instincts bro". Morals created boundaries and is what made us humans sophisticated compared to animals, though it may be completely arbitrary, morals is part of the reason us as a species have advanced.

Complete bullshit, you just view it as advancing

How did we advance? How did your life advance? We're getting less sex than ever and you call it advancing?

This is just like I said before, everyone's moral utopia is different, but logic exists independant of perspective

Also, the logical decision is not always to act on your instincts but morality is 100% made to exploit the underpriviledged

Humans being sophisticated is just compensating for the fact that we're not capable on depending on pure physicality today, it's because of logic humans are sophisticated not morals

For some person on the planet you commiting suicide is a moral decision, would you now follow that and kill yourself? Morals are completely subjective and don't exist, logic isn't subjective

 

[NormieHater]

No they didn’t hunter gather civilisations work together not because of morality but because if they didn’t work together they would all die. This is Logic.

This.

@CopingForBrutality you're conflating logic with morality

 

[NormieHater]

>"you should not kill because you also do not want to be killed".
No, for good peoples should be "you should not be kill because it i'nst beneficial for we specie"

You don't make sense, they're not good people if they kill according to someone's morality

Only a dumbass would bet on the next thousand years like that, it's better to focus on your own life

 

[Lonelyus]

Humans dont exist, Humans still have wars and gang violence

 

[Slut_Annihilator298]

100% agree

 

[Friezacel]

Morals built civilization

Civilization was a mistake

 

[Murder Mario]

One of the most aspie threads I ever read.