Blackpill People are not good or evil, they're just ego seeking with low willpower.

[Pinpoint]

And anyone who tells you people are good or someone is bad is just someone who is trying to grift you.

Those who are good at manipulating/ demonizing/ scaring or foisting psychological pressure on people decide what is good. Not the morally righteous. It's a part of the ego seeking game of the majority.

Sure some nice people with high oxytocin who feel deeply exist. But don't count on them.

Philosophy isn't about 100% truth. It's about seeing and telling patterns that help us thrive against the crap.

 

[Kina Hikikomori]

I agree, but your actions can be judged as good or bad

 

[pedrolopezwasright]

If by people you mean men then yes

 

[Kina Hikikomori]

If by people you mean men then yes

I agree, I also don't consider women anthropologists to be on the same level as men.

 

[Specimen]

I agree, but your actions can be judged as good or bad

Not really

 

[wereq]

Bad is what degrades a system and compromises our living.

 

[Ubermenschvirtues]

The concepts of right or wrong came from armed people.

 

[Kina Hikikomori]

Not really

Yes, you idiot, kill someone, your action is considered bad. Don't give me existentialism, good and evil are not relative, essence precedes existence, going against that is a fagot complex.

 

[Specimen]

Yes, you idiot, kill someone, your action is considered bad. Don't give me existentialism, good and evil are not relative, essence precedes existence, going against that is a fagot complex.

Seeing the world in such a binary view is a low iq trait. No, it isn’t and never will be that simple you primitive being.

 

[SoycuckGodOfReddit]

that is evil

 

[Kina Hikikomori]

Seeing the world in such a binary view is a low iq trait. No, it isn’t and never will be that simple you primitive being.

You're trying to talk about "nuances", aren't you, but I mean, wrong context to use such a concept.

Obviously I'm primitive, because I'm reactionary. Sucker.

And if your word “primitive” is approached in a pejorative way, see the hypocrisy, because it is not noticeable in the scenario (in a pejorative way for me), where you are saying that actions are not good and bad, with no basis for judging , other than an opinionated opinion. source that is yours alone. So, in a pejorative way, you would be the “primitive”, well; antoadjectives are unnecessary now.

But, well, how does that refute what I said?, it doesn't refute it, you don't change the facts with your reductionism, and you don't come to me with positivism on moral issues, or else in your antoadjective of calling me low IQ, no there is nothing to say, just don't say it, as you will end up saying incorrect things.

 

[Jud Pottah]

"There is no good or Evil, ONLY PowER"

 

[Shitskin=Shitlife]

I disagree. I have met legitimately evil people. They aren't that rare.

 

[Pinpoint]

I disagree. I have met legitimately evil people. They aren't that rare.

Plenty of worse people who will demonize them. Or people who will be sick of them who will kill them.

but go ahead tell me who they are.

 

[Limitcel]

Philosophy is also a art about showing the obvious to those who don't see it.

 

[Simba]

Nah. I have met people whom enjoy hurting people even if there is nothing to gain from it.

 

[Simba]

If by people you mean men

Lol.

 

[Pinpoint]

Nah. I have met people whom enjoy hurting people even if there is nothing to gain from it.

most people aren't that way. and people do it because it gives them an ego boost. not just pleasure.

 

[ResidentHell]

Yes, you idiot, kill someone, your action is considered bad. Don't give me existentialism, good and evil are not relative, essence precedes existence, going against that is a fagot complex.

Morality is relative to human perception and cognizance. If the knowledge of evil didn’t exist, you would have no way to prove or disprove its existence. The same goes for if the knowledge of good didn’t exist. The matter of fact is the concept of morality is contingent on existence of knowledge; it is a concept that is essentially relative to the existence of knowledge. Beyond the realm of consciousness, the “essence” of good and evil is ambiguous or else non-existent. This is simple logic

If a tree falls down in the forest, but no one was there to witness it, did the tree make a sound when it fell?

Even if you think it did or didn’t make a sound, there’s no way for you to prove beyond doubt whether the tree made a sound or not. The same can be extended to “moral events”. If something happens, but no one was there to witness the result of what happened, can you be sure that the result of what happened amounted to a “Good action” or “Evil action”? No, you cannot

 

[GeneticDysfunction]

I agree, but your actions can be judged as good or bad

Nothing is good or bad people just want to avoid pain and survive.

 

[Kina Hikikomori]

Morality is relative to human perception and cognizance. If the knowledge of evil didn’t exist, you would have no way to prove or disprove its existence. The same goes for if the knowledge of good didn’t exist. The matter of fact is the concept of morality is contingent on existence of knowledge; it is a concept that is essentially relative to the existence of knowledge. Beyond the realm of consciousness, the “essence” of good and evil is ambiguous or else non-existent. This is simple logic

If a tree falls down in the forest, but no one was there to witness it, did the tree make a sound when it fell?

Even if you think it did or didn’t make a sound, there’s no way for you to prove beyond doubt whether the tree made a sound or not. The same can be extended to “moral events”. If something happens, but no one was there to witness the result of what happened, can you be sure that the result of what happened amounted to a “Good action” or “Evil action”? No, you cannot

You use abstract theories about yourself, hypothetical scenarios to build your vision, instead of focusing on the concrete experience of how the world is perceived, through reason. When we talk about real contexts, where all human actions have tangible consequences and do not depend solely on observers to be considered “good” or “bad”. Morality, unlike sounds or physical events, involves human relationships, intentions, and outcomes that directly affect the lives of other people. His argument overly reduces important ethical issues by focusing on unrealistic scenarios that do not capture the structure of morality in the real world. This undermines what you say, as behavior and morality are often involved in social interactions and responsibilities that do not depend solely on individual perception.

"Beyond the realm of consciousness, the “essence” of good and evil is ambiguous or else non-existent. This is simple logic"

Human consciousness does not exist in isolation, but rather in a body that interacts with the world. The body, being a vehicle of consciousness, translates these intentions into concrete actions, where good and evil manifest themselves in a tangible way through your choices. Conscience is the means by which we perceive and act in accordance with moral concepts, the idea of good and evil transcends only your individual perspective. It manifests itself in physical form through the choices that man makes with his body. Morality is not something merely abstract.

 

[Pinpoint]

Nothing is good or bad people just want to avoid pain and survive.

More so (with young women) be dominant and perfect.

 

[nice to NEET you]

All people are evil and disease to planet earth

 

[ResidentHell]

His argument overly reduces important ethical issues by focusing on unrealistic scenarios that do not capture the structure of morality in the real world

Unrealistic scenarios? JFL, if a tree falls down in a forest, but no one witnessed it happen, is that unrealistic? If a landslide or avalanche occurs in some remote location with mountainous terrain, and no one witnessed it happen, is that also unrealistic? Ultimately I cannot be sure, but I'm willing to bet there have been many fallen trees, landslides and avalanches in the world that were witnessed by no organic being

Human consciousness does not exist in isolation, but rather in a body that interacts with the world. The body, being a vehicle of consciousness, translates these intentions into concrete actions, where good and evil manifest themselves in a tangible way through your choices. Conscience is the means by which we perceive and act in accordance with moral concepts, the idea of good and evil transcends only your individual perspective. It manifests itself in physical form through the choices that man makes with his body. Morality is not something merely abstract.

I will correct what I believe to be error in my previous response: I agree that morality can transcend individual perception. My original statement was, "the concept of morality is contingent on existence of knowledge; it is a concept that is essentially relative to the existence of knowledge" . This was a faulty statement

My point is morality is at least related to "human consciousness", and the practicality of moral behavior derives from perception. The concept of morality is not practical without observers. Why? The purpose of morality is to attribute a certain "value" to human behavior - A "value" that is believed to transcend the physical realm. This doesn't mean "morality" is abstract in the sense of its appliability to external world. Instead, it means "morality" is abstract in sense of its INTERPRETABILITY. Morality can be made sense of within the realm of "human consciousness", but not outside of it

Moreover there is a fundamental, underlying notion of "punishment and reward" in the concept of morality. That is, for every "good" there is a "reward", for every "bad" there is a punishment. The purpose that morality serves would be redundant without the underlying notion of "punishment and reward"

Secondly, the suggestion that "good and evil can be manifested in a tangible way", is misleading. As I previously said, morality is supported by the underlying notion of "reward and punishment", and the "tangibleness" of "moral deed" is based on some idea of what is of "morallity"

But this "tangibleness" of morality is not a scientific or impartial tangibleness - It is a subjective tangibleness. Morals are relative to cultures and personal beliefs. An action or behavior that may be recognized as "evil deed" for one person might not necessarily be recognized as "evil deed" for another person

Let's say some incel picks up a gun and shoots Becky. Then can it be said by believers of morality that the incel committed an "evil action" because he injured Becky, or can it be said that incel simply decided to injure Becky on impulse or survival instinct? Also is it necessarily "evil" just because the consensus says it's evil. The fact that many people share the same belief doesn't necessarily make that belief "true" in the objective sense

But let's say the incel's decision to shoot Becky was calculated and was not done for reason of self-defence or survival. If someone would then say it was evil deed for incel to shoot Becky, then why? Is it because it would be believed that it amounts to a sort of "moral (evil) deed" by shooting another human like Becky?

Ok, then why would someone believe that shooting Becky is an act of evil?

Is it because of some underlying system of laws and codes that moralizes the concept of causing injury to another human? If it is, then it's clear the so-called "structure of morality" actually derives from LAW. This is another subject that I've covered in an older thread​

​

Is it because of human ego, where someone believes there is a sort of "metaphysical significance" / "metaphysical importance" in the human existence, hence it would be "evil" for someone to cause harm to the health of a human? If it is, then it's clear the so-called "structure" of morality actually derives from EGO​

It's like this - Morality stems from LAW OR EGO. Either humans think they're "special" and that their existence serves a "greater purpose", which explains why they attribute these strange concepts called "righteousness" and "evilness" to their own actions and behavior

Otherwise humans believe in a system of law that was preordained by a higher power (presumably a deity) and bestowed upon mankind (Law of Moses, Sharia etc), and this system of law calls upon certain actions or behaviours to be "moralized" with the promise of divine reward (for anyone doing good deed) or promise of divine punishment (for anyone doing bad deed)

Law establishes a Context for Rationality in Behavior. Morality doesn't.

Morality endorses behavior on the basis of mysterious ideas about “right and wrong”, “properness and improperness”, e.g., “You should do X because it is righteous or proper to do X. You shouldn’t do Y because it is improper or evil to do Y” Laws are declarations or commandments of the authority...

incels.is

 

[Kina Hikikomori]

Unrealistic scenarios? JFL, if a tree falls down in a forest, but no one witnessed it happen, is that unrealistic?

Trees don't fall, they grow. And they live thousands of years as long as the earth exists to give them longevity, and after that they suffer their ecofuturism like any living being.

If a landslide or avalanche occurs in some remote location with mountainous terrain, and no one witnessed it happen, is that also unrealistic?

No, it's not unrealistic. And yes, it happened, even if no one witnessed such an act, it doesn't mean it didn't happen, it did, and there was noise. I don't know how you want to attribute this scenario to the context of “morality”, as said before, this has no correlation here.

My point is morality is at least related to "human consciousness", and the practicality of moral behavior derives from perception. The concept of morality is not practical without observers. Why? The purpose of morality is to attribute a certain "value" to human behavior - A "value" that is believed to transcend the physical realm. This doesn't mean "morality" is abstract in the sense of its appliability to external world. Instead, it means "morality" is abstract in sense of its INTERPRETABILITY. Morality can be made sense of within the realm of "human consciousness", but not outside of it

"My point is morality is at least related to "human consciosness", and the practicality of moral behavior derives from perception. The concept of morality is not practical without observers."

Exactly, I said that in my previous answer, what I say is clear. And I also demonstrated, as now, that morality has observers, for I argued that it is not necessarily involved in individual perception. Let's actually make an analogy with the scenario, if someone killed a person, and there was no one other than those two, that's still wrong, because even if the individual was killed, they witnessed it, and that's enough. And there will always be a reason greater than yours, that is, the maximum Being, the unique flow of existence, witnessing your acts and actions, because THIS IS BEING THE MAXIMUM ONTOLOGICAL BEING.

Moreover there is a fundamental, underlying notion of "punishment and reward" in the concept of morality. That is, for every "good" there is a "reward", for every "bad" there is a punishment. The purpose that morality serves would be redundant without the underlying notion of "punishment and reward"

Good and evil have an objective essence within themselves, their purposes are within themselves, not doing evil because it is bad, doing good because it is good, simple.

His morality argument assumes that morality only makes sense within a limiting system of punishment and reward. By tying morality strictly to reward and punishment, the argument fails to recognize that many moral/ethical systems do not depend on this scheme. Moral actions are right in themselves, regardless of practical results (reward/punishment). Categorical imperative system.

The search for morality is linked to the fulfillment of human beings, to the development of virtue, and not to the expectation of reward or fear of punishment.


The rest will have no answer from me, as it is just your contemporary existentialist premise.
“human beings think they are special, with a greater purpose”
I will not give my basis to the low and stubborn questions of any Illuminist.

 

[lowz1r]

this thread is so kekfuel.

 

[Justpilled]

Trees don't fall, they grow. And they live thousands of years as long as the earth exists to give them longevity, and after that they suffer their ecofuturism like any living being.

No, it's not unrealistic. And yes, it happened, even if no one witnessed such an act, it doesn't mean it didn't happen, it did, and there was noise. I don't know how you want to attribute this scenario to the context of “morality”, as said before, this has no correlation here.

"My point is morality is at least related to "human consciosness", and the practicality of moral behavior derives from perception. The concept of morality is not practical without observers."

Exactly, I said that in my previous answer, what I say is clear. And I also demonstrated, as now, that morality has observers, for I argued that it is not necessarily involved in individual perception. Let's actually make an analogy with the scenario, if someone killed a person, and there was no one other than those two, that's still wrong, because even if the individual was killed, they witnessed it, and that's enough. And there will always be a reason greater than yours, that is, the maximum Being, the unique flow of existence, witnessing your acts and actions, because THIS IS BEING THE MAXIMUM ONTOLOGICAL BEING.

Good and evil have an objective essence within themselves, their purposes are within themselves, not doing evil because it is bad, doing good because it is good, simple.

His morality argument assumes that morality only makes sense within a limiting system of punishment and reward. By tying morality strictly to reward and punishment, the argument fails to recognize that many moral/ethical systems do not depend on this scheme. Moral actions are right in themselves, regardless of practical results (reward/punishment). Categorical imperative system.

The search for morality is linked to the fulfillment of human beings, to the development of virtue, and not to the expectation of reward or fear of punishment.


The rest will have no answer from me, as it is just your contemporary existentialist premise.
“human beings think they are special, with a greater purpose”
I will not give my basis to the low and stubborn questions of any Illuminist.

Observers? Are you talking about quantum mechanics?

 

[copemaxx9002]

And anyone who tells you people are good or someone is bad is just someone who is trying to grift you.

Those who are good at manipulating/ demonizing/ scaring or foisting psychological pressure on people decide what is good. Not the morally righteous. It's a part of the ego seeking game of the majority.

Sure some nice people with high oxytocin who feel deeply exist. But don't count on them.

Philosophy isn't about 100% truth. It's about seeing and telling patterns that help us thrive against the crap.

Good and evil are low IQ concepts.

 

[ResidentHell]

it doesn't mean it didn't happen, it did, and there was noise. I don't know how you want to attribute this scenario to the context of “morality”, as said before, this has no correlation here

It does have correlation. You're showing signs of narrow minded thinking by asserting that something happened when you cant directly prove it happened. You speculate, but you cannot be truly certain since you weren't there to witness it. That's the point

if someone killed a person, and there was no one other than those two, that's still wrong, because even if the individual was killed, they witnessed it, and that's enough

So you're saying in order for an act to have moral weight, the act must have witnesses? In other words, moral accountability has to depend on there being a witness? OK, now I might have a closer understanding

Let's say there was a man with an undiagnosed condition of epilepsy. The undiagonsed epileptic man is driving in a car, then he suddenly has an epileptic seizure while driving, causing him to lose control of the car and crash into a random pedestrian, ultimately killing the pedestrian. Even though the epileptic man was the driver of the car at the time of the crash, would you say what the man is in any way accountable for the death of the pedestrian despite his epileptic phaze, on top of the fact that he was also unaware of his epileptic condition?

Good and evil have an objective essence within themselves, their purposes are within themselves, not doing evil because it is bad, doing good because it is good, simple.

That is not objective. I think you're referring to a different kind of objective, such as "purpose" or "goals". There is no objective in "morals" if you mean in terms of "fairness" and "impartiality". Good and evil aren't impartial values, period. They may have a goal or purpose that they orient towards, but they aren't "fair" in the sense that what is "good" for one is necessarily "good" for all, and what is "bad" for one is necessarily "bad" for all

His morality argument assumes that morality only makes sense within a limiting system of punishment and reward. By tying morality strictly to reward and punishment, the argument fails to recognize that many moral/ethical systems do not depend on this scheme. Moral actions are right in themselves, regardless of practical results (reward/punishment). Categorical imperative system.

The "right-in-itself" argument, I may have seen this before. OK. Let's assume there is an "autonomous existence" of "righteousness" and "evil". How can this be a "fair" system if there is no rigid, unchangeable criteria of what constitutes "good" and what constitutes "evil"

If you know exactly what values are "good" and "bad" by an impartial standard, write them in a list and I'll explain to you for each one why each "good" and each "bad" is liable to the a limiting (human) measure of judgement

The search for morality is linked to the fulfillment of human beings, to the development of virtue, and not to the expectation of reward or fear of punishment.

This is exactly what would constitute a system of reward. You are contradicting yourself by saying that "the search of morality is linked to the fulfillment of human beings", as the meaning of "fulfillment" is analogous to the meaning of "rewarded"

The "reward" is the development of "virtue" itself, hence as you quoted, the FULFILLMENT (and NOT FEAR of punishment) of human beings

“human beings think they are special, with a greater purpose”
I will not give my basis to the low and stubborn questions of any Illuminist.

Resorting to ad-hominems is a sign that one is aware of their failure to uphold their argument with solid rational points. I've already identified at least one inconsistency in your argument. You don't need to respond. You're already bluepilled AF if you think there is an impartial basis for morality. I don't criticize bluepillers for having bluepilled mentalities. The serves as an emotional pacifier for many people, and it's more often forcefed by social programming since childhood. The is more often swallowed by independent choice, and it's not easy to take