I'm going to try to keep this thread as short possible since most of you have the same defective Zoomer attention span as me. Plus, walls of text tend to discourage people from reading.
Anyway, In this thread I'm going argue that subjecting thousands (millions?) of men to a sexless life of misery, rejection, suffering, and loneliness is immoral, regardless of your moral values (unless you adhere to some fucked up moral system that calls for the maximisation of suffering). But before I make my argument I'm going to preface it by defining three moral systems -- as Voltaire once said "if you want to converse with me, define your terms". As we know, there's no one moral system that all humans subscribe to; and to my dismay, we still don't know if morality is objective or not. So for the purposes of this thread I'm going to restrict myself to working with three abstract moral systems that I think are prevalent in our day and age. And moreover, I'm going to assume that they all are valid -- e.g. I am not going to delve into side-arguments like proving the existence of God, an entity upon which various moral systems are based, I'm just going to assume that they are valid, merely for argument's sake .
Furthermore, I'm going to make the distinction between theistic and atheistic moral systems, and since all religious doctrines provide an objective moral system, there's no need for a subjective one among the theistic systems. The atheistic moral systems on the other hand, have to be divided into subjective and objective due to the lack of moral authority. Here are the three moralities we're going to consider:
Now with that being said, let's get to the argument itself. For convenience, I'm going to continue with the same order I started with.
An objective theistic morality:
Obviously, I can't go over all 4000 something religions that exist and show that all of them are against human suffering. But it's common sense to to argue that an omni-benevolent God(s), which is/are the main character in almost all religions doesn't/don't want us to suffer. As a result, the suffering inceldom causes in immoral in the eyes of God. So, for all the religious normies reading this, you actions towards us, or rather lack thereof, are immoral -- I suggest you go confess to a priest.
An objective atheistic morality:
Now let's take a look at the second system. As I said, in the second system morality is defined in terms of human well-being. An act is immoral if it affects our well-being negatively. Inceldom is obviously harmful to anyone suffering from it. Therefore, within that moral system, subjecting men to the unnecessary suffering that inceldom brings with it, is morally reprehensible. This part is relevant for normies who think Harris is right.
A subjective atheistic morality:
As for the third system, there's a lot to say here, but I'm going to keep it as short as possible. Basically the same things I mentioned for the objective morality from an atheistic perspective, but with different values that are directed towards maximising whatever it is that we should value. For example, subscribes of such systems might value money more than human well-being. But in order to maximise the amount of money in the world (for whatever reason, I'm just making stuff up along the way since such systems are hard to approach because you can always argue that it's not imperative to value human life, or anything for that matter) you need healthy humans that are fit for work. Obviously, human well-being (i.e. the lack of suffering) and the maximisation of the amount of money in the world are positively correlated. So, subjecting thousands to inceldom is still immoral, unless you value suffering. And I highly doubt it that there are normies who value suffering over pleasure. At least, there are none who would admit it publicly.
As I previously stated, this particular moral system is hard to deal with. So, I'm going to leave it here in the hope that someone who believes in a system where human live should not be valued will come forward with a counter argument.
TL;DR: subjecting men to the suffering of Inceldom is immoral regardless of your beliefs, unless you're a sadistic motherfucker.
What do you guys think?
Anyway, In this thread I'm going argue that subjecting thousands (millions?) of men to a sexless life of misery, rejection, suffering, and loneliness is immoral, regardless of your moral values (unless you adhere to some fucked up moral system that calls for the maximisation of suffering). But before I make my argument I'm going to preface it by defining three moral systems -- as Voltaire once said "if you want to converse with me, define your terms". As we know, there's no one moral system that all humans subscribe to; and to my dismay, we still don't know if morality is objective or not. So for the purposes of this thread I'm going to restrict myself to working with three abstract moral systems that I think are prevalent in our day and age. And moreover, I'm going to assume that they all are valid -- e.g. I am not going to delve into side-arguments like proving the existence of God, an entity upon which various moral systems are based, I'm just going to assume that they are valid, merely for argument's sake .
Furthermore, I'm going to make the distinction between theistic and atheistic moral systems, and since all religious doctrines provide an objective moral system, there's no need for a subjective one among the theistic systems. The atheistic moral systems on the other hand, have to be divided into subjective and objective due to the lack of moral authority. Here are the three moralities we're going to consider:
- An objective theistic morality: This category includes all Abrahamic (and non-Abrahamic) religions where morality is given by God (or Allah or whatever you want to call it/him/her). Meaning, you have a certain set of moral rules you need to abide by. Any violation of these moral laws renders your actions immoral. Let me illustrate this by an example: according to Christianity engaging in homosexual intercourse is wrong. Therefore, any homosexual behaviour instigated by a Christian is considered immoral since that person believes that homosexuality is wrong -- i.e. he violated the rules of morality given by Jesus/God.
- An objective atheistic morality: When talking about objective morality without a deity, we're almost always talking about viewing moral values as scientific facts. The only known moral doctrine that doesn't draw a line between morals and facts -- at least to the best of my knowledge -- is Sam Harris' objective morality. In his book, the moral landscape, Harris argues that morals are scientific facts about human well-being. That means an act is immoral if it's not conducive to human flourishing.
- A subjective atheistic morality: In comparison to the other 2 molarities, this one is the hardest to define. Because subjectivity can be used to justify almost anything. If we assume subjective morality, we can't say that a specific act is objectively morally wrong. For that, I am going to make a somewhat controversial, but realistic assumption: human life is valuable and we should -- I can already hear some of you saying "THAT VIOLATES HUME'S GUILLOTINE". Yes...Yes, I am aware of that. But as I said, for the sake of the argument I'm going to assume that all the systems in question are valid. If you think they're invalid (for whatever reason) then you can simply ignore the part where I talk about them, and focus on the ones YOU consider valid -- do our best to protect it. I know that this is pretty bold claim since I can't really objectively prove it when subjectivity is involved. However, if you think there's a reasonable justification for unnecessary human suffering, then let me know. And I say unnecessary here because in some cases we can make the argument that human suffering could lead to better life conditions (i.e. less suffering in the future), and is therefore justifiable. But, as we all know, that isn't the case with inceldom.
Now with that being said, let's get to the argument itself. For convenience, I'm going to continue with the same order I started with.
An objective theistic morality:
Obviously, I can't go over all 4000 something religions that exist and show that all of them are against human suffering. But it's common sense to to argue that an omni-benevolent God(s), which is/are the main character in almost all religions doesn't/don't want us to suffer. As a result, the suffering inceldom causes in immoral in the eyes of God. So, for all the religious normies reading this, you actions towards us, or rather lack thereof, are immoral -- I suggest you go confess to a priest.
An objective atheistic morality:
Now let's take a look at the second system. As I said, in the second system morality is defined in terms of human well-being. An act is immoral if it affects our well-being negatively. Inceldom is obviously harmful to anyone suffering from it. Therefore, within that moral system, subjecting men to the unnecessary suffering that inceldom brings with it, is morally reprehensible. This part is relevant for normies who think Harris is right.
A subjective atheistic morality:
As for the third system, there's a lot to say here, but I'm going to keep it as short as possible. Basically the same things I mentioned for the objective morality from an atheistic perspective, but with different values that are directed towards maximising whatever it is that we should value. For example, subscribes of such systems might value money more than human well-being. But in order to maximise the amount of money in the world (for whatever reason, I'm just making stuff up along the way since such systems are hard to approach because you can always argue that it's not imperative to value human life, or anything for that matter) you need healthy humans that are fit for work. Obviously, human well-being (i.e. the lack of suffering) and the maximisation of the amount of money in the world are positively correlated. So, subjecting thousands to inceldom is still immoral, unless you value suffering. And I highly doubt it that there are normies who value suffering over pleasure. At least, there are none who would admit it publicly.
As I previously stated, this particular moral system is hard to deal with. So, I'm going to leave it here in the hope that someone who believes in a system where human live should not be valued will come forward with a counter argument.
TL;DR: subjecting men to the suffering of Inceldom is immoral regardless of your beliefs, unless you're a sadistic motherfucker.
What do you guys think?
Last edited:
