[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / aus / film / fit / fur / htg / newbrit / sl / zoo ]

/philosophy/ - Philosophy

Start with the Greeks

Catalog

Name
Email
Subject
Comment *
File
Flag *
* = required field[▶ Show post options & limits]
Confused? See the FAQ.
Embed
(replaces files and can be used instead)
Options
Password (For file and post deletion.)

Allowed file types:jpg, jpeg, gif, png, webm, mp4, pdf
Max filesize is 12 MB.
Max image dimensions are 10000 x 10000.
You may upload 5 per post.

Sister Boards [ Literature ] [ History ] [ Christ ] [ Religion ] [ Politics ]

File: 1427605776737.jpg (17.96 KB, 404x307, 404:307, philosophy-poodle.jpg)

7a98ed No.1091

Is morality real?

130fd5 No.1095

As real as the puppy I once ran over

it was an accident

eca199 No.1096

File: 1427624665642.jpg (113.29 KB, 640x858, 320:429, rozen_maiden_shinku_by_man….jpg)

>>1091
in order to have created yourself, you had to have existed.
thus, you did not create yourself.

all that constitutes yourself is derived externally from yourself.
an aspect of yourself is your ethos.
your ethos is derived externally from yourself.
the ethos is objective.

there is both subjectivity and objectivity to ethics.
human beans are unique particular beans, but similar beans; and thus have similar ethos'. they do vary, though, as our experiences can be substantially different.

yes, morality is real, regardless of subjectivity or objectivity, there is a right way of doing things. this is a way in which one ought to behave, according to you. it shapes your behavior.

ethics is essentially:
psychological egoism > ethical egoism > altruism
psychological egoism is fact and altruism is impossible. the movements towards altruism yields a variety of ethical egoist theories.

however, if you're a hard determinist, there is no such thing.

93a965 No.1119

I believe morality is a vital construct. Think of it this way: animals lower than humans have no understanding of right or wrong, good or evil. However the drive to survive serve as biologic factors that perpetuate certain behaviors (territorialism when competing for mates, a mother caring for her young, a mother being protective of her young)

93a965 No.1121

Such actions fit into a moral compass and can certainly viewed in black and white terms (good or bad) but ultimately there is no perceivable sense of intellectualism behind this logic. It's all to just exist and thus, survive.

28e1d5 No.1122

>>1119
>I believe morality is a vital construct.
Well you're wrong.
You've explained nothing of your idea and should feel smaller than myself because of it.
Fuck off.

93a965 No.1124

>>1122
See >1121
>dat butthurt

28e1d5 No.1125

>>1095
mine wasnt ;)

28e1d5 No.1128

This board is the ideal it strives for; the posts conform to some unassuming standard of authenticity in terms of being knowledgeable, and yet, utterly distanced from the "discussion" held. It's impossible to disagree in any meaningful manner, and meaningful thought is always supposed as something to which one directs their focus, inflecting every fucking argument with an awkward acknowledgement of an inexact requirement. Nobody here responds to each other - take some fucking time out to formulate a dialectic against a response and make your argument within that.

If you continue to regurgitate your opinions onto the screen without violent, scrutinizing questioning you may as well just write into your diary. More people will care.

93a965 No.1129

File: 1427670081612.jpg (51.95 KB, 600x597, 200:199, 210.jpg)

>>1128
>butthurt

28e1d5 No.1130

File: 1427670359503.jpg (83.69 KB, 400x400, 1:1, 60774057.jpg)

>>1129
>dankest

d43a66 No.1132

>>1128
Prove it.

93a965 No.1134

File: 1427671665628.jpg (79.75 KB, 366x400, 183:200, 60774522.jpg)

>>1130
>>1130
>Not sure if applicable

3818bb No.1282

>>1091
I'm not sure. And anybody who says they are sure is a damned fool. Every argument for the existence of a universal moral code can only be accepted if you're already "warm" to the idea. And any moral relativist, who tries to prove to you that their are no moral truths is performatively contradicting themselves. (Or at least I'm told by people smarter than myself.)

I'd wager that Hume was right. Reason can tell is what will be the case; but the passions always tell us what is morally good or bad. We should be skeptical of the notion that there are universal moral codes. While it may appear appealing we ought methodologically to be skeptical of anything we very much would like to be true.

But what do I know, I'm just some dumbass on 8chan.

569c9f No.1319

morality is real but not set or objective

4383d4 No.1435

Outside of religion, I haven't heard a convincing argument as to how morals could be objective or how we could come to know them.

I haven't heard any convincing arguments for it being subjective either and "subjective morality" is an oxymoron to me. Saying that morals depend on the situation doesn't make them objective, it makes them objective but very very specific. Saying that there are "common themes" is a bullshit argument that is really just an appeal to popularity. And all types of relativism are fucking retarded.

The best you can say is that morality is "real" as a construct made for the purpose of keeping society alive. The visceral reaction produced by morality is akin to instincts in non-conscious animals.

Oh, sorry, were we just being cunts in this thread? Fuck you, OP. Fuck you, other guy

>>1125


4383d4 No.1436

>>1096

>there is a right way of doing things. this is a way in which one ought to behave

Here's the problem I have with egoism (though I'm not as familiar with psychological egoism): it equates "morality" to self interest or "what I want". If that's the case, we are unable to perform "wrong" actions because we can't do something that we don't want. If we can, then we cease to be moral agents.


abb720 No.1448

>>1436

egoism: one ought to do what is in his/her own self interest (without regard for how these actions effect others).

psychological egoism: one cannot but do what is in his/her own self interest (if i sacrifice my life to save another, i do so because i want to).

morality has to do with altruism. ethical egoist theory has something or other to do with altruism. psychological egoism is a matter of fact, though, so all altruistic theories are egoistic.

egoism has nothing to do with morality. there is no altruism.

if hard determinism is true, we cease to be moral agents as well, as we don't have a choice.



[Return][Go to top][Catalog][Post a Reply]
Delete Post [ ]
[]
[ / / / / / / / / / ] [ dir / aus / film / fit / fur / htg / newbrit / sl / zoo ]