426b9d No.4741
Normative ethics must be informed by nature.
There is no meaning to existence, but there is a purpose to life.
The purpose of life is to pass on one's genes to their children, and then ensure that your children pass on those genes to their children, then you can die.
Since you are human, you can only reproduce with other humans, therefore ethics should at least apply primarily, if not exclusively, to humanity.
It should be applied to all humans for three reasons, first because you, and your offspring, need genetic diversity in the long run, second because as a human, you share genetics with every other member of your species, and third because humans are a species that has it's central advantage in it's ability to co-operate in large numbers, our development of philosophy and science is a testament to this.
Now that we can establish who ethics applies to, and the ultimate end goal ethics seeks to achieve, we can also look to nature to find out what our normative ethical code should be.
You could say that, because we desire pleasure and reject pain, desire happiness and reject sadness, desire knowledge and reject ignorance, and because we desire life and reject death, that we should settle for a utilitarian equation that maximizes pleasure, happiness, knowledge, and life, while minimizing pain, sadness, ignorance, and death.
But this is not always sufficient, as seen when people bring up runaway trolleys and unwilling transplants, so I take one thing out of Ayn Rand, the rule that any action that directly affects the body of another human being, or their property, must be done with that human being's consent.
And so I add this restriction to the utilitarian equation listed above, to place limits upon what actions are justified under it.
____________________________
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
426b9d No.4743
Nice how you think think that the ultimate purpose of human life is gaming the essentially blind and purposeless process of evolution. Also, nice play on words with "meaning" and "purpose", as if that had any relevance to what you're saying.
Nature doesn't give a shit anything you've mentioned. It doesn't give a shit about evolution. It doesn't look forward to maximize the fitness of offspring. It doesn't even look forward to create life. Nature doesn't look forward to anything. It has no purpose. It does all that it does, because that's what it does.
So if you really want a system of ethics informed by nature, the one you should be looking for is nihilism. But if you want a system of ethics informed by your own prejudices, feel free to keep doing what you're doing.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
426b9d No.4744
>>4743
give me a quick summary, and I'll look into it a bit more.
I am here to seek alternative ethical systems, after all, I've posted mine b/c I was questioning it, and want to see if you can change my mind.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
426b9d No.4745
>The purpose of life is to pass on one's genes to their children, and then ensure that your children pass on those genes to their children, then you can die.
this is a global tendency that people procreate but it is not a purpose of life
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
426b9d No.4751
>>4745
Biologically speaking, it is. It is both a global tendency and the purpose of life to exist and continue its existence through progeny. But of course, you can always make your own purpose for living.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
426b9d No.4752
>>4751
do a survey first and ask ppl what is their purpose of life
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
426b9d No.4865
>>4752
they will say a multitude of things, but that is because those things are what they are consciously assuming to be the purpose behind their life.
scientific studies have shown that the conscious mined is untrustworthy at best when describing actions actually done for unconscious reasons, and is, in fact, looking at the actions one has taken, either over an experiment or over their life up till they were surveyed, and then produces an explanation on the spot for why they did that.
like when the kids in sing street formed a band because the main character wanted a girlfriend, but then decided it was founded for the music itself. I don't think it was a case of sour grapes, he legitimately believed that was why he started the band at that moment, and legitimately forgot the real reason, due to that being so long ago, that he hadn't considered it until he was asked the question.
i ask my daughter, do you remember what you wanted to be when you were little?
I wanted to be a princess
and why was that?
because the princess life seemed so awesome
(in actuality, she wanted to be a princess because then she got the prince, who was a genetically superior mate, or in what words she would have put it "was cute")
when she grew up, being a princess was not within her ability of achievement, so she went into nursing, though she initially wanted to be a doctor, which itself was unconsciously motivated by the fact that she found house to be a "fine catch".
everything is unconsciously done for the ultimate ends of fucking, even if said fucking does not produce children, such as most couples in the age of contraception, or in homosexual individuals, who, due to a defect caused by either genetic abnormality, or by hormonal mislevellings in their mother's womb, evaluate sexual partners in the same manner a heterosexual of the opposite sex would, these are misfirings of the reproductive instinct, but they are there because, when applied to the proper sex, motivate them to fuck and produce children.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
426b9d No.4869
>>4865
Do you have any citation or superior study?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
426b9d No.4876
>>4865
>everything is unconsciously done for the ultimate ends of fucking
so why roman catholic priests are abstinents?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
426b9d No.4877
>>4876
religion, another misfiring of an instinct originally geared towards fucking.
or rather survival until fucking can be achieved.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
426b9d No.4881
>>4869
Aaand no source.
Your pet theory that everyone's unconscious mind is so extremely headed towards having sex is a extraordinary claim and will remain as such if no proof is presented.
Your first post is also in need of some explaining.
>There is no meaning to existence, but there is a purpose to life.
Why is reprocreation "purpose"? Why not "happenstance"? Maybe we've had DNA that did not want to pass on, but we don't know because of it not passing on. As-is, I have no information as to why passing my genes is a "Purpose to life" other than it being encoded in my genes, but various other things are encoded in my genes. Are all of them "my purpose to life" too, or is the desire to reproduce special in some form?
I await a answer.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
426b9d No.4882
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
426b9d No.4907
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
426b9d No.4913
>>4877
>>4869
>>4865
This guy is an idiot.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
426b9d No.4914
>>4913
That post in the middle is a legitimate question.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
426b9d No.4918
>>4741
Your philosophy of "humans first" might fall apart if we meet a superior class of aliens, or if we design a superior cybernetic species/thinking machines. Would the right thing then be to just roll over and die? The losers wouldn't accept such a cold philosophy without fighting back emotionally.
>>4751
I remember telling another Christian in my last years as a theist that the only purpose of life is to reproduce, and thinking it profound because I couldn't think of a higher "natutal purpose" to direct our lives. We shouldn't be constrained to looking for teleology for ethics, because teleogy infers design and therefore usually leads to fallacies. Our origin is a happenstance we can divorce ourselves from if we look to the future instead of always looking to the past.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
426b9d No.4934
>>4914
op here, I'm the one who made the post at >>4913, I fully agree with you, that guy is the one whose side I am on in this argument, I did not intend to include the middle post in the post i made at >>4913, and I have no idea how >>4869 became included there, please disregard that portion of the post, and only consider >>4865 and >>4877 as the one's I consider to be fucking moronic.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
426b9d No.4935
>>4918
OP here:
The "humans first" portion of my philosophy is only meant to be applied to the world as it is, that is, it is only meant to exclude the consideration of animals on an equal level with humanity, I do not expect alien contact or robot intelligence to arise in my lifetime, but such scenarios may arise in the future, and I guess we should have a way of determining what beings should be given equal consideration.
From what I've seen in most fiction, "humans first" should be altered to "humanoids first", which would include most conceptions of artificially intelligent robots, and intelligent extra-terrestrial lifeforms, but if that is not sufficient, since they might not be humanoid in form, equal rights should be given to any form of intelligence that is capable of possessing the traits that set humans apart from all other species that currently reside on our planet, being capable of developing or learning different technologies (beyond sticks and stones, obviously), systems of communication (systems of writing and/or languages), building civilizations (such as politics, law, and economics), etc.
in short, artificial intelligence and intelligent extra-terrestrials should be given equal consideration to humans, since in all imaginings, they meet these requirements.
If humans can empathize with them as people, instead of as we do with animals or plants, then they should be considered to be equal to humans (as non-human persons).
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
426b9d No.4936
>>4935
OP here:
I came to the conclusions in the first post of this thread, when I looked down upon my child shortly after they were born, I felt some kind of transcendence from becoming a father, my wife was showing the symptoms of having that same feeling, and therefore, I felt like this was why we exist in the first place.
It is riddled with bias because it comes from an emotional place.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
426b9d No.4937
Okay so the guy going off about reproduction isn't OP. Uh.
>>4936
>Its emotional
Well, huh, dunno you then mate. I consider creation(Including reproduction but not necessarily) to be important because it is what gives "God" his reputation: The creation of all matter. But I don't usually don't butt it in philosophical discussions usually because its unrelated and I can't really explain it with logic.
If this is going to be about Religion then that limits our scope.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
426b9d No.5084
Why are you asking for sources in philosophy. The greats were predicated not on peer reviewed reports and surveys, but on analogy, observation, and anecdote.
The topics discussed in philosophy are often totally unable to be quantifiably measured. That's what separates it from science! This response is quite honestly baffling.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
426b9d No.5086
>>5084
I am sorry, you what?
Philosophy certainly is capable of observing the world that is, instead of going off wild speculation.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d7caa0 No.5098
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b1dc23 No.5157
>>5084
Okay first of all, if everything is based on "analogy, observation, and anecdote" then all developed "analogies, observations, and anecdotes" would be based on previously made "analogies, observations, and anecdotes"
Anyways, I would say that philosophy is based on logic and anyone with intellect can figure out how to engage in logic to explain anything to anyone, if they themselves can truly understand it. So I would actually agree with your conclusion that asking for sources in philosophy is not necessarily a pertinent question to ask
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b1dc23 No.5158
>>4935
Dude what you are over complicating everything.
I will disagree fundamentally and say that ethics should apply to everything that can potentially support self awareness, and we aren't entirely sure how capable animals are in this regard
I only mention this due to the way you went on about considering aliens and humanoids and such. Considering only this
>Since you are human, you can only reproduce with other humans, therefore ethics should at least apply primarily, if not exclusively, to humanity.
ethics is entirely dependent on who you can mate with. If we can't mate with aliens and robots, then they get zero ethical consideration. According to you anyways
So... this begs the question. Can humans mate with chimps? Should we? If the purpose of life is merely to pass on one's genes?
>>4936
Well meaningfulness is essentially subjective
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d8cd8c No.5195
>>4741
>The purpose of life is to pass on one's genes to their children
>Teleologism
lmfaoooooo wtf is dis shit nigguh like haha ain't you nevar read David Hume?
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b1dc23 No.5216
Well, to say that the biological goal of life is to have more children does seem to be a logical derivation (of the observations and conclusions made in the field of biology and animal sociology (ethology?)) to determine/presume this biological telos of life.
To take this inferred/determined biological telos and somehow apply it towards a universal meaning to life is the leap of faith here, I would say
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d8cd8c No.5219
>>5216
The derivation is still in violation of the is-ought problem and explaining things in their apparent use ("the goal of life is to have more children because the body CAN make more children") leads to absurd conclusions when the reductio ad absurdum is applied.
'Humans can die, therefore, the purpose of life is to die; it is preferable to die than not die.'
As for the sciences, these again describe what is, not what ought. A scientist telling you the human body can reproduce is true, when he says the human body must reproduce he is making a subjective opinion. Telologism is a shit philosophy. Read David Hume.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b1dc23 No.5223
>>5219
Telos is shit when it is assumed but you can infer it. This telos does not mean animals OUGHT to reproduce, it only means that animals seem to be driven to reproduce and care for their children and avoid death.
I'll read whatever I fucking want but if you tell someone to read shit instead of being able to explain it yourself you have no idea what you're talking about. Especially since you weren't able to logcially engage with anything that I said.
If you're going to cry about "Subjective opinion" then all of fucking science is based on the subjective opinion of causality.
I'm not even going to waste time listing all the logical fallacies in what you said when you didn't even read what I said.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b1dc23 No.5224
>>5219
saying animals like to reproduce is like saying people don't like to be in pain
these are statements of what "is"
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ee05f3 No.5236
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
ee05f3 No.5237
>>5195
This is not what Hume intended:
>So far from thinking that the moral concepts are indefinable, Hume actually defines the virtues in terms of the responses of an ideal spectator. Hume thought that we share a ‘moral sense’, a disposition to approve of some things and to disapprove of others, which operates in much the same way in most human beings so long as it is not clouded by misinformation or perverted by self-interest. To say that a trait is a virtue is to say that we would be inclined to approve of it at our unbiased best. “The hypothesis which we embrace is plain. It maintains, that morality is determined by sentiment. It defines virtue to be whatever mental action or quality gives to a spectator the pleasing sentiment of approbation; and vice the contrary. We then proceed to examine a plain matter of fact, to wit, what actions have this influence.” (Enquiries: 289). Thus NOFI is not incompatible with naturalism. Hume himself was a naturalist, since he supposed that there are moral truths which are made true by natural facts, namely facts about what human beings are inclined to approve of. There are many philosophers who think that Hume’s No-Ought-From-Is is somehow equivalent to Moore’s Naturalistic Fallacy, a confusion that is enshrined in many text books and encyclopedias of philosophy. This is simply a mistake.
https://philosophynow.org/issues/83/Hume_on_Is_and_Ought
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d8cd8c No.5242
>>5223
>Behaviour is this way so it ought to be this way
Stay mad
>>5224
That's a big generalization
>>5237
Regardless, the is-ought problem or whatever you want to call it is a solid refutation against teleology
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d1f2c6 No.5243
>>5195
>This means that it isn't possible to logically determine ANY morality without it being based on subjective goals. Morality logically cannot be anything but subjective opinion
Counter-premise: Morality is objective because both the 'is'es and the 'ought's are created by God
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b1dc23 No.5244
>>5242
> it ought to be this way
I literally never said that. There is literally no one arguing teleology as I have explicitly explained already. Hume is only arguing against assumed telos, not inferred telos (otherwise you wouldn't be able to make theories in physics).
The question is the meaning of life. You're the one assuming that meaning of life means something that 'ought' to be done, when really the question is 'whats the point'
Looking at natural animal behavior, it seems everything is because animals like to reproduce. Thus, biologically speaking, the point of animal behavior is to produce offspring.
And btw, don't make responses with memes and no other substance. Your on the fucking philosophy board, at least try to respond substantially. Don't be a piece of shit. You literally don't deserve a response as I'm essentially repeating myself. Only by virtue of a dead board am i dignifying your shitpost
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b1dc23 No.5245
>>5243
How would you derived or discover such God level information? I also argue that morality is objective, and I don't need God for that only logic.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d1f2c6 No.5247
>>5245
>How would you derived or discover such God level information?
The bible.
>I don't need God for that only logic
You need God so much, that without the triune God of the bible you could explain nothing including our speaking right now.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b1dc23 No.5248
>>5247
>you could explain nothing including our speaking right now.
don't project your ignorance onto me, fucking biblethumpers
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d1f2c6 No.5250
>>5248
Atheism makes man into God, anon. Everyone knows this.
There is no such thing as "atheism". All atheists are anthropotheists and autotheists.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b1dc23 No.5252
>>5250
don't put words in my mouth fuckface. I'm not talking about atheism. but I will say that faith is retarded, one should only have "faith" in logic
I will say though that everyone should be some sort of agnostic
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
51e619 No.5254
Can we all agree that this conversation has been a waste of time and will continue to be so?
>>5247
>The bible
Some theists include some outside rationale or even ignore the bible during atheistic argumentation, which makes arguments actually possible. It seems wasted here.
>that without the triune God of the bible you could explain nothing including our speaking right now.
Emotional argument. Just because a particular position is not explained or filled completely yet, does not mean it is not true. Your opposition can still be right even though you had a huge headstart in your theology theory.
>>5250
"Everyone knows this" does not mean you don't have to explain your position. Even if what you say were true(It isn't)
Other agnostic guy seems to be lacking any arguments right now so I don't have anything to reply to.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
d1f2c6 No.5255
>>5252
> but I will say that faith is retarded, one should only have "faith" in logic
You're a logotheist
>>5254
>Some theists include some outside rationale or even ignore the bible during atheistic argumentation, which makes arguments actually possible
That's not an argument on the grounds of Christianity. Interaction is still possible here, in fact know it can be meaningful.
>Emotional argument
You should probably learn what an emotion is
>Just because a particular position is not explained or filled completely yet, does not mean it is not true
You should also learn what an epistemology is
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
b1dc23 No.5256
>>5255
yeah you can say that. I love neoplatonism. start with the greeks, that's all you need!
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.
4df368 No.5284
>>5254
>Can we all agree that this conversation has been a waste of time and will continue to be so?
No. Hume's guillotine was right and moral nihilism obtains. Game theory can rescue most of the prohibitions, however.
For morality to be real, it has to be objective. If it's objective, it has to follow the same rules as physics. It has to be local, and mereological nihilism obtains. Morality clearly doesn't apply to isolated electrons, and therefore it doesn't exist.
The difference between monkey 'morality' and game theory is definitely noticeable. We repeatedly see morality being used exactly as it is accused of being used - as a club. Specifically, to fool people into cooperating with defectors. E.g. just war theory restrains the genuinely just from making war, but does nothing against the genuinely unjust. The former don't need the rule, and the latter will never follow it.
The theory is highly relevant. Indeed that's probably why there's so much bullshit in the water.
Disclaimer: this post and the subject matter and contents thereof - text, media, or otherwise - do not necessarily reflect the views of the 8kun administration.