Thread 17823341

Now that Hume, Nietzsche, Wittgenstein and many others, have shown that morality does not exist and is a cope, should we bring chaos let loose, constantly expose the vacuous morals of society; or play the pretend game, and take profit from all the morality-bound coping losers for our own gain?
And by that I mean, which is the more fun?

I will simply observe

>>17823341 (OP)
What honestly was his problem?

>>17823341 (OP) Look how they ended.

>>17823355
The final form of The Coomer

>>17823386
Hume basically just died of old age

>>17823341 (OP)
basically do what you want but don't let the cops catch you

>>17823341 (OP)
Morality is an important tool to create peace and harmony in a society. In fact, the existence of a lot of institutions, like marriage and property, would simply have no justification for being respected. Once you get past the fact that morality isn't real you start to realize that there are actual quantifiable metrics that demonstrate that certain moral behaviors are in fact beneficial. It is good to be honest, chaste, patient, kind, charitable, wise, industrious, grateful, etc. For the average person, it's up to you whether or not you want to be moral, but for the statesman it is incumbent upon them to create a system of laws and values so robust and strong that no one dares to defy it. Most people will see that life is better following these rules than not. And for the antisocial, we can imprison and execute them to remove them from society and hopefully the gene pool.

>>17823386
>That evening, he became very ill; when his doctor told him he might live only a few days, he reportedly replied, "Good!". Joan stayed with him throughout that night, and just before losing consciousness for the last time on 28 April, he told her: "Tell them I've had a wonderful life."

>>17823462
the delusional guy speaks.
Weirdly enough you are for morality when its about not stealing, not cheating but it's ok for rich people to own hundreds of houses and the poor none. Your morality is just what suites the class in control. you are just a little slave. Inferior resigned slave.
Weird how everything that is considered legitimate is what favors those in power. You have to have good grades in school, to have a high standard of living, and you can't cheat, but weirdly enough, it always puts on favors those who already have a structure there.
But it's "bad" to go and take the riches by force or to snap a dominant person's neck.
If your morality was right, every life would be equal. But look at peoples answer to trolley-like problems, they always favor the rich, the women, the beautiful.

Your morality does not exist, and since you have no morality of your own, you just follow the one of your masters like a good little slave.

You won't agree with this, and you'll keep believing in your stuff. Because no one can convince you not to be a good loyal dog... Your masters are proud of you!
And you'll get nothing more than a pat on the head.

>>17823341 (OP)
de Sade is so tame compared to the shit women read nowadays. Modern women would make him blush and run away like a shy schoolboy, poor guy was just born in the wrong era.

>>17823682
de sade was a humorist and a remarquable writer... He did not just write gooner stuff for the sake of it it has actual literary value.
You can see how he refines his style throught the different versions of justine.

Why are you all such plebs

>>17823766
how dumb can you be in this year to still convince yourself that made up stories are more real than others.
Again, you won't be convinced, because you've been trained since childhood to be a good boy. But with a ridiculous twist this time...
>that guy may have beat me up and screwed my wife and shat in my bowl, but he's sure going to hell, yeah, that'll show him

>>17823759
>He did not just write gooner stuff for the sake of it it has actual literary value.
People who believe this are delusional pseuds. His works read like deviant art fetish stories. The latter half of 120 days of sodom is literally just him reeling off all of his weird autistic fantasies.

>>17823823
If this is what you believe then the translations are all whack or you're a retard.
If the former then that explains how so few french writers get the worldwide fame they deserve
and only the worst shitass most boring ones like camus or balzac have a huge influence

>>17823341 (OP)
Actually the general view accepted is thin moral realism. David Hume is actually argued to be this, speciically in this more political conserative writings but Hilary Putnam is more notable example. Here is a good short run through of many of the common arguments.David Hume: Common-sense Moralist, Sceptical Metaphysician
by David Norton is an example of the current literature on Hume.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5iEg_eK-niE

>>17824028
Everytime I've seen moral realist arguments they seem to have disdain for the individual
be they for example take for axiom the happiness of the species or humans as a whole...

Not that altruistic measures can't benefit the individual, it is true for example that road traffic egoism leads to worst outcomes for everyone, but the endgoal seems abstract...

I'd rather just hear a discussion of facts just like how nature talks to me...
I've never been confused by the series of facts that are presented to me in life, but moral arguments seem very far away from what I've seen through the keyhole...

It's hard to not see any moral arguments people make as a disguised imperative or suggestion (same thing according to some) for you to do what is convenient to me. Be the locutor the species or the representative of a religion that is mad he can't get poon so he says: "to each his own" "chastity" "do not kill me"

Plus, all discussions of morality are boring, a remark you may sneer at, but when your own life comes in play, boring is to be avoided, annoying, more.

>>17824087
>>17824028
wow I'm sorry I wrote a lot of bullshit I immediately don't agree with please ignore it
Thank god I am anonymouse

>>17824087
There are metaethical naturalists as well. Realism simply means they believe that there are metaethical facts. Peter Railton is an example but there are other models as well. The claim that disdain for the individual is a problem only makes sense if you have some other ethical norm.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6JpPBx2dA0c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cw_a8NXZwMw

empathy is a sign of intelligence

people evolved mirror neurons to perpetuate civilization

sociopaths are retarded cavemen that need to be exiled or pruned

>>17824141
You probably meant "being nice" instead of empathy.
I probably have more empathy than you'll ever have, being able to see both the povs of the aggressors and the victims, being an art aristocrat also helps.
You're not even capable of seing how your rhetoric of the "bad guy" and punishment is ridiculous and a root of many casus bellis.

Who's the most respectable? The one who makes up reasons for why you should be dead because you are an asshole and this and that says that he deserves it; or the compassion of the hunter that is upfront: "It's between you and me" "I will hurt you because I want to obtain something from you" that's a fair fight.

Civilization is its own justification for its own crimes and violence. However civilization is not an individual human and it torments us as individuals. Bowing to civilization is bowing to the leviathan. Quite common and understandable, but cowardly

There is also moral intuitionism. Although a metaethical theory. This is a theory connected to normative ethical theories like care ethics and natural law theory. Below is a conemporary defense of it.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFdzyvdvrjc

>>17824141
This is a major model for explaining how ethics developed. There are descriptive arguments that there is an innate moral grammar connected to our phyiology. Meta ethical naturalists would state for example this grammar enables us to learn the fact hurting others is bad unless we are raised in an abusive environment. It need not have with it a metaethical implication.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpp83ixdA5Y


Animals also seem to develop ethical behaviors as well with their own innate grammar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gXWiTm9JKDk

>>17824141
>mirror neurons
sounds like hokus pokus. The tests are showing a monkey food? And their neurons light up?

>>17823673
What you are pushing for has already been tried many times in history and it does not benefit or help the poor in anyway, in fact it makes their lives worse and end up concentrating all power and resources in a society under a very small group of politicians and bureaucrats that repress and control everybody else
Funny enough your whole argumentation rest in the idea of the poor being entitled to the property of more successful people and that given to them would be somehow morally righteous
When we look to reality societies that respect property right end up with better living conditions(this includes the living condition of poor people)

>>17824254
no

>>17824254
The above post is confusing normative ethics with metaethics. Metaethics talks about the nature of ethical facts. Normative ethics is how we know what is good. Thin realism argues we don't need to have a metaethical nature underlining it. However, even non-realists can treat ethical facts as conventionally true but not refelcting some metaphysical truth. Buddhism is a good example of this , it has a very develoepd normative ethical theory but because of their metaphysical claims tend to entail that view, although they sometimes take an intuitionist or naturalist account at a different level.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rlcHaZrpHWY

>>17823341 (OP)
serious adults haven't considered morality a "real" thing in quite some time.
the closest we have to collective morality is the law, and everybody hates that.

>>17824262
>Anonymous 07/07/25(Mon)21:21:40 No.17824262▶
The post that they were responding too. Metaethical naturalism also has no problem thinking in terms of practical reason as being the same as normative ethics. This explains the idea of practical reason more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ismlejYJMGo