Thread 82230946

This world fucking sucks, man. I think most people in the world aren't good people, and the worst thing about this is that most of you will read this and think that I'm not talking about you, but I am. Everyone is so stupid, and we've created a society that rewards stupidity and punishes individual thought. That's why all the media we have is fucking trash. That's why we can't enjoy video games like we used to. We used to have good things and stupid people fucking ruined it because they're resentful of more intelligent people. Anon, please snap out of it. Put down your phone. Get off your computer. Go walk outside. Think extensively about the person you are. Even if you're stupid, there's still time for you to change. Be the change. Please.

>>82230946 (OP)
At least some good things still exist.

>>82230946 (OP)
>I think most people in the world aren't good people
This is called philosophical misanthropy. Its the idea that we can come to rationally justified conclusions about the moral status of most people, and that conclusion is that most people are despicable hypocrites who abuse power the moment they can.

One of the best examples of this is obviously how people treat animals. Most people eat meat and couldn't give less of a flying fuck about pigs, cows and chickens. Most "eMpAtHetIc" roastie femwhores on this board also eat meat and roll their eyes to mother cows being raped in a cage and being killed in a slaughterhouse with tears rolling down their eyes.

This isn't even a fringe philosophy that's only echoed by resentful wizards on imageboard anymore. We have respected philosophy phd professors saying the same thing. Ian James Kidd being one such example.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYr5LFGaauQ

This book by Toby something is a great piece of philosophy on the fact that most people are despicable moral trash
https://philarchive.org/archive/SVOAPD

Most people during slavery defended slavery. Most people during Nazi Germany defended genociding Jews and ethnic minorities. People, in reality, have zero issues with enslaving and abusing power on the weak so long as they stand to profit from it. This is why most normies will concede (if they're being honest) that what we do animals is wrong, but couldn't be fucked to change.

>>82231234
Yeah, you're completely right, I am philosophically misanthropic, but it's much easier for the regular person to grasp it in layman's terms. I think the example with animals is quite interesting, it shows how disconnected we are, really. It's only natural that people are disturbed when they see videos of animals being abused and killed, but we are so disconnected from the reality of how food gets to us that most people will just ignore it completely. It's like if we're not seeing the problem, it's not there. It's similar with slaves and Nazi germany. Most people didn't own slaves, but would have likely just tried to not think about it completely. The most upsetting part is that nobody has the power to change it, really. However, while I do agree with the bulk of what you said, I disagree with this:
>"People, in reality, have zero issues with...(injustices)... so long as they stand to profit"
Regular people don't profit from these things. No one person can stop injustices, so we watch helplessly as those at the top line their pockets, and there's nothing we can do about it. But, honestly, if those regular people were in the shoes of those at the top, they'd do the same. pic unrelated lol

>>82230946 (OP)
Earth is a penal colony created by "god" to punish you

>>82230946 (OP)
Fine I'll go out there's needs I need to think about, either way its time for my walk

>>82230946 (OP)
But will I get pussy for this? I want that in writing, legally binding per international law that I get pussy for doing this

>>82231452
>Regular people don't profit from these things
What do you mean, bro? Regular people profit from these things all the time. Regular people profit from meat in businesses all the time. Regular people benefit from the taste pleasure of eating meat all the time.

>No one person can stop injustices, and there's nothing we can do about it
Haha. That sounds like backwards self-rationalization? i don't think (or anyone else) asked most people to solve all moral issues? Obviously they could stop their own contribution towards it, they just don't care enough to. People only care about morals until its slightly inconvenient to them.

To quote Michael Huemer:
"Other times, though, I think people are basically horrifyingly immoral. Most people you interact with seem like nice, decent people-they won't steal, they won't deliberately injure anyone, they don't condone violence except in politics. But that's only because you interact with them in very narrow, favorable circumstances, and you only look at how they treat you and people like you in those circumstances. Beneath the surface, they're potential murderers. If circumstances should change so that it becomes socially acceptable and profitable to murder you, they will murder you. No moral test is too easy for the average person to fail it. No moral reason is too weighty, no personal discomfort too trivial, for them to put the latter ahead of the former. It's not only that most human beings would participate in a holocaust given the opportunity. Most already are participating in a holocaust- like evil every day, with little to no compunction. They know that other animals feel pain, yet they are completely untroubled by the idea of other sentient beings being tortured, killed, and cut into pieces so that humans can have the sensory pleasure of munching on their flesh. If told about this, nearly everyone-probably over 95% will admit that it's wrong and then just keep doing it."

>walking outside for no reason is good
You're the stupid you fear.

>>82231234
>>82230946 (OP)

>Most people during Nazi Germany defended genociding Jews and ethnic minorities.
I had you until this part. If you don't think that was a good thing, you have zero knowledge of your immediate reality. Even though you've clearly been influenced by a pure emotional reaction (muh poor animal dying); quite obviously on a low level of thought of individualism and emotional sensitivity.

You have literally a 16 year old bleeding heart redditor tier understanding of the world.
Why do I sit here with literal teens who think they are so much smarter than everybody? You're literally just armchair youtube philosophers.

>>82230946 (OP)
The mailman left a package at our address today (the wrong address) and I jogged down the street in my pjs to his truck to give it back. It was a little annoying because he pulled away right when I'd almost caught up to him the first time. Anyway he said thank you. I think that's my limit on good deeds for the year even though he probably delivered it to another wrong address.

>>82231829
High-tier ragebait. Look, bud. The trees are pretty. Go look at the REAL world.

>>82231825
Yeah, you sold it. You either are too stupid to know what I meant by profit or you know and you're trying to strong arm some real bullshit to not hurt your ego. Either case is a sign of pure midwittery, since you're arguing something I already addressed. Sorry, man. For the record, I do think you're on your way to being more competent, you're just not there yet.

>>82231876
Yeah. I disagree. I just think genociding people based on their ethnicity is morally wrong. I think a great hypothetical to extrapolate on this could be space aliens.

Lets say powerful space aliens invaded earth, and decided to treat you like how you think its okay to treat jews. Would you be okay to be genocided, to have you and your family killed, by space aliens?

I doubt it, if you are being honest. Whatever shit tier justification you have for genocing jews, the same can be said about your race.

I KNOW you think of yourself as this morally perfect angel who never did anything wrong, but i dont think white people are morally superior to any other race (despite your otherwise delusions)

>Why do I sit here with literal teens who think they are so much smarter than everybody?
This is a character attack, and regardless of my age, its irrelevant, as its an ad hom. Im a wizard and a autistic reclusive loveless robot, anon. Ive been on r9k for a long long time

>>82231876
>If you don't think that was a good thing
wdym man it didn't even really happen lol

Dubs and Jade becomes my girlfriend after the exams.

>>82231968
>I just think genociding people based on their ethnicity is morally wrong.
Again, you're retarded. You have zero idea of what I meant by that. You have zero knowledge of your immediate reality and you are probably underage. You have no idea how the world works and every word that you utter makes it more obvious than the last.

God, I miss being a 15 year old armchair philosopher.

>>82230946 (OP)
Well I think I am not stupid and I think I am a good person. But I'm biased, so who knows.

Society is a mixed bag in my opinion, though I do agree that there seems to be a lot of stupid people out there. But I would say that deep down most people are good, but the events they've experience have changed them for the worse.

Also, I can enjoy video games and shows as well as I used to. New films, shows and video games still are good imo.

>>82231956
Huh? What do you mean?
Most people benefit from the exploitation of animals

- Financially by enslaving, killing and selling their dead body parts for profit. Tons of businesses participate in this.
- In pleasure from the taste pleasure they get from eating meat and dairy products
- In entertainment from zoos, sea world, and dogs bred to satisfy your ego that you pay breeders for. Dogs have been subjected to eugenics for so long their genes force them to be these mentally retarded loyal subservient slaves to humans, to appease their fragile ego

>>82230946 (OP)
>I think most people in the world aren't good people
yeah we figured this out for literally ALL OF HUMAN HISTORY apart from the boomer era.

>>82231234
you are retarded
>people are EVIL because they EXPLOIT ANIMALS
no, nature is evil because it forces us to in order to survive
>but we're humans, we know better, we should be better than nature
well we fucking aren't, we have NATURALLY remained dependent on exploiting other creatures

nihilism is the only truth here, we have no goals or rules except to gather energy to reproduce, people are entirely willing to do objectively horrible things like killing others if they believe it will help them or their tribe gain an advantage in the simple goal of reproduction. morality did not exist when the first lifeform came into existence.

it feels like i'm saying nonsense but basically, morality is something humans invented, but it's a concept entirely incompatible with nature

>>82232060
>you are retarded
>nihilism is the only truth here
the jokes write themselves, really

>>82230946 (OP)
Breh what did I even do

>>82232090
what am i supposed to say? "uuuu i'm so evil because my parents fed me meat and meat came from the evil factories, i'm gonna starve myself to death because eating plants is evil too"
what i'm saying is that nature has forced us to do things to other species that are morally questionable, involving that PETA shit in a thread about our society which is governed by law is retarded

>>82232134
Bro nobody's telling you to become vegan, but hitting the "omggg nihlism so based and morality is subjective" is equally as cringe to anyone above the age of 14.

Very unimpressive so far.
What you said here has been said before in countless entry-level books and philosophically inclined teen boys all across the human history for at least the last 2000 years. You might think you're smart (and you probably are, if you do compare yourself against the average/distribution on a Gaussian), but you are not as smart as you think. There's always somebody smarter: in any place you'll eventually find somebody from the right side of the Gaussian.

Anything that's popular is bound to become shit and bad for smarter people, especially anything that's commercialized. So yes OP, they ruined video games because video games became popular. Don't let nihilism consume you, there's still gems out there! They come and go, and more likely than not will get ruined over time, but they tend to stay around. Again, any hobby which gets too popular will go through the so called "re-normalization to the mean". So if you enjoy something, and there's only mostly good stuff, make sure not to talk about it too loudly. The smart ones will find it anyway.


>>82231234
"Humanitarian" values are a triviality and stem from mammalian empathy; I don't think they require a philosophical discussion. It's a good thing to have, it's something most women don't for example. (I mention it because I hate women personally and want it to seep through my text).
If you delve deep enough into this topic, you'll realize that killing animals for food is a natural cycle. You make countless low IQ assumptions, such that death is evil in itself. Death can be evil and pain can be evil, but then if you delve deeper you'll start questioning even the foundation of that in the first place.

How is a mammalian electrical signal processed through their nerves evil?
I can shortcut it for you: it's the intention of the person that ultimately makes it evil.
No human intentionally hurts those animals.

>>82232239
i am smartest

>>82232255
no me, ur dum

>>82232060
>nihilism is the only truth here
Isn't nihilism inherently contradictory?
nihilism entails metaphysical anti-realism. metaphysical anti-realism entails epistemic anti-realism. and "nihilism is the only truth" is a epistemic truth claim that relies on epistemology being true to have any ground

but truth cannot exist under nihilism, which makes nihilism inherently self-contradictory.
Nihilism uses logic to appeal to people's intuition, but the same nihilistic philosophy argues that logic doesn't exist. It literally cuts the tree branch its sitting on

And if you think nihilism is true, wouldn't that mean that nothing is true? So like, math isn't true, math doesn't exist, etc?

>>82232134
Not who you are replying too, but nihilism is cringe. Even the "nihilist philosophers" aren't about embracing it, but all are about escaping the mindset of a nihilism and finding meaning in a world in which nothing absolute exists. Embracing nihilism is Thanatos. It is to live for nothing, and to disregard everything as being void.
All life forms with higher order thinking have a weltanschauung, as it is functionally required for them to operate and exist.
This moral code and vision of the world is largely shaped by their local milieu, and the quale that makes up their life's experiences. Someone above dogmas may reject the local moral systems forced upon them and invent their own, or greater men still may inspire change to aspects of it that are fundamentally wrong. They may even move to a place where they have a moral system they identify with, they may be selfish narcissists and develop illegalism or destructive egoism as their core morality, or they will come to accept the one in which they were conditioned.
Either way they will come to have some weltanschauung. it is a mark of adulthood to have a belief. Being a child is blindly following values, being a teenager is realizing values are subjective, and being an adult is adopting values that you believe in to have purpose.

>>82232239
>you'll realize that killing animals for food is a natural cycle
Yeah sure, but that's sort of irrelevant to the moral status of the action. Lots of things are natural like murder, rape, or torture (for sadists) but those aren't exactly moral. That is a is-ought fallacy. Just because something is natural doesn't entail it's moral

>You make countless low IQ assumptions, such that death is evil in itself
I think its fair to say that needless agony is inherently wrong. I think its quite obvious that subjecting otherwise innocent people (or animals) to excruciating suffering and agony is inherently wrong.

I think this is a lot more obvious than the truths of complex mathematics or philosophical truths about epistemology (you are more justified to believe in something if you have higher quality evidence for it, for example), etc.

Its just intuitively obvious to anyone that ruthless torture for nothing is bad. Morally bad. This is actually the basis for a lot of moral realism claims, like Russ Shafer-Landau (who is very boring to listen to, unlike Michael Huemer), who defends such a position. Its a strong and respected position, its not so easy to casually dismiss.

>How is a mammalian electrical signal processed through their nerves evil?
Well it's just obvious. Horrific torture and causing needless agony on the innocent is obviously wrong. Child torture and child murder are wrong. It's hard to get more obvious than that.

All of your beliefs about everything in life boil down to "it's just obvious". The reason why you believe in anything, from "2+2=4" or "tacos are delicious" to "women only love chad" is because its obvious to you. You cant just throw away intuition when its inconvenient for you, as its the basis for all of your beliefs

>>82232358
I mean usually the meat industry is pretty efficient in killing their animals no? Torture gives no value. Unless you're talking about their quality of life?

>>82232358
Nobody tortures animals for food retard.
And no, tiger killing for food is not evil either.

You confuse death with agony. Whole meat industries are regulated to minimize animal suffering, the way death is delivered for example is done with super strong air guns that just destroy the part of the brain responsible for consciousness instantly.
Just because you think it looks "awww poor animals suffering" doesn't mean they are any more than necessary.
You're conflating your emotions about the situation with the reality because of some vegan videos.

And some thing are literally just obvious, just like 2+2 = 4. That's what intuition is...

>>82232372
What do you mean? The meat and dairy industry are some of the most cruel and evil things humanity has ever done. Torture is a byproduct of efficiency. Keeping pigs in a cage for their entire life is more efficient than letting them roam free, etc, but is torture

Theres documentaries on youtube exposing how animals are treated in farms and slaughterhouses. Its torture.

>>82232409
>The meat and dairy industry are some of the most cruel and evil things humanity has ever done
Based on what? Your feelings with sad music from a vegan video showing automation and machines with animals? Most likely from third world countries?

>>82232409
I don't think you even understand the definition of a word "torture".

>>82230946 (OP)
>calls everyone else stupid and tells them to go outside
>main complaint is "muh video games aren't good anymore"
Lol
Lmao even

>>82232409
You literally just used "le vegan documentary" as an argument so that probably invalidates everything you've said. You don't even understand that people in the real world have certain agendas will present their viewpoints in the way that most benefits the message they are trying to brainwash you with. A movie is a tightly controlled brainwashing motion picture, showing you only what they want you to see.

Unless you've at least walked in one of those slaughterhouses and talked to people working there, or worked there yourself, that's the least you could do before coming to the conclusions that slaughterhouses is "torture".

Easily propagandized fool with a bleeding heart. You're not really arguing reality, and I can tell that by your choice of words alone.

You're just repeating what they told you in a video you saw on youtube. Pathethic.

It's funny it took the "you're le evil because you eat animals guy" to prompt a decent discussion for once on this board. Anyone here long and often enough will recognize this retard. Hey guess what Mr. max empathy for animals your breathing in my air and the animals air your very existence is pollution to life itself I think I should just kill you because I have so much empathy for life. All humans should literally kill themselves under this sort of logic based on a human construct we call empathy. We can only make the best of this fucking torture simulation so calling people evil for eating animals doesn't really get us anywhere.

>>82230946 (OP)
Yeah, you, I, and everyone else, is an evil retard. That's an obvious assessment. But what do you propose we do about it? You propose individualism, but I think our society is too ultraindividualistic already (besides, giving freedom to vile and stupid people, fixes this problem how?). Who's the more retarded now? Of course me, because you are oh so smarter than me.
>>82232358
+20iq points for knowing about is-ought
-40iq points for "morality is obvious".
These two exclude each other, and if you don't have a system to back that morality up without logic (religion), then you can't really engage in a discusion.
>>82232405
>>82232414
>>82232441
You are denying reality at this point.
>captcha SATNTN

>>82232733
Idk where I was going with it. I also forgot the pic.

>>82232733
>giving freedom to vile and stupid people, fixes this problem how?
Morality is a spook but at least freedom is enjoyable. Maximizing freedom is the best thing we can hope for.

>>82232655
>decent discussion
Veganon has a talent for keeping people talking, but my eyes always glaze over whenever I see any reply chain involving him.

>>82230946 (OP)
>Everyone is so stupid, and we've created a society that rewards stupidity and punishes individual thought
I approve of this, but you would still hate me for what I am, and still think that I am a bad person.

>>82232746
>Morality is a spook
Again. The rando person interrupting, and not anyone part of the convo chain that you are responding too, but Stirner's Egoism is in itself a belief. His concept of 'Ownness' promotes self-mastery, self-rule, self-determination, authenticity, and autonomy. It doesn't exist outside of morality, it is in itself a morality framework. One that benefits only the self, and what empowers the self albeit. It does exist outside of the political spectrum however. Though this has nothing to do with morality.

>>82232733
>and if you don't have a system to back that morality up without logic
errmm...
I don't see how logic is the core basis of your belief system. It would seem that intuition is. You dont believe putting your hand on fire hurts because of logic. You believe it on feelings and intuition that its obvious, and the truth of the pain you are feeling. None of which is logical. The truth about logic and math is also held by intuition.

And there are a variety of argument that defend moral realism quite coherently and eloquently. My favorite being "partners in crime" or "companions in guilt" argument. A famous argument used efficient by moral realist philosophers

The idea goes as follows: if you concede that mathematics is objective and real, and epistemic truths are objective and real, then it follows that moral realist truths are objective and real. There has to be something different about moral truths and other objective truths that would make it the case that one is justified to believe and not the other. And since that difference doesnt exist, moral realism is entailed if you believe in realism in math, for instance

>>82232796
I don't know what Stirner is. Spooks are just things that ain't real bro. The less real it is the spookier it be. Morality's not real so just ignore it. Focus on freedom cuz it's tangible. I obey the law because I like being free not because I'm a """good""" person, get it?

>>82232813
>I don't know what Stirner is
Then why are you using his terminology of calling ideas that inhibit the self spooks? Saying you are the paradigmatic egoist above all other consideration is still a morality, even if it only venerates the self. There are less extreme forms of egoism than the absolutist form of the paradigmatic egoist. But this holds that people only act in their own self-interest, or people should act in their own self-interest to help others. Regardless this isn't a lack of morals for anything, it is just an extreme form of a moral framework where only in self matters.

>>82232857
I literally understood maybe 1/5 of what you wrote. All I know is I do the things that feel good and don't do the things that feel bad. And I came up with the spookies idea I was calling them ghosts but someone said it was too scary so I went for spooks cuz it's a funnier word.

>>82232803
>I don't see how logic is the core basis of your belief system.
Not what I'm arguing against. I'm saying that your view is influenced by it, too; as such, your view that other people are evil is unreasonable, because, well, your moral views are probably evil too.
>moral realism exists
Again, not what I'm arguing against. It does, I'm just rejecting being able to reason it using logic. I've seen people argue for things like zoophilia, or abortion, or murder "logically", as well as people argue against it "logically". Logic is de facto used just for reasoning your view, which, as you said, is illogical.
>If morality can't be judged by us logically, then how to find out what's moral or not?
idk, that's what I've been wondering about recently.
>>82232746
So... it doesn't fix it.

>>82232868
>I went for spooks cuz it's a funnier word
kek

>>82232907
>I'm saying that your view is influenced by it, too; as such, your view that other people are evil is unreasonable, because, well, your moral views are probably evil too

Just because your views about the world are influenced by external factors, bias, prejudice, or are fallible doesnt necessarily entail they're not justified. For example, it could be the case that everything you know is just a illusion that is fed to you by some evil demon in a simulation, and reality is radically different than your worldly perceptions, but you are still justified to hold your beliefs about truth regardless.

>I'm just rejecting being able to reason it using logic
I think if you concede that morals are real then we can argue that epistemic truths are real. And epistemic truths are inherently prescriptive. As in, they are objective mind-independent "ought" statements about reality. So, some examples:
"one's beliefs OUGHT to be proportioned to the strength of one's evidence"
"one OUGHT not to hold contradictory statement at the same time"
"the purpose of belief is to accept true propositions and reject false ones"

If you concede that SOME statements like this are true, then its the case that we can use reason to justify our beliefs. And if we can do so in the domains of epistemic, and of math, and of science and physics, then why cant we do so with morals? You need to explain why we cant

>If morality can't be judged by us logically, then how to find out what's moral or not?
Yeah, I mean, just because we dont know the objective ultimate moral truth doesn't entail we cant grasp atleast some basic moral principles. And we can reason about how we come to understanding moral truths. One of which is intuition. All of your beliefs about everything are all grounded on intuition, and everyone has some sense of moral justice. Thats atleast one possible explanation.