Another Thread on Morality

[Father Heathen]

Fact of the matter is, none of those things matter.

What's stopping you from putting a gun in your mouth? If you love anyone or anything in life, then that is enough.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

What's stopping you from putting a gun in your mouth? If you love anyone or anything in life, then that is enough.

Because there's no reason to put a gun in your mouth. The lack of morals doesn't mean you ought to shoot yourself, it means there are no rules so do whatever you choose to do, because by default you're always doing what you choose to do.

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

The lack of morals doesn't mean you ought to shoot yourself, it means there are no rules so do whatever you choose to do, because by default you're always doing what you choose to do.

Interesting that you use a modal verb of obligation/suitability in a sentence denying the existence of such a thing.

 

[9Westy9]

Fact of the matter is, none of those things matter.

what do you mean by 'none of those things matter'? I think that it's a sound basis for morality

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Interesting that you use a modal verb of obligation/suitability in a sentence denying the existence of such a thing.

As I said:
because by default you're always doing what you choose to do.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

what do you mean by 'none of those things matter'? I think that it's a sound basis for morality

Yes, but there are others who do not, why exclude their moral idea of a "perfect world" which is annihilation and destruction?

 

[9Westy9]

As I said:
because by default you're always doing what you choose to do.

it's not a default it's a fact. Change choose with desire and I'd agree.

 

[Father Heathen]

Because there's no reason to put a gun in your mouth.

But by your logic there is no reason not to, right?

The lack of morals doesn't mean you ought to shoot yourself, it means there are no rules so do whatever you choose to do, because by default you're always doing what you choose to do.

You choose your actions by desired and undesired consequences, correct? And by what criteria do you personally decide for yourself what is and isn't desirable?

 

[9Westy9]

Yes, but there are others who do not, why exclude their moral idea of a "perfect world" which is annihilation and destruction?

Because their morality directly infringes the rights of everyone else.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

it's not a default it's a fact. Change choose with desire and I'd agree.

Fair enough

 

[The Sum of Awe]

But by your logic there is no reason not to, right?

Double negatives don't work well, but you're correct, I'm not saying you can't kill yourself. There's no reason to, but there's also no reason not to, so pretty much it's your choice.

You choose your actions by desired and undesired consequences, correct? And by what criteria do you personally decide for yourself what is and isn't desirable?

If you do something undesirable you desired to do it, if that answers your question.

Whatever your goal is. Let's say, for example, your goal is to be healthy. Do whatever you think will make you healthy.

If you have no goal but just want to do whatever, it's whatever you decide to do, if you desire actions that make you unhappy, you still desire them.

Desire is personal.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Because their morality directly infringes the rights of everyone else.

And yours' would infringe the rights of them.

 

[9Westy9]

And yours' would infringe the rights of them.

No, because they don't have the right to do what they want all the time. They have the right to do something until it directly interferes with someone else's rights

 

[The Sum of Awe]

No, because they don't have the right to do what they want all the time. They have the right to do something until it directly interferes with someone else's rights

You believe they have the right to do something until it interferes with another's rights, but that's only an opinion, it cannot be reasoned or proven to work.

You're taking away their rights for not allowing them to take away others' rights.

 

[9Westy9]

You believe they have the right to do something until it interferes with another's rights, but that's only an opinion, it cannot be reasoned or proven to work.

You're taking away their rights for not allowing them to take away others' rights.

believe that if you will but I'll stick with my definition of rights.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

believe that if you will but I'll stick with my definition of rights.

But why is your definition of what is right the one we should all follow, in your opinion? What makes your definition better than a murderer's?

All I am asking for in this thread is evidence that X's right and wrong, morality, ethics, etc. is better than Y's.

 

[9Westy9]

But why is your definition of what is right the one we should all follow, in your opinion? What makes your definition better than a murderer's?

My definition protects people

All I am asking for in this thread is evidence that X's right and wrong, morality, ethics, etc. is better than Y's.

If you're looking for a morality separate from a standard then you'll be sorely disappointed

 

[The Sum of Awe]

My definition protects people



If you're looking for a morality separate from a standard then you'll be sorely disappointed

Is there evidence protection is better than death?

 

[Father Heathen]

Double negatives don't work well, but you're correct, I'm not saying you can't kill yourself. There's no reason to, but there's also no reason not to, so pretty much it's your choice.




If you do something undesirable you desired to do it, if that answers your question.

Whatever your goal is. Let's say, for example, your goal is to be healthy. Do whatever you think will make you healthy.

If you have no goal but just want to do whatever, it's whatever you decide to do, if you desire actions that make you unhappy, you still desire them.

Desire is personal.

But you agree that it boils down to rational self-interest, right? To do that which is ultimately beneficial for oneself and to avoid undesirable consequences, right? And you have a criteria to define this for yourself, right? Also, if you have any empathy or love for other beings (such as friends, family, pets, etc.), then you have a certain standard by which you treat and interact with them, right?

 

[al gazali]

I've said this many times, I've been arguing it for quite a while, and see a few people have agreed with this idea themselves on this forum. I know I wasn't the first who come up with it, but I did come up with it on my own, still don't want to acknowledge it but acknowledging it more and more everyday:

This was a debate with myself (X believes in morality, Me doesn't):

X:"Nazis were evil weren't they?"
Me:"I don't agree with the Nazis, nor do I like them but that doesn't mean they were evil."
X:"They killed thousands."
Me:"Why is killig evil?"
X:"Because it is morally wrong."
Me:"Says who?"
X:"Well, do you really want a guy coming into your house and killing you?"
Me:"No, but who says what I don't want and what I do want is the universal truth of what we should and shouldn't do?"
X:"Ninety-nine percent of people wouldn't want to get killed either, so it is wrong by law."
Me:"And yet, murderers are allowed to get killed without it being wrong?"
X:"Because they did something wrong..."
Me:"You're contradicting yourself. Why does the guy who wants to kill me get no say in wanting to kill me? I'm sure a majority of people would like to kill someone."
X:"Because the killer is not a majority."
Me:"So? As I said, I'm sure a vast majority of people have had murdering dreams or dreams to not go to work and get free money, why isn't that legal?"
X:"Because if nobody has jobs, there'd be no production and there'd be no electricity or anything."
Me:"So?"
X:"We'd all be suffering."
Me:"And?"
X:"That's bad"
Me:"Why?"
X:"There would be no happiness in the world if everyone could kill."
Me:"Why is happiness good?"
X:"Well, everyone wants to be happy, they want what they want, if they want pain it'll make them happy."
Me:"Okay? But because for the certain fact that people want different things and get happy for different things, it proves there can be happiness with anarchy or a world with no morality or ethics. All you'd gotta do is do what you want to do. If you want to smell good, take a shower. If you want to live, kill the murderer before he kills you, etc."

Couldn't think of anymore arguments further.


So... yeah, what determines killing, lying, stealing, etc. to be wrong? Unless there is a God saying "No killing!" there is only opinions on what is wrong and right, on what we ought to do.

And because they are opinions, why tell others what they ought to do?

thank you you have proven my point thank you and ask athiste thy will repond on you