Secular morality

And?

Spook.

Secular morality is a joke. Is there any reason not to break it other than fines and prison time?

>embrace moral nihilism and live by the golden rule of
m8. please look at this phrase more closely and think for a second

Being good creates a ripple of goodness that is beneficial to me and my lineage. Being good is work towards making the world a better place, and I want to maximize the goodness of the world my lineage will be born into. No religion needed.

I've been a christian for years and I didn't start the thread

>my lineage
a phantasm in the sense that it is a spook, and a phantasm in the sense that no woman would consent to bear your children and you're too weak to rape

What is this book? I can't find anything about it online

not published in english yet. drops in english in 2020 i think.

I can't even find anything about the author

>embrace moral nihilism
but, user, philosophical ethics is rooted in the practice of being the best person you can be and flourishing...like, if you want to be an athlete or even just a healthy person, you should do healthy things, and if you want to be a piqanist you should do the things that further that goal, such as practicing. Do the things that promote the actualization of your best life. Ethics on the bigger scale is just the application of that concept to society: do the things that best promote the flourishing of society, as a flourishing society is the one in which the individual people can flourish the most. It's not about things being good or evil in and of themselves. So, choosing to live without ethical considerations is choosing to not live your best possible life.

Sounds interesting, i'm assuming you've read it in the original russian? What is it exactly?

It's still beneficial to me, you BTFO fuck. Being nice feels good and people are often nice back, even if in small ways.

>Just embrace moral nihilism and live by the golden rule of " do not do unto others what you don't want done to you.
So mothers want to be aborted as they abort their own children?

When I do something selfless, I’m not doing it because I’m afraid God would be mad if I don’t, I’m doing it out of the kindness of my heart. Hell is the last thing on my mind when I’m doing good works.

oh man I wanna read Russia's Heihachi
will he godfist the fuck out of me?

It's pretty short, like 200 pages in Russian, which makes since since it was largely written as bolsheviks advanced on his estate. The first part is his collected poetry which was written throughout the early 20th centuiry and into the early days of ww1. the rest is his philosophy about why war occurs and how nationalism and a love of god and family are needed to prevent mass violence.

he died like a real badass - the bolshies advanced on his house and he sat up behind a tree with like six guns, several rifles and pistols, and fired until he was out of ammunition then fought them with his cavalry sword.

Attached: 3242134.png (125x196, 48K)

Do you have a link to it in Russian?

Attached: smug.jpg (727x719, 109K)

logical fallacy

its about dont´s not do´s

Attached: 617966.jpg (640x480, 41K)

that was a great post lol

You have no foresight for the suffering people endure and the choices they have to make. I hope you've prepared yourself for the worst.

What a scholar.

Philosophy was created by cultural clashes in southern italy and greece colonies to have intercultural debates and to explain the world and societal norms. This had previously been done with myths, but myths were insufficent for argumentation and truth. As christianity is just another form of myth, it seems as if religion can't establish a philosophical answer, becuase philosophy and myth are two different kind of discourse, meaning that a religious morality is an oxymoron.

>Constanzaical
>not Constanzan

>the church has a monopoly on morality

How spookish to deny objectivity.

Attached: ayn rand+.jpg (288x288, 22K)

>humanist atheists

Attached: flat,800x800,075,f.jpg (753x800, 170K)

You're confusing concepts. There is the moral law, which are the rules binding upon all humans, and then there is temporal or judicial law. A violation of the judicial law is not necessarily a violation of the moral or divine law. And even judicial laws instituted by God are not binding upon all people at all times.

>You don't need to believe in God to have morals and be a good person.
>What's your opinion on abortion?
>...

>Dude we should be able to kill [insert group of humans]
>But like, murder is bad, because uh... we should just be good people, you know? Murderers are like, assholes.
>Bro just define [insert group of humans] as "non-persons" in the law and it will be totally fine
>Sweet, that should work :)
This is secular ethics

Hey, nothing wrong with that bro! Whatever floats your boat! Morals are relative you know. (Except nazis, they are objectively bad)

>(Except nazis, they are objectively bad)
It's funny because abortion supporters use Nazi logic to justify it.

That's secular morality, not ethics

1. Real moral obligation is a fact. We are really, truly, objectively obligated to do good and avoid evil.
2. Either the atheistic view of reality is correct or the “religious” one is.
3. But the atheistic one is incompatible with there being moral obligation.
4. Therefore the “religious” view of reality is correct.

We need to be clear about what the first premise is claiming. It does not mean merely that we can find people around who claim to have certain duties. Nor does it mean that there have been many people who thought they were obliged to do certain things (like clothing the naked) and to avoid doing others (like committing adultery). The first premise is claiming something more: namely, that we human beings really are obligated, that our duties arise from the way things really are and not simply from our desires or subjective dispositions. It is claiming, in other words, that moral values or obligations themselves—and not merely the belief in moral value —are objective facts. Now given the fact of moral obligation, a question naturally arises. Does the picture of the world presented by atheism accord with this fact? The answer is no. Atheists never tire of telling us that we are the chance products of the motion of matter, a motion which is purposeless and blind to every human striving. We should take them at their word and ask, Given this picture, in what exactly is the moral good rooted? Moral obligation can hardly be rooted in a material motion blind to purpose.

Suppose we say it is rooted in nothing deeper than human willing and desire. In that case, we have no moral standard against which human desires can be judged. For every desire will spring from the same ultimate source—purposeless, pitiless matter. And what becomes of obligation? According to this view, if I say there is an obligation to feed the hungry, I would be stating a fact about my wants and desires and nothing else. I would be saying that I want the hungry to be fed, and that I choose to act on that desire. But this amounts to an admission that neither I nor anyone else is really obliged to feed the hungry—that, in fact, no one has any real obligations at all. Therefore the atheistic view of reality is not compatible with there being genuine moral obligation.

Modern people often say they believe that there are no universally binding moral obligations, that we must all follow our own private conscience. But that very admission is enough of a premise to prove the existence of God. Isn’t it remarkable that no one, even the most consistent subjectivist, believes that it is ever good for anyone to deliberately and knowingly disobey his or her own conscience? Even if different people’s consciences tell them to do or avoid totally different things, there remains one moral absolute for everyone: never disobey your own conscience. Now where did conscience get such an absolute authority—an authority admitted even by the moral subjectivist and relativist? There are only four possibilities: (1) from something less than me (nature); (2) from me (individual); (3) from others equal to me (society); or (4) from something above me (God).

Let’s consider each of these possibilities in order.

1. How can I be absolutely obligated by something less than me—for example, by animal instinct or practical need for material survival?
2. How can I obligate myself absolutely? Am I absolute? Do I have the right to demand absolute obedience from anyone, even myself? And if I am the one who locked myself in this prison of obligation, I can also let myself out, thus destroying the absoluteness of the obligation which we admitted as our premise.
3. How can society obligate me? What right do my equals have to impose their values on me? Does quantity make quality? Do a million human beings make a relative into an absolute? Is “society” God?
4. The only source of absolute moral obligation left is something superior to me. This binds my will morally, with rightful demands for complete obedience.

Thus God, or something like God, is the only adequate source and ground for the absolute moral obligation we all feel to obey our conscience. Conscience is thus explainable only as the voice of God in the soul.

Shut up, nerd.

Okay cool story but the ontology of stuff is becoming not being that's incompatible with your view of objectivity. Objective fields such as Europe circa 1200 are conjured into being. It's like a wall around the harsh elements. But without constant renewal and care from the priestly class, that wall will be dragged down. For better or worse, that wall is gone. If you want to build a new wall, I can respect that, even though I'm opposed to that personally. But what you can't do is pretend that the wall or field never crashed.

Edgy 16 yr old moral nihilism is a bust. Morality is an evolved trait stemming from the fact that we are social creatures, and groups which have a natural inclination towards helping their own, those who feel good about helping others, will naturally out perform others groups as they will be more cooperative.
What we call 'moral' are just rules which are good for society, no god needed.

Attached: cave_man_thing.jpg (736x490, 37K)

I'm going to need an actual argument instead of just being told my views are old and therefore wrong because of it.

>morality doesn't real
>I can do what I want with my life
feels pretty comfy desu

>Bro you've got to keep up with the times! We've got iPhones now you know? Believing in teleology and shit like that is so 1200s, LOL! Do you even have Instagram?

Isn't secular morality just trash hedonism?

No. I suppose it could be, but not typically, and I've have a hard time calling any type of hedonism a morality.
There are non religious reasons to want to do good unto others.

Your opinion isn't wrong whatsoever, just a bit temporarily displaced. I also think that the not an argument is disgenuous, a minimally charitable reading of my post contains an implied argument. As men of culture, we both ought to appreciate rhetoric and flourishes, should we not?

Anyway, no gotchas, I have two questions to so I can understand what you're claiming
1) Clearly some calamity happened to Christianity. Can you explain what exactly happened?
2) If there is a type of eternal being, be it Platonic forms or the Jude-Christian God, how exactly do we have access to it, and if we have access to it, isn't it practically guaranteed that "it" will win, given that it is benefitial and good to follow "it", given long enough timeframe. It seems like fighting pomo sheep bitches is running at windmills - as is with Goethe's Faust or Kierkegaard , some people only come to know God by committing the most horrific acts, who are we to judge and stop them in this process.

wdym beneficial? aren't you a nihilist?

lmfao.this

Clearly the world has changed, even if the eternal form hasn't. Doesn't this mean that how the world relates to this eternal being has changed? Don't we need novel rituals? This isn't to say that we can't learn from the old, just that it isn't implementable one-to-one. Protestantism is the result of the printing press. Radio waves and other light-based communication will radically change things as well.
>but Catholics are the only true church
I don't think this argument really holds water, as the Catholic Church has been changing as well. It is clearly not the institution it was back in 1200

>Clearly some calamity happened to Christianity
It's the biggest and most popular religion in the world, and the second biggest is an offshoot from it.

The post has nothing to do with Christianity and I'm not a Christian myself so I have no interest in defending it. I'm a theist in the most generic sense and I believe we're naturally inclined towards knowing what is good and we can discover exactly what that our obligations are through reason. Beyond that is irrelevant to the argument and the question of whether moral obligations do exist.

Aside from that, I don't know what you mean when you say my views are "temporarily displaced" and I can't take it any other way than I did. Rhetorical flourishes and style are all fine and dandy but you need to be clear. If you're not telling me my views are old then what are you saying?

I'm saying that while I can appreciate the idea behind what you're trying to claim, you either need a new type of "noble lie" to peddle it to the masses or you either need to do nothing because reason will prevail on its own as it is more benefitial to be virtuous.

I'm also interested on what your takes on Nietzche and Goethe's Faust are, since they're probably the most interesting takes on this sort of rational virtue that don't stink of modernism.

>not acting morally for the sake of the “ought”

pretty spooked desu

Isn't the fact that we have to discuss this sort of nihilism at all a sign that something is rotten. The Church, for better or worse, has lost a lot of influence in the last 200 years, I'm sure we can agree on that.

the two major elements of morality
>an answer to what is just
>an answer to why you should bother doing only what's just, even when nobody's looking. cf. ring of gyges.

there is no way to answer the second question without resorting to god, punishment and the afterlife. debate me.

Literally false. The Islam is the most popular religion.

You should do what you should do becuase you should do it. It's tautological.

>Just embrace moral nihilism and live by the golden rule
lmao

I'm sure that'll convince gyges. my challenge, to make it simple, is to convince gyges to not use his ring to satisfy all of his desires.

What an idiot. you should embrace moral nihilism and live by kant's categorical imperative instead.

I will refuse to engage in argument by murdering you with the ring and then having sex with your prebubescent son and enjoying it as a transcendental experience other good

Morality isn't about convincing people to do x, but to find a method to see if x is god or not.

since i'd do the same to you, this is compatible with the golden rule

You can't, I'm invisible. :' )

1. You mean "ethics," as a field of study. Morality refers to a broad set of principles which "ethics" as a field of study either scrutinizes or prescribes.

2. don't make the mistake of believing that an answer to "what is just" contains within it any reason why one ought to be just.

3. don't shortchange ethics. it does attempt to provide REASONS why one should be moral. in other words, why it is rational to be moral.

here's a cheatsheet for the future
>plato - be moral because being moral means having a well-functioning soul - i.e., can only be happy by being moral
>aristotle - be moral, possess virtues instead of vices, because that's one major element of living a complete happy life
>hobbes - morality is agreed upon set of legal and moral norms which enables one and all to get out of state of nature which is miserable. the reason you should be moral as hobbes conceives of it is that you get to not die young, live brutally and to cut it short, to be happy.
>kant - be moral, but not as a means of being happy, but as its own end. since happiness is not a concern for you in this life, god must exist and reward those whose sole concern in life is being moral. this is the second critique. this is his retarded proof for god...i need god to exist in order to answer the question of why you should be moral at all.
>mill - morality - happiness

None of these theories provide a convincing answer, but note that they all attempt to address the question.

Ethics is not nessecarily tied to morality

IMO, secular morality is more or less this:

>Pleasure is the good, pain is the bad
>Riches, status, beauty, etc are good due to instrumental reasons (they allow you to have more access to pleasure)
>Inequality and prejudice are bad because the victims can't have access to money, status, etc
>As long as it doesn't harm others, it is not morally wrong (harming others meaning giving pain or diminishing their possession of "instrumental goods" or pleasure)

yes it is, queer. ethics has 4 branches and all four deal with morality
>descriptive - describes existing moral principles
>normative ethics - deals with prescriptive moral language, attempts to prescribe moral principles
>meta-ethics - deals with meaning of moral terms
>applied ethics - attempts to apply normative moral principles
>

The term "moral" was just the Latin translation of the Greek "ethics".