There are millions of people on earth with a different idea on what constitutes good and evil

How is bacteria inflicting pain and death to other organisms the "golden rule"?

>X arises spontaneously even in agents which don't even have notion of ideology
Perhaps X is actually the will to power?

Can someone give me the rundown on this bitch? Like why does he think we should follow moral law? Where does he thinks they come from? Why should all people have a universal moral law? Does the universal moral law only apply to human or other species/animals?

>99% of the population has a common knowledge about good and evil
>1% schizos think differently
>therefore we cannot reach conclusions
the ABSOLUTE state

Everyone follows the same rule is what makes it objective reality. The point is there is no "narcissism" of belief or forcing a belief. Everyone performs autonomous action, yet objective equilibrium of behavior emerges.

Most of our morality and natural law is now different. At the base level, its very much so rooted in systematical benefit which is why the value persist. This is why ideologies incompatible with objectively fixed point fall apart (most notoriously, communism).

>Democratic morality
really?

How come emergent properties cannot be 'objective'?
I find karma to be an objective morality. Sure, a group of vile evil creatures win, but they starve as a consequence.

However, it remains to be seen what comes from intelligent evil, what shall be its repercussion...

But it’s not my idea, it’s the truth that I have found

>Everyone follows the same rule is what makes it objective reality.
How did you come to this conclusion?

All moralities wiggle around the same definitions and goals, reaching them with separate ways and methods. Separate beliefs cause distinction in sacrifices; would people believe the Sun would not rise without human sacrifice, they would see it as a worthwhile goal.

All cultures are averse to murder and rape
which makes them universally bad from a human perspective

Attached: ECPJeRLUYAA0WyL.jpg_large.jpg (640x640, 107K)

Gay relativism: "y-you can't know nothing!!! if someone says killing me and my loved ones is good, who am I to disagree?"

Chad egocentrism: "What I think is right and if you disagree with me you're wrong. Go fuck yourself."

>All moralities wiggle around the same definitions and goals
????

if someone steals your stuff, don't call the police because what that thief did was not bad from your perspective

not even moral nihilists believe in their moral nihilism, because when wronged, they seek justice

Attached: DA452C0C-5451-475E-828E-2B03A2BDF7E9.jpg (500x305, 34K)

serial killers avoid being caught because they know that society views what they do as evil. if they couldn't distinguish right from wrong they wouldn't even hide their crimes. Even though they might be sociopaths they can still know what evil is by observing what societies do to people they call evil. societies shun and imprison those people

I neither believe it’s good nor bad, and thus I am not chained to either reaction or inaction.

Inter-subjective agreement = objective. Everyone agrees on golden rule, at first as part of their subjective action, but because it just so happens the same rule is followed by all, it becomes objective - but not *fundamental*.

In objective reality, there's a difference between fundamental and emergent.

Fundamental is prescribed - for instance space robots, or government, telling us "be nice to each other, or else". Emergent is when a property like that doesn't come up from fundamental nature of environment.

It's worth noting this can go far beyond free agents establishing emergent objective strategy for cooperation ("moral code"). For example theoretical physics often entertains emergent reality as such (for instance relationships of basic forces arising as emergent strange attractor in supersymmetric system).

>show a piece of rope to 100 people
>99 of them agree it is a rope
>1 thinks its a snake
>therefore we cannot conclude if it is a rope or a snake
now apply it to morals

ok, so where do you live, so i can rob you. If you call the cops, then you don't actually believe in your moral nihilism.

>Everyone agrees on golden rule
How did you come to the conclusion that every person in earth agrees with the golden rule?

yeah but with snake there are ways that you can identify it independent of the opinions of others. If you see a snake and recognize it as a snake it's not because other people would too.

>the majority thinks rape is okay
>therefore rape is okay
Based...

>If you call the cops, then you don't actually believe in your moral nihilism.
Why? That just means he doesn't want you stealing his stuff, not that you were wrong to do so.

no one would think rape is ok because no one wants to be raped

i doubt women would agree to rape being ok because none of them want to be raped

why would he not want me to steal his shit? because it would be a negative?

>the majority think women shouldn’t vote
>therefore women shouldn’t vote

Most women have fantasies about being raped

good

That would be actually a good idea

Why shouldn’t I kill you for killing my stuff? Why am I chained to inactivity just because I don’t believe it’s good or bad?

not being harmed and not causing people harm is the basis of morality

women voting doesn't cause harm therefore it's not wrong

It wouldn't be in his self interest

fantasies of being raped by chad, not by any male

why would you kill people if stealing your shit is not wrong?

kill me *

>women voting doesn't cause harm

Attached: 1537116074801.jpg (500x336, 68K)

Those who disobey golden rule don't survive for long. Strongly emergent realities have a tendency to crush weaker attractors, thus maintaining self-coherence. This is the principle how they emerge in the first place - non-cooperating agents are wiped out, or forced to conform because the cooperative strategy steamrolls all solipsism.

Realistically you can maintain your moral relativism only if you disconnect from the globally emergent systems of morals, thus maintaining your own reality untainted. But you can't interact, thus share their reality because to participate in their reality you'd be forced to cooperate - so you must separate into isolation.

To paraphrase
There would be 99 people counting the rope, and 1 schizo missing because he's been stoned to death long ago, or living in a cave with his personal non-cooperative set of values.

Again, all of this not unique to humans, this boils down to bacteria, as well as game-theoretic models over really simple cellular automata.

It causes rape to be less popular

Why shouldn’t I kill you? It would be in my self interest as said

if rape were legal, it would be all the betas who would be raping because alphas don't need to rape to get women

women only fantasize about being raped by chad not by betas. them wanting to be raped by chad makes it not rape since it's consensual

why is self-interest a good if you're a moral nihilist?

So defending your property is justifiable because of self-interest? isn't that still being a moralfag since think self-interest is a moral virtue?

women don't give surplus taxes to society therefore shouldn't vote

Attached: 1558926071498.jpg (744x1024, 148K)

>you can't interact
Why is that? No morality binds me to a set of rules or ethics.

since you think self-interest*

self-interest is a moral virtue because you believe everything pertaining to you is right

But women love being raoe they can't stop having fantasies about it

based and redpilled

It’s good for the individual because, presumably, their subjective ideals prioritize self interest. The main point is that there is no objective good or bad, but self interest can still persist. I realize that what I believe does not apply to all individuals, and thus, I will not claim an objective morality, only a subjective one.

i already explained why this is flawed

if they are fantasizing about it then it's not rape. it's most likely a chad they are fantasizing about, and not you

>That’s because it keeps society afloat, not because it’s objective.

that's precisely what makes it objective

Ethics is prescriptive (in terms of morality, ethics are a fundamental). Emergent morality has no ethics, as there's never an actual stable code to abide by, you're simply cajoled into cooperation or you lose in the game.

But you can also come up with better morality, which can steamroll past emergent morals. Since there's no ethics, emergent dynamics rewrite objective reality with new, superior one. This phenomenon is typical of religious memes, colonialism etc.

There is no such thing as morals.
Humans are animals and the perverted abrahmic religious spirituality all our countries now embraces says that we are above animals when reality is a human life is no more valuable than that if a fly and the idea that as humans we must abide by set moral principles is ridiculous and unnatural

what keeps society afloat is subject to change

Not him but, morality is used to justify and motivate you to sacrifice your self interest for a greater good.
Moral nihilism makes the claim that moral values aren't absolute.
So i don't see what are you trying to get at.
It is as if you thought that the absence of moral values somehow eliminates self interest and personal preferences.

then how do societies survive if morality doesn't exist?
how do animals exist if they don't have morality?
you don't see animals killing members of their own groups. they have some sense of morality built into them as do humans that aids in their preservation. morality is a survival mechanism

There is the one true objective morality out there but it's too difficult for us to discover it yet, perhaps with neuroscience advances we will be able to.

No you didn't you made a claim with no evidence, there are no studies telling us who women fantasies being raped by.
But from what they express online it seems that they enjoy the idea of being raped by disgusting and fat men more often than not.

>you don't see animals killing members of their own groups
Have you never been outside?

they may kill outsiders but not members of their own groups. you can see dozens of crocodiles in the same body of water and they don't harm another one. what is preventing them from harming one another if it's not some sense of morality built into them?

there are no 'morals', there is only what one man is comfortable with and what he isn't comfortable with.

And there's your answer

Welcome to consequentialism my faggot friend

Have you ever heard of a Meerkat?

No even members of the same species and subspecies sometimes kill their own, due to competition for resources.
For example it is common among chimpanzees tend to organize in tribal troops and kill off other chimpanzee tribes, the are also internal conflicts even among members of the same tribe in some occasions not only kill but cannibalize each other.

meetkats don't kill members of their own groups. they may kill rival meer cats of other groups but they don't kill members of their own group

Let’s say a different society had a set of morals completely different than your society. How would you decide which set is superior?

Because they are genetically related to each other.

By obliterating them

when i say they have a morality i am not arguing that it is as advanced as human morality. human morality can change via reason because of our brains where as the primitive morality of animals is instinctual

>morality is self interest (a functioning society of animals is advantageous to survival)
>therefore morality is subjective

um if it's in everybody including animals then it's objective. it's not just something you make up

>implying everyone’s self interest is the same

Specifically, only men age ~22 to 65 should vote. Or maybe ~35 to 80. Although it should probably be based on each individuals taxes. So you'd get a few women voters.

Pic probably not related

Attached: 1550640412612.jpg (1030x401, 56K)

Note that in almost all species, and especially when it comes to animals possessing no artificial constructs of gender equality, the set of morals are starkly different between sexes owing to reproductive imperatives. So it's difficult to claim each member of the tribe has similar moral convinctions/instincts to the next, as it stays coherent only across the gender line.

reading Critique of practical reason it is undeniable what Kant lays out till the $ (paragraph) where he mentions ghe Categorical Imperative.
You can most definetly deny a materialistic moralism since the objects are materialistic but denying the transcendental monistic moralism is naive. Based Kant.
oh, he did sweetie. Maybe read his works and not just the wiki summaries.

oh no no no no
nobody tell him about cultures outside of western europe

>he can’t prove it: the post

read Kant, retard. I wont waste my time on you.
This is a literature board after all.

Nepotism? Discouraging or even barring non-jews from competition, then heralding those stories of jewish success through your own jewish media?

>top 200 intellectuals
completely subjective and a complete waste of time to try and list
>Nobel prize winners
Gee, I wonder who selects nobel recipients.
>Professors at top universities
ah yes, where you must be interviewed behind closed doors with other professors, that makes sense
>partners in "top" (whatever that means) law firms (in the most jewish state)
lmao
>50 top grossing movies
good luck even getting a courtesy call back in Hollywood, goyim

wouldn't that indicate the opposite of narcisissmsmsmsmsmssmsmmsmsmssm

It's just a random image user. The thumbnails are tiny on my phone. Everyone knows about the JQ here. Stop obsessing.

Attached: 1553638641253.png (1543x719, 377K)

If you're a moral nihilist then why are you here trying to convince others that moral nihilism is true? Moral nihilism values nothing and reduces all passions and virtues to apathy and ataraxia.

>bacteria follow the golden rule
Are you sure you understand what the golden rule is?

Also, the golden rule presupposes that everyone has the same values. But what if I'm a sociopath and a masochist? I want others to inflict pain upon me, therefore the golden rule compels me to inflict pain upon others. If the golden rule is true then I am acting morally when I torture and harm you.

based

Moral nihilism is the position that moral facts do not exist. The statement "I should value my own self interest" is a moral claim. If you are a moral nihilist then you believe that the claim above is neither true nor false, you believe it has no meaning at all. Moral nihilism prevents you from making any moral claims about anything, including your own self-interest and personal preference.

Yes, golden rule is tit-for-tat. In bacteria it works that if neighbor is shitty in some way, you die, but take neighbor with you by releasing a toxin. Thus the neighbor acts so as to not be shitty neighbor. This is how some bacteria, even of different species, weakly cooperate.

>race is a social construct

Attached: GeneticsOfRace.jpg (572x532, 51K)

What you're describing is lex talionis, not the golden rule. The golden rule is "do to others what you would have them do to you.," or in it's negative form "do not do to others that which you dislike yourself." If you do not value being harmed then the golden rule prevents you from harming others, even if they would harm you.

> golden rule prevents you from harming others
The point is that golden rule behavior indeed emerges. Bacteria which violate tit-for-tat are killed off, and only those which "dont do onto others that you'd not wish for yourself" survive. In fact it emerges in any population that can exclude defectors one way or another. At system start, it's indeed tit-for-tat, not a golden rule. Regardless, golden rule emerges as a result and violence ceases except for outlier mutations.

Or more specifically, tit-for-tat is a mixed strategy - golden rule is cooperation, but also retribution against non-cooperation. What is remarkable is that once the strategy converges to always-on cooperative mode for majority by weeding out transgressors, the retribution mechanism can even de-evolve (as the retribution defensive mechanism is no longer utilized). Thus only the cooperative traits remain.

way more complicated than that man, game theory is insane.

Can I ask what field of study uses this definition of the golden rule? Because this is certainly not how it's described in ethics, religion, or anthropology. Also, in ethics the golden rule does not presuppose cooperation, this is in fact the strongest criticism of the golden rule by way of the argument from zealotry. Almost all proponents of the golden presuppose that everyone values self-preservation, but the argument from zealotry illustrates how someone who does not value self-presevation (a zealot) becomes morally justified in harming others through the use of the golden rule.

>Is there anything more narcissistic than someone who believes in an objective morality?
Yes, moral relativism and nihilism. Egoism isn't taken seriously in philosophy departments, it's utilitarianism or gtfo. Suffering is bad and flourishing is good. Grow up.

They would eventually go to war. The victor of the war, not just immediate, martial victory, but distal, cultural (spiritual, intellectual) victory, which would recreate the scenario and thus perpetuate the struggle, would determine the victor.

Attached: 30413-7730-29067.jpg (1200x675, 141K)

You could have spent the time it took to write this shitty reply to actually back up your claims sweetie

>do something '''objectively immoral'''
>don't get struck down by divine lightning
Moralists BTFO.

But your life is slowly going to shit and you are unhappy anyway.

Disparity of opinions isn't an argument against any of them.
Unless perhaps against the opinion that everyone has the same opinion.

Sin is its own and immediate punishment. Any rectifying suffering is secondary.
Sin is trash because it takes you away from God. This is the important bit, though there might be hellfire thrown into the mix at some point.

My belief is that people are born different and all who put the same on all (pseudo-tabula rasa) are also predisposed to believe that we can all reach the same heights and find universal unison—they are obviously wrong, and naively hopeful, wide eyed fools—the irony is believe that I can't change that; few can change, most can change eventually in time, all will remain deviant.

What I mean by "most will change eventually" = evolution enforces homogeneity.

>Specifically, only men age ~22 to 65 should vote. Or maybe ~35 to 80.
It may change with the capital and technological development, but 80 is way too high right now. People, even just men, become net tax receivers by age 65. Just like at boomers right now. They will vote for whoever ensures their retarded pension schemes hold up for the remaining years of their lives, otherwise it's après nous le Deluge.

You sure told the poster in that pic. Because he absolutely believed those 5 bullet points. Have you ever considered reading more carefully before you get all uppity?

Virtue ethicists and Kantian still exist, turns out there is more than one philosophy department in the world.

Their current tax rate may be negative, but their total contributions were not, as per the image. If your only problem is the design of pensions, just change everything to investment plans.

Attached: 1552154049938.png (1215x743, 408K)

read the material yourself sweaty

this whole thread:
>subjective morality is somehow bad
The virgin balks at anything that requires impulse or faith- he only believes in the "objective" and "proven" (often just a glorified subjectiveness)

Thats bot even romotely true be ause murdur and tape have bren done numerous times in past and even present(murdur) as a form of punishment.
>Inb4 that's execution
Still murduring someone

Dude...just read the 2nd part of post you're replying too, he explains it right there too.
Rape =/=not consent. If you want someone to approach you sexually, it's by definition not rape.
You wanting you anime lolis or whatever women you fantasize about to "rape" you isn't possible because you want it.
Want/like automatically nullifies rape. It's just (consensual) sex at that point. Got it? Im sick of explaining this to autists.

hahahahahahahahahah this fucktard didn't understand shit from kant

>Virtue ethicists and Kantians still exist
This is true and they're allowed to stay. They help us throw the egoists from the roof top. They're usually some form of utilitarian also.

>being this ignorant of history on top of being mentally challenged
based retard

Ahh yes, but a moment of discomfort that will lead to 2 moments of comfort is worth the temporary nuisance

Attached: 8JSRacN.jpg (3024x4032, 1.89M)