What a fucking brainlet

There is great beauty in violence.

his eyes look like juicy pawg pussies

It develops into intelligent life.

Imagine confronting someone who likes to murder people just for the fun of it, and when asked to justify their behavior they respond with
>I don't feel the need to defend it. Life feeds on life.
>How come you haven't killed yourself yet? That's the only way you'll stop committing violence against other conscious agents on the daily.
The fact that your argument seemingly works equally well in a situation where the action defended is unambiguously immoral indicates that it's not much of a defence.
Same as above applies to what you just said as well.

Morality pertains to the dealings of social animals within members of their own species. Your whole diatribe is not worth engaging. You do not understand the meanings of the words "good", "moral", "ethical", "conscious", or even "agent".

A deer is not a moral agent as pertains to a human. End of.

Look ma! Brainlets arguing!

>Morality pertains to the dealings of social animals within members of their own species
And even this is too broad. Replace "species" with "functional social unit". Killing another human is bad because it destroys social cohesion and trust. Ritualistic killings were accepted because they strengthen social cohesion and trust. Killing a member of a different tribe (or species) is either a net neutral or beneficial to your own community.

>Morality pertains to the dealings of social animals within members of their own species. Your whole diatribe is not worth engaging.
So I take it you're ok with cruelty against pet dogs? You think it's morally right for your neighbor to burn his dog torturing it beforehand, as long as he gets enjoyment from it?
Also the line you draw between where morality extends to seems rather arbitrary. How do you justify it?
>A deer is not a moral agent as pertains to a human. End of.
It's a conscious agent though, and I think it's immoral to needlessly inflict pain on or murder other conscious agents, at least when we're aware of these actions and can easily case them without inflicting much harm on ourselves.
Give arguments for your position or GTFO, faggot.

> I think it's immoral to needlessly inflict pain on or murder other conscious agents
Good for you.

>You think it's morally right for your neighbor to burn his dog torturing it beforehand, as long as he gets enjoyment from it?
Not if it horrifies the neighborhood. Otherwise, what they do with their own property is their own business.

Forgot I was arguing on Yea Forums for a moment, which is full of antisocial freaks.

>arguments
Why not just know things? If you know things, why argue?

>which is full of antisocial freaks.
oh wow

Attached: depositphotos_4293880-stock-photo-girl-with-thumbs-up.jpg (1024x1024, 130K)

>Otherwise, what they do with their own property is their own business.
Liberals (all connotations) are always amoral freaks. Though if more people were moral - or even people - laws and NDAs and such would be unnecessary to begin with, so there's that.

Aesthetic : top tier on anglo
Political philosophy : WTF

>vapid sentimentalism mistaken for morality
>proves the point he's arguing against anyway
Oh gee, social animals need social codes in order for a well functioning social order to even exist to begin with. Who would've thought. To people like you, ethics is like magic.

I stand by my points.

You are either using a smartphone, or a computer to post. to manufacture these resources are needed in order to make byproducts that make them, which are extracted from the earth and in many cases hurt the environment and living creatures in it. have a nice day, fag.

Ahem.

Attached: Alasdair_MacIntyre.jpg (1085x1461, 457K)

>Oh gee, social animals need social codes
Those are always amoral, though. I suppose we'd always need bureaucracy and simple rules such as speed limits, even if everybody was moral.

I simply get my meat only by hunting and buying directly from a farmer. So There IS a genuine need Because else I wouldn't eat meat and as everyone who is scientifically litterate knows this is not the optional diet for a human.

You don't know what "moral" means.

Do vegans get this bent out of shape over fish?

Plants are conscious too.

It's what humans evolved to eat. If we weren't supposed to eat meat we wouldn't have a low stomach ph, we would have a large caecum instead of a tiny one and we'd have multichambered digestion. Whether or not it's moral is beside the questions. There are ways to consume meat (hunted, sustainably farmed, grass-fed etc.) that involve minimizing the animal's suffering. I personally think that the excessive cruelty of the agribusiness meat industry is disgusting, so I look for sources where the animal is well treated. The alternative would be eating malnutritive diet.

Because as a human being, I am placed within the ecosystem with biologically evolved tools at my disposal, tools specifically passed on to me for the purpose of gathering food. Part of the diet on which humans evolved, is animal flesh.
I therefore see it as entirely within my rights to end the life of a consciously inferior being, just as our ancestors did. It is genetically encoded into both our physical and psychological selves to have the capacity for ending life.
Of course it isn't necessary, but nothing is.
Why is it so difficult for people to understand that exercising this will is inherently pleasurable?

How do you consume any material in any way without having a complete and inscrutable understanding of what consciousness even is?

Modern art is dogshit, though. We could burn every piece of art made in the last 50 years and we wouldnt lose anything of value.

>seemed to misunderstand even the basic aspects of modern art.

He understands that it’s ugly. That’s enough, really.

this. he's right about aesthetics. His politics are trash

His art critique is just rehashed Brian Sewell, but he's not a charismatic old queen so people get butthurt

Can anyone elaborate more on his aesthetics? The vid seems rather superficial

If you don't understand how one necessarily informs the other, and that hes actually right on both, you need to get out of your own ass. The principles that make his aesthetics substantial are fundamentally illiberal.

I agree

He's just a classic Tory nothing WTF about it I mean the enlightenment has kinda fucked us.

i'm not a liberal, but my political views are pretty different from ol rog. i can think modern art is ugly and conceptual art is dumb and not be a tory hack like scruton lol

You seem to be taking both his politics and my comments on them too much at face value. I think his tory politics are incidental, not substantial. If there was a better fit, he would most likely be there, but as it is, British politics (and most Western politics for that matter) don't do much to accommodate his style of Burkean conservatism. It would be a mistake to confuse his actual values with admittedly very milquetoasty modern political opportunities.

Likewise, when I say "illiberal," I don't mean liberal/conservative on that spectrum, I mean Western Liberalism, enlightenment values, that sort of thing. His aesthetic views are illiberal in the sense that they support and demand inequality. We have the right and responsibility to say "no" to things, our discrimination between good and bad art reflects an objective hierarchy of value which we may participate in to a greater or lesser extent. Good art, if I understand him correctly, takes these principles and uses them to make us feel more at home in the world. A skilled hand and the right eye can reflect eternal values in such a way that it turns the world from a chaotic dwelling place to a genuine home of some spiritual and moral value.

This is an inherently political stance.

Why don't you ask a bear the same question

Attached: 1568060563057.png (796x1082, 94K)

>without there being a need for it

I do. It's what my heart and conscience tell me.

No but you can understand him, where he is coming from, his fears and desires very easily. He lacks mystery and any deep insight.

>STOP HUNTING IN 2019, YOU BIGOT!

Attached: 1566327479540.png (231x218, 12K)

>
>I'm getting the sense that you're just trolling, but I'll go ahead and respond anyway. Naming the benefits an action gives you is not a good way to morally justify it. It's not OK to steal just because I like the thing I stole. If baby meat tasted good, would you still try and justify you or other people killing babies on the basis that they taste good?

which vegan god enforces morality by the way? what if i consciously embrace immorality and i want the immoral social trend of speciesism to be prevalent in society?

There is a need for it tho, alote of the animals hundred go out of hand if not culled properly, and as the shepherd of the earth it is my duty to cull them. You are a barinlet if you think hunting has no benefits. Obviously I'm against mindless killings.

>Why yes, I do eat copious amounts of delicious animal meat, how could you tell?

Attached: gigagroyper.png (680x577, 209K)

>literally muh feels

Hunting is only a tiny tiny part of the problem. I'd say the industrialised holocaust of trillions of innocent animals is far more pressing.

Based

Attached: IMG_20190828_215848.jpg (782x1552, 145K)

Nice job not responding to anyone.