"don't do that"

>pick "bad" option
>[Intimidate]
>character punches him and rips out his teeth and snaps arm
s-sorry

Attached: 1nu1mt.jpg (400x388, 38K)

>Why do people act like this makes sense?
It does tho?? Empathy is a natural thing sweaty

why do I want her to bite me?

>It does tho??
No it doesn't, doing X to another person doesn't make it more likely that X happens to you.
>Empathy is a natural thing sweaty
Why would understanding someone doesn't want something done to them mean you don't do it?

Attached: 1564417174616.jpg (480x480, 14K)

Suika is my wife.

Attached: cf7bacd0632459d082db7aacad315747.jpg (1500x1900, 452K)

>guys isn't being a sociopath so cool and edgy, look at me i'm so cool and better than regular people
everyone knows it's an act user

You might actually have autism, user

>More likely to happen to you
Do you honestly not grasp the golden rule? Ubironically go watch some fucking veggietales

Attached: 1565142389496.jpg (250x228, 24K)

>doing X to another person doesn't make it more likely that X happens to you

Lmao
Are you fucking kidding me? That has nothing to do with the probability.
Edgefags are this fucking low IQ

Attached: hm.png (853x480, 404K)

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you

>doing X to another person doesn't make it more likely that X happens to you.
You ever heard of leading by example? It's like how a parent can set a bad example to its child: "if mom can do it then it shouldn't be a problem if I do it too"

>bro, game theory, lmao
except attacking people does drastically increase the chances of being attacked yourself, faggot

I would've noticed by now if I did.
Just because it does in some cases doesn't mean it always will. In modern large societies you're unlikely to change odds of being impacted etc. This seems obvious.
>steal someones bike on other side of town
>somehow I'm more likely now to be victim of theft
makes no sense user

Attached: 1561351318597.png (433x510, 148K)

suica

>play skyrim
>want to learn pickpocketing
>decide to practice on banditos until i git gud to keep out of trouble in town
>all items on bandits are tagged stolen
>get bounty hunters looking for me
>i was never detected
these bandits are considered literal trash by everyone in the world but i better not take their things without permission
guess i'll just smash their skulls in to make it legal

hold the phone
>No it doesn't, doing X to another person doesn't make it more likely that X happens to you.
holy fucking shit you cunt
the whole point of the saying
>would you want someone to do it to you?
is to help you understand how much of a piece of shit you are for doing something unpleasant to others
it means, you are about to become a source of evil in the world, so take a minute and check yourself

Attached: 2EBD7DD51FB045819DAB637919A2BB6EE3ADD6B6.jpg (1920x1080, 432K)

>it has to be literally the exact same thing or it doesn't count
are you so stupid you don't understand that actions have consequences, or are you an actual sociopath and trying to work through the concept of morality here right now for real?

Faggots who complain about Glass Him are too retarded to understand what Glassing means in the first place.

OP, let's reword the rule because you're an idiot.
>what would you think of that person if they did this thing to you? do you want them to think of you that way?
if your moral compass fails, turn to your reputation compass.

>it means, you are about to become a source of evil in the world, so take a minute and check yourself
What does this mean?
>are you so stupid you don't understand that actions have consequences
Okay then explain what the consequences are?? How does it work without some sort of karma system keeping tabs?

Attached: 1543768931477.png (542x571, 202K)

A lack of empathy and/or inability to understand the feelings of others is a major sign of autism.

youtube.com/watch?v=RAYScAmTDgY

It's even worse, it's a lack of understanding that others even have feelings at all.

If you do something shitty, people remember that you're shitty. You'll garner less loyalty and respect. Do the math on your own from there.

>steal from someone
>you have violated the law
>you are now a criminal
>you have upset the person you stole from, and likely many more people by proxy who have empathy, and don't enjoy the thought of their things being stolen
>while previously none of these people, or local law enforcement cared that you existed, they are now potentially looking for you, and the stolen bike
You did not just take a bike and get away with it. There is a chance you will be apprehended, and things you would wish not happen to you will happen to you.

I genuinely hope you are a sociopath and I'm helping you blend in, try not to kill any kids.

It's not about how likely it is to happen to you, it's about morality and empathy.
Imagine someone steals your wallet. It's extremely inconvenient, you lost your money, ID and whatever personal effects were in there. It's just a shit situation for anyone to be in. Knowing that would you do it to another person even though you may gain something from it? That's the base of the argument.

Attached: 1554725951502.jpg (1256x2048, 315K)

Okay but what if due to circumstance they don't know it was you specifically?
How would golden rule make sense then?

Attached: 1493453115456.png (1278x720, 765K)

>It's just a shit situation for anyone to be in. Knowing that would you do it to another person even though you may gain something from it? That's the base of the argument.
But they're not me so where is the logical connection?
I don't know why people act like this is obvious..

Attached: 60627803.jpg (600x400, 36K)

Golden rule isn't about probability or consequences. It's about imagining yourself as the victim of what you're doing, realizing it would suck, and having the human decency not to do it.

aspies are cute

Imagine you managed the perfect crime, and stole someone's entire life savings. Now imagine someone else did the same to you. How would you feel? Wouldn't you want to hunt that person down and kill them? What if that person actually did manage to hunt you down and kill you?

you're supposed to feel bad when you do bad things to other people. understanding how the other person would feel and not doing shitty things because of that understanding is empathy. it's got nothing to do with what others think of you or the consequences.
for example, instead of breaking into someone's house and stealing all of their shit, you imagine what it would feel like if somebody broke into your house and stole all of your shit and then you don't do the bad thing because now you understand how shitty it would be for the other person.

They used to just hang thieves so people like you would understand.

mouths are cute!

Attached: 1549439828470.jpg (900x1200, 352K)

>Guy 1 kills someone and is hated by people for it
>You kill Guy 1, commiting the same crime in the process and people hate you for killing Guy 1 becuase killing is morally wrong

How is this hard to understand?

Attached: 1561127895788.png (910x928, 535K)

>you're supposed to feel bad when you do bad things to other people.
Because of the golden rule? Isn't that circular logic or something?
You feel bad because of golden rule which makes sense because you feel bad.
You're assuming people know the identity of the murderer.

Attached: 1517131177036.jpg (710x608, 39K)

he's ignoring the infallible replies boys we got him time to pack it up

>Talking about morality
>An abstract concept of righteousness and ideals
>Somehow equates this to karmic payoff and can't deal with any morality system beyond probability

Yup, autism.

Which? I just ignored the ones that claimed I have some mental illness or whatever.

>But they're not me so where is the logical connection?

The connection is you know how much it would suck if it happened to you. So it's immoral to inflict that on someone else.

>Because of the golden rule?
no. you feel bad because you're human. normal functioning humans feel bad when bad things happen to other beings, human or not, because they can understand what that being is going through.

Between all your responses, I hate to say it, but you have literal unironic certifiable autism, or some similar mental health issue.
>t. Self aware actual autist.

If you don't feel bad when you do bad things there is some wiring in your brain that's all fucky. We generally consider that function of the brain necessary for society because people restraining themselves from harming their fellow man for no reason at all is preferable to wanton slaughter because people don't see the logic in why they shouldn't just willfully do harm to others.

Please seek psychiatric help.

If I had autism or whatever I would be able to tell.
I don't believe you, that doesn't make sense or I would've noticed by now.

Attached: 1534066304076.png (451x619, 392K)

Self diagnosis is seldom accurate. Tell someone in real life that you don't feel bad about hurting people. See how they react. Actually, tell a professional psychiatrist about this, because they're bound by law not to tell anyone else.

user i'm sorry to say but if you can't grasp a concept that's inherent to every normal human adult there's something wrong with your mind.
i honestly hope you're baiting because i'm getting a bit concerned now.

Clearly you lack the ability to self reflect, so the ability to tell how your behavior compares to others in a overarching abstract way is also something you'd be incapable of genuinely comprehending.
Face it bro, you have the 'tisms. Or something similar at any rate.

>Tell someone in real life that you don't feel bad about hurting people. See how they react.
They'll react the same way I would react, act shocked, because that's what you're supposed to do.
I've known autistic people and I'm not that retarded so I doubt it.

Just to clarify. Have you ever actually committed a crime? Have you ever willfully harmed another human being, be it their person or property? If not, you may just be an edgy teen who thinks morality is gay and for fags.

>that's what you're supposed to do

Attached: 1541646491991.jpg (630x596, 48K)

>act shocked
They are shocked. Hearing that someone is a sociopath is shocking. People have faith that the people around them would feel bad if they attacked them. If you lack that crucial internal restraint, you're capable of anything, which is terrifying.

I'm beginning to suspect you're roleplaying, but if not, seriously, seek help.

>because that's what you're supposed to do
No, it's because it's the natural response of a normal person. There is no "supposed to" about it. They are not "acting" shocked, they genuinely are.
Seek help.

Okay. If you're trolling, good job. If you're not, admit yourself into a psychiatric ward before you cause any real damage to yourself or others. Your posts are indicative of a full blown sociopath, and you are a danger to yourself and everyone around you

I hope this is autism, troll or underage. Your whole mentality is based on being grown up in soft environment where people are usually decent. Where you can be asshole and people let that generally slide. Stop for a while however and think how your life would be if others followed your "ideals". Someone might randomly beat you when passing you by because you annoyed him or it was just fun to him. We'd all be soon back to killing eachother again. No society, no comfy vidya, just "oogabooga, this no harm me so why no steel". That is shortsighted nigger culture that only leads to deteriorating community. Grow up or get help.

(Genuine) Autism isn't a matter of overall intelligence, it's a matter of seemingly innate human mental functionality either straight up not working or being warped to a point that a normie would consider it not working.
Plenty of actual autists have PhDs and the like, or just otherwise act like normal human beings 90% of the time. Where the 'tism lies is with how they handle a specific subset of interaction, usually social.
As the other anons are saying, I'd get a second and possibly third opinion from a mental health professional, assuming this isn't just a RP thread.

Yes, you are a mindless NPC and you've got to play your act whenever a main character interacts with you

>>it means, you are about to become a source of evil in the world, so take a minute and check yourself
>What does this mean?
it means you are going to soil your dignity, lose your innocence, be forever haunted by the memories of your bad deeds, ect

however, judging by your posts you are probably unaware of how tragic that is
so let me put it this way
everyone in your life will eventually see through this and will always keep distance from you
no one will ever love who you are; at the most you'll receive their pity and ironically it seems to be something you're incapable of feeling
without a meaningful connection to other people that you can feel, any meaning you try to give your own life will fail
life is beyond language or expression and if you can't feel that unspeakable feeling and implicitly share that with others, you're lost

>Autistic
>Retarded
Okay. You actually are retarded. Autistic people tend to be virtuosos in their respective pursuits. They lack the ability to socially connect, and separate their senses, but my diagnosed autistic sister is a fucking savant when it comes to math and playing the piano.

>Autistic people tend to be virtuosos in their respective pursuits.
pretty sure that's a myth
most autists are marginally functioning memebers of society

>most autists are marginally functioning memebers of society
I think you'll find that most marginally functioning autists also have some other mental condition, and it's not specifically the autism but a combination that makes them act the way they do.

I wish you would stop making these threads, you're making the actual nihilists look bad you fucking autist. It happens enough already. I bet you don't even understand the actual foundation behind moral anti-realist arguments, you just use your gut feelings to decide for you. It's ironically no different from the intuition based morality you're criticizing.

Attached: anime profile picture.jpg (1080x601, 58K)

Autism is a sliding scale. Low functioning autists are what you're thinking of, because they're the most visible / most blatant. High functioning are capable of operating like a 'normal' human being, for the most part, they just work harder at it because a lot of what comes 'naturally' to other people they have to emulate.

>tragedy ensues, ending with a grieving father weeping for his son, holding his lifeless body in his arms
>choose joke option
Dragon Age 2 has problems but that wasn't one of them

>Autistic people tend to be virtuosos in their respective pursuits
As someone who had to work with autists, not everyone of them becomes talented in a specific domain
Some just stay bumbling retards who punch themselves repeatedly and/or play with their own fingers

Well we may have just discovered that OP is either an edgy teen who THINKS he's a sociopath, or actually is a sociopath, so it's less about the quality of the arguments and more about OP not actually understanding the arguments at all.

plenty of normal people have committed felonies or hurt people during their life... not that unusual user
Yeah like saying thank you, hello, gesundheit...
Error theory?

Attached: 1564105402444.jpg (1000x1414, 161K)

It's not a myth. It certainly is affected by how far on the spectrum you are, but Imagine your only escape from sensory overload being something like a musical instrument. That's how it is for a lot of people on the spectrum. They throw themselves into this activity for days, weeks, years even. They're not magically gifted sure, but the single minded and whole hearted focus they have on this activity that eases their discomfort tends to lead to them excelling in said activity. You're just a fucking idiot/psychopath.

It wasn't just now discovered, like I said he's made this exact thread many times already. His posts are always the exact same and he says the same thing with the same wording and prose every single time. He has severe crippling autism. Just look up his OP post on the archive.

Alright, this is roleplaying. Move on, folks. You took it too far.

Isn't that Kant in a nutshell?

>sociopath = psychopath
You guys are all retarded

This is either the second or third time you've made this thread and had it play out exactly the same way, are you copypasting your responses or actually coming up with new ones? Either way, find something better to do with your time.

OP is autistic. He has laid out a very strong argument for the euthanization of autists. A society needs a consensus on its operating morality. It is not conducive to a well functioning society to have individuals who can not conceptualize morality. It is even worse to have individuals who disregard the golden rule.

Youre not wrong. It all depends on the severity. But to say shit like "I can't be autistic because I'm not a retard" is 100% wrong. My sister is in the middle of the spectrum. She'll never be able to care for herself, but she can mimick extremely complex piano arrangements just by ear with very little teaching. (She took a month of classes, hated it and just taught herself).

A significant portion of men have felony convictions let alone those that "got away". Feel free to look up the stats, prior illegal behavior or hurting someone is not strong evidence of non-normalcy. Maybe you're just sheltered.
Do you spend your entire life on Yea Forums?

Attached: 1562500701113.jpg (464x439, 79K)

>he's made this exact thread many times already
this is a bizarre form of attention seeking, pretending to be an undiagnosed sociopath on Yea Forums, but I can see that's what it is now

They are synonymous because psychiatry is a pseudoscience where none of the definitions are actually nailed down. Sociopathy commonly refers to a person lacking in conscience, with weak emotions and empathy. It's accurate, faggot.

>For the overarching morality of a society to function, a large majority of it's members have to follow that same moral system
No shit retard, what a revolutionary discovery.

>Psychopath kills a bus full of children because it's funny
>Sociopath kills a bus full of children because he feels nothing
They both killed a bus full of children. Why split hairs?

Since you're at least knowledgeable enough to know what error theory is, even though you're probably not really familiar with it, I'll bite. Earlier you said the golden rule isn't a valid moral code because just because you do something "bad" to someone else, doesn't mean it'll happen to you. Your implication here is that the golden rule is predicated on the idea of deterrence, for selfish reasons essentially. My question to you is this then: Why does it matter whether or not something "bad" happens to you as a result? If someone steals from or kills /you/ specifically, is that morally wrong?

post more hot mouths

based man of logic

How the fuck would you measure normalcy lmao? How many felons do you hang-out with?

>acknowledges the fact that op has made this thread multiple times and only cares about getting attention
>still tries to engage with him in earnest
based retard more like

I presented it it as a fact. I don't know why it bothered you enough for you to respond with a content free post.

I've already seen dozens of times how he replies to people calling him (rightfully) an autist, I'm just curious how he'd respond to an actual argument.

If you don't get caught you transcend your shitty karma. what if someone consents to be your slave? That may be morally wrong, but every involved party accepted.
What you propose is flawed. What about all the people who get away with it?

Hold on I need to skim SEP.
>Why does it matter whether or not something "bad" happens to you as a result? If someone steals from or kills /you/ specifically, is that morally wrong?
Um no but I would like to avoid it like I avoid hunger which is also not morally wrong.

Attached: IMG_1015_2.jpg (300x296, 22K)

If you don't believe in morality at all, why are you looking for a good moral system? This is like asking for a video game with a good glorglshlorp, it's completely nonsensical from your perspective. Unless you're just looking for attention of course.

We were talking about game theory, your chances of actually being on the receiving end of consequences, and how consequences might arise. I've discovered OP is an attention seeking faggot who apparently makes these threads regularly so I'm not really interested in debating it.

It's entirely possible a person with no conscience or guilt could commit a crime and never suffer consequences for it.

You see the world as a system, not as a group of people attempting to live together. You can't imagine people actually caring for eachother, thinking instead that they do nice things for eachother as a formality; just what they're "supposed" to do. I understand your viewpoints, without empathy I wouldn't understand the things people do for others either.

If the Golden Rule just works, why aren't all the suicidal people and BDSM people on a killing spree?

Attached: 1550399983198.png (680x680, 689K)

That has nothing to do with the golden rule. People first and foremost do what they want, and then don't do it if there are reasons not to. Most suicidal people don't want to kill other people so they don't.

An atheist could enjoy and request games with interesting theologies, e.g., planescape torment or a game based in the hyperion cantos setting.
>I've discovered OP is an attention seeking faggot who apparently makes these threads regularly so I'm not really interested in debating it.
Don't believe everything you read.

Attached: 1518502088929.png (706x526, 421K)

>Don't believe everything you read.
I'm not just taking that guy at his word, you're extremely transparent. Your posts read like a person pretending to be an undiagnosed sociopath. I'm still going to advise you to seek help with whatever it is that makes you make these threads, though.

That's because even as an athiest "god" and "gods" are nouns that actually refer to things that may or may not exist in the world. If you're a moral antirealist the terms "good" and "bad" don't even refer to anything, they're not even actual properties. Can you tell me what good and bad are, or what they even might be?

I'm not going to tell you that you should seek help, but if you find that people hate you and you don't understand why then it's because you're sociopathic and you should find a way to not be a massive asshole as a result of it.

KOTOR 2
You literally can be an asshole As long as you're not stupid, you will get away with it, mostly. you can even gas all your friends and that's the end of it. Or you can choose the dark side and go the easy way.

In fact, that is what I did.

I've shoplifted a few times. Every time I've had to make up excuses in my head ('It's a cheap item, it doesn't matter if I just take one") to avoid feeling bad about it. I know this is because I know that I'm fucking with someone's livelihood and job by stealing. You could argue that morality has just been put into my head as a system that I'm meant to follow, but no matter what I can't come up with a perfect state for humanity that isn't everyone living together without harming one another. Yes, felonies are common, but you skipped the step of people feeling bad about it and needing to rationalize it before it's OK to them.

Why are morality threads on here always so edgy?

Not him, but all you're doing is fusing your empathy with your desire to live a comfortable life ("perfect state for humanity") and calling it morality. It's nothing but your gut impulse. That's the norm though so don't feel bad.

Morality discussions are always edgy. It's pretty much the edgiest thing you can discuss by definition.

the most unbelievable thing about this is that someone this autistic would enjoy anime about having emotional attachments to others

You are just name calling that guy.
As long as you get away with it, you're ok.Sometimes even if you do not.
Look at all those people who are worshipped as heroes, but they have done all sorts of fucked up stuff. Sometimes when these things come to light nothing happens.
Some people worship Hitler. Was he a good guy?

>If you're a moral antirealist the terms "good" and "bad" don't even refer to anything... Can you tell me what good and bad are, or what they even might be?
They're shorthand for those things that other people, moral realists, like to talk about. The fact that an antirealist and realist can have a somewhat mutually intelligible discussion makes it clear that antirealists can still use the terms to mean *something* ya?
In the same way I could discuss astrology in a world where many believed it ardently.

Attached: 1530243605377.png (195x195, 58K)

Because morality is arbitrary. If you really wanted to kill someone, you'd do it. You don't need your mother or the law to tell you that.

Regardless of what consequences you suffer, objectively there is no such as "good and bad" in the world that's not artificially propped up by man for brainless sheep

Attached: 820.png (832x832, 502K)

I haven't actually watched any of these anime or much anime at all.
I just like the pictures.

Attached: 1550022012515.png (371x353, 148K)

Eat shit and die tranny.

>If you didn't want to do it, you wouldn't need your mother or the law to tell you this

Is what I meant to say

Attached: 1549158869413.png (821x869, 36K)

What are they shorthand for then?

>Pick [Joke.]
>"Fuck You."

Attached: Dont read that post in my voice.jpg (200x181, 12K)

>Why are morality threads on here always so edgy?
>proceeds to reply with epic reddit frog
If I wanted to listen to faggot tweens talk about nonsense I'd visit you in daycare.

Hey retard next time you roleplay as a psycho don't pretend to not know that other human beings aren't faking their emotions as well because only someone who hasn't interacted with anybody and hasn't put any thought into this shit (something that you clearly have) would actually believe this.

you should start that filename with "Good news, everyone!"

Easy to interpret the facial expressions do to . stylization

This. You'd have to live in a bubble not to notice people reacting strangely to you. It's too naive. Endeavor to improve your roleplay for next time.

Yeah, wasn't excusing shoplifting or felonies. The "perfect state for humanity" isn't achievable as long as people are following selfish gut impulses, but it's definitely the norm. It's something people do to shift around the idea of morals, to make something OK to them for underlying selfish reasons.

I thought that edgy Yea Forums threads died years ago.

Attached: 1413611055135.jpg (500x283, 59K)

Not only that but if everybody's faking it then why the fuck are they doing it in the first place?

He gave his answer to that
>Yeah like saying thank you, hello, gesundheit...
that's what made it obvious

Literally no reason for greetings or thanks to exist if nobody cares about other peoples' opinions of them

>tranny
I don't get it.
Generally western moral values I suppose? I can write "Jesus is the son of god" without clarifying that this is a belief of Christians. I could even use moral terms disingenuously as a sophist.
Most men are faking it most of the time. I don't know how could you think otherwise.
The same reason any social norm is observed.

Attached: 1529893479538.jpg (1372x1952, 248K)

Okay I'm going to use this thread to get something off my chest that has been haunting me. I don't think I'm a sociopath or a psychopath, whatsoever. I have empathy, I don't think I would never another human for personal gain or without a really strong and compelling specific reason, if I picture myself say stabing someone in the eyes, I feel grossed out and would hate for that to happen to me.
But I've hurt animals. I'm not proud of it, I consider it to be immoral, but I still did it. I tried to understand why I did it and have been thinking it over and over. To be more specific I killed one grown feral cat, and two feral kittens (about 6-10 weeks old I don't know). I feel absolutely zero remorse or guilt, I was completely calm when I did it. I don't know why I did it, it was opportunistic, and I felt an urge. I did torture them to an extent. Again, don't know why, was feeling very calm and cold when I did it. I pictured what I was doing to them done to me (I will spare you the details) and definitely thought I would absolutely hate it, but it didn't seem to get into my way of doing it.
Now the part that bugs me out is, I've done something I personally consider immoral as fuck. It didn't bother me to do it. Yet I know for example I would never, ever cheat or decieve someone who trusted me. Even though what I did to the cats is arguably worse, morally speaking. How can I have such a contradicting sense of morality, why was I able (and why did I even feel the urge) to do what I did, and yet would feel utterly disgusted and wrong simply LYING to a human. I asked myself if I would've hurt the cats if they were someone's pet, and the answer is no, because t hat would have hurt the human. Is this normal? Is there something fucked up about me?

You should try killing yourself, see if that fixes it
I'm not kidding

you're faking it. if not, you have no logical sense. if nobody gave a shit about anyone else, they have 0 logical reason to form a society that actively protects the people within it. what is your actual reasoning with this?

Alright, mystery solved. OP is a philosophy student or really shit professor who creates these threads to provoke people into moral and philosophical debate with him. You can all go now.

Attached: q19ieRt.gif (216x287, 2.65M)

Societal institutions exhibit self-organizing criticality and are naturally resistant to change until they snap.
Even if no one cares (I only said most men) anyone who defects first will be punished by the others, e.g., Charles Manson.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abelian_sandpile_model

Maybe you should read this.
uvm.edu/~dloeb/GR.pdf

Attached: 1523248121189.jpg (511x553, 93K)

umf

what I'm asking is why the societal institution is there in the first place. if the people who actually cared were the minority, why would they be allowed to scoop the majority of people who never cared into society where they're expected to fake caring about others?

Is this what the whole act is for? Tricking people into reading this and discussing it with you? I refuse to believe you actually think you're educating people here.

The nascent priest class when agriculture happened saw it as a way to control others.
If people cared for each other inherently why would a religion need the threat of eternal suffering to deter bad behavior?

Shitty argument, most people care about each other inherently but that doesn't mean they won't act in their own interest against the interest of others. Read Leviathan.

No, the thread and posts are sincere if somewhat exaggerated at times.
I really don't get it. I feel like I'm color blind.
Hobbes is a statist cuck.

Attached: 1512882554767.png (500x269, 123K)

>Hobbes is a statist cuck.
Not an argument.

His point was that human nature leads to the war of all against all thus the necessity of state and sovereign.
How does this support point that people care about each other?

Attached: 1522569299436.jpg (654x643, 40K)

rules are meant to be broken, but the idea that "I sure wouldn't want X to happen to me!" is simple enough. If you go out of your way to inflict X on others, but would hate for it to happen to you, that is what it is.

that's fair, religion as a system would punish people into fitting into the system. but I don't think that people would never have heard of the concept of empathy before that. Empathy is something I feel daily with my friends and family, but is harder to inherently feel without focusing on it when the pain you cause others is detached (i.e. the person isn't emoting in front of you or in the room with you.), or won't immediately have an effect. In short, I don't have the historical knowledgw to argue against what you say, but based on personal experience think you are either full of shit or an honest sociopath.

s-stop

Yes because you are probably so much better than me. I'm sorry if my story made you upset, I'm genuinely just trying to understand what the fuck is going on with me. But these were feral cats, with a shit life and low lifespawn. Do you eat any animal products? if so you've probably in your lifetime contributed to a lot more suffering than what I did with these 3. It's okay if you want to act like I'm a monster than only deserves to die for that, but frankly if I deserve to die for this, more than half of the human population on this planet - and most likely including you - deserves to die too.

>How does this support point that people care about each other?
Why are you being intentionally disingenuous? Empathy is an observed phenomenon, and I know you know this as well. The question shouldn't be "do people care about each other", it should be "does that matter." My point with bringing up Hobbes is that despite the fact that (most) poeple DO care about each other, they'll still at times harm others regardless. The purpose of the leviathan is the same reason hell is in the bible. It's insurance to keep people in line. Hell, all the golden rule is in it's most basic form is just a fusion of natural empathy with social contract theory.

>OP is a [anything] who creates these threads to provoke people into [any kind of] debate with him.
Yeah that's every thread.

You're just a slave to your biology like everyone else. You just happened to have an urge that other people don't, or felt one much more strongly than a lot of people do, or lack a mechanism that prevents you from obeying certain urges in certain contexts, or all 3. Initially you were just trying to post hoc rationalize your impulsive action but now I just feel like you're trying to start an argument by bringing up this veganism rhetoric. I agree with your line of thinking, but your initial question wasn't "is harming animals wrong?", it was "Am I normal?", and the answer to that is no.

>they have 0 logical reason to form a society that actively protects the people within it
Progress and convenience.

Empathy is core to what makes us human. If someone doesn't have it they're barely human. We should learn to test for it and remove or fix them.

If you can't tell the difference why does it matter?

>we should test for it and remove people who don't have empathy
lol

Reason is what makes us human, even certain animals behave in a way that implies some form of empathy.

They ruin society. Our whole system assumes empathy.
It would improve things with no downsides. Prove me wrong.
I didn't say it's all that makes us human, I said it's core to it.

Elephants and dolphins are capable of empathy. They're also the most evil animals known to exist. Empathy is not what makes us human.

>Our whole system assumes empathy.
It definitely does not, if it did we would have no need of laws. Read Leviathan PLEASE.

What does her breath smell like?

So people would come together for a mutual purpose of progress, and because it's more convenient for them to not all die rather than because they care about eachother? That's reasonable. I'm still gonna have empathy though.

my sperm

I did, I took philosophy electives in Uni. I'm smarter than Hobbes. Remove the sociopaths and society will prosper.
It's part of it. Being a sociopath makes you less human for sure.

>Our whole system assumes empathy.
more like it's built to control those without empathy. I suppose that's why it's reasonable to assume nobody has any.

Sociopaths run the country moron.

how do you mean user?

>I'm smarter than Hobbes.
>I can't understand the logistical issues of creating a society that will expunge certain civilians that have committed no crimes, or how to implement one despite the outcry of all the families affected by having their sociopath members deported
Have you ever considered Hobbes also thought that society would be better without sociopaths, but that they'd be impossible to remove? Have you considered that Hobbes also realized that even non-sociopaths will commit crimes in certain contexts, and that most criminals aren't sociopaths?

Attached: not so sure.png (500x500, 222K)

>It would improve things with no downsides. Prove me wrong.
You realize you'd be removed by your own test?

>Our whole system assumes empathy
Absolutely not. If anything, our system assumes nobody has empathy, as we don't want to take the chance of those who truly lack it taking advantage of everyone else and getting away with it. And there are countless people without empathy who in turn would radicalize those with empathy to tribalism; to do whatever they can to protect only those closest to them. Without law our society wouldn't even last a week.

Attached: 1547203967110.jpg (1087x1080, 112K)

think about something bad that you dont want to happen to you ever again.
think about the negative emotions this experience caused you, ie suffering.

now think about someone you like.
knowing that humans generally feel the same way about certain experiences, you know that the person you like probably also does not want that bad thing to happen to them.
by causing them to suffer, you would become something they do not like.
being an enemy of something you like makes a mutually beneficial relationship impossible

haha

Attached: 1557069291494.jpg (868x1228, 102K)

He couldn't have predicted technology. I'll bet we're a decade at most from being able to detect and either fix them or remove them.
No I wouldn't. I have very high EQ.

n-no really it's too much user

You have a very high AQ.

Rousseau tho. Now fuck off.

You should turn down the treble bro

I don't know what that means outside of a musical context.
Awesome quotient? Alpha quotient?

I think anyone in a leadership position requires a degree of sociopathy and without leaders our society would collapse. They may hide it well, but they are essentially enforcing everyone beneath them to play by their rules. No person with true empathy would ever want to be a leader unless they were simpleminded enough to think that their beliefs and rules would make everyone happy.

I wasn't particularly trying to start an argument I just picked the first thing I thought off when it came to pointing out people cause a lot of suffering by just living, I am not vegan or care about it much. I guess I could have just said something about buying brand clothes or items fabricated by terribly mistreated workers. You get my point anyhow.
I know what I did was wrong and don't feel like debating that, it's just that being told I to die just for that specific "wrong" was somewhat hypocritical. If I'm not normal then I want to know exactly how or why.
I spent a lot reading on the psychology of animal cruelty etc and I feel very very strongly it's something I would never do to people but it seems that kind of behavior only predicates very bad things so yeah, I don't know. It's somehow heavily associated to being abused as a child but I had the most normal, affectionate and loving family. I honestly wish I hadn't done it, not because I feel remorse or bad - because I don't - but because I feel that being able to do it not once but thrice and so calmly, has pretty much confirmed me into being someone abnormal. I'm considering therapy to try to understand exactly why I felt the urge or lacked the mechanism to prevent it, but what I did is technically illegal and in all psychology literature, strongly associated to people who go on and escalate to actual homicides, so I feel I'm putting myself at risk talking about it to a therapist. Again, I could never, ever imagine myself hurting an actual person unless extraordinary circumstances (say someone brutally murders my loved ones in front of me and I have the opportunity, then sure).

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theory_of_mind

You are right, it is hypocritical. Any non vegan that is concerned about animal abuse has not done enough introspection. Nothing else I can really say as I don't really care about the suffering of animals. If it bothers you then sort yourself out I guess.

My experience is the best leaders had no desire to be in charge of people.

>m
dumb phoneposter

Start seeing a psychiatrist before you put yourself in prison. Jeezus.

>desktop Computers good, smaller computers bad

If you kill the bad guy you are just as bad as her you murder

Attached: 195o1.jpg (384x644, 98K)

no

The biggest difference between you and the rest of the population is you've killed animals personally. That said, torturing them, even if a little, and being calm about it pushes it over the line. I'd consider killing them for no reason does as well, but consuming meat purely for pleasure when alternatives exist makes that hard to justify, especially when we know the impact it has on each other and the planet.
That said, there is a difference between eating meat because it makes you happy and simply killing an animal because it makes you happy and you should probably seek help.

Pretty much, yeah. You made a good example of it by replying with a short, easy-to-type-on-a-phone response that didn't say anything meaningful and just rehashed a meme.

>That said, there is a difference between eating meat because it makes you happy and simply killing an animal because it makes you happy
Not him, but could you explain the difference? The life of the animal a means to an end in both cases, that end being the happiness of the human.

One will only kill to consume and the other will kill for enjoyment. Given the opportunity the latter would senselessly kill far more often simply because they enjoy that act of killing.

To elaborate a bit further, they're also incredibly likely to kill to consume as well as they would have no moral scruples with doing so and eating meat does still provide a basic necessity that must be met, even if there are alternatives.

read the source page for this and it isn't any less stupid

>eating meat does still provide a basic necessity that must be met, even if there are alternatives.
I don't buy this, provided there are alternatives at least. If you had the choice between drinking water in a cup or drinking flavored water in a cup that you had to kill an animal to acquire, I don't see how you could ever justify the latter without fundamentally valuing animal life lower than your own personal pleasure in all contexts. You say one is to consume and one is for enjoyment, but your consumption choice IS for enjoyment, you'd rather kill than not because it's more enjoyable in the end.

This thread is cringe and reeks of underage while newfags are gobbling up obvious bait

The only other alternative that we currently have would have us waste more water and space to able able to get the same amount of product. Your argument would make much more sense once lab grown meat become economically viable and more easily produced.

>fundamentally valuing animal life lower than your own personal pleasure in all contexts
>but your consumption choice IS for enjoyment
Yes. I never intended to sound like it was an argument otherwise, just that killing an animal in person purely for enjoyment vs buying meat in a store and consuming it for enjoyment are on different levels in regards to cruelty. One is, if only barely, slightly born of necessity than the other and there is a far greater level of detachment. Even if they were killing the animal themselves to eat it, there would still likely be no intentional torture or cruelty in its death and the act would only be performed for the meat instead of merely for the sake of killing.

Even some psychologists claim that these two are synonymous

The only option is accepting the crime you are committing against mother nature and yet, having the deepest possible respect and gratitude for the life that has been given.

Attached: 1564497299624.gif (199x189, 3K)

i remember when i was an underage faggot pretending to be dark and edgy
good times

Attached: 1561632561340.jpg (1125x1115, 95K)

there's nothing wrong with newfags, libtard, and underaged being here is good because we can redpill them before they go on HRT

Meaningless sentimentality to justify the actual action committed.

>doing X to another person doesn't make it more likely that X happens to you.
>Just because it does in some cases doesn't mean it always will.
Way to invalidate your own argument, retard.

>retarded weebposter has trouble understanding the concept of empathy
What are some videogames about perpetuating the stereotype?

Reminder that in order to live the life you live, many animals had to die. If you truly value life, you would run off to some barren part of the world and make it fertile with your own two hands, taking care not to disturb any animals that may have made that area their home.

Explain how posting from a desktop makes you smarter than someone who posts from a phone.

>would you want someone to do it to you?
Well, would you, user?

>

Attached: improving society.jpg (500x385, 63K)

Sociopaths are generally considered safer than psychopaths. A sociopath lacks empathy and will care little about the suffering of others, but neither do they enjoy inflicting that suffering. Not because they have more empathy than the psychopath, but because they simply don't care. If you were dangling off a cliff, a sociopath would watch you fall and think nothing of it so long as they knew they could get away with doing so. A psychopath would push you off to hear you scream and watch you splat.

>>"don't do that"
>>why not?
>>"would you want someone to do it to you?"
It makes sense in the right context but it isn't a one-size-fits-all method of thinking. "Don't kill this villain/criminal against humanity that's ruined the lives of countless individuals and shows no signs of remorse or reform" doesn't work, but "don't mercilessly torture a man that does the same" does.

based, keep dabbing on these retards that dont understand morality
the golden “““rule“““ is literally made to keep sheeples in check. it is as arbitrary as any other rule you could think of. objective morality isnt a thing.

the best thing is that the golden rule isnt even a good moral system. if im ok with being killed it means it would be ok for me to kill other people. nice moral system right there. im gonna make sure to follow that one

>the best thing is that the golden rule isnt even a good moral system
Read Kant, or at least the wiki page on him.

you're complicit in all manner of heinous crimes by virtue of being alive retard
by your logic every man and woman alive that takes up space and consumes resources to live has committed a crime against every animal and person they've competed against for them, or required their guardians to compete against
one way or another shit's gonna die around you so that you can live, there is no crime committed that needs justifying, it's still nice to be sentimental about it because that feels nice

I'm sure all those dead animals appreciate the thought.

>that new FDF2 Phantasm stage
It was a fun surprise.

Attached: 1481498897365.jpg (640x480, 23K)

>by your logic every man and woman alive that takes up space and consumes resources to live has committed a crime against every animal and person they've competed against for them
Yes, I agree with this.

May all of you lost souls get guidance from God.
May you cleanse your spirit before it is to late.
If not may you suffer the consequences of your actions in the after life and the lives that follow.
Love God, love one another, spread peace and harmony.

Moralfags deserve the rope

good then you've finally reached the conclusion basically every philosopher before you has
now fuck off

This is what toxoplasmosis induced autism looks like

>implying those animals wouldnt want that land that youre living in
>implying you could plant anything without some fucking ground hog or some shit eating it all

Not that it makes you smarter, but it makes your posts better.
>touch pad is unwieldy even for experienced tweeters
>phoneposting usually means out doing something, not enough time to fully read a post and formulate a response
>the fact you're on a phone makes it more likely you're in school or in your mom's car
>reading and typing on a phone is unwieldy and inconvenient, even for the most experienced tweeters, when compared to a monitor and keyboard
>most images phoneposters post are downsized
>images are probably catchall template responses like wojaks, because phones have little space + it's annoying having to deal with branching folder paths on a small screen with touch controls, meaning most phoneposters wont even bother organizing their images leading to even more catchall images
>these catchall image responses influence the type of posts they'll make, because they'll want to use their images, leading to even more generic responses
me hate phoneposter, phoneposter bad. smash phone

Attached: ANGRY.gif (274x249, 214K)

There's only one truly based and redpilled philosopher.

>using the threat of hell to coax people into something

Attached: Philipp_Mainlaender.png (400x570, 108K)

white girls fuck dogs

They might be.

Attached: cirno.png (1369x420, 183K)

Inflicting damage simply by living does not mean you shouldn't attempt to limit the amount of damage you do. It sounds like you're using it as an excuse to justify what you enjoy.

Somehow the cringiest thing in this thread.

>only sociopaths eat meat! You're killing an animal when you could choose not to!
>b-but deforestation doesn't count, it's important that I can go golfing and to the shopping mall
>a-and killing animals in the vicinity of towns to make them safer doesn't count either, especially on my favorite hiking paths!
if you're gonna try to be a moralfag about drinking water vs drinking grape juice, you're asking for it

If you truly wish to believe non-believers and sinners are doomed to burn in hell for all eternity despite no evidence to support that, you lack empathy by default. This goes doubly so for anyone who has sincerely believed others should burn in hell, regardless of circumstances.

You should strive to be the best self you can be, agreed?
Then you should not act in such a way that goes against that best self. If you consider someone doing something "bad" towards you as moving away from the best "self/person" people should be then you should obviously not do it so you don't stoop to the level of human garbage. Which you are at the moment by thinking at the level of a caveman.

Attached: 1553365973294.jpg (960x720, 96K)

Do you not understand the difference between killing an animal because you enjoy how it tastes and killing an animal for safety? You're correct about deforestation though.

>You should strive to be the best self you can be, agreed?
You've sneaked a lot of presuppositions into this statement. You first have to establish that certain versions of you can be "better" than other versions by some objective standard, which is a very hefty challenge.

don't be a pussy, strive for perfection

Attached: 1540730180725.png (250x288, 126K)

Yes. It's important to ensure our own safety, but that safety is sometimes loosely interpreted. Imagine a natural reserve, with a hiking trail nearby, but the state decides to kill many animals in the area because hikers need to be safe. It's a bit of an exploit
Do you understand the difference between killing an animal because you enjoy killing and eating an animal because you enjoy its taste?

Whats perfection?

>Do you understand the difference between killing an animal because you enjoy killing and eating an animal because you enjoy its taste?
I understand the semantic difference, but morally I think the actions are equal as long as you kill them in the same way. A gunshot to the head for example.

i didn't say you shouldn't, people have covered over and over in this thread why it is in fact wise to limit the suffering you cause as much as you can
however bearing guilt over a fact of life you cannot control is retarded on the same level of retardation as having white guilt. man animal and plant must all suffer the others that they live with
that's also the reason i wanted that guy to fuck off, i've no wish for him to suffer through the pain of killing himself but i'd really prefer it if he didn't exist anywhere near me so his retarded ideas can't poison my living space

BASED

the golden rule flies out the window when masochists exist
also retarded because it relies on the idea that everyone wants to be treated exactly the same and that everyone follows it and there are no bad people
what a stupid fucking idea

There's no need to be so angry with me, personally I see no reason to feel guilty about it because I don't give a fuck, I don't really believe in moral properties to begin with. All the arguments I made before were made supposing a conventional moral system. It's really just hypocrites I take issue with.

>the golden rule flies out the window when masochists exist
PLEASE stop regurgitating this retarded meme. All it does is prove you haven't read or thought about this enough. Do you really think this hasn't been addressed in all of human history?

I was expecting a fallout or mass effect thread.

All I got was a bunch of edgelords.

merely the attempt, the act of striving for perfection is in itself an act of perfection

Not if you think with even the tiniest amount of abstraction.

There are many things that haven't been addressed in all of human history. Just because SOCIETY has existed for thousands of years doesn't mean they've ironed out all the kinks, or even discovered them all. People are still fighting over whether words can hurt people

please explain anons

HEIL HITLER

>mass effect or fallout
>good morality system

How do you strive for something when you don't know what it is? Do you know how to strive for a gurglesnatch for example? To steer this conversation in a more productive direction, I'm sure you'd consider things like being healthier, being stronger, being smarter, to be properties included in perfection. My question is, why is it better to be those things than other things?

Attached: mike eyebrow.png (1920x1080, 1.97M)

>there are people who genuinely thought it meant "pour him a glass"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative#Application

>All the arguments I made before were made supposing a conventional moral system. It's really just hypocrites I take issue with.
i've no idea which posts were yours and i was replying solely to the one you addressed to me
didn't intend to come across as angry, just wanted to state my point as plainly as possible. i appreciate your position

>haha I'm kind of a twisted psychopath no big deal haha
Grow up, you literal child.

This is the basis of morality. That’s where the “golden” rule comes from.
>don’t murder that guy or steal from him
>why not?
>would you want to be murdered or stolen from?
Everyone has these thoughts. If everyone acts on them, society collapses. Following the rules is what allows us to prosper as a whole. If you want to be an edgy little shit, go ahead, but you’re gonna find out no one likes the free thinker who thinks he can just kill people and loot shit all day.

>muh strawman arguments!
please leave this website until after you turn 18

thanks OP, now I got a new fetish

Attached: illust_60499722_20190809_200121.png (679x800, 563K)

>implying prosperity or pragmatic benefit has anything to do with morality

>no one likes the free thinker who thinks he can just kill people and loot shit all day.
*ahem*
WE

What has he said that's so twisted?

>implying it doesnt
morality is what allowed us to prosper to the point that you can sit here and even have this dumb argument retard, the two are directly connected

>pick [sarcasm]
>character just says something rude and cunty without any sarcasm
Bethesda proving once again that Americans still cannot grasp the concept of irony.

Just because applying moral systems on a societal scale creates prosperity doesn't mean prosperity itself is a necessary component of a moral system, look at deontology as an example. Only consequentialist moral systems are concerned with enabling prosperity directly.

That's not strawman, it's a caricature. It's derived from reality.

The no stealing law didn't come around because people felt bad about stealing from each other. It happened because nobody wanted their own shit to be stolen. And if you don't have the resources afford/build a fancy safe then you work together with like minded individuals to make no stealing an enforceable law.
All of this can happen without any morality or empathy at all, just people working together because it's the best strategy for them.

This is bullshit OP DO NOT DO THIS. Psychiatrists are bound by law to notify law enforcement when patients are considered to be dangerous and thinking of inflicting bodily harm on others. “Doctor patient confidentiality” extends to non violent non crime acts and stuff. You can’t tell them you want to murder someone because you don’t feel empathy or you’re going to a psych ward. Same with pedophilia, if you need help, never ever EVER mention that you want real children. You’ll never have a normal life again.

>it's okay to steal and murder so long as you get away with it
Almost certain he's merely pretending anyway. It's not like sociopaths aren't aware of how sane people perceive wrongdoings.

i treat my gf how she wants but I wouldn't want to be treated that way so it breaks the golden rule
fuck you and there is no disputing this, the golden rule is some preschooler shit that only normalfags think is deep at all

>Just because applying moral systems on a societal scale creates prosperity doesn't mean prosperity itself is a necessary component of a moral system
you're getting it around the wrong way, on purpose i suspect. morality is the necessary component of a prosperous system, that is what connects them

>the golden rule applies to literally everything except women
>"N-no, fuck you the golden rule is wrong, i'd gladly abolish the golden rule of morality for pussy!"
Have you ever considered it is the opposite sex that is the wrong one?

Oh, that's what you mean. Even then that is not necessarily true, law and social contracts can be created on a purely mutual benefit basis, entirely for selfish reasons. No morality is necessary, if it's in everyone's personal benefit to cooperate, then society can prosper peacefully without any actual moral code. I hope I don't need to explain that laws and morals aren't synonymous.

You're probably baiting. Even though I disagree with him on many things Kant is probably one of the smartest humans that has ever lived and his entire theory is derivative of the golden rule.

listen motherfuckers i know im right, the absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence that my assumption on what perfection pertains is incorrect. But merely being on the road to perfection and inching closer makes the person increasingly perfect and thus being the perfect act of an imperfect being. Now you can argue that perfection is subjective and that your individualistic perception on what perfection is diverges from the collective norm and perception but that is for you to accept the consequences of when the masses act in accordance and punish your jeff dalhmer ass. To define perfection objectively one must define the meaning of life objectively and that in itself is proven to be merely subjective as in the end if the purpose was told by god himself there would still be dissent as long a free will exists. And it is the use of that freedom that allows man to determine their own beliefs, fluttershy is fucking real and all you motherfuckers are not going to take my pony friends away from me goddamnit you hear me?

Attached: 1561430738537.png (265x238, 56K)

You're thinking far too specifically. You give your gf pleasure, she gives you pleasure. How that pleasure comes about is largely irrelevant. The golden rule doesn't dictate that you must be subjected to the exact actions that the other appreciates.

>he doesn’t play games with good glorgishlorp
Lmao’ing at your life my dude

>it's okay to steal and murder so long as you get away with it
But that's true. Animals steal from each other all the time.

kys brony

I'm impressed by your ability to type so much while saying absolutely nothing. Let's try again, how does one even get on the road to perfection?

Based troglodyte.

Might makes right, my dude.

itt: autists that had their moral compasses fried out of them by power lines can't even agree on one of the most basic premises of human interaction and something Jesus taught

2019 Yea Forums ladies and gentlemen

Might doesn't make right, might just makes. There's no right or wrong involved, might just allows you to do influence the way of things to your liking.

>doing X to another person doesn't make it more likely that X happens to you.
You acted like a brain-damaged shithead in this thread and guess what kind of responses you've been getting.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Live_by_the_sword,_die_by_the_sword
You’re retarded OP.

>taking moral lessons from a religious terrorist who pirated bread and wine and ban evaded a public ban

Attached: 1544832763859.jpg (1024x576, 52K)

Everybody’s different. Everyone processes guilt differently as well. Did you enjoy it? Did you do this as a kid? Would you do this again? Personally, I hate feral cats. But I love the ones I have at home. I wouldn’t personally go out of my way to kill cats but honestly, if this is fun to you, keep at it. Too many feral cats around. Australia dropped off assloads of poison to massacre their feral cat population. This might not have been as helpful as I thought it would be lmao.

Jesus: Be kind unto others
Also Jesus: Believe in me or you'll burn in hell for eternity

This. Ug have bigger whacky-stick so Grug give Ug mammoth leg.

these two statements aren't mutually exclusive, you mong

Jesus died for your sins so why would you cock it up by not believing in Him and continuing to sin against God and man?

But if don't have the power to defend your ideas/morals then others can just trample over you and remove you from the equation.
If all the people that believe in your ideas/morals disappear then that idea/moral system disappears, and the ideas/morals of the strong become the norm, making them right.

Might makes right.

Rules are not meant to be broken. They are meant to stay in place to protect you, me, and whatever it is the rule is about. “No fucking in the bathroom” doesn’t mean go fuck in the bathroom. It means don’t do it, you retard.

Even if only one moral system existed that wouldn't mean it's correct, it would only mean it's the norm.

>these two statements aren't mutually exclusive
If god and jesus were all powerful, why would they allow hell to exist?

because you fucking deserve to burn

Define correct.

What’s so hard to understand about not doing things to others that you yourself would find hurtful? Would you enjoy experiencing it? No? Then why make someone else go through it?

They are on the other team. What I do not wish upon myself I must deliver upon them.

then do not protest when the same is delivered unto you

make me

Why? What team?

>people should all want to be treated the same way and no one should have preferences or be different
well the golden rule is fucking stupid because it relies on the idea that everyone wants to be treated the same and that you should treat everyone the same
okay but some people want to be left alone or treated like a god
that doesn't mean you should treat them that way

Do we really have to go through this song and dance every time?
>If god is all powerful how come hell exists
>you only get sent to hell if you commit evil deeds
>if god is all powerful how come evil exists
>god gave humans free will so if a human commits an evil act it was his own choice
>if god is omniscient and omnipotent wouldn't he know every action every human will take before humanity is even created, meaning he'd know eve would bite the apple, know that man would exploit free will?
>yes but man still commits those actions of his free will, regardless of the fact that they were predetermined in some way
>spiral into general discussion about determinism
Alternatively
>what about natural evil, like tsunamis and volcanos?
>Those only exist to give humanity a sliding scale. If there was no pain, there could be no happiness
or
>We exist in the greatest posible world, we simply don't have the faculties as humans to understand it
>but could god make a world that's marginally better in x possible way, like having 1 less child die due to disease
etc etc

Just fucking google the arguments if you're so curious because they're not new.

If by correct you just mean exist, then sure you're right. I figured you meant righteous.

Attached: super face.jpg (712x630, 58K)

*unzips pants*
Are you sure you want us to do that, user?

it sounds like you already live a godless and negative life. the wages of sin is death and death comes in many varieties. by living a fractious and contentious life tacked against your fellow man you have begun the process of killing your own soul. this process can only end with your salvation or your eternal damnation.

>okay but some people want to be left alone or treated like a god, that doesn't mean you should treat them that way

It doesn't fucking SAY that retard, you got it backwards.

so masochists just shouldn't exist because they want to be treated differently
I don't want to be treated the same way other people want to be treated, the golden rule is fucking retarded and is basic normie shit that only works when everyone is the same, hence why normies think it's brilliant

>as long as others are the victim i'm safe
>why would anyone do anything to me eventually after i do things to others
>lmao all these people don't understand the darkness of my soul, morality isn't reaaal maaan
grow up you stupid crackbaby

Attached: 1557964922650.png (209x209, 99K)

Autism.

Please leave 2016 tourist.

Cows are murdered so people can eat them and gain nutrition benefiting their life. There are positives when you feed a community. You murdered and tortured some cats for no inherent purpose. The difference is the intentions and outcome. I don’t want to kill cows but I want that tasty cow meat. You wanted to kill cats but did not want that tasty cat meat.

Do you want to be left alone or treated like god? if no, then you don't need to go along with someone else who wants to be treated that way.

Just read this whole page bro, you need the entire run down. If I give you bits and pieces you're just going to reply "BUT NOT EVERYONE WANTS THE SAME THINGS"

>I don’t want to kill cows but I want that tasty cow meat. You wanted to kill cats but did not want that tasty cat meat.
This is the exact same thing morally. You took their life for your own personal enjoyment. Would the cat murder really be better if he ate them after torturing them? How does that improve the situation?

autism

>i don't want to be treated the same way other people are treated

what naiveté. unless you are some kind of hardcore bondage masochist or otherwise mentally impaired person, then of course you want to be treated the way everyone else is. we're not talking about making sure to say "please" and "thank you". we're talking about treating other people with the basic respect and understanding of human dignity that you yourself invariably desire. your dissembling is transparently autistic and i hope you come to an understanding of this yourself.

Forgot link en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Categorical_imperative

You're ignoring that god will send you to hell merely for not believing in him. Even if he did only send evildoers to hell, an eternal punishment of the worst suffering beyond what we can fathom is far more evil than anything those evildoers were capable of in their lifetime. That's also assuming god's sense of what is or is not evil aligns with modern day society's, which it does not.

Reminds me of Fallout 4. First nigger you meet, Preston.
>You hav to help us, cracka!
>Say no
>Ayo hol up! You can't be abandonin' all those poor children n shiet!

You're preaching to the choir pal. In any case, if God actually existed then right and wrong would be determined by hell, ergo not believing in him would be an evil worthy of hell the same as murder and such.

hell is a state of mind you place yourself in by sinning

Based new age scripture revisionist. Go watch some JP lectures.

dont mind if i do :^)

What is this sort of fetish called I'm curious

determined by him*

Slaughtering a bovine prey animal to feed your family is substantially more morally sound than torturing a more sapient predator animal purely because you enjoy it's suffering.

this

Holy fucking buzzwords batman. Why is the life of a predator more valuable than that of a prey animal? If it was between a dog and a pig I'm sure you'd have no qualms killing the pig as opposed to the dog, despite the pig being smarter. Your post is dripping in gut feeling sentimentality.

I can’t respect him for not harvesting and eating that succulent delectable cat meat user.

>cats
>sapient
Your average chicken is more sapient than a cat.

what do you think of the person who stole your bike?
or to be more extreme, what do you think of bullies like pic related?

Attached: 1554724332711.jpg (842x848, 85K)

>Killing something thanks too necessity
VS
>Killing something just because

The outcome is the same but not its intention. One has too die so that the other can live and no amount of moral highstanding will ever change that fact. That makes it morally gray instead of good or evil.

This conversation had alternatives to meat in mind from the very beginning. No shit it's more acceptable to kill a cow if you and your family is literally going to die otherwise. What about if neither has to die, and you still kill the cow because it tastes better than shitty tofu and onions? Is it still different than killing for fun?

More sapient than a cow. All mammalian predators are more aware of themselves than your average prey animal.

>Killing something thanks too necessity
If it were truly necessity, yes. That's not the case anymore.

>All mammalian predators are more aware of themselves than your average prey animal.
Why would you say things that completely expose you as an idiot who doesn't know what hes talking about?

Attached: gohan laugh.jpg (552x504, 35K)

Do you have a single fact to back that up?

it's gonna be something that has to die to feed you, that's the cost of living
might as well be the cow, that's simple and easy

Typical gamer

>it's gonna be something that has to die to feed you, that's the cost of living
Yeah, like a fucking plant maybe?

>despite the pig being smarter
Not only is that not true, but comparing an animal that has literally evolved alongside humanity since the stone age to an animal that rolls around in shit and eats it's own young is laughable. Also yes, I do feel remorse for consuming pork and try to keep it to a minimum. Pigs as livestock aren't as necessary as they once were.

sure if that helps your conscience feel a little cleaner
you still live and it still dies

Oh, so lab grown meat has finally reached a point where is can replace all of our current meat? Or maybe we have found a way to perfectly synthesize everything that meat gives us and turn it cheap pills? I Guess you might be talking about the extra "Earth" we found in close orbit too our own that we can now de-forest and turn into a gigantic farm.

It's not aware and it's not shitting all over the planet.

Why are you acting intentionally disingenuous? The reason life has value is because of it's ability to feel things and to recognize what it is feeling. That's why humans have more value than any other animal. After humans the value of life goes down the less and less a lifeform is able to feel things and recognize what it is feeling. A fucking amoeba has no value just because it is alive. There's no point in grieving when you eat a potato. All life isn't equal.

Attached: demyx.png (181x197, 46K)

You don't need meat bro. Just admit you eat it for taste and normalcy instead of trying to claim you do it for nutrition.

>no refutations beyond calling me stupid
Fancy that. I wonder which one of us doesn't know what they're talking about?

oh yeah you're right. i suppose that does make it a little better to grow it for the purpose of sustaining other's lives, systematically harvest it then ultimately kill it and replace it when it can no longer serve its purpose.
maybe enough for you? not for me

Why bother refuting things that are blatantly false?

Sure, as long as you are willing to sacrifice more than half of our drinkable water and a third of earths "livable" space

You would if you could, but you can't.

More of these please.

dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-3122303/Move-Lassie-IQ-tests-reveal-pigs-outsmart-dogs-chimpanzees.html

op should be killed, even if he is baiting

The burden of proof is on you, just saying

I'll beat you to death

Attached: madku1.jpg (668x600, 74K)

>Why are you acting intentionally disingenuous?
excuse me? both the plant and the cow were given life explicitly to feed another. neither would ever have been born if not for that purpose. both of them lived their lives until the time had come for them to be put in the grinder. it's quite likely the cow felt very little suffering in its life ending given the strict laws we've got on that kind of shit these days, so it's unlikely it felt more pain in the act of providing sustenance than the plant did.
but the cow's life has more value, why? it's a more complex organism? it was happier and sadder than the plant for a brief moment? no, i protest, short of human all things have the same value in nature and all depend on each other. the cow is not worth more than the plant.
no point in grieving when you eat a potato? no point in grieving when you eat a steak

Can't tell whether you're arguing for or against meat with that one. You'll straight up lose any resources argument you invoke in an attempt to defend meat.
If you're worried about the land, reforest it.

The proof is intrinsic to every human being on the planet aside from sheltered coffee shop vegan city-people who are utterly convinced a cow experiences complex thought despite never having seen one in their life. Bovines are dumb as bricks. All prey animals are skittish and instinctual, but herd movers are near braindead.

that not self aware autist ITT is fun

Bovines appearing dumber than predators to us isn't a proof of them being less self-conscious

>both the plant and the cow were given life explicitly to feed another. neither would ever have been born if not for that purpose.
There's a major difference between preventing a life from being born when it will be a life of suffering and ending one when it already exists in this world. Just because the meat industry creates many new animal lives doesn't mean its a net benefit even though that life may be valuable while alive. Read up on David Benatar if you want to know more about this kind of idea.

>but the cow's life has more value, why? it's a more complex organism? it was happier and sadder than the plant for a brief moment?
Yes, exactly. In a reductionist sense humans are more valuable strictly because they are more complicated. A plant doesn't even have the capability to experience happiness and sadness in the way a cow does. Do you think a blade of grass feels happy when it absorbs sunlight? It's just a vague nervous system reaction. You can equate this to happiness if you want, but this gets into weird territory that you can use to dismiss thee feelings of even humans. Just because they're similar doesn't mean they're equivalent.

>all depend on each other.
You can't use this circle of life shit to sidestep the actual topic at hand. Just because life needs oxygen to exist doesn't mean that oxygen has value in the same way life does.

Based feelings instead of facts poster. Just because something seems obvious doesn't mean its true.

How do you feel about culling the crippled and mentally retarded?

>vegetarian accusing anyone else of thinking with their feelings

Attached: lon-lon overdose.png (464x434, 153K)

cunt mouth

Attached: illust_60499722_20190809_200137.png (685x800, 640K)

I'm not a vegan or anything like that, I eat meat. I just don't have any double standards about it. I don't give a fuck about animals in any capacity unless they're important to me, like my pets. Nice non argument by the way.

People like giving them shit, but I can respect them. People can talk about empathy all they want, but at least they walk the walk, be it for animals or their fellow human.

I am a human and I know that I am sapient, therefore I attribute humanlike qualities to evidence of sapience in animals. That's all anyone can do.

This isn't relevant to the argument at all. Killing members of your own species because you deem them inferior is vastly different to killing another animal to consume it.

You know, I think that sentiment vocalizes how I view folk who are serious with religion. Thanks

Attached: 1563287660553.jpg (960x493, 141K)

>Nice non argument by the way
I've not seen a single argument from your party beyond "uuh where are the proofs???" and "you're stupid but I won't say why".

>That's all anyone can do.
That's all a layman can do. There are more extensive tests that can be done. There are things about animal intelligence that can't be intuitively understood just from looking at them, like crows recognizing faces.

I'm chugging vaccines like a child Witcher undergoing the trial of the grasses, and even I understand that gut sinking feeling of imparted pain.

>then of course you want to be treated the way everyone else is
you're a fucking idiot

Game release when? This month?

>intelligence that can't be intuitively understood just from looking at them
Have you ever sat and watched a group of crows or magpies or whatever for more than five seconds? Their intelligence is absolutely evident.

You're arguing that you're ok with killing them because they're stupid. It's already been established you don't need to consume them and killing animals, in this case predators/cats, for the sake of it is wrong, so your argument boils down to intelligence. What's it matter if they're a member of your own species or not? They're mentally impaired, if not outright braindead, and a drag on funds and resources. So would you justify killing them?

>it didn't work on /his/ so now he's on Yea Forums

In general maybe but not specific qualities.

The Witcher 3 is the only game I've ever played that actually has a good morality system, because it doesn't depend on racking up a number of "morality points". You make decisions and receive results.

This thread got filled with "philosophers" pretty quickly.

I'm arguing for killing for the sake of consumption. Would you believe it, I'm not a cannibal, so no I wouldn't justify gassing the special ed room. I wouldn't kill any creature for the sake of it. We have been though this.

>preventing a life from being born when it will be a life of suffering
this point would have more weight if the discussion was about the ethical treatment of animals being raised for food. any industry member raising animals in shithouse conditions that cause them a life of suffering should be rightly railed against. i don't see any of the farmers around the rural town where i live doing that because they know they'll get fucked socially, legally, financially and all other kinds of ways, and rightfully so
as i said, it's quite likely both the plant and cow lived an equally pointless life with roughly the same amount of suffering in it; that is to say, very little. therefore, who fucking cares?
>In a reductionist sense humans are more valuable strictly because they are more complicated... You can equate this to happiness if you want, but this gets into weird territory that you can use to dismiss thee feelings of even humans. Just because they're similar doesn't mean they're equivalent.
i've no need. humans are more valuable in a myriad other senses for a myriad other reasons. they give us structure, they provide us with goods/services, they fulfill social needs. they are capable of abstract thought, sometimes able to better themselves and the lives of others. they have thoughts and feelings that can have severe consequences on other people around them. a human life is very valuable to another human.
cow and plant, both less so. both are food. both live and die to feed. both suffer about as much as the other, but the cow was happier in a way closer to how we are happy? good for it, i suppose, but it is still food like the plant. it wasn't born for another purpose. was it better to have never been born? i don't think so because then how could it have been happy at all?

and no, i wasn't sidestepping shit, i maintain neither is more important or valuable than the other, what i stated was one reason i felt so

And you can consume alternatives. The intelligence argument is a front. You're ok with killing them because you enjoy the outcome.

Maybe we're all just philosophers in our own way

Attached: big think.jpg (582x528, 53K)

>If I had autism or whatever I would be able to tell.
No, you would think having autism is normal. Everyone else would be able to tell that you're a sperg though.

Being a cannibal and gassing retards is another thing. If there is a chance of being turned into a contributing member of society they should just be sterilized, otherwise they should be culled.

If we were saying this shit a couple centuries ago we'd be in the history books.

Attached: 1527322454168.png (422x357, 161K)

>sociopath tries to understand how morality works
lmao

>you can consume alternatives
At a detriment to my own health and well-being. Human beings are designed to consume meat. Any "alternative" is a compromise.

If you said gravity exists a couple of centuries ago you would be in the history books.

I don't get it either, I'm me and they are them. If something happens to them and it doesn't affect me why should I care?

>At a detriment to my own health and well-being
Do you have a single fact to back that up? Hell, out of all meat, you're arguing in favor of red meat in particular, which is known to be horrible for human health.

>Human beings are designed
>designed

People have known gravity exists for thousands of years we just couldn't explain it. Even the dumbest animals on the planet recognize gravity exists.

>designed

Attached: 1535704449252.jpg (377x567, 15K)

>which is known to be horrible for human health
The benefits outweigh the risks significantly. It also greatly depends on what part of the world your ancient ancestry comes from.
>>designed
Designed through billions of years of constant trial-and-error genetic refining. Don't be a pedantic edgelord.

Yes, but they hadn't fully developed the theory and formulas for it, that's what I meant. Even a teenager that finished HS knows more algebra than Newton in this age.

Philosophy is free thinking with a wee bit of structure and explanation.

>In philosophy
>Professor asks me about the concept of evil
>Put on the spot, start panicking but remember a certain quote from Witcher 3
>"Evil is Evil. Lesser, greater, middling… Makes no difference. The degreee is arbitary. The definition’s blurred. If I’m to choose between one evil and another… I’d rather not choose at all"
>Professor looks stunned, class gives me a round of applause

Attached: B9D2E47F-B0B8-4F48-814E-A41AD23088CD.jpg (511x288, 29K)

The structure of thought is logic

Philosophy is shitposting.

Fuck off redditfag.

You don't understand the basic idea behind the golden rule? Treat others as you'd want to be treated?

You must be pretty socially inept/dysfunctional, user.

>The benefits outweigh the risks significantly
Do you have a single fact to back that up?

Not OP, I understand it but it doesn't make sense to me.

>a lack of empathy a major sign of autism
No that's not true. It's a sign of a sociopath/psychopath, with autists there's empathy but social awkwardness can make things more difficult to express.

wow i bet you really told your freshman philosophy professor sick dude

>I understand it but it doesn't make sense
Uh

I liked Grim Dawn's morality system, it was good for an ARPG
Morally good choices tend to reward you with experience/rep which makes your journey to level 100 faster (bringing people back to the prison, saving the Skinner family, sparing that one guy with his cart in act 2)
Morally evil/pragmatic choices tend to reward stronger items making your journey to 100 easier (stealing the Rovers' talisman, letting the lynch mob kill the accused witch, killing Anasteria)
It's kind of a pity they dropped that idea going into the Malmouth expansion though

I get what it says, but I don't understand how it makes logical sense. Stop being a brainlet user.

Good pasta, but evil only exists as a concept because you're forced to choose.

In what way doesn't it make sense to you? It's saying that you should show others the same respect as you would want yourself to be shown. AKA don't act like an abnormal asshole and treat people like they are your lesser or not deserving of the same moral rights as you for no good reason, in other words be a functioning part of society that helps make it better and decent for everyone.

What's giving you problems, user?

>I get what it says, but I don't understand how it makes logical sense
Then you don't understand it. Read through the thread.

In what way do you think it doesn't make logical sense? Is your idea of an ideal society where everyone tries to get the better of everyone else? That everyone has to constantly look over their shoulder or be distant and cautious in every social interaction? The opposite of this idea would make society not so much a society but rather a set of individuals that are in a constant state of hostile/unfriendly interaction

This is definitely true. My brother is low-functioning (he has no ability to use language whatsoever, only knows some basic sign language and has some occasional difficulty interpreting basic commands like asking him to wash his hands or something). That being said, autism is a stupidly broad disorder - most people would claim trouble with empathy is something inherent to autism but for all intents and purposes my brother seems to feel genuine guilt when he harms someone and will try to comfort people when they're visibly upset.

Do Unto Others as you would have them Do Unto You is the 'Golden rule' because it's effective philosophical shorthand for stop being such a cunt.
It's not perfect, of course, you might be a masochist and if the Golden rule is the only thing you consider you might go around dripping hot wax on unsuspecting strangers, but in a general sense whether or not you're in violation of the rule is a method of determining if you're being a cunt.
Don't be a cunt, faggot, the world doesn't need any more.

The weak should fear the strong.

Saying don't do that or I will do it to you makes sense because a threat is involved. Saying don't do that because of what you might feel if it would happen to you in an imaginary scenario doesn't. It's not happening to me and until it the possibility of it happening is manifested I don't have to worry about it in the same way I don't have to worry about my death decades from now.

Why would the strong need to be feared, if they're already strong? It's just kind of redundant.

Yes. The tabloid newspapers telling you red meat causes cancer however, don't.

Are you saying that you find it impossible to construct an imaginary scenario in your head where you are wronged and thus feel bad?

It's not a matter of "oh this hasn't happened to me". You acting like an asshole greatly increases the chance of people acting like assholes to you. You go around punching people in the face and you're going to get punched back. And arrested.

As it's been said before, if you cannot grasp the idea of an absract and basic empathy, you are most definitely somewhere on the spectrum. Which isn't the end of the world, but you're arguing from a position at which point the grand majority of the population would start inching away from you, because you're all but admitting you'd snap their necks with zero issue with no qualms about it, if it benefited you in any shape or form.

Stop that, dude, the point isn't to be literally practical like oh shit I'm gonna get crimed at if I do a crime, it's just babby's first generally consistent ethical standard.
It doesn't need some faux mathematically practical probability-of-getting-stabbed element tacked on.

If being polite and friendly to others even when you've got nothing to gain doesn't make sense to you it might be a symptom of psychopathy? It doesn't make you evil person but it can most likely make others percieve you as an asshole.

Well yes I would, but then I'd have to deal with the authorities and I can't really think of anything that would be worth that much trouble.

I'm saying that if I am wronged it's different if someone else is wronged. Same for them I don't expect someone else to feel empathy for my problems because they are mine and not theirs.

sociapaths are unironically based

>Well yes I would, but then I'd have to deal with the authorities and I can't really think of anything that would be worth that much trouble.
Okay so you're also LARPing as a psycho, glad we cleared that up.

>oh shit I'm gonna get crimed at if I do a crime
Nobody said this. If you think someone punching you back is a crime, that's self-defense. You follow the golden rule whether you realize it or not, otherwise you'd very likely be dead by now.

Why does everyone keep saying that, can you really not comprehend that some people don't think as you do?

>if you cannot grasp the idea of an absract and basic empathy, you are most definitely somewhere on the spectrum
Please don't throw common-garden autists under the bus. Psychopathy has little to do with autism. Autistic people have trouble expressing emotion, not feeling it.

I feel like the entire concept of morality eludes you.

Because we'd prefer to believe you're merely pretending to be a sociopath and not an actual sociopath.

>if I am wronged it's different than if someone else is wronged
No, no it isn't. You are not more important than other people.

Morality is a set of rules that enable the continuation of society in it's present form.

That's still not the point of the Golden Rule. The reason you don't punch someone is that it's bad to punch people, not that they'd be justified in punching you back. The Golden Rule is supposed to help you empathise - "how would that guy feel if I punched him? Like I would feel if someone punched me". It's explicitly not "eye for an eye"

>Autistic people have trouble expressing emotion
And completely lacking in social awareness.

If you're going to deliberately read my post wrong like an actual retard you should probably put the keyboard down and rethink some things, buddy.

Basically the idea is that if you do shitty things toward other people, your reputation will suffer. As your reputation suffers, people around you will treat you like shit, and they will justify it with "Oh, that motherfucker just did X to Z, so it's no big deal if i do Y to him, that faggot deserves it".

You can be a dick if you'll know for sure that nobody's gonna find out, but how can you be sure? You don't have an iq of 180+, so sooner or later you will slip up.

Being nice toward others(even to complete spergs) is always a better strategy in the long run.

Attached: 1565048932866.gif (80x70, 20K)

Why is it bad? Is it not because you know it hurts them as well as knowing you're very likely to be punched back? The golden rule is not meant to simply help you empathize, it exists beyond that as a defense mechanism. The golden rule can still exist for those completely lacking in empathy because they don't want to get fucked over.

That doesn't mean they lack empathy. If you tell an autist that something they've done or said has upset you, they will usually be genuinely ashamed and kick themselves about it. A psychopath wouldn't do this.

If you'd bothered to read further I didn't mean it in a "I'm better than everyone else" way. My problems are my own, and I don't expect anyone else to care for them. If I was randomly punched in the middle of the street I wouldn't expect anyone to do anything about it because it's my problem, just as I wouldn't do anything for them. The problems that affect the self are fundamentally different from problems that affect other people.

That clearly went over your head.

>is it not because you know ... you're very likely to be punched back?
No it's not because there is some practical threat of your actions literally coming back to bite you. That's now how it works. You fundamentally misunderstand the rule and ethical reasoning in general.

I actually cringed when I first saw it because I thought her whole top row of teeth were knocked out and her mouth and eyes were bloody. Now that I see the pic in higher quality, it's fap time.

Like it or not, admitting that you'd be snapping necks like no tomorrow if you were so inclined, makes you a potential source of danger in the eyes of the people around you. It stops being 'different way of thinking' when you are the implicit threat at all times.

>OP's complete inability to grasp the concept of morality and why most people adhere to it in the first place
just when I thought Yea Forums couldnt disappoint me more

Attached: mqdefault.jpg (320x180, 10K)

Basically in any group where you don't follow universal morality you will find that others will fuck you over whenever they can. The idea behind being good is to have as many people as possible do it because the amount of trouble it saves far, far exceeds what you would get in an attempt to only look out for yourself. We have trouble following through on this logic because retard monkey brains, but it's more than worth a shot for it to be an expected standard either way.

>nobody said this
>proceeds to respond to literally none of the substance of my post and pretend I'm somehow claiming punching somebody in retaliation is a crime in US law
Sure is big brain mode in here

Wasn't a broken leg practically a death sentence for people baxk then? Geralt is one autistic little fuck.

No you don't understand, that doesn't matter. None of what you just posted is even remotely relevant. Who gives a fuck.
You're are not more important than other people, that is absolutely and unequivocally true. When considering the rightness or wrongness of actions you are not placed above an other.

Butthurt redditor spotted

cringe and weakpilled

That's why I'm saying this here and not in real life. I know how the game goes.

Yes I agree with that however what would you do when you have the chance to do good for yourself in a way that most would view as bad.

I give a fuck because I'm saying it. I disagree with your response.

>No it's not because there is some practical threat of your actions literally coming back to bite you
Yes, it is. That is part of the rule. Not always in the literal, instant karma sense sure, but in the figurative sense that you treating people like shit means you will generally be treated like shit in turn. People don't just go around beating the shit out of each other simply because they empathize with the other person. They themselves do not want to be treated that way so they don't do it. The golden rule does not purely deal with empathy and if it did we'd be screwed over by all the people who lack it. Punishment is the most effective deterrent, that's why we've created laws that back up the golden rule, otherwise our society would not even function and the golden rule would only apply to those closest to us.

Attached: 1552655228960.png (1024x910, 1.08M)

Stop being twelve.

What substance? You responded with a strawman about crime, so it was refuted.

>this thread
dehumanize yourself and face to bloodshed. your very existence brings death

yes we've covered that already

No. The golden rule does not need an ultimate karmic equivalence in order to be effective and understood, insisting that it does not only shows your ignorance but perpetuates ignorance in general. You're trying to give a practical justification for the rule but you shouldn't need a practical justification for something this fucking simple, my dude. By immediately pushing punishment as a deterrent you completely skip the part of empathy and ethical reasoning where doing bad things is bad and I shouldn't need to explain to you why it's retarded to skip over "bad things are bad" when trying to learn and understand babby's first ethical standard. You are worse at this than actual children.

That's like saying you understand the concept of "blue" when you know it's light with a wavelength between approximately 450 and 495 nanometres. It's at once accurate and completely inadequate.

>Is it not because you know it hurts them
It's just this. It doesn't work otherwise unless you generalise it to a social contract.

>strawman about crime
But my post isn't about crime, I made 0 points about crime or the nature of crime.
You're hyperfixating on the word crime as if it's not just babytalk shorthand for the nebulous bad things in addition to punches that you're using to apply pointless practicality to the golden rule.
I think you might be for real autistic.

Facts don't care about your feelings. You are not more important than other people.

Ok. So let's just get rid of all laws and see how quickly the golden rule holds up in our society with empathy alone.
You're post is bizarre in the sense that it's antagonistic yet seems to believe the best in people and that people don't commit cruelty on others simply because of empathy. Punishment as a deterrent doesn't skip anything. It is a failsafe for when empathy fails, which it does constantly.

You exaggerated your point by using crime as an example and don't pretend you didn't fixate on that part of the rebuttal while skipping over the rest.

>fat fuck tells a guy online to ''get cancer and die''
>he actually gets cancer a bit later on in life and dies of it instead while the person he insulted with that comment is still well off and alive
hmmmm

Attached: 1561121476197.jpg (519x537, 135K)

>Why do people act like this makes sense?

Because otherwise you're saying "it's okay when I do it to others, but not when others do it to me". You are being a massive fucking hypocrite. If you think it's okay to, say for example, kill anyone weaker than you, you really don't have any right to complain when someone stronger than you comes along and kills you for the same reason. If you wouldn't spare your victims when they beg for mercy, why should he?

I never said my life has a higher objective value than anyone else's. I said that I think most human beings view their own life as more valued than the life of another and this leads to caring more about your own problems than the problems of others.

>The golden rule does not purely deal with empathy and if it did we'd be screwed over by all the people who lack it.
The Golden Rule is an instrument of empathy. Note the people in this thread who are just unable to grasp it, because they lack empathy.
Have you considered that the Golden Rule is not supposed to be a comprehensive system of law? The fact that it has its limitations doesn't mean we have to expand it to cover those limitations. Punishment as a deterrent for people who lack empathy can exist side by side with a general rule for people who can empathise.

I'm just here for the mouths

But no one is complaining. I just don't want it to happen because I'd rather live.

>the golden rule is just an ethical standard that you use to determine if you're being a dick, you don't need to justify it further with pointless practicality musings about people being dicks back to you
>wow okay then fag how about we get rid of all the laws
Are you retarded?

Of course. I'm not suggesting the golden rule is a system of law, merely the fact that it also deals with how we view punishment. Law is just a convenient way to make an example of that.
The golden rule applies even to those who do not have empathy simply because they are aware of the repercussions for not following it. That's all I'm saying.

Why yes, you're right! My use of the phrase "oh shit I'm gonna get crimed at" is a comedic exaggeration and not the actual substance of my post that you're meant to respond to or refute, how could you tell? Did it take you long to figure out?

You remove laws and the rule fails in all but the closest of relationships. How is that difficult to understand?
And the irony of someone defending their definition of the golden rule while simultaneously calling someone else retarded is hilarious.

>But no one is complaining.

Except the families of your victims.

>I just don't want it to happen because I'd rather live.

Yeah, you and pretty much everyone else. You're not special.

But it doesn't. The golden rule says nothing about punishment. Punishment is in no way part of the golden rule. In order to punishment to be involved YOU have to invoke the idea by defining your own system in which the Golden rule is some kind of law.
The rule by itself exists and can be understood and abided completely separately from any system or society you devise that will mete out punishment for 'breaking' it.

Exaggerated or not, that was still the point you were trying to make. Don't pretend the other bits you said weren't merely in service of that. Again, you follow the rule whether you like it or not, regardless empathy.

If someone "stronger" than me killed me I would not complain, why should I? If the families of my "victims" are complaining they can just kill me.

>the rule fails
That's not how it works. You are making shit up, pulling ideas straight out of your asshole.
It's analogous to a thought experiment that you should do to figure out if you're acting like a cunt, dude, there is no such thing as 'the rule fails'.

>I would not complain, why should I
the question isn't 'why should you'
it's 'how could you' because you'd be FUCKING DEAD retard

What's your address bro :^)

No complaints, remember. It's my right since I'm stronger, after all.

You're extrapolating to the point where, if everyone followed the Golden Rule, then everyone would do unto others as they would have them do unto them, and therefore they can all be sure no one will do anything bad to them even if they don't see the point in not doing anything bad to others in itself. But that's not part of the rule. It's not a reciprocal thing. It stands on its own. You're supposed to follow it because it's inherently good, regardless of whether other people follow it. After all, you can't be sure that other people will follow it just because you do. The repercussions for not following it and the repercussions for other people not following it are not the same.

>that was still the point you were trying to make
But no, no it wasn't, not all all. Not in the slightest. By no stretch of the imagination is the concept of crime even remotely what my point is about.
Stop being so fucking autistic, my man.

This went from why should I care about what other people feel in relation to the Golden Rule to me being a serial killer. Can't you just not act like retards ?

There's a shocking number of people here who seem to have no concept of empathy and I really wonder if there's any correlation with the board's political leanings

Nah, under your system, I should be able to kill you because I'm stronger than you and I want to and why should I care how you feel about it? So let's see that address user, you are strong after all, right? Or are you afraid? Like someone weak?

The Golden Rule presupposes that you care about what other people feel.

you yourself brought it there you fucking dunce, you responded to the one guy who brought it up and then followed it up with this stroke of genius here in >If the families of my "victims" are complaining they can just kill me.

It's about not being a dick to people.
If you honestly from the bottom of your heart do not care about being a dick to people, you aren't human and should be executed.
Writhe, reptile.

I suppose I view the rule different here in that it governs people's actions regardless of whether they were born of empathy or not. Could that be considered extrapolating? Sure, but the latter half of the rule strongly implies repercussions for not adhering to it and I'm not sure why that's riling anyone up.

Attached: illust_60499722_20190809_200128.png (646x800, 600K)

because they dont understand the concept of roleplaying another character

if i'm making a morally grey character that will take all the chances he can get to take money, i might do some evil shit, but it doesn't mean "i'm" doing it purely to see bad shit get done.

And I am saying the Golden Rule doesn't make sense for me because I don't value other people's feelings if they don't affect my life.

If you want to kill me because you are "stronger", whatever that means, then find me, somehow, and kill me. I won't even bother resisting.

Really and isn't being a retard with jumping from why should the feelings of other people have the same weight as your own, to you are being a hypocrite because you wouldn't let a serial killer kill you?

But that sounded even hotter.

What you're doing is not "viewing the rule differently", you are fabricating scenarios in your head to justify your misinterpretation of the concept.
Whether the completely fake in-your-own-head society continues to function or not is completely not the point of the golden rule, dude. That's all shit you're making up yourself.
The rule is ONLY "don't be a dick because it's bad", how some society works based on how many people are following it has no bearing on the rule itself because as a principle it stands on its own perfectly fine.

where at the loli mouths with sharp teeth

Attached: 1564771392293.jpg (828x815, 483K)

OP.
You are autistic.
Just accept that your mental faculties are underdeveloped, comparable to that of a hick and move on.

Doing bad things to other people, things that you wouldn't want done to you, is bad.
You don't get to pretend that their problems are just their own and that their feelings don't matter, because the presupposition of the situation is such that it is your own actions causing those feelings and problems and thus the bad thing you did is
1. A bad thing
2. A thing YOU did
Don't do bad things, faggot.

>jumping from why should the feelings of other people have the same weight as your own, to you are being a hypocrite because you wouldn't let a serial killer kill you?
how on earth did you derive that from his post?? i read it and reread it like four times and failed to find whatever leap of logic you followed to reach that conclusion. that post does in fact express the complete opposite - other people's feelings DO weigh the same as your own, therefore it's only fair to be as awful to them as you would be to yourself.
for reference, the majority of people would not like to treat themselves badly or kill themselves, in case that's something that's gone over your head. don't mean to be patronizing but i'm honestly concerned that's something you may have overlooked

The problem is that the morality in games is just too black and white with grey middle. Its shits like
>"Oh no the local orphanage is burning down"
>"what you're going to do?"
>Go in and save everyonr
>Make sure there's no survivors

Attached: rumia teeth.png (942x942, 331K)

The only help for animefags is for them to be brutally beaten... preferably to death

Attached: 852464C8-A8E5-4F06-8214-E82C1A05AFE9.jpg (750x750, 92K)

well what else is there to realistically do

Do you want to nuke a town or not haha big boy decisions haha I'm such a badass

* with no grey middle

Pick the sexiest orphan to be your concubine and let the rest burn

sorry, i'm not into 3d

Hey man you asked for another option and I gave it to you

>Doing bad things to other people, things that you wouldn't want done to you, is bad.
Why, legitimately asking here? They aren't me, and I would only harm someone when the gains would outweigh the danger and the chance of me getting discovered is almost zero.

He probably thinks I'm OP. I'm another user. I got a bit confused myself. In my opinion it's okay when anyone does it.

>don't be a dick because it's bad
Followed by "unless you wish others to be a dick to you".
I'm not saying people have a choice in following this rule. It operates regardless of society or belief. You either behave because you care about their feelings, or you behave because you want to be treated the same way in turn. The rule can obviously clash with people who have different ideas of what nice is or the people who simply don't give a damn and are assholes regardless, but the rule still applies to everyone in some way. But without the latter half of that rule, the rule fails because far too many people lack empathy, whether permanently or momentarily, as even this thread can attest. It is not as simple as just "treat others kindly" or "being a dick is bad". That completely ignores the second half.

Attached: touhou teeth.jpg (800x728, 489K)

No, it is not followed by "unless you want people people to do the same to you". The rule makes no implication that people will retaliate upon being 'broken'. The second half of it does not in the slightest bit make that implication. The rule is "Don't do bad things to people" where bad things are defined as "things you wouldn't like to have happen to you". There is no threat of punishment for disobedience.
>the rule fails
There is no fail state for the rule you fucking doofus, that's not how it works. What do you think the rule failing would entail? Society falling apart? Anarchy? People going out and punching each other all the time?
The "golden rule" is JUST A PRINCIPLE. There are no consequences to breaking it, no punishments, it IS NOT A LITERAL RULE LIKE A LAW.
Whether or not the society in your mind works or does not is IRRELEVANT because YOU MADE IT UP ON YOUR OWN.

When you envision a situation where the rule "fails", it is you who are failing to understand the function of the rule in the first place.

you right, my bad user

When a bad thing happens to a person, that is bad.
Don't cause more bad to happen through your actions.

The rule is to treat others the way you want to be treated, not
>treat others the way you want to be treated, or else

But if a "bad" thing happens to another person, a good thing will happen to me and any good that happens to me as a result of "bad" actions overrules the "bad" part of it.

No, not another person, A person. There is no differentiating between you and "another". If a bad thing happens to a person, you or not, that is bad. Don't make bad things happen.

I'm not saying they'll retaliate, just that if you treat someone a certain way you can expect that behavior in turn, which the rule strongly implies. There are obvious exceptions that you might get away with, but do it often enough and the rule will inevitably hold true.
The rule would fail the moment there were no consequences for anyone's actions, which would indeed lead to society falling apart.
You view it as a principle. I view it as applying in some way to how everyone interacts with each other regardless of whether they're aware of it or not.

I didn't say it was a threat, just that if you treat people like assholes, expect to be treated that way in turn.

Of course there is a difference.

No there isn't. Not for the purposes of determining whether a thing is bad.

Every human is just as complex and aware as you. You are not special.

"Bad" isn't universal, what's bad for you isn't for another.

Yes, and?