Has it ever occurred to anyone that the concept of right and wrong existing in a dichotomy derives from a flawed model...

has it ever occurred to anyone that the concept of right and wrong existing in a dichotomy derives from a flawed model of emotion?

consider a hypothetical person whose emotions are purely based in the moral truth. if you're religious, you can imagine this person is god. if not, it doesn't matter, since they're only hypothetical either way.

it's safe to say, that person would be angered to see something morally wrong, and pacified to see something morally right, correct? in a sense, we can consider that the definition of right and wrong; i.e., they're defined by how someone would feel to witness them if that person were a perfect moral being.

but don't people usually have other emotions than anger and pacification? what about joy, sadness, fear, worry, compassion, etc?

maybe instead of seeing things as "morally right" and "morally wrong," we could start to see them as the seemingly analogous expressions "morally commendable" and "morally outrageous." it now becomes clear they are not actually opposites. because now, we can put other emotions there. when luck, rather than anyone's righteousness, protects people and protects natural order, we can call it "morally delightful"; when, despite everything, luck causes harm, we might call it "morally depressing"; when someone violates the natural order, but doesn't do so wrongfully per se in that they're careful not to allow harm to come of it, we might call it "morally worrying," since surely they must be hurting inside. in all manner of ways, we could represent our moral sensibilities with as full a spectrum of emotion as our hearts, instead of just reducing it to a binary choice.

Attached: CtozSS3UAAABLL2.jpg (1200x677, 119K)

morality is bullshit, what's good and sane to others is morally obscene and insane to others.

Morality is at core, a cop-out excuse to validate someone's behavior because humans decided they need a reason for everything they do despite most of it being either random or left up to luck of the situation

>morality is bullshit, what's good and sane to others is morally obscene and insane to others.
i disagree with this. i hold that morality is constituted in those things we all agree on deep down as a species, and i also hold that collection of things is far broader than you give it credit for. furthermore, i hold that all apparent disagreements on very basic moral principles that you may have witnessed to make you think otherwise were simple misdirection. i hold that in such cases, those who were in the wrong knew they were in the wrong, and were only pretending to believe they were in the right, so as to make their case more convincing. perhaps they even fooled themselves, but on some level, there was an absolute moral truth, and they knew what that truth was.

morality is a group based agreement on a certain rules that might benefit differently according to a certain group.

>what's good and sane to others is morally obscene and insane to others.
i agree with this but human would prefer to get more power by forcing their morality

Attached: [email protected] (320x320, 34K)

Attached: 1555273687086.png (500x355, 184K)

I could point out religion as the most obvious counter argument to what you said, as they aren't being fooled, they truly believe what they are doing is right as it's for a higher power. This has led to terrorist attacks, the crusades, stoning and enslavement of minorities, and the mass killing of children. Normally those would be considered morally wrong, but because they aren't the ones calling the shots they don't see anything wrong with it. It all just goes back to whether they take blame for it or not, nothing is morally right or wrong but just who takes the blame for what happens.

>as they aren't being fooled,
i disagree. if their higher power is true, and their connection to it is true -- if indeed that's even possible, for i'm not claiming it is, that is, i'm not claiming there's *any* higher power that's true -- then said higher power won't command them to do anything of the sort. if they do wind up doing anything of the sort, then, indeed, they are being fooled. either they're being fooled that the higher power exists, or they're being fooled as to what it's ordered them to do -- OR they're being fooled as to its nature, and it's not truly "on our side" -- OR, YOU are being fooled, and these atrocities you cite were in fact somehow for the best, which I strongly doubt. Regardless, your claim doesn't hold up; someone is indeed being fooled. If they weren't being fooled, and weren't fooling themselves, at any point in their process, then they'd be doing the right thing.

>then they'd be doing the right thing.
addendum: either that, or they'd just do wrong anyway, but do it honestly.

pretty contradictionary model of an all loving being,where every creatures deserves loves he could at least inscribe a certain pattern to their mind

I don't believe in any such being, but I disagree with your implicit claim that no such pattern is inscribed.

BUT THIS IS ALREADY TRUE?
BUT I DIDNT READ THE FULL POST
GOOD IS
GOD IS
FUCK EM OTHERWISE TBH FAM

Attached: 1554621868245.jpg (967x1334, 196K)

It's cringe when these faggots try to have a so deep conversation.

why don't you contribute then?

Because I won't pretend that I have enough experience with these subjects to give a valid thought or criticism. These retards are not self-aware to comprehend such a thought.

you're not even trying and how could you know that what they were saying were right in the first place

WHEN YOU ACTUALLY LISTEN TO THESE FAGGOTS INTENTIONS YOU UNDERSTAND THAT DEEP DOWN THEY RUN ON PURE INSECURITY AND NOTHING ELSE

You can try as hard as you want. If you're one of these guys you won't be able to produce anything worth reading, let along analyzing. They could probably squeeze some jizz out their grotesque cocks while looking at a picture of an anime girl but they couldn't squeeze a notable thought out of their noggins even if they tried.

>not even a good critique
>not even bothered to be analytical
you're not even worth reading and no i'm not one of them, i just happened to like them

hi op here actually i won a highly selective writing scholarship to an out-of-state college so *blows raspberry*

i was runner-up to the j.d. salinger writing award c. 2012. although i took second place, i technically still received the award, as it was given to the top three contenders

i respect you're opinion that my writing is shit but just know that opinion is contrary to the head of the english department at the university

i did wind up dropping out of said university even after winning a free ride through it but still

I too had smoke blown up my ass for a variety of reasons when I was in school. As opposed to allowing it to artificially inflate my ego, I had the awareness to know that it was all just a bunch of noise. If you tie your self-worth to the "awards" from an superficial arm of the establishment, you can only bring yourself so far. I can't tell if this post was a joke or if it was serious but still I'd recommend you just keep believing whatever you need to in order to delay the inevitable.

Then I suppose you qualify as equally retarded. Not sure what you tried to prove by writing this post.

so you claim to have a better understanding of writing than an english professor then?

you're a pseudo-intellectual self-centered buffoon if you let some shitmouth twice to three times your age who gained a degree by listening to the droning, drool-coated babble of other decomposing oafs grant you with the title of "smartest in the world." take a look around. look at the website you're on, look at the contaminants of the world that are the participants of this thread. i sincerely hope you're joking. at the very least, seeing that you can't even distinguish among the correct grammatical form of "your/you're," one would have to be as much a brainlet as you to believe you've received anything more than a cookie in 4th grade for your writing performance.

Attached: y i k e s.jpg (255x177, 9K)

You ask that as if it would be a difficult task to accomplish.

so you do in fact claim to have a better understanding of writing than an english professor then?

this is the post of a man that has been utterly btfo'd

I actually agree with you Glitchie, we are kindred spirits

I may not agree with what you say but you are allowed to say it.

We are living in a material world
And I am a material girl
nice trips

by someone who thinks he knows more about writing than an english professor?
i think not.
i take no interest in anything this person has said, on the grounds that the people whose opinions this person is claiming don't matter are more educated than the person making that claim.

u r gay

Concepts of right and wrong are simple
Actions you would not find harmful when done unto you in their shoes are morally right
Actions you would find harmful if in their shoes done unto them anyway are morally wrong
Here is where things get interesting though
2 soldiers who both are prepared to kill and die for a cause, no moral quarrel since both consent via intent action and reaction
What about sex between man and woman? Well even of you as a man dont want to get porked both would want the action to occur anyway, morally right
Victimless actions taht are crimes in eyes of law? Morally right, both parties agreed to the exchange
Golden rule takes you far however even it is a crutch, but by following it you learn right and wrong by heart and can at some point let go of even that
The only limit to what is right is what you would want done unto yourself and what others also want
In theory a "hedonistic pervert" can be more moral than a priest who berates people yet would not want to be berated and hides their intentions behind scriptures

to reiterate, the crux of you're (you are) argument seems to be that the opinions of the old people who run the educational system don't matter, and, by extent, neither does their opinion that i'm good at writing. you've made you are stance on that matter quite clear. however, it is, in fact, you're stance. meaning, it's you're opinion. and since you're opinion involves questioning the credibility of they're opinion, i, in turn, must question the credibility of you're opinion that the credibility of they're (they are) opinion is questionable. frankly i find you are opinion more questionable than they're's, seeing as your (possessive) just a stranger on the internet, whereas their the educational system. so, your saying i shouldn't trust them to tell me my writing isn't shit, and that i should instead trust you to tell me it is. but why should i trust you over them? i see more reason to trust them over you.

blah blah blah

the words of someone who has forfeited too (as in "as well") my superior logic

but the real question here is what about morally other things?
what about things that are morally happy, morally sad, morally frightful?
why confine the emotional range of morality to simple calm and anger, i.e. right and wrong? it seems so unnecessary.
that question is the core of what this thread is about, not so much the nature of right and wrong themselves.

had it ever occurred to you that I fugged ur mom

morally gay *dab*

Attached: catdodab.jpg (125x125, 3K)

quite rude tbh

Attached: 1558416406353.png (259x224, 25K)