Tfw to intelligent too have morals

>tfw to intelligent too have morals
Morality is just a set of rules of thumb for everyday situations and shouldn't be taken into account when solving complex issues in society. Prove me wrong.

>tfw half the Sup Forums's arguments go out the window

Sage this pile of shit.

Morality is not relative twat. Relativist fucks are one step away from cultural marixst beliefs. What is next to come out of your mouth? That it is unfair for us to criticize dumb african culture.

Go save your country from the shit skin hordes.

Nice argument retard

Morality has been defined by the individual for a long time, too long really

>Morality has been defined by the individual for a long time
The fuck? Morality has been defined by jewish fairy tales until recently

>to intelligent too be moral
>misdefines morality

Goddamn Vicadus, learn fucking English

That picture is pretty :)

Just ignore the old testament then

Morals provide a solid foundation for culture.

No morals = no culture = a leaf in the wind.

>prove me wrong
When will you idiots learn that the burden of proof is on you.
Prove yourself right

>intelligent
>is on Sup Forums

Yea but why do we need morals when we can set and achieve goals instead of following a code that dictates what's good and bad?

He can't because he has no morals, there's no method of proof or position to argue from.

Essentially what he's saying is "I have no position on anything, argue me"

U mad Hakim? Maybe you wouldn't be if you lived in a real country you dumb muslim niggerfaggot LOL

argue this aussieshit

morals are a luxury

that russians cant afford

Energy
Energy is recognized as the key to all activity on earth.
Natural science is the study of the sources and control of natural energy, and social science, theoretically expressed as economics, is the study of the sources and control of social energy. Both are bookkeeping systems: mathematics. Therefore, mathematics is the primary energy science. And the bookkeeper can be king if the public can be kept ignorant of the methodology of the bookkeeping.
All science is merely a means to an end. The means is knowledge. The end is control. Beyond this remains only one issue: Who will be the beneficiary?
In 1954 this was the issue of primary concern. Although the so-called "moral issues" were raised, in view of the law of natural selection it was agreed that a nation or world of people who will not use their intelligence are no better than animals who do not have intelligence. Such people are beasts of burden and steaks on the table by choice and consent.
>steaks on the table by choice and consent.

Bullshit. Society exists to benefit the individual. You remove that it breaks down.

>to intelligent too

give an example of a "complex issue in society."

yep. Sage.

homosexuality

How are there societal problems without a set of morals?

Why do anything instead of any other thing unless you see one as better?

Morals are a set of behavioral rules that are believed to lead to better outcomes if adhered to. Sometimes we are wrong, but any choice about better/worse is a moral choice.

>tfw caught a bit of flak during a philosophy class for arguing that there were no such thing as moral obligations

ok. first off, assuming that is a social issue to be "solved" is already a moral judgement based on judeo-christian norms. leaving that aside, lets hear your argument on how to deal it that contains zero moral connotations

Why do you need to know up from down?

Jews will always be Jews, the original church of I.

Damn leaf, what a post. Recently read Buckley's God & Man at Yale. Secularism of American higher education was the beginning of the end and the political positioning of Economics, Psychology, and Philosophy as society changing entities was the final turning point. The individual died when American academia refused to acknowledge it's existence. Our society has been wandering aimlessly since.

Problem-solving. You set a desired state and you achieve it. No shitty moral codes made by someone else that are taken as some absolute truths by most people.

>Morals are a set of behavioral rules that are believed to lead to better outcomes if adhered to
The key work here is "believed" when it should be "calculated"
You can't just go and say "homosexuality is immoral" without proving that it leads to undesirable outcomes. Which moralists never do, they just state that it's bad because they believe it.

Every system of thought and idea is predicated upon one or more unprovable axioms. We should instead focus on practical outcomes, and whether or not those outcomes are ultimately helpful to our long-term individual and collective surviving and thriving. This perspective is ultimately rooted in the presupposition that human existence is preferable to non-existence. Such a perspective may only be argued for by reference to other unprovable presuppositions such as the existence of a transcendent beauty or transcendent goodness which makes life possible. However, if you disagree with the idea that human existence is preferable to non-existence, please be logically consistent and kill yourself.

Now, under such a heuristic, homosexuality is somewhat of an ambiguous case. We should not murder all the homosexuals, as certain homosexual individuals like Alan Turing have proven to be very helpful to our collective surviving and thriving through the invention of the computer. However, given that our long-term survival requires that children continue to be born in ever greater numbers, we should not encourage homosexuality, as it decreases our net fertility, and furthermore, homosexuality and faggotry contribute to the spread of diseases, and is found alongside other societally destructive behaviors such as orgies, pedophilia, drunkenness and drug use.

Having morality>>>>>>having no morality

You're dead wrong, morals cone from God who is way more intelligent thatn you. He has standards of decency he wants you to uphold

why does god want us to uphold them?

The purpose of life is soul purification.

If you fail to rid yourself of corruption your soul is extincted.

Get your life right.

This is Nihilist garbage.
A half step away from Post-Modernism

Of all the possible philosophy's you could have chosen this is the worst. With a mindset like this you will most likely join the first cult you find.

With no morals or virtues any state of being is equal.
So it's impossible to set meaningful goals.
If you fully believed this you would kill yourself.

This doesn't sound intelligent to me.
Intelligence would be leaving a positive mark on the future and being remembered as a hero.

what is a soul and how do you know you have one?

There are some desired states that most people share. For example I want human existence (and i suppose most people do). and what humanity should do to continue it should be decided upon rational argument (problem-solving method) instead of a universally upheld set of rules.

>However, given that our long-term survival requires that children continue to be born in ever greater numbers
Prove that homosexuality has a significant enough effect on that to restrict homosexual right like marriage.
Also society restricts hmosexuals from getting married and having children which would actually solve the problem that you claim homosexuals have. So it doesn't make any sense

>and furthermore, homosexuality and faggotry contribute to the spread of diseases
You are conflating two groups: homosexuals who don't spread diseases and homosexuals who do. Your issue is with the latter

>and is found alongside other societally destructive behaviors such as orgies, pedophilia, drunkenness and drug use.
Again conflating groups of peopl by a common characteristic. It's akin saying every person who browses Sup Forums should be labeled as a nazi because the board has a generally accepted nazi sentiment.

>morals cone from God who is way more intelligent thatn you
sure convinced me with this buddy

top five worst philosophies?

>Morality is just a set of rules of thumb for everyday situations and shouldn't be taken into account when solving complex issues in society.
Not an argument

the rules are not arbitrary. it is you who creates that assertion from thin air. ergo it is you who must prove it.

>Babys first nihilism
Board is 18+

We are the only superanimal with the ability of supernatural reality perception. If you think that's because we're just meat sack with neat thumbs, then we just have to wait for you to age a bit.

Yes - morality is a tool that solves problems. Particularly problems of human treatment. Determining the desired state of human existence is not something that can be done without understanding what is good or bad for a human to experience. The way people determine these things and whether or not they are accurate is irrelevant to the question of whether or not they are within the realm of morals. They are.

I used the word believed because we cannot know for sure whether or not a set of rules will lead to better outcomes. We can only follow (believe) or not the rules.

The reason moral philosophers do not prove that their moral code is correct is because they cannot. They can only show that it leads or not to a desired outcome, but that outcome's goodness or badness is not inherent. It is necessarily subjective. The perfect computer would not be able to determine what the best set of rules is without someone telling it what the desired outcome is.

It sounds like you just have a naive idea of what morality is.

>homosexual right like marriage

ok fuck off now

what is supernatural reality perception?

you are defined by the society you reside in.
its influence shapes everything about you.
morals are defined by the cultures and societies that they exist in.
if a societal problem requires rejecting the morals it has created then that means that the society needs to change to change the morals to solve the problem.

you are asking for cultural and societal change which is almost impossible to carry out. only the most influential of power structures or the most violent of revolutions could deal with change like that

You've clearly put in the time and effort rigorously constructing the meta-ethical foundation on which you've based your concept of morality.

we are the only animal to experience schizophrenia

>Determining the desired state of human existence is not something that can be done without understanding what is good or bad for a human to experience.
By definition "what is good" = "desired state".

Following morals is just an inferior problem-solving method.
Instead of doing a means-ends analysis for every problem like whether to allow homosexuals equal rights you are following an infallible set of rules that doesn't even have to be proven in practicality (see christians and how they will just tell you "it's what god wants therefore we should do it")

your idea of practicality is culturally informed.

So you advocate for a morality based on means-ends analysis. Can you elaborate on that idea?

You are missing the point.

I am not talking about a set of infallible rules.

I am talking about calculating the best outcome for the most people.

You are arguing for roughly the same thing I am. You just don't want to call it morality. But it is.

Any system of thought that seeks to inform behavior with the goal of the betterment of experience of living creatures is morality.

teleological analysis was literally the fallacy of the enlightenment

Ow the edge

...

We don't need to prove that homosexuals decrease the birthrate, only that we should be opposed to encouraging homosexuality on principle alone. Encouraging homosexuality is rooted in the perspective which says that individual human liberty is the highest value, and anything which impedes individual human liberty is evil or wrong. Contrary to your statement that you do no have morals, the privileging of liberty above all other values is itself is a moral statement, and one that has arguably led to the normalization of hedonistic activity such as clubbing, hook-up culture, drug abuse, etc., and the myriad of negative societal outcomes that accompany that behavior. Therefore, I reject that presupposition.

Homosexuals' relationships are founded on hedonism, as there is no procreative potential in their union. No matter how many times Johnny gets rammed in the ass by Billy, no matter how many times Reggie frots with George, they will not produce children, this is a fact.

Morality is not a set of concrete rules. Rather, it is an understanding of right and wrong that arises from one's underlying, fundamental values. Rejecting moral truth is destructive and spreads suffering. Moral nihilism is vulgar, selfish, and evil - the epitome of пoшлocть.

I advocate for a method which people follow when they decide what they should do when they want something (especially as a society) that is based on logical and mathematical axiomatic systems instead of completely made-up systems like christian morality.

Your definition of morality is not what it is for most people though. The majority DO perceive morality as a set of infallible rules breaking which should be punished by society. Try coming up to a christian and explaining to him that his solution isn't logical.

We must secure the existance of our people and a future for white children.

>tfw to intelligent too have morals
>to intelligent too have
goddamn OP at least try

>Encouraging homosexuality is rooted in the perspective which says that individual human liberty is the highest value, and anything which impedes individual human liberty is evil or wrong
Wrong. I for one don't discourage homosexuality because i want every member of society to be utilized fully without them being attacked on the streets, bullied in schools, etc. etc. for their perceived inferiority (which is not proven and is based on them not abiding by the well accepted morals). When they're put in such a position their productivity is reduced which means our society as a whole's productivity is reduced which is the opposite of what I want

>Homosexuals' relationships are founded on hedonism
So you're saying that every romantic relationship that doesn't lead to procreation is based on hedonism? What if I have a relationship to satisfy my instinctual needs so that I can be a productive member of society?

There are no solid foundational arguments for morality. They all rely on assumptions that are easy to reject. Moral nihilism or moral subjectivism are the rational positions.

But you're still arguing from a moral position. You're making normative value claims like
> I want every member of society to be utilized fully
which is very much a moral claim, and you value things like productivity. Why should that be a moral good? There is no reason to suggest that productivity has any moral worth beyond what you insist it does.

And yes, any sexual relationship which does not lead to procreation is ultimately selfish and hedonistic. I find that the outcomes which result from societies adopting those behavioral norms are undesirable, and therefore we should reject the presuppositions which gave rise to them.

So you advocate for an "axiomatic" morality that optimizes the productivity of individuals within a society? How would you measure productivity? What would your axioms be?

How would you develop axioms that are completely clear and not susceptible to subjective interpretations the way current laws are

If you're an atheist yeah you're right, but if you're religious then you follow your God.

This shit isn't hard.

>which is very much a moral claim
It's a desired state. If for you morals=desired states then my point is solution for achieving such desired states and the rules (methods) to do so should be derived from logical/scientific axiomatic systems/models like our physical model of the world and such instead of traditionalistic/liberal/religious/whatever systems that most people have

>So you advocate for an "axiomatic" morality that optimizes the productivity of individuals within a society? How would you measure productivity? What would your axioms be?
No, productivity is just a desired state of mine it's not the method. The point is you can have any desired state that you want (I suppose we share some goals like we want humanity to survive and expand) but the solution on how to achieve it should be based on rational axioms

>How would you develop axioms that are completely clear and not susceptible to subjective interpretations the way current laws are
Set theory is axiomatic. It's a type of logical system that i'm talking about. Scientific theories like evolution are also based on such axiomatic systems. Christian or muslim morality isn't. Simple

It sounds loosely like a form of moral subjectivism since he acknowledges that there are no objective moral truths but accepts that there are preferable states of being that are worth pursuing.

agree

The true red pill is that moral living helps you more than anyone else

I agree

>Yea but why do we need morals when we can set and achieve goals instead of following a code that dictates what's good and bad
Those are personal morals you fool.

Science doesn't tell you what to value, nigger. It can't. The statement
> human existence is preferable to non-existence
cannot be derived from any axiomatic system like mathematics. Christian or Muslim morality take the existence of God as their axiom, and most things flow from that, or are combined with some other axioms which I don't care to delineate right now.
Czech'd. This user gets it. I would consider myself somewhat bi, but I know that if I engage in homosexual acts, I will be worse off in the long-run by almost any metric you care to mention. I'm starting to suspect that almost everyone who rejects the existence of God does so just so they can justify their 'muh dik'ing to themselves. But they'll be miserable, and they deserve all the AIDs, gonorrhea, syphilis, etc. that they get.

"Why better myself with moral goals when I can just be a nihilist and do whatever I want without consequence. :DDDD"

You know you can make your own morals and can decide what's wrong and what's right by yourself,having your own morals is useful if you can mantained them,morals are literally a compass you can use in times of doubt so even if you disagree with religious morals you should have your own so you can act for something higher than instinct and therefore become a nigger.

once people depart from biblical morality, they become degenerates.
this includes all other religions and ideologies.
prove me wrong. you cant

Romans and Greeks vs kikes...kikes follow the old testament and are kikes (rats)Greeks and romans had a morality worthy of God's, not fedoraing just proving your wrong

inb4 u become a pedofile homosexual because u think it's just fine

You're free to hold that worthless opinion until your rotting corpse is five feet under.

"""the christians take even better care of our homeless than we do"""" - some roman emperor

kek

You've obviously never read Nietzche.

I have and I hold the same position. If you hold to rule by the sword, then anything goes. And if anything goes, everything is worthless and meaningless, because there is *no grounds by which to differentiate the values of anything among or between the whimsical opinions of worthless fleshbags*.

like you made one lol

But that's not the endgame of his philosophy.
The whole point is to find meaning in life anyway you can so you avoid the pit of nihilistic despair and achieve Ubermensch status.

So do chinese compared to western societies,they put them to work,or they starve.
Not in my morals,being Christian says nothing against pedophililia since at that time it was a free meat market, only against homosexuality and personally I have nothing against homosexuals but I do against pedophiles.
I dont become things,I have my morals and if I ever feel lost I think what should I do and try to stick to my ideals. It's exactly the same as religion only it's my personal religion.

He doesn't reach an end game. He utterly fails to escape nihilism in his any of his works, most notably the genealogy in which he tried the hardest to.

I'm saying this refering to all the lazy able bodied hippies that contribute nothing to society and simply are on the street with a doggy begging for money when they could be fucking working some field or similar. (We have beggars from all over Europe coming because of nice weather and many tourists and most are punk,hippies fully capable of working)if given the encouragement of hunger

That's not a fact.
He found meaning in his work and therefore achieved ubermensch status.

He was not some cynical moron like you guys want to believe.
Read his books again.

So basically we should be more human by suppressing the one thing that makes us human. Ok retard...

There are these people who look alive, but they just go through the motions, they are dead inside. You are in danger of becoming this.

You holding an opinion that you believe something is meaningful means absolutely nothing if that something's not *ACTUALLY* meaningful.

Suppose for a moment that someone's opinion being held strongly enough is sufficient to say that something is meaningful, which is (laughably) the essence of what Nietzsche proposes. Well say you think charity work is meaninful. Well Bob thinks there's meaning in there being no charity. You have an absolute contradiction in reality - supposedly both "charity is meaningful and not-charity isn't" and "not-charity is meaningful and charity isn't" are instantiated. Congrats - your philosophy is one of an illogical twat.

I'm not arguing moral relativism with you.
Also, by your own logic your opinion on this matter is worthless to me.

Just because you fail to find meaning in another man's work does not make it meaningless.

I don't use your absurd pointless "moral" position - from where I am, you're objectively wrong. From your position, you simply don't like what I'm saying.

It's really astounding how pathetic that is.

>Also society restricts hmosexuals from getting married and having children which would actually solve the problem that you claim homosexuals have.