Morality is a social construct yes...

>Morality is a social construct yes, but it is a pragmatic Darwinian social construct therefore it is more useful than not.
How to refute this individual's philosophy?

Okk

Sort yourself out and clean your room.

He's right. Memes (in the original sense of the word) are unites of societal knowledge that gave that society a beneficial boost. Over time, bad memes (such as degeneracy, atheism, relativism, egalitarianism, etc) cause the societies that adopt them to go extinct. Those that remain are the ones who adopted eugenic memes. Over time, this is how our overall sense of morality formed.

You don't, instead you clean your room, save your father, slay the dragon and sort yourself out.

stop sucking dicks please, you have taken this too far.

Atheism isn't inherently bad because it is an expression of critical thinking and questioning contradictory dogma. The problem is when the need for belief is replaced with the belief in the State and not Philosophy.

sort yourself out and slay the dragon in your room dragons have gold

You COULD admit that someone is wiser than you, and maybe has said something you need to think about for a while to understand.
Agreed. Why does everything popular need to be memed to death?

>Social Construct
yes
>Darwinian
wtf, gtfo
>Pragmatic
in the sense that a MORAL ORDER instills a set of rules and ORDERS society, then yes it is pragmatic, if that is your definition of ''pragmatic''

Morality comes from deep within me.

Its why you feel guilty immediately after fapping.

The issue is that there's no such thing as "true atheism" for 95% of the population. Most people can't cast away religion and become these perfectly rational/logical beings that can understand all the esoteric intricacies about why morals are the way they are and why they are needed.

What ends up happening with atheists is that they still have a need to "believe" in something. And so this belief gets co-opted into pseudo-religions of hedonism and cultural-marxism. This is why religion (or another semi-religious philosophy, such as buddhism or confuscianism) always tends to pop up in society whatever the time period or setting. Because people NEED something to believe in.

"What the fuck is wrong with me?"

two nothing wrong with me

There's a lot wrong with me.

You can't.

God is mankind's attempt to understand itself. It's what we all imagine to be the perfect embodiment of our desires and dreams.

Well what the fuck moral system is he supporting with this statement? Beheadings are moral in some places

>two nothing wrong with me

but... I agree

Not everyone wants to pay for their murderers to live a long life.

Every day has been better since I've started sorting myself out. This man makes me believe in something, I don't know what exactly but for now I'll hail Kek unironically.
.

>sort yourself out and clean your room
What did they mean by this?

>slay the dragon goy, speak the truth
>teaches how post modernism (neo marxism) was the product of french professors from the 70s
this pussy is infuriating. sure I like his christian analogies, but his judeophilia and complete willful (or malign?) ignorance of the jew makes me want to clock him in the mouth.

Unironically do large amounts of meth.

>How to refute this individual's philosophy?

My life finally has purpose.

>Someone's not a raging anti-semite
>Have the urge to violently assault them

This is nigger behavior

Yes. It's all just fabricated on made up things. Even the language we use is just arbitrary constructions and references that have been forgotten and replaced.

"What is a word? It is the copy in sound of a nerve stimulus. But the further inference from the nerve stimulus to a cause outside of us is already the result of a false and unjustifiable application of the principle of sufficient reason. If truth alone had been the deciding factor in the genesis of language, and if the standpoint of certainty had been decisive for designations, then how could we still dare to say "the stone is hard," as if "hard" were something otherwise familiar to us, and not merely a totally subjective stimulation! We separate things according to gender, designating the tree as masculine and the plant as feminine. What arbitrary assignments! How far this oversteps the canons of certainty! We speak of a "snake": this designation touches only upon its ability to twist itself and could therefore also fit a worm. What arbitrary differentiations! What one-sided preferences, first for this, then for that property of a thing!

>not mad at a hypocrite who teaches that truth is the ultimate virtue while completely disregards said honesty because he is a colossal pussbag.
low test pussy detected. you'll get clocked too.

CHECKED

They meant "do whatever feels right" for me that means fixing my computer by swiping a magnet on the part with the mother board 3 x's.

There is no way to enforce morality across the board.
I'm in favor of morality, but this argument that morality is Darwinian and therefor should be enforced or encouraged or something is lazy and makes no sense to me.
Sure it would be beneficial to the society as a whole but how could you get the society to agree on whay the morals should be? And what's to be done if the moral codes aren't followed? Would whatever is done in the case that the codes aren't followed be effective in preventing future perversions of the morals? Who should make these decisions, when the strongest are often careless to the benefits to society (most strong people become strong through selfishness) and the society as a whole proves time and time again to be too easily manipulated and emotional in their decision making?
It's alleged usefulness doesn't answer any questions about it's practicality either.
Also the vast majority of modern "morality" is destructive and terrible and should be tossed which is why I sort of woul advocate, at least for the masses, a disregard for most morality, just so we can restart.

I'm probably misunderstanding this. I don't get the context of the statement so I'm just going off the context many people have used that idea in. I don't listen to that guy.

Also no one has ever explained to me why Darwinian=good.
Our tailbones are a result of past Darwinism.

...

>I get all of my philosophy from Molymeme
Time to grow up, kiddo. Religion is a social technology. A rigid, homogenous set of morals is what maintains social cohesion & trust.

I imagine if a behavior helps you feel mininum pain today, tomorrow, and every day and helps with reproduction you've already got a good basis going for a decent moral structure.