Am I the only person that thinks discussing morality is retarded...

Am I the only person that thinks discussing morality is retarded? Not being edgy its just after spending years caring less and less about it, it just seems to me that its not real, it does not physically exist, there is no universal morality, there can't be because its entirely a result of human imagination. There are certain things people have a natural instinct to dislike, like killing, and certain characteristics societies need to be successful, but to compare that to some made up bullshit like morality seems comparable to the Christians that the very same people will mock and deride.

bump?

But I love killing

>thinks discussing morality is retarded
>discusses morality

Does the discussion of whether morality exists or not actually count as morality? We're not really discussing ethics.

What you're describing is called Relativism. Relativism is very dangerous because it quickly devolves into "there are no facts" and "there is no truth". Everything becomes mutable and fluid,it is counter intuitive to natural law.

Arguing over what is objectively right or not turns into a relativist shit flinging contest. All the while pending to not be relativistic.
I prefer just accepting subjective morals. When in a Rome follow the Roman subjective morals.

Morality is a meme Moral fags will argue otherwise but lack any argument other than muh feelz

>One chance at life
>Ruled by Moral fags kms

Thats not what I'm saying. I'm not saying morality is relative, I'm saying the obvious, that its non existent, and non physical so it simply can't be objective. That doesn't mean I don't think certain things hurt society, such as sexual degeneracy, and shouldn't be dealt with just because "morality is relative". I just don't think things should be looked at in realm of good or bad, but if this action is beneficial for me or not (which would also include society in general since a better society is better for you typically unless you're a nigger).

I think morals have their place in interpersonal relationships and thus in society but no place in politics. For example people should be free to not tolerate adultery because it goes against societal norms but shouldn't be punished by law if they commited it. Morality is way too subjective to be organized by the government. There is a reason some things are acceptable in some cultures while being looked down upon in other cultures, like polygamy for instance.

This basically. I follow things that may be subjective and I accept that, but that doesn't mean I go the faggy way of "african culture and european culture are equal because everhything is relative".

But what is society, and what makes degenerate acts harmful to it? What is degenerate? Why is it degenerate? Wherein is the degeneracy?

If you can answer any of these questions, you're adopting, even if only temporarily, moral universalism.

(ps, the bulk of christian ethics can be deduced from pure logic, including the logical necessity of moral universalism)

I don't believe what I believe is morally universal I just think it leads to the best physical, objective actions for my society which basically just follows what I think will best enable the 14 words "We must secure the existence of our people and a future for white children", but does that still make it moral universalism if I'm conscious of it? Like I consciously understand everything is subjective from the very language and definitions I use, to what I believe the ideal society is, but I still follow it just because I believe it will best follow the clear instructions of the 14 words.

morality is arbitrary and totally dependent on society

just because morality is up for discussion doesnt mean philosophy is not worth debating

if youre not interested in discussing morality then dont, go play cawaduty or shit post for a while. let the adults talk

You're following a maxim, and you find that this maxim, if followed, leads to positive conclusions.

But again, *why* act what is best for your society? For what reason? And what, again, is objectivity? What about equally valid folk-epistemologies that are erased by white hegemony?

I'm mostly just evoking cancerous academia bullshit for the sake of discussion, mind you, but you aren't making a strong argument for your point -- that is, it's good in the sense of Good -- if all you can say is "I like that more."

>adult talk
>people doing the same thing, over and over again, never succeeding at it yet keep doing it
pretty sure you meant retarded manbabies and not adults, common mistake

Morality keeps civilization alive without the need to extreme policing.

An amoral civilization won't have enough safe, hardworking, predictable, disciplined productive people.

Personal morals in a population are more important than social morals and ethics.

You need such a thing for a predictable food and water supply.

After years I've come to a conclusion that everyone believes in something and is postulating a particular internal philosophical system (albeit full of inconsistencies) almost any time they speak.

So your belief in morality being subjective is a very clear statement of your beliefs. Which you're entitled to have. Have you read Plato, OP? Extensively, not just The Republic?

Morality is like obedience training for civilized people.

A dog is not useful to a man unless it has basic obedience training and is housebroken.

A dog needs to learn to shit outside, not bite, not destroy, to stop when he's told to, to come when called.

A human without personal morals is a feral animal, can't be trusted.

...

Discussion of morality is relevant to politics and both /his/ and /lit/ only like philosophy memes not actual philosophy. OP is obviously very young or stupid and should read more before trying to grapple with his thoughts

The only reason to discuss morality is to show faggots how stupid and hypocritical progressives and libshits are.

But it sounds as though you're suggesting that it is overall irrelevant, except in these cases? If morality is irrelevant why would it be immoral to be hypocritical?

Morality to me is a product of many influences, I used to argue that all Morality is a product of Fear in order to create Reinsurance and Predictability. I also used to argue it's relative to one's reaction to an event, If I were to steal and did not feel guilty about it then to me stealing would not be bad and so on. The problem with Morality is it isn't universally agreed upon. Because it's so relative we sometimes try very hard to integrate it into our own local moral codes (usually represented by laws) which can lead to conflict and hatred. Overall I don't know, I don't think talking about morality is stupid, I'd hope we do it because it's an expressive result of our concern and appreciation of the situations in this life.

It's not immoral, it's proof of logical fault making them inferior to the system of humanity and worthless.

I think there is an objective ideal behind morality and we tend to see this exercised in groups, i.e. groups will seek to protect themselves and by extension, those within the group must cooperate to assure the group remains.

Even with this objective basis, there are still subjective aspects of morality.

All in all, it's both objective and subjective and that's just how it works. The only things to argue about are if some act is "moral" or not and why that is the case.

Because liberals support liberals writing legislation based on muh feelings, and their morality happens to be so broken that its almost incredible watching libahita get btfo

...

>but you aren't making a strong argument for your point -- that is, it's good in the sense of Good

I actually agree what I said was pretty weak. I had trouble thinking of a proper reason to give for for why I believe what I believe without dipping into universal morality. I guess I believe following my maxim is correct because the European race and culture is as close to immortality as I'll ever get, and as a result of life experience people naturally follow tribalistic ethnic functions so why bother fighting human nature (I'm just giving my most base reasons for supporting it as if I went any higher I'd probably have to write paragraphs of the objective definitions of what I believe and why and the evidence of why)?

1/2

2/2

Both of these are simply natural human instincts, and could probably be dissected as being subjective, with strong arguments made against them about how your race isn't you or how just because its human nature doesn't necessarrily make it good, or even bringing it back to home, that neither immortality or human nature are real, that they are simply abstract concepts with no physical weight to them. What I'm saying though is that this can be applied to literally everything, everything can be dissected as being untrue to even truth and reality and objectiveness itself. However this is pointless. The truth is that what is real is simply what is physically real. To have arguments about what is good and evil is retarded because neither is real. It should be about what will help the village or the individual or not. Sure you could break that down and ask questions of what all the exact definitions of these are, but we are taught that by our culture, which is subjective, but thats I guess accepted.

Sorry if this was ranty, I don't know if you get what I'm trying but failing miserably to explain, but I don't think good and evil can exist (unless at least without God to back them up), so all of morality doesn't really exist, and asking questions and definitions about literally anything is kind of absurd as you're taught that by your culture, even if it itself is subjective.

>it just seems to me that its not real, it does not physically exist

Brainlet

>the weebs getting stoned again
SAD! MANY SUCH CASES!

but it doesn't....

Just because something is immaterial doesn't mean it fails to exist. Something doesn't need to be material to be existent. For instance, this pepe doesn't exist in the physical world like a tree or a rock can. It cannot exist in the physical world, in fact, for being an animation.

However, it does exist in a few other forms. It exists on my computer's storage media, it exists on Sup Forums's storage media, it's on your computer's RAM, archive sites, and the NSA's datacenters. Moreover, it exists, in the academic, dictionary sense, as a memetic construct. The meme thoughtform of it exists in your mind. That's enough to say that it exists, despite having no physical form whatsoever. This is, in fact, the same way that all math exists.

All we can do in our physical world, in terms of mathematics, is make notational representations and mechanical/electrical implementations of mathematical operations, relations, and so forth. The characters 0 and 1, the words zero and one, and in any other language or representation, are not the actual idea/concept of a zero quantity or a unit quantity. It exists only as a rational conclusion.

By the same token, good and evil exist. It doesn't matter at all that there's no physical manifestation. Good and evil exist because humans have minds. I strongly recommend that you look into Kant's philosophical works.

>Just because something is immaterial doesn't mean it fails to exist. Something doesn't need to be material to be existent. For instance, this pepe doesn't exist in the physical world like a tree or a rock can. It cannot exist in the physical world, in fact, for being an animation.

However, it does exist in a few other forms. It exists on my computer's storage media, it exists on Sup Forums's storage media, it's on your computer's RAM, archive sites, and the NSA's datacenters. Moreover, it exists, in the academic, dictionary sense, as a memetic construct. The meme thoughtform of it exists in your mind. That's enough to say that it exists, despite having no physical form whatsoever. This is, in fact, the same way that all math exists.

You're perfectly encapsulating my point. Good and evil are about as real as Pepe who clearly doesn't actually exist. There is no real life anthropomorphic frog that says "feels good man" and dresses up like Donald Trump. The notion that he is real is just silly. All pepe really is, is a bunch of 1s and 0s. He himself doesn't have any impact, its the people that create the 1s and 0s and view them that do. Morals themselves are imaginary, but the consequences of having or not having them are not. Imaginary things have real effects because they guide our real behavior. That doesn't make it real though.

The ideas of good and evil are so subjective even just person to person. Unless God does exist, they are less real then even pepe who at the very least has 1s and 0s backing him up.

bump?

Again, you're conflating physical existence with existing to begin with. Here's where you're wrong. That something exists strictly as a mental construct doesn't make it irrelevant to the physical world outside your mind. The existence of predictive mathematical models of physical phenomena -- that is, using math to predict things before they're even observed -- immediately shows that there's not such a strict delineation, or rather, that strictly mental "objects" can be used in a useful way to achieve physical ends.

Now, if you, or any other rational person can think of something, having full information about the problem and knowledge of the caveats involved, and arrive at the same conclusion, then that's what is correct, right? For instance, any rational person, given knowledge of arithmetic, can conclude that the statement 2+2 is equivalent to the value 4, and thus can make the consequent statement 2+2=4. I believe you will agree with me, in fact, that this is an objective truth. If you approach morality from a 'blind' standpoint and attempt to construct what is the most good, most people will likewise converge on similar answers. Where there isn't convergence, it's typically because they've made an illogical, fallacious, etc. turn somewhere, or a misconception.

To be honest, most people's ideas of good and evil don't even count because they never even attempted a thorough examination of the subject in good faith.

My point is that you *can* construct an objective morality, and the existence of an objective morality is a fundamental refutation of relativism. Again, I urge you to look into Kant's works. His own writings are pretty dense if not even opaque, but there's a lot of good reviews on the subject.

God makes it real

>There are certain things people have a natural instinct to dislike, like killing

oh boy, he doesn't know

Ofc it doesn't it's an idea not an object lol, that's the weakest argument for nonexistent morality. You're supposed to argue it's subjectivity not the fact that you can't hold it in your fucking hand and use it as a dumbbell or some shit rofl.