If there is no God according to you, why should I be forced to live by your Morality?

If your morality means my life is less of a life to live? Why should I be forced to live by your rules for no reward in the afterlife according to you? Social approval or society are not motivators for me.

Other urls found in this thread:

misesuk.org/2017/10/20/libertarianism-and-the-alt-right-hoppe-speech-2017/
youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

That was deep, thanks man. I needed that. Get a fucking job

If you're going to try to force me to live a certain way I need motivation otherwise I won't do it.

Because violence.

Wait you need fairy tales to live a good life? huh imagine that kind of faggottry.

If I'm forced to be submissive and not have any voice or dreams and then die without any afterlife how is this a good life?

Because it preserves a society I do not care about?

>babbies first philosophy
I remember thinking this when I was 11 and started questioning religion.

Then go live in the woods by yourself you fucking animal

If you don't care about societal structure why the fuck should it care about you

Malaysia is denegegegnernerate

because ill cut you

People force you to play by rules because you need society to survive. You say you don't care about it, but you do care about food, shelter and the cops. In order to get these things, you need to participate, and in order to participate you need to do things regardless of your own motivation. Just because you can not see the direct link between the food you eat and the work you do doesn't mean it's not there. If you want to do something that society doesn't want to do, then why would they listen to you?

Because you'll get your shit kicked in by people who follow the proper set of morality/starve to death if you don't work and obey within a set of moral principles you autist

KEK SHILL

cuck

Because none of what I do regardless of society's outrage prevents food from being there or water from being there. It will be there regardless of whether or not I listen to these arbitrary rules. It's not like burning down crops or anything that would actually prevent this from happening.

>doesn't mean it's not there

So, now you believe in god?

The food and water are made available by other people, and if you want them you have to agree to their rules. You seem to misunderstand that there is no way for you to acquire anything unless you either play ball or steal it.

What?

What the fuck did I just read? Was this intentionally incomprehensible or are you drunk?

>being this retarded

There is a difference between not noticing something that is actually there and believing something is there when you have no proof for it.

Checked

This is what is appealing about libertarianism, essentially the moral rules are "leave each other the fuck alone". There is no forcing other people to behave a certain way, there's just getting on with your life and if you need to defending yourself and your property.

None of this has anything to do with a magical sky god, it applies whether you believe in god or not.

It's very likely that in a free society, where something like social disapproval and exclusion are used as disincentives for bad behaviour, that you'd actually care quite significantly about social approval.

So for example if you're a burden on society, you steal and cause trouble by harming others, and such a society basically refuses to barter with you, and you break your arm or you have an abscess in a tooth and you're in acute/severe pain, I'm going to bet you're going to care about social approval pretty damn fast.

it's why modern society is so fucking degenerate. With large government everyones needs are taken care of for free, there's no ability for casting out bad actors because the government just gives them everything they need. Remove the "force" of the government and make everything voluntary and people come to peaceful agreements super fucking quickly.

you don't have to but then don't complain when you get your shit pushed in when you try immoral things like robbery or murder, you're not doing it for afterlife rewards, you're doing it so your current life is not hell

I guess that makes more sense. Because as of now nothing is really connected. As of now approval or disapproval is just someone else's arbitrary thoughts.

Hoppe: misesuk.org/2017/10/20/libertarianism-and-the-alt-right-hoppe-speech-2017/
>Many libertarians hold the view that all that is needed to maintain a libertarian social order is the strict enforcement of the non-aggression principle (NAP). Otherwise, as long as one abstains from aggression, according to their view, the principle of “live and let live” should hold. Yet surely, while this “live and let live” sounds appealing to adolescents in rebellion against parental authority and all social convention and control (and many youngsters have been initially attracted to libertarianism believing that this “live and let live” is the essence of libertarianism), and while the principle does indeed hold and apply for people living far apart and dealing with each other only indirectly and from afar, it does not hold and apply, or rather it is insufficient, when it comes to people living in close proximity to each other, as neighbors and cohabitants of the same community.

But just because you disagree with something doesn't mean you should make it illegal.

It does if that "something" is murder. If you are hung up on your fascination over moral relativism and arbitrary thoughts, then you can not explain how society exists in the first place. Here's the converse of what you said: just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it should be legal.

So why did you come here to seek social approval then?

This is retarded.

What makes you think that the "social disapproval and exclusion" would be as rational as for simply "bad behavior" ?

They are more likely to be used because of bullshit like skin color, what you wear, how cut your hair, or what kinds of words you use in conversation, because that's literally how petty human beings are, and given you said it on this board, I think you know that too.

That's the dumbest thing I've ever fucking read

It's like saying
>This toothpaste was just someones chemical idea
>This clothing is just arbitarary
>The ground I walk on is just someones idea of a path

I'm pretty sure you're just fucking baiting but poe's laws force me to respond

Humans are made up of their heredity and their environmental factors.
Their "approval and disapproval" aren't arbitrary thoughts, they're concepts put into place for the best continuation of survival. How to live the easiest life. Tested and passed along to each generation for the perfect chemical concoction of human.
See you would understand this idea better and the need for it if you didn't live off of your parents dime.

you shouldn't, but you will.

It's pretty sad that you require bribes to be moral.
this

Is it arbitrary though? Most of us want the same basic things, we want to avoid pain, we don't want to be attacked by other people. We want to own what we create/produce so that we can carve out our own slice of life somewhere that's better than abject missery.

This is the foundation for the NAP (no aggression principal) which is essentially what libertarianism is largely founded on, don't initiate aggression towards others, otherwise you can live however the hell you like. All trade and association is purely voluntary, if I don't like what you're up to then I can simply refuse to deal with you, and vice versa.

Rules for "morality" are essentially negotiated between people, there's theory for doing this in the free market as essentially a business which is somethign that David D Friedman made a case for in his book The Machinery of Freedom, which you might be interested in. Free on his site.

Because society legislates a certain moral code, and you can try to flail against it, but it will fuck you in the end either socially or legally.

No one forces you to do anything. There is no God, but there is free will. Use yours and kill yourself.

You need a reward to not murder people?
What's it like being a nigger?

Because you should have a desire to not be a faggot and help your fellow man.
>Im only good because I got threatened with eternal punishment
Were you ever really good then?

>I live in a cushy society, established by countless people and my ancestors who sacrificed everything to provide me with this decadent opportunity.
>My freedom and individuality matters more than the social order that has provided me with a quality of life that I will never appreciate because I'm enlightened by my own intelligence.
>I am unable to realize that there are alternative ideologies that have constructive values I can adopt as well, but let me just attack the guidelines/ideas other people used to protect civilization up until this point.

While all of that is true, I think the experience is more like
>Nothing is real man, everything is subjective and relative.
>What ancestors? What society? What tradition? What ideology? Just thoughts and symbols man.

"Why should I be redpilled if it's better to be good goy?"

Kill yourself user

Then NAP isn't something you enforce through aggression, that's the whole point. It permits you to defend yourself against anyone who initiates aggression against you, but generally speaking it would not be enforced in the classical sense, it's enforced through ostrecization of bad actors from society by refusing to deal with those people.

In such a situation you can defer your protection to someone else, so it's likely people would start businesses selling protection a lot like a private police force (rights enforcement agency)

This audio version of MoF deals with all the common arguments for and against such a system.
youtube.com/watch?v=jTYkdEU_B4o

It would be used for whatever criteria you like, so if you want to exclude customers for reasons like skin colour you absolutely can. But then you're just giving that business up to people who are willing to deal with such people.

What you find is that peoples biases like that directly cost them to hold through lost financial dealings, which is great because there's inherently built in disincentive to hold those beliefs that only directly affect the people that hold them.

>Then NAP isn't something you enforce through aggression, that's the whole point.
Indeed, and that is precisely why Hoppe calls you people lala-libertarians. It is almost impossible to separate conflicting claims into aggression and defense, and there are many behaviors that need to be aggressively removed. You can not ostracize those living among you indefinitely because space is always a contested resource. Who is this "society" when we're talking about neighbors? The NaP as self-defense is a naive theory that is in practice often indistinguishable from "no gods, no masters".

I'm not talking about murder. I'm talking about basic rights people here want to take away.

If he does not care, then why is he here asking us why he should care? I think he's just demoralized, his thoughts and emotions are disconnected-he needs to be reminded that not everything up until now went according to the plans of one particular religion or book. Many societies had similar overlapping frameworks/guidelines for self preservation. One cannot will or understand why they should do something if they don't recognize who they themselves are, and what it was their ancestors did.

The universe itself has no inherent purpose, it is a sandbox, but that chaos provides the space/freedom for humans to reorder and create their own purpose for living.

Thoughts and symbols are concrete, humans are not, and attempting to disconnect emotion and will from humans takes away their freedom. He doesn't grasp the importance of relationships, because one thing cannot exist without another-he is not completely disconnected from society. The color white needs black to contrast to if it is to have purpose. Purpose comes within and without.

This

Yes I know you're young and you're rebelling against authority, but the first step out of moral relativism is to find rules you agree with. Focusing on how everything is arbitrary and relative does not lead anywhere, especially when you only apply it when it serves you. Again, who are you to make demands of people who give you your food?

History has a way of being lost, folktales and myths are fantastical and exaggerated, thus easier to remember. I bet OP thinks all religious people literally believe there is a man floating in the clouds, or a horned man skulking around at earths molten core. Instead of mocking the ideas realize that you do not understand the context in which those writing were created; by shamans and wise men that wanted even children to understand the urgency of guidelines when the world was in disorder and wild men and savages were out looking for someone to rape or kill and loot. Most people won't realize the context ever because they are insulated from the harsh realities of the past. If you don't want to have morals then at least adopt some self discipline to stop you from potentially ruining your own/others experiences.

>Social approval or society are not motivators for me.
Then have fun dying alone on the wilderness.
If you want to be part of society then you have to accept its morals.
If you don't want to accept these morals you can fuck off to somewhere else, but don't expect societies help, or that anyone will deal with you.

Laws have very little to do with morality or religious beliefs. Laws are a social contract in which you agree to behave a certain way in exchange for the benefits society gives you.

Police, fire fighters, school, roads, electricity, water. Those are all things available to you because you live within the social contract. You are welcome to disregard the law and reject those benefits, but you can’t just wander around kicking people in the balls then get mad when society isn’t there to defend you.

Whether something is aggression or defense is simple, and is down to who is the initiator of aggression, which is super easy to determine in all but the most deliberately twisted examples that people opposed to libertarianism tend to manufacture.

A good rule of thumb is actually taking these manufactured scenarios and seeing how well other moral systems deal with them, and the answer is almost always "not well" which is just another way of expressing the fact that none of these systems are perfect, but that the NAP is almost certainly the most moral, because it requires the least amount of aggression.

Again most of these claims were dealt with by Friedman in Machinery of Freedom and the subsequent follow up talks he did to address rebuttals.

>I think he's just demoralized
I think he's just young and fascinated by relativism.
>chaos provides the space/freedom for humans to reorder and create their own purpose for living.
Well that's certainly what some continentals of the last 200 years would like you to believe, but it's also certainly not established fact.
>Thoughts and symbols are concrete, humans are not
I think this is too postmodern even for the postmodernists.

This is really antiquated libertarianism and it sounds like you only know the Chicago school.

>Social approval or society are not motivators for me.
no it doesn't because the only thing i live and scheme for is making enough money to get away from all of you and your dumbass opinions

if you have no interest in society then we will be glad to escort you out of it

Morality is greater than God.

Only a nihilist would argue otherwise

where did the universe come from?

subjective post for a subjective ideal

Do what you will Jew, just don't expect help from anyone else if you want to be as disconnected as you intend to be. Cries for wealth are cries of attention from the richer more materialist and decadent kind.

>no it doesn't because the only thing i live and scheme for is making enough money to get away from all of you and your dumbass opinions
Have fun doing that outside of society.
And have fun spending your money outside of society.

Spoiler if you reject society, society will reject you, don't expect that you get to spend your money anywhere or that people will accept your existence.

you're trying to define something that hasn't been observed to exist and that's the problem

i can pay for help and whores will come sucking like you always do

i don't give a fuck about acceptance from society as long as i can drive my bugatti around their suburban ghetto and rub it in their faces after i get bored i usually go back into the woods and shitpost online or watch macross SFMs

If there is no God, there can be no objective morality. inb4 20 brainlets respond with
>muh empathy
>muh society

Not objective.

>i don't give a fuck about acceptance from society
Fine.

>as long as i can drive my bugatti around their suburban ghetto
You will not be accepted, as soon as you arrive the police will get called and you will be shot at.
If you reject society, society will reject you.

People who reject society is what you usually call "criminal" and you will be treated like one, with all the benefits.

Then you get to go alone when you die. There will be no one else to brag to once you are dead. You will throw away your entire experience for good feels and never be/never were human. Even niggers, kikes, and kebabs have more sense than you.

Live without regard for morality and see where it gets you.

No, I just think this is the most relevant to the OPs point. He's asking for reasons to abide by societies moral systems and I'm offering a system which is completely voluntary and addresses that very problem.

To answer his question, you can agree to voluntary rules or not at your own discretion, but you probably would agree to it because the benefits far outweigh the costs. And that such a system under government is not possible because with the welfare state the mechanisms by which the basic human needs are provided for is baked into the state and so losing your access to such basic things isn't really possible.

Such as system generates the minimum set of rules for the system to remain stable but not more. So rules against things like say drug production and personal drug use would not likely exist.

>poorfags call police for someone cruising around the neighborhood in a 2million dollar car
>get shot
LOL no i'll get pulled over and move along once the cops gets an eye full of the veyron

stop trying to force what you value on me. we're no different except for the fact that im not forcing my views on you.

>LOL no i'll get pulled over and move along once the cops gets an eye full of the veyron
Fuck off criminal scum.
Rejecting society means becoming a criminal, the police will deal with you.

i live with regard to saving my own ass the only reason people aren't KILLING EACH OTHER IN THE STREETS IS BECAUSE THEY'LL GO TO JAIL

>nein nein nein
shouldn't you be mining nickel for your swiss overlords hanz?

That's fair enough, I have no problem with viewing the NaP as a thought experiment. In itself it does not seem to be a reason to participate in society though, since he first has to agree with you that the rules imposed on him are not aggressive. This is the entire problem that everyone has with the NaP, and in your previous post you merely stated that it would be trivial to figure out. My point was simply that it does not cover enough ground in human conflict to be the essence of law. There's plenty of libertarians that disagree with Friedman.

>being this dense
you people are a lost cause

this is a question the atheist cant answer, so they use the government to force people to act how they want them to

>shouldn't you be mining nickel for your swiss overlords hanz?
Nice argument mutt.
What are you even on about?

why are you shitposting on Sup Forums when you should be mining more watch goo you fucking robot

Unironically this. Pathetic op, not shaming your family should be impetus enough.

Also, God is real.

10/10 argument.
I still don't get what you are talking about...

beep boop does not compute

Proof man?

because the world doesnt revolve around you

>there is no God
This is the default position. The hypothetical would be "if there is a god".

>why should I be forced to live by your Morality
(1) You have to live by some morality
(2) You want to be part of our society
Therefore,
(3) You cheerfully accept our morals.

> for no reward in the afterlife
If the only thing keeping you from raping, murdering and stealing is the idea that you won't get an afterlife, then you're the precise kind of anti-social turd no one wants in their society.

>Social approval or society are not motivators for me.
Great. If you're principled and not some lying larper, you'll immediately do what you claim is the right thing and leave our society forever. Don't be a moral hypocrite and mooch off our society while complaining about its morals. Your kind is not welcome here and we will put your amoral ass in prison because you have no morals and no one will miss you.

morality exists for the function of society more than it does for the approval of imaginary skyfairies. the fact that it makes society a better place to be should be more of an incentive than "what comes after death" anyway. go tip your fedora to a fucking noose if you don't care about civic duty while leeching off society you worthless fucking faggot.
so don't, you can leave, or you can get thrown in a fucking prison cell to get your ass pounded by niggers.

so you're not interested in social acceptance or hearing opinions
but you want to drive around in a veyron to impress people
and then go home and read people's opinions online all day

you're not fooling anyone and you're certainly not impressing anyone

exactly which is why people want out but if you try you'll get WACO'd

If that is the best argument you can bring forth then you should really reevaluate your position, since it is clearly wrong and indefensible.

>What you find is that peoples biases like that directly cost them to hold through lost financial dealings, which is great because there's inherently built in disincentive to hold those beliefs that only directly affect the people that hold them.

Which can be said of anything you deem to be "bad behavior".

A guy can literally become rich from only selling guns to people others refuse to sell to because they have become ostracized.

All PR is good PR, meaning, if people have bad reputations, it won't stop a lot of people from trading and doing business with them.

>impress people
no i want them to feel like poor shits

>read people's opinions all day
i could spend all day reading mein kraft from rudolph hitler but it doesnt mean i agree or care

you already know my argument im just shitting on you for continuing your hostile germo babble

I believe in christian values but I don't believe in god. Thank you have a nice day

It doesn't matter if you don't care about society. It has the power to jail or ultimately kill you if you get out of line. What are you gonna do, say, "lmoa idegaf" when you sit in the electric chair? Well guess what, neither do we. Also you should be motivated by your own personal desire to be a good person.

>you already know my argument
Yes and you should know why it is absolute garbage from what I just told you.

>(1) You have to live by some morality
No you don't. Plenty of people don't, look at Africa.

>If the only thing keeping you from raping, murdering and stealing is the idea that you won't get an afterlife, then you're the precise kind of anti-social turd no one wants in their society.

The default human position is to rape, murder and steal. To suggest that not doing so for no reason is somehow logical or normal is demonstrably false. The nature of man is wicked.

well that just like your opinion man

No it is not "my opinion" it is the opinion of society.

>no i want them to feel like poor shits
so you care about people thinking that you are better than them

>i could spend all day reading mein kraft from rudolph hitler but it doesnt mean i agree or care
why would you spend your time doing it if you didn't care?
and, more importantly, how would you have internet access in your house?

it's pretty obvious that you're in your early-to-mid teens, and my advice to you would be to go hit the gym and get some pussy instead of wasting your life on here
100% sincere advice

>africans
>people
HAHAHAHAHAHA

Stop talking to this NPC. He has no sense in him because he isn't even self aware.

>so you care about people thinking that you are better than them
i don't care to speculate on what they think because I know for a fact that the majority of people will feel sad that they can't and never will have it BUT there is a small minority that uses that explosive rage to create wonderful things

>why would you spend your time doing it if you didn't care?
because i can, pickle rick bitch

>more importantly, how would you have internet access in your house?
electricity, it's cutting edge. you cant afford it?

> morality exists for the function of society
> live how i say or get fucked by the state's/mob's monopoly on violence

You've replaced the concept of morality with the threat of coercive, corrective violence; that's not morality. You have principles - don't do this, do that - but no higher truth or meaning.

Morality cannot exist without belief in a higher power, that which is an authority beyond any mortal and that which we are all equal beneath. Morality is an understanding of (God's will/higher spiritual truths) and how transgressing it will have consequences.

Without this understanding, your principles are meaningless as long as I can resist your will with greater violence than you can exert to compel me to be obedient - I have no other incentive, and in fact, I have every incentive to turn on you before you turn on me.

Nearly all men fear death. With God, death has meaning, without God, death is meaningless. It's no wonder societies that have no God are either primitive ones where life is 'nasty, brutish amd short' or dystopian hellholes.

problem with that is that religion is highly outdated and clashes with the cultural shift brought along with technological advances

>Plenty of people don't, look at Africa.
Which part? Egypt? South Africa? All people have an innate morality. They know right from wrong on a simple level.

>The default human position is to rape, murder and steal.
That might literally be the Republican Party platform these days, but we are all born with a "live and let live" sense of morality.

>To suggest that not doing so for no reason
Who said no reason? You? The reason we don't kill is because we don't want to be killed. The reason we don't steal is because we don't want out stuff stolen.

>The nature of man is wicked.
The nature of man is a balance of egoistic and altruistic, otherwise we could never have lived in communities, hunted as a pack or advanced as a species.

Yes of course it's a thought experiment, but we can make, I believe, reasonable estimations about what would happen given how similar systems work in real life (rational self interest, economic law, etc)

It's not in of itself a reason to participate in society, the reason people are motivated to participate in society is that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts, as technology increases and knowledge increases, people have to specialize into specific talents/skills because it becomes impossible to do multiple things well by yourself.

So we can all either do everything ourselves very badly, like we can all be our own doctors and fix our own engines and fly our own planes and mine our own gold and predict our own weather. Or we can do one thing very well, and use the money we're paid for that service to buy higher quality standard of living from other people.

What constitutes aggression is basically whatever boils down to the initiation of force. Did some physical altercation take place? And if so who instigated it? If you instigate force/violence then you're in breach of the NAP, if someone instigtes it against you, then you have the right to defend yourself.