Prove me wrong:

Prove me wrong:

>Materialists cannot be moral people.

Other urls found in this thread:

npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129233715
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

>spooks exist

I don't think anyone will disagree with you.

This thread has no material

I can´t

In the philosophical sense, Materialist just means you don't believe in the supernatural.

>socialists believe "redistribution" of wealth is moral.

A materialist believes that the only thing that exists is matter an energy. Morality isn't material, so the materialist must conclude that our notions of right and wrong our a result of our material conditions, and not a transcendent, universal thing.

Marx never made a moral argument, because he didn't believe in morality. He said wealth redistribution was "inevitable"

Morality doesn't need to be a rigid unquestionable decree from on high for it to be good and useful. Morality isn't rigid in the first place which is evident with the the different moral standards different countries/cultures arrive at.

Never made the appeal to human nature either.
Stupid man.

Gods chosen people always hold the moral high ground, goy.

If you disagree it’s like another Shoah.

Woops wrong pic ;)

>Morality doesn't need to be a rigid unquestionable decree from on high for it to be good and useful.

We aren't talking about the utility of morality, but whether or not a materialist can be a moral person. Of course it's useful, but that doesn't tell us where it comes from and how a materialist can come to find it.

>Morality isn't rigid in the first place which is evident with the the different moral standards different countries/cultures arrive at.

redpill me on the cultures that thought lying cheating stealing and murder were morally good.

Because he thought human nature didn't exist

Not even close to true. There are multiple of ways in which morals can be found without god. First, and probably closest to what you're looking for is centered around the golden rule. You cannot expect people to treat you fairly and decently (i.e. Morally) if you yourself cannot treat people fairly and decently.

Second, one can look at what morals are. Basically it's another world for value. Clearly materialists can value things.

basically all you've argued hear is that some rigid conception of morality that you've decided morality to be does not jive with materialism.

You're moving the goal posts. Certainly materialists can act decently towards their fellow man.

>There are multiple of ways in which morals can be found without god

I didn't say anything about God.

>You cannot expect people to treat you fairly and decently (i.e. Morally) if you yourself cannot treat people fairly and decently.

Where does the concept of fairness come from? How do we know what is fair? Show me where fairness exists in the material world.

>econd, one can look at what morals are. Basically it's another world for value. Clearly materialists can value things.

>econd, one can look at what morals are. Basically it's another world for value. Clearly materialists can value things.

The only "moral system" that a materialist can have is utilitarianism, which is not really a moral system at all.

>you've decided morality to be does not jive with materialism.

It doesn't. Explain to me where a materialist gets the moral sense from.

>Certainly materialists can act decently towards their fellow man

Why does the materialist act decently towards their fellow man?

Define Materialism.
Define Morality.
Most of what you would call materialism is not because people don't even care about the material items they have or gain.
Most of what you call morality is subjective without some sort of spiritual belief system.

>Define Materialism.
the believe that the only things that exist are matter and energy.
>Define Morality.
the system of values that says what is right and wrong and good and bad

>I didn't say anything about God.
fair enough, I was using god as shorthand for non-materialism. Isn't that the crux of the argument anyway?

>Where does the concept of fairness come from? How do we know what is fair? Show me where fairness exists in the material world.
Once again, fair and decent were being used as short hand for morals. However, conceptions of fairness exist in the material world:
npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=129233715
Moreover, my point comes from our desires. We have a desire regarding how we want to be treated, who knows where it comes from, what's important here is that it exists. It would be illogical for me to act one way and nevertheless desire to be treated in another by other humans. Given that I am a human, I should expect other humans to treat me how I treat them.

Why is utilitarianism not a moral system? I actually think that utilitarianism is the correct description of our moral principles (although I think it's broader than human flourishing and more along the lines of life in general flourishing). However, because of the impossibility of making utilitarian calculations we have developed general rules which generally lead to the utilitarian outcome ie morals.

>Why does the materialist act decently towards their fellow man? I suppose there's a variety of reasons and it probably differs from materialist to materialist, but isn't the fact that moral acting materialists exist enough to disprove your original post?

I fucked up my green texting, it should have been this:

>Why does the materialist act decently towards their fellow man?

I suppose there's a variety of reasons and it probably differs from materialist to materialist, but isn't the fact that moral acting materialists exist enough to disprove your original post?

>redpill me on the cultures that thought lying cheating stealing and murder were morally good.
thug culture of course and dont front like you one of us whitey. u nigas just talk bout philosophy while my brothers are just trying to eat!

No. You had the right pic the first time.

Look! A bunch of pseudo-intellectuals took philosophy classes at their local community colleges!

>Philosophic discussion breaks down to a disagreement over definitions
Wittgenstein 1
Anons 0

The ol' bait and switch
>user YOU MOVED THE GOAL POSTS
*slides goalpost themselves*

...

OP might be a better place to try to discuss moral philosophy.

Everyone will be unsatisfied until they die, more.

What is valuable is the crux of the discussion here. If what you are saying is that there is no objective value in a purely material world, you're probably right, although I might first wonder what is meant by "objective"

I think everyone whose not trying to be a contradictory asshole would agree with the statement "Life is more valuable than not life" I think this comes pretty close to an objective statement of value.

How autistic is Dr. Manhattan that he can respond to a simple greeting this way.

A group of materialsts can conceive of achieving a consensus on an ethical code. If this consensus is met the code may be deemed moral.

Dr. Manhattan can't understand that he arrangement of matter and energy is very different between dead and alive
>Electrical activity and electrolyte concentrations
>Oxygen concentrations
>Involuntary muscle activity
he list goes on

This desire for consensus is why materialists often opt to purge dissenters :^)
Which to regular moral people seems very immoral.

>Isn't that the crux of the argument anyway?
Not necessarily. See Kant and Schopenhauer.
>Once again, fair and decent were being used as short hand for morals. However, conceptions of fairness exist in the material world:
a conception is in and of itself an abstraction, and isn't material. Show me 1 fair, show me 1 good, show me 1 justice that I can see touch taste hear or feel.
>Moreover, my point comes from our desires. We have a desire regarding how we want to be treated, who knows where it comes from
It doesn't come from the material world my guy, it comes form something higher.
> It would be illogical for me to act one way and nevertheless desire to be treated in another by other humans.
Prove that logic exists in the material world, and why I should care about it.
>Why is utilitarianism not a moral system?
It doesn't care about right or wrong or good or bad, it only cares about utility.
>However, because of the impossibility of making utilitarian calculations
You're proving me right. A non universal morality isn't morality it's just speculation and naked self interest. Who's outcome is more important the vagrant thief who needs money to survive or the innocent man he just stabbed for his wallet?
> I suppose there's a variety of reasons and it probably differs from materialist to materialist, but isn't
Im going to ask again, Why?
> the fact that moral acting materialists exist enough to disprove your original post?
They don't exist. Find me a moral acting Marxist or Anarchist who isn't a complete degenerate. Likewise, find me moral acting liberal materialist who isn't just a crypto-idealist LARPing as materialist to be edgy.

I would say the discussion is evolving through clarification of definitions.
same shit here. When someone says
>materialist cannot be moral people

they generally mean materialists cannot have a system of morals that lines up with the commonly accepted system of morals which christcucks generally says comes from god.

niggers are subhuman, but im pretty sure they know what their doing is wrong.
>Life is more valuable than not life
were just cells and chemicals user, who cares about life?
>If this consensus is met the code may be deemed moral.
> 2 wolves and a sheep

bump

Moral for the wolves (sux to be the sheep) is the best you can get with a materialistic morality. The active denial of the transcendental is a form of mental deficiency, if not an illness.

OP was far broader
The thesis
>Materialsts cannot be moral people
is inviting an antithesis along the lines of
>This is how a materialist can justify his code of ethics and why it could be considered universal and moral

You seem to be implying that the whole endeavor is futile which begs the question as to why you're participating. I suspect Sup Forums has conditioned you to value rhetorical discussion over thoughtful discussion.

This thread is fucking stupid.
If you hold anything above God's Law you are objectively immoral. Nuff said.