Why are there no good video games with him? Is it because he is one of the most conservative heroes ever?
>makes it clear there is evil and good, and no in-between like sophists and relativists do
>doesn't kill innocent people like other anti-heroes do
>penance stare is the most overpowered move ever conceived, it can instantly send to hell those who are evil
Still waiting on a DMC x Ghost Rider Crossover
There is so little media featuring him and as much as I hate going Sup Forums in Sup Forums, it is probably because he is the complete antithesis of the agenda hollywood has been pushing.
Good and evil can only be defined in that setting objectively because it's a comic book
Most people universally agree some things are bad but that just means we deal with them via justice, not that it violates some holy universal law
Refusing to acknowledge that is like being afraid of the dark
Makes sense, you have to be cautious in it, but someday you'll have to deal with it
You do realize that acknowledging good and evil as objective things is not something people came up with yesterday, right? The most sophisticated philosophers, from the Greeks (Socrates, Aristotle, Plato...) to even modern ones such as Kant will acknowledge it as an objective thing.
You may dispute it. Sophists were the first ones to claim that good and evil are relative, and Socrates is famous for reducing them to dust, you can read that in Dialogues by Plato. But claiming that acknowledging good and evil is an infantile view is just sheer ignorance.
Appeals to authority are useless.
You can demonstrate that Kant's ethics are shit via the flaws in the categorical imperative. Lying to save a murderers prey, etc.
All you need to do with a universalist/objective moral system is extend it far enough/look at enough possible events and it shatters
Morals are only useful in figuring out the consequences and most desirable actions for every particular event you apply them to
And there are relativists who very much disagree with classic Sophist thought
I don't know why you are arguing about considering the ''good'' and ''evil'' in this case is being decided by the owner of the power so as long as that person thinks in such a way,it'll work.
>most conservative hero
>conservative
??? Do you even know what that means?
>makes it clear there is evil and good, and no in-between like sophists and relativists do
Woah this guy is a brainlet
>You can demonstrate that Kant's ethics are shit via the flaws in the categorical imperative. Lying to save a murderers prey, etc.
This will be good. I am an avid reader of Kant. Please go ahead and demonstrate how "lying to save a murderer's prey" is a refutation to Kant, I can easily prove how it actually proves Kant is right.
Before you even start, let me tell you that Kant already addressed that situation in the very Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals, which is his book for babies, but go ahead.
ghost rider and the punisher are more conservative then soymen like batman.
I've read my fair share of Burke, Kirk, Scruton, Olavo and others, so I'm fairly sure I know what it means.
>You do realize that acknowledging good and evil as objective things is not something people came up with yesterday, right? The most sophisticated philosophers, from the Greeks (Socrates, Aristotle, Plato...) to even modern ones such as Kant will acknowledge it as an objective thing.
That's such a silly generalisation
How aren't they? OP is right and will probably get shit on by hoards of stupid relativist underagers, but if you acknowledge good and evil as objective things, you already have 50% of the path towards conservatism walked.
However, I'd say that Superman is the most conservative hero. If you watched Justice League you probably realized it too. That scene where he takes his wife and flies away after kicking the members of JL's ass, you start wondering where the semi-omnipotent superman would go.
He ends up going home. In a very humble farm in the middle of nowhere. And he says: "This is my home". That's one of the most powerful and conservative moments I have ever seen in any movie.
Conservatism has different characteristics in different countries, but it will always value home and family. Superman, immediately after flying to the place he calls "home", hugged his mother. I really salute whoever wrote that script and I am surprised at how it somehow got approved by the other corporativists. If this movie gets re-made in 10 years superman will probably fly to a strip club and kill his mother since "family" and "home" are "nazi values" for progressives.
Conflict of duty/lack of duty priorities. Do you have a duty to not lie and not consider the consequences/let the victim die in order to fulfill not lying (Granted that Kant's personal belief was not lying, wasnt a concrete thing otherwise)
Or do you have a higher priority of a duty to preserve a life and lie
Adding to it, how do you determine the priorities in a different situation?
How do you reconcile what actual relevancy ethics has other than power and legitimization of it when you have to either
There's nothing conservative about Batman anyway. He used to be my favorite hero because I liked the idea of having no powers and defeating others with wits, but once you start actually reading his comics and watching his movies, you realize he is stupid as fuck and nothing compared to actual great detectives in fiction and literature. Probably because the writers were too incompetent to write an actually good detective for Batman's character.
Is this post satire
It sure reads like satire
>makes it clear there is evil and good, and no in-between like sophists and relativists do
So he's retarded on top of looking lame as fuck?
You sound like a teenager trying to be contrarian or a Stefbot
Literally everyone enjoys appreciating simple things in life like dependable friends and respect
If you're getting called a Nazi by anyone IRL its probably for other reasons than "family values" and you might wanna take a look at that
t. relativist
That's very simple and, as I said, Kant kills that very problem in the Groundwork for the Metaphysics of Morals.
For Kant, the ends DO NOT justify the means. Your hierarchy for duties has no sense because for Kant your only "duty" is acting morally. You know the second formulation of the categorical imperative, where we must treat humans as an end, and never as means to another end? That's exactly how morality works for every single action in Kant. Your actions must be practiced simply because they are moral and rightful for them to have a moral value.
If you lie to save someone's life, you are not acting morally. Because "saving someone's life" is simply an empirical circumstance, and you feel inclined to tackle on that task because of your human instincts. If you lie to save someone's life, you are being a slave of causation and of the empiric reality. Kant claims that we should be autonomous, and we can only be autonomous by letting reason dictate our actions.
Now, here are the problems with lying in that circumstance, as Kant himself claims:
a) The fact you are declaring that lying is "exceptionally moral" in that situation already makes it clear that YOU are aware there is an a priori rule that claims lying is immoral, since otherwise you wouldn't even be trying to rationalize it and excuse it;
b) Lying reduces the aggressor as a means to another end;
c) Lying, if practiced universally, would destroy itself, since no killer would ever believe you anymore, thus making the very action of lying impossible, meaning lying is not universally desirable, and anything that is not universally desirable can not be considered moral;
d) You feel the urge to lie because your inclinations tell you to do that. It is common for our inclinations to outweigh our reason and force us to perform immoral tasks. This is just one of the many occurrences where that happens.
I'd lie too to save someone's life. Does not mean it is the moral thing to do.
>believing good and evil are objective is being a contrarian
You're basically saying that anyone who is not a dumb atheist is a contrarian. And I say "dumb" because many atheists actually take some time to study ethics and realize that "evil" can be objective.
He's a stupid relativist who uses fake statistics
Also a pedophile
He's someone any self respecting relativist should consider punching in the face
>and then sups called lex luthor to fuck his wife
Not all relativists are stupid
There are sophisticated ways to be a relativist. But I will agree that any decent relativist will respect and acknowledge diverging claims that perceive objectiveness in "right" and "wrong".
Already came out and it was quite average. He deserves better games but I think the shitty movies ruined any interest in his character for a lot of people.
I always play GR in M:UA as soon as he unlocks.
Then I don't see how morals are really useful for anything in Kant's view
They're not even a valid guide for actions then
>why utilitarians are right: the post
Good and evil are man made concepts with no objective proof. What's considered good and what's considered evil vary over time and between cultures. Whether or not it's relative isn't even up for discussion.
>Its all relative maaaan huhuuu just puff some weeed bruuuh nuthin matters mortyyy killing innocent people isn't inherently wrong hehe
You seem very good at arguing user, surely you are a respected authority by your peers
>complete antithesis of the agenda hollywood has been pushing.
Well there's always Robbie, he's
>Latino
>Has an disabled little brother
He's also the only good thing to come from Marvel's diversity push, but since he's a violent, demonicly possesed, hot rod riding vigilante that kills gangsters and mercs and sends them to hell which the type of people Marvels been trying to court aren't really in to
good thing for ghost rider that he comes from a world where superbeings from outside of get to decide what's objectively good or evil then
Of course they are. It would be moral to not lie. The thing is that humans are not perfect. We will fall victim to our instincts, inclinations and empirical circumstances, meaning at at many times, such as in that situation, we will probably practice the immoral action, aiming for a certain goal.
Kant says that this is very dangerous because different people will perceive different goals. Some may adopt the holocaust as a goal, for example, and being a relativist means moralizing any actions necessary for reaching the holocaust, since, as Kant says, "if you wish for an end, then you must also wish for any possible means that may lead to that end".
So it IS a guide. If you have the balls, you will not lie, and suffer the consequences of acting morally.
Acting morally is not something that leads you to happiness. It makes you WORTHY of happiness. It is something for your soul, not for bodily pleasures. If you want to be "happy" and feel flesh pleasures, then just do what said and go full utilitarian.
Tell me a single Earth that perceives morality and honor in lying, or in murdering those who took care of you for your whole life.
Good and evil are always agreed upon among all cultures on Earth. There are, of course, some variations, but they are very slight compared to how we universally agree on many things. In fact, C. S. Lewis uses this to prove that good and wrong are not only universal but that we are also born with these values deep in our souls.
>demonicly possessed
About that, Ghost Riders are Spirits of Vengeance created by God (Jehovah), and are tasked with the purpose of "protecting the innocent and punishing the wicked" as OP says. It is said they are indestructible and can only be harmed (or have their powers taken away from them) by God therefore. So I don't think they are possessed by demons, since God made them and such. At the same time I don't know why God would choose to give them hellfire powers instead of something holy, but ehh, it's nice marvel design I guess.
>the world is manichean bros, fight for justice, destroy evil white man
>tell me a single Earth
Shit, I mean, tell me a single civilization*
>Tell me a single Earth that perceives morality and honor in lying
A secret service organisation, undercover policemen
>There are, of course, some variations
What a champ you are
It's not like God never used fire to punish the wicked or anything.
I want a Ghost Rider game that's like a mix of Twisted Metal, DMC and Breath of the Wild.
Game revolves around Ghost Rider hunting villains you have to take down across the map; the game's hook is open world boss fights and smoothly switching between ground combat and bike racing/combat.
>soul
you're supposed to convince people in an argument
>Tell me a single Earth that perceives morality and honor in lying
That's not even hard. You just need to think that lying is dishonorable and and immoral, but do it anyway because your personal honor and morals matter less to you than doing the right thing; you've now made something dishonorable and immoral honorable and moral.
>or in murdering those who took care of you for your whole life.
People do that shit constantly in times of need. Most cultures that do it impose it upon them to do it to themselves though, rather than force the younger generations to kill the older ones. Shit, suicide was honorable as fuck before christianity came along and started shitting on it.
>Good and evil are always agreed upon among all cultures on Earth.
That's not even remotely close to true and so profoundly ignorant I'm not going to and nobody else should respond further.
Is a lie still a lie if you tell it thinking that it's true because you deliberately avoid correcting it? This is such a naked, shameless display of incompetence on this topic that YOU should consider it dishonorable and immoral for yourself to talk about it as if you knew what you were saying.
This is your brain on secular fundamentalism.
No offense, just think it's a funny statement.
If a murderer tries to find you, I am still going to act "amoral" to keep you alive because it world make me feel bad to be responsible. I don't think it's because I care about an aggregated system of good feels vs bad feels, that's just probably how I would be inclined to act.
I do think aggregated systems of how you "ought" to act are pretty useless to the average person, though
Interesting example. But you realize they do not perceive an inherent honor in lying, right? Would they still feel honored if they lied to their own mother about something that's even unrelated to their job?
These organizations and these policemen lie to infiltrate criminal organizations. And they do that while rationalizing that "I am doing this exceptionally, since I have a higher goal that allows me to perform what would be otherwise immoral". This very thought process reveals that deep inside they know what they are doing is immoral, yet they try to justify it, since they are so inclined to do it because of the circumstances (such as fighting criminals).
As Lewis says, the natural law (or "the objectiveness of good and evil") is not like gravity. It can be broken and disobeyed. That's why people can do evil things, and even convince themselves that it is the right thing to do. The catch here, as Lewis himself says, is that if you start questioning these people, you will reveal that their thought process actually shows how they are aware what they are doing is usually evil, and they're just trying to justify it with exceptions and excuses.
>Armchair "philosophers" on Sup Forums discussing moral relativism coming from an american comic book's character
Fire is purifying and natural, which makes it a domain of God. Outside of Dante, Hell isn't even described as having fire in it.
>>/leftypol/
The point I am trying to make in this thread, and that most people don't seem to be understanding, is that you can't simply say "hey, there is this african tribe that usually lies during this ritual" and think this proved there is no right or wrong. Because that african tribe would probably not usually lie in any other circumstances, which reveals they actually know lying is wrong, and just make an exception for it. The very definition of "exception" implies there is a previously-existing rule to it.
>That's not even remotely close to true and so profoundly ignorant I'm not going to and nobody else should respond further.
I think it is ignorant of you to think that everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. Lewis is the first one to make that claim, and he also provided evidence, by listing certain natural laws and showing how every single civilization on Earth agrees with it by citing their own sources. It is not an ignorant claim at all.
For example: What if I told you that every single person in this thread would agree that burning witches (like the inquisition did) is moral? Would you say I am being ignorant?
Stirner is best
Stefbots can eat a dick btw
Nice, now so many things make so much more sense, thanks based anons
What is your definition for good and evil
Socrates would punch you in the face.
Average is right, but getting to play as 2099 and Blade kinda make it worth the 4 or so hours it takes to beat.
Oh I'm really sorry to remind you how ridiculous you look, I truly must be a leftist and go to that shithole too.
This is why people like me rile you up with Stirner memes.
The old man died millennia ago and I'm pretty sure he'd shitpost on Sup Forums like I would.
Robbie (at the moment) is possessed by his uncle who was an evil wizard, not by Zarathos, or what ever Ketch has though it may be getting retconned because Robbie has the penance stare now
>mix of Twisted Metal, DMC and Breath of the Wild
Darksiders?
I'd play a Ghostrider game like Darksiders, at least the first one.
I can readily give you several definitions that are valid, but why don't you go read a fucking book and find out? Do you expect a stranger in Sup Forums to give the definition of something complex and transcendental like good and evil in a 2000 characters long post?
And just so you don't claim I am "escaping the problem because I don't know the answer", let me give you a definition I really like:
Good is what every being is inclined towards. It is universally desirable. Good deeds are therefore determined by reason, since only reason is a priori and universal among all rational beings.
Evil, on the other hand, is simply the lack of goodness that was due in a certain situation.
No one is evil for the sake of being evil. Evil is always used as a means to another end. People, however, are always good for the sake of being good, since everyone (even relativists) desire goodness, even if they are unconscious of that.
No one is evil without a reward. Everyone is good even without rewards.
>I can readily give you several definitions that are valid
Yes user there's quite a lot of definitions that have been used and you generally start a discussion by defining the terms of said discussion, because otherwise all you said is utterly worthless
Thanks for exposing yourself as an utter mong that should not be read by anyone literate
>St. Tomas Aquinas definition of good and evil
You madman, this absolutely destroys relativists, they literally need to deny the existence of rationality in order to somehow survive that one
>I think it is ignorant of you to think that everyone who disagrees with you is ignorant. Lewis is the first one to make that claim, and he also provided evidence, by listing certain natural laws and showing how every single civilization on Earth agrees with it by citing their own sources. It is not an ignorant claim at all.
Lewis is an idiot too then; seeing what he wants to see rather than what is. Yes, people don't like liars when it harms them. They love it when it benefits them. Of course, everyone is going to TELL you that of course they don't lie. Oh yeah, these pigs I just sold you are trufflepigs. They don't find truffles? Must not be truffles then. Caveat emptor motherfucker. You don't think people believe that shit is good? Even in the modern day we have fucking libertarians running around preaching the gospel of rational self-interest. They really think all that shit is good. People have thought all sorts of shit has been good, throughout the ages. People have loved war. They've loved genocide. They've loved eugenics. They've loved racism. They've loved rape. They've loved lying, and cheating, and dishonorable behaviours of all kinds; for thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years.
If they *didn't* they wouldn't even have survived, since doing these things is so competitively advantageous that those who didn't do it would get outcompeted by those who did. The entire natural world and all of history and reality as we understand it stands marshaled against you. And in your favour you have people telling you what they want you to hear (and what you want to hear) so that they can exploit you exactly as those models predict. Which is more reliable? Yes, arriving at your conclusion constitutes profound, self-imposed ignorance so profound that it's almost indistinguishable from deliberately lying.
>inherent honor in lying
Now you're relativisering. Your saying that lying is bad but in certain situations it's justified. That's exactly what everyone else is saying as well. Even God lies to Abraham in order to test him in the Bible.
But even from the beginning your argument was resting on a shaky ground. You're asking which culture finds it "honorable" to lie, but "honorable" is another man-made concept and one with an even flimsier definition. So before you ask that question you have to ask what being honorable means.
>Thanks for exposing yourself as an utter mong
by sperging out over someone asking you for your definition, I should add
>>makes it clear there is evil and good, and no in-between like sophists and relativists do
>>doesn't kill innocent people like other anti-heroes do
Why is he good again
>Now you're relativisering. Your saying that lying is bad but in certain situations it's justified. That's exactly what everyone else is saying as well.
No, absolutely not. I am saying the opposite.
My claim is that lying is always bad. And everyone acknowledges this. However, some people ATTEMPT to justify it at some situations. This does not mean lying becomes good at these situations, it just means we are trying to justify it, and the very attempt of justifying it is proof we know it is otherwise always wrong. But I still think it is always wrong.
>Even God lies to Abraham in order to test him in the Bible
Which specific episode are you referring to? I know two situations regarding Abraham where people think God lied. And both are just misconceptions. Just tell me what you are referring to and I'll explain how it wasn't a lie.
/thread
Normies can’t into comics
>And everyone acknowledges this
who is everyone
>This does not mean lying becomes good at these situations, it just means we are trying to justify it, and the very attempt of justifying it is proof we know it is otherwise always wrong.
Hpw many exceptions is a rule allowed to have before it's no longer considered to be a rule
You are just one step from finding why good and evil are objective.
>Even in the modern day we have fucking libertarians running around preaching the gospel of rational self-interest. They really think all that shit is good. People have thought all sorts of shit has been good, throughout the ages. People have loved war. They've loved genocide. They've loved eugenics. They've loved racism. They've loved rape. They've loved lying, and cheating, and dishonorable behaviours of all kinds; for thousands upon thousands upon thousands of years.
You are 100% right.
Do you see the danger in acting according to your flesh desires? You may end up practicing all these things you mentioned. And for a relativist that would not be inherently evil since "evil does not exist anyway it's just how you perceive things lmao".
Do you see why we should leave judgment to an a priori, universal judge like reason? There is only one thing that connects all rational beings (from humans to angels and God himself), and that is rationality itself. Let reason dictate what we must and mustn't do, and let's TRY to do as it says. Sometimes we will fail, of course, but we should always try. Stop being slave of causation and empirical reality. Be your own master.
>Evil is always used as a means to another end.
>No one is evil without a reward. Everyone is good even without rewards.
Only a complete simpleton would say something like that.
As Marcus Aurelius once remarked, "A wrongdoer is often a man who has left something undone, not always one who has done something.", for a deed to be considered evil doesn't necessarily entail that the evildoer is looking for a reward.
A miscalculation or oversight is usually the cause of the most damning judgement in society, this is especially true for international politics.
Catch 22 situations also exist, so you're full of shit, you're all oversimplifying things that have been discussed since literal millennia, good and evil aren't easy to discern at all and also change with time, perception of value and different societies.
>My claim is that lying is always bad. And everyone acknowledges this.
[citation needed]
>My claim is that lying is always bad. And everyone acknowledges this.
But not everyone does. I don't. I think lying is valid if it's done in order to save lives, fight crime. Same as killing. It's always sad that it had to be done, but it's not inherently evil.
Regarding Abraham I'm talking about the Binding of Isac, I'm also aware of the reasoning that subverts this being a lie such as the whole thing being a ritual with both parts perfectly aware of the purpose and outcome(although I'd argue that's a form of relativism). Feel free to talk a bit about that as I find theology interesting, but you still have to defend your unreasonable claim that you're right because everyone agrees with you.
Objectivism is not the same as conservatism. In fact they are totally unrelated
Can you guys fuck off to /lit/ so we can talk about ghost rider
>I think lying is valid if it's done in order to save lives, fight crime.
Doesn't even have to be so severe, what about the simple example of white lies, which generally aim to improve the situation for everyone involved
>philosophy 101 kiddos
Holy shit, the fumes from all the fedora polish is killing me.
>hurr you're a simpleton oversimplifying shit
That's the definition given by people like Aquinas or St. Augustine, you can't call these people simpletons.
Give me one single example where someone can be evil for no reward. You will at the very least be evil because you feel good about it, or because you thought doing the right thing would bring you more pain than joy. In the end it is always a means to another end. You are only inclined to do good. You help a beggar because you feel it is the moral thing to do (and also because of other reasons such as you feel pity). You never kick a beggar because you feel it is the right thing to do, you kick him because of your flesh emotions and desires like anger or revolt.
But not everyone does. I don't. I think lying is valid if it's done in order to save lives and [...]
Please read my post again. I said: Everyone acknowledges this. BUT SOME TRY TO JUSTIFY IT.
You are the living example of what I said. You know lying is wrong, BUT, at some occasions, depending on the circumstances, it can be good, right?
The ends justify the means, right? Isn't that what you are saying?
user, you're arguing moral pragmatism and not objectivism.
Read a fucking philo book, this is embarassing.
My takeaway from this thread is that either Kant was a retard, or user is misinterpreteting Kant quite badly
It is impossible to discuss ghost rider without discussing ethics since his whole purpose is protecting those who are "good" and killing those who are "evil"
He even has a power that sends evil people to hell. You just can't escape that debate when discussing Ghost Rider.
>You help a beggar because you feel it is the moral thing to do
No, I do it because it makes me feel good, it's entirely egoistical
Not so easy to distinguish from evil anymore is it
>You know lying is wrong, BUT, at some occasions, depending on the circumstances, it can be good, right?
I'm not saying that lying IS wrong, I'm saying that lying is right OR wrong depending on the circumstances, same as punching someone. According to my set of morals it's usually wrong, but I'm aware that that's specific to me and my culture and not an universal truth.
I am arguing for deontological ethics.
Give me one single example where someone can be good for no reward. You will at the very least be good because you feel good about it, or because you thought doing the right thing would bring you more joy than pain.
You need to stop mixing incompatible philosophies.
...
No, that would be arguing that intent doesn't matter. You have no idea what any of the words you are using mean.
>Is it because he is one of the most conservative heroes ever?
>shoving politics into every motherfucking thing you see
Stop breathing, you fucking nigger. I hope to hell that Nic Cage penance stares the piss out of you.
always start with the assumption that user is a retard
>: Everyone acknowledges this. BUT SOME TRY TO JUSTIFY IT.
Of course people are tring to justify it when we are arguing about whether lying is objectively evil, that's the entire point of the discussion
What the fuck are you even on about
But don't you usually need a set for circumstances to make lying good?
Don't you think the act of lying, isolated, seems evil, and it may only become good once you start justifying it with certain circumstances that make it appear desirable?
Consider one example that you consider a source of morality, such as "lying to save someone's life", from which you claim we can, from that, derive that it is sometimes moral to lie. What makes you think that is a valid source? Doesn't that mean you are starting from a pre-existent rule to come to that conclusion?
Honestly, this entire thread is embarrassing, including OP. He is on the right track but he does not know Kant well enough.
Kant's Groundworks for Metaphysics of Moral directly addresses every single argument in this thread and destroys it. That book is the relativist killing machine, so to speak. It explains the thought process of relativists and how fragile it is and such. Try giving it a read, it's Kant's most simple book, should be a breeze if you are used to complex literature, or somehow challenging if you are not, but still readable.
A hint when reading Kant is to just read everything quickly. If you don't understand something just keep going, he will probably define these strange terms later on at some point. Then, once you are done, read it again, you'll now know the definition of all of his terms and it will be much easier.
Kant is not necessarily the best author for ethics though. He's just more than enough to turn relativists into dust. There are better authors if you want to go deeper in the subject.
>his whole purpose is protecting those who are "good" and killing those who are "evil"
I feel like this has been retconned a few times over. Besides there were other spirits of vengeance who were evil as fuck
>you can't call these people simpletons.
Yeah, I totally can, especially when they pull stupid shit like all human beings being inclined to do good things.
Nobody teaches kids to lie, they end up doing that naturally once they realize that they can make up things and have people believe them, and by your own idiotic account that makes lying good because we're naturally inclined to lie.
>Give me one single example where someone can be evil for no reward.
Faith.
The best example there is.
>No, I do it because it makes me feel good, it's entirely egoistical
>Not so easy to distinguish from evil anymore is it
It's not like what you are doing is evil. Your act simply lacks moral relevance. But maybe you do it because you unconsciously know it is the rightful thing to do, you're just not aware... But hey, once again, if you are really only doing it because you feel a surge of good chemicals in your brain, yeah, it's not moral at all, because what would happen if you "felt good" from killing? Can't let morality rely on fragile things like "feeling good" user
Isn't there always a catch like "this one is possessed" or "this is not a ghost rider"?
>Faith
That's a smart answer and I won't pretend I can refute it in a Sup Forums post, though some authors did address that over a thousand years ago, so there is a answer to it, just a very long one.
>Can't let morality rely on fragile things like "feeling good" user
Except it's the same thing.
You adhere to a set of morals because to you that's the right thing to do, you want to be righteous and you don't want a guilty conscience, you do it because it feels good to you, if you'd hate it you wouldn't it.
>Don't you think the act of lying, isolated, seems evil
No, it seems like a means to achive an end, from which it derives its classification of good and evil, if you'd want to restrict yourself to such a binary distinction
Inherently it's not a good or bad act, it's just an act
>But don't you usually need a set for circumstances to make lying good?
I need a set of circumstances to make lying bad as well
>Don't you think the act of lying, isolated, seems evil, and it may only become good once you start justifying it with certain circumstances that make it appear desirable?
Whispering a lie to myself in the middle of the woods where no one can hear me seems stupid but not evil
>Consider one example that you consider a source of morality, such as "lying to save someone's life", from which you claim we can, from that, derive that it is sometimes moral to lie. What makes you think that is a valid source? Doesn't that mean you are starting from a pre-existent rule to come to that conclusion?
I start from a pre-existent moral base that's formed by my culture, my upbringing, my genetic disposition, etc. If I was raised as a jihadist my view would be completely different.
Lying seems evil because it is disempowering, humans seek truth purely as a survival instinct. More infirmation always equals a better chance at survival so we see it as a good thing. Morals are simply the emotions we have connected to these instincts. There is no bullshit objective standard.