Sup Sup Forums help me write my english essay

sup Sup Forums help me write my english essay
The question is, Does anonymity breed contempt? Are we more likely to be moral when we are watched?
Essentially. does anonymity lower an individual's sense of morality?
I thought you fuckers could answer this question best.

if you think your anonymous you're retarded

Fuck you, you're not the boss of me! I can do what ever I want!

It's not so much that anonymity lowers your sense of morality but that non-anonymity forces most people to behave differently. There is a famous bias called the "social desirability" bias which indicates that people tend to answer to questions with what they deem politically correct at that time. That's what happened with all the Hillary Clinton polls. Since most polls weren't anonymous, lots of people didn't have the balls to say they wanted to vote Trump, hence the big "surprise"

Anonymity doesn't breed contempt, it's all already there. Being held accountable for your actions on a personal level causes people to lie about what they really think and feel, but here we can all express ourselves exactly how we want. Anonymity does not breed contempt, but society breeds unnatural moral behavior.

This question's answer is like two sides of a coin. Really all of it is backwards and you should look at it differently.
Anonymity brings out the most extreme in people, and whether or not you act the same as you normally would (e.g. maybe posting in a similar way to that of how you would on normal social media) or the opposite (gore, cp, general asshole-ness).
It is more interesting to look at what kinds of pelple act differently or the same between anonymity and non-anonymity.
I, myself prefer the latter, but there are benefits to either, I guess.

(Not sure if it's a good idea to write this in your essay but hope it helps)
Compare Sup Forums and reddit. Reddit is almost a hive mind where everybody has one standard opinion on most subjects like immigration, race, gender, etc. and they never really argue. The website isn't as anonymous as Sup Forums. Here you see literally everything because everybody says anything thanks to (close to) full anonymity between users.
One could say we show our "true" and evil selves under anonymity.

It's not unnatural for social animals to act in line with what their group expects.

Anonymity doesn't breed contempt, it's all already there. Being held accountable for your actions on a personal level causes people to lie about what they really think and feel, but here we can all express ourselves exactly how we want. Anonymity does not breed contempt, but society breeds unnatural moral behavior.

Write your own essay you lazy nigger.

OP here, this is awesome I wanna know more about this argument

This is an empirical not a theoretical question

experimental ethics is a field. Create an experiment and find out.

Keep in mind that while your failures aren't tied to you when you are anonymous, your successes aren't either. I think there is something moral about not wanting to take the credit for good deeds that you do.

Anonymity doesn't "breed" contempt. It simply allows the individual to express the contempt which they already harbor without having to deal with the social consequences that would come with identification.

Like these people saying that there will be a massive dump linking posts to individual ips. I say good. Even though I myself say horrible shit regularly. Good. Because then we will see that the assholes which are stereotyped as being basement dwellers are actually everyday normies. It will free us from this hell.

I'm saying morality itself is unnatural, a synthetic creation to control people

>Does anonymity breed contempt?
No. Observing other peoples retarded decisions does that. Being anonymous simply allows one to express disapproval without risk of backlash.

>Are we more likely to be moral when we are watched?
Most people are. An inherent desire to 'fit in' to society (for most people, sociopaths are an exception) causes them to conform to social norms, including morality.

>Does anonymity lower an individual's sense of morality?
No. Like contempt, anonymity allows one to express their true feelings and reactions to events, rather than having those circumscribed by socially accepted morals due to them being unconsciously coerced into accepting those morals in order to be part of the group.

Have fun.

We're all anonymous here, so fuck you.
Does that answer your question?

It depends on which ones you're talking about I guess, but some of the basic ones (e.g. unprovoked murder and stealing are bad) do exist in some other animals. As does altruism, potentially.

of course I can answer this question best. Listen, faggot.

Anonymity does not breed contempt. In fact, the contempt that definitely can be witnessed to be expressed more frequently when anonymity is granted, is not purged when we are watched; it simply is not expressed. What is present in the mind of an individual when anonymous however is different to what is present in the mind of an individual that is being watched assuming the individual knows about being watched. We have learned that some (culturally influenced) behavior is demanded by the general public and if the individual does not behave that way, it knows that there are negative social consequences. If the individual however expresses the thought that is socially desired, it expects positive social consequences: not only acceptance, but more than that - it expects that witnesses think highly of him or her. Hence you cannot say that a person is more likely to be moral when watched because the only moral principle found here is the desire to be considered a good person. It hereby wants to satisfy a social need. Looking at the period of Hitler's reign reveals the following: the general public would have thought highly of an individual that told the SS where a jew hides. A true hero, working for the interests of the nation, he would be deemed. In fact, this person is responsible for a higher probability of death for the jew. Morally, this could be considered wrong but it would nevertheless be the effect of being watched in 1940 in Germany. Moreover, the concept of morals in general is obsolete. Whenever you find that people are considered to be acting in a morally sound way, this essentially expresses that they, to some extent, neglect their own desire, i.e. are not "egoistic". Investigating the true meaning of this reveals why the concept of morals is obsolete: everyone has some desire and everyone knows that they want to satisfy their desire but at the same time, they are only considered to

be a good person when they also neglect their own desire. Thus, to be morally sound, you should and at the same time should not want what you want which is a contradiction.

We're known to have strongest morals and we're loyal and true to our fucking morals. We stand for what we believe in and put anything on the line including our lifes.

Having realized that the demand of the general public for you to be morally sound contains a contradiction really prompts the question why it is present in so many minds. To think that you are a good person when you neglect your own desire is a suitable ideology in a system in which your wish should not matter. In fact, we are living under the reign of such a system. Ultimately, you ought to work 40h/week even if you don't want to. We are raised to blindly follow this demand of the richer businessmen that buy your lifetime. This starts at the latest in school where you are considered a good boy if you always do your homework you didn't want to do or learn stuff you didn't want to learn. If you don't obey, your parents are contacted and will be disappointed because you couldn't meet the demand that you do what you didn't want to do. They break you at an early age. They want you to be "morally" sound in order to use and abuse you without being questioned. They give you the thought that you are a good person if you let yourself be used without questioning the one that's abusing you.