Go out into the street and asks someone if they'd take ten dollars for free. When they say yes, proceed to ask them if they'd take the same 10 dollars if it meant a random innocent person somewhere around the world would die (assuming that the person who died wouldn't be anyone known by the person being questioned). I'm sure that the vast majority wouldn't be willing to take that deal.
-
Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.
"This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.
rpgcodex > the threads can be improved by adding more replies
ItsChon
ItsChon
There are many different ways you can play the experiment out, but the point is: many people don't behave in a way that resembles a morally nihilistic pov. Why give money to charity if there is no such thing as right and wrong? Why shouldn't I just pocket this hundred dollars instead of taking it to the front desk? Why shouldn't I kill this person for thousands of dollars if I know I can get away with it?
ItsChon
I don't think atheists are liars because I don't think they're doing it intentionally. Even the atheists who say they don't believe in moral truths, how come many people act in a way that commonly resembles a Judaeo-Christain ethic? The answer is almost every atheist who lives in the US and isn't an edgy cunt.
Zombra
Simple: 'morality' evolved as a successful survival strategy for the race. Ants have a good work ethic and a low crime rate because it is bred into them and it works. If every ant was a lone hunter only out for itself, they would have been extinct yonks ago. Same with humans. We get along because it simply works better that way.
ItsChon
Except that's demonstrably false, and I have no idea where you got this idea from.
Work Ethic =/= Morality
And this idea of ants having a low crime rate is a stupid one because, they're ants. Crime as a concept doesn't exist until a certain level of self awareness is developed. There are countless examples of animals doing absolutely abhorrent things that you wouldn't hesitate to call immoral.
Work Ethic =/= Morality
And this idea of ants having a low crime rate is a stupid one because, they're ants. Crime as a concept doesn't exist until a certain level of self awareness is developed. There are countless examples of animals doing absolutely abhorrent things that you wouldn't hesitate to call immoral.
ItsChon
Dolphins commit infanticide and mass gang rapes, Chimps brutally savage and kill other Chimps that might challenge their authority or are different from their tribe, many fathers in both mammalia and other groups would end up killing their offspring if the mother wasn't there to drive them away, etc. This whole idea that morality is a direct result of evolution and can be observed in animals is false.
ItsChon
Evolution has no reason to program us with a moral system that makes you feel guilty for taking someones food or money. It had no reason to impart us with a conscience. Look into some of the work done by evolutionary biologists and neurologists. It's well documented that our sense of morality and ethics isn't directly related to evolution.
Lithium Flower
Itschon, your example doesn't work as a counter to moral nihilism. Moral nihilism doesn't mean we can't make any ought statements. Moral nihilism means that nothing is *intrinsically*. Doesn't mean we can't create systems of rules (such as: don't take someone's 10 dollarydoos) and argue that others should buy into said systems of rules
ItsChon
But any system we might create would be arbitrary, and would have no actual reason for following it. Why should I follow your system of rules if following my own system will lead to me becoming that much more successful.
ItsChon
I'd say that the morality argument breaks down into two things,
A) Is moral nihilism true?
B) If it it's not true, but you reject theistic doctrine as a foundational basis/heuristic for morality, than what's your proposed system for creating a moral system that's both comprehensive, as well as convincing enough for people to buy into.
A) Is moral nihilism true?
B) If it it's not true, but you reject theistic doctrine as a foundational basis/heuristic for morality, than what's your proposed system for creating a moral system that's both comprehensive, as well as convincing enough for people to buy into.
Lithium Flower
there is actually that is I believe called moral expressivism that suggests morality is just a language that allows us to express our preferences. So "indiscriminate killing is wrong" actually translates into "I don't like killing very much".
Lithium Flower
The difference here is that the former statement describes some aspect of killing whereas the latter does not pretend to. Not sure if I subscribe to this but it has been interesting to consider.
ItsChon
It's all interesting to consider, though I'm sure that I'm right in regards to the idea of moral truths. Lyric Suite Is someone that I think share similar ideas to mine, and he came off as very articulate/well thought on this issue the one time we kind of discussed it. I wonder if he has anything to say.
Lithium Flower
Because not all arbitrary systems are equally arbitrary. Our belief in logic is arbitrary but we can build consistent sets of rules based on logic. Moral system 1: pissing in a toilet is wrong; moral system 2: don't steal because you wouldn't want someone from steal from you. Which is more arbitrary?
Lithium Flower
And which would you rather subscribe to? A moral nihilist could promote his system of rules by appealing to the preferences of others. That is what ultimately convinces people, not some epistemological argument about the necessity of God's existence for logic and morality or whatever.
ItsChon
That's the thing though. Logic is arbitrary, and how many people actually live their lives in a logical ways? You have a serious misunderstanding of the human psyche if you really think today's society would ever buy into some random guys system of morality. And of course, who the fuck is even qualified to make this moral system?
Lithium Flower
Listen my duderino if you find these topics even remotely interesting you gotta get on that Prince of Nothing dicc real fast and hard
ItsChon
There are so many fucking things I want to say and bring up, but this is an absolutely shit medium for proper communication. How much does it actually cost to fucking access GD? I think I have 5$ left in a prepaid paypal acc. Even that is a breach of my principles, but I'm a weak man *shrug*
ItsChon
I do. I started courses though so it's fucked up my time.
Lithium Flower
>today's society would ever buy into some random guys' system of morality
wait what
who was Jesus Christ and who is the Pope?
Who are preachers, politicians, moral philosophers, demagogues, teachers?
What is a society if not a group of people with shared rules? How did these rules get shared if sharing them is impossible due to human psyche
wait what
who was Jesus Christ and who is the Pope?
Who are preachers, politicians, moral philosophers, demagogues, teachers?
What is a society if not a group of people with shared rules? How did these rules get shared if sharing them is impossible due to human psyche
As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.