Morality doesnt exist. It is not a material thing, it doesnt refer to anything that exists in the real world. Morality is in the same class as god, religion and human rights i.e human inventions, human fetishization of abstract concepts. Abstract concepts have no effect on material reality any more than we will them to. For example, religion is a thing only because people believe in it.
So I never use morals and morality as an argument in anything. The struggle for a better world doesnt need it at all. Exploitation is ended when workers pursue their self interest, no morals involved here. Veganism is achieved only when you make people empathise with animals (a bio-chemical reaction) or when you physically ban meat, not because of any morals. I can give many more examples.
In fact, it is precisely morality that is one of the tools of the oppressor. Notice how worker ownership of profit is bad because "the capitalist deserves his share". This is a moral argument, not a material argument. When the ruling class enforces laws that harms millions, it is justified because the law is just. This is another abstract moral argument. When workers fight back, or when you just shoot a billionaire or a politician, it is said to be immoral, because reasons. You can make up any bullshit reason, and any bullshit argument because you are not dealing with material things, so there is simply no way to be correct or wrong.
Marx is said to have laughed when people used to make moral arguments with him. Stirner completely destroyed morality as an idea, Nietzche revealed the psychology behind morality etc.
EDIT: Looks like this sub is thoroughly spooked. I guess I should have expected it considering you're all liberals. Don't worry, I will keep posting Stirner memes until morale improves.
I have made no statements on the nature of knowledge, the general working of the brain or any statements on ethics(which is seperate from the concept of material morality). All I am saying is that morality literally doesnt exist as a material thing outside our mind. So I choose to completely ignore the concept of morality in my daily life. I also explained how it is possible to convince people to build a better world without resorting to invocating morality.
One- under your culturally relativistic view presented here, morality is an emergent property of the rights and wrongs of a society. You physically cannot exist without morals because they are intertwined in the action and inaction of every individual living under the present ideology. So you say you live without moral inquiry but your actions reflect an individualized subset of those morals.
Morality is a complex thing. I make no pretenses of accurately defining it, so I have no idea where you are getting this view that I am saying morality is this or that. I am simply saying that morality doesnt exist as a material thing outside the mind. "you physically cannot exist without morals" wut??
Two- You cannot convince me to ‘make a better world’ based upon naive self interest if my self interest does not align with your vision. You need reasons, which are tied 8n with the metaethics of the current ideology. Otherwise, it may be in my self interest to destroy your community because i am wired to feel great doing so.
"metaethics of the current ideology" good luck convincing people to follow this instead of trying to converge self-interests. Converging self-interests are already the basis of human society. Society isnt based on arbitrary moral values or metaethics or whatever. Society is based on material things. Base>Superstructure. Marxism 101. Also people literally do destroy communities for fun or profit already. So your worst case scenario is already the reality.
Three- The appropriation of morals under a relativistic framework doesnt mean that morality as a whole is oppressive, it is merely a reflection.
Morality can neither be oppressive nor liberatory because it doesnt exist. Creating moral ideas that serve to oppose other moral ideas achieves nothing, just as thinking about lifting a pen will never lift a pen. Bourgeois morals are a psychological deception mechanism (superstructure) used to blind people what's going on in the base (exploitation) .
Is there any evidence that emotions are anything other than chemicals in the brain?
if it exists as an emergent property between individuals then wouldn't it be outside our mind :charlie-kirk:
I guess you also believe that god exists outside our mind because religion is an emergent property of common beliefs.
yes :yes-chad:
not because god is real but one of the consequences of the barrage of pseudo-materialism that came with the wave of new atheism is that it's much harder for people to wrestle with social phenomena (like deities) as "real", existing things - emergent properties of a network of brains that interface in an infinite number of ways. if you're still getting caught up on the word "real", just drop it and realize the conversation can continue as such. if you don't want to drop it, go read real patterns by dan dennett and then maybe ladyman and ross's rainforest realism
morality matters because we have moral choices to make, moral questions to ask and answer, and important conversations to be had around morality. the terms exist in our language because there are things there we need to talk about. i don't understand how you expect to go through life sweeping all of that under the rug
it exists as an emergent property between my mind and the bottom of my bowl of dmt, maybe
:smoking-fish:
Better on a material basis, more wealth, more free time, more freedom etc.
Join date: Jan 24th
Post: Cringe
Edit: kinda funny tho
Oh yeah, it's wreckin' time.
counter arguement: stop being weird and log off. never say this to anyone not irony poisoned please for petes sake
Lmfao I guess a large number of philosophers should just stop being weird and get another job
You can avoid moral arguments if you like, comrade, but you cannot avoid morality. The only reason you have a concept of a better world is because of your moral sense of right and wrong, goor and bad
No, our understanding of a better world is out of self interest. Saying that I want to work less, that I dont want to live a precarious life, that I dont want to be exploited is out of self interest. There is no moral argument here. It just so turns out that such a world can be achieved easier through co-operation. Also, due to empathy (which is a biological mechanism), I don't want other people to be harmed. If I see people starving to death I feel bad. In the real world, this feeling is actually quite limited, so that's why we know millions of children starve to death every year but we don't do anything about it. Not because we are immoral, but because it doesnt cause us enough discomfort to make us want to do something about it. It is a simple cost-benefit calculation.
Why not accept these things as the natural order of things? Plenty of people do. There's no objective basis for determining whether you are being exploited.
There’s no objective basis for determining whether you are being exploited.
Surplus value is an objective quantity. The Marxist definition of rate of exploitation is strictly an objective definition. Rate of exploitation = s/v. We call this exploitation as an indication that workers can, if they choose to, acquire this value as they are the source of it.
Why not accept these things as the natural order of things? Plenty of people do
Because its not in my self interest to do so? What argument or gotcha are you even making here?
My point is simply that at some point a value judgment is always inevitable, even if it's to decide that the correct course of action is to act in what you understand to be your rational self interest
I guess people should get a PhD in philosophy before they ever dare to make any philosophical statements. You could try to refute what I said instead of making snide comments.
big cheers for solving the nomos/physis debate as well when you cited those various philosophers who pondered it. no need to show your work
Justice is also a spook. You're welcome, my property.
Well, akshually, God doesn't real! Does anyone else materialism around here or just me? Heh, see what I did there? I understood words because I'm SMORT
empathise with animals
How is this not a moral argument?
Empathy is a biochemical reaction, a material thing. Empathy feels good or rather, doing things that hurts your sense of empathy feels bad.
But why should we care about that biochemical reaction when we decide how to treat animals? Empathy is not universal. You're choosing to care about the empathy rather than care about the people with no empathy. On what are you basing this choice? It's not chemistry or physics or biology. What are you appealing to that says empathy is the right choice?
But why should we care about that biochemical reaction when we decide how to treat animals?
Morality brainworms. You keep going back to morality when the answer is so obvious here. Why do you have sex? Why do you enjoy chocolate? Because there are chemical reactions in your brain that make you enjoy them. You are literally programmed to search for pleasure and avoid pain. Seeing animals get hurt causes you pain and you want to avoid that.
Empathy is not universal. You’re choosing to care about the empathy rather than care about the people with no empathy. On what are you basing this choice? It’s not chemistry or physics or biology. What are you appealing to that says empathy is the right choice?
I'm not caring about empathy, empathy is the motive force itself.
Seeing animals get hurt causes you pain and you want to avoid that.
But this literally isn't true. People could just as easily find joy at an animals pain because now they have food. Following your logic it would be completely fine.
But this literally isn’t true. People could just as easily find joy at an animals pain because now they have food.
This is true. That's why most people eat meat.
People also eat meat for other reasons too though. Many of them are just cultural, which I assume you don't believe are real either.
There may be many reasons why people eat meat. You are confused about the nature of the argument. I'm not saying that morality doesn't affect people. It does affect people, just like the concept of God affects people, even though he is doesnt exist either. I'm saying that morality doesn't exist materially outside the brain. So it is a choice whether or not you can let moral ideas affect your actions. It is not a choice, for example, whether or not you let gravity affect you, or let the urge to poop affect you. However at the same time, since other people let moral concepts affect their actions, indirectly it affects me too. So I can not believe in God and god wont smite me, but other people can crucify me. That's how people end up being affected by things that arent real outside their brains.
The fact that people can be spurred to action by ideas refutes your purely materialist understanding of reality. That's why it's dumb and unhelpful to look at the world this way.
Once again you miss my argument. Here's a sentence I'm repeating - " I’m not saying that morality doesn’t affect people. It does affect people, just like the concept of God affects people, even though he is doesnt exist either. I’m saying that morality doesn’t exist materially outside the brain. "
Materialism doesn't mean "thoughts arent real", it means that thoughts themselves are material. And that there exists objects outside of our thoughts. What is idealist is acting in such a way as if thoughts are material objects outside our mind. In what way is this unhelpful?
Morality brainworms. You keep going back to morality when the answer is so obvious here. Why do you have sex? Why do you enjoy chocolate? Because there are chemical reactions in your brain that make you enjoy them. You are literally programmed to search for pleasure and avoid pain. Seeing animals get hurt causes you pain and you want to avoid that.
That's not true for everyone. Rage is a chemical reaction. Anger. Everything you do is a chemical reaction. If I grab a gun and walk into an elementary school, there's a series of chemical reactions and psychological processes taking place.
Just saying "chemical reactions" isn't answering the question. How do you judge which chemical reactions are right and which are wrong? Which chemical reactions do we accept in our society and which do we punish or rehabilitate? And trying to get around it by saying brainworms isn't an answer either. If I have brainworms that's a chemical process too.
Okay, but people can effect their material surroundings due to the way they feel right? If that's true then morals exist in some capacity, even if it's just the zeitgeist of a particular moment in time.
Okay, but people can effect their material surroundings due to the way they feel right?
Yes.
If that’s true then morals exist in some capacity, even if it’s just the zeitgeist of a particular moment in time.
Where's the evidence that there exists any such thing as morality that is the cause of this. How would you even define morality in a physical sense?
Hahahahahahahaha How The Fuck Are Morals Real Hahahaha Comrade Just Walk Away From The Superstructure Like Comrade Close Your Eyes Haha
Not a moral imperative, I am showing that things can be better for them if they do so.
Also just because a things doesn’t correspond to a discrete physical object or process doesn’t mean it’s not real. Improve your metaphysics.
As a materialist, this is foundation of my understanding of the world. If something doesnt exist as atoms, it simply doesnt exist.
This is a top notch bit holy shit. You're on another level of posting right now lol
Doing the "rationalist" poor understanding of philo or theory science nerd argument from the left replacing "rational" with "materialist" is a bit idea I've had for a while, but cool to see it actually executed.
Extra points for doing the double down on contradicting the most basic structure of materialist dialectic and just seeing if anyone calls you on it lol
Materialism is when you can touch something and it's not materialist if you can't touch it. The base is the only thing that exists, superstructure has no impact on the base.
Ironically the suggestion in the post is kinda Feuerbach-sque.
There's some sort of joke in there to be made against class reductionists, but I can't put my finger on it.
This argument is beside the point and kinda silly. You can advocate just that we argue for communism or Marxism along non normative lines (which is true, arguments of 'just' distribution or the like are bad socialism and thoroughly critiqued by Marx), but even Marx had implicit normative goals of his own envisioning of freedom and liberty from the weight of commodity exchange as domination by numerous other persons applied to all, the innate tendency towards overwork due to surplus value extraction, and the resulting alienation, if he viewed it them as social scientific facts. Why waste the time arguing morality is a spook?
Abandoning morality does not mean abandoning normative goals. It's just that we base normative goals on things like material self-interest, rather than appealing to abstract concepts.
You're running into the issue of thinking materialism in terms of a very mechanical materialist framework. Ideology itself for example is an abstract concept that has a heavy weight on the way people act because of how it roughly overlaps the material base underlying. These abstract concepts hold a lot of weight, and ideological concepts and the superstructure can impact the base.
I don't wholly disagree that we should prioritize material self interest as our primary organizing approach, material self interest has way more power when organizing on the ground, but to eschew morality doesn't actually help the organizing necessarily. A good example was sharecropper black communists in the Southern US organizing around their direct material interests of not getting murdered, but still holding strong to moral concepts of the Bible rather than a Marxist strict understanding of economics, combined with Lenin's techniques. My argument is not "we should base our stuff around self interest", it's "why do we need to prove morality nonexistent to do such, that doesn't help most of the time".
Morality is closer to religion than it is to god. Maybe it is a human invention, but having been invented it exists materially in the world nonetheless. Maybe there is no objective basis for it but I don't find that particularly relevant to acting in the world, and there are far more interesting (to me) philosophers than Stirner or Nietzche who engage with morality.
Morality as a thought exists materially. God also exists materially, as a thought. Whether or not you accept morality as a material force in your life, and god too for that matter, is a matter of choice. I choose not to let spooks affect my actions. I cannot choose whether or not OTHER people let such spooks affect their life, and in consequence as we are social beings, my own. So I try to influence them to stop believing in such fiction, for the same reason I don't want people to believe in healing crystals or homeopathy.
If I say I don't believe in God, nobody can contradict me with evidence, because there is no evidence for the existence of God. In this way, God has no material existence. If I say I don't believe in religion, I can be immediately be proved incorrect by someone pointing to a church. The material reality of religion is so concrete that it is literally expressed in concrete.
God does have a material existence, not as a human being but as a thought in our brain. Religious beliefs are the same thing. A church is different from the concept of religion. It is a consequence of fetishising thoughts, believing that thoughts are real material objects outside the brain. It is not proof that religion itself has an independent material existence.
I didn't say 'religious beliefs', I said 'religion'. Islam is an example of one. Regardless of what Islam is a consequence of - and you may be correct in that regard - it is undeniably a thing out there in the world, both the phsyical world in the form of imams and mosques and Quranic verses and more abstractly as 'a shared understanding between people', a thought that exists in roughly the same form in multiple brains at once, a relationship between brains.
Imam = physical thing
Mosque = Physical thing
Quran = physical thing
Islam = religious belief internal to the mind. You cannot touch islam, you cannot taste islam.
The shared understanding between people comes from physical communication - a material thing.
Those three real things are associated. What word would you use to describe their association? Or is the apparant connection between them just a trick of the light?
You are right the origin of the shared understanding is communication, but you are once again arguing origin, which I agree with you on, and being, which is our disagreement. Whatever it came out of, that shared understanding exists, distinct from a thought, and is a component of a thing that the Quran is also a component of, and a nonexistent thing can not be comprised of real things.
Similarly, morality exists as a shared understanding, a relationship between brains that is independant of brains. You can prove it is arbitrary all you like, but arbitrarity, or being a product of invention, do not preclude material existence. And that materiality has consequences for how we should act in the world; in the case of leftism for example, I would argue that a moral organization will be more successful than an amoral organization, and would thus suggest morality play a part in organizing.
It's a massive leap to go from "morality is common understanding through communication" to "morality exists independant of brains". There is no evidence of this.
I'm not denying that morality as a thought has material existence and therefore real consequence. I'm saying that this abstract concept does not exist outside the mind. Like how is this a controversial statement? By existence I literally mean physical existence. There exist no atoms that make up a substance called morality. That is what I mean by material existence.
And that materiality has consequences for how we should act in the world; in the case of leftism for example
You could literally make the same argument for God. Billions of people believe in god, so it affects us. Doesnt mean God is real or that I should give a fuck about God. I work actively to make God unreal in the minds of people, to the point where the concept no longer has any affect on anyone. The same thing can be done to morality.
I would argue that a moral organization will be more successful than an amoral organization, and would thus suggest morality play a part in organizing.
In the real world, what we call morality is a proxy for a whole host of things. The physical force of the law is used to enforce social norms. Other social norms are regulated by social interactions between family, friends, coworkers etc. Inbuilt emotions like fear, empathy, guilt regulate our actions. Nowhere in this complex set of interactions does the abstract concept of morality exist. It is an idea used to simplify our understanding of human behavior. I also don't understand what an amoral organization means.
Moreover, in the real world, it is impossible to have any set of consistent moral beliefs. All actions are considered in their context, rather than compared to an abstract moral standard. So a person who doesnt have any moral standard at all can function just as well as a person without because both operate more or less the same way. No one does things constantly calculating the moral worth of their actions.
I could've been clearer: what I mean by independant of brains is, as a relationship between brains, it doesn't exist solely as thought, but as a 'thing' beyond thought. The relationship itself, the sharing, is the 'thing'. It doesn't exist independant of brains, but rather the better phrasing would be, independant of a brain, since it could apply to any number of brains, you could remove or add brains, even remove all the brains and have it stored externally and then reintroduced into later brains. I'm sorry, its sort of a difficult concept to express but I'm trying my hardest.
You are right that it doesn't exist in the form of atoms (although thoughts do). But nor does Christianity, an abstract concept, but being abstract doesn't mean not being real. Atomic weight is not a prerequisite for existence. War, for example, is a concept with no atomic weight, but you surely agree it would be silly to say there is no such thing as war. Religion is the same, but not God: this is because God, although it may be strange to say it, is not an abstract concept, but a concrete concept. Religion on the other hand is - although abstract - an undeniable reality, and if you spend as much time as you say denying God to believers one you engage with frequently, despite its lack of molecules.
You are right perhaps that what we call morality can be broken down into smaller parts, like war or religion can, and those small parts observed, but I disagree that it is a proxy for them, I contend that it is rather the sum of them. As for an amoral organisation, its a matter of presentation: I would prefer one that presents its mission in moral terms as well as self-interest, as opposed to one that solely focuses on self-interest.
Also, just so you know round these parts they don't look kindly on people quoting parts of a message to respond to
This post makes me feel dirty and I'm not willing to put in the effort to figure out why :screm-a:
Honestly? It's just bad philosophy. Don't put in the effort, it's not worth it lol.
