Morality

We_Are_Legion · 2014-09-21T14:03:15+00:00

I want to use this topic to run a thought I had off you all(from an earlier post):

We will assume for a second that there is no such thing as moral universal-ism. If you're not convinced, please read an entertaining conversation with Genghis Khan for an ELI5 explanation on why.

So instead of that, the model I want to posit is... I want you to think about morality itself as a strategy.

Let me ask you, what do you think plate theory is? Plate theory basically relies on the assumption that women are immensely sexually and socially competitive with each other. tl;dr Its just a method to make the pivot of competition yourself, and the promised result is, concurrent girlfriends, with girls past no.2 getting successively easier.

So plate spinning is a strategy. What would the moral action be though, in this case? Asking nicely?

Fair enough. But notice something here.

Morality, whatever its advice happens to be in the case by case basis, is also a strategy. In and of itself, morality is strategy. Its the mass-packaged kind with intangible benefits and disguised as altruism. It is basically about self-interest; Its sort of an instinct. You're just picking your side, in this case your group, via your groups specific rules, subconsciously in the hope that the group will be good to you too or there won't be any consequences. You've been conditioned to fear the group and also have an instinctive guilt responses in you. But the group doesn't keep an account book. Its a phantom threat in many cases, that exists largely in your own head. For an individual who wants to maximize self-interest, following that instinct all the time isn't worth it. Especially when the group's think doesn't have your interests in mind. There's more than one strategy available. You don't always need to follow the arbitrary rules. Most people, even the ones on the highest of horses, often don't.

So when you start thinking about morality itself as a strategy, you can pick and choose the ones which bring you outcomes. Don't want to deal with guilt? Only do victimless crimes (disregarding arbitrary rules of morals absolutely doesn't automatically mean victims btw). It didn't work? Oh well. Revise your strategy. Whats more there are crimes you can commit that are quite, from your own end, at least, not really doing anything at all. Basically, you let people choose to do things.

For example, I would argue plate spinning moral too. You preserve everyone's agency(absolutely no lying involved, no allowing false expectations to form either) and if your conscience is still giving you trouble, make your hamster work for you: If RP really is bullshit, I'm not even doing anything besides a placebo effect anyway. All I'm doing is creating the conditions for them to choose what I want. Assuming that what I am doing is immoral is to acknowledge that I am doing anything at all. It is to acknowledge that my assumptions about women are correct for a good portion of them. And surely, you don't believe in any specific natures of people...

ThorLives · 2014-09-21T18:41:37+00:00

I'm an atheist. Morality is a system for society to function and for people to get along with each other with a minimum of friction. Violation of societal norms leads to anger and retribution in various ways. Of course, this requires people to understand what is reasonable and expected from other people, and what people expect from them.

I reject the notion that people have no moral obligations to other people, as some have said on this thread.

It's true that people will use conservative moral ideas as ways to compete with other people. At the same time, we have feminists who want to add more moral prescriptions to society's rules: e.g. no fat shaming. But, it still doesn't change the fact that morality can help a society function better (for example, by forbidding lying), that people can be justifiably angry when you violate those "rules", and that society will judge who to like and trust and who to ostracize and distrust based on adherence and violations of moral rules. For example, if there's a conflict between two people, we might conclude one of the following:

It's just subjective conflict (example: person A breaks up with person B, and person B is angry about it), we can't really objectively be angry at person A just because person B wants us to be.
Alternatively, if person A cheats on person B, then we might conclude that person A has violated some moral rule (lying) that justifies us mistrusting, disliking, and ostracizing that person.

Moral rules are what we use to decide if one person or another is at fault or if it's just a subjective anger that doesn't allow us to blame one or the other person. We also use it to decide what is justified retribution. For example, let's say that someone kills a pedophile for sexually abusing their child. As a society, we don't agree with killing someone, however, because of the "pedophile" aspect of the story, we will shrug and think, "Well, he had it coming because of the terrible violation he had committed." Alternatively, if a woman breaks up with a man, and he gets angry and kills her, we don't condone that. What's the difference? In both cases, the killer was angry. The dividing line is whether or not the anger justifies retribution or punishment in some "objective" sense. To put it another way, the anger is understandable in both cases, but retribution and punishment is not justified in both cases. Morality is used to draw a line between what's acceptable and not.

soylentblueissmurfs · 2014-09-21T21:54:06+00:00

My definition of moral in debating here I think fits most systems of morality.

Moral = produces good

Immoral = produces suffering

Amoral = doesn't do anything by itself

Moral stuff: ethical codes, moral actions, standing up for justice etc.

Immoral stuff: hurting others needlessly, plans to hurt others

Amoral stuff: skills, philosophical toolkits, the goals of non-human agents (germs or predatory animals aren't immoral, landmines aren't immoral (though planting them could be), the process of evolution isn't immoral (even though it produces great suffering))

Thoughts?

alexdelargeorange · 2014-09-21T16:01:32+00:00

There is no such thing as a universal morality. The concept is absurd. Who or what would prescribe such a thing? I'm atheist, I make my own morality based on a mix of what gets practical results and what helps me sleep at night. This is true for absolutely anyone who lives by any sort of moral code. There really is nothing more to it.

LuciusReesusMaximus · 2014-09-21T14:44:20+00:00

When they refer to the "morality" of an ideal they are referring to how their feelings are affected by it, whether it is based in truth or logic does not concern them. They expect reality to adapt to what they deem acceptable.

In other words, ignorance is bliss, bliss is a "feel good" emotional state. This is especially true in the conflict between the genders.

If an unauthorized child enters a tigers enclosure to pet it, would it be moral or immoral if the tiger killed and consumed the child? Nature does not care for your opinion. To say that the tiger is vicious and needs to be euthanised would be willful ignorance of the nature of the tiger in favor of your feelings. The tiger was being a tiger.

Moral justice warriors make the lifelong mistake of automatically rejecting the amorality of nature, including their own nature. They expect nature to conform to their emotions, they refuse to realize that nature can not be negotiated with. They may as well jump from a building and sue gravity for the hospital bill.

The morality card is an appeal to emotion. Instincts are often emotionally offensive.

It is immoral for a man with healthy, functional reproductive organs to express his instinctive desire for sex? Willful ignorance of the nature of the man, based on how it affects emotion.

It is immoral for a woman to desire a mans assets? Willful ignorance of the nature of the woman based on how it affects emotion.

Females, being the emotional, social sex, are especially prone to this kind of fallacious reasoning. To expose their true offensive nature offends them, and as such they will reject and appeal to emotion in order to maintain public relations. The morality card, among other appeals to emotion, is the perfect tool for this purpose.

stickfiguresk · 2014-09-21T14:17:05+00:00

(It won't)

quoted because it's the one thing of value that's going to be posted here. ALWAYS SO MUCH FILLER!

I've talked about morality a bit last night, so I'll chime in. I have no education concerning popular interpretations of morality, so bear with me while I spew my own brand of diarrhea(or dont and skip my post, by all means):

I think morality is completely subjective and some of it may be influenced by genes, but all of it is influenced by selfish needs. It is a manufactured tool like inches or a wrench or TRP or language. Good and evil don't exist. And only sociopaths want to be evil, or, at least, the popular idea of it. I don't feel like I need to elaborate any more. You get the idea.

My personal morality is pretty much libertarianism.

homo_homini_lupus · 2014-09-21T20:27:50+00:00

Without some kind of assumed agreement on certain universal moral principles, debate becomes difficult if not impossible between two sides.

For example, in a debate about gun control it would be generally assumed that both parties broadly agree that civil liberties are good and needless gun deaths are bad. Then a debate is able to occur in that space where parties attempt justify the merits of any argument in reference to this.

If it transpired that one party did NOT agree ("well actually I don't really care about needless gun death") where can you really go from there? Discussions over.

Aerobus · 2014-09-21T16:20:52+00:00

Who cares about morals. Society has gone to shit. Do whatever you have to do to get ahead, whether it be in your career or in your relationship.

cxj · 2014-09-21T18:57:42+00:00

Holy shit the silence in this thread is defeaning

Piggles_Hunter · 2014-09-21T13:15:38+00:00

Maybe /r/philosophy might be of some help to you? Also I highly recommend Sam Harris) to read. He's a neuroscientist and philosopher and endlessly explores morality and where it comes from.

redpillbanana · 2014-09-21T13:43:09+00:00

Secular moral values http://www.christianpost.com/news/richard-dawkins-morals-come-from-enlightened-secular-values-not-religion-67883/

ThaddeusRoss · 2014-09-21T20:19:56+00:00

When I was in college 10000 years ago, "moral relativism" was all the rage.

Descriptive, Meta-ethical moral relativism or normative? Because I see normative moral relativism as tricky to defend without just throwing your hands up and accepting moral nihilism.

[deleted] · 2014-09-22T17:45:24+00:00

I confess my morals are likely rooted in Judeo-Christian ethics because that's the environment I grew up in in North America, yet I'm neither Jewish nor Christian.

I generally refer to "common sense" when I think of morality. Although common sense is becoming less common these days which might make common sense not even exist anymore. Irregardless notwithstanding, I still tend to think of common sense, intended benevolence, and intended harmony when I think of morality.

As far as systems go, I borrow whatever I want from different religions that seem to have common sense and benevolent and harmonious intentions. Even though I think morality is universal, there is no specific single code. No person, religion, or institution has a monopoly on what morality is. And it's probably better that way.

harkrank · 2014-09-21T15:24:54+00:00

Beta men have been conditioned into thinking they are unwanted and dirty. That means a woman having sex with a man without any other exchange is using her unfairly because in his mind only the man gains by sex. That's the origin for the weird notion that men that give only sex to women are "using" them, that they're doing something morally wrong. The conditioning works as it is supposed to, these men will not be much sexual competition.

If you consider yourself a high value man you see giving sex to a woman as a gift to her and not the other way around. You're giving her your sperms and DNA so she will have good offspring.

Now if a man has been conditioned to believe he is inferior then he will see sex with a woman as receiving a gift since she will occupy her precious womb with his offspring. This sentiment he expands to include all other men.

I am aware of birth control and condoms, but our biology and culture haven't taken these things into consideration yet.

scallopkid · 2014-09-21T18:31:49+00:00

I think the ability to accept moral relativism is one of the things that really separates red from blue.

Title	Morality
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	11
Comments	75
Date	September 21, 2014 12:28 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/2h12o1/morality/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/morality.284807 https://theredarchive.com/post/284807

Comments