Morality Part2: Morality raped in a new hole

[Indigos8rboi]

your welcome :)

[ZullGostnu2]

I look at people with objective morality and objective ethics a greater threat to anarchism than mutual aid or free trade. They want to control what is the absolutes, the path to statism.

[ModelAnarchist]

I agree :)

although, I hate to see such anonymity between us nihilists and the moralists sometimes

[ZullGostnu2]

I've been thinking about this "morality" problem. We have words for good/bad and correct/wrong. Why two different groups of words. Good is not correct. Bad is not wrong. To make these equal is the same as war is peace...Newspeak, the destruction of a language. I pick up a book. If I wanted the book, then this is a correct action. It is not a good action. It is not a bad action. Good and Bad are relativistic description based in morality. Correct and wrong are factual statements.

[ModelAnarchist]

I think I love you :)

I made a list of words that make me think people who use them are retarded, on that list, were words such as: good, bad, evil, should, obligated, natural, ect.

[Nofaris]

What kind of accent do you have?

[ModelAnarchist]

a phony one

[Sean2046]

i remain unconvinced that morality is evil. i don't really think it is tangible and i don't support any efforts to try and find an objective way to determine ethics, but i'm not convinced that it's evil to look at the world in terms of good and bad.

[ModelAnarchist]

Well I'm pretty sure 100% of amoralists don't believe morality is evil ;-D

[brainpolice2]

The "maximization of your own happiness" is a form of morality.

[ModelAnarchist]

only if if I make the claim you ought to do it.... I only say you ought to do it if you care to be successful at achieving your prefrences

[brainpolice2]

Which is still a moral claim, "if X, ought Y".

[ModelAnarchist]

watch?v=9q27uK6lYoQ&feature=re­lated

[brainpolice2]

No thanks, I prefer direct argumentation to link-sourcing.

[ModelAnarchist]

No thanks, I work for a living

[junior00bacon00chee]

but not all claims of that form necessarily involve morality.

"if i am laying down on train tracks and i hear a train coming, i ought to move."

how is that moral? that is just an act of valuing one's own well-being. there is no "right" or "wrong" in this case, just what is practically necessary for me to survive in such a scenario, correct?

[blackacidlizzard]

It is not true that that if a train is approaching you you ought to move. The only "ifs" that are related to anything that "should" be are those of desire.

You ought to move if you wish to remain alive.

Should is something that can only form within consciousness. All shoulds are created by minds, even if it appears that they are merely "discovered" by said mind. "Should" makes no sense when not tied to a desire.

Should a magnet attract metal? Should rocks float in water?

[blackacidlizzard]

Are "oughts" moral?

Depends what you mean by moral.

[blackacidlizzard]

Good to see something from you, it's been a bit.

The way I see it, morality doesn't exist, and as with the addition of "just" to the description of the true nature of so many things which are widely claimed to come from mystical/unreal sources, the addition of "without god is a non sequitor. Even with a god there is no morality, just the preference set of the most powerful mind.

[blackacidlizzard]

If this is accepted as a definition of "morality" then we need only find the person who has the most power over us and their preference sets then are the "objective moral standard."