Ethics of the Road

[Still a Youth]

Branching off from a conversation about morals and politics in chat, In this thread, we talk about moral and political philosophy. can you be ethical without reliigon? is left or right wing politics more ethical? is nihilism the only way forward?

discuss

 

[Jessica3cho雪血⊜青意]

Its all relativistic.

 

[Still a Youth]

Its all relativistic.

if "it's all realative" is true, then the truth value of that statement is relative and therefore not true.

 

[Jessica3cho雪血⊜青意]

if "it's all realative" is true, then the truth value of that statement is relative and therefore not true.

You've nailed it on the head.

So, to be more serious, I think we should look towards naturalistic laws to form a political and moralistic basis, not theological laws created after naturalistic laws. Any theistic approach to morality is going to be clouded by relativism, based on a variety of factors, while we can observe natural laws that tend to stay true when met by multi-variable situations.

 

[Still a Youth]

You've nailed it on the head.

So, to be more serious, I think we should look towards naturalistic laws to form a political and moralistic basis, not theological laws created after naturalistic laws. Any theistic approach to morality is going to be clouded by relativism, based on a variety of factors, while we can observe natural laws that tend to stay true when met by multi-variable situations.

the presumption here is that of natual law theory (which, although based on theology, has been sucessfully decopled form theology). the problem is that a lot of the neoliberals, transhumanists, etc., reject the notion of natural law theory as having no emperical grounding.

 

[Jessica3cho雪血⊜青意]

the presumption here is that of natual law theory (which, although based on theology, has been sucessfully decopled form theology). the problem is that a lot of the neoliberals, transhumanists, etc., reject the notion of natural law theory as having no emperical grounding.

Oh, I was not referring to Natural Law Theory, I mean to reference the intrinsic reality that we find ourselves in. This universe could not exist as chaos, it is simply impossible. Our existence requires a framework, and it is one we can at least partially observe, as we can observe and thusly be assured, of things that have existed, still exist, and will continue to exist.

The issue with things like post-modernism, neo-liberalism, and transhumanism is that it is basing its framework on something 3 degrees separated from that which creates our reality. We have, [Intrinsic universal laws that form our universe -> Human interpretation and understanding of those laws based on region -> Human culture and society built from that understanding (often expressed as theism) -> Moralistic frameworks based on the culture and society of a region]

These theories often beg the question, "In what ways is our current understanding wrong?", but often do not ask, "From where do we derive our current understanding?".
One such example is the concept that gender is actually a spectrum. To believe this, you must have, at one point, believed that gender was not a spectrum or believe that the concept of gender exists in the first place and is, in some way, separate from the idea of biological sex. The issue here being that gender is based off of social and cultural values, meaning that it is also 3 degrees separated from any actual intrinsic natural laws. So, to hold true that the concept of gender is viable framework to base political or moralistic values off of, we must first prove that the culture and society it was built from is viable, which means we must prove the understanding of intrinsic natural laws that brought about that society and culture is a viable understanding.

 

[Taleisin]

a good way to find presuppositions to base your logic off, is to attempt to understand reality from as many different systems of belief and presuppositions as possible first. then, eventually you'll discover conclusions that you cannot avoid no matter the presuppositions you choose. then, you can take those conclusions as your presuppositions to re-evaluate the evidence of your experience to construct beliefs.

From there, you can form a moral system that fits with your understanding of reality. Personal morals can never be "true", they are merely a reflection of our perspective. outside morals can never be better than our own, as morality is a concept exclusively within subjective existence. Theism is one possible presupposition, it's not more or less valid as a substrate for morality than any other- value judgments are inherently subjective as well.

If anything is, then it is itself. our representational and relational understanding of reality is always false, illusory. However, it's no less valuable than any other domain of reality- subjectivity is not good or bad, it similarly just is. We have to decide how to act, including the choice of how consciously we want to make that decision.

 

[nagolbud]

I'm a Bible thumper. I realize everyone is a sinner it doesn't matter what labels or games they want to play. We live in a fallen world surrounded by douche bags and narcissists. I also hate religion. Fk Christianity, it's not biblical.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NTrr8Wh3aI


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_uNEqoMhB8

 

[gathermore]

You've nailed it on the head.

So, to be more serious, I think we should look towards naturalistic laws to form a political and moralistic basis, not theological laws created after naturalistic laws. Any theistic approach to morality is going to be clouded by relativism, based on a variety of factors, while we can observe natural laws that tend to stay true when met by multi-variable situations.

We should structure human society after the organs in the body imo. fuck governments, religions, philosophies, etc.

 

[gathermore]

I'm a Bible thumper. I realize everyone is a sinner it doesn't matter what labels or games they want to play. We live in a fallen world surrounded by douche bags and narcissists. I also hate religion. Fk Christianity, it's not biblical.


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4NTrr8Wh3aI


View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v_uNEqoMhB8

how do you choose which translation of the bible to read?

to me thats the most vexing question.

 

[nagolbud]

I believe in structured anarchy. Common principles bring together individuals to form a community rather than a large society. Society doesn't work, history proves that... whereas the only thing able to destroy a community is a society 10x its size. In most cases throughout history, this destruction came after the people stopped believing in God and gave up to idolatry of man made religions of many labels, whether it be catholicism, science, narcissism, ect.

 

[nagolbud]

how do you choose which translation of the bible to read?

to me thats the most vexing question.

Lots of research and discernment. There are only 2 english bibles that remain true to Gods word.. but when you look at other english bibles there is always a mark of the beast sorta say. The newer bibles all have a satanic symbol right on the cover.

I still use the original and first english bible called the geneva bible. It was translated by a group of men that fought back against the catholic church after the catholic church burned all greek new testaments. They did this because catholic priests spoke latin and the only remaining bibles where latin (minus a few that had remained hidden. You would have been burned alive for having a greek new testament by the catholic church.. or tortured in their creepy dungeons.) So they could use the bible to control people.. so then the reformation happened. They translated it and ran from persecution to the Americas.

https://www.patreon.com/posts/reformation-58870065

I've got a good post there and the documentary is really good.
The only difference between the KJV and the Geneva Bible is King James was trying to maintain his spot on the thrown.. so he gave in to the bible believers and reprinted it for all common people to have the english bible. They couldn't remove anything because i believe its the word of God, but they could remove the comments made by the translators.. which are very interesting. He did it out of selfishness but in the end God used that to bring his word to the common folks. Original Geneva Bibles were huge family bibles that they just kept at home. Recorded all family lineage ect. That is until the catholic church invented the birth certificate under MAXIM LAW to monetize human beings.

 

[Jessica3cho雪血⊜青意]

We should structure human society after the organs in the body imo. fuck governments, religions, philosophies, etc.

Do you mean something along the lines of using an organic model to determine how society functions?

What would your thoughts be on the different organs? E.G. What do the lungs translate to in this system?

 

[Ogerch]

a good way to find presuppositions to base your logic off, is to attempt to understand reality from as many different systems of belief and presuppositions as possible first. then, eventually you'll discover conclusions that you cannot avoid no matter the presuppositions you choose. then, you can take those conclusions as your presuppositions to re-evaluate the evidence of your experience to construct beliefs.

From there, you can form a moral system that fits with your understanding of reality. Personal morals can never be "true", they are merely a reflection of our perspective. outside morals can never be better than our own, as morality is a concept exclusively within subjective existence. Theism is one possible presupposition, it's not more or less valid as a substrate for morality than any other- value judgments are inherently subjective as well.

If anything is, then it is itself. our representational and relational understanding of reality is always false, illusory. However, it's no less valuable than any other domain of reality- subjectivity is not good or bad, it similarly just is. We have to decide how to act, including the choice of how consciously we want to make that decision.

Where have you come to this conlusion if I may ask? It is very similar to what Nietzsche wrote in the first few chapters in BGE (Beyond Good and Evil).

 

[Taleisin]

Where have you come to this conlusion if I may ask? It is very similar to what Nietzsche wrote in the first few chapters in BGE (Beyond Good and Evil).

I've never read Nietzsche, though I've been peripherally exposed to his ideas of course. All my ideas are from my own thought, though certain things I might explain using language borrowed from other thinkers when it's intended to represent concepts close enough to do so. In this case, these are all conclusions I've come to by following natural trains of logic from my understandings of reality, humanity, psychology, and philosophical concepts- not taken from anyone else. I think a lot, and people often tell me I have come to the same conclusions as other notable thinkers, though I've never found anyone who I agree with completely (I assume I never will). I've had the good fortune of being able to practice philosophical method and being exposed to wide ranging ideas in various domains from a young age, my family really stretched me and taught me to debate etc. If I say anything directly taken from someone else, I try to cite where I got that, otherwise you can assume everything else is my original logic.

 

[Ogerch]

I'd like someone to counter my argument on what im about to say.

I've never read Nietzsche, though I've been peripherally exposed to his ideas of course. All my ideas are from my own thought, though certain things I might explain using language borrowed from other thinkers when it's intended to represent concepts close enough to do so. In this case, these are all conclusions I've come to by following natural trains of logic from my understandings of reality, humanity, psychology, and philosophical concepts- not taken from anyone else. I think a lot, and people often tell me I have come to the same conclusions as other notable thinkers, though I've never found anyone who I agree with completely (I assume I never will). I've had the good fortune of being able to practice philosophical method and being exposed to wide ranging ideas in various domains from a young age, my family really stretched me and taught me to debate etc. If I say anything directly taken from someone else, I try to cite where I got that, otherwise you can assume everything else is my original logic.

Impressive. Its true that many people who practice it eventually find their equal.
What you have explained so far is essentially what niezch talked about in BGE on a chapter The prejudice of philosophers. I think we all borrowed many of his ideas because he is now considered as one of the few "modern" philosophers of our age. Many of us unintentonally come to this conclusion because our mentality of modern era and have all come to a similar conclusion based on past philosophers that have profounded our modern understanding of the world.

 

[Mеченый Яков]

I got ethics, but my machine gun don't *proceeds to commit war crimes against the Iraq Population*

 

[gathermore]

Do you mean something along the lines of using an organic model to determine how society functions?

What would your thoughts be on the different organs? E.G. What do the lungs translate to in this system?

ummmm renewable energy division?

I mainly just use it as a fun thought experiment as something to start with, its probobly wayy to abstract to be of use but hey

Nervous, Endocrine, Reproductive System = government/decision making authority
Integumentary,

Respiratory, Circulatory, Digestive System = energy production

Integumentary and Immune System = Military/Police

Excretory System = Sanitation

Skeletal and Muscular System = Infrastructure/means of production



Human beings are the cells operating within their designated "organ, in their designated "system" and America has the problem where we only value the "brain," so those who are born equipped with those talents succeed and prosper and gain too much power, and those who are supposed to be in the skeletal or immune system are trying to be brains because thats what society is telling them.

Every cell, organ, and system needs to be loved and cherished and cared for <3

 

[Still a Youth]

considering hedonic nihilismhttp://www.justethics.com/Articles/ArtMID/2952/ArticleID/8/Hedonic-Nihilism

 

[gathermore]

considering hedonic nihilismhttp://www.justethics.com/Articles/ArtMID/2952/ArticleID/8/Hedonic-Nihilism

Yo this is a good article, I was just at the bars last night with my blue pill friends and I see hedonic nilhilism everywhere.