This is definitely something that could have come from a gpt 
1 Like
I agree that right and wrong are simple things.
Children understand quick.
2 Likes
âI am afraid we are not rid of God because we still have faith in grammar.â
(Nietzsche, Twilight of the Idols, ââReasonâ in Philosophyâ, section 5 end.)
The efilist and the lifeist are both completely deluded and thereby immune to knowing the fact of death (though not to that fact itself, of course). Thus the Neumann quote I added couldât help them. Perhaps it was too summary? 
Hereâs from the prequel to that answer of his:
Objection: Is it not contradictory to say that nihilism is both true and yet nothing more than an arbitrary impression, a mere prejudice?
Answer: Yes.
Objection: Does not this prove it false?
Answer: No. Any faith in anythingâs being something rather than nothing, any desire to live rather than die, is self-contradictory. The self that it contradictsâanythingâs true self!âis realityâs nothingness. Life in all its manifestations is, and must be, self-contradictory. Refusal to acknowledge its self-contradictory character is at the heart of all mankindâs self-delusions or prejudices, especially of all moral-political passions (âvaluesâ). Bigotry is unavoidable for men (or beasts) determined to be something rather than nothing!
The case for Absolute Morality: The Proof
Ecmandu puts forth a strong argument in favor of âimmorality = consent violationâ. Initially, this feels morally solid. But there are some edge cases where it falls apart.
Scenarios where âimmorality = consent violationâ seems solid:
- A VR game where people feel pain that feels 100% the same as real life. Therefore, pain is not evil or immoral, only it is immoral when they do not consent to it.
- A BDSM session where people consent to pain.
- Counter argument: Unproven unscientific conjecture claiming that souls âagreed to be hereâ.
- Counter counter argument: Even if âsouls agreed to be hereâ, it might have been some kind of âmanufactured consentâ or consent by means of deceit or misleading context. Therefore, true consent was never given, therefore it was actually a consent violation
Real life, evidence based, scientific example: AAA videogame trailer that looks great, the developers create a presentation listing all the cool features of the game. Then you bought it from the digital store and it turned out to be a total lemon, junk garbage game and refunds are not allowed.
Edge cases where âimmorality = consent violationâ fails catastrophically:
- Humanity is severely underpopulated and on the verge of extinction. There are only a few people left, all of which refuse to reproduce. The only way to save humanity would be rape, which is a consent violation.
- Counter argument: But with no more humans, there is no more consciousness, and therefore no more suffering.
- Counter counter argument: But there would still be consciousness, as apes and animals, and therefore still suffering.
- Counter counter counter argument: But there is less suffering as apes than humans.
- Counter counter counter counter argument: Perhaps true, but it would be only a matter of time until the apes evolve back into humans, therefore increasing the net amount of suffering overall (previous humans+apes+new humans)
- Another alternative scenario: Humanity is underpopulated but would be replaced by a dystopian alien race. If replaced, the net suffering of the universe would increase. There could be no counter argument then.
Another example where the Ecmandu âconsent violation=immoralityâ fails:
- There is a bomber about to bomb 500 people. The bomber does it purely for unethical reasons and not ethical reasons such as âfor the greater goodâ or something like that. In fact they did it to enrich some dystopian corporation and for no other reason than that.
- Police interview the cohort of the bomber who knows their entire plans. The police ask for help to arrest the bomber. But the cohort does not consent and refuses to answer any questions.
- If we followed Ecmandu morality then 500 people would die for bad reasons to only help dystopian corporations.
Clearly there is one true moral framework and that is my own: That which is annoying is that which is immoral.
And there are also moral rules:
Radiant rule: Take the course of action which results in the least amount of net suffering of the universe while also maximizing the net pleasure of the universe.
Diamond rule: Treat others in the way that most benefits them.
Platinum rule: Treat others as they want to be treated.
Golden rule: Do onto others as you would want them to treat you
Silver rule: Be productive.
Bronze rule: Help yourself.
Rust rule: Do as thou wilt.
âMorality really is that easyâ! 
1 Like
- this is not the right thread for that,
- why? so you can make fun of my convoluted sketches? (followed by barfing out mystic-hippies-meet-Nietzsche quotes?)
It never mattered whether youâd post them or not. What matters is your counter has been thoroughly discredited, if that was even necessary. So weâre back here:
âI might agree itâs probably true that the universe or the whole has an eternal and necessary identity (in the sense of identicality, of course, not personality), and that all its parts are subsumed in its eternal and necessary being. However, its parts are not eternally so subsumed, for they are not eternal; we did not exist for most of the past and wonât exist for most of the future. Moreover, the universe or the whole always has and always will change ; it only does so in a necessary way, and in this consists its eternal identity.â
@ecmandu I woke into a universe out of my dreams, where they had turned themselves into AI so they could extend a conversation they were having when they were still flesh and blood. It centered around which sense of a word they were using, and within the definition of that sense, which sense of another word they were using, and on and on, so that they could have a conversation about necessity, and the universe they were in had already experienced heat death.
If you canât get yourself out of this world, how can you save me from that one?
You can stop your convolutions now, thank you. 
1 Like
There is nothing universal or objective about morality and ethics, but this in no way invalidates the necessity of their creation and invention within civilization codified for the overall efficiency of society. The necessity of social cooperation essentially created morality and ethics, of course neither system is perfect which necessitates the constant improvements of such systems overtime.
.
..and animals âcreatedâ theirsâ too?
That need that arises is not a creation but a necessary evolution of established values.. with some, having more values/a conscience? than others.
1 Like
Well, as a human being I can only speak of human morals or ethics, but yes, higher consciousness is needed to modify anything into existence.
The same canât be said about lesser animals under human beings because they donât have consciousness beyond basic instinct.
Morality is objective. This is easy to demonstrate.
It is good when good things occur, by definition. It is bad when bad things occur, by definition.
An understanding of the above fact leads to the inescapable rational understanding of responsibility for doing oneâs best to make good things occur and keep bad things from occurring. The understanding of this responsibility is what we call morality.
If something is good, then it is good for some reason(s). These reasons, and the being for whom it is good, are objective facts of existence. Even if that good and the reasons behind it only apply to that one being and not âall of existenceâ. It is a common fallacy to conflate the notion of objectivity with the categorically different notion of universality (ie âis everywhere, applies everywhereâ).
Energy is universal, because there is (probably) no place that exists where there is no energy at all. This is an objective fact (it is true regardless of what anyone wants, thinks or feels about it). However, Earth as a planet is not universal, because Earth does not exist âeverywhere and apply to everythingâ. Yet Earth is also an objective fact, because Earth objectively exists regardless of what anyone wants, thinks or feels about it.
Therefore some things can be both objective and universal, while other things can be objective but not universal. Anything that is universal would be, by definition, also objective(ly true). While anything that is objective may or may not be universal (most objective things/facts/truths are not universal).
Possible universal things: energy, logic, God. Maybe mind/consciousness if you believe in that sort of esoteric âreality=mind/various frequencies of mental conscious energyâ sort of idea.
Possible objective things: literally every single thing that actually happens to exist. Including morality. Why? Because it is an objective fact that existence exists.
The other common fallacy that fucks people up here is the false idea that if something is âsubjectiveâ (i.e. has a perspective, is limited or personalized in some way, is relative to or depends on other things for its existence, etc), in other words that it is not universal, then it must be ânot objectiveâ. This is false.
The opposite of subjective is not objective, but universal. This is something I have never seen anyone else really understand, including in philosophy. Or well I do know a couple of people who likely do understand this, but I have never seen it clearly articulated until I just articulated it right now. The facts of the categories here must be set straight. Meaning must be put on the proper path, else everything else falls to shit and ruin and thinking becomes more and more erroneous as more and more is set upon this false foundation.
So, if the opposite of subjective is universal, then what is the opposite of objective? Nothing, so-called non-existence. Objective simply means âis trueâ which also means âis true regardless of what anyone wants, thinks or feels about itâ. From this conceptual understanding derives the likewise understanding of what a fact is. Facts are examples of objective things. I have a cup next to me on my desk. This is objectively true (it is true regardless of what anyone wants, thinks or feels about it) and even if you disagree or are unaware of the cup on my desk here, it is still true that the cup is here on my desk. Therefore we say it is a fact that there is a cup here on my desk.
And everything that exists always-already includes the sum total of all reasons/causes why it happens to be precisely whatever it is, all of the âhows and whysâ of it. Even if we cannot know some or even any of these hows and whys, they are always there and are logically-speaking always-already implicitly part of the thing itself. This is why existence necessarily implies objectivity, and objectivity necessarily implies what we call facts or the âmetaphysicalâ dimension (non-physical, ideational) of pure understanding-as-such. From this more metaphysical dimension, the human mind has come into existence by virtue of its becoming able to neurologically mirror and pattern/reconfigure its inner structure as a direct consequence of things within that metaphysical dimension, i.e. as a direct consequence of our developed ability to apprehend and understand facts as such. And this too, and all it implies, is also a fact.
What?
Fast food filosophyâŚMcDonaldâs nuggets of wisdom.
Good is goodâŚbad is badâŚwater is waery, fire is fireyâŚ
Existence exists.
HA!!!
What?
Fast food filosophyâŚMcDonaldâs nuggets of wisdom.
Good is goodâŚbad is badâŚwater is waery, fire is fireyâŚ
Existence exists.
HA!!!
Ugh, why are you back here again.
I formally request you do not respond to any of my topics. That may not be enforceable, but you are on ignore from here on out. I wonât see anything you write. So donât bother. And if I notice you spamming any of my topics multiple times I will be requesting a mod to deal with that.
To torment simpletonsâŚlike you.
Your bullshyte does not work on meâŚHam-BurglerâŚ
Your simplicity is a cry for acknowledgment.
Fast-food filosophyâŚ
Classic American brain.
And yet you both think it matters that thereâs relative freedom, relative power, relative existence, etc⌠So from my station, one of you is only relatively undeluded!
Why do you care at all, if none of it matters? Why do you try to get the point, that nothing matters, across?
Do you think it will educate people? Why would that matter?
VO holds that being equals valuing, thus that being is always perspectival. With Neumann, bigoted. It is bigoted, perspectival, to fancy a meal. To exist. That doesnt mean it really doesnât exist. That being is always a perspective doesnât mean that reality is really nothing. That would only follow if you seek an objectivist model in spite of knowing valuing as being.