Immorality Might be Moral?

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
21

My argument is thus: Why the fuck are we made to feel guilty for eating and sustaining ourselves? At what point of arguing sentience or non-sentience are we just looking for a way to soothe our own guilt by covering up the fact that everything we eat is living and has a life until we kill it to eat it?

At what point does predator just stop eating simply because it makes friends with its prey? It would feel guilty afterward for having to eat a friend; but it had to fucking eat.

Is it wrong to eat? No. Is it right to kill friends? No. It is right to eat, but wrong to kill friends, so we should only eat our enemies? That doesn’t sound right either. At what point of morality do you trap yourself in bullshit? Humans are still on the food chain, do we ask these questions of our predators? Do we ask these questions of the things that potentially feed on our energy unto our deaths? At what point of making something feel bad for needing to eat would you still be unsuccessful in stopping it from eating?

I look at life realistically: If I travel through an area filled with wild animals and they’re hungry, they’ll possibly kill and eat me and I can’t fault them for that. On some level, we may even come to respect each other, they might choose to go kill and eat something else instead of me, but why would I fault them for eating me just because I would find the experience undesirable. I think it’s a given that many things find being killed and devoured to be undesirable.

22

You’re talkin’ about bullshit? You just said blades of grass are sentient.

23

I conveyed why in the simplest way possible. If you needed clarification, the way to do that would be to ask questions based on what I said, not what you assume about whatever you think my statement says about my morality. You assumed too much and I told you so, you were off base.

Now, I’m not complaining, I don’t care if you make yourself look like a fool to anyone who knows better. I don’t care if you make yourself look like a king to other fools, but in order to have a good discussion you should never assume anything about what people say, it’s insidious.

But nonetheless, your responds told me something about your lack of understanding on morality and values as well as logic. Do you know that morality is subjective? Do you know that values are subjective? Did you bother to read my first response in this entire thread that points out the complexities of morality? Apparently not because maybe you wouldn’t have attempted to assume some sort of ethical code of mine based on a simple response that basically states eating food is morally acceptable. The fact that you went so far to take my statement as possible hedonism means you don’t understand that morality is based on values and that values are a matter of opinion. I like ice cream, because I like it. Why? Because I find it tasteful. Fun even. Now, values on moral issues as very similar. You need to understand these things in order to understand how to parse your own morality. I would think you’re a very confused individual about morality if you don’t understand those basics.

Now, before your ego gets riled up any further, drop it. I have been pondering morality and values philosophically for what would probably be half of your life. By philosophically I mean on a deeper level, as you’re attempting to understand things on a deeper level by being on these forums and making silly comments that are entirely wrong or completely stupid at times. You have much to learn - but you have been here long enough that I would hope you have learned some more. Unfortunately I’m not sure that I see where you have learned anything at all. I noticed when you first showed up here how incredibility child like your mind was, while you are a thinker, you are not a well developed thinker. I don’t see your thoughts gaining ground, getting to the next level. You need to drop your ego for that it seems, because I will eat your soul you silly little boy. You cannot possibly be on the level that I am yet you somehow think you’re some sort of superior thinker. You are a fool, one of the bigger fools on this forum and I will have no problem telling how how you’re wrong in a reasonable manner in any post of yours. All you do offer here is opportunity to say something right about something you said wrong. You bring the opportune to correct people on things you probably wouldn’t have to bother correcting because most people would know better. But there is opportunity in that in your posts nonetheless.

What you need, is a return to innocence somehow. Your intellect is childish and curious in ways, your ego is typical of some ignorant cocksure dumb fuck who may have pulled the wool over people’s eyes in the past, just because you were more curious than they were. But if you want to challenge me further, I will destroy you. You are simply not on my level logically, linguistically, and intellectually. I hope you get there some day, but it isn’t going to be soon. You have a long way to go. Good luck on your journey, you ignorant, inconsiderate, curious fool.

24

Lots of words, big talk, but little substance. Typical. Hot gas…

I can condense your entire paragraphs into a few lines.

Morality is subjective.
I clarified enough for you, and you are way off base.
I am going to post a long egotistical rant about how much better I am at philosophy than you, but at the same time, talk about how egotistical you are compared to me, while at the same time, being utterly impotent at adding anything of substance other than boosting my own ego.
You are a childlike fool.

Yawn…

25

Good now it seems you get it. Finally.

26

I think I get it, even more, you lived many years, thought about it alot, couldn’t figure out the equation of morality and discovered Nihilism and Subjectivity. It makes you wise of years. Praise be to the gods, you have reached the supreme level of philosophy, you have discovered the important truths of iambiguous.

27

I don’t know anything about some supreme level of philosophy. I don’t know anything about iambiguous as well. I don’t care. I am on a path of continued growth, just like everyone else should be.

28

Removal from the past is often associated with “growth” in modern times, but is this really so.

Now, as you may know, I don’t really like Mr. Anderson, nor agree with his views, but some of his views I agree on, such as childlike minds.

The human organism’s evolved strength is intellect. But there is a drawback to this, in order to have a higher intellect (rather than rudimentary pre-programmed functions) the organism has to be able to learn. The child organism, has a more open mind, as a consequence of this. It also has a more pure mind, thus it’s tainting can be made more easily. The child is not stupid, it is naive. It also tends to be less delusional and more clear-headed about things than adults, although it is more eagerly accepting of delusions such as religious superstition. Clear-headed…because it’s head is clear, because it is a child.

So, growing up, one is supposed to retain one’s mental youth, the same type of childlike mentality, but acquiring new wisdoms as to eliminate the naivitey and gullibility associated with childhood. The childlike mind is superior to the non-plastic, overmatured mind, once the childlike has acquired the certain program routines not to fall into the traps of naivety. It is superior for many reasons, it is more creative, learnable, better aesthetics, better sense of humor, is usually more forgiving and reasonable, takes devils advocate stances more often and has less tolerance for bullshit.

As for moral nihilism I can say this. It is quite silly but some embrace it. Joker claims he is a nihilist but you can tell he is not a nihilist, he constantly makes threads complaining about human ethics.

For example, you can know that moral nihilism is quite absurd, its kind of like a memetic virus. You could argue that morality doesn’t exist, and that if a clergyman says you must stab yourself in the knee everyday and if you don’t, he will chop your ears off, you could argue that such a world is not objectively worse than any other world. This is evidence of a total disconnect from reality.

Objective and subjective are tied entities. If you have a subjective feeling about something, it is the truth. And so you frame an objectivity based on the assumption of subjective entities. And this is how you have an objective morality. For instance, we assume that pigs are sentient, and that giving them pain causes them pain. Therefore if we say that it is okay to give pigs pain, we are saying that is also okay to give ourselves pain. This is only false when the condition, “pigs are sentient” is false, or the condition that sentient pigs are masochists in a different reality. Therefore, we can make a logically coherent morality, based on axioms, and whether the assumed conditions are true or false (like, we generally dont have evidence of grass being sentient, therefore cutting grass is not deemed morally reprehensible.)

29

What if they were?