I have a question Veeky Forums
>To act morally, is it necessary to fight against one's desires?
I'm looking at this from two points of view, yes and no.
>yes
Our desires are irrational and could sometimes be immoral
Desire is something spontaneous without reason, acting morally depends on reason and conscious.
>no
since our desires can sometimes be morally right, for example to hep people or donate to charity
And i'm pretty much out, care to chime in?
bumping
We always have multiple desires that conflict with one another, some being stronger than others. The knowledge of which side to take is what constitutes as morality. We all know what we ought to do in any situation, but we often won't. The risks of moral life include very unpleasant things, such as alienation, being ostracized, slander, enemies, natural danger, sabotage by inferior people who see something unequal... You might miss out on an orgy, can't fap to any porn you desire, can't hole up in your home playing video games, reading philosophy or pretending that there is no hope. No, you would know that there is a correct order to things.
>lolmorals
Just grow up. If you're not a shithead, you should have no issues not acting like a shithead and it's bound to make your life easier too, unless you're wealthy enough to act however you want either way.
What is wrong with being a shithead? You get socially ostracized? You get called a shithead?
Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't. It depends on the person and their own personal inclination of nature.
Everyone has their own standards of ethics or morals and many times they are broken for their own sake. It's not black and white.
If you have a desire to steal a chocolate bar but you don't because you know it's morally wrong, than yes you need to fight against your desires.
Everyday we need to fight certain desires both for moral reasons and health reasons.
>You get socially ostracized?
For example. Besides, it tends to make life harder beyond that too, since you'd create conflict everywhere you go and would stress about it, constantly being stuck in fight or flee modus.
The violence and bullying by others; does it need to be moral? It does claim to punish immorality, after all. Does being a shithead constitute moral behavior if it is not caught onto by others?
Oh I forgot one thing. Was it morally righteous for Athens to socially ostracize and slay Socrates? After all, he was a shithead.
there is no such thing as morality.
there are only choices
Morality is the knowledge on the right and wrong choice, and what follows. I guess you vile goyim wouldn't know about it, being beasts and not men.
>To act morally, is it necessary to fight against one's desires?
Not an incredibly clear question. Are you saying "Is it always the case that a moral person, at some point or another, will have to fight against their own desire?", or are you saying "Is it the case that morally justified decisions are inherently against one's own desire?"? Are you providing room for acts which are neither moral or immoral?
In the end it probably hinges more on your definition of desire than morality. If you're going to stipulate some hedonistic tautology (i.e. stipulate that "what we want" is determined by our choices, and from this deduce that we necessarily choose what we want), then you're going to inevitably act in accordance with your own desire, but that's more a matter of rigging the language.
>does it need to be moral?
Need for what? What kind of moral? It's a stupid fucking idea unless we have something like objective morality from religiousfags, but that's another stupid idea and tends to be all over the place, with the end judge being too far above humans to make any practical sense of it.
>It does claim to punish immorality, after all.
By people who usually have inconsistent value systems.
>Does being a shithead constitute moral behavior if it is not caught onto by others?
Probably. Just I don't see why making the conversation about something so abstract instead of "beneficial for the individual/society".
>Was it morally righteous for Athens to socially ostracize and slay Socrates?
Based on their value system and laws it was ... consistent.
>Oh I forgot one thing. Was it morally righteous for Athens to socially ostracize and slay Socrates? After all, he was a shithead.
this is what Veeky Forums gets for saying "start with da greeks"
Socrates actually had plenty of opportunities to walk free, but out of spite he chose not to. He shouldn't have been tried in the first place, but I don't feel bad for the guy. I mean, he certainly didn't bad for himself or anything.
I wasn't asking of Socrates being moral or not (he was a shithead, after all). I was asking if the repercussions for being a shithead are moral.
>Need for what? What kind of moral?
It doesn't take a genius to see a loop structure if we start acting like shitheads towards every shithead, and they do the same.
I'm asking if you have a structural answer for a way out, within the realm of morality.
only bored hedonists want to act morally
Conformism is immoral. Escapism is immoral. Pretense is immoral.
>I wasn't asking of Socrates being moral or not (he was a shithead, after all). I was asking if the repercussions for being a shithead are moral.
Yeah, I know. I'm saying that him being put to death wasn't just because other people declared him to be a shithead; it's because he walked into it, like a shithead.
>since our desires can sometimes be morally right, for example to hep people or donate to charity
how do I become smart like you
We all want to act morally and not.
According to some people, it is wrong to be inside a girl who claims she refuses that I be in her.
So the others are, by definition, amoral? After all, if you put meat (a scantly clad slut) in front of a cat (Arabic male), you will simply get what is coming, not a moral dilemma?
bye bye baiter
you missed the point
You are avoiding the moral dilemma. Sure, they had a karmic follow-up to it as well. Socrates could have played his cards better (just like sluts can dress and behave better), but it is the Athens, the Arab that I am questioning. Your system, whatever it may be, discards their problems and solutions. All power is absolute in your system by this logic.
You worship power.
The answer to your question is rather simple: No since desires and morality are completely disconnected. Morality is obtained through reason or religion, desires are intrinsic.
>Morality is obtained through reason or religion
yes rationalists claim this since -1000BC
Socrates was clearly using the machine known as Athens. Socrates was the true ruler of Athens!
So?
It all depends on what you consider moral. And there's little agreement on that department for the time being.
I think we often act against our own best interest based on our desires because we are not omniscient.
it comes down to consequence 99% of the time for non-autists
>>no
>>since our desires can sometimes be morally right, for example to hep people or donate to charity
Read Kant's groundwork for the metaphysics of morals for clarification
>Morality is obtained through reason
But reason is obtained through the human experience in its entirety.
Our actions are fueled by desires. Acting morally is a desire in itself, and there is no bigger joy than living a life of kindness and justice.
Read Alasdair's Macintyre's Short History of Ethics. Talks about this extensively.
die
Just some clarification here: Socrates said, 'only an idiot would want to continue living. To be offered a way out without self-slaughter is a blessing.' With regard to the opportunities to escape this fate, and the 'Socrates is a 'shithead' 'arguments'. (Maybe it is time to look into the argument that there is no way Socrates (meaning 'lord of life' (comp. Jesus Christ meaning anointed savior)) was a real person. There are just three accounts of his life (comp. Matthew Mark Luke), given by Xenophon, Aristophanes, and Plato. Each of them portray Socrates as a completely different person (comp. Matthew Mark and Luke). Compare this with accounts of any other person of their social stature (even people much lower down on the food chain) and you will see why this doesn't add up. And 'Socrates'' supposed under aged sodomy accounts are most likely allegorical (along with the rest of his existence) if you look at the advantages he suggest that exist for homosexual love over heterosexual. The argument is just that the homosexual love does not involve the type of love that suggests lack in oneself and it is free of the lusting for beauty that is involved in heterosexual love (making it purer in a philosophical sense (his words not mine)). Just something I thought was worth mentioning. Thank you for your time.
And I meant that Plato was just using homosexuality as a foil to provide a description of the right way to experience love.
lkl