Killing people is moral if there is no afterlife

>hasn't read Crime and Punishment

>explains why joy doesn't actually ewist
>"you are the only one who actually knows your suffering"
This isn't about me or you or anyone. This is an analysis as to why we consider killing to ne immoral. The answer is simple : we consider being to better than not bein. The latter of course is presupposition that I have proven to be false in the case of no after life.
If you can prove the opposite, go ahead.

I have actually. Raskolnikov isn't the same as me in this case. I am not advicating for nihilism. I am just saying that our system of morals is bases on a presupposition that needs to be clarified. This post isn't just a statement but it's also me asking for someone to defend current moral systems because I'd rather stick to them than go on a killing spree or kill myself.

Maybe go practice your English instead Pablo

It might not be perfect but it's understandable, I guess.

Its still annoying. I don't come here to see the frustrated stuttering of ESL shitskins. Its inelegant and offputting

Yea I guess if someone wrote badly in my native language I'd be upset too. I guess I'll have to keep this shit for myself since this is the only place where I can post stuff like this and not be automatically labeled as insane. Autistic maybe but not insane.

don't apologize. the cunt understands what you're saying and is dodging your argument by insulting your grammar.

The weak should fear the strong

Sorry man, won't happen again

Are we just pretending we haven't read Dostoevsky or are you just unread?

the strong refutes. the weak nitpicks.

I know that this is a meme but the reason why I apologized is because I have represented myself in your situation (having to deal with someone who doesn't use language correctly) and have realized that it is a bad experience, this is what people call morals. Now the same can be applied when considering that not being>being, because you know that the other is suffering, you cease his suffering by killing him.

you should probably delete this

First off Doestoevsky was a christian therefore he was already biased toward a certain system of morals and he believed in an afterlife.

Secondly he has only refuted nihilism, which equates no morals. It is different from what I'm talking about here, since what I described is just another system of morals that is opposed to ours.

He may have adressed the issue from an existential and psychological standpoint, but he did not from a logical one. He, at every moment, targeted his writing for humans with humans emotions. Of course, that's natural, but philosophically it isn't valid.

Have you actually read Schopenhauer? That's not at all what he said about suicide

don't worry I won't kill anyone.

I'm gonna go ahead with my day pretending I didn't read this shitte

So you are unread.

Ivan Karamazov's "all is permitted" is a purely philosophical argument.

>nothingness is better than being
Stopped reading there. Shit thread OP.

I didn't see your post earlier.
The point you bring up is interesting, I'd say that the relief from existence is greater than the suffering due to the loss, but that would be an utilitarian stand on the subject which can't be inherently right.
The answer is mass killing then. Just nuke the whole world.

you should delete this thread and go for a walk during the day time preferably not with another person alone with you, maybe near others who are strong enough to subdue you you idiot. this is the most dangerous kind of thinking you can entertain

lol what I wrote isn't "all is premited", to torture someone, even in this reversed moral system, is wrong : it causes more suffering without resulting in becoming nothingness.

As I said, Doestoevsky only counters nihilists which have no moral system, not this reverse system.

I wouldn't hurt a fly you fucking retard. What I advance in this thread is purely theoretical and bases itself on an assumption that is "there is no afterlife".
Kant was alway saying that we should never lie, but I'd sure bet he has lied plenty in his life...

Don't listen to this guy, you're right OP. Unfortunately other people won't be able to understand so even if it is solely theoretical I would keep this argument to yourself in the future.

>>explains why joy doesn't actually ewist
>>"you are the only one who actually knows your suffering"
>This isn't about me or you or anyone.
You're the only person who claimed your knowledge of suffering justified ending life. It doesn't justify ending other people's lives; they could be having a whale of a time. You, however, should kill yourself. You have no excuse not to.

this isnt my english

>A mother should not stop her kid from eating ton of candies because he's having a whale of a time eating them.

I have explained why life ultimately is suffering. Just as the candies only strengthen potential diabetes, joy only strengthen, or at least has in it, suffering; while the opposite is not true.

>>A mother should not stop her kid from eating ton of candies because he's having a whale of a time eating them.
Why are you trying to run other people's lives? You're nobody's mother.

>impaired empathy automatically makes you a murderer
wew

>"Every moment of happiness is getting closer to an unachievable and absolute ideal."
What if I'm happy because a comedian made me laugh? What if I'm happy I took heroin? In what world is happiness directly linked to progress? Maybe I'm being too literal, and if I am please inform me, but your conclusion seems to be directly based, and taking action, on biological substrates.

>"Suffering is ever present in different degrees."
What if I'm not suffering at all? Because that's possible. In fact, very possible.

>"That isn't the case for happiness because by getting further from the ideal, you only suffer."
I can't read this, sorry.

>" What we call "hope" is only beliefs that we force into ourselves in hard times."
You can have hope that you win a tournament but not necessarily need the tournament win.

>"Therefore it is an action that comes from within ourselves, whereas suffering is something endure from outside (even emotional pain is caused by an outside event)."
I wanted to say more, but I'll keep this succinct. There are things such as mental illnesses, and hope can come from inspiration.

>"Absolute joy would then only be a lack of suffering, just like darkness is only a lack of light."
There are states where you feel neither. Why is the goal absolute joy? I feel like I'm not getting the whole picture here.

>"That state of course is impossible because no absolute ideal is achievable."
You can achieve absolute ideals, like going to the gym every Tuesday at 6 am, sharp. Also stop using the word absolute because it makes me think you're actually a crazy person.

>"if a man kills another man, he may have gone against their will, but he did it for their own good."
Let's imagine your world for a second. Everyone's in fucking pain and a character in a Tolstoy novel. Does that give you any right to kill them? Nope. And nothing you said argues for that. Forgetting that for a second; you're ASSUMING you're correct, and disregarding any form of dissent, thus making everything you're saying based on no reason at all. That's why this is bullshit, because it's an idiotic thing to assume you're correct and subjugate possibly great thinkers to your flawed and, honestly, childish way of thinking. I think you turned me in Kant. See, that just proves you're acting like an asshole.

into Kant* heh woops

To laugh and to take heroin is indeed progress toward the ideal I'm talking about. That said ideal isn't necessarily a state of affairs but more so a state of being, where there is absolutely nothing negative. You may laugh to a comedians jokes, but you would have been happier if he made you laugh while having a water bottle to drink in case you get thirsty, or better not to feel thirsty at all.
The laugh, insteed of making you more happy, has made you suffer less.

The suffering is ever-present because at every moment of joy underlie the realisation that everything's not perfect and that this moment is nothing but a drop in an ocean full of hatred toward life in general (everything that is outside works against you except other living things such as trees). Your body and consciousness has tried to hide this fact from you all your life necause it makes survival easier.

What a load of crap.

Firstly, killing people would increase the suffering. Even if it stopped them suffering, it would make the people around them suffer more.
Secondly, your assumption that joy is merely lack of suffering is completely wrong. Joy does not depend on absence of suffering, and it often greatly outweighs the suffering.
Thirdly, you're ignoring love.

I believe there is an afterlife. But it is not the reason that killing people is immoral.

shoot me user

>The suffering is ever-present because at every moment of joy underlie the realisation that everything's not perfect
>if shit isn't perfect, i'm suffering
Waiters spit in your food, user. They don't spit in everyone's, but you're just the kind of dick who's self involved enough to think they wouldn't for you.

>this is what Christians actually believe but are too ashamed to actually admit

catholics admit they like pain. they think it's good for you and a sign god's taking an interest. but they also believe their god was 98% red wine, so you know, you could probably get them to admit a lot of shit.

Why do you assume that everyone is suffering? I would say that most people live out their lives in boredom--neither really happy nor suffering, just neutral.

Guy you were responding to here. Even though I hope you're not done responding to that post, because that would be a shame and dishonest.

So the ideal is a state where absolutely nothing is negative. Why. In what way are we always suffering? You could say our body is always working, but is working always suffering? No. Not everyone has those thoughts or maybe they have and they worked through them or accepted them. In what way can this ever hope to justify it is morally acceptable to kill someone without their consent? Also I'm sorry if I'm misrepresenting you, it is kind of hard to read what you're saying; no offense, you're doing much better than I would.

Buddhists may believe it but Christians don't.

Ow the edge

OP your reasoning is flawed, as it implies that all morals are based in religion, when that is simply not the case.
In a godless world which has religions, if man made god, and god made morals, does it not stand to reason that morals are man-made?
In a godless world it is still immoral to murder

I can't prove you wrong, as you likely won't try anything suggested, though I may try.
To prove yourself wrong, try fasting for three days (no food; minimal water).
Part of being alive is consumption of resources. Fasting tests your willpower by denying yourself the consumption which keeps you alive. Yes, it is usually done for religious purposes, however it is only a religious fasting if you make it so

>Killing people is moral if there is no afterlife.
Actually it's even more moral if there is an afterlife because you'll bring them closer to God (assuming they've lived a good life)

...

>In a godless world it is still immoral to murder

show how this is true please

OK user, it seems to me that you're asking why is being better than non-being, and you believe that non-being is better than being. And I think that you believe this because every moment of happiness is always tainted by the existence of suffering, and that happiness is unachievable because suffering outweighs it. Why can't it be the other way around? Why can't happiness outweigh suffering?

It isn't up to this killer to decide what's good for another person. Maybe the other person wants to suffer, or isn't suffering now. Anyway, if nothingness is so great, why doesn't this killer just off himself?

Defend any sort of secular moral realism and realize that Euthyphro annihilated divine command theory ~2300 years ago.

>Euthyphro annihilated divine command theory

You're gonna have to explain how euthyphro annihilated divine command theory. It seems to me that it only proved that the gods like the pious things because they are pious, and things are not made pious upon the gods liking them.

Well, first one must define what is and is not constituted as moral. If religious morality is just morality with a label, is it inherently worse or wrong? No, as my previous post explained. Therefore the biblical commandments, often believed to be a moral cornerstone of Western Civilization, still holds weight in the argument.
Commandment number one is "thou shall not kill".
Recapping: if god is man-made, then so are his morals. Therefore the biblical commandments command some level of sway on man, for a man must have thought them important if he was to include them in such a text.
Of course, this all depends on how one defines morality, which I will concisely do of pressed to

As an individual who's experiences throughout my days mainly exist a state of perpetual suffering, I can say that "that what doem't kill you makes you stronger." literally. I know the phrase in itself is a cliche. To live is to suffer, either learn and adapt or degrade into death.

If God(s) like(s) pious (aka good) things, then there's an external and logically independent standard and God is not the authority of morality but simply a messenger, which is contrary to the whole point of DCT.

If you can look at morality as a manifestation of "the golden rule" in Christian religion, then a realistic theme becomes apparent. If a person can act towards and treat another human being in the same fashion as they themselves would appreciate to be regarded, then random unjustified killings would be an abomination. Murders should only be regarded as self preservation or justice. However, justice will become a product of religious beliefs and unfortunately we do not live in a world where people see others as equals. The quality of life and humanity as a whole would benefit immensely if this one "golden rule" could become an overall simplified rule of human life.

start by killing your self or your a hypocrite

Killing people is moral if there is no afterlife. This is true. But not because of your pessimistic, underlying anti-natalist crap.

It is moral for these reasons:

1. Without an objective design and plan for your life, the only thing that matters then is achieving your goals, and that which prevents you from achieving your goals is a problem.

2. You have a limited time to achieve your goals.

3. Violence is a quick solution to problems, thus killing can propel you closer to achieving your goals more effectively than other means, making it moral.

what if my goal is to maintain what i believe to be moral (not killing) AND do something, you sophist!

As I said before the reason why you feel sometimes that "joy" outweighs suffering is because, in those moments, the suffering level is below average. I have justified that though the unachievable ideal.
Love is, just as Shopenhaur explained, a trick by nature that shouldn't be considered a "positive" thing in life simply because it controls the individual and offers back mere bodily pleasures.

If you weren't suffering due to imperfection, you wouldn't even leave your bed in the morning, in fact you wouldn't work, try to survive or contribute to society.

I have explained that neutrality does not exist, you have to look at life like a spectrum of suffering. Boredom is a form of suffering since you seek a change and thus you're unsatisfied with your current state of being.

I fast for one month every year. I don't see how that has anything to do with this. Seeking more suffering by making myself hungry will only justify what I wrote.

>things can only get better if they're bad already
Clearly you've never put marshmallows in hot chocolate, tried good drugs, or not been a whiny bitch. If your life is suffering, I suggest you end it. Everyone else can have more marshmallows and it'll be even more tasty.

I have given a counter-argument to this said "freedom" by citing the mother example. If no one can prove that being>not being, objectively, than not being is better than being according to my definition of suffering and joy.

>catholics admit they like pain.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI0MRyUFIXU

Is the mother example the one where you misunderstood how diabetes works?

What's point in learning and adapting if the end result is sufferin ? All the existential rambling that have been going though the three last centuries has never proven why we should say yes to life despite the misery.

A man who save himself isn't as good as a man who saves others. The opposite can be said if the moral system is reversed.

>IF I'M HAVING A BAD TIME EVERYONE MUST BE HAVING A BAD TIME AND I'M ALLOWED TO HURT OTHER PEOPLE
lmao get a load of this board flipper sore loser

That simply isn't true because morality implies going beyond the subjective and placing oneself in the place of another. Pure selfishness is never moral no matter your religious beliefs because it is a denial of the concept of morality itself.

You are a slave of your own body therefore you are biased concerned this subject. If I were to consider life from a view as simple as yours, I'd say that I'm not suffering, but from an objectif standpoint (for now) I am.

This is probably a languistic problem (again!). Our defintion of suffering differs drastically therefore we will never agree.

>Mainländer did.
does that make him right

>You are a slave of your own body
Pretty sure it's a partnership, though I haven't got any official forms.
>but from an objectif standpoint (for now) I am.
LOL, you think you're objective but everyone else is just being subjective? Consider killing yourself. t'n'as pas raison ou connu le meme succes qu'autres.

I'm not having a bad time. If I was fucking a 10/10 while being on heroin I'd still say I'm suffering, because the absolute ideal isn't to fuck a 10/10 while being on heroin.

It's like having a glass you'd want to be completely full, you may keep adding water again and again but there will always be emptiness in some places, ruining the "fulliness". This ruining may be very subtle, but it always present.

All suffering arises due to craving.

This is the first noble truth.

I am objectively but not absolutely right NOW, if someone were to logically counter-argument by proving that being>not being, then I'd be comoletely wrong, but no one fully did for now. The only near successful attempts were those who said killing someone will make the people who are close to the victim suffer; but then how is killing EVERYONE (nucking the planet) immoral ?

>by suffering I mean I'm not suffering only everyone else won't live up to my unreasonable standard of suffering and so i should kill them
this is why nobody takes you seriously. you have the emotional and rational intelligence of a two year old and insist your ideal be filled and nobody else can be happy if your needs aren't being met. it's not a surprise you're obsessed with suffering. you're basically a girl who broke her fingernail insisting her life is over. get some continence, or at least some heroin. you might be less of a bitch on gear, tbph with you famm.

>t. cultist

the logical counterargument is that if everyone else is subjective and happy and you are the sole objective and thus aware of suffering being on this earth, then the most efficient, effective, perfect, utile and objective solution to suffering in the world is to end you, and nobody else but you.

Om Mani Padme Hum

lol it isn't about me not being able achieving my ideals, it's about EVERYONE not being able to achieve their ideals, which is basically one common ideal. To be content with a current state of being is to be cotent with a current state of suffering. If a child eats a lot of candies and feels a little sick in the stomach, he will continue nonethless to eat candies; only his mother can stop him in that case. The same can be said about joy, you may "feel" it but there is always suffering underneath it, also there will always be eventually, a moment where you will suffer and feel no joy.

Except being isn't ONLY suffering. Absolute ideals, although likely unachievable, may not be what everyone is actually striving for. Some ideals that people hold are achievable at least somewhat. Joy isn't simply a lack of suffering either. You feel joy when listening to an amazing piece of music, doing a hobby, or watching a young child do something cute, which is nearly everything they do. You also assume there is no conscious afterlife, which you cannot prove.

>EVERYONE not being able to achieve their ideals
only you're the only person saying they're having a tough time with that, retard. you're not everybody. either get over yourself or kill yourself, for the good of humanity.
>allow me to speak for all children too
considering how shit the end product is of your childhood, i doubt it was well parented. maybe they didn't want you either and their will is slowly being fulfilled as i tell you again, to end your suffering that nobody else is feeling. it's yours, you can't give it away to everybody else, and i doubt they'd want or accept it.

I am not saying that I'm the center of the world. What I'm referring to as objective is the nature of life and joy only being a low degree of suffering. That is applicable to any human being and not just me. It's not MY suffering that is objective, but the nature of suffering that is, and how it is essentially part of what we call joy while the opposite nor being true.

>BUT WHEN I SAY MY HOT OPINIONS THEY'RE OBJECTIVE FACTS
lol are you five?

>implying there is one person living completely ideally, not having a signle thing to worry about, not struggling AT ALL.
>implying I'm speaking for children, and not giving a hypothetical example to justify my argument by analogy, just like many philosophers did before.

>allow me to speak for everybody
>how dare you imply i speak for children when the only potential child i want in my hypothetical is the one that does like me
uhhuh, and do you go to preschool?

As I said, I only consider them onjective because no one has fully proven them wrong in this thread yet.
It's like accusing Newton, at his time, of being stupid because he considered his theory of gravity to be true even though he claimed that gravity is a force despite no clear empirical facts proving that.

>You: Everyone's suffering
>Everyone else ITT: nahfam i'm bretty gud
>You: NO NO I'M UPSET SO EVERYONE ELSE HAS TO BE
>Everyone else: hot chocolate and heroin sounds nice
>You: pls be suffering i want you to be suffering
>Everyone else: nahfam opiates
There's no evidence for suffering except your claim you think everyone suffers like you. They clearly don't.

>implying the child does like me and not like everyone who isn't a fucking budhist.
The child eats, out of pleasure, despite potential suffering.
You're doing things, out of desire to live, despite potential suffering