If morality is a spook then why should I not have a daughter...

Why?

Cinnamon Toast Crunch

Milk Shops

>why should I not have a daughter, lock her in a windowless room then cut off her arms and legs and skull fuck her with my shit-covered dick everyday until she dies?
because you will go to jail for a very long time, because I and everyone else will hate you and because, despite your edgy posts I doubt that you are a sadistic psychopath who enjoys torture and that entire scenario would be horrendously traumatic to you, also if you had a dughter chances are you would love her snd not want to hurt her.

The self.

Slaves, because they're property

What if I'm a pretty spooky dude?

The NAP only applies to white males, so the question is bunk

>because you would go to jail
law is a spook
>because i and everyone else will hate you
caring about the opinions of others is a spook

Ghosts

Guns aren't a spook.

In all seriousness, just because morality is relative doesn't change the fact that most people don't like being fucked with in such a fashion, and we have a ton of mutual agreements not to fuck with each other currently in place, and many very strong men dedicated to keeping those agreements in place.

You can abandon those agreements at any time, there's nothing intrinsically wrong with that. Just realize that breaking the agreement to not rape, murder, and perform atrocities means we're under no obligation not to rape, murder, and perform atrocities on you.

That or just throw you in a stone box for the rest of your life. We're nice like that.

>caring about the opinions of others is a spook
except it isn't
Stirner's whole idea of the union of egoists is about self-interest, you act within your self-interest that also aligns with others
basically Stirner acknowledged that people like people, and we aren't all misanthropic edgelords

basically Hobbes/Locke.

You would feel bad. A normal human being who is part of the 99.999999999% that has feelings would not be able to carry through with such a plan.

Actually you can do it, but it'll the single moment of pleasure: community, which tends to care about it's safety gonna punish you. So sublimate your urge, and write teenager book series instead, or something like that

subtle.

so "normality" and "feelings" are not a spook? Sounds unlikely

in this sense feelings are not a spook, they are a physical affect on my brain that is against my self-interest

Because that doesn't sound very fun, OP.

You are probably spooked by morality, and in your desire to fight this spook, you've made the 'unattainable' desirable. But this means you're still spooked.

*will be

but isn't self-interest a spook?

>law is a spook
no, "being lawful" is but the law will be enforced regardless

>caring about the opinions of others is a spook
nope, read stirner you retard.

a spook isn't just any abstact concept

Because it's not in the interests of the state.

huh, really makes you think

>NAP is a spook

Not an argument.

Cuck

>Cuck

Not an argument.

>Not an argument.
not an argument

Remember user, it's only illegal if you get caught.

>it's an OP hasn't read Stirner episode

>It's a jealous user that isn't a philosopher king like Molyneux episode.

Methodological Naturalism is truly the best answer. Life exists purely because the first RNA strands mutated to reproduce, and after environmental pressure/more evolution it eventually performed complex responses to stressful situations to continue reproducing. Survival was born with the evolutionary role of preserving reproduction.

Fast forwarding to homo sapiens: our basic impulses, wants, needs, and actions are all grounded in the fundamental need to reproduce and survive just like the original basic lifeforms. Though our responses to stressful/pleasureful situations are far more complex.

After continuous trial and error over thousands of years we have concluded that in order to increase our chances of survival and greatly increase the quality of life, we must cooperate in hierarchical communities with each individual human having a special role to contribute to the collective.

If an individual, through emotion or self-interest, lowers the chances of survival of others or the community as a whole, then the community may respond to preserve their chances of survival. Both individually and as an unified unit.

In modern society the exact same principle applies, the justice system is the communal response of society's self interest of continual security and the maintenance of high chances of survival.

So in your case "morally" you can absolutely kill your child and do everything you said, however doing so shows that you're a danger to individuals around you, and ultimately lower the chances of survival of the community as a whole. Therefore upon discovery the justice system, and in extension the community, will act against you in the name of their own self-interest. They then use the collective violence they acquired with the consent of the masses and summarily execute you.

(1/2)

>what if I don't get caught

You still put yourself at a huge risk, and it is ultimately against your own self interest to do so. Modern society provides a much higher standard of living, and if you value yourself then you should refrain from these actions.

>what if I don't care/I'm not able to control myself

Then you're essentially an evolutionary dead end, and a burden to society. If you cannot rationally act within your own self interest or control your psychological impulses then you must be completely removed from the community for safety's sake. Furthermore some would argue because of this you should be taken out of humanity's gene pool.

>what if the impulses of murder/horrible act is a product of a stressful/negative environment

You still are a danger and thus should be neutralized. However, in order to prevent future cases such as yourself it is the community's best interest to study and resolve the environmental stress that gave you these psychological urges.

>humans are not constantly self-interested, people die for others

It's true, people aren't constantly self interested if they instinctively perceive another entity more important to protect. Like I said reproduction comes first then survival, thus a lot of people will protect their offspring before they protect themselves. And because of our natural herd mentality, not as pronounced as other animals, we sometimes protect the community because instinctively we know they are more important to reproduction than one individual person, or us. However, there are many unique psychological cases for self-sacrifice that are too much to individually list or explain.

(2/3)**

>you sound like a robot

I don't mean to sound edgy, but philosophy shouldn't be emotionally charged. I'm not attempting to outline an emotional moral structure that sounds rational, I'm trying to create a structure of rational actions/responses. If we're to understand ourselves better we must distance ourselves from our self-empowered moral high horse and attempt to truly deconstruct our motives. We shouldn't fear what results we reach or what our line of logic implies: that we are extremely self-interested, that our lives revolve around reproduction, and our moral beliefs are just ways to explain the basic foundation of survival oriented civilization.

Personally I'm a spiritual man, and I believe our emotions are responses that have evolved overtime to help our survival. That being in touch with your own emotional needs, wants, and desire is important to live a prosperous life. But at the same time one must have the logic/rationale to judge whether the emotion you feel or the impulse that drives you is truly within your own self interest.

(3/3)**

Not really. It's in your self-interest to eat food, for example. Or else you will starve. And no, starvation is not a spook.

prosecutorial discretion

law is a spook

She would die pretty fast, instead you should just break your legs and fuck her properly.