Philosophers-kings of the esteemed mongolian fingerpainting forum, inform me on morality
Is it better to be a "good" person that is physically ugly, or a "bad" person that is physically beautiful? Isn't it so that people of differing moral systems and cultures can agree generally on visual aesthetics?
To an extent, the rules of artistic composition also enjoy a greater consensus and objectivity than moral laws, which can be easily disputed and offer numerous vigorously contrasting theories on right action.
Take the infamous trolley problem.
Applying artistic guides to the utilitarian perspective offers a solution: run over the five people who are less beautiful than the single one.
However, this still has inadequate explanatory power if the trolley's potential victims are all of average, comparable beauty. This is where I think an additional, objective, consensus measure of value can be injected, weighing by wealth in addition to beauty. If beauty is a value of enjoyment, and money is acquired from producing goods/services that enhance enjoyment, surely it must follow that a rich, beautiful person offers my value to the world than a beautiful, poor one and certainly more than an ugly, poor one.
Feel free to share your thoughts.
Do you think money and physical beauty are inadequate expressions of moral worth? Should something else be added? Or, are they independent of morality altogether as someone from the virtue ethics school might presume?
This thread is sexy IMO
And i'm not even gay
An excellent question goy. It depends on your moral orientation. I would say that it depends on context, but that they're about equal. Both are forms of good.
This one is for you user.
But really, why bring Judaism into a moral discussion where human inequality is a central premise from the outset? You are not equal to Chad, and Chad is not equal to Chad Plus who also has a degree in astrophysics, and so on. Utilitarianism, assuming all people are equal moral agents, is weak enough even ignoring its lack of consensus measures of what pleasure-values are. Beauty is adequate as a measure of pleasure, and so is currency (by proxy), but even with those its consequentialist bend is staggeringly faulty. How can anyone predict the consequences of their actions in a complex, chaotic system? Veering into hyperbole, and assuming all of the 6 potential trolley-victims are the same in physical appearance and wealth, you can't tell if one will later kill 10 people or prevent 10 people from being killed, and even from there, if letting 1 person kill 10 people will save 100 people, ad infinitum.
GENERALLY, THERE IS A DIRECT CORRELATION BETWEEN AESTHETICS, AND ETHICOMORALITY; ID EST: GENERALLY, AN ETHICOMORALLY CORRUPT PERSON WILL BE UGLIER THAN AN ETHICOMORALLY RIGHTEOUS PERSON.
NOBILITY IS THE ESSENTIAL THIRD FACTOR HERE; ETHICOMORAL RIGHTEOUSNESS, OR CORRUPTNESS, AND AESTHETIC BEAUTY, OR UGLINESS, ARE DIRECTLY CORRELATED AND SUBORDINATE TO THE DEGREE OF NOBILITY; ID EST: ETHICOMORALITY, AND AESTHETICS, CAN BE REDUCED TO NOBILITY.
IT IS NOT A MATTER OF WHICH IS BETTER —A "GOOD" UGLY PERSON, OR AN "EVIL" BEAUTIFUL PERSON—, BUT RATHER A MATTER OF HOW ACCURATELY MUTUALLY CORRELATED ARE A PERSON'S AESTHETICS, AND ETHICOMORALITY; ID EST: OF HOW NOBLE, OR IGNOBLE, IS A PERSON.
ONCE THE NOBILITY OF A PERSON HAS BEEN ASSESSED, ETHICOMORAL, AND AESTHETIC, CONSTITUTIONS, ARE INCIDENTAL.
>vitalist reading of nietzsche
1945 called, they want their poor scholarship back.
TO WHAT ARE YOU REFERRING?
Bro, dude
I love how you type in all caps, and have a little name and everything!
Makes it easy to find your wonderful posts.
Please keep up the good work. You definitely fit in here. In fact, you could call us a family.
Veeky Forums 4ever
REI is without a doubt the greatest tripfag on this site
I'm not sure how your comment is related to mine.
I just like pretending to be Jewish.
Oh I thought you were doing the /pol/ thing where anything other than christian moral absolutism is a jewish plot
carry on, then
Following this logic, and considering whites are objectively the most attractive, what conclusion do you reach?
Aesthetics are secondary to considerations of autonomy and possibility in human affairs.
>are objectively the most attractive
What's your metric?
WHY SHOULD ANYONE TAKE YOU SERIOUSLY, CONSIDERING YOUR RIDICULOUSLY ERRONEOUS RACIAL NOTIONS?
"WHITE" IS NEITHER A RACIONYM, NOR AN ETHNONYM; ID EST: THERE NO SUCH THING AS A "WHITE RACE", OR A "WHITE ETHNICITY".
SKIN COLOUR IS NOT A RACIAL, NOR ETHNIC INDICATOR, BY ITSELF.
THE SAME APPLIES TO THE HOMOLOGOUS SPURIOUS CLASSIFICATIONS OF "BLACK", "YELLOW"/"ASIAN", ETCETERA.
>aesthetics = physical beauty
Go back to /lgbt/ + Veeky Forums, bummer.
Vehicles, landscapes and buildings can be beautiful too, but they aren't typically moral agents.
What about a gun?
It's objective is to murder, so you could say that the object is an agent of immorality. But that also regards to your opening question, that being guns can be aesthetically pleasing.
That actually raises a good point user!
Going back to the consequentialist-utilitarian view, in what circumstances ought you allow harm to befall people if it harms property? What sorts of inanimate, but very well-crafted and useful, objects are worth more than human life?
yeah but people aren't things. they have feelings and thoughts
take this thread back to /hm/
Good-looking people having a good soul was a popular belief during the Classical period.
a "good" person that is physically ugly
Good ugly people are remembered as something more than vain vicious assholes. So there.
>aphrodite
>apollo
>adonis
>hellen
>the nymphs
>good souls
Seems like the opposite if you ask me. Good looking being the cause of misery and sin.