Why be moral?

Why be moral?

Because if you run about kicking children the other humans will throw stones at you until you die.
Stupid.

Because morality is mutually beneficial, if people fuck with you, the group of people you're with will fuck that dude up, ensure he doesn't fuck people up again, and give you some ass cream for the fucking you received, in return for these benefits, you agree not to fuck people, morality is a uncodified, uneforceable set of laws, the morality and moral stances of a group are dependant of situation, laws exist to formalize the process which allow people to be 100% on what is and is not fucking people.

>Nietzsche

Why be immoral?

Couldn't I just lie, and pretend to be moral, all while being immoral and just making sure I don't get caught?

Because it's good whether or not you'd like to admit it.

This is the kind of asshatery that atheism inevitably leads to

like your average sociopath, Mr.lecter?

thing is that it's a prisoner's delimma in that you get the highest reward for having others follow it but ignore it yourself. not following it is the most rational decision unless you have a way to ensure that everyone isn't cheating. laws fill this to an extent, but there's still plenty of room for cheating. this is why sociopaths will break the law when they can get away with it. the reason we don't is because our reasoning is less fully rational than sociopaths since we feel empathy

>atheism is bad because if people don't follow my religion they won't do what my religion believes you should do
can christfags use anything besides circular logic to defend their position?

Not just sociopaths, really, it seems like a lot of people cheat the rules. Not always in the most dramatic or devastating ways, but it does seem to happen on a small scale almost ubiquitously.

Because it is beneath you to prey on the weak.

Atheism is bad because without morality you either end up with utilitarianism (which treats humans like assets) or anarchy (which causes humans to only look out for themselves). Both are dehumanizing.

If morality has value in and of itself then we don't need religion to say that it is correct.

Because you want to live.

oops, wrong pic

Why not be moral?

Isn't that what we already do?

>morality is dependent on religion
Thanks for admitting that.

because morality is stronger than immorality, which is why we evolved it.

Because you personally suffer(more) eventually

>only consequentialism/utilitarianism

Veeky Forums is really intellectually bankrupt

pathetic

Well I mean there are obvious answers and that doesn't mean they are wrong. I mean you can argue against but you obviously aren't going to.

Even if they do that doesn't make religion true. At best you can argue it is a net benifits on society

Arguing about this sort of thing is pointless because the only people I can convince are those who value the same things I value. Those who value other things and hold different premises won't care no matter what. That's why humanity must form nations of people who share values/premises. Multi-culturalism will always cause strife. When you have consequentialists and deontologists and theists all in the same nation vying for political power, you will have turmoil. Each should separate and form their own nation.

>im lazy
k, go be lazy somewhere else

Morality leads to trust. Trust is needed for a society to work. Societies are superior to, for example mere families, in terms of Reproductive Fitness

Because I have nothing but love for my fellow man.

>nations
nah senpai

Human nature evolved to work in a community, unity of a sort where each person is able to help the other. To sustain such relationships or at least make it bearable one need to come up with rules to keep conflicts from happening in these groups, thus morality is born.

i wish there were all doodles on youtube

>the only people I can convince are those who value the same things I value
So you're a relativist?

...

It is impossible to act without being in accordance with a moral code

ITT: superfluous discussions about semantics.
What do you mean by "moral"?

Morals represent useful tools for making value judgments as well as establishing a personal and social identity (by first describing what you are by what you are against, and then describing who you can consider to be akin to by shared values).

In Nietzsche's case, morals serve a purpose in keeping you moving forward and helping you understand what you need to overcome in yourself.

>natural law

Literally the single most idiotic thing anyone has ever thought of.

discussion

discussion discussion

Morality thumpers.
Civility is to not be an animal. But suffering the masses of two-legged animals is brutal.

lol

because it feels good

Because for some reason I want beings around me to be happier

From your question I take that you recognise life in aspects of black and white, moral and immoral. Although this is a fairly close minded view(not understanding the grey) I will humor you and answer.

Being moral is mandatory for two main reasons.
Firstly the survival of yourself, by being an immoral asshole you reduce your chances of being accepted in a healthy and regular society and thus achieving a normal by society's standards life.
Secondly for the survival of society, it's some sort of political contract between individuals that in order to move forward and being able to coexist we must act in certain ways towards and around each other.

That's two reasons for being moral I can think out of the top of my head. Each moral guideline and way of life/thinking is dictated by the major cultural background of the country/continent in question.

Tldr; moral values are the building blocks of society

Because morality is an asethetictization of what one's relationship and role is to the rest of a reality.

It keeps the game intense by forcing agents to simulate long-term derivation and integration as opposed to the more regular pulses of dopaminerc stimulation. Intense flashes after solving something are like a sun to the moon of routine pleasures.

This is the best answer. Morality can only be justified aesthetically, and understanding this justification as something the individual makes for himself, with no absolute duty towards some higher instance.

If you don't, you'll get a spanking

Now about the moral depth of a person's psyche.

As I said in my previous post, moral values form out of culture, which at a point starts acting as an endless cycle which moral values form culture and in turn culture forms morality.
And thus as culture changes from subtle to not so subtle ways morality changes with it. From that we can conclude with some certainty that there are at least two ranks of moral values (1st the core ones that are so fundamental in our society, like it's immoral to just kill someone) (2nd the more flexible ones like lying against someone in order to gain something).

In accordance with the above we can begin to see how people's moral values differentiate. At the core we have some common background mandatory for the continuation of society(1st rank) with some (2ndnd rank) fluff which differs from person to person.

And here is why you might ask this question.
Why be a true moral person when there is people that simple do not care? Why bring yourself to that disadvantage?

The human body is not the only thing that evolves through time, the human psyche does also. As we ranked the different sets of moral values we can say that the lower you are in the psyche evolutionary chain the lower set of values you can comprehend and obey. In contrary the higher you find yourself in the psyche evolution you will find yourself higher in the moral chain.
So unless you want a devolution start acting accordingly

Tldr; it's your duty as a higher being to act like one