Why is there no convincing argument for moral behavior?

>Others suffering is good
Cause suffering to others and except no suffering to yourself.

>kill someone cause "fuck others, as long as i'm not suffering"
>get caught by police and get beat up in jail
>b-but muh happiness

Seems like a no brainer to me if you want to live int his society.

>>kill someone cause "fuck others, as long as i'm not suffering"
>>get caught by police and get beat up in jail
You would have the foresight to realize that getting caught would cause you to suffer.

>56%
""""dominant""""

It is when you consider that it's more than twice the amount of people who believe in anti-realism and that people who say they don't agree with either tend to be closer to realism than anti-realism.

What a dumb post.

Whatever good argument you can make in favor of rational principles is as good as good arguments in favor of moral principles.

Given over a quarter are more anti-realist it's not just the domain of teens and stirner fags.

>I'm a moral realist but aesthetics are subjective
AKA I want to tell you what to do but can't justify it.

On to that matter, there's the argument that there's no altruism and all there is is selfishness. Positive selfishness that extends selfishness to account for foresight.

You help others so others will take a positive look at you and possibly help you. If there's nothing to lose in from your help, why not? Its a game theory 101.

You avoid causing harm to others so others wont have a reason to cause harm to you. This works out most of the time, a probability that pays off immensely.

Still, if you take a deconstructionist view of acting moral, its ultimately in the person's best interest to do so.

Sure, my comment was a bit provocatory, but the people who are anti-realists in academia tend to be quite different than stirnerfags who just went "maaaan there's no arguments for morality maaaaan" while showering.

>On to that matter, there's the argument that there's no altruism and all there is is selfishness. Positive selfishness that extends selfishness to account for foresight.
Yeah, no. Plenty of people act good just for goodness sake.

>You avoid causing harm to others so others wont have a reason to cause harm to you. This works out most of the time, a probability that pays off immensely.
Not for an individual in a large society.
Mugging grandma in a tribe will lead to repercussions mugging grandma in an alley is not.

What is your opinion on gastronomic realism?

Simple rationalization disconnect from recognized pattern.

Thats not to say people are lying about doing good for sake of goodness, but rather they do not see the bigger pattern/picture.
Mugging grandma would be something thats looked down by any society. If found out you'd be kicked in the nuts. Just because you can get away some of the time, doesn't mean its the rule of the law to follow and you should be robbing every grandma you see. There's always a drawback to harming others. As others in self interest will defend themselves or defend others.

Depending on how you define it, I might agree with it or I might not.
>Simple rationalization disconnect from recognized pattern.
That's a really nice ad hoc hypothesis. Any evidence to go with it?

>There's always a drawback to harming others.
This is clearly false.

Because it goes against nature which states that the strongest, meanest, greediest, back stabbing scheming wretch has the highest chance at survivng

uvm.edu/~dloeb/GR.pdf

A purely selfish based argument for morality falls flat unless you assume immoral behavior is punished always either through self-imposed suffering, e.g., empathy or through societal mechanisms.

why would you assume that

Because humans can't agree on anything. Therefore people with similar ideas band together and enforce their will on others.

And no, there is nothing wrong with this, because it's the only way we can be anything other than filthy animals living in the mud. To which some people will no doubt answer "well what's so bad about that?".

Moral error theory is growing in popularity among philosophers

If you don't care about your survival or that of mankind, there's no convincing argument for anything.

Otherwise, the convincing arguments are rather endless.

Axioms man, gotta set at least one.

Fuck off Hobbes.

Acting morally is not necessary for survival as an individual.

That's a lot like traffic, in that driving as fast as you can all works well and good, until all the other cars get involved.

So unless you live innawoods, yes, it very much does.

I'm a brainlet and I've never read any phylosophy books :^)

Do you really need one? I mean, assuming you're a normal human being, your instincts are going to be to care for others and ensure their safety.

I've never bought this whole moral code bullshit. Just look at Christians. Their whole moral code is about being nice and understanding. Guess what? The vast majority are complete cunts.

There's a quote from No Country For Old Men that I feel sums this up rather nicely,

>It takes very little to govern good people. Very little. And bad people cant be governed at all.

Most humans are innately good and caring people unless forced into horrible circumstances.

Confucianism

The majority of people who identify as Christian don't follow any of the doctrines of the religion and should therefore not be considered Christian.

The vast majority of people who are Muslim don't follow any of the doctrines of the religion and should therefore not be considered Muslim.

Maybe. I wouldn't know, I don't live in Europistan.

>What is the Social Contract?

How many Christians do you think we'd be left with then? A hundred?

I never signed it.

In America and Europe yeah probably not a lot.

You'd probably have quite a few in Africa and Asia tho.

error theory reached its peak with Mackie.

>it's a rationalists have faith in moral questions and their ability to solve them episode

You're being facetious OP.

>I'll assume "morality" here means sexual morality.

Why on earth would anyone assume this?

>So what do you guys think about democracy as a way to justify the state?
>By democratic I'm going to assume you mean the democratic people's republic of Korea

>using tools and systems made by other people
>protected from rival groups by other people
>infrastructure built and maintained by other people
>food, shelter, and clothing made by other people
>specialization of labour allows him to exchange a narrow set of skills for the skills of others
>enjoys freedoms and rights granted by others' force
>"i dun signed nuffin"

laffo

why do you want people to treat you well?

There's plenty of times where immoral behavior is advantageous; denying this seems silly.

Yeah sucks to be society looks like I'm just going to exploit that shit.

What incentive is there to obey this supposed contract?

continued survival

Have to catch me first retard.

>implying some perfect enforcement of morality exists

>implying that I implied that

How will disobeying the contract when able threaten my survival then?

What?

Arguments are, unironically, spooks.

But under e.g. Hume's definition of morality (practical morality), everyone is moral whether they like it or not. Your morality consists in how you use your experience to inform your actions, i.e. understand cause and effect. Recognition and use of the logically unfounded fact of cause and effect (i.e. recognition that it has no logical foundation and that it nevertheless remains an idea that aids physical understanding) can be the fundamental bases for an egoistic morality, the only morality that matters: your morality.

Stirner, as much as I like him, was embittered by the very circumstances that lead him to conceive of "spookiness." He became too preoccupied with pointing out the spooks beloved by others to live his own life.
>tfw you die of an infected insect bite having not loved another human being for a decade or more

>What incentive is there to obey this supposed contract?
>"continued survival"
What's connecting adherence to social contract and survival?

If you don't adhere to it, those who do will fine, imprison and ultimately kill you.

But the enforcement is very imperfect.

It works well enough, and even this imperfect enforcement incentivizes people to adhere to the social contract

>"be moral or you'll suffer"
Bunch of closet christians itt.

>bu-but there's a chance i'd get away with bombing the school righrT?? right????!!!

Because you refuse to be convinced by any of the arguments, you faggot.

>reading Dawkins

fucking pseuds

Just going to ignore all the profitable and immoral acts people get away with?

humean ought

bc you're a hedonistic bastard that only thinks of himself

The is-ought problem

Nobody gets away with a thoroughly immoral act. Even the people who fuck over thousands of people for their own profit end up helping a third group of people.

>Nobody gets away with a thoroughly immoral act
Jack the Ripper.

You ever think that the problem is that you're a shitty person? We can fix that you know, all evil is born of ignorance of what is good.

Nobody cared that he killed prostitutes. People cared because nobody knew who he was.

Feels

So?

>use weird definition of morality
>everything is moral :^)
Bravo philosophers.