Since objective morality is bogus, and there is no ultimate truth or axioms when it comes to human behavior...

Since objective morality is bogus, and there is no ultimate truth or axioms when it comes to human behavior, one must take a "stance" to guide his actions.
Be it "what is ethic", "what makes me get what I want", "what makes me zen", "no stance as a stance" and etc.
What is yours? There is no "right answer", but I think this would be an interresting though exercise, and I would like to see you guys inputs because I'm very confuse in this moment (despersonalisation sucks).

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=E7gP1xgRDJ4
twitter.com/NSFWRedditVideo

>objective morality is bogus
>there is no ultimate truth
>I'm very confuse in this moment
i have found your problem

Christians must not apply

but clearly you are lost and you are never going to find what you are looking for, that is, truth outside of truth, love outside of love, a footing where there is no solid ground..

you said there is no "right answer" to your question, and i can affirm that, because what you are asking for is a place to find purpose when you have denied the one thing that gives you purpose.

what are you looking for? there is nothing here.

>there is no ultimate truth
>here is question that takes logic for granted using a chain of reasoning based on assumptions
Yeah you're dumb

Mate you should try the redpill, retard.

There are facts

>Since objective morality is bogus
begging the question

>there is no ultimate truth or axioms when it comes to human behavior
begging the question

>one must take a "stance" to guide his actions.
fallacious derivation of 'ought' from an 'is', where, as we've just seen, the 'is' part is unjustified in that you are begging the question

babbu's first questioning of morality

Mine is Kant's account of reason and being somewhat well read in the cognitive sciences, biology, sociology and so on.

Hope it helps cause it helped me :3

Op here.
This thread just made it worse.
Can I be spoonfed on what I'm getting wrong here?

>Since objective morality is bogus

Explain.

>Can I be spoonfed on what I'm getting wrong here?
Nothing, Veeky Forums just likes to be as uncharitable as possible. Probably because 90% have no clue what they are talking about.

Well, first of all, there's no compelling reason to think morality has any less objectivity than, say, colors.

read the book of ecclesiates, OP, then read the gospels.

Here's how I think about it:
Once you die you can't do anything, so you should do something with your life before you go. Also, others are doing things with their lives, so unless you want to be hypocritical, don't kill them or hurt them.

just lol @ the /pol/tards and christianfags in this thread

You take a pragmatic stance to it. Which actions lead to a good life? What actions lead to a bad life? You can make the intellectual argument about there is no good or bad, but the result that comes from how you act and live you can't argue your self out of.

If i say right now, "you have 7 days to set your house in order because you'll die on the seventh day", you most likely will start thinking about people you hurt, conflicts, times where you lied, acted arrogant or whatever and start thinking about how you can make amends. (and why is it that you started thinking about those things from a sentences that said "putting your house in order? Because you have an inbuilt capacity for morality and if you start thinking about that stuff then hey it works ) How you need to talk to that and that person and set that and this right. You'll most likely start doing that automatically, and there you have your morality. Its your gut feeling, its the thing that bothers you, its the shame you feel when you feel you done something which you shouldn't. Its when you feel you just have to do this or that because its right. You are most likely pretty average and well put together so "doing things that feel right" does not mean chopping people up.


So what if there is no God to verify your morals to you, when there are states on this earth that resembles absolute hell, and you can go there if you act wrong. (not as a punishment for acting wrong, but as a consequence) And even large scale social networks and countries can turn to hell.That should be a good enough case for why one should act morally.

Its not perfect, its not absolute, it doesn't give you a intellectual hard on, but it works.

Socrates, Hegel. Good reading.

>Since objective morality is bogus, and there is no ultimate truth or axioms when it comes to human behavior, one must take a "stance" to guide his actions.
This is just one philosophy. It gets espoused a lot in America, but there are plenty of cultures that do believe in an objective morality. There are also arguments that can be made that there is such a thing as an "objective" moral sense. The idea that each individual has to create their own meaning is by no means the only way of looking at life

Relativism is an incoherent philosophy because to even begin to suggest that there is no objective truth is to presuppose an objective truth.

Kill yourself.

Empiricism self-defeated, positivism was refuted and pragmatists offer no-answers that are everything but epistemology itself.

Your premises are wrong, maybe you should look into the last 200 years of rationalism philosophy, you might find one answer for you.

>If i say right now, "you have 7 days to set your house in order because you'll die on the seventh day", you most likely will start thinking about people you hurt, conflicts, times where you lied, acted arrogant or whatever and start thinking about how you can make amends.

Not even slightly, no. With seven days to live, I'm going to waste time apologizing for my life to date? Good grief. I'd spend time with my loved ones and eat some fine food and have some fine sex.

> (and why is it that you started thinking about those things from a sentences that said "putting your house in order? Because you have an inbuilt capacity for morality and if you start thinking about that stuff then hey it works ) How you need to talk to that and that person and set that and this right. You'll most likely start doing that automatically, and there you have your morality. Its your gut feeling, its the thing that bothers you, its the shame you feel when you feel you done something which you shouldn't. Its when you feel you just have to do this or that because its right.

Are you Christian? Why would you assume everyone would react that way? This whole "objective morality" thing is hilarious. "Because it's right" indeed.

Actions may be found logically inconsistent, therefore there is a basis for falsifying morality.

Why are murder and incest taboo in almost every situation around the world? Would you say it's because we've all learned to think that it's wrong when there is nothing objectively wrong with it?

>what are you looking for? there is nothing here
what is nihilism?

Instincts.
Bad for survival.
If you're hungry and you kill your mate for food, your less likely to survive in the long run.

Fucking parents lead to fucked up kids.

Nihilism = death

Dead faggots must not apply. Only the living people matter.

Shit I life by:
>Don't do shit to people that I wouldn't want to happen to me.
This is the most basic of any rules you can have in terms of being "decent".
>Words from stranger can not hurt me.
Really who gives a fuck if some stranger insults your mom? I've seen people fly of the handle for this shit. The only way I believe you can truly be hurt by words is if a good friend or loved one, who knows your flaws and/or your secrets uses them to try to hurt you.
>If I see something I don't like (on tv or in a show), I change the fucking channel
This is one of these tumblrisms I don't get. the whole "I hate this because of X therefore you must CANCEL it!" youtube.com/watch?v=E7gP1xgRDJ4
This constantly happens to Comedians, or tv Shows that "offend" a particular group. Why do they give a fuck? Nobody is FORCING you to read this book, watch this show or listen to this comedian. Who started this whole "If I don't like it, then it is not allowed to exist" movement? Even worse are the people who can not tell the difference between an Authors views and the views of the People in his works. P̶e̶o̶p̶l̶e̶ feminists have called to boycott GRR because there is some rape and woman abuse in his books/tv show. BECAUSE IT'S A FUCKING HORRIBLE WORLD IN HIS BOOKS YOU DAFT COW. There is also tons of murder murder murder torturte murder incest murder and other horrible stuff done by TERRIBLE fucking terrible people. But somehow you are of the opinion that because "rape is so bad" that he shouldn't have it in his fictional world? "Oh he's a bad guy, he'll skin somebody alive, but he wouldn't lay hands on a woman! Nobody in this world would, they all have "setessential "

You're just a species of primate, it makes perfect sense that your particular species has a specific way of feeling, living and thinking that is just naturally conducive to it's happiness.

'Begging the question' is not synonymous with 'unsubstantiated assertion'.

Morality is not a description or characteristic of anything. It is not universal everywhere and it is not uninfluenced by human perception. It is an abstraction. If you must, you may conjure up platitudes about the natural sense of 'good' and 'evil' that you say resides in all of us as a culmination of thought processes, or as a mixture of good and bad spirits, good and bad 'auras', but know that you will hit a wall; you will still have to make a leap of poeticism in order to use this as proof of objective morality, or of morality as some kind of feature. This is the same wall that exists between your perception and the outside world.

I get so caught up on philosophy I forget that sometimes.

I want to know what the fuck is going on