Is a starving man morally justfiied in stealing just enough food to feed himself for the day?

no?

The mistake here is that you don't know that everything is a story. That is why you keep comparing your story to what you think is the world, even though that is expressed through a story.
Morality come from Platonism and Sophistry that tries to convince you of the reality of the story, and add stuff that doesn't need to be there.
Your narrative universe is just a representation recursively made from sensing your senses, then sensing yourself sensing your senses..

Morality just closes the loop of the recursion when you run it backwards. If you act this way and it is not a story, then there must be a reason, but since there is nothing but the story, and it is made recursively, there is nothing upon which the recursion rests. The story is completely disconnected from the world because it doesn’t exist.

It is the recursion of the brain sensing itself then sensing itself sense itself. There is no foundation, or transcendence, or anything. It is a story. You live in a story. The story is useful to be believed because you are still here. Your desires are a story that is useful to have because you are still here.

WE could go at any time.
Morality is just the story of the story; however, since it doesn't include its own creation, the story of morality has convince or persuaded or proven nothing.

The world is, but is unknowable; the narrative is not, but it is all we have.

Some of these things are prima facie morally wrong (stealing food, robbing a bank) but can be overridden by other concerns.

Some of these things (human testing, rape) are morally wrong in almost every instance.

You do realize the hypocrisy in your argument though, right?
While this is fine to say:
>I don't believe morality exists outside of our 'story'
You cannot then go here:
>I *know* there isn't morality outside of our 'story'

Then, your initial statement
>There is no morality
attempts to definitively rule out the existence of something in a world that is "unknowable"

You can't say morality doesn't exist given the framework you provided. it's all part of the noumenal realm

If this were easy to explain, other philosophers would have explained it.

The story of the story that includes the story making process that can then make the story of the story of the story making process is called the Meta-Narrative.
All philosophy and science and literature and everything fails because it does not recognize that it is a story.

This is called the Platonic and Sophistic fallacy:

Plato had to create a heaven of ideal forms even though he made the forms from observation (the Ouroboros vomits itself up) – he recursively made his universe, but didn’t know it was a story and didn’t know he was stuck in his story, so when he tried to go back he couldn’t without bringing where he had been later in the recursion’s conclusion, causing a paradox that he resolved by making a new world we couldn’t see that controlled this one (yielding determinism).

The Sophists observed that people working together could do more than people working alone, and so derived that they must be able to change their world, but didn’t understand that they too mistook the story for the world and were stuck in the recursion that made the story. They then thought that because things repeated or were the same object in the story, then it must be the same in the world, confusing the story with the world, and the story with the story of what they wanted. By comparing two stories that didn’t happen, they created the impression of changing the world (yielding free will), when all they did was tell a story of what was happening. That is called a bootstrap paradox.

Just because the story is useful to be believed doesn't make it any less a story. But just because it is a story, doesn't mean it is not useful to be believed.

I can say there isn't a morality outside of the story because I can say all stories don't exist.
The world is, but we cannot know it. The narrative universe including our sense of self is a representation we make recursively - a non-linear recursion with taps - that we keep or delete depending on whether it is useful to be believed.

The story tells us nothing of the world; the world determines everything useful about the story.
Morality is a story of a story and has no existence. If stories existed, then naming something over and over would make it affect our senses, like making them weigh more or get bigger.

You aren't stuck in the matrix; you are stuck in the recursion.

Utilitarians are way, way, way more retarded.

>HURR DURR, let's make an entire system of thought based on quantification
>HURR, let's not give any consideration at all on how to quantify utility
>HURR, let's criticize other moral theories for providing no concrete normative guidance
>DUDE, NEGATIVE RESPONSIBILITY, LMAO

...

Both are retarded, yes.

(cont)

Here. Think of it this way. If there were no story, how would you be able to determine whether everything wasn't random?

To anything that didn't know what a computer did, all of those lights would be indistinguishable from random noise. There has to be a story attached to even the most basic sense for the sense to be even called a sense. Otherwise senses would be indistinguishable from the chemistry of the object.

That statement was a fallacy under the Platonic fallacy, but to get you to start to see the recursion, we have to stop it at a point and work back.
This is what Hegel was trying (and failing) to do with the dialectic

Since he made the mistake of not seeing that the entirety of the narrative universe was a recursion, he thought to stop it at the argument - the place where the world stopped the story because it no longer was useful to be believed.

But he committed the time travel paradox in that he brought the conclusion of the recursion with him backwards to start the process again (synthesis) which you cannot do. (this is why Post Modernism fails as well. You could actually be floating around in time all the time. If you can not know what you hadn't learned yet, you cannot know you went back in time.)

The world has no need of a story. The world simply is. The world is indistinguishable from a story of randomness if you don't have a story of it.

Even action is a story, otherwise it too would not be observable.

But in the creation of our representation all narrative objects are created as well as the perspectives we take on them.
WE create stuff that has no direct sense combination all the time. This is the story of the story: purpose, cause and effect, statistical inference, morality, love..

Yes. all emotions and instincts are stories of stories our emotional and instinctual brains make. It is not only our inferential brain that makes stories of stories, but it is the only one that has the language to do so.

what the fuck are you trying to say? Can't you even make it short? Fucking faggot

I agree with this guy your writing could use a lot of work. Succinctness in conveyance of ideas is key.

>Is a starving man morally justfiied in stealing just enough food to feed himself for the day?

No.

>Is a man whose child is in dire need of surgery morally justified in robbing a bank for the precise amount of cash necessary?

No.

>Is a scientist on the brink of discovering a cure for cancer morally justified in testing on humans?

Yes.

>In an ugly beta NEET morally justified in raping a 10/10 Stacey to fulfill his evolutionary destiny and propagate his genes?

No.

8703182
8703177

Fuck you assholes! I just knocked this out in real time on fucking 4 chan! This isn't my Doctoral thesis, motherfuckers!

Read it over and over and parse it.

The book will be out later this year...

>morally justified

Nice spooks you got there, Daddy. Would be a shame if something happened to them...

Meh. It's just nihilism and calling everything a spook without naming it, nor establishing egotism as the categorical imperative. Go back to your grave, pseudo-Kaspar Schmidt.

Also,
>having the insolence to call Hegel a failure

I think renouncing Individualism and adopting a resource-based economy are required in order to really answer these questions.

>renouncing individualism
Hobbes fuck off.

Okay. Let's see if the simple minds can understand the simple problem.

1. Any philosophy that cannot explain itself and its own creation, does not explain anything; it merely transfers its explanation to something unknowable.

2. All philosophy is either Platonism, that displaces the givens to some other universe, or it is Sophistry, which compares something that didn't happen to something is wants to prove happens, to prove the something that happens.

Watch closely. This is an analogy - a story.

If I take a string with a weight on it, and spin it around, you feel a centrifugal force pulling the string. That force does not exist! The only force at play is the strong force holding the string together, and the tendency for the weight to continue in a strait line.

The world is. We make a representation - a narrative - of the world from our senses recursively.
The brain is a sense organ that senses itself, then senses itself sensing itself. It does this over 40 billion neurons, 10 times a second.

You make stories that are either useful to be believed, or they stop.

The world is, but you cannot know it as a story, but all you can know is a story that does not exist. It is the Ouroboros that does NOT eat its tail; it vomits itself up!

Not understanding that everything is a story.
Not understanding that the story is a recursion.
Not understanding that any story of the story that does not include the story making process is not a story that is useful to be believed.

You are not going to just understand this. All logic and reasoning is built on the trick of NOT understanding you are in a recursion.

You think that the givens in a syllogism PROVE the conclusion without realizing that the conclusion bolsters the givens as much as the givens lead to the conclusion.

You think there is cause and effect, or purpose, or statistical inference, not realizing that you are comparing stories to stories and intents of stories to desires and all kinds of a mares nest of tricks...

That in the end resolve to either a story that is useful to be believed or it stops.

The only ones who have even come close to this realization are Hume and Peirce.
But both failed to see the recursion, and both failed to see that the world can only ever be noticed through a story that itself does not exist.

You are not in a simulation; you are in a representation that either works for you or it does not. There is no language for knowing the world outside of this except by being the world itself.

But that is just a story.

I'm sure he have read the whole Greater Logic and can talk of experience, right?

Who gives a fuck? Do it or don't.

He wished.

>There is no morality.
t. reddit pseud
And not even because I'm some sort of christfag, but blanket statements like that are just proof that your knowledge is wikipedia tier at best.

Sorry, but this pile of bullshit is just textbook petitio principii. The proof of your system is in its premise, all philosophy is just a story.
You should read the Tractatus. Wittgenstein proves that philosophy is a mythos with actual logic, not reducting it to some pseudo-Neuroscience bullshit. Reminds me of the Sokal affair, but made wrong.

there is no proof outside the few formal systems contrived by a few humans.
Also, there is plenty of scams in ''peer-reviewed scientific journals''

Like that time they published that vaccines caused autism, just to name one.

There is no morality.

Only ethics.

t. uneducated dolt

Correct but both of those situations (human testing & rape) are morally good to Utilitarians.

There is no proof because proof is rhetoric: both Platonic, because it relies on givens not proven, or Sophistic, because it relies on stories that didn’t happen and the fallacy that anything repeats outside of the story you are trying to prove. All logic is, if not circular, then, since it is based on a recursion, spirals from nothing.

That is the point that you cannot get because you cannot see the recursion from inside. The tools you use of logic - of purpose, cause and effect, or statistical infernence - also have to be made by your system or your system is bullshit!

All philosophy is bullshit because the philosopher doesn't account for making his tools along with his house. He uses the tools used to make his house to make the tools he uses to make his house, and uses those tools as proof his house exists, when what he does is make his tools and his house at the same time and fools himself into thinking it is really there.

Utilitarians wouldn't agree to the last one.
Unless, of course, Stacey would enjoy it. But then it wouldn't be rape... right?

zesty memetics going on in that picture

this.
/thread

How can you possibly generalize rape as utile? are you taking nothing but the rapist into account, assuming criminal punishment is impossible, asserting a rape baby or abortion is more utile than keeping it in ones pants?

NO

THE NAP MUST NOT BE VIOLATED

>justified in stealing just enough
>stealing

No.

Are you flawless philosophy guy?

There is a story (his story) without humans existing. Humans exist so we are a part of the story (the uni verse), a relative choose your own adventure. Perhaps we can not always know absolute Truth but we can approach 'solid grounds' by approaching probabilities, by trying our best to consider all possible characters and all possible stories, and individuals choosing and collectively choosing which might be the 'best' story, and then discussing all the different types of 'best' and why they might be are. The animals exist and have relatively little control over their character and story, at least compared to we, at least in some ways in some times, they have a tighter script, would you argue they are more free than us, because they cant as well elucidate stories?

Are you the smartest logical thing to do is not think at all man?

If a person knew they could not get caught robbing you, should they?

Yes, yes, if they agree, and no. The consequences of acting are minor to the victims in the first two scenarios, but not acting brings death. The third intrudes on bodily autonomy if there is no consent, and so does the fourth. "Evolutionary destiny" is not an excuse for shit.

yes because a morally upright society would provide sustenance and healthcare to those in need

So you are a utilitarian

>Is a starving man morally justfiied in stealing just enough food to feed himself for the day?
>Is a man whose child is in dire need of surgery morally justified in robbing a bank for the precise amount of cash necessary?
You'd have to be an asshole to say no.

>
Is a scientist on the brink of discovering a cure for cancer morally justified in testing on humans?
Maybe not.

>In an ugly beta NEET morally justified in raping a 10/10 Stacey to fulfill his evolutionary destiny and propagate his genes?
no

depends, are you a sophist?

This must be bait.
>Implying you can have ethics without morality

More or less.

Utilitarian, I thought, was the most happiness for the most number of people?

A single person stealing food vs. the unhappiness the stealing would cause all who thusly had been stolen from (owners of the store), not to mention (to mention) the precedent such would set if it were deemed acceptable

>Is a starving man morally justfiied in stealing just enough food to feed himself for the day?
No. He'll still be just as starving tomorrow necessitating continued stealing. A third party needs to step in and assist the man because he is unable to aid himself without directly costing the people he is stealing from. If the entire country is starving, then the man needs to scrape whatever he can from the earth, not take someone else's hard-earned sustenance.
>Is a man whose child is in dire need of surgery morally justified in robbing a bank for the precise amount of cash necessary?
In what sort of ass backward society do people not receive some sort of minimum standard of free healthcare provided by the government and paid for by taxes? No.
>Is a scientist on the brink of discovering a cure for cancer morally justified in testing on humans?
Depends. Has he done all the requisite testing in other animals, or has he come up with an unknown substance and wants to jump straight to human trials? There's a procedure for new medications.
>Is an ugly beta NEET morally justified in raping a 10/10 Stacey to fulfill his evolutionary destiny and propagate his genes?
No. First because most things die without necessarily fulfilling their evolutionary destiny, why should the NEET be entitled to any more? Second because non consensual sex is frowned upon and even if Stacey did end up pregnant, she'd probaby abort that hellspawn anyway so it would have been a waste of effort.