Hello Veeky Forums, I have devised a simple system of moral philosophical categorization inspired by the Myers-Briggs test. By simply answering all four questions, you will receive your four-character type. Find your type and then categorize various authors and thinkers into the same. Through this, find new recommendations for books
>Is there objective value and/or morality or are these things pure constructs? Objective = B, Subjective = S >Regardless of objectivity, do you deem these values necessary to hold? Necessary = N, Unnecessary = U >Can living beings act altruistically or are all actions inherently selfish? Altruistic = T, Egoist/Hedonist = G >Is social/political hierarchy necessary for order and happiness or is it not? Hierarchy = H, Equity = Q
If your answer TRULY lays outside of the binary answers, X can be used in place of one the two letters
Adam Anderson
SNGH reporting in The smart egoist knows that the enforcement morality and hierarchy are in his best interest
Charles Garcia
Oh, and if you think the four questions can be better altered to best define a moral philosophy, please speak up
Jonathan Fisher
SNTQ
Chase Phillips
SNTH
Connor Evans
Isn't impossible for someone to be BUxx? Doesn't someone's finding moral values *objective* require by this very objectivity that the moral values are *necessary*? Or am I missing something here? It seems to me that where case 1 = B, case 2 must always = N.
Ryan Walker
It is not going to be a common belief, but I do not think it is impossible for someone to rebel against the God they believe in, whatever that god may be.
Jeremiah Hill
>Is there objective value and/or morality or are these things pure constructs?
The fact that they are constructs doesn't exclude the fact that they can be objective.
Lincoln Davis
I don't see how that can be true at all. In order for a value to be objective you need an objective axiom with which to measure it by.
Jayden Anderson
>egoist/hedonist
They are totally different things. You have demonstrated you know fuck all about philosophy. A hedonist could claim that they're spreading their philosophy for the benefit of others i.e. altruistically.
Oliver Wood
I'm referring to psychological hedonism/egoism
If a hedonist can do as you say, an egoist certainly can as well
Thomas Fisher
But for an egoist to do it would be flatly contradictory: they would have to recognize that even if they claim they spread their philosophy to "benefit others" the outside benefit thereby derived must initially be to their (the egoist's) benefit. A self described egoist would be easily found out trying to make a claim to "pure" altruism, while the contradiction isn't as obvious when a hedonist makes this claim.
Brody Sanders
Both an egoist and a hedonist can recognize that helping others may be the best way to serve themselves in certain (many) situations. I'm not sure what the massive divide between egoism and hedonism is in your mind
Leo Taylor
BNTH masterrace reporting in.
Henry Nguyen
I never said it was "massive," I said it was "total."
The hedonist says that helping others is pleasurable to me, and pleasure is the highest moral good, so I will help others. The egoist says that helping others benefits me, and there is no moral goodness in it, so I will cease helping others as soon as this aid stops benefiting me.
I do recognize that some branches of so called "egoism" (e.g. Objectivism) are just hedonism rephrased in that they replace the supposed moral good of pleasure with the moral good of self benefiting. To use the Objectivists again, they more or less mandate that a "true egoist" can't help others without material payment because that's somehow never egoistically beneficial. The actual egoist needs no moral underpinning for their selfishness: they are so selfish that they know they needn't justify this selfishness.
