I need your best arguments

This would never happen
>backward african tribe
>has resources
No

There's nothing wrong with having different moral systems in society for in-groups and out-groups

give em shiny beads for it

>shouldn't

what is wrong about genociding "people" who don't reciprocate rights?

It's the difference between deontological ethics and consequentialism

Right and wrong don't make exceptions for good and bad

A tightly knit group has standards of personal interaction. Stuff like don't harm each other or help each other when reasonable. From these standards can be derived the morals of the group.

It's impossible for a group of individuals to cooperate without morals, and once morals have been created, they can be applied towards those outside the group as well, eventually encouraging the group to stop menacing and include more into it's group.

so kant in rage comic form?

What happens when you realize the universe is growing colder and resources are limited? Wouldn't you want to secure the resources for your tribe?

>If I know
You don't.

>Is there any argument against opressing them and stealing everything they have?
It's more efficient to find worthless things to trade their precious resources with, because they'll work to hoard more and thus give you more.

We abandon and condemn retarded cruel shit not out of feelings, but calculation.

>It's more efficient to find worthless things to trade their precious resources with, because they'll work to hoard more and thus give you more.
It's still opression

Self interest is a morality.

>shouldn't
No.

>"For centuries, the battle of morality was fought between those who claimed that your life belongs to God and those who claimed that it belongs to your neighbors and no one came to say that your life belongs to you and that the good is to live it."

>"You called it selfish and cruel that men should trade value for value "

- From Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand

This. Institutions are inherently corrupt to an extent due to the corruption of man, but how exactly am I supposed to assume that all the stoners, drop outs, and teen parents I went to highschool with have any idea what is in their best self interest? They are things and will only see superficial self interest and will loot and kill and destroy society.

>trading away shit you don't need and have no use for is oppression
No, it isn't.

>From Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand
Stopped reading there.

kek

>stopped reading at the end

>stoners
>kill and destroy society

Ok there /pol/ just slow your roll there. The aforementioned lot you mentioned might not be paragons, but I hardly doubt they're holding society back. I was thinking of people like half-assed con men, drug dealers that cut H with fentynol, or over zealous SJWs who attack everyone instead of full on bigots

>muh universalizability
completely irrelevant on the individual level

I smoke weed. Not the point. There is a large class of people mentally unequipped to handle total freedom.

>anyone who labels anything as good or evil has ulterior motives
so your arguments is "everybody is an asshole because I said so"? sounds reasonable

You're a loser neet.

If we didn’t live in a moral-ish society you'd be left for dead, or enslaved. A moral society is in your best interest.

We don't live in this limited resources world you propose, space x is finding resources in space and no other tribe is in the way of this

Not the case, if you label something as good, it is because you have your selfish reasons behind it, and if you label something as evil and you don't want these things done it is because you don't like them and don't want others to do them as they affect you, hence alterior motives behind our social structure that could in fact make your short life a living uncomfortable dissatisfaction all because you were succumbed by rules that a group of selfish people put in place, hence why egoism is the only true way to go without corruption from others selfish needs, only yours :)

>I need
no, you don't.

I can label evil because of the damage it does to society at large, or people who are not me in specific. What is the ulterior motive of somebody who is anti abortion? He/she is already born, it will not save their life. He/she isn't going to pursue one so even if their motivation is religious it isn't damaging their ability to get to heaven. Explain how their motivation is selfish.

> I can label evil

No you can't, evil is subjective, what the nazis taught of evil are not the same as to what the rest of the world taught about it, some serial killers don't see what they do as evil, it's all what we make of it, that's why you can only trust yourself in this effort of trying to rationalise good and evil, because I and others won't necessarily agree with you in what's good or bad for society, so the only way to avoid getting a subjective thought implanted in your brain is by just believing in what you decide is worth believing in, hence egoism

Abortions can ruin the hopes and dreams of many people that didn't not plan on raising a child for years and years and I can go on and on as to why being anti-abortion can be a selfish thought, wether it is to please a god or wether it is for validating ones morality, the subjective thought is still there and with it its own primal selfish territorial grounds that help sustain it

>if you label something as good, it is because you have your selfish reasons behind it
Prove it.
>and if you label something as evil and you don't want these things done it is because you don't like them
Not necessarily true. I can recognize that X is evil even though I like X.
>and don't want others to do them as they affect you
They don't necessarily affect me.
>could in fact make your short life a living uncomfortable dissatisfaction all because you were succumbed by rules that a group of selfish people put in place
Yes, social rules can displease some people. So?
>hence why egoism is the only true way to go without corruption from others selfish needs, only yours :)
Define "egoism".

People disagree about physics. Does it mean that physics is subjective?

You said people label acts as evil because they affect them. My example has people who are unaffected by abortion. You cannot claim that their moral stance on an issue that they could choose to ignore makes them selfish. Nor is the situation of the of the "victim" of pregnancy in any relevant to the motives of the anti-abortion activist. And the whole idea of escaping subjective thought is a circular cluster fuck of an idea anyways because it is your subjective view that subjective thoughts are bad at all. It is important that people like and prefer different things for no other motivation than that is what they like for a society to function. Some people like to farm, some people like to write books, you cannot objectively say one is boring but not the other. Or indeed that either ought to be pursued and not the other.

The dictionary's definition of good as an adjective: to be desired or approved of.
good as a noun: benefit or advantage to someone or something.

You label X as evil because of the definition that was explained to you as a child when you were learning what evil is, also the whole of society has a definition of evil which you are using in your format, the Spartans did not see killing unfit babies as evil, yet this society would

They may not affect you in a physical way, but it can in other ways, just like hearing about the Syrian children dying from gas bombs didn't affect me but it did bring me distress, hence why I immediately reject this act and label it as evil, again for a selfish reason as it brought upon me a negative emotion

Egotism is the drive to maintain and enhance favorable views of oneself, and generally features an inflated opinion of one's personal features and importance.

The belief of physics is subjective to wether or not you accept the facts that define it

>You cannot claim that their moral stance on an issue that they could choose to ignore makes them selfish

But they don't choose to ignore it, why is that? I'm sure every single one of those people have something to say to the matter, in there you will find the many answers to your question of why they choose to do this

Your "philosophy" literally amounts to playing a game of semantics on every issue.

Morally speaking they find the killing of defenseless human life to be reprehensible. This isn't selfish gain though because these people are not defenseless. They are not also fetuses. This isn't a protest of simple identity politics.

I fear in this instance language is the only way I can communicate what I try to express, but if you care to clarify I would like to understand what you mean by that

The mom wants an abortion for a selfish reason.

The anti-abortion people don't want her to do this, they don't want her to do this act of abortion, they don't want

They don't want this
They don't want that

Maybe I'm just an idiot, but the entire act of not wanting something is a selfish act, you are literally saying to the world to stop doing something for your own personal agenda

For one thing you are constantly equivocating the meaning of the word selfish. It is not inherently selfish to want something. It is possible to want something good for another person even if this good will never come back to you.

What if he's a NEET because of our moral society?

You get satisfaction, it makes you feel good, like you are a good person, like you have the high moral ground, just like those people who volunteer, self interest is always present, even when committing suicide

You think you are witty but you aren't. Everything you say is just deconstructionist nonsense. Now you are saying that it is selfish to be happy something good happened. See how you just keep expanding your definition of selfish to fit any situation? If I say the sky is blue, you will say that that is a selfish assumption because I want the sky to be blue because I want my view of the world to be validated. Your intellect here is shallow at best.

Once again you are projecting what good is, and being happy from your previous example is selfish, but you seem to like removing the context and the examples and you instead go and question my intellect, just goes to show you have nothing else to provide to this discussion, I'm not going to lurk here anymore since I'm sure your next reply will just be pure name calling and I'm not in the mood for such low quality poopoo

>philosophical discussion
>dictionary definition
Please go ahead and seek out the tallest nearby building to jump off of you fucking philistine.

You should, but that in itself means not to.
To say you should always work ONLY toward your self interest is to assume that you will come out on top. If you rape because it serves you and think this is fine, you assume you will never yourself become a victim to the very acts you promote based on your own falsely perceived superiority.

In a world of absolute self interest you will at some point become the victim. So in limiting yourself, in behaving morally, in supporting structures which sometimes work against your own self interest, you are actually doing yourself a favor. Others profit too, especially those weaker than you, but that is irrelevant.

I do conceide that if, in theory, a person was the ultimate alpha in all aspects and would KNOW they always come out on top, they would have no reason to adhere to such a system.

Hence, since most people arent, the others have to, in their own self interest, put up structures which prevents these people from abusing them.

Acting morally is acting in self interest.

>it makes me feel good therefore personal pleasure is the main motivation to do it
>anything that is not completely selfless is done for selfish reasons
This site is 18+. Please leave.