You have 5 hours to give a good reason to be a moral person

Feels good, you'll be surrounded by similar people, people will return the favor.
Edgy retards seem to forget that if you're a cunt you'll be surrounded by other cunts who will be cunts to you.

Being moral generally puts you at peace with everyone around you that is sensible. That peace helps ensure that you have a healthy and tranquil life. If you're being immoral, you are becoming dependent on a negative behavior pattern to acquire your emotional and/or physical needs. This behavior will eventually bring conflict or other problems to your doorstep. Enter stress. If you win, there will be other conflicts. You will eventually acquire animosity that will permeate in your life if you do not humble yourself into talking about it with others. Are you still enjoying your immorality, then?

That was less than five minutes.

Best answer, convincent enough.

don't do it OP, you'll regret it

remember raskolnikov

I've never understood threads like these. Nor why so many people outside of mega-autists that become professional philosophers would bother with such things.

For the most part, assuming you're not a fucking psycho, you have to go out of your way to be immoral, because lying, cheating, and generally being an asshole for no reason isn't a part of our genetic make-up. People are predisposed to being good, so long as the world allows them to be.

And nobody cares about moral precepts either. Neither preachers in church nor professional ethicists do what they tell others to.

>People are predisposed to being good, so long as the world allows them to be.
it must be nice to be liberal.

Egoism is so boring

>because lying, cheating, and generally being an asshole for no reason isn't a part of our genetic make-up
ahaha

It gives you the feeling of fitting in and doing the right thing, and belonging to the group the morals belong to, which does wonders for your mental health. It's also simpler than coming up with complex untested codes of conduct on your own, freeing your mind for productive endeavors.

People are also very good at finding you out if you fake it, so it's actually an argument for being moral.

Morality is defined as 'what one ought to do.' So, if something is an 'ought,' that by definition is a good reason to do it. But like I said in another thread, this is a terrible place to ask---this board is 99% anti-realists about morality.

> you have to go out of your way to be immoral, because lying, cheating, and generally being an asshole for no reason isn't a part of our genetic make-up. People are predisposed to being good, so long as the world allows them to be.

>And nobody cares about moral precepts either. Neither preachers in church nor professional ethicists do what they tell others to.

Two conflicting ideas, and yet both wrong!

Otherwise your soul will deteriorate, as justice is the natural state of a healthy soul.

This. Everyone who does not feel naturally inclined to be a good person is a psychopath and should be shot at sight.

>should
oops

You realize that if you faggots were right, humans wouldn't even exist right now? If we were all psychos, we wouldn't have bonded into tribes and formed civilizations.

How are they conflicting?

>If we were all psychos, we wouldn't have bonded into tribes and formed civilizations.

>Either everyone is a psycho, or no one is! Stop trying to make me accept individual variation. That's too complicated!

Well, obviously it's not a law yet but once it enters into law it will be completely moral.

>Either everyone is a psycho, or no one is! Stop trying to make me accept individual variation. That's too complicated!

Are you stupid, user? Honestly. Or are you just one of these """philosophers"""? You realize that we know if a person is a psychopath/sociopath based on their neurological makeup, right? And that we know their numbers are way, way smaller. It could be they even serve an evolutionary purpose. What does that have to do with it?

Your argument was that no one is naturally a psycho because otherwise humanity would not be able to cooperate to create a society.

Yes, going by the fact that the vast majority of humans are not that way (and it really is the VAST majority). Just like how most humans aren't born being the motherfucking elephant man. Or gay. Or whatever. We're clearing referring to the broad swath of humanity.

And why do you assume they have done this out of a sense of pure altruism, and not selfish motivation for self-gain? It doesn't take a genius to realize there is greater benefit for oneself in not stealing from others in order to create a larger society within which one may gain a greater material reward. This doesn't mean they don't necessarily have those desires to steal built in.

Because society can't function if people don't act based on commonly accepted guidelines for human-to-human interactions

we have a winner

You can only love yourself truthfully if you believe yourself to be a good person. If you do not eventually come to love yourself, then life is an incredibly painful experience. One's identity is a much more permanent concept than the sensations you experience -- the greater the identity you have created in your lifetime, the greater your life will have been, at least according to your own experience. Hedonism does not create a great person, (it creates a pathetic and slimy person, actually) and so it does not allow for the creation of a great identity, which is a state that allows for the overcoming of the fear of death. Once you love yourself, you can accept death without the fear of having wasted one's life.

>If someome gave you money to rape and maim a little girl, you maybe think that's not a bad idea but the moment you see a little girl cry, you would stop doing it because your mirror neurons make you feel the pain.

This is a weak argument, because the superego can and often does override the mirror neuron sensation to the point where I believe some people no longer experience that type of empathy in specific situations.

Consider cultures where women are stoned to death for infidelity. This affects not just "a few sociopath" but billions of people on the planet. In the West, we certainly cringe at such a "primitive" behavior, but to them, they find it just to enact such punishment for certain behaviors. It doesn't matter what is innately programmed in them. They have been trained to accept this as fair, good retribution, and will not stop being of any built in feeling. And it's not that everyone is secretly wishing they could not do this. They truly believe this is the best, most just society.

>And why do you assume they have done this out of a sense of pure altruism, and not selfish motivation for self-gain?

I fucking don't. You're simply projecting. When in the world did I bring in altruism into the mix? And there's a huge divide between altruism and common decency, which is what I'm referring to - that is, being okay enough of a human in order to work with others and be accepted by them.

>This doesn't mean they don't necessarily have those desires to steal built in.

Of course they have it built-in, because they might need it one day to survive in case that society collapses and/or they find themselves at the bottom of it. But people that aren't desperate (or deranged) don't go around popping niggas for pleasure or material gain.

More people will be good to you in return, and you will feel fullfilled by seeing others benefit from you

Not that hard

cultures where women are stoned to death are subhumans with a low iq and underdevelopped neocortex, also don't forget how most Africans have the warrior gene kek.
A cat doesnt understand when you hit them, a middle east, african doesn't have the mirror neurons. They are between us and the cats kek

Seriously I should stop visiting pol kek

No but seriously in these countries the do huge mental gymnastics to do behave the way they do. Like I said what morally right or wrong is, is "relative", in practice, maybe not in theory.
And for them unbelievers are no humans, they are less, so maybe that's why they can't identidy with them ( and also low iq, warrior gene, warm weather, etc)

you won't feel like a scumbag when you are alone with your own thoughts. unless you are a legit psychopath, being immoral all the time will eat at you and cause negativity for your mind and health

By the time you can intentionally act morally or immorally, you've spent 10-15 years around generally moral people. Unless you have a condition, you've absorbed and internalized the guidelines of behavior. Sure you can go against them, but then you'll feel guilt and shame.

Your question is basically "why do I need to avoid sticking my hand into open fire?". Even if we skip the consequences, it's because your body (or in this case mind) will make you feel bad. The pain or guilt is not an "objective entity", but it's hard to ignore them.

God won't let you into the clubhouse in the sky if you're bad.

>a moral person

what a novel concept
the truth about it is you only need to be as outwardly 'moral' as you would be viewed. accumulation of power and wealth is, inherently, desisting in some sense of morality.

and yet the most influential people in the world are the ones who have the most power and wealth. therefore the only real directive in life is to make yourself powerful as you can and do so in such a way as to not incur the wrath of all the other self-serving sycophants that we exist with.

Because it's the only truly rebellious thing you can do in a cruel and meaningless universe that's full of suffering.

A fuck you to existence.

>How are they conflicting?

How can people both be naturally disposed toward acting in accordance with the Good and yet ignore their own moral prescriptions?

You don't want to end up all alone, do you? You'll end up like the underground man if you're too selfish.

Circular logic is unavoidable. Having morality is self-fulfilling in a profound way.

Define moral? Like what the fuck are we even talking about here?

There's no good non circular reasoning for why gravity exists.

>Convince me that I should be a moral person
>Suspend my freedom by ordering me to be moral

Sounds like user doesn't really understand the necessary link between freedom and morality.

Nobody wants something, knowing full well that it's wrong. People only do what's wrong because they're immature/confused and think that there is something "good" about it. For example, serial killers always paint their victims as either evil conspirators, or else as a means to some kind of superior pleasure. In other words, they either (confusedly) think they are eliminating an evil, or gaining some kind of transcendental pleasure.

If you do what's wrong, you'll end up deceiving yourself about your own motives. You'll lose track of your own mental processes. Then you'll end up confused, miserable, and unable to understand anything, much less yourself.

the 5 hours are up

who did OP kill

Forgetfulness, cowardliness, addiction, akrasia, etc.

>implying being immoral makes you a bad person
>implying morality is inherently tied to notion like good and bad/evil when in reality it can be much more complex, more grey

>immorality in itself is a prison

This

Where is that anthropological article about how certain African languages lack the term to describe concepts that intersect with trust, honor and honesty?

But is morality key to living a happy, full existence amidst so much chaos? Wouldn't it only be truly rebellious if your actions were opposition to the "cruel and meaningless" energy of a chaotic universe? Think physics, brawh.

The claim was 'nobody,' not 'some people are led astray.'

>For example, serial killers always paint their victims as either evil conspirators, or else as a means to some kind of superior pleasure. In other words, they either (confusedly) think they are eliminating an evil, or gaining some kind of transcendental pleasure.

What about serial killers who kill mindlessly, like terror groups or mass murders? What about those who kill for the sake of getting a point across or a message out? What about Adam Lanza and the guys who shot up the Amish school house, where death does not always derive from a misdoing or source of pleasure? Some people kill because they merely must kill.

I thought that the claim was that we start out with a natural disposition towards what is good, but can get confused and become immoral.

Also people can most definitely oscillate between knowing and doing what is good and falling into bad behavior. Aristotle called this "incontinence".

Keep telling yourself it's mindless. Honestly, life is probably more exciting and fun that way.

The fact is that terror groups and mass murders are always carried out for an agenda. Somebody thought it would make the world better. Adam Lanza said (look it up) that he was saving those children from becoming brainwashed social drones or something of that nature.

My issue is with how categorical this statement is:

>And nobody cares about moral precepts either. Neither preachers in church nor professional ethicists do what they tell others to.

and not that people fall short of their morals from time-to-time. If people are naturally good, then clearly some do in fact care about morality.

there is no difference

You should be moral because it makes you a good person, bro

Indeed.

It's clear to me that anyone who argues that all people who claim to be moral are hypocrites is probably an incurable pessimist.

Now, it is absolutely true that pride is a vice, and that moral tyranny is still tyranny. I don't deny either of those claims. But it seems silly to claim that every moral teacher who has ever lived was a hypocrite.

It's immoral to reason with someone else on being moral.

1. Reason is supposed to reveal truth

2. Truth>Falsity

3. It's perfectly moral to use reason to defend morality

Because you have empathy and you wouldn't want others to go through stuff you wouldn't want yourself to go through.

Truth can be painful, and changing someone's mind is a form of dominance

>changing someone's mind is a form of dominance

Yes, changing someone's mind is a form of dominance. Revealing the truth is not.

There's a profound difference between imposing one's opinion on others and making discoveries dialectically with another.

Socrates, for instance, described himself as a "midwife of the soul". He was absolutely uninterested in dominating others, and often admitted to ignorance and confusion. He also frequently apologized for his inadequacy, which was irrefutably exposed in the Parmenides.

Can you say to yourself, honestly, that being honest with yourself is NOT important?

I guarantee that you cannot actually think that thought. You will agree that it is best to be truthful to yourself because there is nothing else you can do, it is simply impossible to deny this without being literally insane.

Congratulations, you've just discovered objective morality. The first, fundamental Objective Moral is self-honesty. From there, it's a long slide of rationality.

...

This. Hedonism ultimately makes way for virtue.

>not gonna happen to me, it's gonna be different for me bruh

lmao

>psychopath
>should be shot on sight
It does seem that you haven't looked in the mirror. Psychopaths are morally blind, not evil.

It does require a meta-narrative to uphold it. Otherwise it goes on sale.

>Nobody wants something, knowing full well that it's wrong
This is profoundly wrong. I always want both the good and the evil. It would not be a choice otherwise.

Go to a church.

Well a "moral" society functions better than an immoral one; therefore, a person should be moral first, and only immoral if there is opportunity for self-gain. If a mother drops her bottle of baby formula, and you pick it up for her, that is fine since you had nothing to gain by not handing her the bottle.

The real question is in scenarios where you stand to gain or loss from a situation. Should you buy a kid you don't know's textbook for him if he can't afford it? It would be good for him, yet bad for you. If you're in a grocery store and you grab the last loaf of bread in stock, and an old lady laments that she came to buy bread; should you give her the bread?

It depends entirely on that individual. In general forms of self-denial become vices that men create for themselves, and they take doing good as its own reward. In these upstanding citizens they should be moral. But at the same time there is no harm in not buying the textbook, and not handing over the bread; because you have no reason to do so, and thus cannot be judged for it. Charity and self-denial are important in many beliefs and philosophies, however, no one belief or philosophy rules all men. You are perfectly justified in acting in your own interests.

Of course if you value the community, then it is only natural to do things that help the community. If you know the money you'd spend on that textbook would just go to a game you'll never play on steam, then any decent person would put the collective first. And likewise if you had a history of letting bread go moldy, while the shopper wanted to make French toast for her family, then she should get the bread.

There's nothing wrong with caring about your own interests. But I can't understand hyper-individualism, where people think only about themselves. That thinking would rot all of society, and leave our planet in desolation. No man would want such a future for his children, and no man would want to be remembered as a ruiner rather than a cherisher.

>golden rule

Shortened the post for you

>I only have a choice if I can do bad.

What about being able to choose between multiple good options?

Also, of course you can choose to do what is wrong. But isn't it true that doing what is wrong will restrict your options in the future?

>I want the good AND the evil

What makes the evil desirable? Isn't it always something supposedly "good"?

spbp

>cultures where women are stoned to death are subhumans with a low iq and underdevelopped neocortex, also don't forget how most Africans have the warrior gene kek.
>A cat doesnt understand when you hit them, a middle east, african doesn't have the mirror neurons. They are between us and the cats kek

Nu-pol

Why only serve yourself when you're bound to die? It is better to work for an eternal whole, humanity/God, that will continue elements of who you are, beyond the short durations that two-face joy can bring.

Morality is serving others. In serving others, we remain in fragments where death before (in an immoral life) would be total.

Because you'd like yourself better. Liking yourself improves life expectancy.

...

Cause you will end up looking like the guy in the pic.

kek