Okay Cred Forums let's try the Socratic method to figure some things out. I have no goal in mind...

Okay Cred Forums let's try the Socratic method to figure some things out. I have no goal in mind, just starting from the basics.

We all want to be able to pursue what we want in life, by definition.

Is it wrong to want to prevent someone else from his pursuit?

Other urls found in this thread:

goose.ycp.edu/~dweiss/phl224_human_nature/plato_symposium_selections.htm
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

what if my pursuit wins by virtue of violence?

Is you sayin it don't be like it does? Cause it do be like it is

Prove this isn't art

What if that violence is willed by Kek?

Of course not, unless their pursuit hinders my own.

Depends on the other's pursuit.

...

I suppose that violence was just, and my question did not address OP.

I suppose it is wrong to prevent someone else from his pursuit, on the grounds that his pursuit is good.

My point. But the root here then is morality.

What if meme magic is nothing more than mass hysteria resulting in self-fulfilling prophecies like the Aalem Wish Trail?

>Is it wrong to want to prevent someone else from his pursuit?

Only if his pursuit isn't harmful to someone.

For example, it would be immoral to not stop my pursuit of raping this attractive lady

"wrong" is an ultimately groundless concept.

if what i want is to prevent him, then wouldn't it be equally wrong of him to want me not to prevent him? i.e. by refusing to suffer he is causing me to suffer.

morality is inherent. we have witnessed produce the most beauty, ergo it is the most good.

I could reason further, but I have read this before

goose.ycp.edu/~dweiss/phl224_human_nature/plato_symposium_selections.htm

>Is it wrong to want to prevent someone else from his pursuit?

no it's not wrong, because literally fuck that guy. how far do you bend before you break? society? culture? not everyone should get an equal say, and it's a society's role to determine what is tolerable if they want to live in that society.

>morality is inherent

It's immoral to let such a qt have lip piercings, so that never would've happened either

Prove that there is a "we" first, then "we" can talk.

Observe. Your image is wrong, but it feels right.

Hey that's decent. It has a good sense of weight. I feel it may almost balance under it's own weight if you constructed it with wire.

It looks as if even dimension was considered.

It's wrong to prevent someone else from his pursuit UNLESS it directly interferes with yours. If your pursuit involves assraping me, that gets in the way of my pursuit of not being assraped. You can extrapolate this to all corners of life--relationships, business, politics, whatever.

Socrates' brand of morality is attained when you do the right thing, for the right reason, and you feel the right way about it. A close second is doing the right thing, for the right reason, and being resentful about it. Most people who are "moral" do one of these two things, usually #2.

So it is wrong, unless that person's pursuit is to prevent other people from their own.

Then, if you considered all consequences of your actions, but overlooked one that prevents another's pursuit, are you wrong but overlooking?

Why is OP a faggot?

All reasoned decisions are based ultimately on value-judgements, wherein people choose to hold one thing as more desirable as opposed to other things. People make these judgments due to a formal or informal table of values, whereby some objects or concepts are deemed better then others.

These tables of values rank things by their desirability, often having many or even most of the items on the table desirable purely for the sake of some item higher up on the table that it serves as a means towards.

From these facts, an objective ethic can be created. Simple declare your highest values, then create the most efficient means to those values realization, and you have an Objective Morality. Your values are true and your actions are the most efficient possible means to their realization.

Here's the clutch. You cannot, under any circumstances, or through any means, prove that your highest values are preferable to any other person's. No morality is so strong that it cannot resist someone saying that they just do not care.

Aquinas' morality is beautiful, but if someone doesn't care about happiness, it has no hold on him. Its logic depends on that axiom.

The utilitarian morality? It can be defeated just by saying that you care more about whats good for you than whats good for the group. What will you do if someone says that? Call him "evil"? That does not prove your morality, it simply proves you value using that person more then he values being used.

The morality of virtues is only useful if you desire the traits and goals of those virtues.

In short, every moral system thus devised no matter how elegant, precise, or rooted in nature, is ultimately founded on the arbitrary final desires of rational agents, and it cannot be otherwise.

If someone does not care about what your value-system is trying to accomplish, you have no possible argument to convince him that he should, because "Should" is a moral word predicated upon him valuing what you're selling.

For some reason, this picture just fills my soul with compf

Compf?

It does not matter whether my pursuits are right or wrong.

In fact I know for a fact that any life pursuit is always wrong becayse life is inherently immoral and based on the sacrifice of others to yourself.

replying to my own question...

I think it is wrong. If the issue is complicated enough for you to overlook something, you should know that.

Preventing another's pursuit is really the only wrong in the world, and you should do all you can to not hinder someone.

It is wrong to take a risk knowing it might be wrong.

Art requires skill. This clearly didn't.

You are probably right, but these are ideal questions to get to the root of the our ethics.

Please read my answer. Right or wrong, is this action wrong in this ideal world?

>you should do all you can to not hinder someone.
Then you should kill yourself. No offense. Just truth. Do you even realize the price others pay from you talking with me on the Internet right now? Electricity doesn't generate magically, boy.

Prove it

Then, suppose any possible action you take has some risk.

Would be wrong to not take the action with the least risk?

You can't unknowingly prevent a pursuit. That's stupid.

You mean if you were blindfolded and you hit someone with an axe? Yeah, you're evil.

>Then you should kill yourself

That makes no sense. What if him being alive relieves hindrance in some way.

If by "overlook" you mean "fail to notice," then I wouldn't say you've committed a moral "sin," unless you count not being thorough enough to plan for the consequences of your actions. But a truly "moral" person, to Socrates, wouldn't pursue something that would interfere with the pursuit of another, nor would he WANT to, because nothing achieved at the expense of another would be truly fulfilling.

This is all as [I'm pretty sure] Socrates would see it.

It is always wrong. That is always the answer.
Now do we deal with it and accept to live with blood on our hands or do we kill ourselves and offer our corpse for science?
If we choose life the goal cannot be "live so as to do almost as little damage as if I was dead". As you stated in OP you have life goals: pursue them. The only limits are caution about consequences and your own personnal pity.

No. As a human you only have a responsibility to further the pursuits you choose to. I definethis as our agency or "will". If your will is to prevent someone else from attaining his pursuit and you are capable of doing such a thing, then it is not wrong. It is only wrong if he is able to stop you from doing it to him and you fail, thus failing the ideal of what you desired in the first place (which was to stop him); therefore, your will was not strong enough and you've only harmed yourself in the end.

>tl;dr it's only wrong if you lose

Anyone is free to take as much or as little risk as he wants as long as he assumes the consequences.

We are in the context of ethics though.

If it is right to pursue you own will, then it is wrong to prevent another, by definition: right = pursue your will, wrong = ~right = prevent the pursuit

As I said: the only way to not hinder others' pursuits is to die.

Oh man.

This is what righteous killing is about. If you do pursue good, then you will join the fate of a slave to the eternal destiny of good vs evil, and you will be punished.

Live by the sword, die by the sword.

Kantian morality, the really simplified version: You should always do what's best for you. That almost always means doing it in a way that does not harm others, because your actions have consequences. If everyone is doing what's best for themselves, it will work out that they should also be doing what's best for everyone.

I have no response to this image. It will be forgotten in five minutes. Therefore, it is not art.

>If you do pursue good
I meant 'do not', but the same is true if you do. You simply have much better odds of not having evil done to you in return.

What is art?

That sounds pretty subjective

I think I am not being really clear.

There cannot be right without a wrong.

My originally post is trying to define wrong = not right. Of course it not right is to prevent pursuit, but to what extent?

If any choice except death prevents another's pursuit, then what is right/wrong?

I'll repeat my very last question . Is it wrong to not pick the choice with the least risk?

Excellent way to live my friend. War is the ultimate practice and we are its ultimate practitioners.

Violence is the gold standard, all other truths can be made false to this standard.

a volume of human expression which possesses a beauty that forces you to ponder.

I hope you don't believe this shit you post.

I've seen plenty of art that I've forgotten. A lot of it is hanging in art museums and is considered "art" by the vast majority of those viewing it. I don't think art has to be memorable or impactful, necessarily.

Quite beautiful, I'd like to purchase this please!
Sending me an email at:

You should go back and read the discussion you've been having.

I have read it. I said his scribbles were decent.

OP here. I am going to bed, so I'll give what I think.

My conclusion is it is all % and the goal is to get the lowest % of preventing others from their pursuit.

This could mean analyzing each situation and always picking the least risky.

Or maybe it is "enough" to have a heuristic, like Plato's golden mean where you don't analyze everything but you pick the action that is in the middle of extremes of preventing people, between doing nothing and harming someone for example.

I hope you guys have learned that this is the true way to live, and we all know it. The Socratic method had forced us all to see this to be true.

Next time you are given a choice, don't intentionally pick the one that harms another. Don't do nothing. Enjoy your pursuit and don't be a dick.

Plato is like the bitch version of Socrates.

Listen to Diogenes.

But it is art.

>Is it wrong to want to prevent someone else from his pursuit?
not if that someone else is a nigger, next question

What do you think would happen if I killed you right now? (criminal laws aside and merely within the scope of ethics). Whose ethics would remain? Mine, or yours?

How do we deport niggers?

I have learned the art of the sword and the mind from yagyu munenori

also westerns.

Bump

we trounced them so hard they ain't coming back :(

Got it.

~pursue your will = not pursue you will, it is wrong to cuck yourself out of your desire

Art is as subjective as good or evil, take from that what you will.
It obviously elicited some response from someone, even if it was only an (((art dealer))).

Bu,p

Stop ruining everything.

I will just propose that I have found no more reliable moral code than complete and utter self-interest. I rarely--if ever--apply it, however, because I have empathy (which itself is probably an emotional defense mechanism to keep people from angering others too much.)

>Aquinas' morality is beautiful, but if someone doesn't care about happiness, it has no hold on him. Its logic depends on that axiom.
You seem to be confusing morality with logic. I could certainly impose my morality on someone who doesn't care for it. In fact, such an ability to impose despite logic is a thing that has come to define the entire history of man.

Envision radiating sometimes-concentric circles from the individual outward.