Morality is a made up concept; it doesn't exist. Everybody on earth has a different idea of what right and wrong is...

The idea of a "spook" is a spook

I agree. As such I only do what is in my best interest given the cards I have been served. And unless you dedicate your life to it instilling your morals/ideas to others (and you still may fail), you are never going to change society in any meaningful. The only people you can really influence is yourself, and maybe those close to you.

See these elections for example. Some say Hillary will bring us more wars in the middle east and escalations with Russia. Some say Trump will turn America into a fascist country.
Personally, I don't give a fuck. I can't change the outcome of the election, and the election affects me minimally. Now, while Hillary is makes me want to kill myself, Trump is a meme factory. So a Trump presidency would be 10 times more entertaining to me. So if I had to pick someone to support, I'd pick Trump, because he brings the most to the table to my personal life (entertainment)

I cannot go on anymore. I am incapable of feeling anything but nigger-cock, loneliness or endless satisfaction.Even when I try to be with a friend, I feel like I am alone and that my heart is about to burst.Today my nigga Deshaun was asking for food for the 10th time in 5 hours, so I completely snapped by throwing his EBT cards all over the ground and filling his bowl until it overflowed. I chased the young black youth asking "aren't you hungry now?? huh?? I thought you wanted food?? why don't you fucking eat??" until I let him outside, picked up a sweeper, of which I used to sweep a couple of EBT cards before collapsing on the floor crying loud for what felt like an eternity. After I was able to get myself off the floor, I took a bunch of erectile-dsyfunction medication and prepared it in a bag for when I have finally hadenough,which I feel will be this weekend. Fuck..
-Wayne Lambright

Isn't "spook" a derogatory way of saying "black person"?

Quick question, if nothing matters in the long run, why don't you just abandon morals? Like, who the fuck would care if nothing matters and nothing is after death, all suffering AND enjoyment would end

Why are we compelled to continue living a moralistic life, or any kind of life whatsoever? Who the fuck cares? And if life is our "one opportunity", what is it for? What do we have to prove, and to who?

This whole thing would be a lot funnier, if it didn't sound so familiar.
American poverty is some depressing shit.

I did abandon morals. This does not mean that I go on the streets on a killing rampage. If did so, the police would kill me. I see life solely as a way to minimize my suffering and maximize enjoyment.
The only person that should really care about your life is yourself. If you don't, just end it already.

>hurr morality doesn't exist

No. One of the problems atheists have is the unbelievers' assertion that it is possible to determine what is right and what is wrong without God. They have a fundamental inability to concede that to be effectively absolute a moral code needs to be beyond human power to alter.

On this misunderstanding is a supposed conundrum about whether there is any good deed that could be done only by a religious person, and not done by a Godless one. Like all such questions, this contains another question: what is good, and who is to decide what is good?

Left to himself, Man can in a matter of minutes justify the incineration of populated cities; the deportation, slaughter, disease and starvation of inconvenient people and the mass murder of the unborn.

I have heard people who believe themselves to be good, defend all these things, and convince themselves as well as others. Quite often the same people will condemn similar actions by different countries, often with great vigour.

For a moral code to be effective, it must be attributed to, and vested in, a non-human source. It must be beyond the power of humanity to change it to suit itself.

Its most powerful expression is summed up in the words 'Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends'.

The huge differences which can be observed between Christian societies and all others, even in the twilit afterglow of Christianity, originate in this specific injunction.

Then again I'm sure you know this, and are just trolling for attention on a Christian board.

I mean, I do enjoy life, and I'm not advocating for suicide, but why aren't we compelled to kill ourselves based on the logic that nothing matters, once we understand that life is meaningless (assuming it is, it's up to the person)? Maximizing enjoyment/minimizing suffering seems like a moot point in such an existence, especially with that message gets across your brain

Atheists and nihilists seem to be doing 100% fine with facing their mortality and what they perceive to be oblivion after death.

It just seems weird once you think about it. I guess the closest thing you can use to describe that is willpower, which still doesn't make sense in a meaningless universe. I'm not religious, I've been agnostic but it still raises a lot of weird questions. Hopefully I'm being clear with what I mean

Philosophers. Al talk. No action. Sounds good. Doesn't work.

Assuming there is no grand purpose, the only other purpose I see is to enjoy life as I see fit. It's not that it is meaningless to me, it's just that it is far simpler than what religion or society wants to believe. Live your life and be happy. You have no obligation to bend over backwards to other people if you don't want to. You don't have to control your "impure" thoughts. The only obligation I have with other people is to please them should I want something from them, and not anger people in order to avoid trouble.

Altruism does exist in nature however and harmony is preferable to chaos when it can be afforded.

>Morality is a made up concept; it doesn't exist.

Every 'concept' could be said to be made up. 'Morality' as I understand it, is typically defined as the examination of ideas towards figuring out what actions are 'good' and what are 'bad'. Obviously there's no universal, or even really any significant agreement on these answers - but surely there must be some ultimate system of priorities and orders, at least with regard to sentient consciousness within the universe, right?

>When you die, it will be as if time and the universe never existed.

I have a real problem with this. Why do I exist at all if that consciousness is inevitably going to be annihilated? As my death is ensured and already a 'fact' in a sense, I find it hard to believe that my ultimate outcome is for everything I know to be annihiliated.

>I find it hard to believe that my ultimate outcome is for everything I know to be annihiliated.
that's why you need to start keeping of diary

Stirner isnt against altruism. If it makes you happy to give to charity go ahead. In fact Stirner suspects most people prefer order and working together naturally which is why he thinks moral rules are dumb. Most dont really follow any kind of morals and simply do what they feel like. Basically most morals can be dumped down to "i feel like it" when observed close enough.

This dude hit the nail right on the head. A true nihilist is like pic related.

>for a moral code to be effective, it must be attributed to a non-human source

Says who? Another "holy" man? What gives his Hebrew texts dominion over anything but the stone it's etched upon?

What are “religions and literatures” if their grandest productions are hordes of faithful slaves?

Christianity doesn't solve the issue either see pic related

If you dont know the diffrence of right or wrong then you are already lost .

1 post by this ID

the idea of ideas is a spook

That is why you have to flush yourself from spooks.

Maybe I'm the Spook.

youtube.com/watch?v=Iu1qa8N2ID0

>Morality is a made up concept; it doesn't exist

So why not make it up then? Call it uh... Christianity.

If god exists, morality is even more subjective, as it would be dictated and decided based on his whims.

What is the point of basing your morality around someone that you may never speak to or even may not see even if he can change things at a whim? At this point it might not even exist, because it doesn't within your realm.

Stirner is full of shit, like every philosopher, but I love those pics people have made with him

Stirner didn't propose that what he was saying was some ultimate prescription to existence. In fact a large point of his writings was to abolish the concept that there was a prescription to existence. The whole concept of "spooks" are these fixed ideas of the human conscious that people think provide an ultimate prescription to existence. He provided a lense of skepticism to look through the world and call bullshit on bullshit.

Whatever. Philosophy isn't my thing. I just like the comics and was hoping someone would post them.

That just makes upholding moral standards all the more inspiring and worthwhile.

It backfired you fool, I appreciate life more than ever now!

Once again, an Aussie is shit posting. The problem with your photo is that it doesn't take into account epistemics.

Lol. Is this bait? It's a waste of time to try and explain shit to you if you're A)too dumb or B)just a biased troll.

It would be cool to make a video game about Stirner where he has to go around collecting property and defeating spooks of the mind.

i'd love to stick around and debate philosophy with you guys but i just took a nice firm dump and there was hardly any shit on the toilet paper when i wiped

it's rubber dick time

>Everybody on earth has a different idea of what right and wrong is.
But that's still "morality," so it does exist. The term is used to describe the "right and wrong" paradigm regardless of the specific details. Objective morality and sin aren't the same thing as morality as a concept.

It's just a word, dude. It only exists to have its meaning, which it succeeds at. Very edgy though.

>Morality is a made up concept; it doesn't exist. Everybody on earth has a different idea of what right and wrong is.
That's because you used the subjectively defined words 'right' and 'wrong'. Good and evil are the words that matter and they're defined in the Bible. You're just assuming your conclusion as the predicate of your argument using a switch of word definition as proxy.

Did I say predicate I meant proposition, my bad.

have a free compass

>good and evil are defined in the Bible
No they aren't. I wish fake Christposters on here would stop pretending they've read even a single part of the Bible

>Once again, an Aussie is shit posting. The problem with your photo is that it doesn't take into account epistemics.

Debunk it or stay silent m8

t. Nietzsche

**BTFO**

That's a bold assertion, why do you suggest the bible does not provide a moral compass when the very book has this to say:

"Yahowah's (יהוה) Towrah (Towrah — teaching, guidance, direction, and instruction) is complete and entirely perfect (tamym — without defect, lacking nothing, correct, genuine, right, helpful, beneficial, and true), returning and restoring (suwb — transforming) the soul (nepesh — consciousness). Yahowah's testimony ('eduwth — restoring and eternal witness) is trustworthy and reliable ('aman — verifiable, confirming, supportive, and establishing), making understanding and obtaining wisdom (hakam — educating and enlightening oneself to the point of comprehension) simple for the open-minded and receptive (pethy — easy for those who are receptive)." —Psalm 19:7

The Torah contains Leviticus and Deuteronomy where much of the moral obligations and prescriptions are outlined. Actions that are deliberately anti-torah are uniformly considered wicked things that should cause one to reflect on forgiveness.

To suggest the Bible does not imply a good or evil morality is a claim that would require scriptural support that I do not believe exists.

If you subscribe to the idea that there is no moral objectivity, then does that not also mean that you subscribe to cultural relativism, due to the morality of even the most cancerous cultures such as Pakistan, where it is traditional for boys to be raped, Saudi Arabia, where gays are thrown off of buildings and women are stoned for adultery and driving, India, where they still need to learn to POO IN LOO, and China, who still use tiger penises as traditional medicine despite having no scientific basis for the curative properties of tiger genitalia, and also being the cause for their extinction, being subjective?
Some moralities are better than others in the same way that some cultures are better than others.
Stop using babby's-first-nihilism-tier philosophy such as Meme Stirner to justify your Cheese Pizza fetish.

1) you can be a deist and still be amoral
2) I think OP's point is that there's no objective morality, and I agree with that
The only objective rules in our universe are those of matter. The universe imposes nothing in regards to human action.

>Some moralities are better than others

If by better you mean that which is more advantageous to me then raping or killing someone to take his money becomes moral.

>Debunk it or stay silent m8
I'll bite.

1. is a logical fallacy:
>an obj. morality is one that is consistent with itself and coherent
does not imply that
>a morality that is consistent with itself and coherent is obj.

2. Truth isn't universally known - the premise is false.

3. relies on its premise which is an unjstified assumption of what an obj. morality supposedly entails.

4. See answer for 2 - obj. doesn't imply universally known. People can be wrong and have the wrong idea about things. Maths doesn't magically change to account for every time someone answers a question incorrectly. That would be retarded.

>1. is a logical fallacy:
No it isnt its just one of the definitions used for objective morality its not a logical deduction.

>Truth isn't universally known - the premise is false.

The fact that there are already different moralities demonstrates that this definition of objective morality is false without us having to go to the ends of reality.

>3.
I think you are confusing what is being offered as a definition of objective morality for these statements being proofs of objective morality

>4.
See what I wrote for 3

>>an obj. morality is one that is consistent with itself and coherent

That's not what objective means. Objectivity implies that its source is separate from the observer. It's one of the ruling ideas of science, that the universe has laws that exist without a subjective observer's contribution.

I think picture was focusing on how such a morality would be identified and how this cannot be done coherantly and consistently

>its just one of the definitions used for objective morality its not a logical deduction.
>A black swan in a species of bird with black feathers. If this is the case, (given the existence of birds such as ravens and crows,) there are literally dozens of species of black swans.
Same logic.
It's an incomplete definition of objective morality and your conclusion rests on the assumption that it is a complete one.

>The fact that there are already different moralities demonstrates that
It demonstrates nothing. There are lots of different answers to the question 172 + 499 = ? and that doesn't change the fact that only one of them is correct.

>I think you are confusing what is being offered as a definition of objective morality for-
I know what I'm seeing. I'm seeing 4 potential 'definitions' given for objective morality that all utterly fail to grasp the concept. It's like someone complaining that cars don't exist because a car is a thing with wheels you can ride and then pointing at a bicycle crying out "Look how it's not a car! See!?"

>how such a morality would be identified and how this cannot be done coherantly and consistently

I don't see the why not. Consider the following example:
I first decide on an attribute I admire, let's say truth, and then create a moral law upon it, like 'Everyone that lies is evil, those that are honest are good'. Such a moral law would be coherent and consistent. It would still be subjective thou.

>It demonstrates nothing. There are lots of different answers to the question 172 + 499 = ? and that doesn't change the fact that only one of them is correct

But how do you demonstrate that a certain morality is correct?

>I have a real problem with this. Why do I exist at all if that consciousness is inevitably going to be annihilated? As my death is ensured and already a 'fact' in a sense, I find it hard to believe that my ultimate outcome is for everything I know to be annihiliated.

Unless you believe in eternal recurrence, AKA "time is a flat circle". In which case you will never truly experience oblivion because at the moment of your death you will simply live your life again from the moment you were born.

This thought process only encourages me even more to advocate nationalism and environmentalism. I don't really like the idea of my grandchildren having to live for all eternity in a smog infested, third would shithole.

but can you prove it?

There is some decent evidence for reincarnation.
m.youtube.com/results?q=ian Stevenson &sm=3

The absence of objective morals is proven by the absence of any evidence proving objective morals.

>It's an incomplete definition of objective morality and your conclusion rests on the assumption that it is a complete one.

How would you complete the premise?

>It demonstrates nothing. There are lots of different answers to the question 172 + 499 = ? and that doesn't change the fact that only one of them is correct.

Do you genuinley think that axioms and regularity of mathematics are anywhere close to that of moral and ethical questions? This is a misleading comparison. Have you noticed how 1+1 is something that all cultures seem to figure out but never this morality.

>I know what I'm seeing. I'm seeing 4 potential 'definitions' given for objective morality that all utterly fail to grasp the concept.

Remove the log first before you go hunting down specks

>It's like someone complaining that cars don't exist because a car is a thing with wheels you can ride and then pointing at a bicycle crying out "Look how it's not a car! See!?"

As opposed to someone saying they can predict everything a person will do and desire with perfect certainty because they find certainty in the number of degrees in a circle

>I first decide on an attribute I admire, let's say truth, and then create a moral law upon it, like 'Everyone that lies is evil, those that are honest are good'. Such a moral law would be coherent and consistent. It would still be subjective thou.

The fact that you decide and create it demonstrates its automatically subjective. And fails to pass the first and very true barrier you mentioned in your other post.

>The fact that you decide and create it demonstrates its automatically subjective. And fails to pass the first and very true barrier you mentioned in your other post.

I already agreed to this in my original post, my point was that subjective morals can still be coherent and consistent.

Oh my mistake

>doesn't bother to address any classical argument for objective morality while claiming it as incorrect
>defends by saying a surface-level understanding of ethical pluralism refutes objective morality

It's too late at night to be this baited by bullshit.

Grammar si a meda up concept; it doesnt exist. Everbudy on urfht has different idae of what wrihgt and wong spellung is.

what do you think about neuroethics

So if people disagree on metaphysics, the world is made up and doesn't exist?

Where are you quoting from? I'm interested in your source which gives all these added word meanings. Please, user?

Well, one can only conclude that GOD wants us to love each other based on the one commandment of the Bible then.

A new commandment I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so also you must love one another.

-John 13:34

youtube.com/watch?v=SuJtAoADesE