[ art / civ / cult / cyb / diy / drg / feels / layer / lit / λ / q / r / sci / sec / tech / w / zzz ] archive provided by lainchan.jp

lainchan archive - /civ/ - 1866



File: 1472784961412.png (175.33 KB, 218x300, 35193.png)

No.1866

  No.1867

It's one of those things i haven't yet researched about to have an opinion on. I do watch it, i'm still not sure how fucked up the industry is.

  No.1869

>Public Religion Research Institute
>American 'Morality'

  No.1874

ehh depends. what kind?

  No.1876

I think it's wrong if you're a young virgin teen but fom entirely different reasons than morality. People like those who made this survey should realize that morality doesn't exist above personal headspace and is not absolute. Like are we few centuries in the past or what?

  No.1880

>>1876
>morality doesn't exist
i see this kind of thinking a lot here. why doesn't morality exist, lain?

  No.1882

>>1880
>is not absolute

How would morality exist? Morality is your idea of what is "right" and "wrong" -- Right and wrong are just opinions.

Example:

> Beheading people is wrong.

vs
> It's ok to behead people, within reason or to prove a point.
vs
> There's nothing wrong with beheading people.

  No.1883

I think too much of anything is a bad thing. My issue isn't with porn; it is with a culture that doesn't see a problem with the ease in accessibility. I think too much porn leads to a degradation in thought, and while I am sure there are much bigger wastes of time, porn can help evolve anti-social or even psychotic behaviors in the form of fetishes.

  No.1884

Maybe not morally wrong, but porn does seem to damage sexual response and can be addictive. I can't seem to masturbate anymore without a computer or tablet in my hand and I'm in my mid 20s. So along with removing artificial juices with way too much sugar, I need to remove porn or at least make it a novelty.

I've been able to use erotic audio, which I think is WAY better than visual porn and could be the thing to wane people off hardcore porn addiction. COULD.

Of course, I fap to 3D women, 2D women, monster girls, including slime girls and angels, pirate women, foreskin play, traps fucking women, women fucking women with strap ons, double penetration, thigh fucking, tit fucking, jizzing on women's faces, handjobs, throat fucking, rough sex, gentle sex, sex in space (last one is a joke)

  No.1885

>>1882
So should we not have laws?

  No.1886

>>1885
It's a mistake to assume law is a moral compass.

  No.1887

>>1886
That is not an answer to my question. Should we or shouldn't we have laws, since there is no morality for them to enforce?

  No.1888

>>1887
>Should we or shouldn't we have laws, since there is no morality for them to enforce?

I'm an anarchist so it's a given what my answer would be; you wouldn't have known that, of course, until just now though.

>That is not an answer to my question.


I was merely replying to your implying that laws are used to set moral guidelines or whatever.

  No.1889

>>1888
If it were in both my power and interest to do physical harm to you, would there be nothing at all wrong with that?

  No.1890

>>1888
Since there is no morality, why is anarchy better than the current system?

  No.1891

>>1889
>If it were in both my power and interest to do physical harm to you, would there be nothing at all wrong with that?

I'm not the one making the claim that morality doesn't exist. You must be responding under the assumption that I'm >>1876

To answer your question, yes it would be wrong.

>>1890
>Since there is no morality, why is anarchy better than the current system?

See my response to >>1889

  No.1892

>>1891
Sorry for the confusion.

  No.1894

>>1882 here

>>1885 I wasn't aruging about whether we should or should not have laws. I was simply telling you that morality is nothing more than an opinion.

Personally? I like laws, laws are nice, most people are too afraid of jail or tickets to break them, which limits the potential for damage to be done to my family, myself, or my property.

  No.1895

>>1882
The easy way to respond to that is by not drinking the relativist's kool-aid here.

Morality, according to people who believe in it, is not simply one's *ideas* or *values* about right and wrong, but what actually *is* right and wrong, regardless of what people believe about it.

In response to your scenario, an objectivist about morality could contend that any one of those things could be correct (or none of them) morally, regardless of what anyone believes about it.

This is a key point, and it distinguishes any proposed objective value or valuation from the observer of the subject under consideration. Nearly anyone who is an objectivist would contend that our beliefs about morality and ethics are distinct from morality and ethics themselves. The idea of the Parthenon is different from the actual Parthenon, to references the literature. Many relativists of certain stripes would also agree with this.

Frankly, contending that morality and our ideas about it are the same things is a very tenuous stance to take, and one that risks painting you as unempathetic for a weak argument at best.

The normal response to "people believe different things so there must be no morality" is simply to say that some or all of those people are wrong, rather than grant that there actually is no morality. There are a number of positive arguments that can be made for the existence of at least some form of objective morality, some weaker, such as appealing to our intuitions and the fact that we actually do cross-culturally tend to agree on a lot of valuations, and some stronger such as the necessity of value for meaning to be possible regardless of the presence of an observer or subject. These are well beyond the scope of this reply, but I can elaborate on them if you would like.

  No.1899

3dpd porn is aesthetically so horrible it doesn't matter if it's "damaging" - simply electing to watch it ruins a man.

2d porn on the other hand is an integral part of the "anime culture", and understanding anime without that background is limited to what happened before Go Nagai.

  No.1900

>>1899
>3dpd meme

2D porn is way worse than 3D porn. Good luck when you finally get a girl to fuck you and you can't get off without saying shit like, "So this is your weakness sempai!!" Or "I wanna fuck your sweet throat-pussy" or you are left wondering why the girl isn't moaning "KI MO CHIIIIIIIII".

And of course 3D women don't have the massive anime eyes either...

  No.1901

File: 1472937714504.png (1.57 MB, 200x133, elf.jpg)

>>1900
What if he marries an elf, or a dwarf?

  No.1905

>>1901
Dude, as cool as it would be to have an elf girlfriend But let's not turn this into a monster girl thread, as much as I would love to just rant and rave about qt monsters how often are you going to fuck a midget? Let alone marry one?

Besides, massive anime eyes on a 3D woman would be scary.

  No.1908

>>1901
I prefer humans for marriage. Blonde dark elves are an interesting fantasy / moe type, tho.

>>1905
Yeah, anime eyes are a representation of cute, not a representation of ideal physique.

  No.1910

>>1895
>The normal response to "people believe different things so there must be no morality" is simply to say that some or all of those people are wrong, rather than grant that there actually is no morality.

saying that there is no morality is simply false. you could hypothetically say that "there is no such thing as science" with that type of reasoning, and eventually lead it all the way to "there is no anything beyond what i choose to acknowledge". what you're preaching is essentially nihilism.

  No.1911

>>1866
lol this article is obnoxious

29 percent of Americans think porn is morally acceptable? Well that's an enormous amount of people. Public morality shouldn't be decided on a first-past-the-post methodology. Actually, nothing ought to be.

  No.1912

File: 1473026184916.png (130.34 KB, 200x113, umbrella.jpg)

>>1901

You sure that's safe?

  No.1934

File: 1473070493734.png (1.12 MB, 200x139, leader.png)

>>1911
Well lain, that's how democracy works.

Either way even if you are some kind of political persuasion that rejects democracy, you should still consider it important that about 3 out of every 4 Americans would judge you pretty harshly if they found out your porn habit.

That makes you more susceptible to things like coercion and blackmail as long as you do things that diverge from the norm or are considered taboo. So even if you don't think democracy ought to decide matters, you should still recognize the importance of public opinion.

  No.1935

>>1910
Well no, that's not quite right either. There simply is not a plausible or coherent way to explain some things right now without appealing to science. So we have positive evidence that science does indeed exist, regardless of the nature of its existence.

Morality on the other hand, or rather the existence of it, is not and should not be the default assumption. There are indeed a lot of problems with asserting some type of objective value theory. Even though I am arguing for that above, I still recognize that it is contentious and not a settled matter at all. Relativism of various degrees, especially cultural relativism, is also extremely popular, so it's not a settled matter in any case. However denying the existence or legitimacy of morality at all is an extremely unorthodox fringe view that not many people would accept. This is for many reasons, including the ones I stated in my other post. But simply because we can fairly easily (or at least without much fuss) agree that there is some sort of legitimate or existing reality, doesn't necessarily mean we can agree on what that is, even to a relatively minor degree.

  No.1937

>>1895

would like!

  No.1942

File: 1473137007643.png (117.97 KB, 85x200, EQaYcLS.jpg)

>>1880
>>1880
Well, it's hard to think of a means to determine an "objective" form of right or wrong- which I think is what the concept of morality is intended to be. I don't feel a non-subjective/individual form of morality exists, unless you consider what might be biologically coded into us as general "rights" and "wrongs" (IE: Adapting to feel killing is wrong and being less likely to do so, as those individuals who didn't heed to this were culled by natural selection via vengeance or etc).

  No.1943

>>1866
Yes but i still do it

  No.1945

This study is a trick btw.

It's presented in such a way that implies that people think porn should be made illegal. But that's not the question at all.

  No.1947

>>1945
>One striking thing about these findings is the incredible variation in how people think about porn on a personal level and how they think about it on a legal level. Overall, 39 percent said they'd oppose legal restrictions on pornography, compared to the 29 percent who consider it morally acceptable. That means roughly ten percent of people disapprove of porn but don't think it should be illegal.

Sometimes a bit of reading comprehension helps. They asked both things specifically. No one is trying to trick you except yourself, by jumping to conclusions.

>>1937
The big burden is to establish that there can be moral facts, in the same way that there are facts about more mundane things. If there are moral facts, such as that "Raping and murdering innocent babies is wrong," and they can be true or false, then some form of moral realism follows from that.

It's pretty easy to demonstrate that not all statements or assertions can be either true or false. For instance, some types of statements do not even seem to be trying to do that type of thing. It hardly makes sense to talk about the truth value of the statements

"Do the dishes."

or

"Did you finish your homework?"

That is, they are not true or false, they are not in the business of being true or false, and it doesn't even make sense to evaluate them that way.

However, returning to the previous statement,

"Raping and murdering innocent babies is wrong."

does seem to be, structurally and semantically, trying to assert a statement of fact, similar to the statement

"Paris is the capital of France."

or

"All black ravens are monochrome birds."

or any such "x is y" sort of assertion.

  No.1948

>>1947 cont.
Most of the anti-realist positions focus on attacking that these sorts of moral statements, such as "x is wrong" or "y is the right thing to do" either intend to be statements of fact, are capable of being true or false, or both.

One problem that arises is the fact that morality doesn't seem to be the type of thing that can be established scientifically, that is, it seems to be in conflict with naturalism, the belief that facts can only be about the natural world, or that nothing real is supernatural and there are no supernatural facts. A particularly strong version of naturalism would physicalism, the belief that only the physical is real, and that everything is reducible/explainable by physical phenomena. Hence, you typically see hardline physicalists adopting moral anti-realist positions more often than people who hold other metaphysical beliefs. However, that's not always the case, as there are also many physicalists who are moral realists.

Why the discrepancy? There was a very inluential argument that seemed to commit moral realists to some very unintuitive results for many years called the open question argument, first formulated by G.E. Moore.

The argument attempts to establish the "open question" nature of moral questions, such as "is it good to do x?" by showing that no natural/physical/scientific terms are analytically equivalent (you cannot substitute them/definitionally interchangeable such as "bachelor" and "unmarried man") with moral ones, otherwise it would not make sense to ask "is x good?"

With minimalism about truth becoming much more popular, the open question argument has fallen much out of favor, and it was one of the strongest arguments putting a wedge in between moral realism and many forms of naturalism.

Essentially, if we accept that moral statements similar to the above can be true or false, then we have to admit that morals are real, since their existence is presupposed by the statement. Having either value requires them to be real, otherwise it could not be true or false.

Consider:
"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."

Is this statement true or false? It doesn't really make sense to say that this statement could be true. However, one might say, "well obviously it is false if it can't be true," and one might be forgiven for thinking that. However if this were the case, it would be a consequence that:

"Colorless green ideas are not sleeping furiously."

is true. That certainly doesn't sound right. Merely by admitting that there can be statements of fact with moral qualifiers, terms, or predicates which are not higher-order statements such as attribution, it commits one to some level of moral realism.

If you are interested in reading more:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open-question_argument
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism/

  No.1955

>>1935
>So we have positive evidence that science does indeed exist, regardless of the nature of its existence.
are you saying that science does exist? or does not?

>doesn't necessarily mean we can agree on what that [reality] is, even to a relatively minor degree.

that's pretty much the whole point of science; to explain reality. also, a great many people all over the world agree with the work and findings of scientists. i don't see where you're going with that statement.

  No.1958

>>1955
Honestly, it helps if you don't pick a statement out of context like that. I had to go back and read what I had written to even understand what you were asking.

I'm saying that because science seems *indispensable* for explaining many things coherently, then yes it must exist. We appeal to the body of science we have built up and discovered to explain most (or all of the) things we know.

>that's pretty much the whole point of science; to explain reality. also, a great many people all over the world agree with the work and findings of scientists. i don't see where you're going with that statement.

I was referring to legitimate or existing reality to MORALITY.

Very few people would say, even those who believe there are moral facts, that they are the type of thing you can discover via the scientific method. It's not like you can perform moral experiments. For example, it wasn't that we had no idea that genocide was morally wrong before notable examples in recent history. It's also not the case that we are going to prove that some instances of shoplifting are morally okay by creating a control and performing experiments.

But beyond those ridiculous sort of examples, the idea that science is the only legitimate description of reality or the only way to arrive at new facts or knowledge, that only scientific knowledge is legitimate knowledge, is also a very extreme position. A seeming counterexample would be the discovery (if you believe it to be such) of new mathematical results, or the development of a new theorem, language, etc. These things are not derived scientifically, and, while they have scientific explanations or reductions in many cases, some do not without significant context loss or becoming a circular reduction.

One of the clearest reasons to doubt that science is the only route to knowledge would be that the ability to do science seems to presuppose the existence of mathematical/abstract objects, of which science cannot make an account. Why can't science make an account of them? Because any legitimate scientific method relies on quantification and patterns, and in order to scientifically verify things of that nature, you would have to bring those into question. Any proof or evidence would be circular in that way.

Furthermore, oftentimes mathematical results cannot be proven or falsified based on evidence, because they are not empirical results. They are usually shown to be true on the basis of definition and inference, making them rationally verifiable rather than empirically verifiable. Science has the domain of the empirical, but some things are not demonstrated empirically.

The elephant in the room on this subject is called the Quine-Putnam Indispensability Thesis. You should check it out if you want to know more about this. I hope that cleared it up.

  No.1959

File: 1473283539338.png (184.24 KB, 200x161, Screen Shot 2016-08-28 at 12.28.40 PM.png)

>>1948

> Moore's argument attempts to show that no moral property is identical to a natural property


I may be misunderstanding the above quote but
If morals are not a natural property, why then have they appeared at all?


second question,

are morality and fate mutually exclusive?



thx lain

  No.1960

>>1959
>>1959
>If morals are not a natural property, why then have they appeared at all?

Not that lainon, but morals might only be a natural property in that they likely initially appeared as a result of natural selection. Though, morality (vaguely different than morals themselves), as anything other than merely an innate and subjective (subjective, being that each individual has different understandings of morality) sense of "right" and "wrong" (IE: Morality as a specific set of morals that hold objectively true), I do not feel is natural.

  No.1964

File: 1473393232353.png (434.6 KB, 200x199, Screen Shot 2016-08-28 at 11.55.25 AM.png)

>>1960
>in that they likely initially appeared as a result of natural selection

some of the most moral men in the world are abstain from sex, if you ask me, thats a shit way to keep you genes in the pool for natural selection
>as anything other than merely an innate and subjective (subjective, being that each individual has different understandings of morality) sense of "right" and "wrong"

my instincts say the fault is in your premise, where you assume individuals exist and can therefor "own" morals or anything for that matter.

thx lain

  No.1965

File: 1473403794306.png (89.89 KB, 200x200, 1400197695026.jpg)

I don't necessarily feel it is. Atleast not really from a moral standpoint, I'd say. My feeling is that sexual desire (or lust, if you'd prefer) is only intended to compel us to breed. I think of it only as a mere physical craving. Although I do indulge in pornography (a habit which I want to break), with my realization of the nature of my urge I feel it somewhat weak to give in and sate craving that has no purpose without intention of procreating. This mostly applies to promiscuity, however.

  No.1969

All morality is based off of the projection of one's maxims to a universal code of law (categorical imperative). If everyone viewed pornography, then there would probably be a lot more sex in the world (along with many other things), while if everyone abstained from pornography, people would most likely develop healthier views on sex and lose so much of the sex drive that they may have. I think it's better for people to abstain from porn, and my views on sex in general is that it's one of the lowest, most desperate forms of love, and that it should for the most part be exclusively done for reproduction.

  No.1973

>>1866
Yes, because exploitation of human beings. Drawn porn is all right though.

  No.1975

>>1958
>It's not like you can perform moral experiments.
why not? i'm sure you know of the famous Milgram experiment. or maybe the Stanford prison experiment?

>A seeming counterexample would be the discovery (if you believe it to be such) of new mathematical results

i disagree. new mathematical findings always require proofs in place before they are taken seriously by the mathematical community, which is not so different than new scientific findings.

>Because any legitimate scientific method relies on quantification and patterns, and in order to scientifically verify things of that nature, you would have to bring those into question. Any proof or evidence would be circular in that way.

all methods rely on quantification and patterns, that is why they're called "methods." what is the point you're making? that math is an abstraction? science and morality too? yes, that is the case, but that fact doesn't make them nonexistent.

  No.1979

>>1975
>why not? i'm sure you know of the famous Milgram experiment. or maybe the Stanford prison experiment?
Those were considered unethical experiments, not experiments measuring the "rightness" or "wrongness" of something. I'm not really sure how you can conflate what those two experiments were intended to measure, which was the degree of influence authority and conformity had on actions believed to be harming/degrading others, and something that would measure the moral worth of an action.

However, if you think you can come up with an experimental design that does that, by all means share it.

>i disagree. new mathematical findings always require proofs in place before they are taken seriously by the mathematical community, which is not so different than new scientific findings.


Apparently you misunderstood. Proofs are not empirical. This was, in fact, exactly what I was referring to in what I was saying. Proofs typically show that some result follows, but they aren't really "invented" so much as "discovered" since the actual structure of a formal proof is determined by strict mathematical laws, and all proofs from one set onto a result are logically equivalent. At least, this is the single most popular view that mathematicians hold. Regardless of whether they are discovered or not, they are not empirical. You cannot disprove a mathematical result via experiment, any more than you can establish one. That's not how mathematics works. At best, conflicting results with an experiment either demonstrates that the experiment was wrong, or that the math is wrong somewhere, meaning that the result actually wasn't demonstrated correctly.

>all methods rely on quantification and patterns, that is why they're called "methods." what is the point you're making? that math is an abstraction? science and morality too? yes, that is the case, but that fact doesn't make them nonexistent.

I think you have missed the point somehwere? I wasn't arguing for the non-existence of anything? You should probably go back and read what I wrote more carefully, or ask something specific if you are confused.

  No.1980

>>1973
People nowadays take photos and videos of themselves and sell it. They are exploiting themselves???

  No.1982

>>1979
>I wasn't arguing for the non-existence of anything?
...
then why did you write this (below)?

>The normal response to "people believe different things so there must be no morality" is simply to say that some or all of those people are wrong, rather than grant that there actually is no morality.

>rather than grant that there actually is no morality.
>there actually is no morality.
if that was indeed you, it looks like you asserted that morality doesn't exist right here. explain how this is a misunderstanding on my end.

  No.1983

>>1980
Porn industry, rather than amateur I'm assuming

  No.1984

Oh, and also, I feel quite neutral towards the idea.

  No.1985

Morals are relative. I don't find anything wrong with it, though.

  No.1992


>>1982
Is English your first language?

Yes, you can take a component of a statement and it mean exactly the opposite of the statement in which it is a part.

Example:
"Not all petty grammar squabbles are meaninngless."

contrasted with:
"all petty grammar squabbles are meaningless."

Notice that the latter is, apart from one word in the former, exactly the same as it.

Now, let's look up what "rather than" means, the thing you seem to be having trouble with in what I posted:

Definition of rather than

1
—used with the infinitive form of a verb to indicate negation as a contrary choice or wish <rather than continue the argument, he walked away> <chose to sing rather than play violin>

2
: and not <obscures rather than resolves the problem> <why do one thing rather than another?> <happy rather than sad>

This definition can be found on:
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/rather%20than

Now, if we use simple substitution here (we can take EITHER of the two definitions above):

>The normal response to "people believe different things so there must be no morality" is simply to say that some or all of those people are wrong, rather than grant that there actually is no morality.


becomes

>The normal response to "people believe different things so there must be no morality" is simply to say that some or all of those people are wrong, and not grant that there actually is no morality.


or

>The normal response to "people believe different things so there must be no morality" is simply to say that some or all of those people are wrong, instead of granting that there actually is no morality.


Does this make more sense to you now? I hope it does, because giving English lessons to another American is entirely outside the scope of my OP, especially when it is response to a tangential explanation of moral realism, which is also quite afield of my original question in the OP to begin with.

>>1985
That's a really ambiguous statement. I guess that's alright though.

  No.2004

File: 1473808372590.png (72.45 KB, 200x134, 640px-Racetrack_Playa_Pirate_Scott-570x380.jpg)

>>1964
>some of the most moral men in the world are abstain from sex
Celibacy legit worst way to spread your genes, ha. Although, what I mean is that the concept of morality was instilled by natural selection- where it has gone now that there are laws that protect people from natural selection is quite different

>you assume individuals exist and can therefor "own" morals

Are you assuming solipsism or something of that nature? And the distinction I intended between morality (as anything other than subjective) and morals is that morality generally implies objective "rights" and "wrongs", while morals seem to be more understood as subjective opinions of "right" and "wrong"

  No.2015

>>2004
>what I mean is that the concept of morality was instilled by natural selection- where it has gone now that there are laws that protect people from natural selection is quite different
I think this is an interesting line of thought, but I also think you are making a glaring oversight here.

Let's consider for a moment the idea of natural selection (or any sort of reproductive advantage for that matter) on how concepts, theories, and ideas work. Now, correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be contending that since contemporary mores have promulgated and seem to be so popular, that it has conferred a reproductive advantage. Of course, this is the most direct and common way that traits become more common over successive generations via natural selection. Importantly, the truth or reality of an idea need not matter in this situation. For instance, suppose a person very inclined to believe certain falsehoods via a certain tiny mutation in his or her brain, but this very same mutation causes a personality quirk which confers an advantage over people without it, regardless of what that is. That mutation would tend to become more common over generations, regardless of the succeptibility of the individuals who comprise later generations seemingly becoming more gullible to these certain falsehoods. If I'm way off here, feel free correct me, but it seems that you are equating morality to something like this. Am I right in my assessment? It's an argument I've heard before, so I also already have a response. Of course, unless you elaborate, your position could be entirely distinct from this one, and then none of this applies. If it is, I would like to know specifically, how?

  No.2016

>>2015 continued

Nevertheless, the point is this:
While the mutation or trait which makes an organism suceptible to believing a certain thing, or, if you will, the congeniality of an organism to certain beliefs certainly does not have as a precondition that those beliefs be true (for instance, in the case of religion, many or all religions cannot all be true at once due to logical inconsistency, such as creation myths being incompatible, etc) it does not follow that the beliefs themselves *must be* false as a consequence.

That is, simply because belief in morality or ethics does confer a reproductive advantage, does not mean that those things are fiction. The belief that the scientific method does provide a path to truth, or that certain mathematical ideas hold also do the same thing. What's to say that the nature between evolution and ethics isn't similar to that? One of discovery rather than invention? It seems that would certainly be the type of relationship an organism would have to ethics were there any objective morality, one of discovery rather than invention? If that's even a possibility, then you have to provide extra rationale other than pointing out that a predisposition to the ethical is a product of evolution to show that the concept has no mapping onto reality outside the individual.

Also, laws are equally a product of natural selection as any other social phenomenon you like, which, by extension, means that anything that laws provide us with, including conditions, is also. So I would argue that we aren't operating outside of natural selection in the way that you seem to imply simply because we have formed societies with laws.

>while morals seem to be more understood as subjective opinions of "right" and "wrong"

This is not a given in the way that you seem to think, hence the reason I framed my response in the way I did above. First, you need to establish reasons why you think that morals are understood in this way, because I can demonstrate to you that most people do not think this. Secondly, and this would be your stronger option, you should instead abandon that (in the face of the overwhelming evidence of self-reports, and yes, people actually are often very good at reporting what they really believe) and say that regardless of the way most people understand them, they actually are subjective. Thirdly, and this is the most important, you have to provide evidence of why the second is the case. You will find any evidence such as this much harder to come by than you probably think.

  No.2017

>>1964
>some of the most moral men in the world are abstain from sex,
Such as?

  No.2025

>>1992
>the thing you seem to be having trouble with in what I posted
it looks like you've been using semantics to back-peddle to me. regarding that statement, it was one that seemed like a pretty clear assertation of your position, but most questions i've asked read like they've been answered with a "that's what i said but not what i meant" type of reply. i could keep going, but your posts are just condescending now.

  No.2027

>>2004
>Celibacy legit worst way to spread your genes, ha
then become a sperm donor.

  No.2028

>>2025
No, my replies have all been of the sort, "How is it possible for you to interpret what I said that way when there is a clear and definite meaning to what I said, and it somehow flew right over your head." At least the ones to you have. Like I said, not here to teach you basic reading comprehension skills, so I'm not really sorry for being condescending. If you have questions or you misunderstand something, being accusatory is not the way to ask for clarification. However, that's all your tone has been. So if you don't understand why I'm not exactly being patient with you after providing you a service you weren't capable of appreciating, it's not my problem.

  No.2029

>>1880
Morality seems to me like a set of culturally mediated pro-social tendencies that humans have developed to be able to live in some form of harmony. To not get kicked out of the tribe, or killed, or otherwise indisposed. I find people who believe in a sort of objective morality separate from individual people or societies to substantiate their powerful urges towards a set of pro-social tendencies as what they view as capital M Morality in the eyes of all. I find it a horribly arrogant way of looking at things.

I definitely have my own personal morality. But that was after evaluating, pruning, and adding to the perceived capital M Morality that I lived in.

People who have an opinion that an absolute morality exists seem morally underdeveloped to me.

Can you really be your own person if you don't have your own sense of right and wrong? If you can't recognize that someone else's sense of right and wrong while wrong can still be valid?

Morality is just memes tbh.

  No.2031

>>2029
The real arrogant way of looking at things is to presume you know how the universe really is absent of any real evidence or argument, and then going on to call people who don't hold your views underdeveloped, as if you somehow believe yourself to be at a higher stage of development because you can't fathom a state of affairs in which you might be mistaken.

What people believe to be right and wrong, or the fact that people do believe such things and that their beliefs are indeed often very different has no effect on whether some or all of them may be right or wrong. It could be exactly like the belief that Earth is flat or that dephlogistication is a real process that describes combustion. They could simply be wrong. Not even being able to fathom a case in which you could be wrong, or in which everyone could be wrong, is the height hubris and insecurity.

Honestly, the idea that everyone's belief is equally legitimate is a meme. It's intellectually lazy. It's a cop out, a way of getting around actually thinking through your own ideals and those of others, critically evaluating them, and providing a rationale or justification for them. Some beliefs are clearly wrong and stupid. A subset of those might even be ethical views.

  No.2032

>>2028
>Morality on the other hand, or rather the existence of it, is not and should not be the default assumption.
>The normal response to "people believe different things so there must be no morality" is simply to say that some or all of those people are wrong, rather than grant that there actually is no morality.

you wrote these statements that show a clear stance against an objective morality, and then later,

>I wasn't arguing for the non-existence of anything?


copy-pasting definitions and explaining them away with long-winded diatribes doesn't change your statements. nothing's being taken out of context here, and the first two statements were in the same post. you don't understand the implications of what you've been writing.

  No.2033

>>2032
Those cherrypicked statements of mine do not mean, even in isolation, what you want them to mean, either semantically or intentionally.

When you intend to establish something, you can't assume it to start with. I'm sure you didn't know that, but I'm telling you so now. That's called begging the question. When we are trying to establish the nature of something, including if it has any legitimacy outside of social construction, it is fallacious to assume that thing exists from the very start to conclude that it does.
Therefore:
>Morality on the other hand, or rather the existence of it, is not and should not be the default assumption.

If it makes you feel better, nothing that we intend to give a justification should be the default assumption, and when we do so it is wrong.

The first two statements you posted of mine above by themselves are not arguments in the technical sense. They are not sets of premises intended to support a conclusion. The second one is a reply to the common line of attack that inconsistent beliefs imply or in some way support a denial of moral realism. It is, taken on its face, the opposite of what you think it is. The former is explained above, and the last thing is entirely consistent with those.

You are telling me that what I posted means something that it clearly doesn't. If you want to attribute a stance of anti-realism to someone, there are other people in this very thread making those assertions. Go argue semantics with them. I really have nothing else to say unless you have something of substance to add, rather than (there it is again!) flimsy accusations about my meaning and intentions.

  No.2036

>>2033
>When you intend to establish something, you can't assume it to start with.
this is a loaded statement. i had no assumptions about anything when i walked in here. i read the sentences in your post and came to conclusions after.

>The first two statements you posted of mine above by themselves are not arguments

pure semantics right here. so, because you're not calling those statements "arguments" means that they don't count?

>The second one is a reply to the common line of attack that inconsistent beliefs imply or in some way support a denial of moral realism.

regardless, it still looks like you're dismissing the notion of objective morality at the end of it. i've been trying to get you to actually defend and discuss this further, but you respond with condescension, as if there could be no *possible* way that's what you meant.

afraid of semantics? wake up and smell the roses. you're spending time writing lengthy posts about delicate subjects on an anonymous image board.

  No.2045

File: 1474245344257.png (53.53 KB, 200x112, 1467227212878.jpg)

>>2017
>name any celibate moral people

Most monks, less yogies, vestal virgins, some catholic saints....
Statistically most men will not reproduce. So i dont believe its too far of a streach to assume there have been some really great people who have never reproduced.
also Tesla didnt care about the pussy either. So near celibate.

>>2004
>Are you assuming solipsism or something of that nature?

solipsism is the personification of a false ego. Though false, it is still naturally occurring, you could say, assuming most people will innately believe they are individuals.
Plato's Allagory for the cave is an example of the false perception of the ego.

im asking, how can morality be a concept distinct from the nature which created by it?
and therefor unnatural?

I agree too it's far from where it started (we anti-natural selection now.)

>morality generally implies objective "rights" and "wrongs", while morals seem to be more understood as subjective opinions of "right" and "wrong"


Ok, then would you agree that morals exist only if there is a subject create them? (natual)

secondly, if

objective morality exist, mutually exclusive of a subject, would you consider them unnatural?


>>2027
>being a sperm donor is a better way to spread your genes then not having sex

it takes two good specimens to create a better one. Do you think anyone willing to have a strangers child is going to raise any ubermachen? nein bruder, das ist nicht gut.

>b-b-but its better than nothing!

creating more, just to create(makin sperm donor babies), does not imply it's better than it was before it was created(no thing).

  No.2141

A lot of amateur porn is available for free because people want you to enjoy their bodies even if they don't necessarily know they have your attention (see lewd attention whores on the other chans). I think it would be morally wrong to reject them and chastise them because of someone els's religious feelings.
Better to have lewded and had fun than to not have lewded at all.

  No.2144

>>1866
>Do you think viewing porn is morally wrong?
No, just like how viewing morbid videos isn't morally wrong either; both serve as examples that can either further sway or ground our preexisting morals. People are always taken aback whenever I request proof of a morbid occurrence--"how utterly insensitive," they say. Whether it be a snuff film or something purely accidental; I take little enjoyment in consuming this content, but to suggest we're better off without it is more detriment to our state of being than anything else. Same goes for porn.

  No.2145

File: 1474917368912.png (23.69 KB, 125x199, andy.jpg)

Queerdo checking in. I think porn is cool but since I've started taking testosterone blockers my desire for porn has decreased to nothing and my productivity has shot up 100%. Am in a small percentage of nonbinary peoples, so the effects may vary for you. Donated tons of sperm and banked some(its free in my country) and I can always go off blockers if I want to produce again.

  No.2146

I love how this thread turned into virgin manchildren justifying the fact that they will never reproduce by placing themselves in some kind of Platonist Übermensch alongside great saints and inventors from the past. Sounds a bit sour grapes to me.

  No.2147

>>2144
>but to suggest we're better off without it is more detriment to our state of being than anything else.
how do you figure this?

  No.2148

>>2031
Morality has nothing to do with knowledge, or the acquisition thereof from evidence or by argument. Morality seems to me a part of a certain class of knowlng that is unknowable. If you can't falsify a moral hypothesis or determine a set of unmodifiable presuppositions that everyone has before they construct their moral frameworks, I don't think you accurately compare them. Sure some things naturally feel more "right" to human beings in general because of our shared genetic history, but since when did feeling mandate correctness?

And you seem to be misconstruing the non-existence of objective morality implies that things cannot be right or wrong. It's a different kind of judgement. Morality governs human actions. A fact cannot be moral or amoral. I would even hesitate to call morality knowledge. If you consider knowledge as a set of facts about our universe, then knowledge is orthogonal to our moral sense.

By saying everyone's moral beliefs are equally valid, it's because they stem usually pretty logically from a certain set of deeply held beliefs about the nature of our world and its complex interrelations. Sets of beliefs, axioms that not everyone shares.

I can fathom a case in which I'm wrong. It's the case where some objective all-knowing entity decrees what is Right and what is Wrong and gives us an ethical guidebook in case we forget.

  No.2149

>>2031
>>2148
Since I don't have any evidence of one directly affecting my life, I must default to the opinion that there is no absolute morality. From that, it follows that ethical arguments have no basis in anything beyond the presuppositions of the arguers. And in arguments like that it only
becomes necessary to convince the opposite side of your truth, rather than determining what is true. As soon as you challenge the reason why the person holds the belief and the reason for that reason and so on, you find that very quickly they have a very flaky basis for what they believe in, e.g.,

"I believe there is no absolute, objective, universal morality."

"Why?"

"Because I don't think you can assign a moral comparator to actions without existing in a subjective moral framework."

"Why?"

"Because lots of people have opinions that are irreconcilable with others' opinions. And when their subjective opinion differs from the others', who is correct? Whoever can convince the other that they're correct."

"Why?"

"Well, I don't think there's some sort of morality field that allows people's senses of the right and wrong way to act to be correct or incorrect. I don't think morality exists in a factual domain at all. It belongs to a strange class of knowledge that refuses to really be 'known'."

"You're repeating yourself!"

"Well, yeah there's nothing more I can say... the only thing that I can say is that I think knowable knowledge can only be derived from falsifiable premises and/or constructed systems from universally agreeed premises. The rest of it is stuck in a beautiful mire of subjectivity.:

"Why?"

"Well, because I'm intellectually lazy!"

  No.2150

>>2149
You can do this with absolutely anything. So long as you continue asking why everyone runs out of answers or repeats themselves. What other alternatives are there? It doesn't make them lazy at all. I can do it as easily with empiricism (why trust your senses?) or any epistemology and get the same results.

  No.2151

>>2147
>how do you figure this?
morbidity reassures us of our morals; porn reassures us of our sexuality. being incapable of reassuring one's self over these fundamentals of identity proves troublesome; like the statistics coming out of the middle east that the countries there consume more gay porn than anywhere else in the world.
https://www.salon.com/2015/01/15/why_porn_is_exploding_in_the_middle_east_partner/

inb4 >Salon

  No.2162

>>2151
i'm sorry, but i don't see how gay porn in the middle east demonstrates that it is somehow necessary for humanity's well-being.

  No.2170

>>2162
If anything if would be evidence of the opposite. The middle east is fucked up.

  No.2173

From an atheist standpoint I'd have to say that porn can be both fine and immoral.

This depends on several factors:
1. How were the people in the pornographic material treated behind the scenes?

2. What is going on in the material? If it's dom/sub, is the sub actually enjoying whats being done to them?

3. Is it real or drawn?

I honestly just look at drawn porn most of the time, because I don't really know what is going through the all those womens minds during the shoots. Sometimes I go on /soc/ or similar places where girls willingly post their nude shots, because you get a better chance of all that being legit. Those girls might actually want you to fap to their nudes, and there is often no degration involved either.

  No.2176

>>2170
>The middle east is fucked up.
true. and so is at least 80% of the rest of the world.

  No.2185

I see indulging in porn to be a harmless way to vent sexual desires and that porn is an industry that produces a consumer product and should be subject to the laws of the land.
Drawn porn depicting any form is similarly harmless due to the lack of a victim created by producing it, unlike non-consensual porn or cp.

  No.2224

>>2173
>How were the people in the pornographic material treated behind the scenes?
why does that matter? you're only jerkin' off to what's happening on the scenes, not off of them, right?

>I don't really know what is going through the all those womens minds during the shoots.

so what? do you know what is going on through the cartoonists' minds who drew the figures you jack off to?

  No.2229

>>2224
>why does that matter? you're only jerkin' off to what's happening on the scenes, not off of them, right?

I could be jacking off to some lady who hates her job and is to some extent abused by the staff. The porn industry isn't that great. I like fapping to camgirls pictures because even if they are doing it to fill a void or personal issues, theres a good chance they actually want you to fap to them.

>so what? do you know what is going on through the cartoonists' minds who drew the figures you jack off to?


Maybe they dont like their job either. But those chances are at least a bit slimmer, as if they aren't getting payed for it theres a good chance they drew it to fap to themselves as well. Also when you fap to a drawing, you aren't really truly hurting anyone, except maybe the original person who made that character.

  No.2230

>>2229
> I could be jacking off to some lady who hates her job and is to some extent abused by the staff.

Doesn't this apply to every other industry though? People in restaurants feel this way about their jobs and they get paid less than porn performers. There was a restaurant in my town that was caught using immigrant slaves. I'm not even saying I disagree with you by the way, just sayin'.

  No.2454

>>2229
>theres a good chance they actually want you to fap to them.
pretty sure that porn stars want you to fap to them as well, seeing as how more fappers means more views/purchases which means more income for their company which means more popularity for themselves which means more profitable contracts, etc...

  No.2455

File: 1477372439102.png (49.63 KB, 200x162, spookboarding.jpg)

>>2229
> Also when you fap to a drawing, you aren't really truly hurting anyone
Well if you didn't pay for either a drawing or 3D porn you aren't hurting one regardless of whether they wanted you to pay or not, if you are just fapping to it yourself.

  No.2457

Problems are not unique to the porn industry. If people really cared there would be some "fair-trade" stamp to approve ethical fapping.

  No.2460

>>2457
That... is actually not a bad idea. There are producers and performers who would probably go for that. Within the industry, as there is more and more indie porn being made (I don't mean camgirls, I mean small businesses) there certainly are unofficially "safe" and "unsafe" companies/directors.

With coffee or sugar, there is a third party org that oversees the operation and decides to give it a stamp or not. There'd have to be such an organization and it would have to prove itself to be impartial, otherwise there would be cries of cliquishness when some alleged abuse is overlooked.

  No.2461

no alsong as i was produced consually

  No.2475

>>2461
This post should be stickied to the top of the board. I've read it about ten times and it just gets better and better.

  No.2486

>>2475
the said post doesn't make any sense. explain.

  No.2492

>>2486
That's what I meant. It's complete failure is actually magnificent.

  No.2499

>>1948
Ugh, god, lainon, that was so good. I dont get to encounter a well delivered argument like that very often.