/lit/ - Literature

>>14850293
Morality is doing that which benefits you the most, with or without God. The difference is that with God, morals are universal, fixed, known to humans, and the punishments and rewards are greater in degree.

>>14850304
there's not objective measure in secular morality.

It's true, without God, everything is permitted. However, when faced with a blank canvas, it doesn't mean you have to paint a Jackson Pollock. There is no reason not to kill and rape, but there is also no reason to kill and rape.

> there are people whose only reason not to rape, steal and murder is fear of hell or God
at least there IS something stopping them.

>>14850312
>>14850313
Murder (abortion) is allowed and even promoted under secular atheist morality.

>>14850310
The most preferable life is the most moral life. The problem is that the most preferable life cannot be known.

>>14850325
Christian morality is superior to atheist ethics.

>>14850321
low tier bait
sparing another soul from earthly tornments by committing a grave sin is the ultimate sacrifice.

>>14850329
That’s better

>>14850332
Every life is sacred.

The reason why women abort is because secular goverments tells them having sex without a real reason (entertainment) is ok, you can easily abort the baby.

It's evil and morally wrong.
But is ok in secular ethics.

Is ok to tell women that being whores is ok because they can abort their babies.

>>14850304
>Morality is doing that which benefits you the most
That's not morality. That's just solipsistically biased delusion.

>>14850293
As a religious person, this is pure cringe baby Protestant theology.

>>14850341
>being whores
if men stopped fucking them, no abortions would be possible. it's a two-way street. or do you think a man who has sex outside of marriage with a woman he doesnt want to have children with is somehow morally better?

>>14850341
>Every life is sacred,
Yet Jesus sacrificed his own - but even he didn't sacrifice his immortal soul and his place in heaven to save just one human from mortal suffering. He died, knowing he's going to reign in Heaven eternally, for the great good of all - and it's much easier.

>>14850353
promiscuity is both male and female.

but the sexual liberation promotes you can have easily sex for fun without consequences.

women are the gatekeepers of sex, if they can tell their males to fuck off and wait for marriage, males would change.

>>14850344
Then why be moral?

>>14850382
Morality simply defines that which should be done. If there's no reason to do something moral, then it isn't moral. I'm not speaking from a self focused view of the world that views the self as the arbiter of meaning.

>>14850362
> promuscuity is both male and female
> yet females are responsible because males cant just say no and wait for marriage because they're righteous, not because women told them to fuck off
yeah kid, your own adhering to testaments is someone else's responsibility.

>>14850402
women are the gatekeepers of sex.

why do u think that female sexuality increases when a civilization enters the decay stage in his civilization cycle?

>>14850399
...and what should we do?

>>14850293

Objective morality is not possible without god and that is what most people mean when they say morality. It is not useful to change the definition.

>>14850695
Define objective morality

Morality without god faces 3 major problems.
1: How can we be sure about our moral opinion? There are many competing moral theories, but no clear consensus. An omniscent being would certainly know all moral truths.
2: How can it be practical to be moral? Without god, there is no certainity that it will be practical to be moral, while a god could ensure heaven for the moral.
3: How is it able for moral facts to be true? We can only observe what is, what ought to be can't be observed. An omnipotent entity could create moral facts and thus ensuring their existence.
A non-theist morality needs to contend with the existence of other moral theories, the impeacticality of ethics and create a convincing defeater for moral nihlism.

>>14850416
>women are the gatekeepers of sex
I didn't expect to see comedy gold today

>>14850747
>women have no consequences of sex as males
>male and female having sex have the same consequences
ok retard.

>>14850416
Incels are so fucking predictable.

>>14850735
>How can we be sure about our moral opinion
By utilizing that highly developed brain of yours that has a very large amount of mass invested in structures that facilitate social functioning.
>How can it be practical to be moral
"Practicality" is a complex notion dependent on context, you'll have to be more specific. If this is a question about self-sacrifice, it's because the individual unit is not the locus of the mind (nor morality), but is a single discrete part of a whole. It is practical in the same sense that a slime mold cell will sacrifice itself to help the mass create a fruiting body. It's a complex directive that emerges out of a larger system, in this case a social superorganism.
>How is it able for moral facts to be true
Because that is what facts are. Truth is a fictionalized notion of the mind, a product of a system that reasons. There is no room or use for a system of "truth" without the ability to manufacture things that are contrary to reality, as truth describes an internal valuation of a machination that does not run contrary to reality.

>>14850754
Nothing to do with gatekeeping, I'm laughing harder. You really don't have any idea what you're talking about, do you?

>>14850735
Cherry-pick the morals that show a pro-harmony benefit, and throw away the foolish morals.

>>14850794
maybe, but women can die from having sex because of a bad pregnancy.

so women should be more careful from having sex.

even shit like the pill can make women dumber and damage their hormonal system.

>>14850794
what moral autority can claim that murder is wrong.

and by murder I include abortion.

>>14850806
The same entity that separates authority from illegitimate power structures, the conventionalist social manifold.

>>14850839
how do u make sure this social convention isn't just a social construct?

saying because some scholar or judge say is wrong, is just shaky grounds.

who the fuck is that scholar or judge that tell me that murder is wrong, and who the fuck he thinks he is to tell me that?

>>14850843
>how do u make sure this social convention isn't just a social construct?

I want you to re-read this and think very carefully about what you're trying to say.

Social constructs are the only reality. They fall in and out of acceptance and legitimacy as the system acts in on itself. Whitehead understood this as the process of concrescing nexus of various notions undergoing novel transformations and exhibiting space-time local manifestation, though semiotics were very primitive during his time and are omitted from his metaphysical understanding.

Who is the judge? They are the apparatus of the superorganism, appointed by it as an individual agent and given a task to act on the body of the superorganism. Their role was shaped by the superorganism, their values imparted by the superorganism. What are the white blood cells that run through your veins, what authority do they have to stop viruses from acting against the body? It is a silly question, the authority is just the acknowledgement of their purpose given as the apparatus of well-being that they function as. Simply, a judge is a judge. In the future, that role of well-being may pass into another shape, because it's not the shape or detail that is preserved through novelty.

>>14850933
yeah, but who appoints this super organism.

and what logical arguments can u point that this superorganism is morally rigth and has the final truth.

why the version of truth of said superorganism can't evolve such as science theories?

Again, what argument does this superorganism have that murder is wrong?

With Chinese legalism you can have a functioning society without morals so morals aren't necessary.

>>14850968
yeah, nice shithole, lmao.

>>14850304
Didn't Plato btfo this arguement

>>14850952
You aren't quite understanding. It's a set of disjointed relationships, attempting to approach it from the sense of an entity with personhood will only keep you turned away from understanding.

Appointment, morals, truth -> These are all signs that are derived from the superorganism and are merely parts of the phenomenological gait of the superorganism, a kind of abstract skin on the bottoms of its feet. It's a shapeless entity without a concrete identity, only defined by the relationships which are the individual strands of the social web. This also isn't a case of self-actualization. The superorganism is a consequence of social relations. No humans, no superorganism. However wherever there are humans, the superorganism emerges in their interpersonal network.

The superorganism is above personhood. It does not argue, it does not have a concept of 'truth', it does not have thoughts. Though there may be some sense of analogy to cognition that we can reasonably project onto this "thing", it is certainly not anything that can be related to a "mind". Even attempting to give this thing human traits is an intellectual strikeout. Imagine for a second, the gap between you and your cells. How does the existence of a singular skin cell mimic your own existence? The gap between you and the superorganism is even greater, because the emergent phenomenological ontology is formed out of components of a self-active system, while the biological atomics are not self-acting. It is a degree above the concept of a system that acts back in on itself, though it still exhibits that property in the same way you exhibit the material property of your biological atomics.

Scientific theories are only just now coming to grasp with the idea of the superorganism. No doubt, this is the great work of the metamodern age. With the advent of paraconsistent logics and the formalization of dialetheism, we have moved beyond philosophical conundrums that have plagued great thinkers for millenia. Even very early in this age of thinking, we have discovered how to create formal systems that violate the godel completeness theorem, which is a very strong condemnation of the ideas posited by Kant in "critique of pure reason". The veil is slowly peeling away and we are achieving new heights of understanding that merely 100 years ago would have been thought impossible.

If we are to anthropomorphize the superorganism, it should only be to assert that this current epoch of discovery is the superorganism having it's version of the experience of recognizing itself in the mirror for the first time. Except this is nothing but a dramatic misrepresentation of the reality of things. There is no mirror, no looking, and especially no concept of self.

>>14851216
So basically the same type of intelligence a bee hive or an ant hill will have.

>>14851226
the eusocial insects are like the next step in evolution after multicellular life. They're basically a distributed organism and each individual is both a neuron and a limb.

>>14850458
Do what God says lol

>>14850313
Thank god!

>>14851259
So why isn't this superorganism basically what religion calls God?

why ins't god an egregore?

>>14851226
Yes, but there's more to it than that initial appraisal.

Slime molds (pictured) exhibit intelligent properties, despite not having brains or any specialized cell structure to speak of. They are merely a mass of protists that will gather together into a single body and dissolve their cell walls. When scattered, they will reform. They are capable of navigating environments, optimizing supply networks, smelling and gravitating towards food, and predicting dangerous environmental conditions. What is little more than a blob of proteins has behavior more advanced than some animals, even with nervous systems. They also exhibit self-sacrifice, as I noted earlier in the thread. They have their own version of a superorganism, even if it is remarkably primitive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bkVhLJLG7ug

>>14850293

Where can I read more about secular atheist morals? Seems pretty based t b h

>>14851292
Because a superorganism is not necessarily an entity but in the loosest sense. It's a set of relationships and the influence those relationships have on the individual components.

Whitehead called this god more or less (though it was more about the nexus of novelty that could manifest in an object's worldline), but he also seperated it from the traditional concept of god because it is not a person, and treating it like a person is an indicator of not understanding what it even is.

Even impersonal gods are given some degree of personhood.

>>14850293
why are you like this anon
you could have used google instead of posting a frog

>>14851329
I like your posts anon please never stop!

>>14851216
>formal systems that violate the godel completeness theorem

such as?

>>14851216
This guy is basically correct, however his thesis is merely mechanistically descriptive. This superorganism, a product of interpersonal human relations, is to be judged against Divine Law. This is the whole course of human history, see: Sodom and Gomorrah.

>>14850293
This is unironically true for the masses. Only the few can handle atheism, most people need that moral crutch/club. This is what Nietzsche warned us about...

>>14851588
To put it into simpler terms. Free will is such a radical freedom that it allows, paradoxically, even for refutations of itself to arise. God has given man such freedom, that a superorganism entirely opposed to the mere concept of God can produce a sort of socially agreed-upon moral "truth" or a conceptual metanarrative about formation of morality itself or even again in the paradox of radical freedom, of rejection of that concept itself. Man-made truth is always socially contingent, which depends on that aptly described superorganism, however the whole history of man, in fact of universe itself, is this interaction of the contingent against the absolute. Of man-made choice against eternal truth in Divine Revelation. The radical freedom of man's will is located in and produces that superorganism which to be matched against Divinely Revealed Law and to be judged accordingly. The Apocalypse in Greek means a "Revelation", it is a revealing of state of affairs and a separation of wheat from the chaff according to the judgement that is revealed precisely in that matching of a social superorganism against the eternal truth of Divine Law. Sodom and Gomorrah have been judged as having constructed a superorganism that was so radically opposed to Divine Law that the ensuing destruction was inevitable. In fact my belief is that western civilization is almost at this point if not already beyond it.

>>14850313
I would of killed myself when I was 10 if I didn't believe in God. When I was 11, I might've convinced myself to become a homosexual if I didn't believe in God.
Later I probably would have been an alcoholic if I didn't believe in God.

>>14851633
The problem of Nietzsche is simply that he is an atheist. Given his extensive critiques of Christianity one can assume that he has read the Holy Bible, yet the fact that he cannot locate himself and his thought inside that book is somewhat depressing. It has always been obvious that constructing meaning outside of religion is obvious, in fact the first few pages of the Bible literally are about the first man and woman eating from that tree so that they can define meaning for themselves. Nietzsche's project is simply a re-stating of Adam and Eve's story. It was never in doubt that man can create his own meaning, what was in question is whether that is satisfactory and beneficial for man. Nietzsche has to conjecture a transvaluation of values to make the separation of man from God bearable. But even this transvaluation is still not surprising or somekind of a new insight, because that is precisely the state of violent opposition to God of the damned. Their "repose" and punishment at once is blasphemy. To be able to deal with the burning sensation of damnation, one has to convince himself that this burning sensation itself must be transvaluated. Thus the damned curse that they are damned, but they refuse to give up on their transvaluation of values. They would rather "integrate" their condition into the logic of their transvaluation than to give up on the logic of transvaluation in order to change their condition.