/lit/ - Literature

>believing morality is

>believing it matters.

what does that mean "is objective"?

> moral relativism
> anime reaction picture

We don't need shitposters, thank you.

>believing

how do you know?

>being edgy
>2013

>people who believe that sexual inhibition makes you more "moral"

>still being impotent of any rational argument for your perversely crippled beliefs
>still believing green-text as being a waterproof argument for refuting the objectivity of moral claims

Out of curiosity, is there any situation in which a murder committed with "malice aforethought" and without reason of defense of self, property, or others/etc. is not "objectively wrong" If there isn't, it seems to me that an objective morality exists at least to some degree.

I know I'm posting in a troll thread, but I am genuinely curious about this.

>butthurt traditionalists overestimating what moral relativism really means

I think there is an objective morality; I have an axiom from which I derive a set of principles and rules which are absolute. If you accept that my axiom applies to one person, it must apply to everyone (man being equal under the eyes of god and all).

Moral relativism seems to be a very easy position to reach, but also untenable. I find it a odd to see those teleological-minded folks who are constantly looking at a hedonic calculus or trying to verify the utility of something, rather than having some objective rules to abide by.

>>4259354
>crippled beliefs

>using the English language to convey your ideas
>using le may may arrows
>2013

>>4259353
>people on /pol/

M-MUH DEGENERACY! IM DECENT AND WHOLESOME BECAUSE IVE NEVER SEEN A VAGINA, R-RIGHT?

morality is a social construct. why would it need to be "objective" in the first place?

>>4259362
Your axiom is what your morality is relative to. Another group of people use a different set of axioms. That's exactly what moral relativism shows.

>>4259356
But what if some guy killed your wife or something? The most mature person would forgive the murderer, for to hate would be to blame it on the murderer as an agent, who in reality is (by the very fact that he murders) subject to his own conflicts and irrational humours which are inevitably not his fault.

>>4259368
Everything is a social construct

>not knowing what objectivity is

>>4259353
I dislike sex for reasons outside the realm of morality. It's true I can't find an objective moral rule by which to claim that sex is bad, but I have a subjective system in parallel to it based on more empirically sided thoughts.

Promiscuity in my eyes seems to be an indulgence in the more primal elements of man's behaviour; which strikes me as a concession to the more primal elements of one's psyche. Indulgence leads to a variety of vices, in my experience. Abstinence from vice tends to result in a more patient, understanding, and well-balanced character.

This is completely secular, fyi.

>>4259369
But I'd consider my axiom to be universally applicable. I'm not a linguist, so I don't put consideration into structure of sentence and predicates and that assorted bullshit, but the statement:

"An individual owns themselves."

Seems to be something which everyone can agree on. Unless you're religious, in which case you'd concede you have your body on lease. Or if you're a determinist, in which case my policy is that it's fruitless discussing thus since we may as well assume agency since the determined path is so chaotic and unpredictable.

>>4259356
It being "objectively wrong" assumes that life has a particular value, which is a social indoctrination not an objective fact.

>>4259375
but there's no negative effects of having too much sex, aside from pregnancy and stds. If you wear protection and have sex with someone who is clean, then what is negative about that? You're making a beautiful connection with another human being. When you over-indulge on drugs and food, you're actually harming yourself.

>>4259385
>But I'd consider my axiom to be universally applicable.

Of course you would. Hence you impose your values on others. You are actually a moral relativist since you acknowledge that your morality is based on an axiom of your choosing and that you have to have to impose it upon others who draw from different axioms. You aren't working from objective reality, you're working from an axiom you assume to be correct.

>>4259391
Sex is rife with politics, and few go into with just the mindset of 'making a beautiful connection with someone', namely they go into it for their own pleasure, and hedonism is a psychological treadmill.

>>4259391
>beautiful connection
That's a very flimsy and emotive argument. Any feelings of emotional connection can be explained due to the dopamine dump taking place and the activation of parental mode; your brain begins parental mode whenever you do it, to try to improve the chances of success for any offspring. Any emotional connection is an illusion which is not founded based on any compatible intellectual or psychological characteristics, but because evolution figured out it's better if two mates felt all lovely around each other.

That's the crux of it -- it forces you to surrender a lot of your freedom by doping you up so high you can't make a rational decision. I dislike having my agency being restricted.

Addictions or overindulgence on sex is a thing, regardless. You can read countless bits about it all over the internet.

>>4259396
I would argue that assuming everyone is functional, they too would agree that axiom to be true. I fail to see that just because you choose to accept something by something which others do not accept fails to make it universal. It's synthetic a priori knowledge; like mathematics, I would argue. We don't consider this concept, but once we have the experience to do so, we will accept it.

Walk up to anyone and ask them the question if they own themselves. Inform me if they say they do not. Although they may pose objections in the form of God/Determinism, I still think those positions are compatible with the axiom.

Just because humans possess subjectivity doesn't mean that every moral decision is relative.

>liking anime

>>4259401
You sound like a virgin who is jaded beyond the point of enjoying anything. And I'm not trying to insult you, but you seem to have a very constricting outlook of life

>>4259416

>>4259409
How do you consider determinism compatible with the axiom that one owns oneself?

>>4259416
>not liking anime

>>4259416
>not liking anime

>>4259418
Why does /lit/ think that psychoanalyzing the argument-maker is the same as addressing the argument? Is this Lacan's influence?

>>4259426
>>4259428
chinese cartoon hivemind

>>4259418
I find it rather liberating. When you grow up in a working class neighbourhood and you see the children you grow up with slink off and indulge in their hedonistic fantasies and slink off into complacency and a life of banality rather than trying to better their position in life and improve their character, you come to see promiscuity as something which is both ugly and restrictive as to what you can become.

Obviously I don't want to draw a dichotomy between unrestricted indulgence and a good character/life, but I grew up with that in plain sight and it has made me a pretty conservative type in terms of my social mores.

I feel happy most of the time, and I'm on the road to prosperity, so I don't have a problem with my outlook.

also m8 that ain't no proper rebuttal

>>4259431
Not that guy, but looking at the content of your posts, some introspection is seriously needed, you are messed up.

>>4259424
it's like 10 out of 50 boards are japanese cartoon dedicated.

>>4259426
>>4259428
lol, grow up from your epic maymay reactions
watching anime is inherently childish like video games.

>>4259431
That isn't psychoanalyzing, dummy.

>>4259438
I didn't even write that first post, it's just annoying that this is how /lit/ argues.

>>4259443
>posts on 4chan
>calling anyone childish

>>4259444
A Lacanian WOULD know that...

>>4259448
/lit/ is for grown ups and intellectuals.
Run along, kid

>>4259454
Why are you here then?

You're obviously a pleb. You just can't understand the higher art that is anime, not the Japanese spirit that goes into it.

>>4259425
Even if we ultimately don't have control over our decisions, we are the only ones who experience the sense-data of our respective bodies, have the illusion of control over ourselves, and possess the psychological traits compatible with it. This gives our helpless consciousnesses the most legitimate claim over our forms than anything.

And regardless, even if we do follow a determined path, it's such a complex and unpredictable one that we may as well assume freedom of will. Acting as if we have no free will changes nothing whatsoever, so an assumption of free will during actions seems more practical.

Along with the fact that (until we precisely come to understand the functions of the brain), that the concept of determinism vs free will is an unverifiable one, hence not meaningful.

I've never watched anime in my life and always get weirded out whenever I'm reminded of how rooted in otaku culture this place is.

>>4259465
Why are you here then?

>>4259460
why does he have bread in his zip?

>>4259465
>i've never watched anime in my life

>>4259469
he's a neckbread

>>4259468
I came here out of curiosity after bodybuilding.com members talked about it and went directly to this board and never left for some reason.

>>4259469
2deep4u?

>>4259460
>arbor mist

fucking cheapskate

>>4259480
yes.
explain or I'll report you.

>>4259483
>explain

I already did here >>4259476

>>4259486
that's a joke. i seriously doubt it was the reason for the photo pose.

>>4259465
>not watching War and Peace in space

>>4259372
not evolution

checkmate, atheist

>>4259493
>evolution
>not a social construct

Is this guy serious?

>>4259498
how is it a social construct?

It's a scientific fact

>>4259500
Scientific facts are social constructs in the first place, so following that logic, evolution is also a social construct

>implying evolution is a fact in the first place

Morality is objective. What you believe to be morality is anything but.

>>4259504
>What you believe to be morality is anything but

Go on...

>>4259372
worst kind of people

>>4259503
the term and our idea of it is a constructed approximation for a phenomenon that exists in nature with or without a society around to observe it.

i know you're baiting but still

>>4259506
Morality is similar to criticism.

One's perception of morality (and art) is heavily influenced by entourage and experience, among other things. This only means there is no impartial judge, not that morality is subjective.

>>4259519
are you some kind of filthy platonist?

>>4259521
You can present some kind of argument or you can shut the fuck up.

>>4259524
wow, that's rude.

>>4259526
Well, your post was offensive.

>>4259524
>>4259526
>>4259531
Children pls

Be civil

>>4259535
fuck you

>>4259531
It was a legitimate question.

>>4259535
is it "dodge" or "dog-ey"

>>4259546
I don't know

>>4259546
it's dough except the g isn't silent

>>4259551
hehe the dog is on the computer. That's silly because dogs usually are not capable of operating such a technical device :)

Nice photoshop! hehe

>>4259544
Then my answer is no.

I've only read a few socratic dialogues and thus could not tell you what being a platonist entails.

Mac-Doge-all

>>4259565
hehe, i admire you friend, you have a great sense of humour

Would you tell me a joke, mr. jester?

Doog

>>4259572
Sure, internet friend :)

What is the difference between a waterfall?

the more the splash

>>4259567
but but "dog-ey" would sound awesome with a scottish accent
DOUGH-GEYYY HERE DOOU-GHEEYY

>>4259579
I d-d-don't g-get it...

>>4259595
Get off /lit/ then, pleb.

>>4259602
But i thought /lit/ was open to everyone!

>>4259611
dogeito ergo sum

>>4259503
It is one of the most simplistic scientific models and has withstood countless peer reviews and criticisms (I don't count theological arguments against science :p). It should be considered a fact just as much as Newton's laws.

>>4259663
>still not understanding what a social construct is.

LITERALLY FIGHT ME, SOPHISTS

>>4259690
U WOT M8 I CAN'T HEAR YOU AYE AYE CAPTAIN OOOOoohhhHH

>>4259334
This

>>4259546
It's Doge. A word that has existed for hundreds of years.

Reading through this thread is comparable to trying to do the backstroke through a sea of wank- fluid. If one is inclined, they can probably do it. But at the end of the day, you're not going to have recieved anything but disappointment, and a large odor.

>>4259546
Doge. Like the doge of Venice.
dowje, but said as one syllable, quickly and hard

>>4260310
I second the "dough" with a pronounced "g" explanation.

>believing anything is subjective
>2012

>>4259675
>thinks scientific facts, just because they can be coopted by society, are constructs

There's a lot of gray area in life and very few black and white. Morality in itself can be both subjective and objective.
When it comes to sex I believe in waiting till marriage nothing is wrong with sex in itself its just that a lot of misguided christianfags and other religions demonizing as wrong but its not if its between to lovers.

>>4260467
what's the point of morality if you can't impose it on others?

>>4260476
You don't have to impose it on other people because there are moral guidelines that most people follow or know about for example killing is wrong most people know that.

>>4260490
>for example killing is wrong most people know that.
0/10

>believing anything is objective

>>4259332
>is

>2313 - 500
>not watching superior anime between books to relax your mind

>>4259332
>believing morality isn't objective

>>4259433
no just samefag, as you are too

>>4261515
The problem that no Kantian knows ever how to reply to is:

Why should I obey the categorical imperative?

>>4262103
Because you know it's the right thing to do, but you can choose to be amoral if you are of a lesser soul.

>>4262103
Because it's right

duh

>>4262121
Name calling is not much of an argument. The problem is that the categorical imperative is just a formal argument that does not bring forward an argument.

That is you recognize the form of ethical action but you don't understand why you should act like that. Especially because the ethical action is tied to its intention and separated from the consequences.

>>4262138
not OP, name left over from a previous thread

>>4262140
And I suppose you have read Kant and know what maxims is, because it sure doesn't seem like it.

>>4262160
Please explain what you mean, because I don't see how the act according to the maxim so that it could become an universal law contradicts what I'm saying.

You still have to answer the Nietzschean question: why should I? I am the exception.

>>4260464
> Not realizing that scientific facts are mere figures of language which is a social construct

Don't mean to be rude but it appears that you people have a very vague idea what 'social construct' actually means.

>>4264096
>confirmed for knowing nothing about science
protip: the language of science is an entirely different beast. thanks for playing though.

>>4264141
>confirmed for not knowing what a social construct is

>>4259332
>>4259353
>>4259426
>>4259428
>>4259448
>>4259473
>>4259491
>>4261465

>>4264170

>Mad at anime
>Uses 4chan

>>4264198

>>4264159
have fun misapplying words like a humanities student.

>>4264210
Do you know the definition of weeaboo.

>>4264214
Have fun deluding yourself that science is objective and carved in stone

>>4264239
fuck off weeaboo

>>4264241
it doesn't matter whether science is objective or not or even transient. it's not a social construct no matter how you play it.

>>4264239
You.

Also,
>jacking off to cartoons of effeminate boys
I bet your dad is proud

>>4264246
Definition: a social mechanism, phenomenon, or category created and developed by society; a perception of an individual, group, or idea that is 'constructed' through cultural or social practice

Anime is objectively immoral.

>>4264301
Anime is objectively gay as fuck

>>4264305
Also true.

I find it honestly impossible that someone who watches anime can understand and discuss good philosophy or literature.

>>4262103

I guess you don't have to, but you don't like when you're stupid, right? You don't like it when you're unreasonable, right? Then you should follow it. But certainly there isn't some physical/biological law dictating that you must - that's why some people don't. But you should if you don't want to be dumb.

>>4264307

Would you make the same assumption of someone who reads genre fiction or plays videogames? Because I don't see how anime is any different.

>>4259334
THIS
H
I
S

>>4264330
No.

Genre fiction is not as poisonous as anime because at least the consumer is reading, and it's bad fiction, but it's an acceptable level of bad fiction, it's not embarrassingly bad (well, not all of it). An intelligent person should be able to ''turn off'' their minds for a while and tolerate some not-so-sophisticated literature. Anime is too gross to be tolerable.
There is also good and sophisticated genre literature, PKD comes to mind.

I don't think videogames should be compared, because videogames aren't a narrative medium primarily, some videogames have narratives but the core of what makes a game a game is the gameplay and that's a completely different kind of art. I don't see how enjoying well crafted game mechanics would affect how one reads fiction or philosophy. However, when it comes to people who think Final Fantasy, for instance, is good storytelling and fiction, they're a lost cause.
There are also good and sophisticated narrative games, the recent Stanley Parable comes to mind.

>>4264307
>I find it honestly impossible that someone who watches anime can understand and discuss good philosophy or literature.
I watch anime (rarely), because it's mostly pretty decent children's cartoons. (Unlike the American eyebleach-tier degeneracy -- Cow & Chicken, Ren & Stimpy, Sponge Bob, etc.)

>>4264500
>implying

No anime is ''decent'' nor appropriate for children, and they're not cartoons. And the actual cartoons you mentioned are brilliant.

>>4264505
>Cow & Chicken
>brilliant
oh fuck off

>>4264505
>No anime is ''decent'' nor appropriate for children
Yes, it is. 99% is very tame and bashful compared to the shit that passes for kid's shows in the USA. (What the fuck kind of anime do you watch, anyways?)
>and they're not cartoons.
Yes they are, you manchild.
>And the actual cartoons you mentioned are brilliant.
No, they're degenerate shit.

>>4264520
The anime I've watched was extremely pedophillic and derenged.

It's funny that you call western cartoons ''degenerate'' when that's exactly what 99% of anime is. The difference is the cartoons are the good kind of degenerate (artful and interesting) and anime is the bad kind (genuinely immoral and pandering to an evil crowd).

>>4264543
>The anime I've watched was extremely pedophillic and derenged.
Maybe I don't hang out with deranged pedophiles, which is why my perspective is different.

>It's funny that you call western cartoons ''degenerate'' when that's exactly what 99% of anime is.
Anime is repetitive and formulaic, but certainly not degenerate. It's tame enough even for the muslimist salaphite crowd. (They do censor the parts with bathing suits, however.)

>>4264543
watch better anime

>>4264282
Evolution is a mechanism in Nature. Our understanding of Evolution is the social construct. There is a difference. What you are saying is even before we became aware of the mechanism of Evolution, it was a social construct. That makes no sense.

>>4259460
Never got the toast in jacket part.
Goosebumps is funny.

The claim `everything is subjective’ must be
nonsense, for it would itself have to be either
subjective or objective. But it can’t be objective,
since in that case it would be false if true. And it
can’t be subjective, because then it would not rule
out any objective claim, including the claim that it
is objectively false. [...] It is a report of what the
subjectivist finds agreeable to say. If he also invites
us to join him, we may not offer any reason to declining
since since he has offered us not reason to accept.

>>4264210
/g/ is weab.

>>4264581
When you say "Evolution", you're just referring to your understanding of it, which is a social construct.

>>4264581
That does make sense. There aren't even separate things without conceptually differing between them, let alone a certain type of succession of them.