Killing people is moral if there is no afterlife.

File: 118 KB, 531x531, IMG_9769.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

Killing people is moral if there is no afterlife. Anonymous Sat Dec 23 20:10:04 2017 No.10440081 [Reply] [Original]

Nothingness is better than being, because being is suffering; here's why : every moment of happiness is cause of getting closer to an unachievable and absolute ideal, because of it's said qualities, suffering is ever-present in different degrees. That isn't the case for happiness because by getting further from the ideal, you only suffer. What we call "hope" is only beliefs that we force into ourselves in hard times. Therefore it is an action that comes from within ourselves, whereas suffering is something endure from outside (even emotional pain is caused by an outside event). Absolute joy would then only be a lack of suffering, just like darkness is only a lack of light. That state of course is impossible because no absolute ideal is achievable.

If a man kills another man, he may have gone against his will, but he did it for his own good; just like a mother may forbid a child to eat too mich candy because that may lead to him getting sick, and therefore suffering.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 20:11:39 2017 No.10440087 My native language isn't english btw

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 20:20:49 2017 No.10440126 >>10440081 In a Godless world nothing has any moral content, no need to limit discussion to murder. Regardless what you write only assumes that there is no other people who are emotionally or even materially dependent on that man continuing to live.

Anonymous Sat Dec 23 20:22:03 2017 No.10440134

>>10440081

I feel like the only way this argument would hold merit is if someone with this position killed themselves.

No, I'm not telling you to do anything of the sort. But I don't understand the logic. If being dead is better than being alive, why are you not dead right now? No matter how logical you think you are being, a part of you still prefers being alive.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 20:24:01 2017 No.10440142 >>10440134 inb4 Lazy Schopenhauer "My brain says I can't" cop out

Anonymous Sat Dec 23 20:28:43 2017 No.10440159

>>10440134
I am not dead because there might be an afterlife.

But if I was sure that there wasn't, I would try out of duty to end people's suffering as much as possible.
You have to look at it as a sort of reversed moral, whereas our current system of morals consider that being>not beint, believing the opposite would cause an absolute shift in values and therefore the moral will that compels each individual would make them desire to kill others before dying.

Of course no one can fully believe that not being>being (not even me) because nature constantly works against that.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 20:31:12 2017 No.10440170 >>10440081 t. Raskolnikov

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 20:32:38 2017 No.10440177 >>10440159 The being>not being in our values becomes obvious when you observe that "Thou shall not kill" is a commandement that everyone but psychopaths obeys to.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 20:33:53 2017 No.10440186 >>10440170 >Using a fictional character as a counter-argument

Anonymous Sat Dec 23 20:35:11 2017 No.10440192

>>10440159
>I am not dead because there might be an afterlife.
Nobody who's used this excuse in all of history has ever come back from the afterlife to warn anyone off trying it. I'd say you'd need to disconfirm several hundred millennia of the incumbent position: no spooky ghosts saying don't do it.

You should try killing yourself if you really mean your argument. You're the only one who can know your suffering, though everyone else can see there's no spooky ghost telling you "no". Just do it, faggot.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 20:36:01 2017 No.10440196 >>10440186 >hasn't read Crime and Punishment

Anonymous Sat Dec 23 20:39:54 2017 No.10440210

>>10440192
>explains why joy doesn't actually ewist
>"you are the only one who actually knows your suffering"
This isn't about me or you or anyone. This is an analysis as to why we consider killing to ne immoral. The answer is simple : we consider being to better than not bein. The latter of course is presupposition that I have proven to be false in the case of no after life.
If you can prove the opposite, go ahead.

Anonymous Sat Dec 23 20:42:41 2017 No.10440220

>>10440196
I have actually. Raskolnikov isn't the same as me in this case. I am not advicating for nihilism. I am just saying that our system of morals is bases on a presupposition that needs to be clarified. This post isn't just a statement but it's also me asking for someone to defend current moral systems because I'd rather stick to them than go on a killing spree or kill myself.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 20:46:43 2017 No.10440239 >>10440220 Maybe go practice your English instead Pablo

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 20:49:45 2017 No.10440246 >>10440239 It might not be perfect but it's understandable, I guess.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 20:53:53 2017 No.10440261 >>10440246 Its still annoying. I don't come here to see the frustrated stuttering of ESL shitskins. Its inelegant and offputting

Anonymous Sat Dec 23 20:58:08 2017 No.10440274

>>10440261
Yea I guess if someone wrote badly in my native language I'd be upset too. I guess I'll have to keep this shit for myself since this is the only place where I can post stuff like this and not be automatically labeled as insane. Autistic maybe but not insane.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 21:03:04 2017 No.10440285 >>10440274 don't apologize. the cunt understands what you're saying and is dodging your argument by insulting your grammar.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 21:05:21 2017 No.10440299 >>10440285 The weak should fear the strong

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 21:08:20 2017 No.10440306 >>10440285 Sorry man, won't happen again

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 21:09:27 2017 No.10440311 >>10440081 Are we just pretending we haven't read Dostoevsky or are you just unread?

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 21:11:28 2017 No.10440320 >>10440299 the strong refutes. the weak nitpicks.

Anonymous Sat Dec 23 21:14:14 2017 No.10440331

>>10440299
I know that this is a meme but the reason why I apologized is because I have represented myself in your situation (having to deal with someone who doesn't use language correctly) and have realized that it is a bad experience, this is what people call morals. Now the same can be applied when considering that not being>being, because you know that the other is suffering, you cease his suffering by killing him.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 21:18:32 2017 No.10440346 >>10440081 you should probably delete this

Anonymous Sat Dec 23 21:22:50 2017 No.10440365

>>10440311
First off Doestoevsky was a christian therefore he was already biased toward a certain system of morals and he believed in an afterlife.

Secondly he has only refuted nihilism, which equates no morals. It is different from what I'm talking about here, since what I described is just another system of morals that is opposed to ours.

He may have adressed the issue from an existential and psychological standpoint, but he did not from a logical one. He, at every moment, targeted his writing for humans with humans emotions. Of course, that's natural, but philosophically it isn't valid.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 21:23:04 2017 No.10440368 >>10440142 Have you actually read Schopenhauer? That's not at all what he said about suicide

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 21:23:54 2017 No.10440370 >>10440346 don't worry I won't kill anyone.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 21:26:07 2017 No.10440379 >>10440081 I'm gonna go ahead with my day pretending I didn't read this shitte

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 21:27:05 2017 No.10440383 >>10440365 So you are unread. Ivan Karamazov's "all is permitted" is a purely philosophical argument.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 21:29:48 2017 No.10440390 >nothingness is better than being Stopped reading there. Shit thread OP.

Anonymous Sat Dec 23 21:30:51 2017 No.10440393

>>10440126
I didn't see your post earlier.
The point you bring up is interesting, I'd say that the relief from existence is greater than the suffering due to the loss, but that would be an utilitarian stand on the subject which can't be inherently right.
The answer is mass killing then. Just nuke the whole world.

Anonymous Sat Dec 23 21:31:29 2017 No.10440396

>>10440370
you should delete this thread and go for a walk during the day time preferably not with another person alone with you, maybe near others who are strong enough to subdue you you idiot. this is the most dangerous kind of thinking you can entertain

Anonymous Sat Dec 23 21:34:59 2017 No.10440409

>>10440383
lol what I wrote isn't "all is premited", to torture someone, even in this reversed moral system, is wrong : it causes more suffering without resulting in becoming nothingness.

As I said, Doestoevsky only counters nihilists which have no moral system, not this reverse system.

Anonymous Sat Dec 23 21:38:59 2017 No.10440426

>>10440396
I wouldn't hurt a fly you fucking retard. What I advance in this thread is purely theoretical and bases itself on an assumption that is "there is no afterlife".
Kant was alway saying that we should never lie, but I'd sure bet he has lied plenty in his life...

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 21:40:56 2017 No.10440430 >>10440396 Don't listen to this guy, you're right OP. Unfortunately other people won't be able to understand so even if it is solely theoretical I would keep this argument to yourself in the future.

Anonymous Sat Dec 23 21:42:58 2017 No.10440436

>>10440210
>>explains why joy doesn't actually ewist
>>"you are the only one who actually knows your suffering"
>This isn't about me or you or anyone.
You're the only person who claimed your knowledge of suffering justified ending life. It doesn't justify ending other people's lives; they could be having a whale of a time. You, however, should kill yourself. You have no excuse not to.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 21:59:04 2017 No.10440477 >>10440306 this isnt my english

Anonymous Sat Dec 23 21:59:07 2017 No.10440478

>>10440436
>A mother should not stop her kid from eating ton of candies because he's having a whale of a time eating them.

I have explained why life ultimately is suffering. Just as the candies only strengthen potential diabetes, joy only strengthen, or at least has in it, suffering; while the opposite is not true.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 22:10:30 2017 No.10440514 >>10440478 >>A mother should not stop her kid from eating ton of candies because he's having a whale of a time eating them. Why are you trying to run other people's lives? You're nobody's mother.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 22:16:52 2017 No.10440532 >>10440177 >impaired empathy automatically makes you a murderer wew

Anonymous Sat Dec 23 22:24:50 2017 No.10440565

>"Every moment of happiness is getting closer to an unachievable and absolute ideal."
What if I'm happy because a comedian made me laugh? What if I'm happy I took heroin? In what world is happiness directly linked to progress? Maybe I'm being too literal, and if I am please inform me, but your conclusion seems to be directly based, and taking action, on biological substrates.

>"Suffering is ever present in different degrees."
What if I'm not suffering at all? Because that's possible. In fact, very possible.

>"That isn't the case for happiness because by getting further from the ideal, you only suffer."
I can't read this, sorry.

>" What we call "hope" is only beliefs that we force into ourselves in hard times."
You can have hope that you win a tournament but not necessarily need the tournament win.

>"Therefore it is an action that comes from within ourselves, whereas suffering is something endure from outside (even emotional pain is caused by an outside event)."
I wanted to say more, but I'll keep this succinct. There are things such as mental illnesses, and hope can come from inspiration.

>"Absolute joy would then only be a lack of suffering, just like darkness is only a lack of light."
There are states where you feel neither. Why is the goal absolute joy? I feel like I'm not getting the whole picture here.

>"That state of course is impossible because no absolute ideal is achievable."
You can achieve absolute ideals, like going to the gym every Tuesday at 6 am, sharp. Also stop using the word absolute because it makes me think you're actually a crazy person.

>"if a man kills another man, he may have gone against their will, but he did it for their own good."
Let's imagine your world for a second. Everyone's in fucking pain and a character in a Tolstoy novel. Does that give you any right to kill them? Nope. And nothing you said argues for that. Forgetting that for a second; you're ASSUMING you're correct, and disregarding any form of dissent, thus making everything you're saying based on no reason at all. That's why this is bullshit, because it's an idiotic thing to assume you're correct and subjugate possibly great thinkers to your flawed and, honestly, childish way of thinking. I think you turned me in Kant. See, that just proves you're acting like an asshole.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 22:27:09 2017 No.10440569 >>10440565 into Kant* heh woops

Anonymous Sat Dec 23 22:47:41 2017 No.10440632

>>10440565
To laugh and to take heroin is indeed progress toward the ideal I'm talking about. That said ideal isn't necessarily a state of affairs but more so a state of being, where there is absolutely nothing negative. You may laugh to a comedians jokes, but you would have been happier if he made you laugh while having a water bottle to drink in case you get thirsty, or better not to feel thirsty at all.
The laugh, insteed of making you more happy, has made you suffer less.

The suffering is ever-present because at every moment of joy underlie the realisation that everything's not perfect and that this moment is nothing but a drop in an ocean full of hatred toward life in general (everything that is outside works against you except other living things such as trees). Your body and consciousness has tried to hide this fact from you all your life necause it makes survival easier.

Anonymous Sat Dec 23 22:49:55 2017 No.10440637

>>10440081
What a load of crap.

Firstly, killing people would increase the suffering. Even if it stopped them suffering, it would make the people around them suffer more.
Secondly, your assumption that joy is merely lack of suffering is completely wrong. Joy does not depend on absence of suffering, and it often greatly outweighs the suffering.
Thirdly, you're ignoring love.

I believe there is an afterlife. But it is not the reason that killing people is immoral.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 22:57:03 2017 No.10440654 >>10440632 shoot me anon

Anonymous Sat Dec 23 23:03:38 2017 No.10440671

>>10440632
>The suffering is ever-present because at every moment of joy underlie the realisation that everything's not perfect
>if shit isn't perfect, i'm suffering
Waiters spit in your food, anon. They don't spit in everyone's, but you're just the kind of dick who's self involved enough to think they wouldn't for you.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 23:06:42 2017 No.10440679 File: 163 KB, 1280x720, Charls.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10440081 >this is what Christians actually believe but are too ashamed to actually admit

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 23:11:00 2017 No.10440689 >>10440679 catholics admit they like pain. they think it's good for you and a sign god's taking an interest. but they also believe their god was 98% red wine, so you know, you could probably get them to admit a lot of shit.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 23:19:50 2017 No.10440721 >>10440632 Why do you assume that everyone is suffering? I would say that most people live out their lives in boredom--neither really happy nor suffering, just neutral.

Anonymous Sat Dec 23 23:22:53 2017 No.10440729

>>10440632
Guy you were responding to here. Even though I hope you're not done responding to that post, because that would be a shame and dishonest.

So the ideal is a state where absolutely nothing is negative. Why. In what way are we always suffering? You could say our body is always working, but is working always suffering? No. Not everyone has those thoughts or maybe they have and they worked through them or accepted them. In what way can this ever hope to justify it is morally acceptable to kill someone without their consent? Also I'm sorry if I'm misrepresenting you, it is kind of hard to read what you're saying; no offense, you're doing much better than I would.

>>	Anonymous Sat Dec 23 23:39:10 2017 No.10440766 >>10440679 Buddhists may believe it but Christians don't.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 00:23:07 2017 No.10440849 >>10440081 Ow the edge

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 00:52:03 2017 No.10440896

OP your reasoning is flawed, as it implies that all morals are based in religion, when that is simply not the case.
In a godless world which has religions, if man made god, and god made morals, does it not stand to reason that morals are man-made?
In a godless world it is still immoral to murder

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 01:01:15 2017 No.10440906

>>10440210
I can't prove you wrong, as you likely won't try anything suggested, though I may try.
To prove yourself wrong, try fasting for three days (no food; minimal water).
Part of being alive is consumption of resources. Fasting tests your willpower by denying yourself the consumption which keeps you alive. Yes, it is usually done for religious purposes, however it is only a religious fasting if you make it so

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 01:07:54 2017 No.10440929 >>10440081 >Killing people is moral if there is no afterlife. Actually it's even more moral if there is an afterlife because you'll bring them closer to God (assuming they've lived a good life)

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 01:11:44 2017 No.10440937 File: 61 KB, 480x480, DB-Masai-Mara-Croc-zebra.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10440081

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 02:26:43 2017 No.10441067 >>10440896 >In a godless world it is still immoral to murder show how this is true please

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 02:37:11 2017 No.10441091

>>10440081
OK anon, it seems to me that you're asking why is being better than non-being, and you believe that non-being is better than being. And I think that you believe this because every moment of happiness is always tainted by the existence of suffering, and that happiness is unachievable because suffering outweighs it. Why can't it be the other way around? Why can't happiness outweigh suffering?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 02:42:42 2017 No.10441101 >>10440081 It isn't up to this killer to decide what's good for another person. Maybe the other person wants to suffer, or isn't suffering now. Anyway, if nothingness is so great, why doesn't this killer just off himself?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 02:45:38 2017 No.10441105 >>10441067 Defend any sort of secular moral realism and realize that Euthyphro annihilated divine command theory ~2300 years ago.

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 02:50:41 2017 No.10441116

>>10441105
>Euthyphro annihilated divine command theory

You're gonna have to explain how euthyphro annihilated divine command theory. It seems to me that it only proved that the gods like the pious things because they are pious, and things are not made pious upon the gods liking them.

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 02:59:20 2017 No.10441132

>>10441067
Well, first one must define what is and is not constituted as moral. If religious morality is just morality with a label, is it inherently worse or wrong? No, as my previous post explained. Therefore the biblical commandments, often believed to be a moral cornerstone of Western Civilization, still holds weight in the argument.
Commandment number one is "thou shall not kill".
Recapping: if god is man-made, then so are his morals. Therefore the biblical commandments command some level of sway on man, for a man must have thought them important if he was to include them in such a text.
Of course, this all depends on how one defines morality, which I will concisely do of pressed to

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 03:02:01 2017 No.10441137

>>10440081
As an individual who's experiences throughout my days mainly exist a state of perpetual suffering, I can say that "that what doem't kill you makes you stronger." literally. I know the phrase in itself is a cliche. To live is to suffer, either learn and adapt or degrade into death.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 03:14:47 2017 No.10441169 >>10441116 If God(s) like(s) pious (aka good) things, then there's an external and logically independent standard and God is not the authority of morality but simply a messenger, which is contrary to the whole point of DCT.

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 03:23:28 2017 No.10441182

>>10441132
If you can look at morality as a manifestation of "the golden rule" in Christian religion, then a realistic theme becomes apparent. If a person can act towards and treat another human being in the same fashion as they themselves would appreciate to be regarded, then random unjustified killings would be an abomination. Murders should only be regarded as self preservation or justice. However, justice will become a product of religious beliefs and unfortunately we do not live in a world where people see others as equals. The quality of life and humanity as a whole would benefit immensely if this one "golden rule" could become an overall simplified rule of human life.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 03:30:02 2017 No.10441190 >>10440081 start by killing your self or your a hypocrite

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 03:36:53 2017 No.10441204

>>10440081
Killing people is moral if there is no afterlife. This is true. But not because of your pessimistic, underlying anti-natalist crap.

It is moral for these reasons:

1. Without an objective design and plan for your life, the only thing that matters then is achieving your goals, and that which prevents you from achieving your goals is a problem.

2. You have a limited time to achieve your goals.

3. Violence is a quick solution to problems, thus killing can propel you closer to achieving your goals more effectively than other means, making it moral.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 03:44:05 2017 No.10441219 >>10441204 what if my goal is to maintain what i believe to be moral (not killing) AND do something, you sophist!

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 10:43:39 2017 No.10441901

>>10440637
As I said before the reason why you feel sometimes that "joy" outweighs suffering is because, in those moments, the suffering level is below average. I have justified that though the unachievable ideal.
Love is, just as Shopenhaur explained, a trick by nature that shouldn't be considered a "positive" thing in life simply because it controls the individual and offers back mere bodily pleasures.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 10:45:35 2017 No.10441908 >>10440671 If you weren't suffering due to imperfection, you wouldn't even leave your bed in the morning, in fact you wouldn't work, try to survive or contribute to society.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 10:47:17 2017 No.10441910 >>10440721 I have explained that neutrality does not exist, you have to look at life like a spectrum of suffering. Boredom is a form of suffering since you seek a change and thus you're unsatisfied with your current state of being.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 10:50:01 2017 No.10441916 >>10440906 I fast for one month every year. I don't see how that has anything to do with this. Seeking more suffering by making myself hungry will only justify what I wrote.

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 10:54:18 2017 No.10441926

>>10441908
>things can only get better if they're bad already
Clearly you've never put marshmallows in hot chocolate, tried good drugs, or not been a whiny bitch. If your life is suffering, I suggest you end it. Everyone else can have more marshmallows and it'll be even more tasty.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 10:55:42 2017 No.10441929 >>10441101 I have given a counter-argument to this said "freedom" by citing the mother example. If no one can prove that being>not being, objectively, than not being is better than being according to my definition of suffering and joy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 10:57:04 2017 No.10441933 >>10440689 >catholics admit they like pain. www.youtube.com/watch?v=PI0MRyUFIXU

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 10:58:21 2017 No.10441934 >>10441929 Is the mother example the one where you misunderstood how diabetes works?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 10:58:36 2017 No.10441937 >>10441137 What's point in learning and adapting if the end result is sufferin ? All the existential rambling that have been going though the three last centuries has never proven why we should say yes to life despite the misery.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 10:59:40 2017 No.10441940 >>10441190 A man who save himself isn't as good as a man who saves others. The opposite can be said if the moral system is reversed.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 11:01:12 2017 No.10441942 >IF I'M HAVING A BAD TIME EVERYONE MUST BE HAVING A BAD TIME AND I'M ALLOWED TO HURT OTHER PEOPLE lmao get a load of this board flipper sore loser

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 11:02:40 2017 No.10441943

>>10441204
That simply isn't true because morality implies going beyond the subjective and placing oneself in the place of another. Pure selfishness is never moral no matter your religious beliefs because it is a denial of the concept of morality itself.

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 11:06:23 2017 No.10441952

>>10441926
You are a slave of your own body therefore you are biased concerned this subject. If I were to consider life from a view as simple as yours, I'd say that I'm not suffering, but from an objectif standpoint (for now) I am.

This is probably a languistic problem (again!). Our defintion of suffering differs drastically therefore we will never agree.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 11:15:08 2017 No.10441978 >>10440134 >Mainländer did. does that make him right

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 11:16:36 2017 No.10441983

>>10441952
>You are a slave of your own body
Pretty sure it's a partnership, though I haven't got any official forms.
>but from an objectif standpoint (for now) I am.
LOL, you think you're objective but everyone else is just being subjective? Consider killing yourself. t'n'as pas raison ou connu le meme succes qu'autres.

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 11:18:31 2017 No.10441989

>>10441942
I'm not having a bad time. If I was fucking a 10/10 while being on heroin I'd still say I'm suffering, because the absolute ideal isn't to fuck a 10/10 while being on heroin.

It's like having a glass you'd want to be completely full, you may keep adding water again and again but there will always be emptiness in some places, ruining the "fulliness". This ruining may be very subtle, but it always present.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 11:23:35 2017 No.10442001 File: 69 KB, 540x720, Buddha.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10440081 All suffering arises due to craving. This is the first noble truth.

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 11:24:34 2017 No.10442008

>>10441983
I am objectively but not absolutely right NOW, if someone were to logically counter-argument by proving that being>not being, then I'd be comoletely wrong, but no one fully did for now. The only near successful attempts were those who said killing someone will make the people who are close to the victim suffer; but then how is killing EVERYONE (nucking the planet) immoral ?

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 11:25:01 2017 No.10442010

>>10441989
>by suffering I mean I'm not suffering only everyone else won't live up to my unreasonable standard of suffering and so i should kill them
this is why nobody takes you seriously. you have the emotional and rational intelligence of a two year old and insist your ideal be filled and nobody else can be happy if your needs aren't being met. it's not a surprise you're obsessed with suffering. you're basically a girl who broke her fingernail insisting her life is over. get some continence, or at least some heroin. you might be less of a bitch on gear, tbph with you famm.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 11:25:43 2017 No.10442012 >>10442001 >t. cultist

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 11:26:45 2017 No.10442013

>>10442008
the logical counterargument is that if everyone else is subjective and happy and you are the sole objective and thus aware of suffering being on this earth, then the most efficient, effective, perfect, utile and objective solution to suffering in the world is to end you, and nobody else but you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 11:27:20 2017 No.10442016 File: 104 KB, 500x637, tfw nirvana.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10442012 Om Mani Padme Hum

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 11:55:27 2017 No.10442083

>>10442010
lol it isn't about me not being able achieving my ideals, it's about EVERYONE not being able to achieve their ideals, which is basically one common ideal. To be content with a current state of being is to be cotent with a current state of suffering. If a child eats a lot of candies and feels a little sick in the stomach, he will continue nonethless to eat candies; only his mother can stop him in that case. The same can be said about joy, you may "feel" it but there is always suffering underneath it, also there will always be eventually, a moment where you will suffer and feel no joy.

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:01:05 2017 No.10442101

>>10440081
Except being isn't ONLY suffering. Absolute ideals, although likely unachievable, may not be what everyone is actually striving for. Some ideals that people hold are achievable at least somewhat. Joy isn't simply a lack of suffering either. You feel joy when listening to an amazing piece of music, doing a hobby, or watching a young child do something cute, which is nearly everything they do. You also assume there is no conscious afterlife, which you cannot prove.

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:01:21 2017 No.10442103

>>10442083
>EVERYONE not being able to achieve their ideals
only you're the only person saying they're having a tough time with that, retard. you're not everybody. either get over yourself or kill yourself, for the good of humanity.
>allow me to speak for all children too
considering how shit the end product is of your childhood, i doubt it was well parented. maybe they didn't want you either and their will is slowly being fulfilled as i tell you again, to end your suffering that nobody else is feeling. it's yours, you can't give it away to everybody else, and i doubt they'd want or accept it.

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:01:49 2017 No.10442107

>>10442013
I am not saying that I'm the center of the world. What I'm referring to as objective is the nature of life and joy only being a low degree of suffering. That is applicable to any human being and not just me. It's not MY suffering that is objective, but the nature of suffering that is, and how it is essentially part of what we call joy while the opposite nor being true.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:03:06 2017 No.10442113 >>10442107 >BUT WHEN I SAY MY HOT OPINIONS THEY'RE OBJECTIVE FACTS lol are you five?

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:04:50 2017 No.10442122

>>10442103
>implying there is one person living completely ideally, not having a signle thing to worry about, not struggling AT ALL.
>implying I'm speaking for children, and not giving a hypothetical example to justify my argument by analogy, just like many philosophers did before.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:06:17 2017 No.10442129 >>10442122 >>10442122 >allow me to speak for everybody >how dare you imply i speak for children when the only potential child i want in my hypothetical is the one that does like me uhhuh, and do you go to preschool?

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:08:50 2017 No.10442139

>>10442113
As I said, I only consider them onjective because no one has fully proven them wrong in this thread yet.
It's like accusing Newton, at his time, of being stupid because he considered his theory of gravity to be true even though he claimed that gravity is a force despite no clear empirical facts proving that.

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:11:41 2017 No.10442151

>>10442139
>You: Everyone's suffering
>Everyone else ITT: nahfam i'm bretty gud
>You: NO NO I'M UPSET SO EVERYONE ELSE HAS TO BE
>Everyone else: hot chocolate and heroin sounds nice
>You: pls be suffering i want you to be suffering
>Everyone else: nahfam opiates
There's no evidence for suffering except your claim you think everyone suffers like you. They clearly don't.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:11:48 2017 No.10442152 >>10442129 >implying the child does like me and not like everyone who isn't a fucking budhist. The child eats, out of pleasure, despite potential suffering. You're doing things, out of desire to live, despite potential suffering

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:14:01 2017 No.10442164 >>10442152 You have weird opinions about other people and seem to think you're not describing yourself when you talk about your feelings and wants. Glad I'm not you.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:14:02 2017 No.10442166 >>10441169 >God tells you to do something >You do it >You just followed what He told you to do Am I a brainlet? How does the counter argument for DCT go?

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:15:41 2017 No.10442177 This thread is the intellectual equivalent of a Smashing Pumpkins song >THE WORLD IS A VAMPIRE Jesus Christ, OP, I don't know how you can not be totally embarrassed by this asinine opinion. GTFO

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:16:45 2017 No.10442183 >>10442151 Nailed it. Let's close this thread mods

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:20:52 2017 No.10442193

>>10442151
Suffering =/= being tortured emotionally/physically
Suffering = being unable to achieve absolute ideal state.
If you consider that a state where nothing is perfect to be better than not state, then your natural instant to survive has made you prone to shitty standards of being.
Plus giving bodily pleasures as a solution to the constant struggle is pretty stupid since they will ultimately lead to more suffering.

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:22:29 2017 No.10442199

>>10442151
>opiates
>not suffering
How does doing opiates amount to less suffering in the end? Isn't opiate addiction terrible? Not OP, but that's a dumb example. I also don't think people cannot be suffering, but there are many times where the suffering is overshadowed. OP ignores all the times in life where the suffering is worth it or even necessary for incredible joy.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:22:51 2017 No.10442202 >>10442193 instinct* I'm not replying anymore for a while btw because the captchas are annoying me and I'm on phone. Might reply later tho if anyone's interested.

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:22:54 2017 No.10442203

>>10442193
>Suffering = being unable to achieve absolute ideal state.
When's the last time there was an ecstasy drought round your way? If you want to be absolutely ideal 24/7 there's plenty of party people out there picking up the last supplies before Christmas.

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:26:32 2017 No.10442212

>>10442199
>opiate addiction terrible
Depends what your definition of terrible is. And if you get addicted and a high tolerance and so on. Life without opioids is impossible though since your body makes them, and if you weren't able to, then life really would be suffering. It's shit like that that gets women through childbirth and all that crap. Opioid are wonderful.

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:27:21 2017 No.10442216

>>10442203
You are too material and superficial to understand what I'm stating here. Maybe all this shit is too theoretical or abstract to even be discussed. I wasn't gonna reply at first but honestly it's sad to see someone who's such a slave of his own body and not even realising it.
>muh parternership
Try leaving a week without drugs or sex, you'll end up killing yourself.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:29:17 2017 No.10442222 >>10441943 >morality implies It does no such thing. Morality is simply a code of what is right and wrong.

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:30:14 2017 No.10442226

>>10442216
>YOU MUST BE WRONG ABOUT HAVING FUN
Hasn't stopped me.
Since I had to break the news to you that you're not everybody, I know it won't be as much of blow to find out you're also not Schopenhauer nor as good at explicating an argument or composing one as him. Another of your failures to be perfect to suffer for you.
>Try leaving a week without drugs or sex, you'll end up killing yourself.
I'm not you, just like everyone else. We'll get by.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:32:04 2017 No.10442232 >>10442216 >they're not really having fun >i promise they're still suffering like me and i'd still be suffering like them if i had sex and drugs maybe try sex and drugs, dude. they really are fun.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:32:31 2017 No.10442236 it's another episode of OP is misunderstood and has insights into nihilism no else does >yawn Be more original, hack

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:34:29 2017 No.10442245 >>10442216 >you can't like your body and be smart Since fucking when? Mens sana in corpore sano's been the advice since people spoke Latin.

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:46:59 2017 No.10442284

>>10440081
Sometimes I think philosophy is just recklessly making up axioms.

In your proposed set of rules, isn't joy entirely impossible? And don't we know from experience that some people like some things? Doesn't it follow directly that you're assuming too much in your axioms?

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:48:51 2017 No.10442293

>>10442232
>suffering like ME
never said this, each person IS suffering but in different degrees.
Plus I have explained that what you call fun is only a lack of suffering.
You may want to stick to your social constructs because they make you feel good, but you have to realise that they inherently don't exist, simply because they base thmeselves on something inexistant which is an absolute ideal state.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:49:55 2017 No.10442300 >>10442236 >nihilism no

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:51:16 2017 No.10442309 >>10442284 >implying liking something is not desiring an ideal that isbultimately unachivable. >joy doesn't exist yes, that is true.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:51:28 2017 No.10442310 >>10442293 Kill yourself, OP, isn't that what you're waiting to hear? Please end your life before Christmas so I don't have to see your faggy pseud posts thx

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:52:31 2017 No.10442315 >>10442300 great argument! you get a gold star!

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:53:05 2017 No.10442320 >>10442293 >>10442293 >never said this, each person IS suffering but in different degrees. No, you just said they were suffering enough to murder them, lol. And apparently nobody is suffering a degree less than that. You're comedy gold.

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 12:55:52 2017 No.10442332

>>10442309
Nm, I scrolled through 50 comments on Raskolnikov and assumed nobody was shitting on OP for this very obvious problem - here at the current moment it's obvious other people have pointed this out and that you just don't care, and want to construct a set of definitions with which it's necessary to kill yourself.

In which case, yes, you sure got us. Good job. Can I interest you in a set of definitions in which all people must take care of increasing numbers of cats, as suffering really is the absence of infinitely many cats?

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 13:15:40 2017 No.10442391

>>10442332
Suffering = no ideal is not a baseless claim. To desire to be happy, is to desire to be in a state where you are happy, which is to desire to get closer to said ideal. You might be happy, anout a certain, for an amount of time; you will ultimately desire a better state of being later; and this desire to get closer to said ideal. Because suffering, is by defintion, the opposite of being happy. Then suffering is getting further from that said ideal. And because to count something, you start from zero (which can't be subjevtive neutrality because it doesn't exist), suffering is the basis of all joy.

If you want a clear explanation of this, read the exemple of the cup I have cited earlier in the thread.

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 13:26:05 2017 No.10442407

>>10442391
>suffering is the basis of all joy.
oh so you mean everyone's constantly approaching happiness and can only get closer to happiness while never moving from suffering. that would mean that humanity exists in a constant bliss, because the baseline of suffering could never be surpassed and any higher state is impossible. it can't be ideal if it's impossible, and since joy can only get more possible with an increase in suffering, everyone must be constantly joyous.

turns out those guys with chocolate and heroin were right about being happy. good for them.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 13:27:23 2017 No.10442412 >>10442407 lambasting leibniz is the most fun of all philosophy

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 13:40:05 2017 No.10442441

>>10442407
>suffering being the basis of joy=suffering is constant
That isn't what I meant.
Imagine a spectrum going from 0 to infinity, at 0 there is no joy, only suffering; the more you add numbers the more there is joy but the more you get "closer" to infinity, thus suffering adds up because you realize you'll never arrive to it. Because this is entirely paradoxal with how we experience life and understand both concepts, I have called joy "adding up" suffering diminishing. Therefore there will always be suffering, but it can be less. That might seem good from an existential standpoint, but it doesn't justify being>not being; in the contrary it streghten simply because something inherently non-existant is better than something inherently suffering, even if that said suffering SEEMS irrelevant.

It's basically like the math/physic difference. In physics they often use approximate values in calculating while in mathematics absolute values are necesary.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 13:45:57 2017 No.10442464 >>10442441 nicca, he just candide'd you like voltaire did leibniz. talking to him about math when he probably read at least some leibniz is not your chance of getting out of suicide.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 13:47:20 2017 No.10442465 >>10442441 >people having fun aren't really having fun mathematically the physicists can't bring the infinite improbability drive to this party fast enough

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 13:57:56 2017 No.10442495 File: 95 KB, 500x440, fgn.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10440081 >mfw enjoying life and i don't consent to be killed

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 14:01:42 2017 No.10442503 >>10442441 stop thinking that there is suffering "always there". NOT EVERYONE IS LIKE YOU

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 14:20:44 2017 No.10442554 >>10442212 >depends on your definition Yes, you can argue definitions until the day of doom. Opiate addiction, thinking of it as a drug taken externally and in excess, is bad.

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 14:28:04 2017 No.10442582

>>10442554
>in excess
that's what I mean. It's like saying "apples are good" "yeah but what if was a razor blade and poison and explosive apple, how do you like them apples?"
people would look at you like a loon if you tried that line of reasoning anywhere else.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 14:29:40 2017 No.10442590 >>10442554 Gold applied externally and in excess is bad for you too. That's how the lady in the james bond film died.

Anonymous Sun Dec 24 14:33:21 2017 No.10442608

>>10441067
Ever hear of the claustrum?

You can define all morality around the level of sacred serum in the claustrum.

I'm going to assume you haven't heard of it, so I'll explain. The claustrum is a part of the brain which secretes a liquid. The liquid flows down the spinal cord naturally.

And here's the kicker, as you live a moral life, live well to the best of your ability. The liquid actually rises back up joining the claustrum as one again.

So assuming that secretion to be true, you can define morality based on it. Actions which raise the serum are good and actions which cause it to fall are bad.

Or if you really want you can even flip it, but my point is you can define morality without God based on the sacred secretion.

God did lead us which directional convention to follow tho, so probably go up rather than down.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 14:43:48 2017 No.10442638 >>10441989 >If I was fucking a 10/10 while being on heroin I'd still say I'm suffering I think some little fella's getting a stocking stuffed with Hot Topic knick-knacks from Santa Claus this year.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 15:01:47 2017 No.10442694 >>10442608 a nigga comin in here with esoteric morality juice

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 17:05:46 2017 No.10443193 File: 130 KB, 377x637, Screenshot_20171221-124941.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10440514 ding ding ding. we have a winner!

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 18:01:59 2017 No.10443486 File: 72 KB, 1041x397, 1418248141472.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] You're right. That's why I'm an omnicidist.

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 18:08:39 2017 No.10443510 Benatar demolishes every argument people have made in this thread against OP

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 18:09:38 2017 No.10443512 dude. look at your image. you yourself understand you're playing the role of "psycho." nobody needs that guy.. leave him on the stage. Join humanity. Love you

>>	Anonymous Sun Dec 24 19:20:42 2017 No.10443777 File: 80 KB, 181x186, 180621392658.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >>10443193 stop screenshotting the social media of girls that you know in real life.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 02:34:36 2017 No.10445077 >>10440081 Do you think this is a novel thought? You're not asserting anything new, you're only demonstrating the worst tendencies of philosophy. Please educate yourself.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 06:23:25 2017 No.10445355 >>10440081 Suffering is good, actually.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 06:32:01 2017 No.10445361 >>10443510 what argument is that?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 06:32:30 2017 No.10445362 >>10440081 >basing good on lack of suffering You need some higher values, boy

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 06:55:29 2017 No.10445394 >>10440081 >killing people is okay because they might not have to suffer in the afterlife You fail basic child tier morality. Congrats.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 07:00:29 2017 No.10445402 >>10440478 Life may be suffering for you because you are a worthless loser. You have no right to mess with other important people's lives.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 07:12:39 2017 No.10445420 could you prove there is no afterlife first before you waste my time with this shit

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 09:29:20 2017 No.10445616 >>10440426 what's the point of building reasoning on an improvable hypothetical apart from a simple thought exercise? your reasoning has no practical application, it's just a fart in the wind

Anonymous Mon Dec 25 12:19:05 2017 No.10446047
File: 55 KB, 640x480, IMG_9705.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10445616
Yes this is only a game I have made, I'm trying to prove myself wrong but I can't. Also no one in this thread have been able to because they fail to define joy and suffering in a broader form that includes both, like I did.
Life is a spectrum, not white and black.
Just like darkness is lack of light, joy is the lack of suffering. Now I'm waiting for someone to prove the opposite but no one did. Which makes my argument valid

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 12:21:13 2017 No.10446053 >>10445077 name one writer that actually advocates killing in case of no afterlife then.

Anonymous Mon Dec 25 12:36:46 2017 No.10446082
File: 75 KB, 598x337, Bjw8uXeCMAA8aMq.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]

>>10440081
This is what retards do in their heads because they think it's what "smart" people do.

>Hurr durr there is no point
>hurr im a tragic soul
>durrrrr if you were smart you'd get it
> why do women keep friendzoning me durrr
>tfw not invited to parties
>tfw because it's because i'm smart
>durrrrrr

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 12:40:08 2017 No.10446091 >>10440081 >here's why: my shitty life and my shitty opinion on my shitty life 10/10 thread.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 12:50:57 2017 No.10446136 >>10442122 >implying struggle does not give me joy

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 12:57:28 2017 No.10446156 >>10446082 that’s not the point of this thread you mong

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 12:58:52 2017 No.10446161 >i can just about make this random thought a coherent argument, therefore i should formulate it ASAP and throw it out there no

Anonymous Mon Dec 25 13:13:25 2017 No.10446214

>people thinking that this post is auto-biographycal
I have made this post so that someone can prove me wrong because I'd hate killing anyone, even if it was moral. For now there have been interesting answer but none that truly prove that this is false. People have been replying me with a defintion of suffering that makes it not universal and always present. But that definition is simply false if you compare it to what joy is and their connection.
To say that suffering=ouch my knee hurt or my gf left me is a very simplistic view that has no value of truth a part from a cultural one maybe.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 13:15:31 2017 No.10446223 >>10446136 If struggle makes you joyous than it makes you closer to your ideal therefore it isn't suffering. You might tell me "this is contradictory!" but I could say that too about struggle making you joyous.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 13:21:24 2017 No.10446248 >>10440081 I remember when I was 18

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 13:22:22 2017 No.10446252 >>10446223 So if me suffering is not actually suffering, why is it moral to kill me again?

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 13:24:37 2017 No.10446254 File: 4 KB, 235x215, 4101166F-DDA3-4242-A487-DDC54FD736D2-44654-00003D1C290F66BD.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google] >suffering negates past happiness

Anonymous Mon Dec 25 14:00:50 2017 No.10446373

Alright after really thinking about this I've realized you guys were right.

The mistake I did was in the mother/child analogy. Basically a mother has to marally stops her child from eating too much candies because she is the cause of his being.
Since the killer is not the cause of his victim to be, even though the victim is preffering suffering (I have explained why it is suffering) to not-being. He has no moral obligation to do, supposedly, what's better for that person therefore the freedom of choice prevails.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 14:01:53 2017 No.10446379 >>10446254 >implying the past exist

>>	Sean Goonan !!pCz9FGd0KWn Mon Dec 25 14:09:57 2017 No.10446404 >>10446252 Kill yourself,

Anonymous Mon Dec 25 14:16:11 2017 No.10446436

>>10446214

Because nobody cares about bait posts. Arguments online are not won by thought or reason but by who posts last.

If you want to be taken seriously, I'd suggest reading. And looking at your post, you should probably start with the greeks, and especially Epicurus.

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 17:06:07 2017 No.10447134 >>10446436 >taking a hedonist seriously

>>	Anonymous Mon Dec 25 17:52:04 2017 No.10447304 >>10446404 No, you kill yourself tripfag.

Advanced search
Text to find
Subject [?]Search by post subject. Leave empty for any.
Username [?]Search for user name. Leave empty for any user name.
Tripcode [?]Search for tripcode. Leave empty for any.
Email [?]Search by email. Leave empty for any.
Filename [?]Search by image filename. Leave empty for any.
From Date [?]Enter what date to start searching from. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
To Date [?]Enter what date to start searching until. Format is YYYY-MM-DD
Image hash
Search in	All Posts OPs Only
Deleted posts	Show all posts Show only deleted posts Only show non-deleted posts
Internal posts	Show all posts Show only internal posts Show only archived posts
Order	New posts first Old posts first
Capcode	All Posts Only by Users Only by Mods Only by Admins Only by Developers
Results	Posts Threads
Action	[ Simple ]

/lit/ - Literature