/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12790310]

Is there really no morality without God? What natural reason is there for someone to do something selfless if there is no prospect of reward or punishment?

[Anonymous No.12790339]

>>12790310
>something selfless
No such thing

[Anonymous No.12790359]

>>12790339
If for example I were to give my food to a beggar even though I myself am starving, wouldn't this be something selfless?

[Anonymous No.12790412]

>>12790359
No. You got an emotional reward. Helping the beggar made you feel good. Not helping him would have made you feel like shit.
Now, if you happen to die of hunger afterwards, you're just plain stupid tho, unless that beggar was your brother or something, in which case it's understandable

[Anonymous No.12790416]

you don't fucking need a god to define a moral compass

try this:
1) think of an absolutely good state A
2) think of an absolutely bad state B

now judge your actions in terms of moving away from B and toward A

[Anonymous No.12790425]

>>12790416

This, unironically.
I can choose to beat my wife or have sec with her. Who can tell me which one of these actions is good?

[Anonymous No.12790437]

>>12790359
He's saying that because you feel good about doing something you perceive as selfless, that you are only doing the selfless action because it gives you a feel good response
Basically "muh chemicals" nihilist reductionism.

[Anonymous No.12790446]

>>12790425
depends on how you have defined the ultimate states. if humanity is supremely happy and experiences infinite pleasure in A then you probably don't want to beat your fucking wife you moron

[Anonymous No.12790467]

1: Morality is regulating your action according to an abstract principle.
2: 1 requires reason.
3(1,2): Reason is the presupposition of morality.
4: The conclusion of an argument has gained its qualities from the premises.
5(4): Therfor normative conclusion require normative premises.
6(4): Therfor it's impossible to deduce normative conclusion without a normative premise.
7(6,5): Becuase no moral statement can be deduced from purely descriptive facts, the morality must be a priori and universal.
8(2): Reason is the basis of ethics.
9: If something is a contradiction, then it's unreasonable.
10(9,7): Then any moral maxim needs to be universal without contradicton -->categorical imperative time.

[Anonymous No.12790477]

>>12790416
cringed but redpilled

[Anonymous No.12790482]

>>12790310

When Nietzsche said "God is dead" he meant that God is not necessary for our morality anymore. When he says we killed God, he means that our science, skepticism, education, have pushed us past the point where believing in miracles is possible; but as a consequence of this loss we are lost, have no goals, no aspirations, no values. God was made up, but he gave us a reason to progress.

The resulting nihilism requires us to either despair, return back to medieval religion, or look deeper within us and find a new source of human values.

Yet... none of those things happened.

The post-modern twist is that we didn't kill God after all: we enslaved him. Instead of completely abandoning God or taking a leap of faith back to the "mystery" of God; instead of those opposite choices, God has been kept around as a manservant to the Id. We accept a "morality" exists but secretly retain the right of exception: "yes, but in this case..."

Atheists do this just as much but pretend they also don't believe in "God". "Murder is wrong, but in this case...." But of course they're not referring to the penal code, but to an abstract wrongness that they rationalize as coming from shared collective values or humanist principles or economics or energy or whatever. It's still god, it's a God behind the "God", something bigger, something that preserves the individual's ability to appeal to the symbolic.

"...but in this case..." Those words presuppose an even higher law than the one that says, "thou shalt not." That God-- which isn't a spiritual God at all but a voice in your head-- the one that examines things on a case by case basis, always rules in favor of the individual, which is why he was kept around.

But the crucial mistake is to assume that the retention of this enslaved God is for the purpose of justifying one's behavior, to assuage the superego. That same absolution could have been obtained from a traditional Christianity, "God, I'm sorry I committed adultery, I really enjoyed it and can't undo that, but I am sorry and I'll try not to do it again." Clearly, Christianity hasn't prevented people from acting on their impulses; nor have atheists emptied the Viagra supplies.

The absence of guilt is not the result of the justification, it precedes the justification. Like a dream that incorporates a real life ringing telephone into it seemingly before the phone actually rings, the absence of guilt hastily creates an explanation for its absence that preserves the symbolic morality: I don't feel any guilt...............................

.......because in this case...

[Anonymous No.12790536]

Dostoevsky blows the fuck out of every ego driven ideology by simply stating that in a community where every single one is driven by their ego, it would all lead to living hell for everybody part of that community.

[Anonymous No.12790548]

>>12790412
Yes, but why am I getting an emotional reward from his benefit? Isn't that pretty much the essence of selflessness? The food I give the beggar doesn't fill my stomach but I still feel good

[Anonymous No.12790699]

>>12790446
UTILITARIANS GET OUT OF MY BOARD, REEEEEEEEEEEEEE

[Anonymous No.12790705]

>>12790536
Who is Hobbes?

[Anonymous No.12790742]

>>12790548
>>12790437
You value the emotional reward from helping the guy more then you fear the punishment from your stomach cramps.
Why? Because of compassion, not because you hope that, someday later in life or in the afterlife, you may be awarded for your good deed or punished if you hadn't have done it.
The feeling you get after (not)helping a person is God's imminent reward/punishment.
Chemicals are just the means, not a cause. Oh, God truly is great

[Anonymous No.12790897]

>>12790310
karma lol

[Anonymous No.12790920]

>>12790705
>Hobbes
I dunno, I don't read non-fiction pseudos.

[Anonymous No.12790996]

>>12790412
That's why Jesus instructs us to love those who wrong us. We receive no emotional reward for doing so

[Anonymous No.12791190]

>>12790310

There is no morality with God either
Even if God existed all that would mean is that you would have to come to terms with the fact that he created you to be amoral

[Anonymous No.12791201]

>>12790310
>no morality without God
Can confirm. I'm an atheist and have fallen into such levels of degeneracy that I'd get a partyvan for explaining everything I've done.

[Anonymous No.12791414]

>>12790416
A how to guide on being a psychopath

[Anonymous No.12791427]

>>12790310
There would be morals, but it would be idiotic to follow them unless it directly benefited you by doing so. Why follow them if you can get away woth it and it pleases you? You would be in utter darkness. Even your best actions truly mean nothing, and you would slowly realize that empathy and compassion are simply limits to your wicked potential. In a world without God, there is literally no point in living other than hedonism. It would be best to perish (but we know truly the best thing is to find Jehova).

[Anonymous No.12792031]

>>12790536
No, Egoism = Humanism, everything else is a spook

[Anonymous No.12792034]

>>12790416
how do you define a 'good' state and a 'bad' state

[Anonymous No.12792075]

>>12790446
Why should I assume happiness and pleasure to be more preferable than anything else?

[Anonymous No.12792085]

>>12790412
my feeling good is neither cause nor end so fuck you

[Anonymous No.12792090]

Dostoevsky, Fyodor. Dislike him. A cheap sensationalist, clumsy and vulgar. A prophet, a claptrap journalist and a slapdash comedian. Some of his scenes are extraordinarily amusing. Nobody takes his reactionary journalism seriously.
The Double. His best work, though an obvious and shameless imitation of Gogol's "Nose."
The Brothers Karamazov. Dislike it intensely.
Crime and Punishment. Dislike it intensely. Ghastly rigmarole.

[Anonymous No.12792094]

>>12790536
>in a community where every single one is driven by their ego, it would all lead to living hell for everybody part of that community.
Is Hell bad? If so, why?

[Anonymous No.12793006]

>>12791427
Morals=Good, therefore it is not idiotic to follow them

[Anonymous No.12793024]

>>12790742
>emotional reward
Lmao that’s pure conjecture. You’re not gonna be feeling any emotional reward when you’re starving.

[Anonymous No.12793083]

As much as he is a meme, sam harris articulates the fallacy of moral relativism when there is an absence of god. There is a clear and objective moral compass spawned by our brains/spirit.