/edu/ - Education

>>1303
spooky

no

Ever since I was a kid I have never been afraid of hell, the feeling of unfairness for even having the chance of being sent there overcame my fear of the supposed eternal fire and pain. To this day when I think about being judged by an above figure I can only think "this is such bullshit"

I really like this picture, it calms me.

I am not a big fan of ghost stories

There is no justice, but there should be

>>1303
>What is morality?
The only bit of irrational subjectivity a rational and objective person can and should allow themselves.
>What is morality to you?
A set of core unjustifiable values which I find important, ranging in their importance, with me being willing to compromise on the less important in favor of the more important. For me, well, I never really ranked them, but it would be definitely made up off: maximizing happiness, maximizing progress, maximizing long-term prosperity, maximizing equality, as long as that doesn't conflict with other values, respect of personal self-determination.
>Do you think at the end of your life you will be judged by a god for your actions?
No.

>>1311
>>1310
How do you determine your actions without relying on your own subjective (moral) values? Because I don't actually believe that is possible.

>>1479
>How
Just look at it objectively.

Example:
>Why shouldn't I stab someone?
&ltPro: They die
&ltCon: Jail = Impossible approach to revolution
Conclusion: Don't stab them unless it's a justifiable motive

I'm more confused how you can even rely on morality in the slightest.
Problems like the trolley question where you choose to save either 3 people and kill 5 or save 5 people and kill 3. Morality is worthless in your decision making.

>>2277
Jail is the university of the proletariat.

>>2277
While that is an objective decision, it is made by relying on subjective values:
>Pro: They die
How do I decide that they must die? Most likely because they did something to offend me, however what it was, and how I decide that it was enough for murder, is down to my moral values.
>Jail = Impossible approach to revolution
Why is revolution objectively good? A porky wouldn't want to do it. A libertarian true believer would find the authoritarianism needed for it abhorrent and so on. It is, again, a moral question.
>Don't stab them unless it's a justifiable motive
Exactly. So how do you justify it? You can only be objective about it after knowing what it is you want to achieve, which is a purely value-based question.

Let me try to quickly attack some counter arguments I've heard before:
&ltBut morality is an ideological construct by the superstructure, and is mostly determined by material conditions
So? It still exists, and you still can't make any decisions without it.
&ltSomething something maximize entropy
It is still a moral statement. You want to maximize it as you believe it is a must for there to be existence, however believing that there should be an existence is a subjective view. People like gnostics and anti-natalists only prove that you can take an opposite stance, no more rational or irrational than yours.
&ltUniversal values
I doubt such really exist, and also they would still be values against which, theoretically, you could take an opposed stance.

GOD WILL JUDGE ME AS RIGHTEOUS I AM THE HERO

>>1303
I would pay money for this image to be painted over to have a bunker in it instead of a house.

There is something paradoxical about the oft repeated view from philosophers that the universe is meaningless while humans want to find meaning in life. It's more like the universe is full of meaning for us and we are helpless to escape it even in the case we want to. We fundamentally can't escape the fact that some things make us happy and some things make us suffer, which itself brings a kind of meaning to life. Also there seems to be a surplus of meaning where things take on more meaning than just their apparent consequences for our simple pleasure or pain. People find more happiness in cooking than simply the pleasure of the food they eventually eat. This is true generally of labour; you get a flow and joy from building a desk that can't be reduced to the utility of using the desk. Heroic actions take on more meaning than the benefits they actually provide, and so on. This surplus meaning might be considered the sublime. This is why utilitarianism is flawed, or at least would involve much more complicated 'computations' than might first appear.

Morality is a natural consequence of this surplus of meaning. Children have a strong sense of fairness and want to share candy that are unequally distributed for example. The point is not that there will be some practical problem from the unequal distribution (no child will starve because of not having a few sweets) but the justice of the situation. Humans naturally have concepts of justice and so on which are the foundation of morality. There can be different conceptions of morality depending on the society that one lives in, and it is illuminating to challenge a certain morality sometimes, but the existence of morality is pretty much inherent in humans. Trying to get people to 'awaken from the illusion of morality' altogether is autistic and not helpful.

To be honest, the impossibility of the universe existing, being coherent, and strange beings like us existing and leading lives full of the peculiar meanings of human life, suggest to me the existence of God or some kind of judgement, but of course no one truly knows this.

>>2437
What do you mean with impossibbility in the last paragraph? Is it poetic language or do you mean highly improbable?

>>1303
>What is morality to you?
first and foremost, a mental program, much like language or facial recognition, that evolved to allow us to recognize the best people to cooperate with, and to make us behave in a way that also allow others to recognize us as good cooperation partners. That mental program goal seem to be to optimize opportunity cost decisions.

But that's only the biological basis of the concept. Humans are capable of complex and deliberate thought process, that can either be used to justify moral intuitions, or to change them (or simply ignore them in the decision). Society at large also codify moral rules, that can overlap with our intuitions, but also go contradictory to them.

If you're interested in that "evolutionary psychology" angle, I recommend this youtube serie which made me discover the theory, it has english subtitle available :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1jkIONNqBcg&list=PL8mPrvnM78yJ78OqgF4xtvJyOvJTeWjiz

>Do you think at the end of your life you will be judged by a god for your actions?
lol no


>>2277
>Problems like the trolley question where you choose to save either 3 people and kill 5 or save 5 people and kill 3. Morality is worthless in your decision making.
that's absolutely false, unless you claim to always make the utilitarianism choice in these problems (and then you'd be a monster)

God will be put on trial, not me.