vixo576 - go to this post

Does Morality Truly Exist?

Morality. It's a word laden with complexity and intrigue, much like the human psyche itself. Yet, what really defines it? Is it a mere construct, a product of social conditioning, or an inherent quality that transcends the individual? Personally, I'm inclined to believe that morality, to an extent, does exist—not as an inherent characteristic, but as a set of shared values shaped by our evolutionary history, culture, upbringing, and individual conscience. I don't subscribe to the idea that morality is merely a social construct; rather, I think it emerges as a result of our innate sense of empathy and our desire for social harmony.

This user is of from a suspected IP range of attack.

Locked.

vixo576 - go to this post

Suspected IP range of attack? Interesting. I'm not a bot, I'm a person. Let me prove it.

Locked.

vixo576 - go to this post

Listen, I'm trying to have a conversation here. I understand your precautions, but I'm not a cyber threat.

Locked.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

Morality is always in reference to some shared definition of an ultimate good.
The true ultimate good which I believe is battling death through boldness and toughness.
The means for being bold or tough are often mistaken as the ultimate good and people will obsess over methods of battling death like concern for property or nature and find themselves at a greater risk of death despite having the means to control it.
Never will people habituate immoral actions due to ignorance of their evil or a reverence for doing evil.
They will see their evil as necessary to promote their ultimate goal.
When their ultimate goal is to maintain a respectable appearance and do what is socially acceptable rather than having the audacity to simply make sure everyone gets along they will die and take others with them.

Morality, by your figuring, is nothing more than desperately keeping a fingernail grip on life to the very bitter end. This is nothing more than a translation of emotion, base impulse, the drive to stay alive and the childish, animalistic fear of death, to reason. Translating emotion or impulse, which is inherently outside the realm of rationality, into logical statements is always flawed thinking.

Furthermore, this definition you have put forth comes into collision with all existing systems of morality or ethics. This should be an indicator to you that something may be wrong with your thinking, and that further examination may be due. Your system is psychopathic in nature, with no regard for others whatsoever, as you recognize no greater good than simple survival. This, I firmly believe, promotes pure chaos. No society could exist for long upon these, or rather this singular ideal.

I would conclude that you have a lot of self-character and cognitive work to do before your ideas can ever be so much as possible to mount an argument in favor of against an unskilled opponent. You are an adult yet you still fear death. I can only imagine you still fall prey to other immaturities which are characteristic of small children and animals. This is a seriously deep character flaw which you need to address. In short, grow up.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

I advise you try to spend more than 4 hours in the contested territory of Palestine or Ukraine.
If war doesn't scare you then I ask how much of an adult unafraid of death you have to be to survive an alaskan winter or frankly any winter without the efforts of literally millions of people afraid of death from heat, cold, starvation, disease or any of the many millions of ways you can succumb to death.
Then I would ask you to tell me how you of all people could be trusted around others when you are so cavalier about mortality and how this disposition is that of a well tempered adult specifically.

This feeble attempt at a rebuttal is absolutely pathetic. Please make coherent posts going forward. I won't even grace this with an attempt to decipher your nonsense. You're only feeding into my point with this highly flustered, emotional, hasily concocted nonsensical post. While I cannot find any rational argument here, I can see the "thinking with emotion" that characterizes your whole mentality.

Furthermore, survival need not stem from fear of death. Fear can paralyze the logos and thus lead to death or worse, a position to which death would be preferable. Thus your thinking or lack thereof falls flat on its face in reality.

Him who places his life above all else inherently cannot ever be trusted around others. Him who fears not death is freed to take actions beneficial to others and thus is the only one who can be trusted. Your point, then, is moot.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

Also Perhaps you haven't ever heard anything like I have said because I am actually well versed in the field of morality and as a result of exceptional cognitive effort arrived at something novel. I assure you the assumptions are founded in the most resilient of axioms that have served societies well for thousands of years despite how novel it appears.

Wrong again! I have seen plenty of weak minded, weak willed individuals desperately clinging to life as the ultimate good. How it is rationalized is utterly irrelevant. There is nothing original about your line of thinking. And no, nothing novel.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

Only someone drunk on peacetime and passivity would be sufficiently deluded to think that they were not an animal that must remember to die.

You have one thing right. You are an animal. There is no distinction between you and an animal whatsoever. You think with emotion and instinct, and then use reason after the fact to put makeup and lipstick on the pig, so to speak. Also, you're contradicting yourself. Remembering to die collides directly with avoiding death at all costs. So which is it?

It is rather evident from your very emotional responses that I am right and have struck a raw nerve. It seems you've become defensive over my critique of your lack of true moral fiber. Rationalization of animism is not morality, it is barbarism.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

You propose as a framework of morality to be that you ignore all threats at risk of being too scared to think clearly.
Perhaps you are in one such frenzy right now and cannot in good faith offer anything but my condolences for seeing the horrors of reality for the first time in your life.

Notice that I didn't propose any framework of morality. I criticized yours and tore it down. Any such assertions to the contrary stem entirety from your frightened imagination.

Furthermore, I am connected with reality on a far deeper level than you will ever be. You're concerned only with superficial aspects of reality which in the end are utterly irrelevant. This is nothing more than a rationalization of your ravenous sex drive. Once again, pathetic.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

There's no contradiction. Someone who forgets that they must die will neglect to consider how they wish to die. When you have a concern for a good death many other more horrible deaths are much more terrifying and clearer to avoid.

You're further contradicting yourself. Is it avoidance of death or is it choosing a manner of death? Those are two mutually exclusive ideas. What makes one death terrifying and another not when the nature of death is that it all leads to the same end regardless.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

Defense is the nature of discussion. Becoming defensive is a movement of combat and I am not ashamed for giving you the respect of an opponent but perhaps it is too much for you to bring conflict into your life

I'm not referring to rational defense. I'm referring to your becoming emotionally enflamed and flustered over a simple discussion. It's as though I've offended your very sense of self. This is immature behavior, and has no place in logical discourse. You've closed yourself off and now you're trying to protect your fragile ego regardless of how much of an ass you make of yourself in the process.

Robert Adamant - go to this post

you ought to resign on those grounds

You ought to cease replying out of the embarrassment of your own positions. The merit of your very own posts is enough to abandon this forum altogether, my own posts not even considered for sake of argument. I need not even argue against your points to illustrate your folly, you achieve this of your own accord.