DirtyOldPanties t1_j5j4cas wrote

I think objective morality exists and it could exist exist absent of God. The way I usually go about this is questioning why does one need morality? If we don't need morality then that's that and we can drop the issue. If human beings do need morality then there must be a reason why we need it. From there we can identify an objective morality that's appropriate for human beings.


DirtyOldPanties t1_j4fji49 wrote

So when a couple chooses to have a child you'd reference that to suffering? Or when someone is choosing to enjoy art or music or video games? Even when their lives may be comfortable such as having a good financial situation or what would be considered healthy relationships? Everything is in reference to "avoiding suffering"? I have the opposite view in that I think everything is done to live and enjoy life.


DirtyOldPanties t1_j0hamrj wrote

There can be no compromise on moral principles. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. When you deny that morality is binary, when you deny the good as a standalone achievable thing, only evil will benefit from this.


DirtyOldPanties OP t1_j04ppme wrote

> Yeah I mean human behavior, motives, and their placement in a society are far more complicated and nuanced. No person is an absolute parasite or absolutely productive.

I agree most people do live in contradiction to some degree but I don't know why there would be some arbitrary absolute that declares "No person is an absolute parasite or absolutely productive."

> I mean by this standard all retired old people are useless parasites.

I very much disagree. I think most retired old people live off their past productive effort (for the most part).


DirtyOldPanties OP t1_j03xu5e wrote

> You mean the literal straw man, the person who doesn't exist whose fictional emotions you can pretend to understand?

I don't think it's a strawman when arguments such as these depend on introspection. It's not as though people don't understand (in an emotional sense, not a philosophical one or scientific one) what emotions are or have never felt then.


DirtyOldPanties OP t1_j03efes wrote

> So you get statements such as "you can't find happiness in procrastination, promiscuity, or pot", which is laughable given how many people find real enjoyment in those things.

Finding enjoyment in those things is not the same as finding happiness and I doubt the author meant you could not find joy or pleasure in those things.

> First, it rails against the option of living as a parasite. But parasitism is a valid evolutionary strategy,

Why does "evolutionary strategy" matter if the fundamental question is how to live one's life? Is parasitism a valid strategy to pursue one's own happiness or self-esteem? I think the article demonstrates quite clearly otherwise. I liked the example of a thief who resents transactions as a nuisance who is in discord with their emotions and what they desire.


DirtyOldPanties OP t1_iyd38ms wrote

I'm not sure what entirely constitutes a real vs a fake Philosopher but one thing I think all real Philosophers need is intellectual honesty. The ability to confront and to take ideas seriously. To quote Ayn Rand -

> If a given tenet seems to be true—why? If another tenet seems to be false—why? and how is it being put over?