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.

I disagree.

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.

Yes 😊

I think Ayn Rand has solved morality.

Why are all human beings evil? Why are all human beings good?

The Nazis were not evil?

My post regarding the Philosophy of Alexander Dugin was unfortunately removed without comment for apparently not being about Philosophy 😢

Anyone else have this issue?

It seems to me you're equating personal gain with evil? Why?

I don't think the author means to say sarcasm doesn't exist; but rather that philosophy isn't presented as sarcastic.

Well you said good and bad is relative and I'm asking you relative to what?

Relative to what if not concretes?

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.

I think the distinction is one of choice and the capacity to support oneself. If a person is capable of supporting themselves they'd have a moral responsibility to do so.

I think you're projecting a bit if you associate the word parasite with the disabled or children dying of cancer.

> 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).

> 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.

> 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.

If democracy is so great why don't subreddits practice it and allow their moderation team to be voted in? 🤔

Great by what standard? I would think the greatest philosophers are the ones who offer something profoundly true. However there are many philosophers who are incredibly successful (despite being wrong), so by that standard they could be considered great for their influence.

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?