Shallow discussion of morality

I'm more of a /liberty/ kind of guy, but liberty is dead. Pun intended. I was wondering what you communist faggots thought of this:

You are at a diner eating pie with friends. Everyone has a slice. A drunk guy wanders over to your table and buys you, and only you, a whole pie. Do you have a moral obligation to share that pie with your friends?

I think that you all would say that you have a moral obligation to share the pie, because you have done nothing to deserve the pie. You got it by random chance.
As a lolbertarian, I would say that you do not have a moral obligation to share the pie, because you have done nothing to get the pie. You got it by random chance.

Primarily, do you agree with my assessment of your beliefs?

I'm going to be a cunt and go to bed now, I'll see what you have to say in the morning.

Other urls found in this thread:

Lurk for 5 minutes.

We're not lolberts so we don't believe any meaningful political-economic insights can be derived from these stupid invented scenarios.

Morality is important but it has barely anything to do with my economic ideology.

I'd share it because I'm not a fat fuck.

Keep the pie or don't keep the pie, there is no moral difference. Your friends are not starving from lack of pie, withholding the pie does not constitute the violence of neglect. They might think you're a dick if you keep the pie, but who gives a shit?

what are the ethnicities of my friends
just kidding, I already know
I share the pie


read Max Stirner. Here you have to read bitch. Otherwise gtfo.

Read the ego and it's own pdf or the unique and it's property pdf. both are the same.

I ask my friends if they'd like some. The real question is do you have a moral obligation to *ask* if they'd like some more.

Why are Stirnerites a living joke?
There's better ways to answer OP's stupid question (see the other non-autistic replies).

Lets get something straight first.

These little hypothetical scenarios mean nothing to socialists because socialists don't believe in natural law, so random social interactions don't reflect how society should be run.

Second, our morality arises out of our material conditions and the mode of production than vice versa.

Third, socialism isn't "sharing the pie", it's worker control of the means of production and abolition of commodity production.

read the book

here stop being a bitch

My dear lolbert friend, the problem you seem to have is that you believe that human life and society can be compared to a meal in a diner, where food is served to you on plates and random strangers come over to provide you with even more. People have already pointed out all the other things you misunderstand, but this one seems to be truly fundamental.

Let's think of a different scenario. Let's say you are eating a pie with friends, and a drunk guy wanders over and gives you, and only you, control over a vast area of land, including its natural resources and man-made objects (together, in short, means of productions). Do you have a moral obligation to share them with your friends?

The answer is, of course, that no, you don't. But that question was still missing the point. A better question is, do your friends have a moral obligation to respect your authority over your newly acquired property?

The answer, again, is no. So why would they respect is? I think that you would say that not doing so would break NAP. We say that they fear for their lives, because your "rights" are backed up by a vastly powerful militarized state threatening to destroy everyone who doesn't follow its orders.

There are no such things as absolute moral obligations. However, if you're a decent human being, you'll feel compelled to share and your friends will forever look up to you for moral rectitude.

There is no "moral obligation" in this situation because it's not important. This is not comparable to a situation where 1% owns the same wealth than 50%.


Hey OP, I think you should take your time to look at the economic interpretation of capitalism put forward by marx first, I think you'll understand why asking a question like this doesn't provide a meaningful framework for the societies we try to build.
This series is a great overview of marxist economics. Its fun to watch, and you can probably absorb most of it within 2 viewings. If nothing else you can learn what positions to argue against.

Personally I don't believe in morals, but I think what you're asking is a veiled attempt at making a point about political economy within the framework of morality.
I mean let's ask this question framed in a different society and we can quickly see how this becomes a question rooted in what the conditions are now, rather than one being able to make a universal moral assessment.
Post-scarcity communist economy: Nobody could buy anything, and there is an endless supply of pie
Slave society: You make the pie and are forced to give the whole pie to the master, who then has to decide how it is distributed.

Also, unlike healthcare, food, clean water, ect, pie is not needed to survive and thus is prioritized differently. Therefore, under capitalism I would say there is no moral obligation to share the pie. But I would, because I generally am generous with food.

Why are lolberts such a joke? Every time they make an argument it's based on these isolated scenarios: "well, if two guys are on an island, and one catches fish…" LMAO, what the fuck does that have to do with capitalism? Are you incapable of wider analysis?

Production is a SOCIAL PROCESS. An act of trading a commodity doesn't occur between two individuals on an island, but reinforces (reproduces, in marxist terms) existing social relations in the act of production. These relations are themselves historically contingent and rely on organized violence to sustain them against rebellion.

Watch the Law of Value series on YouTube, this is the best way to comprehend marxist political economy without having to read a book.

This so fucking retarded holy shit. No you don't have any moral obligations to do anything and if it were true then you wouldn't have any moral reason to share with your friends who would survive otherwise. You're a contrarian faggot that actually believes in morality and therefor have to do the opposite. In this scnario you might feel like a dick because you're eating more than you should and not sharing because you're so dumb you think having absolutely natural empathy for others is some kind weakness. It's a scenario where being moral is the most physically painless path yet you would choose otherwise because you think some mystical force is trying to enslave you.

If it was gifted to you I would say that you have no obligation to share it. As long as you didn't make others labor for it and then take a disproportionate amount of the pie, you didn't do anything wrong.

Ultimately though, gift-giving has nothing to do with actual exchange economics and your thought experiment provides no insight into how you or I would organize an economic system

Well, have you considered this?

Myself and a bunch of lolberts are trapped on a desert island. Food cannot grow on this island and there are no nearby edible fish and no feasible means of escape. The only form of sustenance is semen, sucked from my dick. I believe the only moral and logic course of action, therefore, is that lolberts should suck my dick.

A bunch of socialists and lolberts are stuck on another island with no feasible means of escape. There is a plentiful source of food, but it is within the bounds of a gulag in the middle of the island. This gulag is guarded by a killbot that will only allow lolberts to work in the gulag. I believe that the only logical and moral action, therefore, since everyone dying on the island would be unconscionable, is that lolberts should go to gulag.

A deadly plague is sweeping through the land. The plague is highly contagious and no forms of quarantine seem to work. In order to spread itself, it infects lolberts (and lolberts exclusively, non-lolberts the disease simply Jill's without becoming contagious) making them living propagators of the disease. It also makes them all but impervious to damage from foreign sources. The disease requires a living host to spread, and the only way to stop it from spreading is for the host to self-terminate. I believe the only logical and moral corse of action is that lolberts should kill themselves.

We're almost entering an interesting dimension of discourse with you, Mr. Libertarian Man, but you are still shackled in thinking in isolation. Reality is not a void; it is contextual, systemic and most of all historically and materially defined.

I suggest watching some of these three videos to demistify yourself of this, then trying to reformulate your question:


Let's think about material reality and how it is influenced by different actions instead.

I'd give them the whole pie because I don't like fucking pie.

No. Listen man, we don't want porky to keel over and give us anything. We want to take it from them through revolution. We will steal it all from them, not because of some want but because of dire necessity. If they don't class_struggle too much we might not even gulag them afterwards

The presented situation has nothing to do with morality. Shit just doesn't work like that. Read Stirner.

Moral obligations don't exist.

Shove the pie in my face, take the drunk guy's beer, piss in it, and then wave my dick at the other people in the restaurant.

No. Everyone has just eaten including myself, I'm probably going to bring the pie home and have it later. If one of my friends happens to visit I wouldn't mind sharing some with them because that's hospitality but otherwise it's just greedy for us all to eat until there's nothing left to eat.

No. I don't think people who acquire things by random chance have any obligation to share them, I think people have the freedom to take whatever they like and they have a vested interest in taking whatever is necessary to live free by whatever means necessary. They don't have to act on it, but doing so would seem sensible to me.


You all are mad af, why?

This would never happen nor does it have anything to do with morality unless your friends are starving to death but they just had pie so they obviously aren't. If they are starving to death and you have food but don't want to give them any you aren't their friend.

You have no moral obligation to share the pie, and your friends have no obligation NOT to simply take the pie for themselves.
However, most people would share it because they are able to empathize with others and care about the wellbeing of their friends, just as most people would not forcefully take the pie from a friend (or anyone for that matter). Empathy and cooperation are important for healthy human relationships and even functional societies in general, something as trivial as a slice of pie is hardly worth going against those concepts. ,

On the other hand, consider the classic moral dilemma of whether or not its moral for a starving man to steal a loaf of bread. Its neither moral or immoral for him to do so, but rather it would make sense for him to act in his own self-interest. Similarly, it is in the self-interest of the working class to seize the means of production for themselves and build a society based around mutual aid rather than competition, especially when the ruling class has treated them like slaves throughout much of human history. Property isn't some sort of natural right, when the concept doesn't work in the interests of the people then it makes sense for them to work to change that concept.

A lot of right-wingers, particularly Holla Forumsyps, come here to shitpost.
I don't think its quite fair for them to get mad in this particular case since you seem to be looking for genuine discussion, but you can hardly blame them for being sick of >le helicopter ride maymay and such