Is the concept of good and evil just a spook...

If it's considered acceptable what reason do you think people wouldn't engage in it?

It does not follow that it would be acceptable if we went beyond "good" and "evil", because people wouldn't just turn into sociopaths all the sudden, you fucking lunatic.

FIX THIS SHIT SITE FUCK

I know you must go through this shit a lot yo and it must be tiring but you should seriously just copy and save your arguments and explanations and edit them if necessary. You really can't blame people for not being familiar with what you've read. If this board gets more pop. more newbies will come in and you'll go through hell if you let this get to you without making preparations. Everybody who reads theory should start doing this.

If it's not morally abhorred then it would be acceptable, it follows hand in hand.

salon.com/2015/09/21/im_a_pedophile_but_not_a_monster/

People are highly suggestible, didn't Milgram teach you anything?

Nah, it doesn't. Even when we were sacrificing people to the gods, we still did it because we believed there was a reason for doing so. And this was - gasp! - moralistic, religious reasoning!

It's kind of like, you know, almost universal in humans to be empathetic. Otherwise, we wouldn't have been able to survive as a species because before we invented morality we would have just killed ourselves off. You don't need any spooky moralizing about "good" and "evil" to make people feel a deep, gut reaction towards killing an innocent person when their own survival isn't at stake.

People have empathy towards their general families (and even that only goes so far), everything else is largely fair game. Why do you think war has been with us since the dawn of agriculture and even before?

Because unlike in a communist society, people killed each other for a reason - because they needed resources, or because Dear Leader said they needed to kill the other tribe. They didn't just go around killing people for the hell of it.

*because unlike in a post-scarcity communist society

the logic behind your argument is false

You're right, a "philanthropist" is much worse.

People kill each other over dumb shit all the time. If they're not sociopaths, there 'reasons' were all shit they justified to themselves before and prior.

There is no logic behind sexual depravity.

youtube.com/watch?v=DFlOOfVDGXo

Say what you will, wealthy capitalists probably did a lot more to raise general standards of living, even if they did a ton of harm as well.

Which is why we need to live in a society where people are like educated and shit, and we don't need to rely on moralizing to keep people from killing each other.

Dialectics, fam. Philosophy > Religion

So ethics are real because the are shared among and enforced by a crowd? Can morality not be seen as an extension of this in that an immoral act is one that is universally considered unethical?

after taking granted that rape is ethically wrong if you want me to tell you why in other post i will
the question becomes :
is the dog an active agent and have the choice to accept or refuse a sexual intercourse?

Not everyone can be Socrates, m8. Intellectuals are largely still dumbfucks, just with a bigger vocabulary. Intellectualism really is more of a personality trait anyways.

No, you stupid shit, it's a dog, it operates purely on instinct and very very primitive emotions.

and thats the right answer with out stupid morallism

Ah, yet another one of the "ILLITERATE AND PROUD" posters on here.

Naw son, intellect and intellectualism are different things entirely.

Seems the stupid moralism is based on common sense. Or is that just another spook?

I'm not suggesting that one needs to be an intellectual or even to study all of philosophy though in an ideal society everyone would be a philosopher tbh.

All I'm saying is that having access to education, the means of subsistence, and being raised properly would all go a long way towards making random and irrational acts of murder basically nonexistent in a communist society - aside from the odd sociopath.

You assume everyone can become perfect rational entities. They can't, and that's probably for the best, otherwise you get a society of autists.

It's not really asking much that people can become rational enough to not kill each other for no reason when there are more than enough resources to go around, you fucking autist.

Rich people are some of the most dysfunctional people I've ever met. Stop assuming every dark impulse is the result of material circumstances, pal.

I'm not fucking implying that, but you cannot deny that it is a significant reason why people will choose to be violent. And rich people are dysfunctional because you can't really become a wealthy capitalist unless you're already an exploitative piece of shit to begin with.

Seems to me that you're just a bland misanthrope who won't have any argument that isn't

In other words, muh human naturr

Even anarchists have to bring about their system or lack thereof by force. Kind of disproves the idea that communtarianism is an inherent human trait.

I really can't deal with your unsubstantiated one-liner bullshit anymore. It's pretty clear to me that you have no fucking idea what you're talking about, and yet somehow I let myself get rused into this discussion.

Friendly reminder the children of the Czar were shot along with him.

Plato plz

According to stirnirists, everything is a spook. It pisses me off to no end to see something mentioned and their only reply is "IDS A SBOOG :DDDDDD"

They have their uses. Otherwise just reply with milkposting.

Please explain

Stirner later ran a dairy collective which failed and some people mock his followers with cheeky filenames and images of milking.

wew

He ran a milkshop, they sold milk brought from farmers. He didn't milk the cows. And he had blond hair.

Read Hume, good and evil judgments are just based on the emotions they create in us, they mean nothing more.

The problem with """Stirnerists""" isn't that they call everything a spook, it's that they call things they don't like spooks, while at the same time hypocritically screeching about muh egalitarianism and muh everyone and muh poor brown people.

Stirnerists =/= the people who say "MUH SPOCKS"

youtube.com/watch?v=Zm8jWDLstL0

Yeah, nihilists confirmed for being drug addicts and or sexual perverts that want to have their kinks dismissed as le sporgs :DD

Is this new? Subjectivism inherently results in degeneracy. Degeneracy eventually leads to societal collapse. It's not that individual degeneracy harms people it's that if everybody becomes a degenerate (which they will) effectivity drops, people stop working and so on. The best example of this is drugs. Taking drugs doesn't harm anyone, but that doesn't mean a libertarian society wouldn't become a dystopia where everyone sits in an opium den making their child prostitutes "voluntarily" work for the next heroin shot.

It literally is necessary to be spooked by ideology in order to have a functioning society.

...

Hey, the Protestant work ethic would be a good thing under socialism.

Even though it's incompatible with technology?

Yes. Now if you have an IQ with some legitimate claims to be higher than that of a brick you will see how that makes your whole ideology crap.

Even if it's true, work harder to make more robots. Besides, if what you're doing is fulfilling, you'd be more inclined to work hard. People only do the bare minimum in capitalist workplaces because of why would they?

What is the majority of the workforce going to do when China and the productive 3rd world start automating?

America's economy is already threatened by just truck drivers being replaced by drones.

Idk what the hell the end game is supposed to be when automation replaces all those jobs. Who's gonna buy capitalists' products?

You mean what's capitalism gonna do, when the LTV proves to be correct?

I WONDER…

WW3 POSADISM NOW

Some recommended bibliography on the subject? I have been contemplating on morality for quite some time now but I need help.

Yes, it's just a spook. A child murderer is also just an animal which follows its instincts. It is not more "evil" than a lion killing an elephant baby.

The majority of people are dumb, primitive animals. They can be slightly improved by education, but that won't make them all into super-ethical beings. That's why direct democracy is absolute hogwash and will never work. There always needs to be an elite that leads the masses for their own good. The problem occurs when this elite becomes corrupted by capitalism and follows retarded ideologies like libertarianism instead of humanism.

there is no good and no evil. There is simply the consequences of actions and how we perceive them.

Is a storm evil if it causes destruction or good because it waters crops?

Direct democracy CAN work but not on a big scale. The problem starts when states start to develop and try to integrate as many people as the can before someone stop them. Trying to put millions of people under a single framework (of morality) is just impossible.

rights are a spook m8

What is done from reason and the passions is necessarily beyond the binary logic of morality. Moralisms are necessarily created by those with societal power in order to rationalize their view of the world and to control the lower branches of society like cattle. "Good" citizens get shoved into the workplace, "Evil" citizens get arrested and put in prisons. When a truly noble historical action takes place, such as Caesar crossing the Rubicon or the Russian Winter Palace being raided, those involved in the events do not lie within the boundaries of their petty contemporary morality. Only afterwards can future propagandists try and moralize said events to dictate what is desirable to the herds of workers and slaves.

it may tickle your pee pee, but people will tend to live in communities that enforce shared views and values, ergo, if you killed a child to get pee pee tickles, the community or union of egotists would string you up and lop off your head. You'd have to start up a child killing commune if that's what you really wanted to do, but I suppose most other communes would cease to interact with yours.

griffith best egotist

Yeah, pretty much.

No, because a moral act isn't moral because it's universally considered wrong.

It's "moral" because of some spooky force. The justifications are different.

It would be "Universally ethical" in that case.

this is why I think in terms of harm and benefit, pleasure and pain, rather than magical wizard words that are supposed to have power over people.