If you don't believe in morals/ethics then you must believe 'Might is right'

I don't even try to present right/wrong, moral/ethical positions on this site anymore because I've learned that a very good percentage of the posters here don't believe those things even exist. If you don't believe those things exist, what are you here for?

Isn't the whole point of being a conspiracy researcher/theorist to try and make the world more just and/or fair? If you don't believe that there are such things as right and wrong, morals and ethics, there would be no such thing as "more just and/or fair."

Why?

It's because to believe that right and wrong/morals/ethics don't exist means you believe "might is right." That's the only thing left for you after all.

If you can't claim that something is right or wrong based on any grounds and if you don't believe that morals and/or ethics exist, the only thing left for you is to say anything you can get away with is what should happen simply based on the fact that it can happen.

Well, that's essentially the belief that the elite have. If you share their worldview, why aren't you out acting just like them?

And on what basis could you possibly argue that the world should be "more just and/or fair"? By your own belief system, you have no basis for that argument.

I'm not sure I follow you, but I'll give it a whirl.

Not everyone desires to be the Robin Hood of Information. A lot of people are just simply curious and want to know one way or the other without being a messenger of something.

Does that touch on whatever you're on about?

a reply to: Profusion

Isn't the whole point of being a conspiracy researcher/theorist to try and make the world more just and/or fair?

Absolutely NOT.

The point is the search for truth.

a reply to: Profusion

This is just like the argument that if you don't believe in god, you can't be just and moral.

Because without god threatening you with absolute torture for eternity, you can't do the right things for the right reasons.

The problem here is this is simply projection.

Projection is a psychological term for assuming that because you have placed yourself in a box with limits etc, that everyone else is other same box with the same limits etc..

There are only the limits we place on ourselves or allow others to place on us.

Think outside the box you are imprisoned in.

originally posted by: Nyiah
I'm not sure I follow you, but I'll give it a whirl.

Not everyone desires to be the Robin Hood of Information. A lot of people are just simply curious and want to know one way or the other without being a messenger of something.

Does that touch on whatever you're on about?

To put my original post another way, you can't make a moral argument without believing that morals exist.

Moral arguments, like all arguments, are composed of claims, or propositions, or statements (these are all synonymous for our purposes). One of these claims we call the “conclusion”; the others we call the “premises”.

These claims — the premises, and the conclusion — make assertions that can be either true or false (that’s what makes them claims at all).
What is a Moral Argument?

Here's the kind of argument I've seen here recently:

The voters should determine the winner of elections in the United States because that's how a democracy should function.

That is a moral argument which includes the following unstated premise:

Governments/parties in a democracy should respect and follow the votes of the people in an election.

However, you can't believe in that unstated premise without believing in right/wrong/morals/ethics. If you don't believe right/wrong/morals/ethics exist then you can't complain about any wrongdoing in the elections because you've quashed your ability to make such an argument (according to your own belief system).

You've also quashed your ability to ever make a moral argument about anything.

That means you have given up your right to ask for more fairness or more justness ever in any situation (philosophically speaking).

originally posted by: Metallicus
a reply to: Profusion

Isn't the whole point of being a conspiracy researcher/theorist to try and make the world more just and/or fair?

Absolutely NOT.

The point is the search for truth.

I asked the following question because I genuinely want to get different types of answers:

Isn't the whole point of being a conspiracy researcher/theorist to try and make the world more just and/or fair?

That statement doesn't mean that you're trying to start a grand revolution. Here's an example of how it can work for an individual on a microscale:

If you find out that a company that produces food products is putting poisonous ingredients in their food and you decide to never eat the poisonous food again because of what you've learned, you have made the world more just and/or fair FOR YOURSELF.

No, you have not changed the world but your individual world is better (and if you can help others, great). I believe that is the kind of thing that we're all looking for when we're trying to find the truth...to make the world better (more just and/or fair) for ourselves and our loved ones.

What good is knowing the truth if it doesn't benefit you somehow? And if it benefits you, doesn't that make the world at least a tiny bit more just and/or fair for you personally (as well as possibly others you can help)?

a reply to: Profusion

Why?

Because you said so?

a reply to: Profusion

I tried asking a similar question and all I got was a lot of bs replies. Only 1 person really admitted to the illogical reasoning they hold.

Their general consensus is that right is what is pleasurable to them - that is what they base it off of.

a reply to: Profusion

I'm really damned tired, but I think you're confusing philosophically debating morality with self-preservation-based determination of individual moral codes and applying them in daily life.

That whole "do unto others" thing, in other words. Debate the veracity of morals or the lack thereof all you want, people in general dislike being treated poorly. Most would try to treat others the way they wish to be treated themselves.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Profusion

I tried asking a similar question and all I got was a lot of bs replies. Only 1 person really admitted to the illogical reasoning they hold.

Their general consensus is that right is what is pleasurable to them - that is what they base it off of.

For most people these days, they are governed by the idea that if it feels good or makes them feel good, it must be good. And therefore, the inverse must also be true - that if it feels bad or makes them feel bad it must be bad.

The problem with that version of morality is that it produces a shallow, hedonistic, narcissistic populace incapable of considering anything beyond the latest base desire as good.

originally posted by: Sargeras
a reply to: Profusion

Why?

Because you said so?

A moral argument is an argument with a conclusion that expresses a moral claim.
What is a Moral Argument?

You can't make a moral argument without believing that morals exist.

The sentence above is not because of my opinion, it's because of what a moral argument is and what it entails.

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Profusion

I tried asking a similar question and all I got was a lot of bs replies. Only 1 person really admitted to the illogical reasoning they hold.

Their general consensus is that right is what is pleasurable to them - that is what they base it off of.

Could you post a link to it please?

I believe people are becoming increasingly disconnected from reality. I'm of the belief that beyond the obvious stuff like the following things I mentioned in a recent thread:

A drugged up society from prescription drugs (Nearly 60 percent of Americans)

Fluoride in the water (Over 67% of the US population)

Chemtrails (Everywhere in the US)

GMOs (or “genetically modified organisms”) (Everywhere in the US)
IQ only measures capacity, consider the implications of that in terms of 'Idiocracy'

I believe it may be information overload that's causing people to disconnect from reality more than ever. People are having to deal with more truth than they may be prepared to. Consider what a poster posted in the following thread:

Election rigging has gone too far with Hillary Clinton

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Profusion

They don't even pretend to be fair now.

I have to wonder what else is on the horizon.

Some of the conspiracies are in everyone's faces to the point that if they're paying attention at all they'll see them.

And many don't want to see them. What do they do about it? Disconnect from reality rather than dealing with the horror they are seeing.

But, I'm sick of making excuses for people. When you keep knowingly joining the side of evil at some point you become evil yourself.

That goes for me too of course. I'm struggling with that issue.

a reply to: Profusion

I don't even try to present right/wrong, moral/ethical positions on this site anymore because I've learned that a very good percentage of the posters here don't believe those things even exist. If you don't believe those things exist, what are you here for?

Unless the member's your referring to are nihilists, which I highly doubt. They do have some sort of moral compass and ethical code of conduct.

The predicament your in, is that you just figured out that morality is subjective...Just because you don't share the same perception on what is considered morally right or morally wrong doesn't mean they lack or deny any sort of morality.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

What are you basing this subjectivity on? I think the OP is dead on. It amuses me how people can argue something as axiomatic or true but then they deny any sort of absolutes. Might makes right is the logical conclusion for materialist so the OP is correct. I have seen half decent attempts to argue morality from some evolutionary benefit angle but have never found that to be very convincing seeing as it is all conjecture and doesn't extend in any way to other species.

I do believe that there is a fallacy in the OP argument here.

Drawing a line that states

Religion == Morality may be true

But

Morality =/= Religion is also true.

Not all morals are Based on Faith in the religious sense, some can be based on say Feeling content with your actions, or maybe even achievement with in the confines of society set rules. All religion does is give an easier crutch to conform to societal norms. As religion gets phased out Secularism takes its place, the norm gets shifted to what the majority considers to be right or wrong, those we choose to lead us are the ones we allow to set those norms. When those norms go too far out of the comfort zone for the masses they tend to historically rebel against it, this rebel against things the masses does not like is part of why theism was able to become a potent tool for the control of the masses, break the rules down into easy chew-able bites and ideas spoon feed it to the masses until they buy it, when they start to rebel against the controls alter them in a way that makes the masses believe it is their choice. Occasionally due to distance and difficulty with communication different groups applied the ideas of control differently this leads to theological differences, so those in control have to push their ideas harder then the ones they disagree with which leads to a "We Are Right" mentality or War. As time goes on distances close, different control schemes meet and destroy each other or intermingle until a new control is created, and the whole process starts over.

There is really no such thing as a Leader that appeared out of no where,

Sure you got Monarchies but if you take those back far enough you get to the first monarch and how did that Monarch become so, people listened to that Monarch's idea of how things should work and Choose to think that was the way it should be. Same so with emperors, kings, Churches, Politicians, or any other leader, they really only lead because they convinced enough people that their way was right.

The formula applies all the way back, sure some used Might is Right as their tool of convincing people to their point of view but it did not always work. Ideas of a Higher Authority even if that Authority was just in all reality an empty dust covered room with no one at the wheel no one in the place of the higher authority won out in some cases because enough people got convinced that is the way it should be...

A persons first reaction to any control scheme that does not align with the one they chose to follow is Anger and then a will to try and fix what they perceive as wrong.

Until everyone realizes that there is no control except what they place on their selves we will always have a [Faith, Religion, Pathos, Theology, or Dogma]of some shape form or another be it a flesh in blood chosen leader or a mysterious higher authority, or even a piece of [paper, book, script] with ideas on how things should be done to be right.

To put it simple you will always be in chains of your own choosing and those chains are what create your ideas of Right and Wrong.

The question is which chains go best with a plaid state of mind...

Something to Chew on while Enjoying a

CoBaZ

a reply to: NihilistSanta

What are you basing this subjectivity on?

Individual perceptions of morality.

It amuses me how people can argue something as axiomatic or true but then they deny any sort of absolutes.

What absolutes am I denying?

Might makes right is the logical conclusion for materialist so the OP is correct.

I'm sure you could find many materialists,some on this site alone that would disagree with this point of view.

a reply to: Profusion

Which morals and ethics? Who's morals and ethics? They exist, but you will get a different answer from each person as to what is moral and ethical.

originally posted by: Profusion
I don't even try to present right/wrong, moral/ethical positions on this site anymore because I've learned that a very good percentage of the posters here don't believe those things even exist. If you don't believe those things exist, what are you here for?

I think I have read you object to this in the past? It is a source of confusion for you, no?

I don't believe in a static universal or inherent good and evil.
I think that we decide to make such judgements and values, as individuals.
As individuals, we are also members of collectives- of our family, our community, our society, our world....
So often our individual ethics and values are a mix of personal preference, collective preference that we have learned or been conditioned with, and evolved instincts.

The closest to universal or inherent ethics I think we can come to is the evolved instincts and reflexes- pain is bad, pleasure is good for example. Because almost all humans over the globe share that. But not all.... there are some exceptions; also that is not necessarily true in the long term consequences. Lots of pleasurable acts have very painful consequences later.....

Then we have various collective ethics depending upon our culture and religion. The agreement amongst the members on a shared ethical system facilitates communication, exchange, and cooperation between them. It establishes a sort of implicit agreement between them which solidifies bonds and forms a protective force.

As for your question- how do I deal with the world around me then, seeing as all is relative for me?

On a small scale (events in my own personal life which I am invested in) I have to face each moment, each "now" separately. I mean, because what is "good" in one situation might be "bad" in another, depending upon the variables involved, I cannot hold onto any fixed judgements to be applied to future. I must be in the moment, paying attention completely, receptive to all aspects. Looking at all available information, listening to my internal intuitions.

This actually dawned on me once as a terrible thing to accept (I remember the exact moment)- the idea that there is no safety net, no way to just pass judgement upon all things once and for all, past and future, and just ride through life only half paying attention because it was all done. It felt precarious to imagine I'd really have to step forward each day and just truly pay attention, listen and watch. Listen to others (for real) listen to the internal voice (whatever that is).
I got used to it with time though- it has a lot of beauty to it too...

I do not feel my judgements I come up with in each moment need any confirmation or agreement by anyone else, so it doesn't matter if they are static or universal.



As far as judging larger events, which concern us all, that is where I look at it as if democracy is a huge force, always, whether we are conscious of it or not. The state of a nation and the systems within it are made possible and facilitated by the behaviors and attitudes of the people. Even those who are against them in appearance, can usually find some ways in which they were feeding into exactly that which they oppose.
Together, we create our situation. Together, we can choose to change it. But it starts with each individual finding what ways they themselves are paying into it, and changing that.

That is where discussion like those we have here is vital to making any change we think we want. There doesn't have to be a divine judgment on something being good or bad, for a peoples (a nation, for example) to decide they will judge it as so together, in their collective!

The ONLY reason I can see that any group of people will feel especially attached to the idea of their ethics as being Divine, or inherent in nature, is drive toward world domination or global conquest. With that belief, you can motivate your masses to go forward and forcefully invade and conquer other collectivities.


Now, the argument can be made that, as there are groups who use this method to motivate and project force towards forceful domination, the only force which can counter that is the same. Either you also decide God is on your side and invade them first, or be crushed.

Personally I believe there is an alternative- using the force of conviction to solidify borders and internal force- without trying to penetrate anyone else's ethics, beliefs, world view, or borders. Like... the Swiss, for example.
This is possible as an individual, or as a group.

In nature, might is right.

In a civilized society, morals and ethics exist.

Is either one universally an objective way to live?

Only if you believe someone is watching and making sure you play life by the rules.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

If you view morality as subjective, then it means you actually have no morality.

Let me demonstrate.

You can say, "I think murder is always wrong for me; see? I have a personal morality." However, when it comes to some cultures, murder is morally acceptable. And since you say that morality is subjective, you cannot judge others for whom murder is morally acceptable. At that point, your original statement becomes something more like, "I think murder is always wrong for me, but it may be morally acceptable to some."

The moment you admit to that second statement, murder has also become acceptable to you on a moral plane. You may not ever murder someone yourself, but you admit you are fine with the concept of others murdering people if they find it morally acceptable at which point you also find it morally acceptable. After all, who are you to judge?

So to say that morality is subjective is to simply say you have no real morals, only things you may not personally ever do.

originally posted by: Psychonautics
In nature, might is right.

In a civilized society, morals and ethics exist.

Is either one universally an objective way to live?

Only if you believe someone is watching and making sure you play life by the rules.

And THAT is a truer statement than you know on several levels.

a reply to: NateTheAnimator

I know there are many.

The thing is that until you find your personal moral code, you have none. You are simply going along to get along.

Your inner guiding moral principles are like your compass that guide you through life and they should be the things that are always right and wrong, no matter what you see other people proclaiming as right and wrong.

If it's wrong to murder, then it's wrong to murder ... even if that culture over there disagrees. If it's wrong to eat cheese, then it's wrong to eat cheese ... even it that person over there eats nothing but cheese.

It doesn't have to make you obnoxious, but it does guide your steps in life.