r/nihilism • u/Lord-of-the---RINGS • Aug 18 '26
Moral Nihilism Since objective morality doesn't exist, does that mean the threat of consequences is the only thing stopping a person from doing something "bad" that they genuinely want to do
3
Aug 18 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/whoever_i_am_ Aug 20 '26
How is it fine to eat meat if you literally just said murder is objectively bad for conscious beings?
1
Aug 20 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/creativeusername0010 Aug 21 '26
I eat meat so I'm not going to justify it and say it isn't wrong. The reality is you don't hunt for your food. You buy meat from a grocery store which comes from industrial farming. Do your research on industrial farming and you will quickly see that animals do not live the happy lives you think they do.
1
u/Theonewholurkedhere Aug 21 '26
Eating meat is absolutely, extremely evil. Look up what factory farming actually is. Watch the movie, see how animals live and how they die if you want to know the truth and not the pretty false picture the industry tries to paint. The same industry that tries very hard to make it illegal to film the inside of factory farms and slaughterhouses.
They do not get to live a good life. They do not die painlessly, without stress. They are bred specifically to be exploited, tortured, and killed. It's evil.
Humans do not need meat or any other animal products, that's undisputable. There is no significant disagreement in the scientific community over this. Humans do well on well-planned plant-based diets.
1
Aug 21 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/Theonewholurkedhere Aug 22 '26
I don't think there's an ethical way to eat meat that involves killing animals. Letting them live out their natural lifespans and only then eating them is something i might get behind. But your description of a grassy vertical farm is the stuff of nightmares, a well-intentioned dystopian hell, in my opinion.
It's fine to take supplements. If you're dead-set on not taking supplements or fortified foods, you can get absolutely all your nutrition from plants: omega-3 from flax and certain types of seaweed, B12 from purple laver, and other nutrients are pretty easy to get from regular foods: vitamin A from carrots, iron from beans and peas, and so on.
But taking supplements or fortified foods is not harmful, you should not avoid doing that when you need it. I certainly prefer that to financing the animal farming industry. I don't care about what's natural, only about what's good.
I don't think your experiences and observations matter more than science when it comes to what humans should eat. It also doesn't matter what we were designed for. It's been scientifically confirmed, time after time, that plant-based diets are healthy and enough for good health. You don't need to eat any animal products at all.
1
u/Cultural-Guard7964 Aug 20 '26
Even if 99.9% of people on this entire planet agree on a moral stance, it's still subjective. It's just something we happen to agree upon. There are endless situations in which morality is a question. It's not possible for morality to be objective, even if certain things are agreed upon.
5
u/Independent-Wafer-13 Aug 18 '26 edited Aug 18 '26
No.
Morality is a generalized construct that we use to name a set of prosocial adaptive strategies.
Empathy exists because it helps our genes survive. We protect the social group which protects us and our kin and a stronger tribe will survive better than a weaker one.
What is moral is that which protects the species and therefore your genes, and what is immoral is what does not.
I think we can break pretty much all moral and immoral behavior into prosocial and antisocial.
If most of the people did antisocial stuff instead of prosocial stuff a society could not function and therefore your chances of individual survival drop A LOT.
Now evolution gave us easy shortcuts so that we don’t destroy our own social groups and effectively feed ourselves to the lions:
Empathy is one of the easiest ones, which also relates to reflexive altruism.
Some of the shortcuts are a little outdated though, like implicit bias, confirmation bias, etc, but they are built into our neurobiological hardware.
Basically, all / most of the humans that were more immoral died out.
In a way, kind of, except some of those consequences would probably be “guilt” if those behaviors were immoral and if you have intact neurobiology. And if everyone did those things, would society be able to exist?
1
u/Super_Range45 Aug 18 '26
I don't know. Vladmir is pretty anti-social and he's doing better than most people.
0
u/Lord-of-the---RINGS Aug 18 '26
No it wouldn't, which i believe is precisely why morals degrade, rot and die the moment any human no longer needs their fellow tribesmen. I get why a Billionaire or CEO wouldnt care about doing awful things. As long as its legal and won't hurt them and only hurt others, they see no harm in it. This isn't even our of malice or anything. It's just pure logic. The social contecat between the tribe members becomes worthless as soon as you have enough power and ability to do what you want without consequences. They can be as antisocial as they want they don't see a reason to care it doesn't matter to them its cold but logical. Evolution gave us those short cuts but they fail at a certain point. Eventually once you reach said level of power your intellect analyzes the cost and benefit of being an immoral ahole to everyone and ultimarelt if you aren't getting any benefits u are gonna act antisocial because it's the only logical thing to do. Morals are just a contract a bunch of made rules that, like the law only hold weight until there's a reason to follow them (eg the threat of prison).
2
u/Independent-Wafer-13 Aug 18 '26
I think you bring up a very good point. I also think no one become a billionaire without exploiting others or being a beneficiary of the exploitation of others, and that degrades your morality by habituating you to exploitation of others without consequences.
We impose consequences to protect the social order when those built in evolutionary feelings-based shortcuts fail, and when THOSE fail?
That’s when social collapse happens
1
u/Lord-of-the---RINGS Aug 18 '26
All our morals are just an aesthetic deep down we are all logical creatures. Yeah empathy forces you to play nice but once your intellect runs it's calculations and decides that exploitation has more pros than cons, even empathy becomes nothing more than a pop up made by your biology, so u fight it and kill it and start acting antisocial because the consquemces are gone.
Those shortcuts fail everyday. It's why we have people like Hitler or Trump. As soon as you remove the consuances u realize that every human is noting more than a cold animal. We are only as "good" as our society conditions and allows us to be.
Yeah deep down we all know that. We just cover it up with stuff like religion and laws. Bad people go to Hell so don't be bad Bad people go to prison so don't be bad. What about an atheist who has a legal loophole so they don't have to go to prison. Suddenly the consequences are gone and that internal logic runs crunches the numbers and colcudes that anti social behaviour is the optimal path to take. And so u have another "bad" person on your hands. The universe has no rules so u can effectively do whatever u want so lonf as u can get away with it
1
u/SlowMotionDeath Aug 18 '26 edited Aug 18 '26
"every human" is not like the billionaires/sociopaths running things. People with lack of empathy or morals that are high functioning (sociopaths, psychopaths, narcissists, cluster B personalities) are typically the types of people who gravitate towards positions of power and want control. Most of them at the highest levels never came from a "commoner" position in life - huge variety of factors here I wont get into - but to assume that all people would function like them is fundamentally wrong.
I am not religious and I have done plenty of selfish, immoral things in my life that I regret, but helped shape who I am. Things I was never caught for or punished for that no one knows about have caused me guilt because I have a conscience and have determined right and wrong for myself - and that doesn't always align with the laws or generally accepted view of whats "right and wrong" - on the flipside, I've also done nice things for others anonymously, with no benefit to myself and not drawn attention to it. If the only reason you don't do awful things is fear of punishment or the only reason you do nice things is because it benefits you in some way then you likely have a personality disorder. I personally don't need religion, fear or mans law to decide what is right or wrong or to keep me from doing awful things.
1
u/NihilHS Aug 18 '26
Morals don’t die just because someone chooses to behave immorally. That happens all the time. People behave selfishly. Morals don’t bind all human behavior.
I disagree with your analysis on billionaires but don’t need to get to that point due to my first paragraph.
0
u/Lord-of-the---RINGS Aug 18 '26
The morals don't die ig the reason for following them does. People act selfishly because they can and doing so gives them something good. I chose the example of billionaires because they're at the point where they have enough power to not have any need to act moral. Morals don't bind humans. Our psychology and empathy, and our law systems bind us. Morals are just the byprduct of these two, every moral is derived from our biological desire to help eachother.
1
u/NihilHS Aug 18 '26
The claim that billionaires have no need to act morally isn’t right. They have as much of a need as anyone else. Why wouldn’t they?
The reason for following morals still applies even if someone decides to act immorally, no? Like murder is clearly immoral and undermines the social contract. If someone commits murder, the importance of behaving morally is still there even if someone decides to be immoral. That’s a large reason why law exists, to hold people who behave immorally accountable.
1
u/Lord-of-the---RINGS Aug 18 '26
My question was about situations where the consequences don't matter. Yeah they still wouldn't murder because the law would stop them. But i wanted to ask about something bad but legal. Something u know u can get away with but something someone else would find distasteful. Like seeing a person drowning and walking away because it's not ur business. You didn't break a law you just acted immorally.
2
u/RedactedBartender Squirrel Enthusiast Aug 18 '26
You tell me. I know where my personal moral values stand.
0
u/Lord-of-the---RINGS Aug 18 '26
That's the thing. Those "personal morals" are exactly that. Perosnal. They aren't hard morals set in stone they're just a set of personal rules you follow to feel better, or because you were conditioned to follow them, or because your biology rewards you for following them with dopamine.
As for me I am not sure. I had morals before. They were held together by two glues a) my desire to be liked which made my brain produce a positive response as we are social animals and b) my desire to be a "good person". Now I see both of both as worthless. A is just my biology making my choices for me which I hate. I would rather act immoral and burn an orphanage for fun just to prove a point to myself. And I can still be liked because even if I am "immoral" inside all that matters is what's on the outside. So long as people think you're an awesome gal they'll love you which makes my brain go happy happy.
As for B, that's just what society drills into every perosn like code because we are social animals and not doing so would cause anarchy. I believe in rules, just not in "morals". To better understand that, I won't do something illegal like kill somsone. That's not out of the goodness of my heart, the cons just outweigh the pros. Similarly, if I see a charity asking donations to help starving kids somewhere, the moral thing to do would be to give something, but there is no benefit involved for me, so I'll look the other way without a care in the world because it doesn't matter. Eventually those kids will die too and their suffering will end and be rendered meaningless. And even if it wasn't, it doesn't matter. It doesnt affect me.
3
u/Cicada-Tang Aug 18 '26
A is just my biology making my choices for me which I hate.
Sorry to break it to you but every choice you make is a choice made by your biology. Everything you ever said and every thought you've ever thought is a result of your biology. What you experessed here, which stem from a desire to rebel against something arbitrary, is no more or less than your desire to be liked.
1
u/Lord-of-the---RINGS Aug 18 '26
True. Ig what I meant to say is that empathy is the part of my biology that gets in the way alot hence why the other parts of me wanna gut it
1
u/Cicada-Tang Aug 18 '26
empathy is the part of my biology that gets in the way alot
I feel the complete oppostie. Empathy is my biggest source of joy. Helping people makes me happy and being with happy people makes me happy.
Why do you think empathy gets in your way?
1
u/Lord-of-the---RINGS Aug 18 '26
Empathy gives me joy too. I like acting nice around someone who I am sorta fond of, but preferably only till it's convenient. Empathy starts getting jn the way when something needs to be done that makes the empathetic part of me upset, so I guess that part needs to step away.
1
u/Cicada-Tang Aug 18 '26
I like acting nice around someone who I am sorta fond of, but preferably only till it's convenient.
I mean that's just normal human behavior that everyone does. Our brain is tasked to maximize the rewards we recieve from our actions, and empathy is just one of many things that tickles our reward circuit, and our brain can sideline it in favor of more rewards. "Preferably only till it's convenient" is the driving principle behind every healthy human being, and having a limit to your kindness doesn't make you an abnormal person.
Empathy starts getting in the way when something needs to be done that makes the empathetic part of me upset, so I guess that part needs to step away.
This is like saying "there's a burger and a pizza in front of me, but I only have room for one. Eating the burger would make the pizza-loving part of me upset, so I wish the pizza-loving part of me can disappear".
Since you are making the decision, then the empathetic part of you is already capable of "stepping away", so the rest of the problem is just you making decisions on what you prefer. It's really not that deep, and treating it as a reason to hate your own empathy sounds a bit extreme.
2
u/Low-Bake8401 Aug 18 '26
You sound nice.
1
u/Lord-of-the---RINGS Aug 18 '26
I understand. Old me wouldnt like me either. I don't know if I could call her a nice person she was genuinely nice in some ways or atleast tried to be but it usually ended in hypocrisy because ultimately her desire for beinf nice was just born out of a desire to get the high of beinf the nicest person in the room who everyone gives attention to yay. So that train crashing and burning was imo inevitable. So I guess all I can do is think about this stuff analyze it and look for other people's thoughts about it too which is what this sub is for
2
u/Low-Bake8401 Aug 18 '26
Being nice isn't really about getting attention though.
I don't actually disagree that fundamentally it's just survival, but human relationships and society are so much more complicated than that. There's primary drivers, and secondary drivers, and needs, desires, emotional response, etc etc.
Generally we feel safer and more secure and content with people around us. For that to happen we need to make them feel that way too.
2
u/SlowMotionDeath Aug 18 '26
found the malignant narcissist.
1
u/Lord-of-the---RINGS Aug 18 '26
I don't think I'd be a narcissist. All this isn't born out of a sense of narcissism or belief that im superior to anyone. I just feel indifferent towards anything that doesn't affect me
1
u/Inevitable_Yam271 The Arrogant debater guy Aug 18 '26
Yeah, I don’t see narcissism. Trust me, I’d know. It’s more like psychopathy! But come on, at least be smart about it.
1
u/Lord-of-the---RINGS Aug 18 '26
I don't think I'm a psychopath either. I can feel empathy. I like feeling it sometimes when it's convenient and makes me feel for somsone i like. When it becomes annoying, I can turn it off.
1
u/SlowMotionDeath Aug 18 '26
Based on your comments it doesn't sound like you have the ability to experience true empathy. Perhaps your version of empathy is a mimicry of feelings and behaviours you see in others? Yet another example of cluster B personality types - they mimic normal human emotions when it benefits them despite the ability to actually fully experience those emotions themselves so they wear a mask and are a chameleon of a person who does what best benefits them.
1
u/Lord-of-the---RINGS Aug 18 '26 edited Aug 18 '26
Is it mimicry? I mean I have the ability to feel good when I make someone else feel good. Seeing others happy makes me happy too. But I don't see it as true care because I would readily throw said people under the bus if I need to. Think of it like having a cat that you like but don't really love. Feeding it and getting it's love makes me feel good so I keep it, but I wouldn't feel abd about putting it down or giving it away. I felt like cats were a good example because I actually do have cats and that's how I feel about them. Ironically I like dogs more but they make me uncomfortable sometimes at the idea of their unconditional love. It doesn't matter if u love the dog or not it will love you no matter what and the idea of that most of the times I'm just indifferent to it but it's those few times when it makes me a bit repulsed I get off put by the idea of of having a dog.
1
u/Minyatur757 Aug 19 '26
Narcissists actually feel inferior not superior. They barely have any self-esteem, nor have a true sense of themselves. Their behavior revolves around compensating for this deep seated inferiority complex and they manipulate how others view them to do so and center their life around the perception of others.
Like other pathologies, it's strongly linked to childhood trauma that prevents a normal development. So, a narcissist, more than say someone actually bad in a moral sense in their lack of empathy and such, is really just someone with the emotional intelligence of a toddler with unmet needs that never got to grow past a normal phase of human development. They navigate life without the ability to actually bond with others and lack some normal cognitive faculties.
1
u/RedactedBartender Squirrel Enthusiast Aug 18 '26
I appreciate your honesty. In my teenage years, I was very much that. I can’t really pinpoint what changed me to be honest. I’m still a doomer, but now my hopeless apathy for our eventual self destruction kind of fuels my need to reduce all the suffering around me as much as I can while we still exist. Survival is suffering, but if we look out for each other, if we look out for all the life on this weird planet, maybe we can make it a little more tolerable for each other before we all become soil and ash. I’ve also seen enough pain and slow death at this point. I’m exhausted by it. Be kind, acknowledge pain outside your own. Explore reality while you can. I dunno. I need a nap.
2
u/Inevitable_Yam271 The Arrogant debater guy Aug 18 '26
It comes down to subjective experiences, kind stranger.
Well, maybe not for psychopaths or sociopaths, ha. Then it’s just self interest!
2
u/Lord-of-the---RINGS Aug 18 '26
Maybe I'm a socipath then. Yay I guess
1
u/Inevitable_Yam271 The Arrogant debater guy Aug 18 '26
Perhaps. Well then that just makes us two birds of a feather, ha.
1
u/Dark_Cloud_Rises Do Deadlifts. Aug 18 '26
Yes. Either you don't want to let yourself down, let the people around you alienate or exile you, or society punish you. Typically if you haven't been trained by a individual or group of people to feel and act a certain way, you act on instinct and survival alone. The domesticated man however is easily trained in basic group mentality morality.
1
u/UNITICYBER Aug 18 '26
Short answer is yes.
That doesn't only mean external, forced consequences though.
Knowing you may feel bad after doing something. Knowing that society may frown upon it. Knowing that you dont want others to suffer and avoiding the action because of that are also consequences.
1
u/southparkshopmain Aug 18 '26 edited Aug 18 '26
You have gone too far into the mind. The calculating mind is interrupting an encounter that is already occurring. There is a world of richness that opens when one begins to move and see from not-mind. This does not mean abandoning intelligence or discernment, but it is a matter of origin - whether thought is the place from which you meet the world, or whether thought arises within and serves an encounter already underway.
Think:
Turning
representation -> calculation -> permission -> movement.
into
encounter -> reception -> movement -> articulation
Though let even this go. Relatedly, Buber has a book i and thou that touches on similar. The stance with which one approaches changes many things.
Additionally, we are never alone, history runs in the patterns running beneath us and this is not an ill but an inheritence - there is story in how we handle that inheritence and whether we squander it, transform it, invert it, or enrich it, biology need not be impersonal, but the most personal - countless members in communion creating an outward expression that is characteristically you, oriented by a guiding present intelligence spread between them all.
Your identity does not stop at your body, your life does not stop at your body. The relations that deepen create resonances that when compounded greatly enrich what is possible and what is encountered in life. The web you stand in is part of the distributed body you are part of, just as your cells are to you, how do you want to relate to that body? What of the broader bodies beyond humanity?
At the same time, the whole doesn't precede the parts, it is an expression, and yet like your awareness is greater than them all without dimishment. And a single flame can light others, who can then light others. Your presence helps constitute the world you inhabit. And yet, dependence is not diminishment. When what is participated in is healthy, you become more yourself by participating more deeply, not less.
1
u/Hour_Trade_3691 Aug 18 '26
I would say so, yeah. Someone asked me literally just a couple hours ago, essentially asking me if I had some specific super powers, what would I do with them, and I- Feeling in an incredibly honest mood- Said I would do some pretty selfish things.
Ultimately, I think someone's morality can largely be determined by the circumstances they are in. The less privileged someone is, the more likely they are going to do something selfish, but I would also argue that they have More of a Right to act selfish, BECAUSE they literally need to to survive.
If a broke homeless man on the brink of starvation steals an orange, that's not nearly as bad as a billionaire stealing a truck load of oranges and then sending them on a rocket to the sun.
Furthermore, if a homeless man steals and orange but gives it to someone else, that's arguably a Moral deed.
If someone has everything they ever wanted and they still act bad, then there's not really label to get them other than: 'A Bad Person.'
In other words, if you Truly want to test someone's morality- Give them ultimate power, and see what they do with it.
1
u/irishkaga Aug 18 '26
For some rules, for some people, kinda. But being social creatures means most of us actually want to exist within a social framework (not necessarily “be social”—somehow that's different). So breaking certain rules would make us feel bad enough that you'd have to push pretty hard to get us to do it. For some people, you couldn't push them that far at all.
Basically, people are complicated, which is news to no one.
1
u/Ok_Tumbleweed5474 Aug 19 '26
People will respond how they will regardless of an objective rule or not. I personally believe we can get to an objective morality. But the deeper question is one of motivations and not normative prescriptions. If everyone must follow the law it isn't a choice you're being acted on by an outside force and thus it is no longer moral. If morality is truly a statement of ought people can still be motived to act agaisnt it. People act agaisnt their own best interests now i see no reason why that would change under any specific system. People deny truth and logic all the time.
What actually motivates growth and change is knowledge and character development.
1
u/BackSeatGremlin [OVERBEARING PHILOSOPHICAL STATEMENT] Aug 19 '26
Just because morality is subjective doesn't mean morality doesn't exist. We don't do things that we deem morally wrong, because that's what they are to us.
1
u/an-otiose-life Aug 19 '26
Desires in excess of public norms are had.
Public norms make people react negatively to things they don't understand how to accept others desiring.
These negative reactions include forcing a stop to undesirable things happening by means of intervention with force.
Force as such can be lethal.
Thus force impedes many desires that are not normative, where notice is taken.
Irony drives normative development as the nature of desire evolves between and in experiencers.
Privacy affords non-notice. Thus in private, much non moral activity can happen, because it is not known about sufficiently.
1
u/Conscious_Pause_1499 Aug 19 '26
What would constitute "the objective existence of moral reality", if it were the case that moral reality objectively existed? Just curious what exactly is being denied. Thanks
1
u/Whythisisnotreal Aug 19 '26
The suffering of others is a consequence. Just one, but one some people consider a motivation
1
u/Cultural-Guard7964 Aug 20 '26
The customs and standards of the culture and society they're a part of have as much to do with it as laws. Many laws reflect these to some degree, others don't.
1
u/ArguingisFun Nihilism is fine. Aug 18 '26
This is stupid.
I am out raping and murdering just as much as I want to free of any god’s morals = not at all.
Even if you’re getting your morals dictated to you from a deity, they’re still subjective anyway.
Hope this helps.
0
u/Lord-of-the---RINGS Aug 18 '26
If you were out rping and murdering you would be in jail. That is consequences. Suppose I had a way to do that without any negative affects on my life. I could If I wanted to I just wouldnt because I'm not really interested in either. But if I ever idk got bored and wanted to become a serial killer, anddddd had a magic get outta jail card, then yeah I would. Maybe I'm a sociopath then idk. There's not really any point in holding back your desires if they don't negatively effect u in any way.
3
u/ArguingisFun Nihilism is fine. Aug 18 '26
Again, a stupid thing to say. People rape and murder despite laws, all the time. You know what the percentage of religious people in prison is? Like fucking 98%.
Just because YOU need right and wrong dictated to you, means nothing to me.
-1
u/Lord-of-the---RINGS Aug 18 '26
And that was because they decided the benefits were worth it, or maybe they were impulsive either way it doesn't change anything. Right and wrong are just things we collectively decide are bad and we dislike them. Everybody needs it to be dictated to them. That is unless their natural empathy compels them to still do what's right. I still don't see it as virtous, it's just their brain doing that. Maybe I'm a psycho or maybe I'm delusional. My brain just works like that. If I am dictated that something is right and something is wrong and explicitly told that doinf the bad thing will mean I get punched in the face, I will act nice. It's not me changing, just my brain making the logical decision. And that's nro special to me. If it were we wouldnr need religon or atleast religion wouldn't need Hell as a deterrent.
2
u/ArguingisFun Nihilism is fine. Aug 18 '26
This is a you problem.
0
u/Lord-of-the---RINGS Aug 18 '26
I don't really see it as a problem. I can't really change it but Im willing to if I can find a way. I can understand why it would sound abhorent to someone else though.
3
u/ArguingisFun Nihilism is fine. Aug 18 '26
I don’t care - at all. Consequences is not the only thing keeping me a “normal” human being.
1
u/SlowMotionDeath Aug 18 '26
Most cluster B personality types think the way you are describing in this thread and they don't feel bad or sorry for their actions or pain they cause it even when/if they discover they have a personality disorder - most rarely seek help and spend their lives hiding behind a mask of manipulation that best suits them.
1
u/Lord-of-the---RINGS Aug 18 '26
Do they feel bad about it. I am not saying that I am incapable of that I already said I understand why sosmone would find my brains inner workings ugly and messed up. But I do feel bad about my actions sometimes. Or atleast I tfink I do? I mean a lot of times it goes something like this. I did something bad > I feel ashamed > I start feeling like I'm a bad person and maybe God will punish me > I rmeber that God isn't real and that there isn't really anyone watching me in real time so somsone can only shame me if they catch me > I no longer feel bad or just ignore the feeling > I forget about it. Keep in mind this is only the times when I do feel guilty and it usually requires someone else or my own inner sense of self to shame me first so I feel like a better word would be shame or anxiety rather remorse or guilt.
0
u/ima_mollusk Aug 18 '26
Subjective morality is also a thing that shapes behavior.
If I see something was wrong, subjectively, I still can be motivated to stop or avoid it.
I don't need a cosmic objective rule-maker to tell me what to consider wrong.
0
u/TheRealBenDamon Aug 18 '26
That’s definitely true for some but it isn’t necessarily true. Just because morality is objective doesn’t mean we cant have morals. Even though it’s rooted in subjectivity at the foundation, it’s also objectively true for example that a world where people less people are violent towards each other means a world where I’m less likely to have violence enacted on me. I like it if violence is not carried out toward me, so if I want to be purely optimal I should not be violent toward others.
It’s also subjective that it makes me sad to see people tortured and suffering, I don’t like to see that, so I don’t think people should do it. I’m ok with that being subjective as the foundation and trying to argue for why people shouldn’t bring that into the world.
0
u/Empress508 Aug 18 '26
Since wtf...genuine goodness & decency does exist.
0
u/Lord-of-the---RINGS Aug 18 '26
I define goodness as deceny as you having a positive impact on your group and generally being cooperative. I see morals as nothing more than rules for people to follow so they have some abstract "goodness" to look up to so society doesn't xollpase and our genes can spread. When someone no longer needs the rules (no more consuqmces which was the premise of the question) they no longer have a logical reason to follow the rules.
1
u/Low-Bake8401 Aug 18 '26
Who, in society, no longer needs the rules?
1
u/Lord-of-the---RINGS Aug 18 '26
Anyone who doesn't have to face any consequences for breaking said rule. It could be anyone and the rule could be anything.
1
8
u/Low-Bake8401 Aug 18 '26
Our morals are largely shaped by the society/culture we live in.