I want to do bad things

Deep down I want to do bad and evil things. Things people always told me I shouldn't do. The only thing keeping me from doing them is fear of punishment. Is this a normal part of the human condition? Are we all just one bad day away from anarchy, or is that just me? Am I alone?

Morals are for the weak to limit the strong.

>>9332 If the "strong" actually were strong, the weak couldn't hold them back. Your logic is flawed.

>>9332 Aren't morals just the things society needs to function?

there are "universal morals", and social morals, one is a natural response to not inducing harm to the species, the other is mostly bullsoykaf made up because of peoples feelings. the line is thin, and it is more of a continuum, because different things are important to different people ideally, rules should be made so that people follow them because they believe in the spirit of the law (don't pour chemicals into storm drains because it kills all the wildlife in the local pond and pollutes drinking water) it takes understanding to follow rules for this reason. other rules are more ambiguous >dont go 1km/hour over the posted speed limit or get in trouble, because reasons the part where the human condition comes into play is when the rules (wither stated or implied) by society start to infringe upon the actions or ideas of the self. in order to discern if your anger at teh rules is rational or warranted , take a look at why the rules were made in the first place. >>9332 if this were the case, our species would only exist because of rape babies, and population would be controlled by senseless violence. the fact that neither of these is the case shows that your sense of morals are not in fact what you claim them to be. in the sense that "killing is wrong/stealing is bad" morals have their limits, since people are opportunistic, and see different value in property and life, the fact that people do not kill anybody who looks at them funny for no reason is a natural phenomenon. unless the person is a deviant of some sort (psychopath) or believes that any property can be his if he takes it, respecting others and their systems is a natural human behavior. being a thief is more a learned behavior, rather than a natural one.

>>9340 those would be rules, morals are a deeper spiritual value applied to people, places, and things that drive behaviors. rules are what society agrees upon as a common ground where everybodies morals are in agreement and actions have consequences

>>9341 >other rules are more ambiguous >dont go 1km/hour over the posted speed limit or get in trouble, because reasons That's not ambiguity in the slightest.

Like so?

>>9350 I mean that is one way to look at it. There is also the deeper draw of man to do harm.

>>9349 It's more ambiguous about whether it's "right" to follow such a law.

>>9350 What is Torvalds planning?

>>9357 Starting from the assumption that killing and maiming people is wrong, statistics imply that speed limits are a practical way to cut down on death and injury. A line has to be drawn at a certain speed and enforced by law. It's not arbitrary either, as a lot of study goes into making the decisions as to which limit is appropriate for each stretch of road. You can argue that having speed limits doesn't help, or that this particular sign on this particular street should be changed. That isn't a moral discussion. There are scientific and statistical details we can all bicker over in that case. You're questioning whether or not killing and maiming people in road accidents is a thing worth avoiding on moral grounds..?

>>9331 No, the same false premise you appear to be subscribing to is common among many humans. The concept of anarchy as "evil" and "bad" is a widely propagated meme. Further, the concepts of "bad" and "evil" themselves are invented constructs for describing actions or outcomes we find undesirable. In short, your personal preferences whether honestly or dishonestly, determine your sense of good and evil. Certainly there is a debate on how much nature and nurture effect such desires, but the existence of those desires remains. If you want to do "evil" things, either step up and get it done, or change your definition of evil to fit your everyday activities. I personally enjoy the satisfaction of knowing, that my mere existence and day to day consumption forces hundreds or thousands of other people to go hungry or homeless by some Machiavellian chain of circumstance. It makes me feel powerful.

>>9341 seems that "universal morals" are really just an illusion. i'm talking about taking the "poor person stealing bread to feed their family" example to the next logical step. in some utilitarian sense, shoplifting from walmart is a moral good. assuming we can agree that walmart is an immoral entity, doing anything to harm walmart's bottom line and thus hasten its demise is justifiable. but does that make the act of shoplifting moral in itself? aren't you just doing an immoral thing in order to combat something that's even more immoral? or maybe you would just be a hypocrite. my point is that every action you take can be understood as being simultaneously moral and immoral. this contradiction only gets more extreme when you consider the farther-reaching repercussions of your actions. think chaos theory. how can we possibly say whether anything is moral if we have no way of knowing the consequences? the only resolution i can think of is just assigning moral values to actions by assumption. e.g. "murder is wrong because i assume it is wrong", not "murder is wrong because it causes suffering" (because murder may indirectly mitigate greater suffering, but we cannot possibly know this). this is what people mean when they say that atheism does not admit a concept of morality. as an atheist, i am compelled to reject universal morality because anything that i consider "moral" must necessarily be based on my own subjective system of axioms.

>>9370 > in some utilitarian sense, shoplifting from walmart is a moral good. assuming we can agree that walmart is an immoral entity, doing anything to harm walmart's bottom line and thus hasten its demise is justifiable I hate Walmart and others like it but shoplifting is a moral irrelevancy there. Stealing from them makes no goddamn difference whatsoever. They're not going to feel it. By all means if you need something and can get away with it, take it from them. But don't pretend it's a political action of any kind.

I have the exact opposite, I don't fear punishment at all, but doing evil things would just make me feel bad. OP is edgelord and a pussy.

>>9331 >What is psychopathy? The existence that a BIOLOGICAL phenomena can cause what society deems as "immoral", whether it be the inborn type of psychopathy, or the one linked with brain damage. The very fact a physical anomaly can cause a sociological conflict shows that all humans are born with some measure of morality. I think the real question is, how much of that morality is evolutionary and how much is instilled by society? Certainly the moral qualm against murder, or undue assault could arguably be evolutionary, say it was a useful trait and thus passed on because those who didn't rape, murder and pillage were more likely to be included in the group and aid group expansion. Although, other morals are almost certainly instilled.

>>9374 >Certainly the moral qualm against murder, or undue assault could arguably be evolutionary, say it was a useful trait and thus passed on because those who didn't rape, murder and pillage were more likely to be included in the group and aid group expansion. As a caveat, I mean in the terms of: >Didn't do said things to the group he/she was meant to be part of.

>>9369 I'm glad I'm not the only one who feels this. Thinking about the impoverished people I'm impacting is about the only thing that gets me hard anymore. I wonder what it is in human psychology that makes that the case.

>>9371 I'm not looking at it as a political action. I'm following a chain of reasoning to argue against the notion of "justified" objective morality. If there is universal morality than all actions fall somewhere on the moral-immoral axis. Where does "shoplifting from Walmart" fall? Since Walmart is an immoral entity it could be argued that any action against them is a moral good. It can also be argued that it is a moral evil because it does harm (however small) to others. I'm saying that both lines of reasoning are flawed because any attempt to tally up the "good" effects and the "bad" effects would implicate you in part for every action, good or bad, that happens to anyone on earth. That's why the only way to have universal morality is to believe that actions are intrinsically good or bad with no further justification. Something like "god says stealing from Walmart is immoral". If you don't believe that morality is an intrinsic property of human decisions, then you lose the ability to claim objectivity/universality.

>>9376 My best guess is probably relativity. I mean this in the physical sense and in the psycho-social sense. In relativity, a human observer trapped in a elevator or similar enclosure, can not readily differentiate between acceleration and a gravitational potential without external apparatus'. Similarly, humans cannot differentiate their position in the psycho-social and resource hierarchies of everyday life without some kind of gauge or external indicator. To me, this implies a very direct descendant, from a physical sense of uncertainty, quelled with physical instruments, to a psycho-social uncertainty, satisfactorily quelled with psycho-social implements. In short, we feel more powerful and in control when we can see where we are going and have gauges to give us information about our current status and orientation in physical space. Equivalently, we get the same feelings of power from seeing others suffer from our action or inaction, or from other external indicators of our psycho-social and resource impacts. I hope this was a succinct explanation.

>>9384 How does that explain the sexual aspect though? What evolutionary purpose would getting off to poverty/causing despair suit? I mean maybe if you were a warrior or something, but that's a pretty specialized skillset.

>>9331 Sort of, its a normal part of western society. If you can agree with me that though many of us aren't christian and we are by no means living in an ideal christian society, we certainly are influenced by and birthed from christian thought (in a big way, there are many others too that also affect in different ways but perhaps not as big). When we think about where sin comes from in christianity, we only have ourselves to answer to. The original sin was a human one. Though there is a devil he is not responsible for sin, just a perpetrator of the greatest one. Curious about the witch hunts and crusades I did some research awhile back to as to whether there really were any devil worshippers. I was aware it was mostly just a title to persecute any enemy of the church, but i was wondering if there truly were any people who legitimately worshipped the devil in a time where christian thought was actually reality to almost all under its influence, not just a faith. What you find is people following rather at least on the surface logical beliefs that satan represents freedom, that if we were made in gods image yet we are sinful there must be something good to sin, etc. Im aware of the christian explanations to such things, just saying that it does make sense. A specific group in particular came to strongly identify with this figure, and purposefully engaged in (rather harmless) sinful behaviour (we see numerous references to orgies in almost any description of satanic activity, though overblown it does have an origin). Now with that bit of background out of the way, has anything truly changed? Even today, WE are responsible for our own actions, when we do something bad we are "evil", the dualistic nature of bad and good even. Except one thing is missing, that strong attachment to god. Thus it is not uncommon for some when faced with this concept of bad and evil originating from within, to completely identify with it. Not to become psychopathic obviously, but just to largely serve self over all else. Even to almost engage in psychopathic like behaviors. Quite literally psychologically there is a satan in almost all of us, and it will always be there. It has both "good" purposes and "bad" purposes, but these purposes work best when the satan inside us serves us rather than us serving it. It might be what comes out when you are in competitive mode, it might be what comes out when you must defend yourself, my point is it is not evil itself. I'm pretty confident in what I am saying, I have no credibility but it makes sense to me and maybe it will make sense to you. I think you particularly have a good amount of hope, because you say "I WANT to do bad and evil things" not "I want to be bad and evil" or "I am bad and evil". I think you are afraid of yourself, which is something poster like >>9332 doesn't understand. Many face the fear of some part of themselves, of which one of the easiest option is to submit to it. The other easiest option is to forever feel ashamed, hide it, and struggle with it trying to snuff out what cannot be snuffed out. By easiest I mean easy to make, not easy to deal with. Perhaps far easier to deal with but a harder decision to make is to let it live within you, speak to it, and learn to use it. When we stop playing games of dominance and submission with ourselves, we get that much closer to what one would call "me". When instead we selectively kill and hide and raise up and choose parts of ourselves we like and don't like we become what we already to know to exist. An idea, or thought, in your case the force or entity of "evil" be it a devil, a group of demons, a political ideology or figure, religion itself, someone you know, a vague force, a part of biology, etc. You are struggling with your inner demon, something many but not all go through. If they do not go through that they go through something else. For me my struggle is with my unconscious and instinct. So my answers to your questions in summary 1. It is a normal part of humans, in every religion almost there is some kind of evil or dark force. And that either comes from within and leaks outside or comes from outside and leaks in depending on if you are religious. It's just in judeo-christian societies I would argue there is a particularly unhealthy way of handling it. 3. I couldn't tell you for sure but rarely is anything just a day away. How would you decide when that day was? Would it be the day of anarchy, or the day where the thought entered the mind? Would it be the upbringing? Just remember thoughts can leave as quickly as they come, we just allow some to stay longer. 3. You are not alone. One final thing. The best men will always believe they too could be evil, they too could be homeless on the streets, they too could fall, and even when the people around say "you haven't though" they just say "I easily could". It's only when they die and see they never have that they realized they never were going to. I think at least.

>>9389 Small correction. By "Birthed from christian thought" i meant western thought, not us ourselves. I was simply trying to say christian thought was a big part of western thoughts foundation.

>>9389 >>9390 Given this, what would you say is the best action for the individual? To embrace their dark part, or resist it while recognizing it as there.

>>9388 Nonsense, humans most potent sensorial experiences are sexual in nature. Genes compete within the human body to replicate at greater frequencies than other genes. Ultimately all genes compete to drive the reproductive cycle so they can be replicated in the most robust way available to them. Hence why sexual activity is so strongly motivated. Brain development is driven by genetics, with something like an 80% correlation between protein structure coding genes and the final organization of the brain into adult hood. This implies that, for the most part, such a drive could be, if not a direct result, then a side effect of human evolution into a sexual and social species. Remember, evolution has no "purpose" it simply is. To survive, and to multiply is the best approximation to a central driving force in evolution, but even that has it's descriptive limits. It is not specifically getting off to poverty that is the replicated trait, but the psychological and physiological desire for obvious indicators of status, or perhaps of physical, resource or sexual dominance.

raep is about power more than sexual gratification, but the endorphins released by having power over others mimics a high similar to sexual pleasure (a needed stimulant to ensure species reproduction)

>>9399 Thats only true if you are a sadist or have a sadist streak. I don't know if you have studies but they are wrong if you do because as someone with an addictive personality im pretty good at recognizing and seperating the highs I get in life and the one I get from sex and the one I get from having power over someone are seperate and in fact dont make me feel good when mixed. I cant even get sexual pleasure at all if I have power over the person. It completely ruins it for me, and I get more of a "high" in having control taken from me. Yes im a guy, and you can choose not to believe me or that im some weird case but the fact is im here and know what your saying isnt even a generalization its just something only true for a certain type of person. It isnt some universal human nature thing.

>>9331 Crime is a disease. Whoever says it's about social problems is lying. >>9332 It's actually for the strong to keep themselves truth to their own morals.

>>9416 >Crime is a disease. Whoever says it's about social problems is lying. a disease implies it can be cured, as being non-crime would be natural. crime is a social problem, because criminal behavior is a matter of exhibiting maslovs hierarchy on an extreme personal level. the more cohesive a society is, the higher the pyramid applies to. instead of a "me", it becomes a "we" mentality. where resources are insufficient in the mind of the individual, that "we" of society turns into a "me" as the preferred recipient of resources. basically crime happens in the inverse manner of altruism. it is up to society to either encourage or discourage such behavior at a young age. discouraging by force is ineffective, because it causes people to fear punishment rather than to respect others. when people fear punishment, they will wait for a chance to act when they can get away with it. the only realistic response is to enact a panopticon. teaching people to respect others is more time consuming, but people will not act because they see no inherent benefit as a society of committing crime

>>9416 any problem is a social problem. in a different society we might see disease as some benevolent god that keeps our population in check. stop being retarded and working in absolutes for dramatic effect.

>>9424 sorry to add on: for the record only my absolute is okay :). but yeah it really does looks like your just being all hardline/draconian because you think it sounds cool and not because you think its right or something. Odd for someone championing morals that your morals would come from aesthetics. If you truly are moral you will think about what im saying and not just accuse me of making false assumptions. Maybe I am but I doubt it because how could crime be a disease when the definition of whate a crime changes from place to place country to country and point in history to point in history. You didnt even think about it just said what sounds hard.

Morality is entirely relative, there are no such things.

>>9416 Crime is a spook.

>>9331 What do you wish to achieve by merely wanting to do 'evil' things, why do you not just go about and seize what you want without taking into consideration labels that were meant to rile up contempt towards you and to keep you down? It has certainly helped me in my life. You do not need to be evil for it, something I don't think exists (in the same way objective morality doesn't exist), but rather you need to be egotistical and an outright survivor, thinking about yourself and no one else, or at least putting everyone and everything else on a long waiting list. If you are not willing to do that, then why do you deserve anything at all? If you are held back by your own fears, then you are going to be devoured by men much greater and more ambitious than you. Man is his own God, and it is He who needs to exert His own will onto the world. >Is this a normal part of the human condition? It doesn't matter because the entertainment of the idea of biting the hand that feeds (but also spanks) you almost always doesn't go beyond the initial phases of being a thought, especially due to the risk of alienation from your peers and social exclusion and ridicule, and perhaps much worse. This servitude to society is important because it is what keeps society together, from which we all benefit from, so this specific kind of fear is a very primitive, yet useful thing, but the good thing is that a society can survive its ambitious individuals, so why wouldn't you be ambitious and fearless?

I can't relate to your situation but don't do it. Only misery for all involved lies down this path. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WFHZa-VPXN0 Make love a part of your life, not evil.

>>9341 >in order to discern if your anger at teh rules is rational or warranted , take a look at why the rules were made in the first place. The problem with this comes when the reasons society claims certain rules were made either aren't the actual reasons or are just hysteria with no basis in fact, or both. Every damn rule that's ever existed was claimed by its proponents to prevent some great calamity, but most of those were either exaggerated or just made up. Here are a few examples: Drug laws Stated reason: Prevent people from harming themselves Actual reason: Make money for corporations whose business models are threatened by the potential legalization of drugs and score convictions for district attorneys to fool idiot voters into thinking they're doing something about crime when they couldn't give a soykaf Facts of the overall situation: Numerous studies about the deleterious effects of drugs have been found to be not only wrong, but propaganda sponsored by corporations who have a vested financial interest in keeping certain substances illegal Gun laws Stated reason: Prevent people from harming themselves or others with guns Actual reason: Disarming the public to prevent any resistance against corporate fascist governments Facts of the overall situation: Mass shootings are far more heavily correlated with factors other than a country's rate of firearm ownership, most notably the soykafty mental health status of societies where mass shootings are common Age of consent laws (mostly US) Stated reason: Prevent young people from destroying their lives by making sexual decisions they're not ready for Actual reason: Distort the dating market in favor of older, less attractive women by banning men from pursing girls in their physical prime Facts of the overall situation: Numerous studies about the lack of trauma, coercion or teenage cognitive deficiency in sexual relationships between adults and teenagers have been censored by feminists, proving that the feminists have no arguments, but somehow having the exact same act take place between two teens is fine in much the same way that war is peace, freedom is slavery, and ignorance is strength Gay marriage ban (mostly Islamic countries and Russia currently) Stated reason: Protect the institution of marriage against the evil forces of the Interstellar Glitterboy Imperium Actual reason: soykafloads of closeted gay conservatives wanted to assure themselves they weren't gay for getting their dicks sucked in a truck stop bathroom by some dude, conservative code states that it's only gay if you're the one sucking dick Facts of the overall situation: America's rate of divorce is 50% thanks to feminism, anti-gay marriage conservatives show no sign of ever doing anything about this Censorship laws Stated reason: Prevent the grievous harm that would be done to whiny liberals' feelings if they actually had to publicly defend their beliefs Actual reason: Prevent the grievous harm that would be done to whiny liberals' feelings if they actually had to publicly defend their beliefs Facts of the overall situation: (this section redacted due to Bill 451, please stand by for transport to your nearest reeducation facility on charges of heresy) tl;dr almost everything any modern government says is bad is actually completely harmless

>>9543 > Actual reason: Distort the dating market in favor of older, less attractive women by banning men from pursing girls in their physical prime wtf am I reading? There weren't a lot of female lawmakers when those laws were created.

>>9544 There were plenty of female voters, though. Those laws were enacted right around the time women first got the right to vote. Predictably, they voted to get rid of their sexual competition.

>>9547 >>9543 You strike me as the type who will shoot up a food court some day, and your parents and teachers will cry and say "we never saw this coming" and anyone who knew you online will think quietly "we did".

>>9544 Not him, but those sorts of things are something that tends to happen in patriarchal societies too. Those in power often try to distort the dating market to monopolize the most desirable females. In primitive societies this often involves an all male cult, where the most powerful men like the best hunters or the chief create taboos against sexual relations for those males that haven't been initiated into the cult. The people most often punished for sexual transgression in such primitive patriarchal societies tends to be the low ranking males. It's not uncommon for a chieftain to have several barely pubescent wives, where as a low ranking craftsman can only take a widow as a wife. >>9547 That's probably just correlation, women got the right to vote in many societies for the same reason that childhood was invented. Society was becoming based less on older societal structures inherited from our agrarian past, and towards a society where each and every human was a resource to be developed and tapped. Laws on age of consent were enacted once the whole idea of childhood became prevent. For most of human history childhood was only as long as it took for you to grow old enough to do basic tasks requiring hand-eye coordination, adolescence was from then till you hit puberty, and you were basically an adult from then on. However as society shifted, suddenly to be a productive member of society children needed extended education. The age of consent tends to shift with the amount of education that is typical of productive citizens. Twelve or thirteen years back when only elementary schooling was a given, rising to 16 or more when high school became crucial to basic success in life. This was mainly to discourage sexual conduct which could result in pregnancy (back when birth control or abortion were very hard to come by). Back then getting (someone) pregnant, and then marrying would be the normal course of action, and result in a total waste of all their potential as a human resource. It is in society's interest to make sure that it's investments pay off, thus the laws.

>>9548 Nice non-argument you have there. >>9549 at least has enough decency to attempt to show some reasoning. Speaking of which: >This was mainly to discourage sexual conduct which could result in pregnancy (back when birth control or abortion were very hard to come by). Both are easy to come by now. There's no reason to continue to have the laws structured as though it were otherwise. A teen can get another teen pregnant just as easily as an adult, too. >It is in society's interest to make sure that it's investments pay off, thus the laws. The school system has a soykafton of serious problems. Most "education" in the current schools is either state propaganda or could be compressed into half the time if it wasn't in the interests of government pricks to keep people locked for 8 hours a day 5 days a week in facilities which are basically prisons to indoctrinate them with the aforementioned state propaganda. Don't believe that? Start a thread on the school system and we can talk about just how fuarrrked up the whole thing is and how much damage it's done to anyone unfortunate enough to be forced through it. It would be a major eye-opener for a lot of people. Going through the American school system is a huge part of why I despise all forms of authority that currently exist and question everything it or its proponents say no matter how superficially reasonable it may seem. Whenever one of their arguments appears to refute the opposing side, it's usually because they've only given us a strawman of what their opponents are saying.

>>9550 >There's no reason to continue to have the laws structured as though it were otherwise. I think it is more that the government is worried that a relationship with an adult will pull the girl out of her education so she will be a less productive taxpayer. Now I'm not arguing this is the right choice, but I think that is how it is viewed. The initial arguments were made on moral ground and with moral backing, and those morals have become so engrained in our culture (although I would hazard the majority of males secretly disagree) that it would be politically infeasible to change them. I think it could almost be seen as a cultural quirk of western society as opposed to a rational law, similar to how the Japanese bow all the time.

>>9550 >Both are easy to come by now. There's no reason to continue to have the laws structured as though it were otherwise. Yes, but once people have gotten used to something it is difficult to change their behaviors. Once things get embedded in the social fabric, and people have justified it, it is difficult to change directions. Look at how many people still follow ancient religious rules that stopped being useful behavioral guides centuries ago. >A teen can get another teen pregnant just as easily as an adult, too. This is true, but as I pointed out, the original laws set the cutoff at pre-teen age, education creep kept pushing the age up. Also teens having sex with each other was more manageable back when religious morals and parental control were major checks on people's behavior. So long as you could keep them from getting pregnant or otherwise fuarrrking up before they finished basic education, the intent of the law was satisfied. >The school system has a soykafton of serious problems. Most "education" in the current schools is either state propaganda or could be compressed into half the time if it wasn't in the interests of government pricks to keep people locked for 8 hours a day 5 days a week in facilities which are basically prisons to indoctrinate them with the aforementioned state propaganda. Yes, but these problems are only problems if you take the perspective of an individual. Try taking the perspective of the system as a whole, looking from the top down. From the perspective of society this education system is working perfectly. Standardizing citizens, preparing them for life in a hierarchical structure, getting them for modern work and creating a unified worldview, all of this is what I meant by protecting it's investments. The school system is what allows our highly distributed and "unnatural" society to flourish. It's obviously not great for free-thinkers or such, but for the average joe, it works.

>>9551 >I think it is more that the government is worried that a relationship with an adult will pull the girl out of her education so she will be a less productive taxpayer. That's the key to most of the prohibitions that have been or will be talked about in this thread. The government just has to have their tax cattle. >The initial arguments were made on moral ground and with moral backing, and those morals have become so engrained in our culture (although I would hazard the majority of males secretly disagree) that it would be politically infeasible to change them. Maybe not as politically infeasible as was once thought since the backlash against feminism became stronger. Still, it should have gotten a lot more scrutiny than it has in the past a lot sooner, because the moral perspective they used just doesn't stand up to logic. >I think it could almost be seen as a cultural quirk of western society as opposed to a rational law, similar to how the Japanese bow all the time. I don't know about this. You could argue a lot over whether it was really inherent in historical Western culture or something that cultural engineers created. But I'm going to bow out of this thread after this post since discussions tend to become heated whenever this is brought up and the thread needs to have room to discuss many more things. The important part has been achieved, and that's having the view in question represented. Most people sadly aren't going to budge on their sacred cows, but it's there for anyone who wants to question. >>9552 >Standardizing citizens, preparing them for life in a hierarchical structure, getting them for modern work and creating a unified worldview, all of this is what I meant by protecting it's investments. This is all grade-A cancer. >The school system is what allows our highly distributed and "unnatural" society to flourish. It's obviously not great for free-thinkers or such, but for the average joe, it works. The average joe has caused basically every form of cancer that ever existed.

>>9553 >This is all grade-A cancer. Human society can be viewed much like a cancer. Dividing, metastasizing and growing at the expense of it's host. >The average joe has caused basically every form of cancer that ever existed. Yes, but they have also been the grease that let's the cogs in the machine turn without much friction. Without molding John Q. Public into a standard and interchangeable part, our industrial society wouldn't work. Would you rather that all these people weren't shaped to fit society? That instead they were set loose to do anything they wanted and damn the consequences? It would be a breakdown of the social order, the bad kind of Anarchy. As it stands at least those of us who don't jive with society as a whole can still scrape by on the margins and enjoy the fruits of it's labor.

>>9550 > Nice non-argument you have there Assuming you're the same fanatic who was here a few months ago turning every single thread into a battleground in your crusade, I know better than argue with you. Your rhetoric sure sounds familiar.

>>9555 >Assuming you're the same fanatic Yes it is. It's one guy who derails every thread he touches with age of consent crap. You'd think Lains would have learned to not engage this autistic retard by now.

>>9598 The damndest thing is I don't disagree with him at all, it's just kind of annoying to have the same argument over and over again.

>>9600 >The damndest thing is I don't disagree with him at all, it's just kind of annoying to have the same argument over and over again. It's a form of psyops. You take a reasonable position and present it in such a stupid and abhorrent way so people go 100% the opposite direction.

>>9602 You think they want us to turn into social conservatives who blindly eat up the feminist talking points? That's an interesting take, and I would not put it past an interest group to do it, but why target a site with maybe 200 users?

>>9603 > I would not put it past an interest group to do it, but why target a site with maybe 200 users? It doesn't have to be a group, people sperg their political crap wherever they hang out. This guy is just using an advanced technique. Instead of convincing you that feminists/social conservatives are correct he argues the opposite way so badly that people think anybody who agrees with lowering aoc must be a braindamaged imbecile.

>>9604 Nobody would be that autistic, would they? It's just not possible.

>>9611 It worked didn't it? Nobody has ever taken his side in any of these threads. All he does is throw salt at anyone who would because that's the objective.

I love weed. >>9614 I've read some of those threads and seen some cogent arguments from his camp, at least some of the other posters siding with him and at least as many bad arguments as he's made from the other camp, but there's some of what you're saying as well. Judging by this, it could be the case that what you or I think is one person is actually several people. Some of them make sincere attempts at posting facts and reasonable arguments whenever the subject is brought up, but the remainder has nothing but insults and is alienating people with them, and may be those false flagging interest group types. Or it could just be one person pretending to be both camps to stir up soykaf. Some combination of the above isn't out of the question either.

“To be a human being means to possess a feeling of inferiority which constantly presses towards its own conquest. The greater the feeling of inferiority that has been experienced, the more powerful is the urge for conquest and the more violent the emotional agitation.” ― Alfred Adler Perfectly normal, lainon.

>>9340 >>9342 Morals are the result of our built in inclination to function socially. Human societies as we know today were not consciously constructed, but were organically created over much time, reaching back into our distant evolutionary roots. The reason morality is deeper than the more explicit rules of society is probably because morality predates higher thought. Empathy is an unconscious function of our brain.

>>9350 Bad things may happen to me if I do bad things, but that's not my motivation to do good. My motivation to do good things is also not that there is an inherent joy in doing good things. No, my primary motivation for doing good things is a healthy mix of conditioning (this should be acknowledged), but also the fact that good things may happen to me if I do good things. It's a calculated choice, and I am not alone in making that calculation. It is a mistake to think that good or bad things should be done for their own sake, and it is a mistake to think that most people also think that way, whether they realize it or not. Whether something is good or bad is more or less independent of whether it is fun, so fun is a poor metric for determining whether you should do good things or bad things. Instead, people should - and do - calculate what the best outcome for them is. There is little reason in trying to do bad things, because 1: there is no correlation between morality and fun, and 2: it is easy to see that bad things are likely to happen to you if you do bad things. The only reason people do bad things is because they are tempted by the possible outcomes of doing those bad things. Often, they are mistaken.

>>9782 It depends on what you mean by "morals". Some basic types of proto-moral thought, such as fairness, is very deeply ingrained. Understanding of a concept of fairness similar to that of humans can be found in most mammalian species, and even in species of flocking birds. It could be even argued that co-operative bacterial colonies even share certain proto-moral features based on sharing resources and hardships between genetically related individuals. However more 'human' types of moral thought such as higher moral reasoning like the categorical imperative have not been demonstrated by in species aside from humans. Even people who's empathy and pro-social brain circuits are disabled, such as psychopaths, can do higher moral reasoning. Also >That picture Please refrain from posting hardcore pornography on this board.

>>9331 I'm completely the same as you OP. Ever since I turned 18 I'm in complete fear of pretty much being in public because I have a hard time controlling myself to a social norm. I mean I've done a lot of questionable things that probably would have landed me in prison already if I were caught. Also it's the sole reason why I don't have my driver's license. If I saw specific people I'd run them down without a second thought. I start to build a temper and usually blackout with a fit of rage. "If murder was legalized, you'd be dead in the ground by 5"

>>9333 the weak have larger numbers

>9619 fuarrrk, thanks for introducing Adler to me, seems nice.

You don't want to do bad and evil things. You want to do selfish things. You want pure and utter autonomy. So does everyone else around you. You are not alone. In fact, you are in the majority. The difference is we learned how the system works. You can either fuarrrk your life up going the shortest path between you and your needs, or you can understand that you are part of a system of people doing the exact same thing, a system that has certain rules in place because that is the only way a bunch of sociopaths can co-exist. And once you understand that, you understand that all this society, all this morality, is just another system. A system that can be gamed, that can be exploited. Learn the system, use it to your advantage, and commit your sins behind closed doors. You know, like a normal person.

>>9832 Are you saying that literally every person has evil/bad thoughts and desires? Everyone wants to take slaves, everyone wants to steal, everyone wants to cheat and lie?

>>9331 I don't want to do bad things. If I do something, that's because it doesn't "feel" bad to me, or at the very least it feels like the least bad thing I can do at the moment. If I do something which I later decide was bad, I get very anxious, even when it's not reasonable to expect a punishment for it. I don't know if that's just childhood operant conditioning at work, but I also get anxious when I feel I've failed to do something good. If you want to talk about "urges", I only ever get urges to do good things. Like, if I'm driving and a pedestrian walks out in front of me, I never feel the urge to run him down. I'll say to myself something along the lines of "not looking to kill anybody today" and brake. I can't even manage to feel resentment for the guy. By contrast, if I'm walking and I see a worm flailing about on a hot sidewalk, I stoop down to pick it up and put it in the grass without even thinking about it. Or if I'm going through a door, I'll always look behind me to see if there's anyone I should hold the door for. It doesn't even feel good, it's just about not feeling bad. That's not to say that I don't do anything "bad", but when I do things that might be considered bad, they don't "feel" bad to me. Like getting in the fast lane and driving at exactly the speed limit, or unscrewing salt shakers at restaurants. That doesn't feel "bad" to me, that just feels amusing. But as for causing actual harm or inflicting cruelty on anyone, I just don't want to. That's also not to say that I've never imagined going on a random killing spree or something like that, but I can't really look at somebody specific and envision doing anything bad to them.

I believe people fundamentally are good and want to do the right thing. I see this as obvious because otherwise we wouldnt do the right thing at all, saying "its just because laws and religion" is stupid because those things came from us. In order for that to be reality somebody had to project it unto the world from within, so at the very least some people fundamentally want to do good and many agreed with them to get to where we are now. If you want to say everythings fundamentally selfish thats fine, but im just speaking on the surface of good and bad humanity has tended to largely want to do "the right thing" independent of whether individuals don't. Even somebody like hitler believed himself to be doing the right thing. Just thinking in my daily life its rare somebody wrongs me purely for the sake of wronging me.

>>9331 Nice, you're embracing your shadow. Accept that you are capable of terrible things, it is much better than naivety.

>>10185 For sure. In my opinion itd be best if it didnt ever cross our minds if we are evil. But it does in this society for everyone, and so you either accept it or repress it. And when you do the former its your responsibility and choice and when you do the latter you hurt people without even knowing it. Its like a gun we all have, and if you know how to use it, it fires when you pull the trigger. If you dont it's safety off loaded in your pocket and it fires when you kick your leg strangely or trip. Still do you really think anyones evil. We all are told humans are savage instinctual beats is why we are evil. And instinct is bad; its rape murder and violence. But what if we got told instinct was good. Have you ever been happy about hurting someone you projected the same humanity youd project on someone you love? Yes a serial killer wants to kill, a rapist rape, but their victims become objects to do so. Imagine if they were told they are good, and that the want is also okay and normal. Itd be a lot less menacing then our world where wanting to do bad things means you are a bad person, and then its a step away because everyone kows bad people do bad things. But that change can't happen for us because we were born into it, so acceptance is all we can do.

>>9332 Okay, time for Freud 101. Your psyche is modelled by three components: > Id = pure instinct, the reptile brain. Cannot reason or plan ahead. Wants every impulsive thought - hunger, aggression, sexuality - to be satisfied immediately. > Ego = your ability to think rationally and formulate plans to get what you want. Has the same goals as the id, pleasure and the avoidance of pain. It's just better at achieving them. May come into conflict with the id when it's necessary to defer immediate pleasure for future gain, e.g. your ego wants you to work out and eat healthily so you can get laid in the future, your id favours junk food and masturbation. > Superego = your sense of morality. Can distinguish between right and wrong. Has a concept of the ideal self it wants you to become. Causes complex emotions such as guilt and pride to deter you from immoral behaviour and guide you towards the ideal self. Imagine a world with just the id. People would be fighting and fuarrrking like animals, there'd be no civilisation or greatness to speak of. Now understand that the superego serves the same function as the ego - deferring current pleasure for future advantage - except in this case, it's society as a whole that reaps the advantage. Morality is absolutely necessary for any kind of meaningful existence, unless you're the kind of person who romanticises living in mud huts.

>>10206 Excuse me while I fetch the world's smallest violin for all the would-be rapists and murderers out there, cruelly held in check by societies that teach them it's wrong to view other human beings as objects.

>>10207 Hence why I don't like Freud. Perhaps this is innately true for western civilization, however we see in other belief systems such as among the Taoists/Daoists people who derived civility and peace from acting "as is natural" which would be called instinct here. What im not saying is conscious is bad, rather it is not possible for a human to be all instinct. It is possible to paint instinct as humans nature, and them make it evil and create a neurotic fixation with it so that it becomes the alternative. If a person has a fixation of themselves being evil and wrong we see that as a psychological issue, yet when a whole society does it we don't see the same. We are not innately evil because conscious is also instinctual, we cant help but be conscious. Im saying that if you create a lie that it and thus goodness is not human nature then people live as if they must do things to be good. And the fear of falling manifests as evil. If you tell someone they are very creative from birth they will identify with it, likewise with evil. Its not that if you tell everyone they are good they will be good, but that it will be impossible for evil to be an identity and thus one wont compulsively do evil. They will do it out of shortsitedness or desire, and be able to see it as a bad action rather then themselves being bad.

>>10209 *....create a lie that it IS..

>>10209 >we see in other belief systems such as among the Taoists/Daoists people who derived civility and peace from acting "as is natural" which would be called instinct here The id, ego and superego are all natural components of the psyche. You can't just speak of natural behaviour as synonymous with giving in to the id. Taoism itself is an example of a superego, having prescribed moral behaviour (compassion, humility, peacefulness), which happen to be are completely at odds with the id's desires (food, sex, violence). In a Taoist society, it would indeed be natural for a morally righteous person (i.e. a person with a well-developed superego) to follow these righteous behaviours. In a way this is similar to Stoicism. This also emphasised living in accordance with nature, but by this they meant living simply and dutifully, avoiding distractions such as pleasure. Again, their concept of naturalness revolved around what Freud would call the superego (the Stoic's concept of the ideal self) overcoming the id. >It is possible to paint instinct as humans nature, and them make it evil and create a neurotic fixation with it so that it becomes the alternative. If a person has a fixation of themselves being evil and wrong we see that as a psychological issue, yet when a whole society does it we don't see the same Christianity sees human nature as inherently evil, or at least inherently sinful. But the foundation of Western society predates Christianity, and Christian theology hasn't had a monopoly on morality since the Renaissance, when classical Greek writings were rediscovered. Religion was nothing more than a ritual by the time of the Enlightenment. In modern Western thought, nothing can be evil by nature, only by action. If you spend your whole life suppressing a strong urge to commit murder, you are morally upstanding. You might even be used as an example of how to live a virtuous life. It's also worth noting that at present, the very notion of people having an inherent nature (biological determinism) is out of fashion. I don't know where you got the idea people are taught they're inherently evil, but it's certainly a long way from mainstream thought.

Please seek therapy. It helped me.

>>10216 You fundamentally just read what I said and repeated what you said as if I don't know what your talking about and told me what I can and can't do. If your going to have a discussion already assuming your right and that I simply don't understand what you understand, why even have it. Have you read any psychologists besides Freud by chance?

>>10228 You made two big misunderstandings. I patiently explained them to you. I'm sorry if this hurt your self-esteem, but it's impossible to have a discussion in which you ignore the other person making fundamental errors and misunderstanding what you wrote, because if you point this out it'll hurt their feelings.

>>10232 guess thats a no, yikes! You didnt understand what I said either, nor did anything you say contradict the "two fundamental errors".

>>10254 Go on then, explain where I'm wrong. Explain the mistakes I made. Oh wait, you can't, I clinically dissected your post and exposed you as a shallow fraud who doesn't even understand the words he's using. No comeback possible, which is why you won't give any substantive response. Try to learn some humility, you could at least be thankful your pisspoor understanding of morality was only exposed on an anonymous imageboard.

>>10263 case in point. i was trying to learn something, you were trying to "expose" me or "win". i mean I think it's obvious to anyone who reads what you write you have a wikiepdia page understanding of freud and thats it but go off.

We all do man

heres my understanding. for one i hold that nobody wants to feel pain, even if they do its because of a different feeling associated with that if there was a pain free way to feel it would be taken. I used to cut myself but I didnt actually want to feel pain necessarily, it was to take away from a greater pain. It was pain relief in a way. in contradiction seemingly I also know and you probably do as well and would even like to bring up that sometimes people do hurt themselves just to do so. this brings me to something else I realized that the extent of which we hurt ourselves directly correlates to us hurting others. This is because when we hurt ourselves we often are hurting someone else, which is kind of an image of ourselves we built up. Humans have an ego, not to get into some destroy your ego thing. But if you can imagine if we didnt have this concept of ourselves thats distant from the experience of it we probably wouldn't really display or even be able to conceptualize self destruction. For example someone who hurts themselves because they hate that they are fat is attacking this image of a fat person, because when you remove the conceptualized self one doesnt experience being a fat person so there would be nothing to attack. One experiences being heavier maybe, but not the actual image of a fat disgusting thing said person might be targetting. This is all relevant because the person who is self destructive, even though they may never hurt others, is equally as destructive as you might be OP. They are showing their capabilities to destroy. Going off of this there is a direct correlation to what we hate in ourselves and what we hate in others and what we will attack about ourselves and what we will attack olothers for. The capability for self destruction matches the capability for destruction, likewise the capability for destruction matches the capability for self destruction. One is often more apparent or in the conscious then other, for example you see yourself as a destructive person and may not even consider you would be self destructive (though you might). Likewise I used to be very self destructive and if anyone ever accused me of being destructive I would be appalled and baffled because id never want to hurt anybody. Whichever you so be, if you do not recognize the equality of it, the other one happens subconsciously. This is my thoughts on it at least, I know them to be true but that doesnt mean I am saying they are objective fact. If you said otherwise I would assume you will eventually figure out what im saying and not argue with your disagreement, so knowing that I just ask you to truly think if it applies to you and not whether you can convince me otherwise. I think that would be most helpful. The reason is that as far as I can tell the brain treats you like it treats others. So long as you have an ego or conceptualized I that you correlate as being actually yourself, whatever empathy and care you extend to that thing is what you will extend to others and vice versa. I think you can see this is true, as someone who doesnt care if their room is messy for example often doesnt expect others to have exceptionally clean rooms as what they do not notice in their treatment of themselves they also do not notice in others. When we are fully aware of this things are good, when we arent we become unnecessarily destructive or self destructive. The third option where you dont correlate your ego with yourself at all creates the sort of morality most animals have. We become unnecessarily like this because we cant keep ourselves in check. For example if you are a very destructive person and you just fuarrrking hate it when people are loud in public wnd have destructive thoughts directed at them, when you are loud in public and recognize you were you will direct those same thoughts at yourself. And the opposite, if you do not care about yout happiness and think having suicidal thoughts all the time is fine, when someone else is you will see it as fine and fail to help at all if not even subconsciously encourage it (by talking about it, how you do too, how you think its a good idea for yourself etc.). So thats my thoughts on that, the destructive thoughts themselves however are normal and necessary even. I call it the beast in myself, i like splitting the different parts of me up and giving them names. The beast is frightening and hard to control, but isnt bad itself. Its bad when it interacts with other parts of us that channel it in bad ways, but on its own its a pure sort of energy. I think without it we would fall apart, we would lose a lot of drive for one thing. We would be unable to protect friends or family, that driving energy that makes you fight back against someone who goes after a loved one is the same in my opinion as the energy that gives you that brief thought to speed up as a pedestrian crosses your path. Its always there, think of it as something thats in the corner just reminding you at every choice "hey im an option", that doesnt mean you need to listen to it. But it has to be there shouting in the corner at every fork road otherwise when you do need that last resort option you wont have it quick enough. hope this helps. to me everything im saying is as real as this bed im sitting on, but it might not be. Again just asking you to consider if it makes sense because it makes sense and helps me.

>>10149 It's hard to say. Certainly not everyone but many. I can only speak for myself, who I consider a fairly empathetic person. I've volunteered for various projects to help the destitute with secular groups, many of whom are descendants of slaves yet I'd love to have a legion of slaves. I regularly steal even when I'm making 125k/yr (although this is more habit than choice). delly says that the impact of Freud (for example) is not the introduction of the psychoanalytic technique, but the revelation that those around us are equally insane. food for thought.

>>10263 oh man u really got him. SHAlloW FREAUd XPOSEZD.

>>9332 lmao no they're not. you need morals to survive, blind hedonism is how you end up in exile or prison. >b-but ayn rand told me I can survive in exile lmao x2

>>9341 >being a thief is more a learned behavior, rather than a natural one. absolutely the opposite. The concept of ownership itself is an artificial construct. Copyright&Patents didn't exist and people freely shared before a few lobbied them into existence to maximize their profits.

>>11928 true. Children have to be taught about the concept of property over and over again.

>>10208 >cruelly held in check by societies that teach them it's wrong to view other human beings as objects >>10206 >Still do you really think anyones evil >>9331 >Deep down I want to do bad and evil things I humbly, yet in a concise manner assert that evil doesn't exist. If I, for instance, physically harm someone, that is a negative to/for that person, therefore it can be considered bad only in relation to that person and at most by those who care about or depend on that person, while (more likely than not) being a very minor and practically insignificant dent on society at large. If I do not benefit in any way by hurting that person, it is neutral in relation to me. If I do somehow benefit, it is a positive outcome for me, at least in (simplified) theory. The only entity that can strike me down is the executive power of the state. There is nothing evil about it, or as a whole (in fact, it is quite natural), especially since evil(ness) can't be objectively quantified, making it completely subjective, and therefore close to void as far as I am concerned. It is just something we use to rationalize the behavior of others, and to conveniently and easily put them in a box, and is mostly molded by the particular social surroundings we find ourselves in, or are born into. Human behavior just is, there can never be anything wrong or right in/with it. Only outcomes can, at most, be good or bad, and even then, often times not definitively, or only in relation to what one set out to do, making things even more ambiguous. >>9341 >there are "universal morals", and social morals I am afraid that the burden of proof in proving the legitimacy of any morals lies on those who believe in them, or at least their existence, and although I will admit that the examples provided in these so-called "universal morals" hold more weight in certain contexts than the so-called "social morals" you mentioned, that in no way seems to imply they hold any more objective meaning or value in the greater context of things regardless. The law and morals in general should not interfere with one another. Both are (highly!) subjective, and I have my gripes with either of them, but one at least proves more useful in regulating the behavior of the people than the other.

>>11935 the ego is subjective, and therefore you do not exist.

>>11935 >it needs to be objective to be real. Any given value is a subjective score in the first place. Everything is judged subjective and relative. If you appeal to no impact on the greater scale you can just as well disregard everything in the scope of the universe and timescale. All meaning is just derived relative to the tiny scope of your own existence.

>>11946 I never stated that everything in the universe is necessarily subjective, just that morality is. Although I also stated that the law is highly subjective, it is more useful than morality in guiding the behavior that the state/sovereign wishes his nation to head for. That is the important difference; usefulness, of which, in this particular case, the law triumphs over morals, and also why the need to label things as ''evil'' or ''good'' is ultimately useless, and something I'd even go as far as to boldly consider a childish endeavor. If I murder someone, and do not get punished for it, but do benefit from it, and use the received assets, monetary or otherwise, for the slight betterment of the world, is it wrong? If I give shelter to a homeless person, is that then right, despite the fact that while I am asleep or gone, he robs me and sets the house on fire, and by extension, the entire neighborhood, while fleeing into the night? Me murdering that man, or me giving shelter to that homeless person can only be assessed by looking at the usefulness and advantageousness of the situation, there can't be anything right or wrong, good or evil, in or with it. Morality cannot stop me from doing something, or make me care about others (in a way I think is the case for many people, although I may be projecting a little), because it would be irrational for me to do so, only the law might be able to sway me (it is why Legalism is superior to Confucianism), and it may also be able to sway others, and for those for which it doesn't, to them being incarcerated, I say, ''Good riddance''. To those who succeed, I read their biographies. There is a brilliant quote, supposedly by Gaius Julius Caesar, it goes: ''If you must break the law, do it to seize power; in all other cases, observe it''.

>>11975 The law is only as real as it is enforceable. The point of morals is that internalized rules work even if nobody else can threaten you. And if you don't follow any internal code then you simply have no morals. It's not a failure of an internal code but failure to instill one equal to failure to enforce the law. Secondary good&evil are simply subjective evaluations in usefulness. The whole point is to coerce people in beneficial behavior. You can't do that easy with laws because fixed rules always allow malicious interpretation. Infact there's plenty empirical evidence that using guilt is more effective than fines because people will break the rules whenever the usefulness is higher than the fines cost.

>>11977 >The law is only as real as it is enforceable. This much is obvious. >You can't do that easy with laws because fixed rules always allow malicious interpretation If a street sweeper encourages clear and excessive dissent, he needs to be executed and replaced, or at least be put in a position where he cannot mold the minds of the impressionable and cause unnecessary dissent. If the Prime Minister takes bribes and is generally corrupt, he also needs to be executed and replaced, or at least be removed from power, and put away. Laws that do not equally apply to everyone in a state are an abomination. Laws that are vague and indirect are an abomination. Corruption is an abomination. A ruler or minister that doesn't act in the interests of his own state is an abomination. Foolish, weak-willed, and sycophantic politicians are an abomination. Weak officers and generals are an abomination. The weak in general are an abomination. Uneducated citizens are an abomination. Avoidable failure and weakness is an abomination. The state needs to be strong, aggressive, diligent, intelligent, scheming, and deceitful when dealing with hostile foreign parties, allying itself with friendly states when convenient, and striving for stability, peace, and prosperity within its own confines at all times. >guilt is more effective than fines because people will break the rules whenever the usefulness is higher than the fines cost To rule through fear; an iron fist, since it is tedious and exploitable to rule through love, and will mostly be interpreted as weakness anyway, especially when the state is going through difficult and turbulent times, is better than to use either indirect guilt or passive-aggressive fines, although there is usefulness in both, and even benevolence can, and should, be used to alleviate the suffering of the people in certain situations. I could write a book or two on this, but this is not why I am here. I mainly wanted to disprove the notion of evil and morality, and so far have not encounted any good counterarguments.

>>11988 Equal application does not result in an equal outcome. You can fine everyone equally $300 but it will be insignificant to the rich and a total hindrance to the poor. That's how the rich park in the disabled parking lot and call it poor people tax. And it's infact also a popular tactic to monopolize a market - lobby for regulatory hurdles and fees and you get rid of competition by rising the financial burden to enter the market. People's situations are different and even as you apply regulations equally you merely give one person an advantage over another. Legal corruption is a consequence of lawmakers being unable to catch the complexity of life. Laws are by their nature generalized rigid rules that can't capture every situation equally well. This is an inherent flaw that can't be removed. If you interpret the law strict then loopholes will be exploited. If you try to interpret and judge willfully who is exploiting the rules then you have no equality in the laws application as you just return to subjective judgement. In praxis this problem has been handled by the executive (i.e police officers) selectively not enforcing the law when they judged it not in the spirit of the law. This however brings you back into officers led by their own morals and not the law. And if you go for full application to ensure justice you just crash the system because data shows everyone is guilty of something and merely leniency of not enforcing everything fully keeps it running. A malicious actor can always exploit the system no matter how you turn it and people will always be malicious because the first priority is them and not the state. Finally guilt is a form of fear. Social pressure from peers is stronger than the fear from the law. If you want evidence look at people turning criminal to please their peers. It's proven itself evidently more effective.

>>11992 >You can fine everyone equally $300 but it will be insignificant to the rich and a total hindrance to the poor Grievous bodily harm and executions will therefore always be preferable in instilling the obedience of the citizens than fines, as I mentioned. Conducting familial annihilation (especially when the crime is politically motivated) sends the message even better. A citizen is not scared if his neighbor receives a fine, he is if his neighbor and his entire family are executed, and his property confiscated. Guilt can be used among the subjects by themselves, it should be used less as a political tool. The people follow whoever is in power anyway, and will generally construct propaganda for that sovereign by themselves. If one must sway the citizens, then they should use propaganda instead of open-ended guilt, although I suppose using guilt as a method is a form of propaganda. Regardless, I feel that the citizens will do a good enough job in policing one another, if the sovereign so chooses to set his state up in such a way, and especially if the sovereign reigns well. The encouragement of marriage and procreation is extremely important in a society as well, this way new, healthy, capable, and loyal children can be born, while the worthless and corrupt citizens can be removed. >Laws are by their nature generalized rigid rules that can't capture every situation equally well This is why in my first post I mentioned that I had my gripes with the law as well, since its subjective nature cannot be denied. In fact, I was indirectly critical of it. All I said was that it was better than morals in guiding the behavior of the people. Laws are just a tool with which the sovereign and ministers can govern. If a minister sees them as something holy and sacred, that is honorable, if a little idealistic. If a citizen then sees them as something holy and sacred, it makes me laugh, and if they do not cease, makes me detest them, as they are willingly undergoing servitude. >judge willfully who is exploiting the rules then you have no equality in the laws application as you just return to subjective judgement. Justitia is such a fickle woman, I consider what is best for the state, and therefore best for the sovereign, and therefore best for the average citizen, to be more important than what is better for the (corrupt) individual/s in said state. This is why Cicero was right in executing the Catilinarian conspirators without fair trial. >This however brings you back into officers led by their own morals and not the law The police are merely slaves to the state, a nuisance in plenty of citizens' backs, doing the bidding for the state, while hurting their own countrymen. Nobody cares what they think. They are just an expenditure. Judges and ministers should do the thinking. >A malicious actor A malicious actor can be easily dealt with nonetheless. And if he is so skilled and intelligent as to function better than everyone else, and to reach the top, while going through every loophole undetected and unsuspected, then he may just be what the state needs. Legitimacy is less important than what is best for the state (and the new sovereign can make up a reason as to why he is legitimate). I always had a soft spot for coup d'etat's anyway, and for the powerful and intelligent to take what is rightfully theirs. Of course, that opinion is then further influenced by how well he himself actually reigns.

>>11999 >executing all for one family members deeds This also means the whole clan has a motive to hide deeds to save themselves, higher punishment comes thereby also with higher protection against getting caught. Secondary history has shown it to be popular to abuse such laws. For example during the ussr people would be secretly framed by their neighbors to the kbg and thereby land in the gulag. Convenient disposal using the state's hand. This has generally a negative effect. >Judges and ministers should do the thinking. That's impossible, application of the law by the executive still requires thought. The ground troops are the lowest officers and they decide if a situation breaches the law or not on site.

>>12002 >higher punishment comes thereby also with higher protection against getting caught. It can also mean more infighting, and more distrust amongst one another. Through illusory equality, but with the notion of a dog-eat-dog world being imbued into the heads of the citizens, one can turn every citizen into a true individual. A servant to the state, a potential enemy to all his friends and family. Isolated, just like his sovereign. Scheming, just like his ministers. It is a one for one, and all for themselves, with the strongest, greatest, and most intelligent needing to be given administrative positions and political authority (but never being above the law of the sovereign). Although what I just described is an extreme measure, as internal peace is practically always preferable to infighting (although healthy competition is important), I still (obviously) believe that the most intelligent and capable people need to be put under the wing of the sovereign, though, and not the ones that the common man thinks is best, as what they think is best is the one who offers them in particular what they want, even if it is unfeasible or economically and politically detrimental for/to the state itself. It is simply a popularity contest. This is why I am doubting if it is even worthwhile to give the citizens of a state the illusion of freedom in being able to choose who gets to enslave them for the next couple of years. Democratic states breed and foster incompetency and corruption en masse. Everything is so slow and divisive inside them. It is a chaotic battlefield against one's own people when there needs to be absolute unity in governing and ruling. I hate it for the same reasons the wise Socrates did. >application of the law by the executive still requires thought Basic applications of critical thought that is befitting of them. It is not like they are not already abusing their authority in democratic states. The law shall teach them to be afraid as well. >The ground troops are the lowest officers and they decide if a situation breaches the law or not on site. The actions carried out by soldiers on a battlefield or in war can never be illegal, unless you have no democratic friends, or are a weak state. If you have power, and the right friends (preferably due to being able to offer them something), they'll let you do almost anything. If you have power, but no friends, then you can still reign within your own sphere/s so long as you don't overdo it on the international stage. If you have friends, but not power, then enjoy being pushed around, otherwise you might lose these friends.

>>9807 then they are infact not weak

>morals existing at all False dichotomy to let people feel good about their decisions and shame others that make them feel bad. Nothing but biological impulse and outdated language to create power.

>>12323 A generic moral that everyone should follow doesn't exist, but personal morals exist. Otherwise you would not be in this conversation, your ability to judge that this conversation is a complete waste of time makes you think of people in this thread as a little dumb. Your ability to judge others by their actions is what defines your personal set of morals. Morality exists, it's just not a rulebook; it's a personal build.

>>9369 dude wtf...

>>9369 >>9376 First world countries are a blight on this planet. The worst part is that the output of all your destruction is... pathetic, uninformed people people masturbating over misery and sharing pseudo-information against pseudo-information. Truly the epitome of humanity.

OP, you're wrong. I will tell you why, any idiot can murder someone in cold blood. It's incredibly easy to get away with that kind of stuff if you're good at it. Just gotta be careful. So you're either incompetent or an angry pussy who likes to think you've got a serial killer inside them but "the system" is holding you back. I've got news for ya kid: you're not cool for being a psycho. In fact it makes you less of a person.

>>12331 lmao I just realized I wrote "its easy to do if you're good at it" meant "it's easy to do if you think about it"

>>12324 >your ability to judge that this conversation is a complete waste of time makes you think of people in this thread as a little dumb. I reject this on the grounds that everyone is ignorant in some fashion, considering people dumb for buying into a social construct is rather inane and also implies there's a smart set of people that are excluded from this. I refuse to judge others based upon their actions because they simply acted on impulse or thought it made sense at the time. People are no more in control of their behaviour than any other animal.

>>12345 >I refuse to judge others based upon their actions because they simply acted on impulse or thought it made sense at the time. Then... your set of morals..refuses to judge.. based on the parameters i described as your morals... because your morals are more precise... thus... making them morals... the metaphor is not the object bruh. My point is that you have a personal guiding set of morals, just like everyone else.

>>12348 >based on the parameters i described as your morals Issue is here, I don't describe them as morals. It isn't moral because it's not concerned with right or wrong behaviour, I don't think there is such a thing as right and wrong behaviour, there's just behaviour. I think humans are as moral as the tide and wind and just sort of are. Even though we can conceive of morals, I don't think that that these concepts actually make a significant impact on the way we act.

>>12349 Good and bad metaphysically? Yeah, i agree. But good is just the name we give for things we prefer, and bad, things we don't prefer. Both individually and as a collective. Clearly you have these preferences, you just don't give it a name. It seems like you're trying to view this as if it was the word from god, that things are bad because it's in our nature to find it bad. Nah dude, being and edgy fuarrrk is bad simply because you remove agency from others, not because you'll go to hell. You keep them from doing whatever they find cool, and that's not cool, and as a human i have empathy for their inability to do the cool things they want due to an edgy fuarrrkstick, ya know? You might think that all that matters is YOUR ability to do cool soykaf, and other people can fuarrrk themselves over. That just means your set of morals(things we find cool and uncool in our assessment of an environment) is different from mine.

>>12350 amorality =/= immorality I respect others right to live but it's not a good or bad thing. It's more on the level of pragmatism, though I still have empathy for people I just don't care for the moral lens in the slightest. I think it's flimsy at best and that people can't actually act in the moral way they think they can. I don't mean to be rude but it feels like you're projecting your expectation of what you think I should be like into your responses. Relevant article, particularly the part on how external factors affect morality rather than the wine stuff: https://iainews.iai.tv/articles/why-stupidity-is-part-of-human-nature-auid-1072?fbclid=IwAR2FbyQMFfvzsm7cLvNxumDi3oqJwHfoYH7UDe8P_yaKTddhBWrjfnVPzDI

>>12351 >I respect others right to live but it's not a good or bad thing. Yes, others judge if its good or bad according to... their...morals. >though I still have empathy for people I just don't care for the moral lens in the slightest My point is that you're taking morals to be something intrinsic to the universe, and in that point i agree with you. However, morals aren't superhero archetypes, it's just a name we give for natural human behavior.

>>12353 >it's just a name we give for natural human behavior This is where I disagree, I don't think any amount of moral knowledge or theory actually changes how people act, which is to say that a persons rationality doesn't actually affect their actions, it's just creatively used to justify them later.

>>12354 >This is where I disagree, I don't think any amount of moral knowledge or theory actually changes how people act, which is to say that a persons rationality doesn't actually affect their actions, it's just creatively used to justify them later. I don't think that's true. Let's say you have the chance of stealing 50 bucks from a homeless person, isn't the knowledge that that's fuarrrked up what stops you from doing so? A child might do these cruel things because they still lack knowledge of how their actions can hurt others, in time they get perspective, they understand the world better, and develop a set of principles of good and bad things. But going from your perspective, everyone would steal the 50 bucks and then tell themselves that "it's their fault for being careless". Isn't this force stopping you from doing cruel actions that would otherwise benefit you the dictionary definition of morality?

>>12355 From my perspective, one wouldn't take the 50 bucks from the homeless person because they sympathise or empathise with their suffering in some way. I think it's a weird example because I'm pretty sure homeless people with 50 bucks are not sleeping on the street that night but whatever. The lack of a moral principle to prevent you from doing something doesn't actually mean you're going to do the "bad" thing, you need some kind of actual motivation. If I'm also homeless but have no money, I may well try stealing 50 dollars or some of it for myself and might feel justified in doing so. I don't think either action is inherently right or wrong. I think people feel more than they think and frequently act in ways that they wouldn't consider hypothetically. The google definition of morality says "principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behaviour." Again, I don't think there is good or bad behaviour, just behaviour that each person justifies to themselves in some way. I don't think the lack of a perceived immoral action necessitates morality.

>>12356 While i agree with the idea that lack of morality doesn't necessarily implies in immorality, i think it's inevitable to build principles during your lifetime, and these principles are what we call morals. The conscious actions you take towards the kind of world you want to live in are imaginable without a set of principles. For example, i believe we should lift people up instead of trying to lead them, this necessarily has an impact in how i treat people at work, i don't believe we should have leaders, just people as capable and informed as they can be. This is a principle, a conscious way to view the world that i wish to see in the communities i'm a part of, and impacts my behavior every single day. How else would you call it if not morality? It doesn't imply gods came from heaven to tell me that's right or wrong, i learned it through life experiences. It also doesn't imply everyone should have the same principles.

>>12357 >and these principles are what we call morals. I don't consider any principles I take in moral because they don't apply to a good/bad dichotomy, additionally I don't think your rationality actually has a serious impact on the way you act, only the the way you interpret your own actions. >The conscious actions you take towards the kind of world you want to live in are imaginable without a set of principles. I assume you mean unimagineable but if not then I agree. I think that you rationalise that you try to apply your principles in the workplace but that in reality* only a fraction of it trickles through and that you are guided more by impulse than principle. Obviously I think this applies to everyone, not just you. In other words I think your actions come first and you justify them later. No gods required. *for arguments sakes I'm going to assume that reality means the physical world

>i think your actions come first and you justify them later. This is at least partially proven. When doing neurosurgery they test inducing impulses that for example cause the patient to raise their hand. The interesting thing is the patients don't notice it happened without their intention and when asked why they raised their hand they try to rationalize it.

>>12361 This is why I stated that. There are several other examples of this effect in the article I posted above. It doesn't count for a lot if you don't think the physical world comprises reality but it's a pretty big deal given that we all interact with the physical world by necessity.

>>9331 Just remember it's all in your head where you can fantasize without consequences. I think most people wouldn't want live with the consequences of some of their actions if they could get away with it.

>>12510 Human society is based on making selfish people cooperate.