/liberty/ - Liberty

muh kant

>>18499

But in all seriousness, I would assume the categorical imperative? Personally I believe morality isn't rational, or it at least is not derived from reason.

But enough of my problems with Kant; just use categorical imperative

>>18502

Not to act in ways that result in logical contradictions? Why have the NAP if you believed in that principle :/?

>>18499

>inb4 nihilist

Moral nihilism is correct though.

>>18506

But even though there are no true moral systems each human has instincts that cause them to have an innate sense of appropriate behavior.

The reason I don't do thinks I find to be evil is because I find those thinks to be evil. There is nothing more, you've hit the bottom. It's instinct.

>>18507

things

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_of_Gyges

>>18499

there is no such thing as good or evil. they are just arbitrary concepts. imagined by somebody, repeated by others.

what there is is 'correct' and 'incorrect', relative to empircally optimal action

start with the purpose of life

use game theory (wich is not actually about games, but rather systems in general)

nondiscreete optimization and nonlinear dynamic if you can into maths

and figure out what reference systems to use game theory on

and that will derive the basics of a formula on 'how to live'

> why should an individual actually adhere to the standards of "good" or "evil" assuming they could violate these standards without being caught?

What do you mean by "should"? That's the key. If it's a moral "should", no utilitarian justification is needed. If it's an utilitarian, strictly self-serving "should", then no moral justification is even relevant. You can't convince a psychopath to become a moral person.

In practice, pretending to be moral without getting caught is far more tricky than actually being moral. That's why, for evolutionary reasons, most people have a innate sense of morality. Most bad people, at some level, believe they have a moral right to do what they do (for instance "that's how the world works", "you are either a sheep or a wolf", etc)

>Why should I act morally?

To be a moral person. It's that simple. If you have no desire to be moral, then morality has nothing to offer you. That does not mean morality can't be applied to you, though. Whether you accept morality or not, everyone else can still judge you on whether you are moral or not. Moral judgement can be expressed in positive statements just fine; in fact, I'd argue that there is no great divide between normative and positive statements. All "should" statements imply a conditional. "You shouldn't jump off that cliff… if you don't want to die"; "You shouldn't kill another human being… if you want to behave morally", and so on. Those can be stated in a positive way, too: "If you jump off that cliff, you will die"; "If you kill another human being, you are not behaving morally".

Which system of ethics is the right one, and how to discern that, is a question for another thread.

>>18512

>there is no such thing as good or evil. they are just arbitrary concepts. imagined by somebody, repeated by others.

That someone invented a concept does not make that concept arbitrary. Mathematics is a concept, and it isn't arbitrary. The scientific method is a concept, and it isn't arbitrary, either. Likewise, there is nothing arbitrary about a coherent system of ethics, either.

>>18525

Why not an elephant?

Victimless crime is halal

>>18507

As long you understand it's in your head and not some divine characteristic of actions, that they be good or bad