• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Morals and the lack thereof

Status
Not open for further replies.

Battlecow

Play to Win
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,740
Location
Chicago
So, since the DH is effectively dead and I can't post in there anyways, we'll have this here.

Possibly the most profound question we ask ourselves is that old favorite-

"What is the purpose of life?"

Some would give a religious answer; they're covered. Some would say that there is no point; why would they even be reading this? Many, however, say (or would say, if they could articulate it) that the point of life is to maximize one's felicity. This is the view that I take. With this in mind- why do we follow ethical and moral codes? The answer, in my mind, is that doing so makes no sense.

Certainly society would cease to function if everyone took this view, but I'm not interested in the whole of society except inasmuch as it contributes to my felicity, and while attitudes like mine would cause it to break down, it's impossible that that would happen in my lifetime, so I'm covered. Obviously, I don't tell this to people I know IRL, because they'd call me a douchebag (and be right) and then shun me/harm me. Felicity lowered. However, it increases my felicity to divulge the details of my evil (literally) plot to INTERNET PEOPLE.

So; if one keeps up all pretenses of respectability, but is not afraid to lie, cheat, steal, and generally do harm to others in intelligent ways, the rewards of which outweigh the risks substantially, would one not be happier? Unless some "conscience" is inherent in being human, I doubt it. I have worked hard to eradicate my own conscience in the interests of pursuing MAXIMUM FELICITY, and it's worked out well so far. I've never heard this position articulated before, but I suspect that a less-fancy version of it lies within the brain of the common crook, and that others who don't let on what they're doing take this view as well; they're my fellow cancers on society. What do you guys think? Is it the way to go?
Am I trolling? Now, why would I tell you that? Your uncertainty brings me greater felicity yet. Muahahahaha.
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
Certainly society would cease to function if everyone took this view, but I'm not interested in the whole of society except inasmuch as it contributes to my felicity, and while attitudes like mine would cause it to break down, it's impossible that that would happen in my lifetime, so I'm covered. Obviously, I don't tell this to people I know IRL, because they'd call me a douchebag (and be right) and then shun me/harm me. Felicity lowered. However, it increases my felicity to divulge the details of my evil (literally) plot to INTERNET PEOPLE.
For most people, following their morals increases their happiness.

So; if one keeps up all pretenses of respectability, but is not afraid to lie, cheat, steal, and generally do harm to others in intelligent ways, the rewards of which outweigh the risks substantially, would one not be happier? Unless some "conscience" is inherent in being human, I doubt it. I have worked hard to eradicate my own conscience in the interests of pursuing MAXIMUM FELICITY, and it's worked out well so far. I've never heard this position articulated before, but I suspect that a less-fancy version of it lies within the brain of the common crook, and that others who don't let on what they're doing take this view as well; they're my fellow cancers on society. What do you guys think? Is it the way to go?
Am I trolling? Now, why would I tell you that? Your uncertainty brings me greater felicity yet. Muahahahaha.
There are people who think like this. They are the ones who DO wind up lying cheating stealing etc.

Of course, I think for most people those would be the wrong decisions, because the costs outweight the benefits. Once you are a known liar/cheater/thief/etc, you are shunned by other people and your life will be much worse.

It's a gigantic game of indefinite repeated prisoner's dilemma, the "best" solution of which is a "tit-for-tat" strategy where you trust people at first, but once they betray you you betray them in return.
 

eschemat

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
241
haha yeah, it's a catch 22. to hurt people, you would gain happiness, which is your objective. but in reality, when you hurt someone, they will hurt you back. however, not to hurt people would not increase your happiness unless following some moral code, like ballin says, increases your happiness.
 

Battlecow

Play to Win
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,740
Location
Chicago
Reasonable enough, but think about this- I'm low on money; all those hori minipads I've been buying have drained my accounts dry. With my superior intellect, I come up with a foolproof plan to rob a jeweler's. Then I safely sell the jewels, get my money, and buy more Hori Minipads. Not a risky venture, if I know what I'm doing, and it makes me quantifiably happier. My point is that I don't have to let people know that I'm a ****; I can **** around in subtle ways. I'm free to pursue the happiness-getting solution without the hindrance of morality, and so I can be nice to people when it benefits me- which is often- and be mean when I think the costs are going to exceed the benefits.
 

Nicholas1024

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
1,075
I should note that atheism (or being part of some minor cult) would be a required component of Battlecow's philosophy. Most major religions (at least I think so, I'm not too familiar with non-Christian religions) have beliefs in place that basically amount to "Do good, go to heaven, do bad, go to hell.". So, if he believed in any of those, his plan of "rob a jewel store for selfish needs", would make him much worse off in the long run. Therefore, he'd have to either believe in some cult that actively encourages evil (and somehow I doubt that's the case with most people), or disbelieve in God entirely.

(I wonder how long it will be before BPC counters with the inquisition or the crusades to sidetrack the topic...)
 

Battlecow

Play to Win
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,740
Location
Chicago
Yup, atheism required. Hence the "religious people are covered" thing in the OP. However, atheism is really the only option for people with any level of intelligence, so I don't think the idea applies only to some small segment of the population.
 

Nicholas1024

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 14, 2009
Messages
1,075
Wow. So you maintain that EVERYONE who believes in God in any capacity whatsoever is an idiot? I won't debate it in this topic (since it would seriously sidetrack the thread), but that has to be the worst generalization I've heard in quite some time.
 

Battlecow

Play to Win
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,740
Location
Chicago
Perhaps I was a bit harsh. I am a douchebag, after all. Now, back to the topic at hand.
 

eschemat

Smash Journeyman
Joined
Aug 10, 2010
Messages
241
haha yeah that was a little douchy :p

anyways, I'm pretty sure that law enforcement doesn't suck. as a direct result, you'll probably have to end up running away etc. and not being able to enjoy life because you'll be trying to escape the authorities.
 

Battlecow

Play to Win
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,740
Location
Chicago
You've got it all wrong. I'll only do evil when I'm sure that there's very little risk involved. The life of a criminal would suck; that's why I'm going to be the one that gets away. It's not that hard. Think, as you go through with your daily life, of all the crimes you could get away with. For example, only about 2/3 of murders in the US are ever solved- less than that, in big cities. So to get away with murder, I'd just have to be more careful than 2/3 of murderers- not a difficult feat. And if I don't try to get away with murder (why would I? There's no percentage in it) things get even easier.
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
Reasonable enough, but think about this- I'm low on money; all those hori minipads I've been buying have drained my accounts dry. With my superior intellect, I come up with a foolproof plan to rob a jeweler's. Then I safely sell the jewels, get my money, and buy more Hori Minipads. Not a risky venture, if I know what I'm doing, and it makes me quantifiably happier. My point is that I don't have to let people know that I'm a ****; I can **** around in subtle ways. I'm free to pursue the happiness-getting solution without the hindrance of morality, and so I can be nice to people when it benefits me- which is often- and be mean when I think the costs are going to exceed the benefits.
If you REALLY thought this, and you REALLY only cared about your own consumption of Hori Minipads, and you REALLY could do this and 100% get away with it, then you would already have done it.

The truth though is that you either
1) Care about how the jeweler feels
2) Don't think you can get away with it (or think the risk-reward of getting away with it isn't in your favor)

I should note that atheism (or being part of some minor cult) would be a required component of Battlecow's philosophy. Most major religions (at least I think so, I'm not too familiar with non-Christian religions) have beliefs in place that basically amount to "Do good, go to heaven, do bad, go to hell.". So, if he believed in any of those, his plan of "rob a jewel store for selfish needs", would make him much worse off in the long run. Therefore, he'd have to either believe in some cult that actively encourages evil (and somehow I doubt that's the case with most people), or disbelieve in God entirely.

(I wonder how long it will be before BPC counters with the inquisition or the crusades to sidetrack the topic...)
OH NOEZ IT'S TEH RELIGIONZ!

You've got it all wrong. I'll only do evil when I'm sure that there's very little risk involved. The life of a criminal would suck; that's why I'm going to be the one that gets away. It's not that hard. Think, as you go through with your daily life, of all the crimes you could get away with. For example, only about 2/3 of murders in the US are ever solved- less than that, in big cities. So to get away with murder, I'd just have to be more careful than 2/3 of murderers- not a difficult feat. And if I don't try to get away with murder (why would I? There's no percentage in it) things get even easier.
Ok, but the risk reward is still probably not in your favor. If you thought it was, you would already have done it. Or it gives you happiness to not kill people.

See, the benefit of committing a crime is usually fairly low compared to the possible consequence. So people don't usually commit crimes.
 

Battlecow

Play to Win
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,740
Location
Chicago
If you REALLY thought this, and you REALLY only cared about your own consumption of Hori Minipads, and you REALLY could do this and 100% get away with it, then you would already have done it.

The truth though is that you either
1) Care about how the jeweler feels
2) Don't think you can get away with it (or think the risk-reward of getting away with it isn't in your favor)

Fact: I have two hori minipads and three traditional N64 controllers, along with several adapters. Additional fact: You don't know for sure how I got the money for them.

OH NOEZ IT'S TEH RELIGIONZ!

indeed.

Ok, but the risk reward is still probably not in your favor. If you thought it was, you would already have done it. Or it gives you happiness to not kill people.

Like I said, there's no percentage in killing people. Other crimes, however, are profitable and risk-free.

See, the benefit of committing a crime is usually fairly low compared to the possible consequence. So people don't usually commit crimes.

It would be nice for you good people if that were always the case. With a little ingenuity, however, it's possible to minimize risks and reap fairly sweet rewards.
Really, it's surprising that I've only seen practical arguments against evil so far. It's almost as if y'all were being moral for totally amoral reasons.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
We have notions of morality, and moral conscience, because we're structured to. It's a part of a make-up.

:phone:
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
8,905
Location
Vinyl Scratch's Party Bungalo
NNID
Budget_Player
Wow. So you maintain that EVERYONE who believes in God in any capacity whatsoever is an idiot? I won't debate it in this topic (since it would seriously sidetrack the thread), but that has to be the worst generalization I've heard in quite some time.
Hey, no worries, I don't think all religious people are idiots. Just like I don't think all scientologists, homeopaths, and cthulu-followers are idiots. :)

Structured how? Through evolution?
Anyone else here heard anything about the "biological leash"? I'm not entirely sure of the principal behind it, but I think (again, someone who knows that they're talking about would probably be better at this than me) it has to do with evolution. You don't kill because it's bad for the species, you don't lie because after a certain point language stops having a use... Not exactly sure how this works, though...
 

Battlecow

Play to Win
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,740
Location
Chicago
Well, I'm perfectly capable of suppressing all those biological leashes. I understand- as does everyone- that it would be best for the species if I followed a moral code, and that therefore there are societal and perhaps biological elements that try to coerce me into following a moral code. However, I can still make things better for myself to the detriment of the species by abandoning morals altogether.
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
Really, it's surprising that I've only seen practical arguments against evil so far. It's almost as if y'all were being moral for totally amoral reasons.
You know the bold responses make it impossible to quote, right?

Anyway I agree that it's possible to commit crimes and get away with them (politicians). But I don't think robbing a jewelry store qualifies.
 

Theftz22

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
1,030
Location
Hopewell, NJ
I think that there are a number of things to be said here. In order for any serious crime to pay off you must:

1. Not get caught.
2. Not feel guilty.
3. Not spend your time avoiding being caught.
4. Not worry about being caught.

It's pretty evident that crime won't benefit most people. Most won't get any pleasure out of it on account of guilt, if they do they might get caught, even if they don't they might have to spend their lives avoiding authorities, and even if somehow they don't, most won't have the psychological strength to not live in fear of being caught. Meanwhile, reciprocity always garauntees the prudence of kind behavior.

:phone:
 

Battlecow

Play to Win
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,740
Location
Chicago
None of those things are hard. Obviously if I'm a serial killer I'd be worried about being caught, but the crimes that any smart person would commit carry very small chances of being caught, and slim-to-none chances of living life on the run or whatever. So, a bad person wouldn't feel guilty, a smart person wouldn't get caught, someone who committed a reasonable crime wouldn't have to spend ANY time avoiding capture, and once a nicely planned crime's committed, you're scot-free in the clear no worries. Amateurs might have to worry about one or all of those, but really, it's no harder than many other things that we all do every day.

I'm not just talking about crimes either. The argument that you guys have to make is that the moral choice is ALWAYS more profitable than the immoral one. That's simply not true; any life experience will tell you that bad guys sometimes finish first.
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
Note that there is a huge difference between 100% always getting away with it and 99.9% getting away with it since the risk reward is tilted toward the negative.
 

Battlecow

Play to Win
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,740
Location
Chicago
There's rarely a 100% chance, but 99.99 is good enough for me if the reward is big enough.
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
Well, sure, where "big enough" satisfies the conditions by definition.

But I claim that most crimes don't have a big enough reward. When you consider the downside of prison/fines/etc, it usually isn't worth it. But if you look at something like speeding, then it usually is worth it.

Also I'm preemptively saying that Barry Bonds didn't cheat.
 

Battlecow

Play to Win
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,740
Location
Chicago
He totally did

Again, though, my argument is simply that an amoral approach to things is the best one; that being a bad person brings more profit than being a good one. Assuming that I act judiciously, I don't see how you can reasonably say that this is not the case.
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
He totally did

Again, though, my argument is simply that an amoral approach to things is the best one; that being a bad person brings more profit than being a good one. Assuming that I act judiciously, I don't see how you can reasonably say that this is not the case.
I suppose I agree, since I support moral relativism (well, sort of. I think there are common values that almost everyone endorses, so I base moral arguments off those - e.g. humans are morally equal. I also think you can show that certain things are objectively morally right - if they satisfy everyone's individual morals). But on the other hand, I also think society is structured to make you act in the moral way. So it doesn't matter.

Unless you want to reveal your master plan to break the law or whatever, I'm still going to think that being a "good" person will bring you more profit. Also once again, 99% of people get pleasure from following morals anyway.
 

T-block

B2B TST
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
11,841
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
In my opinion, the only purpose in life is to find a purpose in life.
I've always thought this was the silliest statement. Do you have anything left to live for then, now that you have fulfilled "the only purpose in life"?

Humans are, on some level, rational creatures. We are rational enough to recognize that quality of life improves if we can trust others - we could live feeling totally secure if we could trust completely, and we attempt to set up a society where we can trust via indoctrination of morality (religion or otherwise) and laws.

I do believe that one's sense of morality comes completely from upbringing. I don't think an individual is genetically predisposed to "be moral", and I certainly don't think a human is built to "be moral". The subjectivity of what is moral is not being given enough credit in this thread in my opinion.

Hmm... I just re-read the thread and realized I'm not really contributing anything new hahaha
 

Battlecow

Play to Win
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,740
Location
Chicago
Nope, not a lot new lol, although you articulated some things quite clearly

You imply that humans should/do work primarily to "improve the quality of life," and that as a means to the end of this we construct society and morals. If this is the case, is it not the prerogative of the man who can safely disregard the constructed morals to do so, so that he can (to the same extent as everyone else) trust others, without having to bear the burden of being himself trustworthy?
 

T-block

B2B TST
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
11,841
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
We have collectively set up a system that attempts to prevent the individual tempted to act on that prerogative from doing so. If the indoctrination fails (as it often does), laws and the justice system are supposed to catch those cases. Most agree that such a system leads to better quality of life, so the system stays.

What you described does happen in today's society though, but is limited by laws; and what is interesting about that is that legality can give the illusion of morality. Imagine the business world, where loopholes in contracts are exploited, etc. I have no doubt that there are people who exploit such advantages and sleep fine at night.

I could also bring up the comparison between alcohol and marijuana, where the former is legal and considered morally acceptable, while the latter is illegal and not nearly as widely accepted.
 

Battlecow

Play to Win
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,740
Location
Chicago
I said the man who can "safely" disregard the system. So far, the only arguments I've seen are those which posit that it's hard to get away with ****.

You would all agree that if, theoretically, there were some **** we could get away with, we should go for it?
 

T-block

B2B TST
Joined
Jan 11, 2009
Messages
11,841
Location
Edmonton, AB, Canada
That question implies some sort of objective moral standard, no? If you do "go for it", others will judge you based on their morals. If your own sense of morality allows you to do such a thing while remaining happy, and you are okay with how others will perceive you (if you are doing it out in the open), then from a logical perspective, I think no one can attack you for your decision.
 

_Keno_

Smash Lord
Joined
Jul 13, 2007
Messages
1,604
Location
B'ham, Alabama
I've always thought this was the silliest statement. Do you have anything left to live for then, now that you have fulfilled "the only purpose in life"?
You can have multiple purposes in life; you can gain and lose purposes too. And yes, some people who have no purpose in life really do have nothing to live for.
Some people just appear to have no purpose in life, and live simply because they fear death.
 

ballin4life

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 12, 2008
Messages
5,534
Location
disproving determinism
I said the man who can "safely" disregard the system. So far, the only arguments I've seen are those which posit that it's hard to get away with ****.

You would all agree that if, theoretically, there were some **** we could get away with, we should go for it?
Yes, that's why I sometimes drive faster than the speed limit.
 

Battlecow

Play to Win
Joined
May 19, 2009
Messages
8,740
Location
Chicago
That's morally defensible though, since you're not likely to hurt anyone if you're not driving in an overly reckless manner.
 

Theftz22

Smash Lord
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
1,030
Location
Hopewell, NJ
None of those things are hard. Obviously if I'm a serial killer I'd be worried about being caught, but the crimes that any smart person would commit carry very small chances of being caught, and slim-to-none chances of living life on the run or whatever. So, a bad person wouldn't feel guilty, a smart person wouldn't get caught, someone who committed a reasonable crime wouldn't have to spend ANY time avoiding capture, and once a nicely planned crime's committed, you're scot-free in the clear no worries. Amateurs might have to worry about one or all of those, but really, it's no harder than many other things that we all do every day.
So the stipulations are that you have to be an intelligent, amoral person (one who does not believe morality is objective, does not feel bad about whatever they are doing, and does not gain happiness from following a moral code), who has a near flawless plan to commit a reasonable-sized crime. I grant the consequent of your conditional argument under those granted stipulations.

By your conditional argument I mean the position that I have seen you defending in this thread thus far that is; If morality is not objective, then there is no good reason why I should not behave immorally. I grant the consequent of that conditional if those stipulations above are all met.

On a side note, I don't see any good argument posed by this thread for the antecedent of that conditional, that morality is not objective.

I'm not just talking about crimes either. The argument that you guys have to make is that the moral choice is ALWAYS more profitable than the immoral one. That's simply not true; any life experience will tell you that bad guys sometimes finish first.
I don't think anyone's been defending the position that in every possible decision, the most prudent one is always the moral one as opposed to the immoral one. I personally only argue that it is most usually the prudent choice.
 

Alus

Smash Champion
Joined
Jul 7, 2008
Messages
2,539
Location
Akorn(Akron) OH
NNID
Starsauce
3DS FC
5327-1023-2754
I've always thought this was the silliest statement. Do you have anything left to live for then, now that you have fulfilled "the only purpose in life"?
If you lost that purpose in life, your purpose would be to search again, makes perfect sense... Shows why we humans are not so easy satisfied.

Honestly though i believe the best answer to why we live is "Why not?".
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom