3
4

Question for BluePillBP Morals (self.PurplePillDebate)

drok007Anti-Blue Pill が 投稿

Where do BP morals come from? Most of the moralizing I see comes from BPers, yet BPers seem to have the most inconsistent and hypocritical beliefs. They tend to stand on unsubstantiated premises and when questioned about it, they spaz out. So what are the core principles for your ethical beliefs?

Hint: "Just be a good person" is vague and unsubstantiated, same goes for "treat women like people", or "treat others like you would treat yourself", or anything of that nature. All of those statements need to be proven or supported. Especially outside of your narrow world view. I suspect at minimum these would be things that tie in with your social and political philosophies as well but at their foundation.

全 137 件のコメント
並べ替え:
ベスト
トップ新着論争中古い順Q&A

[–]buarthahas ass-fucking down 6ポイント7ポイント  (4子コメント)

Where do BP morals come from?

I can't speak for all BPers, but for me personally I'd imagine that a decent amount of the way I feel about moral issues is a combination of my Catholic upbringing, reading on secular humanism after I fell away from the church and my personality type.

In general though, I'd imagine that a lot of BP vs. RP thinking comes down to individualist vs. collectivist. To me, the idea that another person, and especially other people as a group, is/are less important that one's self seems ludicrous, and I'd imagine it's the same for a lot of other people that share my moral stance, but I understand theoretically that for others self-interest (and respect for others' self-interest) forms the cornerstone of their moral system. I don't mean that in a judgmental way, as I understand individual self-interest from an evolutionary perspective, but I don't have any moral quandaries about quashing it if it conflicts with what I see as the 'greater good' (i.e. the welfare of a community or society.)

It also strikes me as odd that people feel the need to justify their desire to impose their own moral system on others here; the actual left in the UK, and in western Europe in general, seem far more willing to say that they don't care about forcing others to comply with their vision of a better society than those in America are, which I'm assuming is a cultural thing (though in fairness, that could just be because I just don't see enough proper left-wing political thought from America due to not looking in the right places.)

[–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

This is the best answer I have seen yet, anyone else reading should look to give answers along these lines.

As for your points, I think it is possible to arrive at almost the same outcome through both an individualist and collectivist mindset. I usually get through my day without killing and eating anyone, and I imagine you do the same.

When it comes down to it though, do you put people closer to you ahead of people you don't know? What is the range of your collectivism I guess I am asking, and how do you determine that? Close friends and family? Acquaintances? Entire human race? All living things?

[–]buarthahas ass-fucking down 3ポイント4ポイント  (2子コメント)

I usually get through my day without killing and eating anyone, and I imagine you do the same.

No comment.

When it comes down to it though, do you put people closer to you ahead of people you don't know?

I do, but I don't consider it a particularly moral thing to do; I consider my bias towards the people I love and the people I see as 'my people' as an Irish nationalist to be a moral failing rather than a virtue. I appreciate that it's one of the failings of any collectivist model though; it's ingrained in us to favour those we're connected to over those we're not, and while we can apply cultural pressure to equalize things it would be naive to assume that that preference can be eradicated.

Generally though, that kind of problem is one of the reasons I feel that social democracy is more viable in smaller communities than somewhere like America as a whole; the less culturally cogent a society is, and the less you identify the people in said society as your 'in-group,' the more difficult it becomes to empathise with the people that you're sacrificing immediate satisfaction for, and thus the less stable any system that relies on mutual cooperation becomes.

[–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

So you think it's immoral personally, to not extend your collective beliefs to all people instead of simply ones close to you? To you this makes you feel guilty. But the whole idea of that seems a bit unnatural to me, and it seems to create a bit of cognitive dissonance for you as well.

Do you think this is something that can be ironed out with social conditioning? I feel like nature vs. nurture plays into this as well here a bit.

[–]buarthahas ass-fucking down [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

But the whole idea of that seems a bit unnatural to me, and it seems to create a bit of cognitive dissonance for you as well.

Perhaps this is just me rationalizing said dissonance (*hamster hamster hamster*) but while I agree that there are conflicts between some human instinct and the way the system would function as an ideal, I don't necessarily think that that conflict is necessarily a death knell for said system.

To expand, to me, moral systems, and most of the little covert contracts that we navigate as a society, exist in two states, let's say the 'ideal' and the 'reality.'

The ideal is a state where the system you're proposing would work perfectly, and the reality is how the system actually functions in a a community primed to accept its tenets.

A moral system 'works' for me if its possible for that system to influence the behaviour of people enough that significant aspects of how the system functions in the 'ideal' can be observed in the 'reality,' and factors that lead to that are sustainable.

Do you think this is something that can be ironed out with social conditioning? I feel like nature vs. nurture plays into this as well here a bit.

I don't see it as necessary or even possible for everyone to completely discard their familial and personal preferences, but I do think it's possible to condition people to view the others in their community as enough a part of their 'in-group' that it will make the 'reality' closely enough to the 'ideal' for me to count the system as functional. Not universally functional, as I do believe it's only sustainable in certain kinds of communities as I mentioned in my other comment, but I believe it does have the potential to be beneficial within those communities.

[–]animalmindplacebo 3ポイント4ポイント  (8子コメント)

The foundation of my morality is guilt and empathy. I would like to develop more ethics around logic, but I recognize how I function is mostly emotional. I believe most people function emotionally, and may use "logic and reason" to justify these emotions.

Morality built on emotions could prove to be inconsistent, because these judgments are reflexive, and the person may not be aware when they are violating their own morality. Complete awareness of your beliefs is very important.

TRP simply doesn't align with who I am or my goals, so that's why I'm not a RP.

[–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (7子コメント)

That makes sense. What do you think causes a morality based on guilty and empathy, over an egoist philosophy? Or why would emotions cause that? Is there an ingrained psychology to support the collective in humanity? If so, how far does it extend? Do you favor people close to you over people you don't know? Is there guilt in that?

[–]animalmindplacebo 4ポイント5ポイント  (6子コメント)

What do you think causes a morality based on guilty and empathy, over an egoist philosophy?

Early life experiences and possibly biology.

Is there an ingrained psychology to support the collective in humanity?

Partly. I think what's deeply ingrained is self-preservation, but we are also very social, and society wouldn't come as far as it has if there wasn't a preference for pro-social behavior and the development of pro-social morality.

Do you favor people close to you over people you don't know?

Depends. Sometimes I will challenge a person close to me about how they handled themselves with someone who is a stranger to me, in the sense that I will try to get them think about the situation from the other person's perspective.

[–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

I think what's deeply ingrained is self-preservation

This sounds like it would based in psychological egoism. I agree with that, but I would say the moral philosophy that aligns with that is rational egoism. Rational egoism has room for extensive cooperation but not necessarily altruism. Like as a rational egoist I can volunteer and donate. This helps my community which in turn helps me. So communal good is done, but I don't think it's necessarily based in altruism.

As to how it relates to my initial post, I don't think the altruism that BPers often push truly exists, but they implicitly claim it does without doing deeper self reflection.

The actual difference between the groups I think lies in collectivism vs. individualism, where BP collectivists looking at the entire human race as possibly being beneficial to them, and RP individualists don't look much past themselves, maybe family and close friends.

My issue comes with BPers believing RPers should expand their scope of collectivism, and I'm not sure there is necessarily justification for that.

[–]animalmindplacebo 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

Interesting. I have a lot of questions. What do you think altruism is? What do you think is the difference between altruism and extensive cooperation? What do you think is the altruism that BPers push? Like what do you think they are not reflecting on?

[–]Atlas_B_ShrugginRed Pill 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Altruism is self sacrificial. It is a morality in which ones primary moral duty is owed first to the Other, or some collective, rather than ones own rational self interest

[–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Altruism would be completely selfless actions, like you do something expecting nothing good to happen for you.

Cooperation is simply the action of people helping each other out. If I volunteer for the fire department, they have greater strength and less damage will be caused by fire and less lives lost in vehicle accidents. If I donate money to a poor person in my community, they will be less poor and more able to help themselves. On the surface it might seem altruistic, but on some level, there is personal benefit. Less poverty, will decrease crime and increase property value. Better disaster management will lower insurance costs. Being in uniform gives a certain prestige as well.

What do you think is the altruism that BPers push?

It's the "just be a good person" stuff. There is no justification for me to extend cooperation to people I don't like if helping them doesn't benefit me in anyway just because they are a person. There are plenty of ways to earn it, but simply existing is not one.

I don't think they reflect on where the moral duties they are extending to other people even come from. It's just believing they are correct based on faith.

[–]animalmindplacebo 3ポイント4ポイント  (1子コメント)

I believe altruism isn't completely selfless. There might not be a tangible reward, but feeling good for doing good is a selfish reward. There is no way a person can do something without getting something, even if it's the feeling of doing "what is right". A lot of people would disagree with that, but what's important to know is being selfish isn't inherently a bad thing.

I see myself as a compassionate person. I'm not an altruistic person, but I have compassion for people that would never directly benefit me in a tangible way. For me, I wanted to be less cynical and angry at the world, because that was weighing on my mind and have an inexplicable belief that being at peace with myself and the world is a high priority. It's not completely rational, but it's an inseparable quality of me that I can't deny. It will affect my quality of life if I don't address these feelings.

I can't agree completely with your philosophy, but that's who you are, this is who I am, and I accept that part of life. We are all different. I don't think being self-righteous is in any way going to create some shift in someone else's thinking, so it's something I try to avoid.

[–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well it sounds like we take two different philosophies and don't come that far off in the end. Additionally, you seem to have self reflection and insight into your beliefs that others appear to lack. I will say a justification from emotions while not necessarily rational is at least a justification and type of thing I was interested in hearing about. So while we might not necessarily agree at the core, I can respect that. Thanks.

[–]andrewisgoodWell wouldn't you know who won the pony! 4ポイント5ポイント  (15子コメント)

They come from god, obviously.

But in all seriousness, I kinda don't get the question. The concept of treat others like you would treat yourself, what do you mean they need to be proven? One just needs to ask themselves, how would you feel if others treated you like you treated them? I think that's the general way most normal people treat others at least and that's the usual basis on morality, regardless of whether someone is religious or not.

People have said that TBP is a satire sub, and it really is. I'm guessing many people who are at TBP are feminists at least, but maybe they're not and just this TRP beliefs are absurd and terrible. I've stated this before, but TBP is like atheism to TRP's religious belief.

[–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (14子コメント)

Unfortunately, it's RP that is atheism to BP's religious belief. Look here:

They come from god, obviously.

That's precisely the problem. If you believe in an omnipotent entity that can bestow objective moral principles, then I guess you can. BUT it's based on faith. What do you do if you don't have that?

RP operates from an individualist, and rational egoist perspective. This aligns with the self-preservation rooted in psychological egoism or biology. So RP has it's justification right there.

BP on the other hand still keeps all these pseudo-religious ethical principles and altruism and extends duties to others seemingly objectively. However, there is no longer any justification for that without god. So most BPers have to admit their morals that they think so highly of are simply based on faith like religious people. Or they can actually find justification, which is what I am asking for.

[–]andrewisgoodWell wouldn't you know who won the pony! 1ポイント2ポイント  (13子コメント)

Sarcasm isn't something you pick up on well. I mean, god damn, I even put "in all seriousness" after it just in case.

Secondly, TRP has certain beliefs, and TBP says they don't buy them. That's the general comparison with a religious belief and atheism. Atheism doesn't really actually state beliefs it just rejects a particular one.

[–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (12子コメント)

So then why do BPers carry around these religious beliefs while RPers don't?

[–]C0UNTdrama 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

What religious beliefs?

[–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

Having moral duties extend to others, and all the other pseudo-religious altruism that comes with it.

[–]C0UNTdrama 1ポイント2ポイント  (3子コメント)

No having moral duties extend to others is just how one survives in a human society.

[–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

No it's what get you killed, that is the issue.

[–]C0UNTdrama 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

Explain.

[–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

I attempt to extend the moral duty not to murder someone they kill me anyway. There are a host of reasons why this might happen.

[–]andrewisgoodWell wouldn't you know who won the pony! 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

I feel now you're going to the classic trope, but atheism is a religion too because they have strict beliefs.

Again, it's a comparison. Being that TBP is a satire sub without any stated beliefs in particular, and just it mostly being a rejection of Red Pill, that makes the comparison apt. Just like atheists though, BPers have different beliefs on different things, but on the question of TRP, they reject it.

[–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (4子コメント)

I'm talking about individual BPers having inconsistent beliefs, not as a group. Overall, there is a huge trend for them to do this. Satire is irrelevant.

[–]andrewisgoodWell wouldn't you know who won the pony! 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

They're not that inconsistent. Everything you stated earlier isn't necessarily religious, and as an atheist I find that annoying. Being a good person, treating others as you would treat them, those beliefs are co-opted into being religious and not just good things in and of themselves, which I hate. None of those are religious ideas, religions have just taken them and made them their own.

It's like how TRP co-opts good things like lifting and presents them as red pill and not just something good to do in general.

[–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Being a "good" person is entirely unsubstantiated, you can't simply lift it from religion without justifying it. You have no sound premises for your beliefs so far, and appear to have not reflected on them. So it is based on faith, unless you show justification otherwise. A couple in this thread have so far, but most cannot, as I expected from BPers.

[–]andrewisgoodWell wouldn't you know who won the pony! [スコア非表示]  (1子コメント)

Yes you can. And of what beliefs? Being a good person to other people creates a society where other people might be good to you because of you being good to them, and while you'll have your outliers of people who will be bad to you or others, generally those people are looked down upon in society. Is that not a good way for a society to be?

And other then that, what beliefs have I stated. I don't base anything on faith, I try to reason my way into my beliefs.

[–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

You have no justification for people caring about your global collectivism. This is the extension I am talking about. Why should I care about people other than the ones close to me first, especially when they don't have my best intentions in mind. I think even using rational egoism with a basis in psychological egoism there is room for close friends and family. But it fades the further you go out when it no longer has a good chance of an effect.

[–]C0UNTdrama 3ポイント4ポイント  (51子コメント)

Where do BP morals come from?

I don't know about everyone else, but I was taught about morals back in kindergarten.

They tend to stand on unsubstantiated premises and when questioned about it, they spaz out.

Pot meet kettle.

All of those statements need to be proven or supported.

No. Scientific claims need to be proven or supported. Saying "just be a good person" isn't a scientific claim.

[–]ToshiroOzuwaraDread Pill 1ポイント2ポイント  (19子コメント)

I was taught about morals back in kindergarten.

By a moral authority?

Was it the President? A priest? A philosopher?

[–]C0UNTdrama 2ポイント3ポイント  (18子コメント)

Teachers. Parents. Etc.

[–]ToshiroOzuwaraDread Pill 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

And how did they become moral authorities?

[–]C0UNTdrama 2ポイント3ポイント  (7子コメント)

Do you need to graduate with a B.A. in morals in order to tell someone to not be an asshole to others?

[–]ToshiroOzuwaraDread Pill 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

Why shouldn't I be an asshole to others?

Serious question.

[–]C0UNTdrama 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Because others will be assholes to you. If you're ok with that then be my guest.

[–]ToshiroOzuwaraDread Pill [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

Every action has a reaction. I don't much care if people are assholes to me. I do like the freedom to be an asshole to others as the mood strikes.

[–]thereddespair [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

i dont think being nice to others ensures that they wont be an ass to you. look at bullies through history. did they beat the shit out of people coz they werent nice?

do people walk on others coz didnt have nice morals? lolol... sometimes people have too much theories but i tend to wonder how much they really live out there...

cooperation is a good thing, dont get me wrong, even these dumb pleasantries. but when people use it as a substitute to defend themselves through the wish and prayer that others would be nice to them, as they are unable to protect themselves on their own.. wishful thinking, that is when they get trampled upon by those like toshiro as he said, who have the freedom to fuck you over

and no, people tried to be an ass to me as well. its not that i was nice to them, its that they knew i would fuck them up more if they come at me. thats what stops assholes. not niceties. why i use these examples, a lot of people here seem to be too young, or atleast their lives seem to be in a bubble and the last real life moments they had was in school maybe? but hey, just sub it with the dick boss, the pushy abusive girl, the street asshole, the club bastards, the gangs and on and on... meekness, submission, be nice... be super nice, fuckin hell lolol

honestly, i dont get how people stay blue... seeing whats out there. then again, maybe its location

[–]Atlas_B_ShrugginRed Pill [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

The golden rule places no moral duty on the other to treat you as you're treating them or as you wish to be treated, the golden rule as asserted only binds YOU

[–]thereddespair -1ポイント0ポイント  (1子コメント)

what is in question is what is an asshole as told by parents, teachers, society. is one who stands up for himself an ass? or doesnt kiss the womans ass? which is why blues tend to fail.... same words different meanings. dnt be selfish give n give eh. buy a girl a drink. listen to her problems. be an emo tampon. if y ignore her feelz youre an asshole... eh?...

only a fool would believe his parents, for the sole reason being that theyre the parent or teachers, since when have they been an authority on morality? where r they when blues get bullied ... whatever

[–]C0UNTdrama 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

Oh jeez, I'm not about to reply to a strawman. Work out your personal problems on your own.

[–]TheGreasyPoleRed Pill Husband 1ポイント2ポイント  (8子コメント)

I agree with Toshiro.

Shit dude. If you are only doing what's right because other people told you to do that I'm glad you wernt brought up in nazi Germany. You'd be staffing a watch tower and "only following orders" about now.

You seriously didn't work out your own moral system ? You just let other people set your largely uncritically whilst you were still a child and unable to reason alternatives ? Fuck.

My advise is to switch your brain on as an adult and take a second look. The idea of being trained for it, by others, as a child, and uncritically accepting that gives me the Heebie-Jeebies.

[–]C0UNTdrama 0ポイント1ポイント  (7子コメント)

Reread my comment, then come back to me.

[–]TheGreasyPoleRed Pill Husband 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

I have. Nothing in it says anything other than you let parents, teachers and kindergarten teach you your morals and you accepts what they taught you.

Had you been brought up in 1930s Germany you'd have been manning a watchtower by age 18 secure in your moral superiority for doing so... After all, your parents, teachers and the hitler youth would have told you that this was right.

Shit. I would've hoped everyone's moral system was a little more robust than that. Presumably the same moral system would've led to something like a clan hood in turn of the century rural American South and a beret with a red star on it back in Stalin or Maos Russia/China.

If that's how BP world sets up it's moral system I want no part in it. I made up my moral mind as an adult on the basis of moral principles and rational understanding of human needs, wants and desires.

I didn't just do what everyone around me was doing. That way lies danger.

[–]C0UNTdrama -1ポイント0ポイント  (5子コメント)

Oh man. OK let me spell this out for you. I was taught about morals back in my childhood years in the form of stories and what not. From those morals I built my own set of ethics like any adult. This should be obvious.

[–]TheGreasyPoleRed Pill Husband 1ポイント2ポイント  (4子コメント)

Yes, and the fact that if you were brought up in a nazi household, with a nazi kindergarten and schools controlled by nazis would have led those "childhood years" and "stories" to build you a totally different set of "ethics". This should also be obvious.

This is exactly how such societies work. They rely on people like you, people who just absorb what they are told as children uncritically and adopt that as an adult as "good morality". You're a minister of propaganda's wet dream.

I don't understand how this cannot have occurred to you. It seems perfectly obvious to me. You're just the kind of guy who would've argued for the divine right of kings, if born at the right time, the correctness of slavery, if born at another, and the right of pure aryans to protect their nation from international Jewry if born at another.you were ready to accept whatever you we told as a child and carry that forward to be your morality as an adult.

Forgive me for saying that this doesn't sound like a reliable way of ensuring you are moral to me.

It sounds exactly like you would accept every moral mistake that your society was making, and you'd have argued against the anti-monarchists, anti-slavery and anti-nazi folks utterly secure in your moral superiority because your parents and teachers taught you that these views were morally superior.

[–]C0UNTdrama 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

Woosh

[–]TheGreasyPoleRed Pill Husband 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

Yes, I really do think it's sailing right over your head.

You've said nothing in any of your comments about how you would counter such a circumstance, they ALL say that you just built your morality on what you were told was right as a child and, as an adult, you just accepted that as a coherent moral system because those trusted adults had told you so as a child.

I fail to see how you could maintain you wouldn't have done the exact same with a much more despicable moral system given the right environment. You'd have created just the kind of concentration camp watchtower guard who claimed not only what he was doing was necessary, but that it was also entirely right and moral. You'd probably still have been protesting the same when hunted down and put on trial aged 94.

One of the crucial tests, so far as I am concerned, with a moral system is "does it pass the test of giving the right results even in those historical contexts". I believe most moral systems arrived at as adults do just that, but not those arrived at by just absorbing the morality fed to you as a child as you claim to have built yours above.

[–][削除されました]  (29子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]C0UNTdrama 2ポイント3ポイント  (28子コメント)

    It does, you just refuse to engage.

    [–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (27子コメント)

    A priori statements still require sound premise, of which you still have none. Apparently your kindergarten sucks and they didn't teach you that.

    [–]C0UNTdrama 1ポイント2ポイント  (26子コメント)

    But I'm not making any claims. That's what I don't think you understand. Morals don't make claims. Morals are guidelines as to how to behave in society. You're asking for evidence of something you can't really measure or actually vizualize into existence. Morals are abstract ideas. You can't actually see air, but you know it's there.

    [–]Atlas_B_ShrugginRed Pill 2ポイント3ポイント  (2子コメント)

    You are still "making claims", you are making philosophical claims.

    [–]C0UNTdrama 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

    They are not claims. They are guidelines. You don't have to follow them if you don't want to.

    [–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (22子コメント)

    So you are saying people have no justifications for their ethics? They just pop out of the air arbitrarily and we have no fucking clue why? This is why BPers don't make any sense.

    [–]C0UNTdrama 0ポイント1ポイント  (21子コメント)

    So you are saying people have no justifications for their ethics?

    Of course they do. But you're not asking for a justification, you're asking for proof.

    They just pop out of the air arbitrarily and we have no fucking clue why?

    Morals are taught when you are a child and reinforced when you enter adulthood.

    [–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (19子コメント)

    Please point out where I said proof, or even better stop dodging the question and actually provide justification.

    [–]C0UNTdrama 1ポイント2ポイント  (18子コメント)

    They tend to stand on unsubstantiated premises and when questioned about it, they spaz out

    All of those statements need to be proven or supported.

    I'm not dodging the question, I just think you don't know what you're taking about.

    [–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] 2ポイント3ポイント  (17子コメント)

    Yes, proven or supported. (i.e. justification)

    [–]TheGreasyPoleRed Pill Husband [スコア非表示]  (0子コメント)

    Morals are taught when you are a child and reinforced when you enter adulthood.

    You are missing our point. This should not be the case if this is the case then your morality is just what society forced onto you.

    Morals should be your own decision. You should decide what is moral. In some cases that will mean disagreeing with society.

    All you have described is the manner in which societies recruit concentration camp guards and recommended that as the best, perhaps the only, way to acquire a moral system.

    If this is what you believe, well. I feel extremely dubious that you are a genuinely moral person. Afterall, your twin born in 1926 Germany would have used the same system, and would as an adult have defended his "position in the SS" as being entirely moral according to the morality he absorbed from his society, that he accepted uncritically as making sense as that society had trained him that way.

    Should I regard him as moral ? Clearly not.

    Yet he used the system you recommend here. As such I think it's a very bad system indeed.

    [–]belletaco 3ポイント4ポイント  (12子コメント)

    the blue pill isn't a theory, we are a collective group of different people with different opinions who happen to all enjoy laughing at TRP. Of course our advice wouldn't be consistent, we aren't all drinking da kool aid.

    [–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (11子コメント)

    Not as a group. Individual BPers are inconsistent. Their own beliefs don't make sense. I'm asking why they do this. How do moral duties extend to others? How you assign specific groups protected status? How do you claim moral absolutism?

    Edit: typo

    [–]belletaco 2ポイント3ポイント  (10子コメント)

    I'm not sure why you feel that way. A lot of blue pillers argue against things like shaming, rape, manipulation tactics and discussing minors in a sexual manner I guess we argue against those things because we believe they are wrong (and some actually illegal). I think that's more having opinions than moral absolutism.

    [–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (9子コメント)

    A lot of BPers arguing against shaming, and then try and enforce anti-shaming by using shaming practices which is also manipulation. That is hypocrisy.

    Well not all BPers claim moral absolutism explicitly, but many do it implicitly. The other statements are more important anyway, just because you believe it is wrong (even though you don't in some cases) why is it ok to force your views on others? What is the justification for believing other people should live how you want them to?

    [–]belletaco 3ポイント4ポイント  (8子コメント)

    Who's forcing their views? This is a debate sub. We have different views and we debate them.

    [–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (7子コメント)

    If I had a dollar for every time a BPer tried to shame me for shaming I would never have to work again in my life. There are is a disproportionately high ratio of shaming compared to rational debate coming from them. And most don't self reflect at all.

    [–]belletaco 2ポイント3ポイント  (6子コメント)

    I think you are missing the point of what shaming is. What is an example of what someone would say to you?

    [–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (5子コメント)

    Presenting a reasoned argument with facts only to be told that it is "sexist" with no supporting evidence or addressing of the ideas that were presented.

    The point is that there is no justification, they just assume that the idea that you might have hurt someones feelers with facts is bad is implied. You ask for justification, and their panties get in bunches.

    [–]belletaco 3ポイント4ポイント  (4子コメント)

    Maybe it's not the facts that are sexist.. but what you are saying the facts conclude that is sexist. Like graphs saying women with more sex partners have a higher rate of divorce later, okay yes, that may indeed be a fact and the fact alone is not sexist. However, when it's presented alongside something like, "It's because they're slut whores who are alpha widows that compare all their ex lovers to their new husband and his cock can't hold up to that pressure" or whatever, it then becomes sexist, when in reality the more probable reasons are things like religious reasons.

    *edit: grammarz

    [–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (3子コメント)

    Someone who was not me posted this:

    The world is not, was not, and never will be run by women. What there are are societies that are run on matristic values and society that are run on patristic values. Matristic values are present in africa and hut cultures and are the opposite of the values that create and sustain civilization

    And received this response:

    I like how you managed to be sexist and racist at the same time.

    I replied with this:

    You have funny words for reality.

    And received this:

    Guess what? It wouldn't be a stretch to say you have done nothing for society at all. You could die tomorrow and your death would be irrelevant. Human kind wouln't uffer at all. You call women self-absorbed and narcicistic but you're convinced you're convinced you're a brilliant and superior human being because you're the pasty possessor of a cum sausage. There are woman and black people all over the world who have done more than you ever will accomplish. Sorry, that's the truth. Just because people with your genitalia have accomplished things doesn't mean you are capable of that at all whatsoever. And you probably will do nothing of value ever for the world. If anything, you're just making the world worst by promoting bigotry. So yuck it up as you sit on your butt and complain at a computer languishing in how superior you are. You're not an important or worthwhile person and most likely never will be. Just like everyone else. You want truth? This is fucking it.

    And this in response:

    Lol, the red pill invented reality where women and black people are all useless and only the white male red piller who sits on his ass at a computer complaint about why women won't fuck him is of value to society.

    The irony is that I am part black. But the real issue is that the person in question simply blathered a bunch, and didn't address the issue at all, they just got their feelers in a jumble. I did at least have a reasonable discussion with someone somewhere else in the thread.

    [–][削除されました]  (18子コメント)

    [deleted]

      [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

      [deleted]

        [–][削除されました]  (15子コメント)

        [deleted]

          [–][削除されました]  (14子コメント)

          [deleted]

            [–][削除されました]  (2子コメント)

            [deleted]

              [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

              [deleted]

                [–][削除されました]  (10子コメント)

                [deleted]

                  [–][削除されました]  (9子コメント)

                  [deleted]

                    [–][削除されました]  (8子コメント)

                    [deleted]

                      [–][削除されました]  (7子コメント)

                      [deleted]

                        [–][削除されました]  (6子コメント)

                        [deleted]

                          [–][削除されました]  (5子コメント)

                          [deleted]

                            [–][削除されました]  (4子コメント)

                            [deleted]

                              [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

                              [deleted]

                                [–]CursedLemon 2ポイント3ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                Are you literally asking us where we get our ethics from in the same vein as someone who is religious would ask an atheist the same thing? Because if so, rofl

                                [–]Atlas_B_ShrugginRed Pill 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                What makes your cryptochristian Kantian ethics less faith based than actual Christian ethics?

                                [–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                So your ethics are based in faith, not rationality?

                                [–]CursedLemon 3ポイント4ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                ...No. You read that wrong.

                                [–]Amethhyst 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                BPers seem to have the most inconsistent and hypocritical beliefs

                                Well, first, there's not really such a thing as a 'Blue Pill' person, unless you're talking about the world at large who don't subscribe to TRP. TBP doesn't offer any counter philosophy to TRP.

                                Secondly, you realise that the same could could be said for TRPers too, right? TRP is pretty renowned for flaky morals. Actually, not even that - this could be said for anyone. It's very rare that you meet anyone whose morals are obvious and consistent in everything they do. Unless you're an actual philosopher, it's very likely that your belief system around morals doesn't always follow the same path as logic. Morals are often defined by emotions, and I don't think that's always a bad thing.

                                I dunno. I take each situation as it comes. I don't know that I have one rigid overarching 'system' that governs everything that I do.

                                My first rule of thumb would be to always try do right by the people I love and care about; they are my priority in life. I try to be a good and kind friend, and I try to 'be there' no matter what. I do try not to judge people too quickly, but I admit that I don't always live up to that. It's a cliche, but treat other as you want to be treated - the 'karma' in this has proven true for me personally. I think we have a moral responsibility to help those who haven't had the same chances we have in life. I think we should take responsibility for our actions in life, and not shirk responsibility. Most importantly: do no harm to other people.

                                That's my basic system of morals, I guess. Where my opposition to TRP comes in surrounds my beliefs about how ridiculous it is to hold unfounded prejudices against groups of people - the same way I think racism is ridiculous. But that's not really about 'morality' I guess - maybe some of the crueler RP behaviours would be caught by the above though.

                                [–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                But a lot of this misses the point. I'm not asking what they are, I'm asking there they come from. Your answer seems to imply your ethics are based on faith not reasoning, like a religious person might. If you are religious this is ok. But here is an example to help get to the meat of it: you say do no harm to other people, what is the justification to that? If someone is trying to kill you, or an external non-living force puts you in a kill or be killed situation, where does the justification for this come from?

                                [–]zonko_rose 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                You're finding blue pill morals inconsistent because there is no single blue pill philosophy as there is with the red pill. It's literally just 'people who think the red pill is ridiculous and harmful'.

                                [–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                BPers own personal beliefs are inconsistent, not even as a group.

                                [–]parabadamasambaFilthy man whore 1ポイント2ポイント  (5子コメント)

                                There are no "BP morals". TBP is a sub dedicated to the sole purpose of satirizing TRP.

                                The individual develops his own moral code, depending on his/her culture, upbringing, personal values, and experiences.

                                [–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (4子コメント)

                                So why are BPers so internally inconsistent? The sole purpose of PPD is not satire, and this is where it happens.

                                [–]parabadamasambaFilthy man whore 0ポイント1ポイント  (3子コメント)

                                So why are BPers so internally inconsistent?

                                I have no clue what you're talking about.

                                The sole purpose of PPD is not satire, and this is where it happens.

                                Uh, okay? TBP is a satire sub, PPD is a debate/discussion forum.

                                [–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                So why do BPers come here and spout off hypocritical and inconsistent stuff and expect to be taken seriously? Why do they not self reflect or understand the concepts they are talking about?

                                [–]parabadamasambaFilthy man whore 0ポイント1ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                So why do BPers come here and spout off hypocritical and inconsistent stuff and expect to be taken seriously? Why do they not self reflect or understand the concepts they are talking about?

                                Again, I have no clue what you're talking about. What's your complaint? Is it that different people from TBP may have different opinions on a particular topic?

                                [–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                No that individual BPers often have internally inconsistent beliefs. They have no justification for extending moral duties for other, and how they determine protected groups. They make implicit claims of moral absolutism. If they are religious, it makes sense, because what BPers believe is based on faith. If they are not, this poses a problem for them. A lot of them claim they are atheist, so I am asking for justification. What are these sound premises that allow these beliefs, what is the basis of their ethics?

                                [–]wazzup987Black pill, you can beat me blue for it later -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                The basis of all morals are subjective to the person and situation.

                                Ethics how ever are decided by what is best for the larger community. Can killing some verify some one? Sure but if we let everyone kill at their whimsy we get fallout or mad max. It's a primary reason I am not feminist as feminist activism isn't about what's good for everyone or even most women but what's good for a very specific group of special snow flakes.

                                [–]Cbus_anonymous 1ポイント2ポイント  (1子コメント)

                                "Treat women like people" isn't a claim, and therefore isn't testable, and can't be proven or supported or substantiated or whatever else is going on in your mind. It also can't be hypocritical or inconsistent. In fact nothing you wrote here is a claim.

                                People say to treat people like people, because, well, they're people. At best, you can say that it's obvious, and therefore not a helpful rule to go by.

                                [–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                It is a claim. That moral duties extend to others, you need to justify that. It sounds like you need to identify specific deontic axioms as well on what it means to be treated.

                                [–]DStooMale: I reject your reality and substitute my own. 0ポイント1ポイント  (2子コメント)

                                All of those statements need to be proven or supported.

                                No. No they don't. Take a philosophy class or something.

                                "Just be a good person" is vague and unsubstantiated, same goes for

                                Ok, replace it with "Don't be a dick". Ask yourself "Is this kind of dickish"? and if the answer is yet. Don't do it.

                                [–]TheGreasyPoleRed Pill Husband 0ポイント1ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                No. No they don't. Take a philosophy class or something.

                                I guess that fundamentally it's not compulsory. However, I'd be very wary of regarding anyone as moral who could not explain a rational basis for their decision. If someone told me "I'm moral, because God told me to be" I'd have very severe concerns about their actual morality in practice, it's likely consistency and any basis on which they could rationally criticise others morality.

                                Ok, replace it with "Don't be a dick". Ask yourself "Is this kind of dickish"? and if the answer is yet. Don't do it.

                                Wow. If that's the extent of the rationality behind your moral system I'm not sure I want to be associated with you. What if you suddenly take it into your head that "I'm justified doing X here because I'm not being a dick" ?

                                If you build your moral system on this kind of shifting sand it's no wonder you guys are all so up your asses without any means to support or understand your morality. Fuck.

                                That's without wondering how you handle all the times you have been a dick in your life. I suspect you handle these by rationalising them away as "I had reasons" or "this time it was not dickish because..." Which makes me even more concerned that you are a highly immoral person who believes himself highly moral.

                                They're the worst kind. The immoral man falsely convinced he is highly moral is, literally, Hitler.

                                [–]drok007Anti-Blue Pill[S] -1ポイント0ポイント  (0子コメント)

                                This seems to be going over your head. Why can't you be a dick? If someone is trying to kill you, why can't you be a dick? If it's kill or be killed by external forces, like lack of resources, why can't you be a dick? Your entire premise is unsubstantiated, try again.