So naturally a utilitarian wont value group cohesion the way razor and I do

But, as I was mentioning earlier...

Why should I place my loyalty in a backwoods farmer with different philosophical, ideological, and religious views than me, though does belong to my nation

Over someone, who is likewise an urbanite and shares a common philosophy, ideology, and religion, but just so happens to be a different ethnicity?

Because the backwoods farmer would most likely defend you if your country was attacked, first of all

@SilverLining if you're a utilitarian you shouldn't.

Easy

Wheras the urbanite would most likely defend his ethnic kin first

All we can do here is debate first principles themselves

Its like we're trying to speak different languages

Why should I defend a nation which holds different ideological and philosophical principles than me?

You shouldn't.

You don't really have to

**fixed question

But you should defend your country

The state is a means to an end

Both people and governments should hold the right principles and if you do and your government doesn't then you should attempt to fix this

Assuming the invaders have a just reason and are more in line with my ideology...

What are the invaders there for?

"Just reason" is subjective

I mean, it's a case to case basis

For example, let's just go to the nazi germany circa 1945

Supposing I'm...

Invaders are almost there to spread their influence

a lesbian, communist german

Who's somehow managed to make it this far

Should I defend the german homeland, the german people, even though if I did so, I'd likely be persecuted after making my effort

A communist doesn't value ethic blood so no

^

eh, fine

just a lesbian german

there we go

Again the subject of debate has to be WHAT are the right principles

I wouldn't be killed, mind you

And why

Communists are inherently internationalist, aside from some fringe movements like National Bolshevism

Still, I'm asking in your set of beliefs

Even then

Should I?

Would it be the "right" thing to do?

Even though my nation directly violates all my personal beliefs

Is morality subjective

"Should I defend the german homeland, the german people, even though if I did so, I'd likely be persecuted after making my effort"

This is a bit irrelevant, but to you would actually probably be spared

The answer to that question determines the answer to yours

Hitler spared Jews and also let blacks fight in his army

*some Jews

But it's irrelevant

If morality is objective then your personal beliefs are irrelevant to what is right

The jews he spared were generally only used in administration roles in aiding the holocaust

Morality is subjective

I'm not interested in debating Hitler right now. It has nothing to do with principles

I do agree it's subjective, though

@The Big Oof intersting, then why on earth do you oppose Moth?

I'm merely questioning your morality

I can understand questioning the morality of others, even if it is subjective

If its subjective then the lesbian should follow her personal beliefs

Since to her this is moral and there's no objective morality

That's what would happen

not what should happen

Well, it's what should happen

imo

but

@Snakeisninja For one left wingers don't believe in moral relativism

Yes they do lol

They believe in a rebranded form of moral objectivism

They just call it something else

not really

They all view the world in black and white

It depends on the leftists

@Snakeisninja Marxists

In any case I am not a nihilist

Even though he's not a Marxist

Let's use that as a starting point

I am a Darwinian so to speak

"The history of the world is the history of class struggle"

Black and white thinking

you're presuming all leftists are marxists

"Even though he's not a Marxist
Let's use that as a starting point"

I am not @SilverLining

You're trying to paint all leftists as holding objective morals

Most do

then proceed to use a fringe example

razor I disagree with both of you not because you believe in objective morality, but because you don't 😎

Is moth a communist

no

I'm a syndie

So a commie

Got it

Syndie

not a commie

and certainly not a tankie

Everyone post Franco flags!

Subjective morality is weak @The Big Oof

It's like libertarianism

You're cucking your own morality

Objective morality doesn't exist.

@Snakeisninja I'll have to explain my thinking to you one day "in person"

@SilverLining syndicates get hanged alongside commies

In short

I believe the best moral system

is one derived from logic

I'm tired of talking here actually tbh

so

yeh

@SilverLining Nobody is doing anything

bye

I know

I'm just bored and feel like wandering off

Anyways

It's clear we'll never come to an agreement

I figured I'd give both of you a heads up

Just one thing

nah

bye

You want serious debates go to <#452955229227319306>

@SilverLining National Syndicalism > Anarcho Syndicalism @SilverLining

@Snakeisninja The best moral system is one derived from logic, but reality can differ from person to person

Because intelligence differs

and so does experience

We all believe in things, but some people have mental blocks that stop them from realizing their ideals.

yes

Libertarians have a mental block that prevents them from using state power to get what they want and nihilists have a mental block that prevents them from putting forth their morality as objective.

@The Big Oof

I am not a nihilist

What are you

Don't know how to answer that

lol

it's far easier to state what I don't agree with

Then you're not ready

I don't agree that life is meaningless because your actions affect other people

who will experience it

even if you're not there

weak

You're mind is chaotic and your worldview is ripe to be blown around by the wind

no u

You cant even articulate who you are or what you believe

This demonstrates the weakness of your position

I want you to complete your training and evolve 😉

I have a basic set of beliefs

So I will share my worldview with you.
An organism's purpose is survival.
Since all organisms die, no organism can survive indefinitely, but genes can
Organisms are vessels for genes, and thus an organism's ultimate purpose is to secure the survival of its genes.

This worldview enables me to determine how I should act in any given scenario, what I should do and what I should not do.

Peak materialism.

I don't like that

Should someone with down syndrome reproduce?

@εïз irma εïз I don't think you understand what materialism means

Irma has an extremely high IQ

No, I don't think that you do.

Just wait until you witness it

Materialism doesn't just mean "I like stuff".

You are reducing existence to the aspect of material reality.

Materialism is a form of philosophical monism which holds that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

That's exactly what you're doing.

So quite literally I am not a materialist according to this definition because I don't believe that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

Believing that human existence is reduced to our impetus for reproduction is very much a materialist position.

No it isn't. I am a dualist. You don't understand materialism

Materialism is a broad philosophy and this is actually one of the most common viewpoints of materialists.

Again I literally don't believe that all things are reducible to matter

@εïз irma εïз It's one of the cornerstones of Levayan Satanism

But you are reducing our existence to perpetuation of genes.

That's materialist as fuck.

*laveyan

lol see I knew you didn't get it

you're conflating two things that aren't the same

You can either better explain your position or condescend from an ivory tower.

Materialism isn't a moral system

But everything you've said is materialist.

Do you know what the 3 views on matter and mind are

Moral systems can be based on utilitarian materialism, which is exactly what you're describing.

Everything we do is for the purpose of spreading our genes -> only what does this is considered moral

This is utilitarian materialism.

I have a correction to make:
Earlier I said "I am an idealist."
That was a mistake. I am not an idealist, I am a dualist.

That might be the source of the confusion.

You explained your position and I firmly believe it's materialist.

I'm not getting tied up in what you call yourself.

Do we agree that materialism is a term with a standard definition

You gave me the definition of materialism, which is a broad philosophy. I agree with the definition you gave, and firmly believe it applies here.

Okay, excellent.

You're reducing human existence to the material, aka, the spread of genes.

I do not believe that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

I believe that matter is ONE fundamental substance in nature along with the imaterial

So you may not be a materialist but what you're articulating is a firmly materialist position.

So consciousness is its own reality

And is not reducible to matter

Ideas for example the number zero is not reducible to matter

Materialists wouldn't argue that 0 is reducible to matter though.

Well materialism posits that everything is reducible to matter so to speak

A materialist would argue that we perpetuate our species through chemical impulses and morality is only based on what is expedient to that end.

right

In other words exactly what you're saying.

Have you met a materialist before? Lol I've never heard one say that

I've heard it a lot

"Materialist" usually is not someone who adheres to a strict philosophy.

Well in any case I think I laid out my case for why I can't possibly be a materialist based on my belief about reality

@The Big Oof my ip is 12345678910

You don't have to be a materialist but you outlined a firmly materialist belief for existence.

I mean perhaps what you dislike about my moral system is that it doesn't deny the material world because you do

Many moral systems deny the material world

I don't like or dislike it. I'm just recognizing it for what it is.

Reality is comprised of matter and immaterial. Both elements are real and I reject neither.

I choose to recognize the value of matter and you choose to see this as a rejection of the imaterial

Your moral system is based on an impetus for reproduction. Given that we live in a world where we can reduce this to chemicals at the most reduced scale, the only logical conclusion from that position is materialism.

Absurd

If you ignore the material aspect to claim you aren't a materialist that seems like sophistry to me.

The only logical conclusion of my moral system is not materialism haha

The way you described it is exactly materialist. At this point I'm just repeating myself.

A good moral system should be able to account for the material world and argue based on it.

You don't have to deny the existence of immaterial reality to believe in my moral system

@Snakeisninja Is it ethical for a person to reproduce if their children will have serious diseases or disabilities?

Therefore the only logical conclusion of my moral system is not materialism

@The Big Oof based on what moral system? The moral system of the group that person belongs to or mine?

That's actually an interesting question

They normally shouldn't

Babies with down syndrome should also be aborted and it should be a legal requirement tbh

but I digress

You said the purpose of an organism is to spread its genes and this is the basis for morality. You argue that anything that isn't biologically utilitarian is immoral. This is fucking materialism. No way no how around it. If at any point I misrepresented you please explain why and how.

I think the problem is saying that they will have mental illness/disease

@The Big Oof so your morality, which you stated earlier was subjective, is that aborting your own children is moral?

It is a matter of probability

@Snakeisninja Aborting a baby with down syndrome is not the same as aborting a healthy baby

@εïз irma εïз I've explained at length why you misunderstand what materialism is. I see no reason to repeat myself again.

That is where the subjectivity comes in, because I would say in almost every circumstance it would be immoral

Guess you're just bad at explaining things.

aside from ones similar to the above

Fine, I will repost it again not sure what good that will do. This is the last time

materialism posits that everything is reducible to matter so to speak
I do not believe that matter is the fundamental substance in nature, and that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.
I believe that matter is ONE fundamental substance in nature along with the imaterial

Aborting healthy babies is bad for obvious reasons

You should want your nation to have a large population

I you're still confused please reread my earlier posts.

Yes, you may not be a materialist. But your notion of morality is purely materialist. I don't know how these two ideas are at odds.

My notion of morality does NOT posit that everything is reducible to matter.

"You just don't understand me MOM" is not an argument.

***What is your moral system*** @εïз irma εïз

It could, to be fair, but it could just as easily not

maybe that should highlight the difference

@The Big Oof have you considered the health issues associated with the mother when she has an abortion?

Christian objectivism.

@εïз irma εïз Really? That's badass

I had no clue

Why are we fighting

@campodin Depends

Zexy and I will be bffs now

Depends on what?

Unrelated to Ayn Rand.

Darn I have to join vc on another server because I promised I would 😦

I would just say it's best to prevent people with down syndrome from existing

This has been a great discussion

Its a shame we couldn't get more into it but lets talk again

@The Big Oof why not just prevent them from reproducing?

Institutions have to be erected to care for them

Ayn Rand is based