The Philosophy Now Forum

promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2026 4:08 pm …logically and reasonably there are no moral facts!

Roger that. Why then did you seem to suffer some moral pang about the gee-tar?

Bourgeois programming?

promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2026 4:08 pm "Morals are subject to logic and reason."

Correct and incorrect! Statements are subject to logic and reason, but moral statements can't be true or false (they 'emote', that's all). Therefore, moral statements can not be subject to logic and reason and your statement is true; logically and reasonably there are no moral facts!

Well ---- might be confusing two things:

In situation X doing A invokes the "right feeling" and doing B the "wrong feeling ----- that is a statement.
In situation X (same situation) doing C invokes the "right feeling" and doing D the "wrong feeling" ----- that's a statement also

We might then apply logic/reason to evaluate statements like
In situation X, doing A and C will invoke the "right feeling"
In situation X, doing A and D will invoke what feeling(s) << we might want to discuss/argue when feelings are in conflict >>

We can't do logic/reason is JUST "oughts" but we can when mixed statements. Thus conclude "in situation X we ought to do A and C"

promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2026 6:32 pm "But if, as you say, they are not facts, then why "ought" anybody to care what they say?"

The fact that moral commands aren't facts isn't why someone should or shouldn't obey (care) what they say, haus. Why someone ought or ought not care depends on the return, the consequences, of each. If greater pleasure is gained from following command x, then one 'ought' to do x.

Oh. So you're just a Consequentialist. Unfortunately for that, the faults of Consequentialism are well-known. I need not rehearse them here.
https://www.britannica.com/topic/ethics ... uentialism

"So a psychopath "ought" to kill, because he enjoys it, etc., etc."

This is a trick question.

Not at all. It's the consequence of your hedonic assumptions...pleasure = goodness, and psychopaths get pleasure out of causing pain, therefore causing pain = good.

You can readily see the problems with such an answer, therefore.

But worse than that, even, is that you've only backed the truck up one stop: where is it written that we owe it to each other to be Consequentialists?

Now you've got the same problem again: no authority for your claim that we owe it ("ought") to regard pleasure as goodness.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2026 4:08 pm "Morals are subject to logic and reason."

Correct and incorrect! Statements are subject to logic and reason, but moral statements can't be true or false (they 'emote', that's all). Therefore, moral statements can not be subject to logic and reason and your statement is true; logically and reasonably there are no moral facts!

He meant of course that people will consult each other and conclude what acts are “moral” or not. You quite simply assert that morality is a category without substantial meaning. Rather similar to how you see metaphysics.

So (to take an example, förlåt mig) you were jailed, according to your own account, unjustly (in excess and with unjust consequences). But on what basis can you complain? You allow yourself no base.

Similarly, there is a progression that you have lived through and we all are living through. The conceptual line to the sense of a moral order was cut. How this happened can be traced. Conceptually, you cannot reconstruct or reestablish it. And therefore you render yourself the end process of that severance. That is to say that an instrument more powerful than you can and will do to you what it wills (more accurately what it has been programmed to do) and you have no basis for complaint.

Sorry, Old Boy. But there you have it.

(What happened to that guitar?)

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2026 6:55 pm

promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2026 4:08 pm "Morals are subject to logic and reason."

Correct and incorrect! Statements are subject to logic and reason, but moral statements can't be true or false (they 'emote', that's all). Therefore, moral statements can not be subject to logic and reason and your statement is true; logically and reasonably there are no moral facts!

He meant of course that people will consult each other and conclude what acts are “moral” or not.

Will they remember to consult the Colombian migrant gang member? The Jihadi? Will they consult *gasp* Republicans? If not, there are huge swaths of the population they may have to cut out...and without explaining any moral warrant for so doing.

But "consult" with their friends, maybe they will.

You quite simply assert that morality is a category without substantial meaning. Rather similar yo how you see metaphysics. So, you were jailed, according to your own account, unjustly. But on what basis can you complain? You allow yourself no base.

True dat.

Similarly, there is a progression that you have lived through and we all are living through. The conceptual line to the sense of a moral order was cut. Conceptually, you cannot reconstruct or reestablish it. And therefore you render yourself the end process of that severance. That is to say that an instrument more powerful than you can and will do to you what it wills (more accurately what it has been programmed to do) and you have no basis for complaint.

Sorry, Old Boy. But there you have it.

Quite well put. Nietzsche also said the same, long before us: in a world without God, the only thing left to arbitrate what is allowed and what is not is raw power. Morality is out. So the strongest beats up the weakest, and becomes the arbiter of "morality."

It doesn't bode well for the Leftists after they destroy the West and their Islamist "supporters" turn on them, as they inevitably must. The Left is not exactly notorious for high-testosterone energy. But Islamism is very used to the application of raw power to arbitrating conflicts.

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2026 7:04 pm It doesn't bode well for the Leftists after they destroy the West and their Islamist "supporters" turn on them, as they inevitably must. The Left is not exactly notorious for high-testosterone energy. But Islamism is very used to the application of raw power to arbitrating conflicts.

As you are aware people like Richard Weaver organize their critical theories on the topic of “what has gone wrong” by way of an historical investigation. Something happened at some point, they say, and therefore we see now (and live in) the consequences.

Inevitably, conservatism seems always to ground itself on the supposition that if the “mistake” can be located and named (understood) that it can be remedied.

See, what I always try to talk about (here within a relatively closed conversation between a small group who remain in this space) is the degree to which we are ourselves consequences. The things we “most truly believe” in the Carlylian sense are these phrasings that get tossed up as if they are in fact solidities.

In my view, that defines Promethean (I do not mean to be exclusively critical of him but he is a good example). There is really no substance to his philosophy just a mood or irony. It is all a long drawn out joke.

What foundation is there to build on?

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2026 7:22 pm There is really no substance to his philosophy just a mood or irony. It is all a long drawn out joke.

What foundation is there to build on?

That's well-put. I have to agree. But let's see what he can say that can change that...if anything.

IC wrote:Will they remember to consult the Colombian migrant gang member? The Jihadi? Will they consult *gasp* Republicans? If not, there are huge swaths of the population they may have to cut out...and without explaining any moral warrant for so doing.

The implication of all of this, and frankly what is of the highest consequence for the Occident, is essentially the destruction of “the church” as a believable authority. There no longer exists a singular European authority that can 1) defend what is supernatural to the observable, quantifiable world) and 2) assert itself into the domains of social and cultural life.

I certainly understand why it is that you have chosen the ground of defense of “supernatural authority”, and I obviously agree in essence, but the problem remains: the spiritual edifice is sufficiently decayed, and the former authority (the literal Church) even you reject and will not give over obedience to. (I am more inclined to accept the authority of the Church and so am constantly referring to “established traditional doctrines”).

It is true: the world unravels. But there is nothing really to be done under the circumstances.

"So, you were jailed, according to your own account, unjustly. But on what basis can you complain? You allow yourself no base."

I handled that apparant contradiction a long time ago, in fact. The results were quite disturbing. Once i had ruled out freewill, i could no longer gnash my teeth at the POleece, and i experienced a terrifying thought. What angered me was not that they are evil but that they are not openly so. These people were either too stupid to understand themselves and actually thought they were serving justice, god, what have you.... or... they knew what they were doing and only pretended to be serving justice, god, what have you.

In both cases, i have a determinant. In the former, something less than human and very dangerous... an incompetent tyrant. In the latter, something dangerous, intelligent, purposely trying to destroy me and pretending not to be.

So, i would be less offended by a Mussolinian POleece state giving me a life sentence because they didn't like the way i looked than i am by a servant of the law being either incompetent or pretending to be a good guy. The first is openly evil and hides behind nothing. The second is a mishmash of one-half ignorance of the systemic corruption of the system they defend and one-half opportunistic scumbag motivated by personal gain instead of justice and abusing his power toward that end.

You have the dumb drones that would chase me through the woods tryna taze my ass even if I'm innocent because "I'm just doing my job, sir. I'm not a philosopher." The drones are dispensible just out of principle: how could you willingly take a job where you might be required to arrest, detain, imprison, or execute an innocent man? Are you a retard or are you trying to get shot?

But then you have the ring masters, the district attorneys, and their teams. These are the ones who may not only know you are innocent but not even care.

Anyway, once i found there was no way around the moral depravity of man, i discovered that i had it all wrong the whole time. Evil isn't the problem. Not being evil enough is the problem!

Alexis Jacobi wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2026 7:45 pm

IC wrote:Will they remember to consult the Colombian migrant gang member? The Jihadi? Will they consult *gasp* Republicans? If not, there are huge swaths of the population they may have to cut out...and without explaining any moral warrant for so doing.

The implication of all of this, and frankly what is of the highest consequence for the Occident, is essentially the destruction of “the church” as a believable authority. There no longer exists a singular European authority that can 1) defend what is supernatural to the observable, quantifiable world) and 2) assert itself into the domains of social and cultural life.

I certainly understand why it is that you have chosen the ground of defense of “supernatural authority”, and I obviously agree in essence, but the problem remains: the spiritual edifice is sufficiently decayed, and the former authority (the literal Church) even you reject and will not give over obedience to. (I am more inclined to accept the authority of the Church and so am constantly referring to “established traditional doctrines”).

It is true: the world unravels. But there is nothing really to be done under the circumstances.

I've never thought of the church as the ground of morality. Surely, if it has any genuine authority, it would be merely a derivation of Divine authority, and thus not open to use and abuse by men, but rather chained inevitably to the moral orientation of its ultimate Authority. If God doesn't believe it, and the church does, then it has to be the church that would be wrong. The church itself only claims derived moral judgment, even in any case where that judgment might be correct -- not inherent authority.

But Islamists are an interesting problem for secularism. They also have a strong sense of moral authority. I don't believe it's a correct one, of course; but you can see how it empowers their actions, when you compare them to the effete, cloudy and diffuse moral judgments of the secular Left. The Left doesn't know what it stands for, because it doesn't precisely stand for anything -- it stands primarily against -- against the West, against the status quo, against tradition, against objective truth, against sexual mores, against restraint and against all particular civilizations. But it doesn't really stand for anything definite. Some of their leading theorists even insist it's not possible to say what their drive for "liberation" is for; the outcome is supposed to emerge from the Stygian penombre of History, not be specified in advance of its arrival, they say. Which is only to say that they have no idea of the abyss toward which they are precipitating Western civilization: only the vague faith that whatever it is, it will be better for them when it arrives.

And Islamists have other ideas. Very definite, very clear, very political, and spelled out in detail in Sharia. It is the subjugation to religious dogma of the entire West that these Islamists aim at. And secularism is no part of that plan...not even a small one. Sexual permissiveness? Not a chance. The rights of women? Are you kidding? No live infidels, and no live Jews. No unhumiliated and unsubdued non-Islamists, either. And they're plenty unified in that goal, and direct in producing it. There is no chance the wobbly and morally ambiguous secular West is going to be left to pursue their own objectives, once the singular shared objective of destroying Western civilization is achieved by Leftists and Islamists in tandem, just as in France. Of that, you can be sure.

What is to be done? What is to be done is to remain morally clear ourselves. We are not in control of Western civilization personally, and much less in control of the Islamists. But we could take care to make sure our own moral beliefs are properly grounded and firmly practiced, as well as compellingly articulated. And if we did that, then the Islamists would meet far better resistance than they will get from the secular Left.

"Oh. So you're just a Consequentialist. Unfortunately for that, the faults of Consequentialism are well-known."

Well, of course. Didn't you know? My and my philosophy's ends are not dedicated to the benefit of any society but to the greatest benefit of the individual against any society (all of which i consider illegitimate social contracts). This has been my MO since 2010 FFS. Where have you been?

Btw, a utilitarian and deontological ethicist is just a consequentialist who doesn't like the consequences of consequentialism. Still a consequentialist at the end of the day.

I can tell you this, though, Mr. AJ. Every crime i ever committed was somehow tied to not having enough money either directly or in a roundabout way. Sounds cliche working class struggle. I'm just sayin. And this was well before i ever spent irresponsibly and could be blamed for being broke.

Hypothetical. Say i got paid every cent for the metal framing in the new university science building instead of twelve dollars an hour while i was in that town and hanging out with bro. I betchu i wouldn't have ganked his guitar. I would have thought it easier and safer to just buy one.

Seriously though, every single blue-collar crime anecdote can be traced back to shit wages. Name me a criminal, and I'll show you a man/woman who either couldn't get a 9to5 or could but wouldn't dare be an undignified slave and keep it for too long. Some even try to hold out and job hop hoping to finally land a big one. Nope. $9.65 per hour, sir. You must understand that this is why the sexy Teds and professor Bradys choose the dark side. They tried and failed. Why Shawanda's baby boy will grow up to be STRAIGHT GANGSTA. He will try and fail. Why the young Prom will steal an acoustic guitar from a college dude. He, too, will try and fail, finally to become a statistic in the book of lower working class blue collar criminal scumbags.

promethean75 wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2026 8:17 pm Anyway, once i found there was no way around the moral depravity of man, i discovered that I had it all wrong the whole time. Evil isn't the problem. Not being evil enough is the problem!

First, and unless I am wrong (I only glancingly read a description of your travails) you committed a crime and were caught. I suppose the social mood was or is such that that particular crime was slated to be punished aggressively. And you found yourself punished as a perpetrator. So, the real issue is the severity of the punishment, isn’t it? Or do you suppose crimes of that order should have no penalty?

I cannot figure out all your “philosophical” ruminations around this issue however. Unless you see yourself as Mersault?

Still, you are condemning of something in the actions of your punishers. Or is that too all just some sort of joke?

Immanuel Can wrote: ↑Tue Oct 13, 2026 8:20 pm I've never thought of the church as the ground of morality. Surely, if it has any genuine authority, it would be merely a derivation of Divine authority, and thus not open to use and abuse by men, but rather chained inevitably to the moral orientation of its ultimate Authority. If God doesn't believe it, and the church does, then it has to be the church that would be wrong. The church itself only claims derived moral judgment, even in any case where that judgment might be correct -- not inherent authority.

You did not capitalize ‘church’ so I am uncertain if you mean the Roman Catholic Church or ‘church’ in a very general sense.

The Church defines itself as having been assigned a mission of carrying forward those ‘essences’ that are described as “Christian”. As you know I accept that this is so and I accept that, for Europe, the Church has been and still is that Authority.

I know that as a committed Protestant you will have none of this and I have no interest in arguing against your position.

But the fact remains: Europe has no existing moral authority. Yes, it has one that claims that authority (the Church) but effectively it is largely powerless. There is no ecclesiastical authority within Protestantism either.

I think you are not quite right about how the Church sees itself in regard to either derived or bestowed authority. It very clearly defines its authority as both genuine and, distinct from “derived” then in fact “bestowed”. But let’s not get bogged down in useless disputation.

Since there is effectively no Authority, or no structure by which Christian authority could be wielded, how do you describe such a situation?

"So, the real issue is the severity of the punishment, isn’t it? Or do you suppose crimes of that order should have no penalty?"

Indeed, that is a problem! The severity of a punishment and its proportionality to the crime. There may not be a better case of a failure at this than my own in the entire universe. Even the crucifixion of your homeboy J could arguably be called appropriate if he was a dangerous political agitator that could send the kingdom into revolt. But a lifetime on a SO registry empirically proven not to be effective with all its consequences and restrictions because somebody saw your peepee a long, long time ago.... no, that's not gonna work, boss man.

The other more pressing matter than that of the disproportionate punishment that doesn't even work is the matter of being charged with crimes you did not even commit and being given a disproportionate punishment that doesn't even work.

That's a triple whammy.