to your own feelings.

all morality is rooted on ones emotions.

but its fine.

this.

why bother wasting life on death? far too many people on this sub have an irrational focus on and fear of dying.

if any given problem is inevitable and unaddressable why waste energy on it?

why?

its just death, never understood why it bothers people so much.

everything ends, literally everything.

and? no one can prove any of their theories, at least emergent behavior makes rational sense (the rest basically require magic, souls or other non-materiel assumptions).

'you' are literally the sum of your genes, neurons, memories, experiences, society (as such you also make all your own choices, the entire free will debate hinges on human consciousness being 'special' when it isnt)

assuming anything 'discovered' via psychedelics is actually anything in the first place.

apart from self-reflection there isnt anything there, as someone who has done a pretty large amount of a variety of hallucinogens ive never had an ego-death, met entities of any variety, felt any connection to nature or the universe or any of the other typical experiences (and ive done 1300ug doses of LSD).

personally i havent seen anything of any objective quality to psychedelics, they are interesting as hell but they cant tell you anything part of you didnt already know.

Edit: i am autistic, maybe thats why i have never had any of those experiences?

just dont? i havent bought gifts for anyone in 15 years, you make shit if you have to or just give people plants.

yep.

an entire season dedicated to pretending like people care for each other. other then the family unit most people have little to no actual care for those outside that group.

for all the talk of sharing and togetherness go ask them if they would pay more taxes to help the homeless.

the spirit of christmas is mass virtue signalling by a population that spends most of its time shitting on those below them.

what christmas feeling?

its just a day like any other, one that society has decided should be used to buy loads of shit.

just because people pretend its actually about sharing, caring and family doesnt mean it isnt actually just a corporate holiday designed to churn sales.

the whole togetherness and niceness shit is literally put on and espoused by people who dont even try live like it (watch those same people when you talk about funding welfare, not so keen on sharing now are they?) all to feel good about themselves (virtue signalling is off the charts this time of year).

how many help the homeless? most just blow 1000s of crap they toss out a few months later.

there is nothing profound about christmas other than how profoundly deluded we are as a society.

not that i can think of.

personally everything is morally permissible in context (no system of morality ever conceived actually works, any system that has inflexible rules is destined to failure ie is genocide always wrong? if a nation tries to genocide you and will not stop no matter what, collectively, then surely killing them all is morally correct?).

theft, murder, lies, all are moral in certain scenarios.

and? i knew smoking was harmful before i tried it (read the studies) and yet ive been doing for 10 years with no intention to stop.

some people value different things, resulting in different morals. personally safety and security arent even in my top 3 values (honesty, integrity and personal freedom) hence why smoking being factually bad hasnt changed my behavior.

what is more moral? allowing children to teach their kids anything or having the state determine what age certain concepts like sexuality and religion should be taught? your answer will 100% be determined by your values and if you ask 10 people all will be different and none will be wrong.

>If you can’t choose what morality to believe in, it’s no use trying to convince someone to follow your morality.

does anyone 'choose' which moral theory to follow?

i would argue the one you pick is merely the one that you feel is best ie you wont be convinced by a rational argument since you never reasoned yourself into your belief in the first place.

logic works from emotion ie if you think utilitarianism is best its because you feel its best, reasoning and logic happen after the fact.

i never reasoned myself into my morals, i pick and choose based on context and use my emotions to guide my reasoning (you cannot determine which is 'better' without use of emotion)

>So we need to be able to differentiate between the those " wants"

fairly easy frankly, maybe not for all but for some.

all i want is land somewhere so i can avoid society as much as humanly possible, ads do not and can not work on someone who refuses to buy or own anything (31 with 3k in total possessions and i buy solely on price per volume/weight).

its a shame most people need to fit in and be like the rest (more people need to know themselves and what they actually want, i do agree)

>So we cannot reject the terms of moral law. We can only obey or violate it.

well, actually we can.

just move societies, dont like US values? move to the EU or China id they fit better.

luckily morals differ across the world, so we can pick and choose those we prefer in a limited fashion.

eh, more like the US vs China.

in the US one has freedom to do pretty much whatever (obviously within some bounds) ie you can become rich enough to dismantle society itself and you are 'free' to do so (Jeff Bezos, Musk, Gates etc ie positive freedom: freedom from external interference).

in China one is free to do whatever they want within the context of larger society ie you can become rich but not enough to dismantle society itself (Jack Ma being punished for doing what Gates and Bezos did: vertical integration to the point of being able to effectively blackmail the nation ie negative freedom).

there is no absolute freedom or even a framework for it (even Anarchy has rules just no centralised authority) outside nature.

kinda just seems like positive v negative freedom.

only difference is semantics over 'choosing' to follow social norms.

luckily what is 'tolerant' is decided by group-think like all morality and ethics are.

people do not like it but popularity and might are what decide pretty much everything for all humanity.

ok so how about conservatives and their interpretations?

you are on a philosophy sub you literally do not get to just ''one side'' this thing.

next both the paradox and ignoring it threaten society, so what is your point here? we have hard evidence of what happens when all speech is free (Nazi Germany) and what happens when no speech is free (North Korea).

conservatives sure love hierarchies and group think until the positions on the totem pole change.

frankly both conservatives and liberals are one and the same (i mean Liberalism is a conservative ideology ffs) and both seem more then happy to crush any and all peoples rights if it means they 'win'.

keep simping for the system that crushes us all (the enemy are the wealthy).

>The whole conversation has to ethics the same rigor as Paschal's wager has to metaphysics.

ding ding ding.

>There ARE problems with your statement- for one it assumes an objective reality outside of ourselves

thats not a problem.

frankly onus is on you to demonstrate that universe is mind-dependent. assuming the universe exists is a perfectly fine assumption, more so then fucking solipsism anyway.

i mean there is no meaning to 'life' other then reproduction (its on you to choose a meaning), evolution by definition has no purpose (if it doesnt stop you having kids its considered 'good' in evolution) and free will exists (the definitions used by philosophers are useless. libertarian free will is patently absurd, as is the idea that just because the universe is determined that all choices are magically not choices).

half the 'debates' here are far more moronic that half the shit the edgy atheists spew out.

>More precisely, faith must be based on subjective experience; knowledge is based on what other people experienced.

no, knowledge is based on your own experience too unless you are claiming

next people lie to themselves via faith routinely in the millions, just look at how 80%+ of religious believers have faith in things they themselves injected into their holy texts.

faith in no way excludes lying and knowledge can be based on subjective experience.

certainty is the enemy of growth.

and business leaders in the US used their freedom to lobby for war in the cases of both Vietnam and Iraq ie they used their freedom to kill millions for a paycheck funded by the people.

or the freedom US carbide used when it killed 10,000 people in Bhopal, India? they had the freedom to not use safety equipment.

hell Bezos and Musk are currently using their freedom to completely undermine the US government and factually the US has not been democratic since the mid-2000s, numerous studies have concluded that the people have effectively no say over policy of any kind and that implemented policy is almost always wanted by and often written by business.

all freedom leads to mass oppression.

finally why is murder worse then not murder? what makes stopping people killing others with force better then letting them kill each other?

ie it would have been moral for the Indian government to kill the regional head of US-carbide in order to stop them using their freedom to kill thousands.

>I can trivially confirm is an action is moral or not. Just because moral truths are subjective doesn't make them not truths or unverifiable.

you can indeed but what about your neighbour? or someone from Iran?

all you can do is state if you think it is moral, not whether or not it is moral.

is it moral to murder someone trying to kill you? is it moral to kill people to save others? if a nation is trying to commit genocide and wont stop can you wipe them all out?

personally i think modern society is immoral in the extreme due to its worship of the individual, 10s of millions are left to rot at the bottom so the thousands at the top can sit on their asses and bludge off the rest and the ones in the middle have the gall to blame the bottom.

>Technology is a force multiplier, true, but it works for all sides and it's owned by the wealthy. I'm skeptical of it.

you should be, by definition a force multiplier helps those with the most influence.

who will have greater reach in a grassroots movement? you or Bezos?

it most certainly did help with trump, brexit, iraq, attempting to make the West want war with China and us voting to dismantle our own nations (look at the West, funny how we are all on a similiar trajectory isnt it?)