Morals - Why?

Quote :

i think that a society in which all people are only concerend with bettering the public is a very succsesfull one

justification please?

Quote :

you are being standoffish and its limiting your abillity to expand your beliefs.

if refusing to make unjustified statements is standoffish, yes i am standoffish. i know that communism or socialism is not morally better than nazism.

Watermelon wrote:

Quote :

i think that a society in which all people are only concerend with bettering the public is a very succsesfull one

justification please?

Quote :

you are being standoffish and its limiting your abillity to expand your beliefs.

if refusing to make unjustified statements is standoffish, yes i am standoffish. i know that communism or socialism is not morally better than nazism.

ok we need to stop reffering to things as morally superior to others. morals are simply doctrines that make society more succsefull when the general public follow them. and my view of a succsefull society is a peacefull one in which the general public is in a state of happieness and equallity.

i belive that the general public does not feel that way in America and we certaintly are not peacefull and therefore it is "immoral". i also belive that an anarchist society would be more "moral" in the sense that the general public would be more equal. that is NOT an unjustified statement its just one of the basic concepts of anarchist society

okay so in your view moral is succes. maybe in someone elses view massive killing is moral. again you are being dogmatic. moral isnt just what you say it is.

moral just means how something should be.

why should society be successful.


ill stop being "standoffish" as soon as you admit that anarchy is not better than nazism

Watermelon wrote:

okay so in your view moral is succes. maybe in someone elses view massive killing is moral. again you are being dogmatic. moral isnt just what you say it is.

moral just means how something should be.

why should society be successful.


ill stop being "standoffish" as soon as you admit that anarchy is not better than nazism

how can i do that? "better" is relative. im a humanist and i am an advocate for human happines andindividual freedom. which is why anarchism is better for me and anyone else who wants a free society

exaclty. better is relative. anarchy is good to you. but will you admit that objectively, anarchy is no better than nazism.

Watermelon wrote:

exaclty. better is relative. anarchy is good to you. but will you admit that objectively, anarchy is no better than nazism.

sure. but objectivly nothing can be accomplished and no one benifits. im talking about trying to make a movment that will improve peoples lives. i am a huge advocate for the pursuit of knowledge and understanding but today is a day for action america is in a sad place

objective morality does not exist.
in the absence of morality, existence has no higher meaning or goal.
nihilism is the best.

"To the clean are all things clean' — thus say the people. I, however, say unto you: To the swine all things become swinish! Therefore preach the visionaries and bowed-heads (whose hearts are also bowed down): 'The world itself is a filthy monster.' For these are all unclean spirits; especially those, however, who have no peace or rest, unless they see the world FROM THE BACKSIDE — the backwoodsmen! TO THOSE do I say it to the face, although it sound unpleasantly: the world resembleth man, in that it hath a backside, — SO MUCH is true! There is in the world much filth: SO MUCH is true! But the world itself is not therefore a filthy monster"

– Friedrich Nietzsche

Quote :

but objectivly nothing can be accomplished and no one benifits

False. Actually Marxism is an objective science.

Watermelon wrote:

Quote :

but objectivly nothing can be accomplished and no one benifits

False. Actually Marxism is an objective science.

this entire thread you have attempted to debunk my arguments for anarchy by saying that objectivly it is no better than nazism. so now i ask you this "objectivly" are you solving anything? your course of thought takes you in circles. because you can also say that your precious marxism is "objectivly" no better than anarchism so why pursue it over anarchism or say nazism for that matter? because you feel marxism better for society in the sense that more people will benifit from it... we have a common goal you just arent willing to admit it in the intrest of being irratating

Dude. Do you actually think Marxists say marxism is 'better' than capitalism? Quit criticizing something you know nothing about. Marxism is based on the fact that inevitably, a proletarian revolution will overthrow capitalism to establish socialism which will then wither away into communism.

If you want to know why, ask in the thread I made in Politics.

Watermelon wrote:

Dude. Do you actually think Marxists say marxism is 'better' than capitalism? Quit criticizing something you know nothing about. Marxism is based on the fact that inevitably, a proletarian revolution will overthrow capitalism to establish socialism which will then wither away into communism.

If you want to know why, ask in the thread I made in Politics.

I dont ciriticize Marxism in fact i belive Anarchy to be the final stage of communism

Saying something is objectivly better than something else is childish. You can argue absolutly anything with that but in the end you are really argueing about nothing. Your logic takes you in circles and there is only one answer to every question.

mononokifool wrote:

Saying something is objectivly better than something else is childish. You can argue absolutly anything with that but in the end you are really argueing about nothing. Your logic takes you in circles and there is only one answer to every question.

No progress can be made with your logic watermelon because every argument can be turned against itself. if no form of politics is superior to others how can we ever have opinions? and how can you call yourself a marxist