[adjkant]

> What kind of unhinged philosophy are you smoking? Objectivism? Marxism? Freebasing Solipsism?

Not OP but I assumed this was a version of nihilistic error theory that led to the "no such thing as morality" and then from there erases all idea of ownership or rights or anything. From there it's all just a dog eat dog jungle view of all of the world and maybe you sprinkle in some Hobbesian views of the social contract.

I'll pass but there's at least potential consistency in this morbid view of the world!

[claudiawerner]

It's worth noting that the error theory only erases the objectivity of moral statements. It does not provide any way forward in itself. Most moral error theorists actually subscribe to the idea that we should pretend that morality is real in most instances. This is known as moral fictionalism. There are several other ways forward. Some, for instance, say that we now have more freedom to experiment with "morality" given that we are no longer governed by it.

Only Stirner and "moral abolitionists" believe we should stop talking in moral terms. Once the moral error theory is accepted, it's only a matter of practicality as to what one should do with moral statements and sentiments.

As such, there's plenty of room for other statements not based in morality - ones from practicality, and normative statements which are not facts, but personal opinions.

I can still think murder is wrong; I can still argue for there to be laws against murder, and I can still be horrified by it. What I can't say is that murder is wrong (in the moral sense) for everyone everywhere, and that by murdering you are contrevening a universal law. There is no commandment (says the moral error theorist), moral, religious, or otherwise, that we must obey.

[adjkant]

Oh, I'm an error theorist myself, no need to tell me! The key modifier there for me was "nihilistic" error theory, aka one that gives up on making sense of a world without an "objective" morality. No intention of calling error theory generally crazy or unhinged. In some ways I feel bad for OP - the view seems quite unhinged when read together, but really I would view it as one misstep/lack of step on the way to interesting truth.

FWIW, my personal way forward is something like determinism + moral psychology + Rawls theory of justice if that makes any sense.

Based on this thread plus your bio Spinoza quote I'm guessing we likely align on a good deal :)

[AntiImperialis2]

>the view seems quite unhinged when read together, but really I would view it as one misstep/lack of step on the way to interesting truth.

Why "unhinged"? I don't know philosophy and English is not my language but I'll try to generalize:

Living organisms take resources that they can, specially if there's a net positive gain from it. This happens because those that gain the most net positive tend to reproduce more and hence these traits (i.e. tendency to take resources which are a net benefit) gets passed on. Does evolutionary theory disagree with this?

Humans are just a special (as opposed to general, I don't believe there's anything "special" special about humans) case of it.

Let's say that there were just two human tribes. If the tribes are not equally powerful, the powerful one will kill most of them and take all the resources and the women.

Let's imagine a case where they are almost equally powerful. Then, conflict would cause mutual destruction and it makes it worth it to have an understanding between them... in which they don't kill each other and not take each others' stuff.

You could argue such cost benefits between families in tribes or individuals in families from the same framework.

None of this needs "morality". You could argue that the very set of rules which make for an optimal balance between individual, family, tribal and inter-tribal interests is in fact "morality"... but when the resources and the power balance changes, whatever "morals" people thought existed will disappear and will be replaced by new set of "morals".

[kleer001]

What we say is how we act.

The way you talk makes you sound like someone who would be an awful pain in the ass to be around. Pedantic and half baked.

While technically correct your analysis is only half formed.

You have much more reading to do.

Start with these books to get a clearer idea of why you're getting a negative response to your honestly held beliefs:

How to Win Friends and Influence People by Dale Carnegie

Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman! by Richard Feynman

And some extra credit:

Maps of Meaning by Jordan Peterson

Behave: The Biology of Humans at Our Best and Worst by Robert Sapolsky

One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich by Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn

[adjkant]

> If the tribes are not equally powerful, the powerful one will kill most of them and take all the resources and the women.

This simply doesn't describe humanity, nor many species of animals.

Yes, humanity is selfish and will do many things for self preservation. But we also have a large capacity for empathy and collaboration. Not everything traces back to those either even if you try to just say the modern world is a more complex version of this. Love is a classic example people point to of selflessness being instinctually in humans.

At its core, you are getting downvoted because you have a very negative view of humanity that is both inaccurate and harmful if applied. To extend that "no morality, nothing belongs to anybody" mindset just ends up with a worse world for no reason. This "you follow those rules because otherwise the elites will come for you" idea also just seems like conspiracy type handwaving, and I say this as someone who's plenty anti-imperialist and the like myself.

Would you also not be concerned to be around someone who implies they would do whatever they please even it it harmed you but the thing stopping them is society? To me, that seems like someone who is neither empathetic or social and I, as a social and empathetic person, would avoid that and hope they don't harm others. You may not have meant to imply that, but it kinda reads that way.

When you ask questions like:

> What if the thing you're stealing from me today was something I stole from you yesterday? Would it still be "immoral"? What if my great grandfather stole from your great grandfather many years ago and you steal it back today? What if the transactions aren't that simple? What if the stealing happened in a much more complicated structure throughout many generations in a network of billions of people?

You aren't showing that morality doesn't exist, you're pointing out its complexity. Moral questions are at the center of nearly all social and political debate. It's hard to get agreement!

But going back to your latest post:

> You could argue such cost benefits between families in tribes or individuals in families from the same framework.

Okay, why don't we? What about the tribe of all humanity, or of all living things? One big flaw in your logic is that life is not a zero sum game, and that's one thing that makes collaboration worthwhile.

Why do you think so many people would be guilty after killing someone? Because again, humans have empathy and other capacities that make them care about certain things. Yes, some humans like sociopaths/psychopaths can lack this, but that doesn't invalidate that its present in most, though it can create a wrinkle in the rules being so straightforward.

> You could argue that the very set of rules which make for an optimal balance between individual, family, tribal and inter-tribal interests is in fact "morality"

See, I actually more or less agree here. I think that set of rules is more or less an objective set you can derive from human psychology (see moral psychology above) and that if you change what humans are, you also change morality. Most renditions of human civilization and history support that - we didn't all, across the globe, just magically agree that senseless murder is bad - it was baked into humanity.

> but when the resources and the power balance changes, whatever "morals" people thought existed will disappear and will be replaced by new set of "morals"

You're mixing law and morality here. Laws can change or come and go, but morality (at least an objective view of one) is true or false regardless of the circumstances it exists in (again, beyond changes to human nature). That's one option. Some ascribe to subjectivism instead, which you might. But that's still morality!

This is a decent basic overview starting point of meta-ethics (what grounds ethics/morality) if you're interested: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOoffXFpAlU

PS: Sorry about talking about you but not engaging. It was frankly hard to tell if it was an actual belief or a troll at first, and addressing all of this takes some energy. I don't mean to condescend either so know that's not my intention if it reads like that!