Morality is based on emotion, not logic

[Big Boss]

Morality is deeply wired into our evolutionary psychology and emotions rather than running on pure cold logic, which is exactly why our outrage doesn't always line up neatly with the severity of the consequences.

When you look at it strictly by the numbers, murder is the permanent termination of a life, it should be the absolute endpoint of harm. Yet crimes like rape or child abuse often trigger a visceral level of revulsion and social condemnation that even some murders dont. That discrepancy happens because our moral framework isn't built by a logic calculator, it’s shaped by how a crime feels to us.

 

[Big Boss]

Remember how you felt outraged when i creepshotting foids because the action felt wrong, but logically i was just filming what they were already showing off

 

[Big Boss]

Remember how you felt outraged when i creepshotting foids because the action felt wrong, but logically i was just filming what they were already showing off

When the truth nuke is so brutal it leaves everyone speechless…


Anything to cope with brutal no reply pill

 

[autistretard77]

+ getting indoctrinated throughout for formative years so it literally hardwires in your brain.

 

[Notorious_1676]

A lot of of people that pretend rape is the worst thing you can do and nothing comes close are just virtue signaling for foids. I think the men who genuinely believe rape is worse than murder is most likely because they're subconsciously scared that their gf, wife, sister or mother would enjoy gettting raped and they just can't cope with that.

 

[Bunnyonroids]

Morality is deeply wired into our evolutionary psychology and emotions rather than running on pure cold logic, which is exactly why our outrage doesn't always line up neatly with the severity of the consequences.

When you look at it strictly by the numbers, murder is the permanent termination of a life, it should be the absolute endpoint of harm. Yet crimes like rape or child abuse often trigger a visceral level of revulsion and social condemnation that even some murders dont. That discrepancy happens because our moral framework isn't built by a logic calculator, it’s shaped by how a crime feels to us.

Holy fuck thats true ppl who say its logic are jus fuckin dumb ppl are driven by emotions all the time and they sit there and lie abt being logical

 

[Bunnyonroids]

A lot of of people that pretend rape is the worst thing you can do and nothing comes close are just virtue signaling for foids. I think the men who genuinely believe rape is worse than murder is most likely because they're subconsciously scared that their gf, wife, sister or mother would enjoy gettting raped and they just can't cope with that.

Or they might jus got raped when they were kids or sum

 

[Notorious_1676]

Or they might jus got raped when they were kids or sum

I doubt it, and there is a large percentage of Men that pretend rape is the absolute worst thing that you can do. Surely not all of them got raped, most of them are ugly anyways

 

[ICXCLuvr]

I’m split on this but you raised really good points

 

[Suicidalcel]

One could argue that the trauma from child abuse is prolonged suffering while a muder victim basically suffers during the murder and that's it

 

[Suicidalcel]

none of them elicit visceral disgust in me atp

 

[killcry]

Morality is deeply wired into our evolutionary psychology and emotions rather than running on pure cold logic, which is exactly why our outrage doesn't always line up neatly with the severity of the consequences.

When you look at it strictly by the numbers, murder is the permanent termination of a life, it should be the absolute endpoint of harm. Yet crimes like rape or child abuse often trigger a visceral level of revulsion and social condemnation that even some murders dont. That discrepancy happens because our moral framework isn't built by a logic calculator, it’s shaped by how a crime feels to us.

i mean one could argue that the overall pain and harm inflicted by effectively snapping someone out of existence (point blank gunshot to the head, assuming this is an insta kill) is less than say the continous rape and torture of a child, maybe you're the emotional one appealing to that, and the people viscerally revolted by such an action are the logical ones

 

[killcry]

I’m split on this but you raised really good points

Boi couldnt say more didy shit

 

[ICXCLuvr]

Boi couldnt say more didy shit

 

[killcry]

One could argue that the trauma from child abuse is prolonged suffering while a muder victim basically suffers during the murder and that's it

why did we say the same thing wtf exact same phrasing too i'm actually tweaking

 

[killcry]

One could argue that the trauma from child abuse is prolonged suffering while a muder victim basically suffers during the murder and that's it

this has to be some giga autism wavelength shit i'm following you

 

[ICXCLuvr]

One could argue that the trauma from child abuse is prolonged suffering while a muder victim basically suffers during the murder and that's it

That’s their argument but someone who is murdered loses their life and, will, and ability to do anything since then, and rape victims can sometimes heal and most of them are not suicidal, so murder is still the worse possible evil unless it’s like extreme torture where the limbs are torn off haha

 

[killcry]

That’s their argument but someone who is murdered loses their life and, will, and ability to do anything since then, and rape victims can sometimes heal and most of them are not suicidal, so murder is still the worse possible evil unless it’s like extreme torture where the limbs are torn off haha

what about instead of some 26 year old fat white whore that gets touched a little bit at a party by some low inhib frat boy while she's drunk

its a child who endures prolonged and repeated durations of intense psychological, sexual, physical and emotional torture throughout their formative years

versus some normie that lived a normal arguably happy life that is the victim of a drive by

what then? or will you still argue that they can still heal, while the other guy is dead

 

[Big Boss]

what about instead of some 26 year old fat white whore that gets touched a little bit at a party by some low inhib frat boy while she's drunk

its a child who endures prolonged and repeated durations of intense psychological, sexual, physical and emotional torture throughout their formative years

versus some normie that lived a normal arguably happy life that is the victim of a drive by

what then? or will you still argue that they can still heal, while the other guy is dead

You're comparing a worst case torture scenario to a mild inconvenience just to rig the math. Of course years of torture is worse than a quick death, but comparing extremes doesnt prove your rule.

 

[ICXCLuvr]

what then? or will you still argue that they can still heal, while the other guy is dead

I’ll still argue that

its a child who endures prolonged and repeated durations of intense psychological, sexual, physical and emotional torture throughout their formative years

versus some normie that lived a normal arguably happy life that is the victim of a drive by

so is your solution that we euthanize child rape victims so that they can’t experience pain?

Also I’m pretty sure that the victim still wants to live most of the times, because life has potential to be valuable. It’s a nuanced topic tho

 

[ØUROBOROS]

Fr that's why niggas were freaking out under my thread.

Thread 'Pedophilia and rape isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be' https://looksmax.org/threads/pedophilia-and-rape-isnt-as-bad-as-everyone-makes-it-out-to-be.2372719/

 

[Big Boss]

Fr that's why niggas were freaking out under my thread.

Thread 'Pedophilia and rape isn't as bad as everyone makes it out to be' https://looksmax.org/threads/pedophilia-and-rape-isnt-as-bad-as-everyone-makes-it-out-to-be.2372719/

It was the inspiration to my thread

 

[killcry]

You're comparing a worst case torture scenario to a mild inconvenience just to rig the math. Of course years of torture is worse than a quick death, but comparing extremes doesnt prove your rule.

i think the way i phrased it was really exaggerative and punctual, but that's really the notion of child abuse, even something not on the so extreme end of things like being stuck in a small house where people argue all the time could effectively ruin the right someone's life at the right time, and since trauma is super complex, it could have similar damage that molestation or anything else extreme could result in

even this comparison, you could weigh either life and their quality, suffering, pain etc, and it would still be a logical line of reasoning to argue that the point blank gunshot insta kill victim's consequential suffering is zero even, or the oceangate deaths (even though they were not murdered, just consider it was a murder for the sake of argument), versus the often very intense psychological damage that comes with being molested by a family member of being beaten by your father or having a mother that is a prostitute

i agree that the rig of math is retarded and i don't think about suffering in such a standardized way, but i could again argue that such is a logical line of reasoning, and you're still appealing emotionally to murder, and the grim nature that is a life being snuffed out of existence

 

[Big Boss]

i think the way i phrased it was really exaggerative and punctual, but that's really the notion of child abuse, even something not on the so extreme end of things like being stuck in a small house where people argue all the time could effectively ruin the right someone's life at the right time, and since trauma is super complex, it could have similar damage that molestation or anything else extreme could result in

even this comparison, you could weigh either life and their quality, suffering, pain etc, and it would still be a logical line of reasoning to argue that the point blank gunshot insta kill victim's consequential suffering is zero even, or the oceangate deaths (even though they were not murdered, just consider it was a murder for the sake of argument), versus the often very intense psychological damage that comes with being molested by a family member of being beaten by your father or having a mother that is a prostitute

i agree that the rig of math is retarded and i don't think about suffering in such a standardized way, but i could again argue that such is a logical line of reasoning, and you're still appealing emotionally to murder, and the grim nature that is a life being snuffed out of existence

You're just defining ‘worse' as whatever causes the most long term pain, while I'm defining it as permanently erasing someones entire existence. Neither of those makes one 'logical’ and the other 'emotional'. they're just two different values.

Basically its not universally true either way, which is why morality at its core comes down to emotion and how we value those things, not cold math.

 

[Meteor21]

Everything about human behaviour becomes super obvious once they're emotional enough. Most arguments really boil down to thought terminating cliches, ad homs, and that makes me uncomfortable so you're wrong/bad.

 

[killcry]

You're just defining ‘worse' as whatever causes the most long term pain, while I'm defining it as permanently erasing someones entire existence. Neither of those makes one 'logical’ and the other 'emotional'. they're just two different values.

yeah, and i said that's an emotional appeal to something that isn't logical, what is immoral is to cause suffering, someones theoretical murder implies great suffering and that is why it is immoral rather than unplugging grandpa's life support upon his consent, even though that is a technical murder. the end of the death sequence is the total release of suffering. you just don't know how to argue against this, which is fine, because it's retarded in my opinion anyways

 

[Big Boss]

yeah, and i said that's an emotional appeal to something that isn't logical, what is immoral is to cause suffering, someones theoretical murder implies great suffering and that is why it is immoral rather than unplugging grandpa's life support upon his consent, even though that is a technical murder. the end of the death sequence is the total release of suffering. you just don't know how to argue against this, which is fine, because it's retarded in my opinion anyways

You're just defining morality exclusively as minimizing suffering and then acting like thats an objective law of the universe instead of just your preferred path. Defining the end of all human potential as a good thing just because it 'releases suffering' is its own philosophical stance, not a math equation. Calling it logical doesnt make it a fact

 

[killcry]

You're just defining morality exclusively as minimizing suffering and then acting like thats an objective law of the universe instead of just your preferred path. Defining the end of all human potential as a good thing just because it 'releases suffering' is its own philosophical stance, not a math equation. Calling it logical doesnt make it a fact

i agree, but potential is something that is only able to be fully assessed in retrospect, making it speculative, or even nonexistent, while human suffering is actual, regardless of it being measurable mathetically which you attack, it is by any measure actual, including the more visceral reaction by normies to child molestation vs the oceangate deaths which you call irrational

 

[Big Boss]

i agree, but potential is something that is only able to be fully assessed in retrospect, making it speculative, or even nonexistent, while human suffering is actual, regardless of it being measurable mathetically which you attack, it is by any measure actual, including the more visceral reaction by normies to child molestation vs the oceangate deaths which you call irrational

You cant claim your stance is pure logic while using people's emotional reactions to prove it.

Deciding that present pain matters more than future life is still just a choice you're making, not an objective law.

 

[Tenres]

I think rape is (probably) worse, and it has nothing to with (my) emotions. NDE seem to be mostly positive so for a lot of people who die, there's a distinctly positive part of it. Killing people deprives someone of future goods but also of future bads, and the difference won't be super high, so you're deprivation is like neutral to somewhat bad. So the main issue is just the pain at first and the deprivation of the future goods, and a gross consent violation.

Rape on the other hand doesn't seem to have an equivalent positive experience tied to it, makes the rest of your life meaningfully worse, meaning the net suffering increases over time, and it's also a gross consent violation.

So idk it's completely plausible to think rape is worse.

 

[killcry]

You cant claim your stance is pure logic while using people's emotional reactions to prove it.

Deciding that present pain matters more than future life is still just a choice you're making, not an objective law.

you misinterpreted, i mentioned that to explain why the so called goyim irrational npcs react that way when a child is abused versus the complete erasure of life, and what you deem valuable human potential

the actual suffering of people and their statistically likely potential suffering outweigh the statistically likely potential happiness that has been erased via death, because potential cannot be assessed by any measure that follows any coherent line of reasoning, and therefore its existence is only speculative and cannot be proven, meanwhile we can prove the existence of actual suffering

 

[Big Boss]

you misinterpreted, i mentioned that to explain why the so called goyim irrational npcs react that way when a child is abused versus the complete erasure of life, and what you deem valuable human potential

the actual suffering of people and their statistically likely potential suffering outweigh the statistically likely potential happiness that has been erased via death, because potential cannot be assessed by any measure that follows any coherent line of reasoning, and therefore its existence is only speculative and cannot be proven, meanwhile we can prove the existence of actual suffering

Predicting likely future suffering is just as speculative as predicting future happines. You cant call one a statistical fact and the other a fake guess.

You're still just choosing to weight pain over potential, which is a value judgment, not the objective truth.

 

[killcry]

Predicting likely future suffering is just as speculative as predicting future happines. You cant call one a statistical fact and the other a fake guess.

You're still just choosing to weight pain over potential, which is a value judgment, not the objective truth.

which is why i included the prediction of both being likely, i notice now that was a weakpoint, but regardless, potential can not be proven to exist, meanwhile actual suffering can, and the level of suffering can be measured, so it follows logic

i weigh actual suffering over potential happiness because one exists, and the other is yet to exist, making it nonexistent, so it is logical to weigh actual suffering over potential happiness

 

[Big Boss]

which is why i included the prediction of both being likely, i notice now that was a weakpoint, but regardless, potential can not be proven to exist, meanwhile actual suffering can, and the level of suffering can be measured, so it follows logic

i weigh actual suffering over potential happiness because one exists, and the other is yet to exist, making it nonexistent, so it is logical to weigh actual suffering over potential happiness

Measuring a physical reaction doesnt make it the only thing that matters morally. Deciding that current pain is real but a persons future existence counts for zero right now is still just your personal rule, not a law of logic.

 

[killcry]

Measuring a physical reaction doesnt make it the only thing that matters morally. Deciding that current pain is real but a persons future existence counts for zero right now is still just your personal rule, not a law of logic.

the line of logic goes as follows

actual suffering currently exists
meanwhile potential happiness is yet to exist

making potential happiness nonexistent

therefore, actual suffering outweights potential happiness, and it is logical since i just used logic to come to that conclusion

 

[Big Boss]

the line of logic goes as follows

actual suffering currently exists
meanwhile potential happiness is yet to exist

making potential happiness nonexistent

therefore, actual suffering outweights potential happiness, and it is logical since i just used logic to come to that conclusion

Proving that suffering exists now while the future doesn't exist yet is just basic time.

Deciding that only things in the present moment carry moral value is still just your personal rule, not logic

 

[killcry]

Proving that suffering exists now while the future doesn't exist yet is just basic time.

Deciding that only things in the present moment carry moral value is still just your personal rule, not logic

i'm not saying only things in the present carry moral value, i'm saying the human potential you refer to as having moral significance isn't something you can prove exists, potential consequences that have yet to be actualized exist after we observe their actualization, because they come as a direct result of the action, like the actual action of pulling the trigger having potential consequences has moral significance, that is what makes the action itself immoral

but with your argument, unplugging your grandpa's life support, assuming he has a few years left, holds as much moral significance as a point blank gunshot, since they both result in the potential consequence of death, which we can observe

we however cannot observe the potential future that has been destroyed, since those things will only remain as having potentiality, or rather remaining to be in a state of nonexistence, for all we know, their potential future happiness could be equal, but we will never know

so how does unplugging grandpa's life support have any less moral significance? can you explain that logically?

 

[Big Boss]

i'm not saying only things in the present carry moral value, i'm saying the human potential you refer to as having moral significance isn't something you can prove exists, potential consequences that have yet to be actualized exist after we observe their actualization, because they come as a direct result of the action, like the actual action of pulling the trigger having potential consequences has moral significance, that is what makes the action itself immoral

but with your argument, unplugging your grandpa's life support, assuming he has a few years left, holds as much moral significance as a point blank gunshot, since they both result in the potential consequence of death, which we can observe

we however cannot observe the potential future that has been destroyed, since those things will only remain as having potentiality, or rather remaining to be in a state of nonexistence, for all we know, their potential future happiness could be equal, but we will never know

so how does unplugging grandpa's life support have any less moral significance? can you explain that logically?

Even in your hypothetical, you picked an old, sick grandpa because his future potential is low, which means you're secretly using 'future potential' to make your point work while claiming it doesn't exist.

You're still using a massive wall of text just to hide a basic value judgment

 

[killcry]

Even in your hypothetical, you picked an old, sick grandpa because his future potential is low, which means you're secretly using 'future potential' to make your point work while claiming it doesn't exist.

You're still using a massive wall of text just to hide a basic value judgment

but the fact you recognize that an old, sick grandpa has low potential just proves my point, something that doesn't exist can't be measured, but here you are measuring it, and arguably being emotional, while i am being logical and measuring something that does exist, i have yet to see you provide any logical argument from your behalf

 

[Big Boss]

but the fact you recognize that an old, sick grandpa has low potential just proves my point, something that doesn't exist can't be measured, but here you are measuring it, and arguably being emotional, while i am being logical and measuring something that does exist, i have yet to see you provide any logical argument from your behalf

You're missing the point. You chose the grandpa example precisely because of his low future potential, not me.

You used a future projection to set up your own argument, and now you're calling it unmeasurable because I caught you using it. Calling me emotional doesnt fix your contradiction

 

[killcry]

You're missing the point. You chose the grandpa example precisely because of his low future potential, not me.

You used a future projection to set up your own argument, and now you're calling it unmeasurable because I caught you using it. Calling me emotional doesnt fix your contradiction

i did not contradict myself, you yourself are missing the point by denying that you recognize he had low potential, you cannot prove that by any logical lines of reasoning, and i am calling it unmeasurable because something that doesn't exist cannot be measured by any means, just like there are not different ways of not being alive, you simply exist or do not exist. you still cannot prove that the grandpa had any more potential than the young man, because it does not exist

 

[Big Boss]

i did not contradict myself, you yourself are missing the point by denying that you recognize he had low potential, you cannot prove that by any logical lines of reasoning, and i am calling it unmeasurable because something that doesn't exist cannot be measured by any means, just like there are not different ways of not being alive, you simply exist or do not exist. you still cannot prove that the grandpa had any more potential than the young man, because it does not exist

You're just repeating your own premise and calling it proof

If future potential is genuinely an unmeasurable zero, then shooting a healthy 20 year old and unplugging grandpa are 100% identical. If you actually believe that, just say it. If you dont, your logic collapsed

 

[killcry]

You're just repeating your own premise and calling it proof

If future potential is genuinely an unmeasurable zero, then shooting a healthy 20 year old and unplugging grandpa are 100% identical. If you actually believe that, just say it. If you dont, your logic collapsed

attacking me and not the sound argument itself is a logical fallacy, just say you don't know how to argue against this by any means of logic. only emotion

 

[Big Boss]

attacking me and not the sound argument itself is a logical fallacy, just say you don't know how to argue against this by any means of logic. only emotion

You dodged the question
If my logic is wrong, answer it directly. Is shooting a healthy 20 year old morally identical to turning off grandpa's life support, yes or no? Hiding behind the word 'fallacy isnt an answer

 

[killcry]

You dodged the question
If my logic is wrong, answer it directly. Is shooting a healthy 20 year old morally identical to turning off grandpa's life support, yes or no? Hiding behind the word 'fallacy isnt an answer

you aswell dodged my question to provide a logical line of reasoning for your argument, so i consider this a draw as neither of us are willing to progress due to the others resistance

 

[Big Boss]

you aswell dodged my question to provide a logical line of reasoning for your argument, so i consider this a draw as neither of us are willing to progress due to the others resistance

Its not a draw. The logical proof you asked for is the answer to that question, if future potential carries zero value, then murder and turning off life support are logically identical.

You're calling it a draw because answering yes makes your logic absurd, and answering
no proves mine right.

 

[killcry]

Its not a draw. The logical proof you asked for is the answer to that question, if future potential carries zero value, then murder and turning off life support are logically identical.

You're calling it a draw because answering yes makes your logic absurd, and answering
no proves mine right.

you say this but then provide no logic on the matter yourself, so it is a draw, and i won't reply after this

 

[Big Boss]

you say this but then provide no logic on the matter yourself, so it is a draw, and i won't reply after this

Declaring a draw and running away right when your own hypothetical breaks isnt logic

 

[JewishNationalist]

morality is psychological coping mechanism to brainwash strong people into thinking that beating weaklings is bad. they usually use both emotions and logic so your thread is wrong

 

[JewishNationalist]

I think rape is (probably) worse, and it has nothing to with (my) emotions. NDE seem to be mostly positive so for a lot of people who die, there's a distinctly positive part of it. Killing people deprives someone of future goods but also of future bads, and the difference won't be super high, so you're deprivation is like neutral to somewhat bad. So the main issue is just the pain at first and the deprivation of the future goods, and a gross consent violation.

Rape on the other hand doesn't seem to have an equivalent positive experience tied to it, makes the rest of your life meaningfully worse, meaning the net suffering increases over time, and it's also a gross consent violation.

So idk it's completely plausible to think rape is worse.

rape is good for the one who rapes but its bad for the one who gets raped