Raw LLM Responses

Why do I even have to acknowledge morality? I was under the impression any kind of absolute "good v bad" binary is antiquated by nature and appeals to biological impulses rather than anything sensible or logical. Attempting to rationalize universal moral truths obfuscates the reality of the situation, that being that the only practical binary for a decision-making process of an autonomous entity would be a "smart v dumb" dichotomy, whether something will benefit me or hurt me, whether I can extract valuable information from someone else or I'm wasting time attempting to salvage anything that could facilitate my prior pursuits, whether a situation will yield entertaining results or boring results, what's the point in this meaningless quibbling when life is so straightforward? The most valuable commodity for a person is time, how that time is spent can be filed into one of two categories: a "smart", prescient expenditure that yields lasting returns, or a "dumb", shortsighted expenditure that ends up being either an utter waste of resources or simply produces a net loss as far as your priorities are concerned, the ideal ratio of immediate vs longterm gratification varying from person to person. In this life you take what you can get, murder would be a shortsighted "dumb" behavior because you would likely wind up in jail, wasting precious years of your own life, there's nothing other than that consequence that keeps me from feeling aversion to homicide, but that consequence is enough, it serves its intended purpose. Edit: I'll go a step further and posit that abiding by moral principles can be parsed down to a mere fear of retaliation. Any remote positive relationship you have with moral guidelines would be an incidental compliance with fortuitous principles, principles that happen to coincide with your natural inclinations for achieving bodily satisfaction (I'm including the mind as well here).