Morality...?

[Lacquer Head]

They could be, if it were possible to be completely logical and absolutely free from subjective or irrational thought, but until we become vulcans, we're not even close. Really, the only instance where it WOULD be possible to have purely objective thoughts would be a person without any form of morals. Morals just can not be good or accurate as long as they are morals, because that's the whole point, we each have different morals that pertain only to us. Even if your morals were to serve the group as a whole, it doesn't make it "good" or "right". Even then, what one thinks is best is subjective.

[Odin1199]

Why not just accept the generally accepted morals, because they're tested and revised over time by many people and follow objective pattern. Not talking about religious or philosophical morals. And not true, if you're mature enough, your thinking becomes more and more objective and less skewed. You don't need to be a Vulcan to do that.

[Lacquer Head]

Why not just accept the generally accepted morals, because they're tested and revised over time by many people and follow objective pattern. Not talking about religious or philosophical morals. And not true, if you're mature enough, your thinking becomes more and more objective and less skewed. You don't need to be a Vulcan to do that.

It's always skewed though, that's the problem. You can always take an outside, objective view, but that's still ignoring your own morals

And yeah, time-tested are morals are great! They only caused mass genocides of MANY "different" groups of people, slavery, superiority ideals/patriotism, sexism, wars, riots...basically anything that comes the closest to objectively bad (of course, wars and genocide are great for the planet...not so much for humans) that's ever happened has happened because of morals.

[Heartless Angel]

You guys see altruism, morality and desire to do good things as a psychological need or defense mechanism.

Right, because that's exactly what they are.

Why not just see it in simpler terms as something that one just wants to do, because they just feel like it?

Those aren't simpler terms to see things in, just a less precise way of wording it. Why would anyone want to go out of their way to reduce precision?

What's wrong with being good, wanting others to be as good or better than you, wishing people fortunes, success, even if you can't achieve it? Why is this so hard to understand and why do people need to over psychoanalyze everything anyone does that's good?

Nothing, nobody ever said it was 'wrong', that's a moral judgment. You are literally the only person in this thread who has equated egoism with bad, negativity, or any generally frowned upon social behaviors. There's nothing wrong with egoism, I just don't see the point in trying to delude oneself into thinking it isn't the fundamental motivator for all human action.

That just speaks lack of trust, insecurity, inability to really connect with others. If you guys interpret everything people do is a psychological need or defense mechanism, then your faith in people as well as yourselves is pretty weak.

Again, no, not really. Once again I must point out that nobody here seems to think egoism is 'bad' other than you. I trust people to be people, that means following their own codes to their own ends, sometimes this leads to relationships from which I can benefit, sometimes it doesn't. Who's insecure? I understand myself and others as they really are. I can connect with others on a level most others can not, because I can understand people in ways that most people don't want to because they're bothered with the silly idea that egoism is bad, I am not. Faith is not relevant. I do not interpret things as needs and defenses, I recognize them as such, again because that is objectively, exactly what they are. It is precisely because I understand that people are driven by such a program that I have faith in their ability to survive, thrive, and conquer the world around them. It is because of that ultimate human desire to improve that we are what we are.

Not everyone has problems with coping with reality and needs to devise ways of deluding, rationalizing or gratifying ourselves. Look at the top of the pyramid, acceptance is freeing yourself from your needs and accepting facts and reality. That means coping and looking at things the way they are, not subjectively, but objectively.

And that is precisely what I have been doing. That's a part of self actualization most others have trouble with, because they feel the need to rationalize their pride in their actions with a made up subjective system of morals.

Just saying, don't overgeneralize things too much and have more faith. Morals aren't rules, laws or instruments for passing judgment, they're your values and if your values are good then there's nothing bad about them.

Again, absolutely NOBODY but you has termed anything good or bad, because those are moral judgments. I am not passing moral judgments, I am rejecting their validity.

So there can never be such thing as objective thinking then? We're all there stuck on that pyramid, trying to follow our morals that we made up in our head to help us cope with the harshness of our realities and existence? Morals don't have to be subjective,

Of course there can, morality just isn't it. No, morals don't cope with anything, they simply justify the feelings we get for following our own values. The delusion is that those feelings are the result of following some sort of absolute laws, when inf act the only things we follow are our own subjective whims and desires. Morals do have to be subjective, I've explained it before, but I'll do so again. Moral claims are normative. Normative claims can not be supported only by factual claims. Only factual claims are objective, normative claims are subjective. In a regression argument, every normative conclusion must ultimately rely on a presumed normative premise, a subjective premise. That is the nature of logic, a moral claim MUSt by nature be subjective, because it literally can not be based on objective information.

if you're objective. It's as simple as that. Then morals can be considered accurate or good. I feel like we're just going back and forth in circles and are missing something.

Whoa whoa whoa... are you SERIOUSLY suggesting that as long as we consider ourselves objective that we and all our subjective beliefs simply become objective? No. Just no. Again you're trying to pass moral judgment on morality. We're going in circles because your rebuttals continue to rely on the same circular reasoning.

Why not just accept the generally accepted morals, because they're tested and revised over time by many people and follow objective pattern. Not talking about religious or philosophical morals. And not true, if you're mature enough, your thinking becomes more and more objective and less skewed. You don't need to be a Vulcan to do that.

So being widely accepted or long lived makes them less subjective, and more true? Sorry, no. The appeal to popularity and tradition are logical fallacies. Follow an objective pattern? Yes, that pattern is that they are all subjective ideas which lead to the same end, achievement of basic human psychological needs. That there is an objective pattern to nonsense doesn't make the nonsense any less nonsensical. You now commit the fallacy of composition, that the whole set can be categorized objectively does not mean that the characteristic of objectivity is shared by the constituents of the set.

There ARE no non religious or philosophical morals, morals do not exist in any objective sense, they exist only as an idea, as a philosophy.

[Odin1199]

I just can't agree with the fact that everything revolves around our psychological needs. Do you guys realize what kind of condemnation that equates to? That means we're nothing more or better than robots or animals, doomed to repeat our mistakes over and over again, because we're prone to psychological needs and breakdowns. We're then nothing more than animals driven by our inabilities to comprehend reality to the fullest due to our weaknesses to psychological barriers that we will never overcome.

So trying to be "good," caring, humble, unselfish, etc is nothing more than trying to delude ourselves into believing we're better and that we're in for a better destiny? I just can't agree with this. We're good because we can be and because we don't have a problem with taking that extra effort to help others. Those who're egotistical or egoists, they are the ones who are threatened by others and try to conceive and judge them while fooling themselves into believing they're better. Egoists can't tolerate others as much as non egotistical people and don't want anything to do with them, unless those people do something to make them look better or superior.

[Heartless Angel]

I just can't agree with the fact that everything revolves around our psychological needs. Do you guys realize what kind of condemnation that equates to? That means we're nothing more or better than robots or animals, doomed to repeat our mistakes over and over again, because we're prone to psychological needs and breakdowns. We're then nothing more than animals driven by our inabilities to comprehend reality to the fullest due to our weaknesses to psychological barriers that we will never overcome.

Condemnation? And who exactly is passing unfavorable judgment upon us? Again, nobody but you seems to think being egoistic is bad. It isn't. It is natural of any sentient being. It is essential to the survival of a species. It is what compels us to learn and grow and evolve. Egoism is a very good thing, it is responsible for us being what we are today.

Animals are essentially robots, biomechanical machines with complex programs that react to the inputs given by reality.

Doomed to repeat mistakers? Yes and no. Certain failings are built into every biological being, everything governed by a program. Our programs are however complex enough to adapt to known problems and avoid them in the future. This is done of course, for the benefit of the self.

What 'barriers' again, you speak as if there is some glorious greater good waiting for us beyond our shells. Every statement you've made is rooted in your need to have a sense of morality, this can not be used to support theories of morality. Your logic is circular, it fails the stress test of logical debate.

So trying to be "good," caring, humble, unselfish, etc is nothing more than trying to delude ourselves into believing we're better and that we're in for a better destiny? I just can't agree with this. We're good because we can be and because we don't have a problem with taking that extra effort to help others.

No, being 'good' is an attempt at deluding ourselves into believing there is a higher reason for us to feel good when we do things like caring, being humble, unselfish (insofar as that's even possible), etc. Those activities themselves are attempts at gaining pleasant feelings, one of the emotional needs we are driven to pursue.

You can agree with anything, you simply choose not to because it interferes with your preconceived moral judgements.

So, we do things because we can and don't have a problem with it? Interesting theory. I can strip down and run through the town square with a frying pan super glued to my face screaming about bacon, it's not difficult at all. I would have no problem doing this. Why am I then not doing so? For one simple reason, ability and possibility is insufficient to cause action. Action requires motivation, that motivation can not come from outside, because outside isn't what's controlling our muscles. The only thing that makes our bodies move is our own brains, brains with needs and wants. We move to pursue them, not because we are capable of moving, but because we WANT to move. Want is what drives action, not ability.

Those who're egotistical or egoists, they are the ones who are threatened by others and try to conceive and judge them while fooling themselves into believing they're better. Egoists can't tolerate others as much as non egotistical people and don't want anything to do with them, unless those people do something to make them look better or superior.

Again you confuse two very different concepts, egotistical and egoistical are not equivalent terms, at least not in philosophy. An egoTist thinks he's better than everyone, an egoTist is likely to judge others, an egoTist is likely to use others for personal gain at the expense of said others. A philosophical egoist is nothing more than someone acting on their own desires. Your argument thus far has been rooted in nothing but misunderstandings and circular reasoning. This last segment is utterly nonsensical. You've taken too much a personal stake in this, and have lost the ability to view things objectively, and now it is you who have fallen to the level of passing judgment upon things you don't even understand to preserve your sense of morality.

[Odin1199]

How is egoism a good thing and how is it better than liking others as much as yourself? Egoism is a defense mechanism, it's a delusion. No matter if anyone's better or not, you always say you're better, that's what it is or what I think it is.

[Lacquer Head]

How is egoism a good thing and how is it better than liking others as much as yourself? Egoism is a defense mechanism, it's a delusion. No matter if anyone's better or not, you always say you're better, that's what it is or what I think it is.

Well...that's your problem. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_egoism and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_egoism should help clear up any misunderstandings. As far as how I feel about it, I have mixed views.

[Heartless Angel]

How is egoism a good thing and how is it better than liking others as much as yourself? Egoism is a defense mechanism, it's a delusion. No matter if anyone's better or not, you always say you're better, that's what it is or what I think it is.

Again you demonstrate nothing but your own misunderstanding. A superiority complex is not what egoism is. Psychological egoism has nothing to do with your opinions of others. Egoism is not a conscious thought, it is not a choice, it is not a mentality or a philosophy. Most people aren't even aware of it. Egoism means ONLY that everything you do is motivated by self interest whether consciously or subconsciously. Even when you do things generally defined as moral, you are acting egoistically, your motivation isn't some 'greater good', it's satisfaction of your own desires FOR a 'greater good'. The 'greater good' by itself is an insufficient motivation, it is the desire which drives a person to action. Egoism doesn't exclude 'good' behaviors, it doesn't require superiority complexes or judgment, it requires nothing more than there being some level of self interest in every action, and I promise you there is no action you can propose for which I can't find you an egoistic motivation.

[Lacquer Head]

I really have to disagree with that, to a degree. I don't believe EVERY action is motivated by selfish reasons, but I think that those feelings can transfer to other people. Self-sacrifice being the biggest culprit, which sometimes doesn't even involve someone the person knows. When you don't value your own life, it's easy to transfer such self-serving desires to other people, so perhaps it's part of it, but hardly a person doing it for their own morals or for a reward.

I'm also highly skeptical of the theoretical psychology world, ANYWAY.

[Heartless Angel]

Self sacrifice is still egoistically motivated. People, being aware of their mortality and inevitable death can value things above survival. When given an opportunity to sacrifice oneself for something they value, they have a choice between two options. Act, self actualize, and then die, or don't act, and live the rest of your life knowing you missed your chance to achieve the pinnacle of human desire, and then die anyways. The choice is clear to anyone who willingly sacrifices themselves when thinking rationally of the ends. THen of course you have those who simply fail to consider the reality of their choice until it's too late, in which case they were acting egoistically to purue an ethical end without accurately considering costs, either way, self interest is the motivator.

[Lacquer Head]

Honestly, this idea seems pretty inaccurate, or more or less an over-simplification of things. But yeah, it's purely empirical as far as research goes. Survival instincts tend to override any gratification most people could achieve, unless they DO believe in an afterlife. Honestly, it seems like someone trying to rationalize another person's views from a purely outside perspective. I mean, there are plenty of actions a person takes without having time to think.

Say, you see a person walk in front of a bus, you have the time to try to push them out of the way, leaving yourself in harms way, or watch as it happens, most people won't instinctively do so for a stranger, but for a loved one, it's a reflex, especially when they're a child or a loved one. Such would suggest something other than purely self-satisfying needs.

I will agree that the vast majority of moral based actions ARE egoist driven actions, but not EVERY action a person takes is moral/egoist based. There's just not much more than theories based on various behaviors to suggest the idea, which is my whole problem with psychology as a whole. There's just not enough research or reason to believe, other than theories.

[Heartless Angel]

That's one reason I particularly enjoy psychology, it's all abstraction and theory, no hard numbers to answer the questions and take away the fun of analysis and theorizing.

As for saving loved ones, that's fairly simple. Refer back to the pyramid, love is on a higher tier than survival needs. When one achieve the higher tier needs, they often cease to pay much attention to lower tier needs. Their brains begin to take survival for granted, and don't think about it as much. When something on the tier they're actually operating is on is at risk, they're more likely to take action to protect it, either rationalizing the decision via egoistic needs, or acting without thinking everything through fully, in which case they did what they believed to be in their best interest at the time, even though they weren't considering critical information like the probability of dying in the attempt and what exactly death means. That people all have a common motivator doesn't mean they all effectively apply logic to their pursuit, sometimes people just do stupid shit thinking it's in their best interest.

[Lacquer Head]

Wouldn't the application of logic also prevent people from making egoistic choices? Able to realize what they wanted or believed was necessary truly wasn't, even if their gut instinct still disagrees. I mean, I tend to get irrationally paranoid about things and start considering taking steps to "protect" myself, but I realize it's just paranoia, and the paranoia is just that, even if I'm still freaked out and scared.

[Heartless Angel]

Rationality, acceptance of facts, and rejection of prejudices are also egoist pursuits. It just changes which need people work to fulfill. So say I want to do something to satisfy some lower tier need, playfulness, sex, something basic, carnal. I know it's utterly idiotic for me to act on this particular desire, so I don't. How have I made an egositic chocie here? Not being an idiot gains me more self gratification than pursuing my mindless wants. I gain feelings of pride in my rationality and my ability to suppress animalistic desires with it. My rationality is the very thing I value most in this word, and I would be willing to go to great lengths to preserve it.

[Odin1199]

Angel, no you're wrong. Don't generalize all our motivations like that. We can think consciously and rationally. Our actions aren't motivated and driven by subconscious drives all the time. They are to extend, but we can influence and control them. If we were to do that all the time, that would mean we wouldn't be able to cope with reality and would be always using defense mechanisms to satisfy our ego ideal, like Freud puts it.

As to sacrifice, we do it, because sometimes we want to do something for the greater good and realize that just by living out our lives that greater good might not be fulfilled. It has nothing to do with our insecurities with facing and coping with everyday life or failing to achieve something.

[Lacquer Head]

Rationality, acceptance of facts, and rejection of prejudices are also egoist pursuits. It just changes which need people work to fulfill. So say I want to do something to satisfy some lower tier need, playfulness, sex, something basic, carnal. I know it's utterly idiotic for me to act on this particular desire, so I don't. How have I made an egositic chocie here? Not being an idiot gains me more self gratification than pursuing my mindless wants. I gain feelings of pride in my rationality and my ability to suppress animalistic desires with it. My rationality is the very thing I value most in this word, and I would be willing to go to great lengths to preserve it.

So you're saying that's the ONLY motivator? That's...well that's just silly.

[Heartless Angel]

Angel, no you're wrong.

You'll have to excuse me if I don't just take your word for it when thus far all of your rebuttals have been mindless naysaying, emotional outbursts and moral judgments. If you'd care to pose an ARGUMENT of some sort, I'd be more than happy to read it, analyze it, and to the best of my ability consider its worth.

Don't generalize all our motivations like that.

Yes, I know, it hurts your feelings and impedes your morals, so it must be wrong. People often have problems with generalizations involving people, because it ruins the idea that you're all special snowflakes. but that is not because there is anything wrong with generalizations themselves. HASTY generalizations made without sufficient evidence can be a problem, but we use generalizations all the time in reality, generalizations are responsible for an overwhelming majority of human knowledge. All objects with mass have gravity. That's a generalization, I have just lumped all objects in the universe into one category. The thing is, my statement was 100% true, regardless of its generalizing nature. Why does nobody care about such a generalization? Because I haven't asserted anything about people. Well let's try a generalization involving people now. All people will at some point in time, die. I have now made an assertion lumping all of humanity into the category of mortals. Do you find anything illogical about this? I'll assume not, because no matter how much it makes you sad that you're not a special snowflake, there are certain things which are simply true of every element of a set. Generalizations are not a bad thing, and I've certainly not been hasty with mine. If you can provide me with even one example of an action for which I can not find an egoistic motivator, I will happily retract my assertion. It literally only takes one example to disprove me, and yet thus far I have not been disproven. That tells me I'm not too far off the mark.

We can think consciously and rationally. Our actions aren't motivated and driven by subconscious drives all the time. They are to extend, but we can influence and control them.

Subconscious: Noun, the totality of mental processes of which the individual is not aware; unreportable mental activities.

If you mean to say we can control our subconscious, you're wrong by definition. If you mean we can control our actions and that that somehow disproves egoism, then you're just willfully ignorant. Influence and control are the result of desire. All you're suggesting now is that we can override one desire with another, desire is still the sole driving force.

If we were to do that all the time, that would mean we wouldn't be able to cope with reality and would be always using defense mechanisms to satisfy our ego ideal, like Freud puts it.

What about controlling or not controlling our actions would impede our ability to cope with reality? There are lots of animals without a shred of rationality that get by just fine, having no trouble dealing with reality. In fact most of them do it better than we do, because they just don't think about it. There are people like me who run literally every thought through a filter of logic before allowing it to be implemented, effectively 'controlling' every action, yet I have no trouble at all coping with reality.

And reality check, we ARE always using defense mechanisms to satisfy our egos. If you are unwilling to accept such a simple truth, then there is literally no further reason for me to argue with you, because reason will not reach you.

As to sacrifice, we do it, because sometimes we want to do something for the greater good and realize that just by living out our lives that greater good might not be fulfilled. It has nothing to do with our insecurities with facing and coping with everyday life or failing to achieve something.

Let me go ahead and bold the important part here.

As to sacrifice, we do it, because sometimes we want to do something for the greater good and realize that just by living out our lives that greater good might not be fulfilled. It has nothing to do with our insecurities with facing and coping with everyday life or failing to achieve something.

Because we want. That is egoism. The action is not driven by the 'greater good' which is a silly subjective and arbitrarily defined concept to begin with, but since it isn't the driving force, it really isn't necessary for me to explain how normatives and logic work yet again. The action is driven by want. We act because we desire action. That is egoism. Egoism has nothing to do with insecurities or coping mechanisms. Once again your argument is based on nothing but your own inability to understand the thing you're trying to critique.

~ AUTO-MERGED POSTS ~

So you're saying that's the ONLY motivator? That's...well that's just silly.

I happily await the example which I can't find an egoistic motivator for. That's all it takes to disprove me, and as of yet, it has not been presented.

[Odin1199]

Subconscious can be changed. It totally depends on the person and is the product of memories, experiences and thoughts. It accelerates and organizes our conscious thoughts if tuned properly and doesn't have to act as a drive for egoism and other things that force us to use defense mechanisms. Your generalization that subconscious is always egoism is false.

[Alpha]

Heartless, don't you think your argument is a little circular? If you do something, it's because you enjoy it. Therefore you only do things you enjoy. You are both assuming AND concluding that people only do things for 'selfish' ends.

And this actually has nothing to do with morality, because you are being descriptive. Do you think this is the way things should be? As a self-proclaimed moral nihilist, do you have any opinion at all on how things should be? If your response is no, isn't that itself a moral statement?

I don't think it's possible to avoid morality. And your perspective that people only do actions to satisfy egoistical urges is evidence for that--everyone has a preferred state of the world and acts in support or defence of that, although not always successfully. Every action you make every day must be moral. And that's funny because that's not actually a moral statement either :|

[Heartless Angel]

Subconscious can be changed. It totally depends on the person and is the product of memories, experiences and thoughts. It accelerates and organizes our conscious thoughts if tuned properly and doesn't have to act as a drive for egoism and other things that force us to use defense mechanisms. Your generalization that subconscious is always egoism is false.

Sure it can. just not by the conscious mind. It has nothing to do with the person's choice, merely the way they react to the world around them. Nothing about it is a conscious process, and so no change to the subconscious can be considered a choice. The kinds of changes that can be made to the subconscious have absolutely zero impact on human egoism. You can change the inputs to get a different output, but the mathematics are always the same. You have made absolutely no point that demonstrates anything about egoism. You have not given sufficient evidence to conclude that anything is false, so you'll have to forgive me for once again not taking your word for it.

Heartless, don't you think your argument is a little circular? If you do something, it's because you enjoy it. Therefore you only do things you enjoy. You are both assuming AND concluding that people only do things for 'selfish' ends.

Not at all. Firstly, enjoyment isn't a requirement for the theory of egoism, not all benefits are simple pleasure seeking. The actual formalization of my argument would be something like this.

Ability and opportunity without choice is insufficient causation for conscious (non reflex) action (from this point referred to as decisions. I am using a tentative definition of decision which implies action, this is of course not necessarily the real definition of decision, but just to clarify, that's what I'm using it to mean for the purpose of formalizing the argument).
Choice without ability and opportunity are insufficient cause for decisions.
Choice AND ability and opportunity are known to cause decisions.
Therefore we can conclude, trivially, that choice AND ability/opportunity are sufficient and necessary cause for decisions.
If both A and B are sufficient and necessary cause, then A is necessary cause. (formal logic rule)
Therefore, choice is necessary cause for decisions.
Choices are conscious thoughts.
Conscious thought requires intent. It requires will.
Will/intent is driven by subconscious desires.
Subconscious minds desire psychological needs.
Therefore, choice is driven by desire for psychological needs.
If Choice is necessary cause for decisions, then subconscious desires are necessary cause for decisions.
Because Choice is necessary cause, decisions can not be made without subconscious desires to fulfill psychological needs.
From this we can conclude that all decisions require subconscious desires for psychological needs.
Decisions which are based on subconscious psychological needs are by definition, egoistic.
From the previous two premises, we can conclude that all decisions are egoistic.

The short version, basic mental processes are needed for higher mental processes, basic mental processes are driven by psychological needs, therefore higher mental processes are driven by psychological needs. You are of course free to disagree with my premises, but the argument is not circular.

And this actually has nothing to do with morality, because you are being descriptive.

I am rejecting morality as a motivation independent of humans and minds, because morality is a construct of human minds. Pursuit of morals is no different than pursuit of food, respect, love, or any other psychological need.

Do you think this is the way things should be? As a self-proclaimed moral nihilist, do you have any opinion at all on how things should be? If your response is no, isn't that itself a moral statement?

I think the question is pointless, because I don't believe in 'should', only 'is'. Are there states of reality that would be preferable to me over others? Sure. Do any think any of them 'should be' by virtue of their benefit to me? Absolutely not. I think there are situations which would be objectively better for me, but that's a factual claim, not a normative one. I am nothing more but one of a near infinite number of combinations of matter and energy that leads to what we consider a form. I am no more important than any other object in the universe. Any number of ways the universe that could be objectively better for me wouldn't be objectively 'better' on the scale of the universe itself. There is no should or should not, there is only preference to suit insignificant beings who think the world exists for them.

Where I assume you're trying to go with the claim that this itself is a moral assertion, is that you're suggesting that I think the universe 'should not' change to suit individuals. That however is also a false statement. I don't think any being's desire is sufficient cause to change the universe, but I also see nothing wrong with a universe that changed to suit the forms within it. Should and shouldn't would never come into play in my thought process, only differing forms of what is. I have no interests outside of what is. Normative claims, as far as I'm concerned don't even have truth value, and as such aren't terribly interesting to me, as there is no truth to be found in them.

I don't think it's possible to avoid morality. And your perspective that people only do actions to satisfy egoistical urges is evidence for that--everyone has a preferred state of the world and acts in support or defence of that, although not always successfully. Every action you make every day must be moral. And that's funny because that's not actually a moral statement either :|

Not necessarily. Morality is specifically the idea that certain things ought to be. Generally a system of right and wrong. Good and evil. That is not necessary in life, it certainly isn't in mine, and it'd be rather arrogant of me to think I'm the only person on this planet that operates without such assumptions. Morals are a specific set of motivations, that actions are all driven by motivations doesn't mean that they are all driven by morals. My actions are made in pursuit of my desires. I do not think they should or should not be fulfilled, or that my actions should or should not be allowed, I only think of what I desire, and whether or not I can achieve it. Even when I determine the answer is 'no', all I have done is changed my desire from whatever it was, to making an intelligent decision. No matter what happens, my psychological needs are satisfied. There's never anything right wrong or otherwise about it, merely what is.

[Odin1199]

So you're saying we all have a psychological need or else what? What if I get stranded on an island alone and won't talk to anyone for ages. Will I have to go insane? Will I have to construct imaginary friends and places and roleplay to stay sane or start recreating events that simulate ordinary life so that my mind can pretend it's getting psychologically fed and stay sane? Not everything revolves around some subconscious psychological needs. It's not like food at all. What's more important is our logic, perception of reality, acquired wisdom, experience. That in turn will change our subconsious. Otherwise we'd always be like kids or teens with identity crisis and other issues that are present in childhood.

[Heartless Angel]

So you're saying we all have a psychological need or else what?

There is no or else, you have psychological needs, period. The first tier of which are physiological needs, food water, shelter, etc. You will always have those needs.

What if I get stranded on an island alone and won't talk to anyone for ages. Will I have to go insane? Will I have to construct imaginary friends and places and roleplay to stay sane or start recreating events that simulate ordinary life so that my mind can pretend it's getting psychologically fed and stay sane?

That's all the hierarchy of psychological needs is. They're nothing more or less than the things that motivate people. Lacking in them can certainly damage an individual, to the point where defense mechanisms like imaginary friends when stranded and cut off from human contact may be implemented by a mind, depending on its particular interest in that particular motivator. Love and belongingness needs for example play a rather small role in my life. I don't have much need for human interaction. It's still healthy for me of course, but I could cope with the lack thereof better than most. Though my downplaying of the importance of human interaction could in itself be considered a defense mechanism. Some people can't function without people, and without them, they crack. I couldn't speak for you, so it'd be silly of me to tell you what your mind would do in response to being deprived of one of its specific needs.

Not everything revolves around some subconscious psychological needs.

Find me even one example of a human choice not driven by one, and I will retract my claim. Thus far you and everyone else have been incapable of doing so.

It's not like food at all. What's more important is our logic, perception of reality, acquired wisdom, experience.

Knowledge, acceptance of facts, and achievement are all psychological needs, refer to the diagram. They're on a higher tier of needs than food, but they're still psychological needs.

That in turn will change our subconsious. Otherwise we'd always be like kids or teens with identity crisis and other issues that are present in childhood.

Yes, the influence of the outside word and the evolution of our understanding of it can change elements of the subconscious. That isn't the same as controlling and willfully changing your subconscious which is what you claimed we could do.

[Odin1199]

If we can change our subconscious, we can make it independent or immune to psychological needs. There's no such things as a psychological need, if you evolve enough. Need only arises as a defense mechanism.

[Heartless Angel]

If we can change our subconscious, we can make it independent or immune to psychological needs. There's no such things as a psychological need, if you evolve enough. Need only arises as a defense mechanism.

And yet you still haven't made a case that we can directly change our subconscious. The subconscious adapts to the world around it, you don't do anything to it yourself.

And even if it were the case, you have not made a case that that would alleviate psychological needs.

Furthermore, as that is only a theory of yours, far beyond the level of evolution we find ourselves at (and such it is not a valid rebuttal against human nature as it stands), you have absolutely no way of knowing how that would affect human actions, because there is no precedent. Without motivations, who's to say we wouldn't simply stop acting? Without motivation and will, the only actions which occur are those which are automatic. First and foremost, you would have to wipe out physiological needs like food and water, so we'd scarcely be human at that point. Second, you'd have to wipe out the need for sex, so you'd need to find a new way to reproduce. Furthermore as reproduction is a part of the family psychological need, you'd need to make reproduction an automatic process that doesn't require our will. You'd need to alleviate a human's desire to love, be loved, or try to do 'good'. Morality is a psychological need, so you'd need to remove morality ANYWAYS. You'd need to remove our desire to be logical, our desire to accept facts, improve the world around us, you'd need to strip us of everything that makes us human. There would be nothing left to drive our actions but autonomic processes you'd need to replace human will. When you remove psychological needs, you remove any elements of humanity. Without egoism there can BE no morality. No choices, merely the execution of programs.

[Odin1199]

Nah, you're not making sense saying subconscious is an autonomic process that decides stuff for us. No, logic, conscious thoughts do. Subconscious is our consciousness that runs in the background but thinks what conscious thoughts program it to be. Sometimes it gathers stuff and thinks on it's own, but then we analyze, test our data and fix those subconscious thoughts to help our conscious ones. One runs in harmony with the other or at lest tries to and tunes your brain to work efficiently by collecting memory in the background. That's how people learn things, otherwise subconscious would not let us learn anything and would reset our ideals, morals, values, logic and other things. We would never be in control of our actions. It'd all be chemical reactions in our head shooting up random stuff and twisting our realities all the time.

[Heartless Angel]

Nah, you're not making sense saying subconscious is an autonomic process that decides stuff for us.

Well that's good, because I never said that. I said conscious thoughts are driven by subconscious thoughts, and this inevitably brings into conscious thought, our psychological needs. That isn't the same thing as unconscious minds making our decisions for us.

No, logic, conscious thoughts do.

Conscious thoughts are driven by unconscious thoughts. As for logic, laughable. If people were driven by mere logic the world would probably be a better place. However based upon logic alone, there is no reason for us to exist. Logic alone does not provide motivation to act. There must be a goal to achieve before any course of action becomes logical. For there to be a goal, there must be a motivation. A motivation means a subconscious thought, a desire to fulfill a psychological need. No matter what other motivators you try to throw at me as an alternative to egoism, all you're actually doing is naming another egoistic motivator. You're already quite aware of your own egoistic nature, now you're just trying to deny it to preserve your ethics.

Subconscious is our consciousness that runs in the background but thinks what conscious thoughts program it to be.

You can't be serious. The unconscious mind is by definition independent from the conscious mind. They share information, but never have direct, willful interaction with one another. There is literally no psychologist on this planet who would agree with the assertion you just made, because it's just that asinine. If you're really willing to go to such great lengths to dismiss me, you may as well just use the ignore button, as you've ceased all rationality some time ago. You do not control your subconscious. That is what makes it your ****ing subconscious. If you controlled it, it would be conscious by definition.

Sometimes it gathers stuff and thinks on it's own, but then we analyze, test our data and fix those subconscious thoughts to help our conscious ones.

It always thinks on its own, that's the only way it CAN think. Thought driven by your will is by definition conscious thought. The conscious and unconscious mind share information, but they do not directly control each other. Ever. For any reason. Your assertion is utterly ridiculous.

One runs in harmony with the other or at lest tries to and tunes your brain to work efficiently by collecting memory in the background. That's how people learn things, otherwise subconscious would not let us learn anything and would reset our ideals, morals, values, logic and other things.

No, it doesn't. Your knowledge of psychology is severely lacking. The unconscious by definition does not directly communicate with the conscious mind. Unconscious thoughts are thoughts your conscious mind is not aware of. If you were not aware of your memory, it wouldn't be much of a memory, would it? The unconscious is not where your all your memories are. You have both conscious AND unconscious memory. People learn things due to a phenomena known as neuroplasticity. It has nothing to do with the relationship between the conscious and unconscious mind.

We would never be in control of our actions. It'd all be chemical reactions in our head shooting up random stuff and twisting our realities all the time.

You're STILL not in control of your actions. The brain is made of matter, just like everything else, matter operates on principles of causality, possibly influences by random quantum variables. That leaves you with either hard determinism, or hard indeterminism. Your will is not free, it's just a program executing itself. How exactly do you propose that being operated by a consistent biomechanical program driven by causality would twist reality? Your assumptions are absolutely absurd. Not once have you given a rational rebuttal to this debate, all you've done is twisted words, redefined things to suit your position, and made assumptions based upon literally nothing. If you can't stand to have your reality questioned, or more importantly, answered in a way you don't like, fine. But please don't attempt to infect others with your ignorance.

[Odin1199]

So that makes subconscious of any individual inaccessible or invisible? No way to predict how anyone will behave or react? Or wait, subconscious always revolves around egoism, right? I think your argument is circular. Subconsciousness is just a part of consciousness and one thing is dependent on the other and vice versa and both help shape and change each another. The way you're talking seems like we all have thoughts that control us in unknown, unpredictable ways and that's just too far fetched.

You're STILL not in control of your actions.

If none of us were, we'd be stuck in the stone age.

Here's the definition of subconsciousness:

The subconscious mind is a composite of everything one sees, hears and any information the mind collects that it cannot otherwise consciously process to make meaningful sense. The conscious mind cannot always absorb disconnected information, as it would be an information overload, so the subconscious mind stores this information where it can be retrieved by the conscious mind when it needs to defend itself for survival (and for other reasons, such as solving puzzles).


That means that our actions and perceptions change and influence our subconsciousness and use it as reserves for memory and thought processes.

[Heartless Angel]

So that makes subconscious of any individual inaccessible or invisible?

No. Once again you draw an absurd conclusion from my statement which my statement never implied. This is a logical fallacy known as the straw man argument. It's rather irritating, as in in addition to failing to lend itself to your conclusion, it demonstrates that you're either willfully ignoring, or failing to understand the points of the opposition. It can be modified, to certain extents, it can be observed, but it can not be directly controlled, and certain elements of it can not be changed.

No way to predict how anyone will behave or react? Or wait, subconscious always revolves around egoism, right?

No way to predict a given act with certainty. Yes. That we can't predict the specific reaction doesn't mean we can't predict that it won't fall into the category which encompasses all possibilities, in this case, the category of actions with egoistic motivations.

I think your argument is circular.

I'm sure you do, because once again it enables you to dismiss me without offering a valid rebuttal. Unfortunately I've already formalized the argument, the conclusion is not a part of the premises, so the argument is not cirular. Your opinion on the matter is not relevant.

Subconsciousness is just a part of consciousness and one thing is dependent on the other and vice versa and both help shape and change each another.

No. No it isn't. No matter how many times you restate a claim which is outright false, it is still outright false. The subconscious is separate from the conscious by definition. They do help each other, and to limited extents can influence each other. What they can not do is intentionally control the other, which is the claim your entire counterargument is based upon. The claim your counterargument is based on is absolutely, unequivocally, undeniably false.

The way you're talking seems like we all have thoughts that control us in unknown, unpredictable ways and that's just too far fetched.

Half of them are. We have both conscious and unconscious thoughts. If you haven't accepted this, then your knowledge of psychology is far too limited for you to form an educated opinion in a psychological debate. I'm more than willing to continue my attempts to educate you, but you do not appear willing to learn anything that doesn't lend itself to the preservation of your arbitrarily decided beliefs.

If none of us were, we'd be stuck in the stone age.

You base that on what exactly? A program designed to adapt and grow when functioning correctly will adapt and grow. We as a species are adapting and growing. Where do you find issue with this? Yet again your argument is based upon the assertion that the truth of my conclusion would somehow lead to an entirely unrelated consequence. You have failed once again to provide even a shred of evidence as to WHY the truth of my conclusion would lead to your ridiculous assertions. I can only infer that you haven;t presented any evidence to support your assertions because there isn't any, because the application of even the faintest glimmer of logic reveals that your assertions are pure nonsense.

Here's the definition of subconsciousness:

The subconscious mind is a composite of everything one sees, hears and any information the mind collects that it cannot otherwise consciously process to make meaningful sense. The conscious mind cannot always absorb disconnected information, as it would be an information overload, so the subconscious mind stores this information where it can be retrieved by the conscious mind when it needs to defend itself for survival (and for other reasons, such as solving puzzles).

Let me go ahead and fix the bolding to highlight the parts that matter.

Here's the definition of subconsciousness:

The subconscious mind is a composite of everything one sees, hears and any information the mind collects that it cannot otherwise consciously process to make meaningful sense.

Things that the conscious mind can not do. What about that statement thinks that it is a part of the conscious mind? Simple, formal logic to the rescue.

Your argument amounts to...

The subconscious does things that the conscious mind can not.
Subconscious minds are a part of the conscious mind.
Therefore, conscious minds can do what conscious minds can not do.

Are you seriously stupid enough to think that's a sound conclusion? The conclusion is a logical contradiction. You are absolutely wrong in saying the subconscious is a part of the conscious. It is a separate part of the mind that aids the conscious mind in the tasks it can not perform. Let's continue analyzing your own definition.

The conscious mind cannot always absorb disconnected information, as it would be an information overload, so the subconscious mind stores this information where it can be retrieved by the conscious mind

Okay, yet again your own definition is making a distinction between two separate but related entities, the conscious and subconscious. Your own sources disagree with you. If the subconscious mind were a part of the conscious mind, it wouldn't need to be storing it where the conscious mind could access it, because by containing that information itself and being a part of the conscious, the conscious mind would have been accessing it the entire time.

when it needs to defend itself for survival (and for other reasons, such as solving puzzles).

Well, that's interesting. Because survival needs, physiological needs, and security needs are all on that lovely diagram of psychological needs I've posted twice. So, your source not only outright disagrees with you, but references the things you're claiming are not a part of the subconscious mind and don't influence the conscious mind when it makes decisions. Interestingly enough by outright stating that it feeds that information into the conscious mind to aid it in decision making. Are you feeling stupid yet? Your own source disputes you and supports me.

That means that our actions and perceptions change and influence our subconsciousness and use it as reserves for memory and thought processes.

In a cause and effect sort of way, yes. The subconscious mind adapts to its perceptions and experiences. Not in a, "I feel like changing my subconscious to this" sort of way, which is what you've suggested. The subconscious feeds on raw data. It directly draws its own conclusions from your experiences and perceptions, it doesn't wait for your conscious mind to consider it. It goes to your subconscious mind FIRST, ergo you are not in conscious control of it.

[Odin1199]

Maybe the way I worded all this is wrong and I made it seem like conscious is same as subconscious, but I just wanted to say that they do think separately, but ultimately one can change the other. At least to me you made it seem like subconscious is some holy ground for everything we do and can't ever be touched. Reason is morality = egotistical purposes. It's not always like that, sometimes we follow greater ideas, be it right or wrong and see them as more important, regardless if it's beneficial for us or not. Humans are capable of valuing things above our needs.