Morality...?

[Heartless Angel]

You should know before reading further that my respect for you at least tripled just now.

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.

I'm not so sure of that. You directly stated numerous times that the subconscious was a part of the conscious, as in A is contained within the set of B. The wording was rather clear. You also said, and I quote, "Subconscious is our consciousness that runs in the background but thinks what conscious thoughts program it to be.". Not only did you say that subconscious IS conscious, absolute clarity of wording there. But you also said that we program our subconscious. Programming is an action, actions are the result of conscious decisions (thought driven by subconscious thoughts). You have directly stated both that we control the subconscious consciously, not just as an aftereffect, but as a direct result of our will, and that the subconscious IS the conscious. Your wording is not the issue. You directly stated something which is simply false. Don't try to weasel out of your statements now that I've finished having my way with them, just accept that you were initially incorrect and now know better. That's the whole point of this kind of debate. A debate is an arena where ideas go to test their worth. The weak die, and whatever emerges is stronger than what went in. That includes the 'victors'. There are flaws to hammer out in any idea.

At least to me you made it seem like subconscious is some holy ground for everything we do and can't ever be touched.

If it did, then it was because you were skimming or summarily dismissing my posts without fully reading and understanding them, because on more than one occasion I acknowledged that elements of the subconscious change and adapt to their world. Of course it doesn't surprise me that you either neglected or ignored elements of my arguments, that's a common response from someone having their entire world view challenged. Nothing to be ashamed of. When it's all said and done, you'll just be that much more intelligent for having taken the time to wrap your head around the ideas of someone who disagrees with you.

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.

And now your words are much more calm. You seem more receptive. Now you are on the proper path to learn something from me. Or about my ideas if you prefer, sounds less like I'm asserting myself as a superior that way.

The misunderstanding you've been struggling with this whole time is now ready to make sense to you, if you allow it. Thus far you have treated egoism as a selfish pursuit of base needs, material wealth, negative emotions, that sort of thing. You haven't been able to see the other side of the coin. Benefit doesn't stop at material wealth or intentional greed. Benefits an be both material, and psychological. Following an idea you see as greater must have some reason, yes? Why is it grater? I've said before, logic alone dictates no action,a goal is required before any course of action can be considered logical. If you have a greater idea, you have a goal in mind. Your actions are now in pursuit of a goal. That goal needn't be something as simple as the needs of your body, but whatever fulfills you. If making a world which is more moral by your value system fulfills you, then pursuing a greater idea lends itself to the cause of fulfilling that desire of yours. The world may well benefit from your ideas, but the world's benefit alone doesn't create action, it is the will of an individual which drives action. You act, not because you are able, but because you are willing. Because you want to. There is a desire to make something happen in reality. Egoism is nothing more or less than the pursuit of your own desires to influence reality, whether they be the reality of your own body, or the universe around you. You want to make the world a 'better' place? In doing so, you fulfill your NEED to make it a better place. That need, the itch, the ever gnawing desire for humans to improve themselves, that is the nature of egoism. What you are now beginning to understand isn't that we can value things above our needs, but that we can need things above our lives. That is what gives humans the ultimate desire to improve, both as individuals and a society, because we can need things beyond our own lifetimes. We have a reason to act for rewards that may not become material until long after we're gone. What separates us from other animals isn't that only other animals live for their needs, but that only WE need more than our lives. That is egoism.

[Odin1199]

Thanks and sorry for my confusion of things. I'm still trying to think it all through, but I think that if we place logic above anything, even our motivations and goals, we can think and make objective rules and ideas. Then maybe morals wouldn't be called morals anymore, maybe that would be something totally different? My view of this is still pretty limited.

[Heartless Angel]

Not a problem, all the debates becomes worth it to me when somebody learns something.

Ah, but to place logic above something would indicate a personal value for logic, would it not? Logic is in and of itself a motivation and a goal, and an egoistic one at that. It is my preferred motivation, and my goal. From logic of course one can create more objective rules for societal conduct, but of course, rules, to be logical must have a purpose in mind. The reason the idea of morals exists rather than objective rules, is because not all people have the same ideas of how to fulfill their individual psychological needs, or the same end goals to begin with. Morals are nothing more than the higher tier desires which we can't objectify.