Morality...?

[Rowan]

I think people have many different ideas of what morality is, and how its expressed. But for the sake of discussion, here is the definition I believe holds universal for all of us;
Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
Behavior as it is affected by the observation of these principles.

Now lets think for a moment. Morality is a set of beliefs based on your idea of right and wrong.. or is it? Morality as it seems to me is governed by another set of rules, not your own. This other set of rules is the law. While the law was written based on majority vote, I do believe this impacts many of us in many different ways in particular, such as our morality.

Im here to propose that your morality is not based on what you personally believe to be right or wrong, but rather dictated by the restictions law places on all of us. Think of it as a paramount rule that keeps us all in line, thinking all the same. Those of us that do find morality outside the law, end up punished with imprisonment or penatly for breaking said law.

Any morality based on law, is not a morality. Well... it might be, but it isnt a true morality. For example:
If the law was lifted and you could kill another human being, would you? You can make up whatever scenario you like, but you would never perform an act of murder had you known that you would be imprisoned for it. If stealing was allowed, would you take someone elses things? Would it be owed to you, perhaps? My point is that your morality should not only dictate how you live, but your actions also. If the law is interfering with decisions you make in regards to your moral compass, than you are no longer being loyal to yourself, but rather a tool for the law.

TL ; DR

Your morality tells you one thing, law says another. You disregard your morality in place of the law. Your morality has no purpose.

[Heartless Angel]

Law and morality have the same root, the human hierarchy of psychological needs. Laws exist to maximize the number of people capable of meeting the lower tier needs with the most benefit to society, at least according to the views of those who wrote them. The law is nothing more than one set of morals enforced upon others by those in power. At least big laws, the major social taboos. Theft, murder, etc are all illegal because basic human psychology makes us all intrinsically value life, resources to sustain our lives and make them easier, and freedom to live our lives.

That said, morality is still worthless. Moral claims are normative, and as such can only be supported by at least one other normative premise, infinite regression in argument, no ethical claim can ever be rooted purely in fact. Morals are nothing more than a psychological construct we use to enforce our values determined by our base psychology on society. All animals have similar instincts, we with our 'superior intellect' have just opted to take it to its upmost idiotic extreme.

[Odin1199]

Where would humanity be without morals? We'd be animals, doing whatever we want. It's what sets us apart, makes us not all uncaring, cold, selfish, evil and ignorant. Morality is order, whereas amorality is chaos and gets people in trouble, because whatever goes around comes around.

[Heartless Angel]

Where would humanity be without morals? We'd be animals, doing whatever we want. It's what sets us apart, makes us not all uncaring, cold, selfish, evil and ignorant. Morality is order, whereas amorality is chaos and gets people in trouble, because whatever goes around comes around.

We are animals, and we do what we want. We just delude ourselves into believing otherwise. Being fundamentally egoistic doesn't make one cold or uncaring, it just means that we don't act without benefit to ourselves, and this is still the case with humanity, again, we just use our morals to ignore this simple truth. Evil is a concept of morality, a lack of morality could not possibly lead to evil, because a lack of morality by definition means a lack of evil. Morality is the embodiment of human ignorance. It makes us ignorant of our true motivations, ignorant of the reasons behind our actions, ignorant of our egoistic nature, it deludes us into believing we're something we're not, and in trying to full the mould we were never meant to fit, we keep coming up with more and more ridiculous rules in society. It's a poorly lit road to nowhere, and our foolish species is heading down it at full speed, all because of the illusion of morals.

Chaos is fools each believing their subjective values and survival instincts are divine laws which must be enforced upon the world. Chaos is fools bickering over tribal God images and which ancient book has the best version of these arbitrarily made laws. The world we have created is chaos. Order is nature working in its natural cycle of life and death, survival and failure, predators and prey. It is this struggle for life and death and superiority that leads to evolution. The only thing our pathetic morality has accomplished is driving this natural process to a screeching halt. Idealists are the death of human evolution.

[Rowan]

Chaos is fools each believing their subjective values and survival instincts are divine laws which must be enforced upon the world. Chaos is fools bickering over tribal God images and which ancient book has the best version of these arbitrarily made laws.

Chaos is a ladder. Many who try to climb it fail, and never get to try again. The fall breaks them. And some are given a chance to climb, but refuse. They cling to the realm, or love, or the gods…illusions. Only the ladder is real. The climb is all there is. But they’ll never know this. Not until it’s too late.

[Odin1199]

We are animals, and we do what we want. We just delude ourselves into believing otherwise. Being fundamentally egoistic doesn't make one cold or uncaring, it just means that we don't act without benefit to ourselves, and this is still the case with humanity, again, we just use our morals to ignore this simple truth. Evil is a concept of morality, a lack of morality could not possibly lead to evil, because a lack of morality by definition means a lack of evil. Morality is the embodiment of human ignorance. It makes us ignorant of our true motivations, ignorant of the reasons behind our actions, ignorant of our egoistic nature, it deludes us into believing we're something we're not, and in trying to full the mould we were never meant to fit, we keep coming up with more and more ridiculous rules in society. It's a poorly lit road to nowhere, and our foolish species is heading down it at full speed, all because of the illusion of morals.

Chaos is fools each believing their subjective values and survival instincts are divine laws which must be enforced upon the world. Chaos is fools bickering over tribal God images and which ancient book has the best version of these arbitrarily made laws. The world we have created is chaos. Order is nature working in its natural cycle of life and death, survival and failure, predators and prey. It is this struggle for life and death and superiority that leads to evolution. The only thing our pathetic morality has accomplished is driving this natural process to a screeching halt. Idealists are the death of human evolution.

In that case those people have twisted morals and end up plummeting into chaos of their false beliefs. Real morality consists of doing alot of good things, not being selfish, ability to sacrifice everything you hold dear, even your life, being equal to others as to yourself and thinking for the common good of all.

[Lacquer Head]

Law =/= morality. The law is just like any group religion or philosophy: an attempt to make a list of rules that are best for "everyone" IE: the people in charge. The law doesn't affect my morality, at all, nor should it most people. I'm not saying to go around openly defying authority, because that will get you in more trouble than it's worth, martyrdom is silly.

Morals are a completely subjective term, there is no over-arching set of rules that govern "good and evil". Most morals are built as children and most people tend to never question the things that they've been taught for one reason or another. Be it religion or just having it drilled in your head. As for my own morals, I believe that everyone should be free to live life completely free, however they wish, as long as it doesn't impede another person's life. I could get into why it benefits people as a whole and so on, evolutionary or whatever, but I don't think it's really the right thread.

Morality has a veeery obvious downside, usually the most prevalent in group morals/philosophies. When you start pushing your own beliefs on other people and start judging them for not following your code of conduct, it quickly becomes...well, bullshit. Once again, too lazy to go into this again, not to mention it's been discussed to DEATH.

But really, the concept of true good and evil or morals is just dumb, one person's villain is another person's hero. Even the kind of people that DO hurt others, they're just following their own morals, but we as a civilization SHOULD punish/help these people for the good of the whole, though we shouldn't try to make laws "holy" or "righteous", just beneficial. Most laws are far too flawed and detrimental to us all to mindlessly follow, we're not, nor we will ever be, ruled by perfect groups that care about the majority.

I could also go on regarding drug laws, prostitution and other stupid laws put into place which are more or less detrimental to society as whole, trying to prevent people from making their own mistakes or what we view as a bad decision. It's no one's business but the person effected (and no, the whole "effecting your friends and family" is bullshit, we should be able to live our lives without other people's judgements or personal issues effecting our own. It might be a good idea, if they ARE people you love and care about, but it should hardly be a law, no more so than marrying someone your family hates)

[Heartless Angel]

In that case those people have twisted morals and end up plummeting into chaos of their false beliefs. Real morality consists of doing alot of good things, not being selfish, ability to sacrifice everything you hold dear, even your life, being equal to others as to yourself and thinking for the common good of all.

...And of course passing judgment upon any who don't. Morality is completely subjective, and it is still fundamentally a lie. Nobody follows any system of morality because there is some concept of right and wrong floating about in space, they arbitrarily decide upon a system of morals whose sole purpose is to fulfill the individual, and by acting 'morally', we egoistically serve ourselves using others as nothing more than a means to an end.

[Odin1199]

So tell me then, how is being good, caring for others, not being selfish, greedy, ignorant, etc being an egoist? You're saying that people can't be good? If so, then what constitutes not being an egoist? I think you're the one who's judgmental of people in general and just see them in bad light. Morals is our point of view, just because we have a point of view doesn't mean we're bad. It all depends on the morals, but don't generalize and call everyone an egoist, just because some try to be good.

[Lacquer Head]

Who says being an egotistical person is a bad thing or an insult?

[Rowan]

Who says being an egotistical person is a bad thing or an insult?

His morality.

[Odin1199]

Because being an egoist contradicts being good, no? I'm just gonna like myself more, think others are inferior to me and ignore the crap out of everyone because I'm an egoist. How's that good? Not only is it bad, it's also dumb.

His morality.

Unlike yours, right? Wow! Let's hear it.

[Rowan]

Unlike yours, right? Wow! Let's hear it.

No need to get angry, I wasn't insulting you when I said that. My morality? I don't believe anyone cares what I think.

[Lacquer Head]

Because being an egoist contradicts being good, no? I'm just gonna like myself more, think others are inferior to me and ignore the crap out of everyone because I'm an egoist. How's that good? Not only is it bad, it's also dumb.



Unlike yours, right? Wow! Let's hear it.

Well, it suggests strength and independence. Depending on your outlook, such a view could be quite desirable.

[Odin1199]

I get it. You guys think all morals are subjective, serve egotistical purposes and are instruments for passing judgment upon people. There can never be such thing as "good morals."

[Lacquer Head]

I agree with the first of those three things, and yes, there are no good morals, just morals.

[Odin1199]

Don't morals reflect people's true self? Constructive vs destructive. Then if you're constructive, your morals should be good or acceptable as well.

[HeroZero]

I agree with the first of those three things, and yes, there are no good morals, just morals.

I would agree with this statement, you cannot qualify morals as good or bad.

~ AUTO-MERGED POSTS ~

Don't morals reflect people's true self? Constructive vs destructive. Then if you're constructive, your morals should be good or acceptable as well.

Constructive is different from good, they are a non-equivalent idea.

[Lacquer Head]

Don't morals reflect people's true self? Constructive vs destructive. Then if you're constructive, your morals should be good or acceptable as well.

Constructive and destructive are also subjective, as far as morals and such are concerned, and "acceptable" is NEVER something someone should concern themselves with. Why care what other people think about what you believe? They don't like it, sucks for them.

[Odin1199]

So there's no such things as good then, only constructive actions? It's basically same things, if you're constructive, you help construct an environment around you, affecting it in a positive way. If you're egotistical, you're just exploiting or using it for your own gain, without much or no regards to others. In the end, in this reality, not some higher cosmic paradise that we'll be one day in (or not), this will have backlashes and your environment will bite you in the ass.

[Lacquer Head]

So there's no such things as good then, only constructive actions?

Yes

It's basically same things

In your opinion, being destructive could be considered "good" to some people or in some circumstances.

if you're constructive, you help construct an environment around you, affecting it in a positive way. If you're egotistical, you're just exploiting or using it for your own gain, without much or no regards to others.

Exploiting, pretty much, without regards to others, no. You're missing the point. You can help other people for selfish reasons. In the end, working towards helping the group benefits the individual.

In the end, in this reality, not some higher cosmic paradise that we'll be one day in (or not), this will have backlashes and your environment will bite you in the ass.

Any proof...or reason to say that? Look at CEOs of various, greedy companies.

[Heartless Angel]

So tell me then, how is being good, caring for others, not being selfish, greedy, ignorant, etc being an egoist? You're saying that people can't be good? If so, then what constitutes not being an egoist? I think you're the one who's judgmental of people in general and just see them in bad light. Morals is our point of view, just because we have a point of view doesn't mean we're bad. It all depends on the morals, but don't generalize and call everyone an egoist, just because some try to be good.

Because every one of those actions leads to the primary goal of self actualization, the top tier of an individual's psychological needs. Being "good" is not done to the benefit of others, the benefit of others is merely a byproduct of one's pursuit for self actualization. No, I'm saying good does not exist in any objective sense, people can only live up to their own expectations of it, and in doing so, satisfy their own emotional needs. Egoism is the theory that all actions are ultimately for the sake of the self, to NOT be an egoist one would have to consciously, knowingly, and with complete knowledge of the situation make a decision which is detrimental to the self in every conceivable way. Nobody does this, and any apparent example of this you could conceivably pose, I know for a fact I could turn around and show you why it is in fact still an egoistic action. Bad is a moral point of view, I have no morals, nor have I called anything bad. It is you who equates egoism with negativity, I view it as it is, human nature, neutral, as everything else is neutral. I call everyone an egoist because everyone is an egoist.

Because being an egoist contradicts being good, no? I'm just gonna like myself more, think others are inferior to me and ignore the crap out of everyone because I'm an egoist. How's that good? Not only is it bad, it's also dumb.

This demonstrates nothing more than an abysmal understanding of what egoism is. Egoism does not contradict 'goodness', in fact goodness is often placed on the top tier of psychological needs as a part of self actualization. Being good in itself is an egoistic pursuit. What you seem to be confusing are the terms egoTistic, and egoistic. The letter difference makes quite a large difference in definition. Egoism means nothing more or less than that you are at the most fundamental level, serving your own interests with all you do.

I get it. You guys think all morals are subjective

Correct. Because they are. All moral claims are normative, all normative claims must be supported by at least one normative premise, factual premises alone can not provide adequate support for a normative conclusion. Therefore, every moral conclusion must be supported by a moral premise. A moral premise can never be rooted in fact, as such the root of morality is an unsupportable nonfactual normative claim chosen arbitrarily in an attempt to satisfy one's own egoistic needs.

serve egotistical purposes

Correct, again because that is simply the truth of the matter.



Lo and behold, morality i a psychological need. In pursuing morals, you are doing nothing more than satisfying your needs, QED, egoism.

and are instruments for passing judgment upon people.

While not exclusively true, that does tend to be the case. For every person who acts in a moral way to feel good about themselves, there's some asshole who does it to feel superior to others. And people with strict morals do generally project them onto others for the purpose of defining them as good or evil based not upon logic or anything rooted in fact, but their own subjective values, which again serve no purpose other than self gratification.

There can never be such thing as "good morals.

Given that good is rooted in morality, of course no system of morals can be independently good. Any notion of good would have to stem from the system in question, and thus attempting to judge a system of morals as good or bad can only be done using erroneous circular logic which is inadmissible in logical argumentation.

Don't morals reflect people's true self? Constructive vs destructive. Then if you're constructive, your morals should be good or acceptable as well.

No, they are a minor element of one's psychological motivations, and are only one small part of that system of motivation, far from the defining characteristic of a person. Amoral concepts are also destructive and constructive, thus the two cannot be equated with morals. Morals by their nature can not be independently good.

So there's no such things as good then, only constructive actions?

Not quite, there are only actions which lend to one's pursuit for self actualization, for some this means being constructive, for others it means something entirely different.

It's basically same things, if you're constructive, you help construct an environment around you, affecting it in a positive way. If you're egotistical, you're just exploiting or using it for your own gain, without much or no regards to others.

Absolutely not, this again only demonstrates your lack of understanding of what egoism is. Egoism does not consider others at all, it does not explicitly have to be detrimental to them, it just means they are not the deciding factor in any of our actions. People are a means to an end, whether you're stealing from them, using them as a means to the end of profit, or saving their lives, using them as a means to the end of self actualization, they were never anything more than a tool.

In the end, in this reality, not some higher cosmic paradise that we'll be one day in (or not), this will have backlashes and your environment will bite you in the ass.

The environment doesn't care about us. It is not a sentient being. The universe goes on with or without us, things will survive even if we do not. What you're talking about now isn't morality at all, it's benefit to us. benefit is the only thing that really matters, not morals. As egoistic beings, we pursue benefit, that is why people act morally, or in environmentally sound ways, because they are working towards their own benefit.

[Alpha]

The environment doesn't care about us. It is not a sentient being. The universe goes on with or without us, things will survive even if we do not. What you're talking about now isn't morality at all, it's benefit to us. benefit is the only thing that really matters, not morals. As egoistic beings, we pursue benefit, that is why people act morally, or in environmentally sound ways, because they are working towards their own benefit.

-
I'm not sure that every action has to be egoistic. For instance, if I worked myself to death for the protection of the environment---maybe confronting a bulldozer in the rainforest for the sake of illustration---I could be doing so to secure a future that I will never experience. How is that egoistic? It is action made on the concept of what is good, but the goodness will not be experienced by me, only by others (future generations). Are people who go to war and die in the defense of people they don't know (or who don't exist yet) acting egoistically? These people can't even experience the gratitude that the future may hold for them. Self-sacrifice is hard to explain.

These questions are less rhetorical than questions I usually ask, I'm genuinely interested in seeing how you justify actions that benefit future persons, because they seem to me to be less egoistic.

[Rowan]

-
I'm not sure that every action has to be egoistic. For instance, if I worked myself to death for the protection of the environment---maybe confronting a bulldozer in the rainforest for the sake of illustration---I could be doing so to secure a future that I will never experience. How is that egoistic? It is action made on the concept of what is good, but the goodness will not be experienced by me, only by others (future generations). Are people who go to war and die in the defense of people they don't know (or who don't exist yet) acting egoistically? These people can't even experience the gratitude that the future may hold for them. Self-sacrifice is hard to explain.

These questions are less rhetorical than questions I usually ask, I'm genuinely interested in seeing how you justify actions that benefit future persons, because they seem to me to be less egoistic.

I think this comes back to alturism. I dont remember if we came to an understanding about the nobility of it, but judging by this thread, alturism falls under the catagory of egotistical fullfilment. I bet it feels good to want to protect something, and succeed. Or at least knowing that you tried to stop the bulldozer, may be satisfaction enough in your mind.

[Heartless Angel]

All it shows is that you valued the future more than what your life would have been knowing you had not done all you could to improve it. Not many people WILL value something about their own survival, but it does happen, in which case the egoistic choice is to trade life for something of greater value. Human are aware of their own mortality, so we are more capable of weighing possible courses of our own life. We know that eventually the struggle for survival will be lost. This leaves us two options. Die without self actualizing, or die in the process of self actualizing. The sacrifice becomes the most effective way to reach the pinnacle of human needs.

[Odin1199]

You guys see altruism, morality and desire to do good things as a psychological need or defense mechanism. Why not just see it in simpler terms as something that one just wants to do, because they just feel like it? 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? 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. 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.

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.

[Lacquer Head]

You guys see altruism, morality and desire to do good things as a psychological need or defense mechanism. Why not just see it in simpler terms as something that one just wants to do, because they just feel like it?

Because I like to see things as they REALLY are. Good just isn't an objective...thing, and by trying to pretend what I believe is good, I'm somehow viewing my personal thoughts as superior to others. Everyone is equal and subjectively good and bad. We're all people, we're all different. We should be proud of those differences, not strive for a false feeling of righteousness...(subjectively speaking)

By conforming your morals based on the majority consensus of good and evil, you're giving up your individuality and just blending into the herd. If that's what you want, far be it for me to say that's wrong.

[Odin1199]

You have problems with accepting that you're better than others or others are better than you, if you want to see everyone as equal and avoid labeling anyone including yourself as good. Noone's equal, noone ever will be and yet that still doesn't mean they can't change. Anyone can change, if they want to.

[Lacquer Head]

You have problems with accepting that you're better than others or others are better than you, if you want to see everyone as equal and avoid labeling anyone including yourself as good. Noone's equal, noone ever will be and yet that still doesn't mean they can't change. Anyone can change, if they want to.

I don't label anyone as good because it's a subjective term, and part of my moral beliefs involves not using subjective adjectives. Everyone is "morally" equal, no matter what you may believe. People CAN change, but that's their own choice. People may not be financially equal or equal ranks in a company/organization, but it hardly makes them "better".

[Odin1199]

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, 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.