Morality...?

[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.