In the past I have had some interesting conversations with moralists who insist that regardless of how people may feel about morality or its historical origins it is a “real force” to be reckoned with by the sheer volumes of prisons and armed police we have on this planet that we call earth.
They believe that by it’s strict enforcement by violence, force and imprisonment regardless of its religious origins it is seemingly “real”.
To that I will merely say that such a position only re-affirms my belief that morality is really the existence of amorality in disguise feigning “goodness” to deceive the local sheople into forceful submission.
It only affirms that morality is a violent force used to combat other violent tendencies.
Basically such a insidious moral defence is the proclaiming that violence is retaliated with even more seemingly violence showing man’s hostile violent nature all the more clearly.
Yet again we can clearly see man’s natural amoral behavior in regards to his own survival of self preservation and kin.
This sort of defence assumes that because people don’t commit any crimes out of physical fear and injury or by millions of people imprisoned across this planet somehow proves morality’s existence. This is what I call the weak moral defence.
Joker, it seems you are arguing about “Morality”, but ignoring the fact that two people define it differently. You are choosing ONLY to argue against religious morality at this point…which is problematic, because many of the moralists about here are not promoting religious morality. You are opposed to the concept based only on one set of morals.
Actually if you are reading my many different threads on morality you will find that I am arguing in many different styles against many different forms of morality.
You label actions that are not “Selfless” as AMORAL in several threads. A fairly good indication that you are not arguing about the concept of morality- IE a code of conduct based on right and wrong- but on the application of morality.
Morality is one of the creations of the amoral. It can be created and destroyed at will, as way and as style. A creative person can openly create and destroy value whenever they WILL.
Actually what I am saying is that if morality can only validate or “justify” itself through the use of violence and death, how is it any different from any other form of violent amorality?
Beyond that I am not advocating anything else.
Nice strawman Xunzian but I am afraid it failed to pull the wool over my eyes so to speak.
How is it any different? Look at its successes. It is more powerful than the other forms.
Now why is that, do you suppose? Think about the origins of democracy in Athens. It was an oligarchy where various cliques fought for power. Well, one of the weaker oligarchs realized how much more powerful he could become if he included the whole of Athens into his clique, so he did so. Gave 'em the old razzle-dazzle and swept himself into power. But once in power, he had to keep those ties that enabled his power happy. Reciprocity. Morality works on a similar standard. One powerful man is easily beaten by five weaker men, and a mob of pathetic individuals can overwhelm even the greatest. Morality is just a recognition of this.
I’ve never known a person to make so many threads about the same subject. Give it a break Joker, saying it over and over again will not make it any more plausable
Morality protects the good against the bad, and the bad against the wrath of the good when the bad are bad - the concept of morality is in place because it works for all, and makes for a more civilised society.
Well done.
