Can We Please Differentiate Morals and Aesthetics?

[Joker]

@Provalone

@Joker

Then again, that doesn’t justify outright murderous rampages.

When I speak about morality justification is the illusion that I always call into question.

In nature there exists the absence of justification where absolute or any justification at all is non -existent.

When a man talks about justification of a action or activity it always comes about through relative feelings, emotions, preferences, aesthetics and opinionated perspectives. That is all.

In nature every beast beyond man never justifies it’s actions before acting. Wild beasts merely seize a opportunity out of selfish desire unconcerned about the aftermath of acting but instead focus only on the intermediate activity of what they are doing right away.

Wild beasts are largely unconcerned about the aftermath or justification of a action because they lack the ability to project the future as we do.

Now people will say that because we can project a rudimentary understanding of the future justification should be put into place and my only answer to such a ridiculous notion is, why?

For what reason does a person need justification of a action? My only answer to that would be that a person seeks justification for their own selfish motives and for a level of control which they come to embrace by a sort of symbolic permission from others outside of themselves.

I can agree with there being no need for justification. I would simply add that there is a difference between justification and reason. We can justify our actions until we are blue in the face but rarely does it ever actually match up with the true reasons for that action. I think that extends on the whole conscious/unconscious duality.

So if I understand you correctly, justification roughly equates to morality in that it is reflective of how we wish to portray ourselves and our actions on the surface. Thus, reason roughly equates to aesthetic preference in that it is unconscious and uninhibited. I could go on making a case for how aesthetic preference is a catalyst for many behaviors in animals, but I imagine that you could deduce that on your own.

I say that because I’m most curious about the naturalness of justification. Let’s face it, compared to animals we’re practically omniscient in our magnitude of intelligence. So of course, proportionately speaking, our aesthetic preferences become much more complicated in nature. What I mean is, is it possible that we naturally find justifications in all their intricateness aesthetically preferable in themselves?

After all, isn’t to justify an action unto itself? We certainly don’t justify justifications (at least I don’t think we do); that would result in an infinite regress. So couldn’t it be that just as it is natural for an animal to crap in the woods based on the unconscious aesthetic preferences it harbors for it, it is just as natural for a human being to justify its actions based on the unconscious aesthetic preferences it harbors for it?

It does justify selfishness to the extent that it is selfish to want to keep aesthetically pleasing objects (including people) in your immediate surrounding.

If we all agree that man’s inherent nature is one of extreme selfishness considering that we are all psychological egoists why exactly should one selfish ego justify itself in front of another?

As a selfish egoist would say in front of the judge: “Who are you to judge me that is any different than myself?”

Yeah, I can see where the term ‘justify’ can cause some iffiness. But I just want some validation here, you do agree that my aesthetic preference for my mother, which can be justified in the moral-language as ‘love’, is selfish? Despite it seeming selfless, doesn’t such an example actually allude to selfish egoism?

There is no real justification for one’s aesthetic preference for one’s own mother; society tries to justify it as ‘love’ but really it’s just instinct. Even by me saying it is instinct taints it with some form of justification. Instead, it just is what it is.

This is all fine and dandy, really, but there are still holes in the veneer. What we need to ask ourselves here is at point do our justifications cause our actions beforehand rather than imbue them with moral meaning afterwards? If take a bullet for my mother, is it because of compulsory aesthetic preference based on selfishness, or is it really me living up to the justification I’ve consciously fabricated as ‘love’?

I can agree with there being no need for justification. I would simply add that there is a difference between justification and reason. We can justify our actions until we are blue in the face but rarely does it ever actually match up with the true reasons for that action. I think that extends on the whole conscious/unconscious duality.

Sure.

So if I understand you correctly, justification roughly equates to morality in that it is reflective of how we wish to portray ourselves and our actions on the surface.

Exactly but underneath the surface of illusions that we manifest our motives are entirely the opposite of our fabrications.

Such motives are selfish.

Thus, reason roughly equates to aesthetic preference in that it is unconscious and uninhibited.

Another excellent point.

I could go on making a case for how aesthetic preference is a catalyst for many behaviors in animals, but I imagine that you could deduce that on your own.

I try not to compare ourselves to other animals because it makes room for fallacious reasoning like that of anthropomorphism or anthrocentrism.

Let’s face it, compared to animals we’re practically omniscient in our magnitude of intelligence. So of course, proportionately speaking, our aesthetic preferences become much more complicated in nature.

Sure. I look at it more as a curse than anything else personally.

Such complexities I believe get’s in the way of simplicity and exhibits a obstacle to enjoying freedom.

What I mean is, is it possible that we naturally find justifications in all their intricateness aesthetically preferable in themselves?

What do you mean?

After all, isn’t to justify an action unto itself?

I’m still having a hard time understanding your position here.

We certainly don’t justify justifications (at least I don’t think we do); that would result in an infinite regress.

Sure people do. They justify justifications with words like order, security and with some flimsy ideal which is called the benefit of mankind.

So couldn’t it be that just as it is natural for an animal to crap in the woods based on the unconscious aesthetic preferences it harbors for it, it is just as natural for a human being to justify its actions based on the unconscious aesthetic preferences it harbors for it?

1. Where does the necessity or reason come from to justify a action.

2. Why is it that only a narrow handful of actions need justification where all other actions are deemed unconcerning?

3. I can’t think of any other animal species that justifies any action where instead they just do actions on impulse without such measures.

But I just want some validation here, you do agree that my aesthetic preference for my mother, which can be justified in the moral-language as ‘love’, is selfish?

Every action perpetuated around the self revolves around the person acting.

Despite it seeming selfless, doesn’t such an example actually allude to selfish egoism?

Love can become obssessive compulsive which naturally leads to selfishness.

We have a obssessive compulsion towards those we love or like.

There is no real justification for one’s aesthetic preference for one’s own mother; society tries to justify it as ‘love’ but really it’s just instinct.

Instinct of parents over their offspring and offspring’s tie to their parents.

Even by me saying it is instinct taints it with some form of justification. Instead, it just is what it is.

Sure. Language is such a tricky thing.

What we need to ask ourselves here is at point do our justifications cause our actions beforehand rather than imbue them with moral meaning afterwards? If take a bullet for my mother, is it because of compulsory aesthetic preference based on selfishness, or is it really me living up to the justification I’ve consciously fabricated as ‘love’?

People can be selfishly obsessed with things to death in that their selfishness of a object or person through obsession can take a power of itself causing the obsessor to die for what is being obsessed with.