Ethics/morals, 21 century style...

Philosophy Forums Philosophy
1

I have stated before that the main, unstated, question in the last
122 years, since 1900, has been ethics/morals… both Wittgenstein
and Heidegger made it a central part of their philosophies…
as did Nietzsche…

what does it mean to be ethical, or what does it mean to be moral?

let us look at one aspect of “modern” life, the materialism that is the
basis of “modern” life… both capitalism and communism makes
the “material” the substructure upon which society rests upon…

let us look at a couch, as an example, how do we get an idea of
what is moral/ethical, from the buying, making, selling or sitting upon
a couch? the material aspect of existence, working, buying, selling,
making money, the pursuit of profits are all different aspects of the
“Material”… and what is the final goal of communism? to create
a worker state… and how is that any different from capitalism?
to get everyone to become a worker…and a consumer and a producer…
capitalism and communism have the exact same final goal…

and from any of that, from either capitalism or communism, can we
spot or detect anything suggesting what our morals/ethics ought to be?

the fact is both capitalism and communism is ethics/moral free…
there is no suggestion in either one to lead us to a moral/ethical
standard to follow… and based on the lack of moral/ethical standards
produced by either, we must reject both (of course those polemists
who don’t engage in truth, but in converting others to their truth, will ignore
my rejection of both capitalism and communism… they will continue to call
me a “commie” but that tells you that they can’t adapt or change to any new
idea… they are dinosaurs because of the failure to change or adapt)

if we cannot find the ethical/moral within a material world, such as ours,
then how do we find the ethical/moral?

It won’t be easy as the last 10 years of Nietzsche philosophical life was spent
on creating a morality/ethical theory that didn’t require a metaphysical basis
such as Christianity or a god, to work…can we create a “natural” basis
for morals/ethics? can we find a basis for a morality/ethics within
what it means to be human? it will have to be independent of
capitalism and communism… for neither one can provide us with
any type of moral/ethical theory upon which we can base our lives upon…

if we look at our modern world and see the violence and lies and
misinformation that exists out there, we can see we lack a moral/ethical
standard upon which we can rely upon to base our actions upon…

(for example, both UR and Observe pretend to be Americans at least
Pedroe has admitted to not being an American but how can UR
and Observe claim to be truthful if they aren’t even truthful about
being Americans… if they lie about something that basic, they can lie
about anything to my mind, lying about being an American is
lacking a moral/ethical standard)

this casual relationship to the truth, is the basis of our
modern day existence… people lie, companies lie, politicians lie,
the state lies, the church lies… so who exactly tells the truth?

if we don’t have a moral/ethical standard that covers something
as basic as lying, then we don’t have any type of standard at all…

the question becomes, why is telling the truth something we should engage
with instead of lying? why tell the truth? look about you… think about those
who tell the truth… take Julian Assange for example, he clearly told the truth
and look at him today… he is in prison… and faces time in an American prison…
and that is the problem… for telling the truth means exposing the lies of the state,
of the corporation, of the church and for that one will suffer, greatly…
people/corporations/the state/the church all lie because there is
no punishment, no accountability, no responsibility for lying…
lying is rewarded more then telling the truth…and those who tell the truth
are punished… lying is rewarded and truth telling is punished…and all that lying
is protected because of the idea that the state/corporation/the church is somehow
more worthy of being protected then the truth being told…
for example telling the truth might get one investigated and imprisoned because
it “threatens national security”… with national security being whatever the powers to be
decide it is…

and this lack of a ethical/moral standard allows us to engage in acts like
torture and false imprisonment because there is no standard being followed…

but Kropotkin, aren’t you the one, (among many) who argues that
there is not place or standard we can follow… you argue for moral/ethical
relativism…and that is true… but upon what standards can we follow that
makes sense? Nietzsche held onto his Master/slave morality to suggest
one possibility for a moral/ethical standard…

so what might be some other possibilities? for example, we might
use the democracy theory of morals/ethics… which is to say, the truth,
the morals are whatever the majority decide it is… we can, perhaps,
make that argument…or we can say, ethics/morals are whatever benefit
the majority of people, not necessarily what benefits ourselves personally,
but what benefits the majority of people…that is certainly one possibility for
a moral/ethical theory…the problem lies with those who can only
see their own issues, their own truths… for example, those who are very wealthy
who then says, of course the system works because I am very wealthy… as if the
only judge is one’s own success or failure in a system like capitalism…
to the super wealthy, of course capitalism is a roaring success because
they have vast wealth… but what of the millions upon millions that
are barely holding on, the ones who survive paycheck to paycheck,
one missed paycheck and they go under… or what about those who
have to go bankrupt because of medical bills…the system failed them…

we must have an ethical/moral system that covers them too…
it isn’t just about the lying or the disregard for reality that we must
seek ethics/morals, but for those who live within a system that
makes most people under that system, cannon fodder… like
capitalism and communism…the individual isn’t valued or protected
under capitalism or communism… we must have a moral/ethical system
that not only values us as individuals, but as members of a society…
as one and as part of the whole system…
a liberal blames the system, the conservative blames the individual…
but the circumstances might be, both are right…

but we must have a flexibility that doesn’t exists in today political,
economic, social and philosophical system…we create set rules amidst
a ever changing situation… how can fixed rules address a ever changing
situation? how do we adapt/change if we are forced to follow the fixed/set rules
of the past? we can’t…simple as that…

part of the reason for the success of the American constitution was its
flexibility…it wasn’t a set, fixed system… it was a flexible system designed
to adapt and change with ever changing conditions…and look at the times
the system was unable to change/adapt… the American civil war was one
such time…and right now… both side claim the constitution, the truth lies
their side, but one of them is wrong… and depending on your political
convictions, your side will claim to be the “right” side of the truth…

so right now, who is arguing for a flexible search for the truth? I would say
the left is… the right has committed itself to a fix, set understanding
of reality…that the truth lies with those who are intolerant, bigoted,
racists, biased…and the right will say the exact same thing about the left…

and who holds to the “truth?”…

devoid of any type of ethical/moral standards, we can say both are right and both
are wrong…so what is the answer?

I would suggest that instead of the old way, where morals and ethics were
the creation of the single person, the way Jesus and Mohmmed created
an ethical/moral standard, I would now suggest that the creation of ethical/moral
standards lie within the basis of the whole… in other words, we together create the values
and morals we live under… a democratic creation of moral/ethics…
we each of us engage in the creation of the new values and morals/ethics
that we hold…society as a whole creates its own morals/ethics to follow…
the majority decides what is moral/ethical for itself and the individuals with
that society…

that is one possibility, and there are other possibilities we can engage with
to create the values/morals/ethics of us individually and collectively…

Kropotkin

2

we can restate the entire opening post with this…

how do we regain meaning and value into our lives given
that “god is dead?”

on which standard are we to use to regain meaning and value in our existence?

do we use such values as nationalism, racism, hate… among other values
to regain meaning/ value in our lives? The negative values, the lower
animal values of existence to define who we are as human beings?
or do we use the higher values of existence love, peace, hope,
charity, justice to define who we are as human beings?

one might ask, how do we ‘‘know’’ what values are ‘‘higher’’
and what values are ‘‘lower?’’

The ‘‘lower’’ values are the easier to reach values of instinct and evolution…
we are human beings, not animals and as such, we should engage with values
that are human values… values we don’t find in nature…
justice, hope, charity, community and love for all life, not just life
that resembles us in some fashion…life that agrees with us,
but life that also disagrees with our values, hopes, and needs…

for the pursuit of values lies in the midst of the pursuit of needs…and quite
often we mistake our values with our needs… seeking love
is a need, but it can be a value we pursue beyond just our basic needs…
is the pursuit of justice a need or a value?
It can be both…

this dual nature of values confuses us because we human beings tend to be
on one side or another… we tend to fixate on being on one side or another…
think about it this way…

1 + 1 = 2 + 0

this equation is the same… what we should hold onto here is the
equal sign… not the numbers…

what creates equality, not what creates imbalance…
we focus on the numbers instead of the equal sign…
the numbers we use is irrelevant… it doesn’t matters what numbers
we use, what matters is our pursuit of the equal sign…
what will make the equation equal…and that should be how we
engage with ethics/morality, with justice, with our actions and
interactions with other human beings…
seek the equality sign in our engagement with morals/ethics…

seek the equal sign in our dealings with what it means to be human…
if we cannot find a ‘‘higher’’ or ‘‘lower’’ standard within our engagement
with other human beings, then seek the equality sign…

I no longer seek to ‘‘win’’ within my engagement with other people,
but that doesn’t mean I must automatically ‘‘lose’’… it isn’t
a binary choice between winning or losing, it is a choice
to seek the equal sign, equality between each other…

to say there is only ‘‘winners’’ or ‘‘losers’’ in life is to
deny the possibility of equality in life…

that can be the new standard of ethics/morality… how do we
treat each other equal? Not to win or lose, but to be equal with
each others…

Life isn’t a game to be won, but life is an possibility to be
pursued… where there are no ‘‘winners’’ or ‘‘losers’’ but just
people seeking an engagement with their possibilities…
my engagement with my possibilities means I seek to become
the best philosopher I can possible become…
which has nothing to do with ‘‘winning’’ or ‘‘losing’’… it means I steer
clear of ‘‘winning’’ or ‘‘losing’’ in regards to other people…
to seek my best ‘‘me’’ isn’t about other people, but about being
the ‘‘best’’ Kropotkin I can be…remove the need to ‘‘win’’
or to ‘‘lose’’ and focus on seeking your own possibilities…
which is to say, seek the equal aspect of existence, not to
win or lose, but to be your own best possibility…

ethics/morals require us to seek the equal sign …
not the numbers outside of the equal sign…

Kropotkin

3

so us put this into some context…

Michael Flynn the other day, demanded that “America unites under one religion”
clearly meaning the Christian religion…
and if you are something outside of the “One religion”, you lose…
if you are Hindu or Buddhist or even an Atheist, then you must bow
down to the “one religion” that isn’t seeking equality, that is seeking to
be the “winner” in the sphere of religion… to say, I have one and you have none,
thus I win… to remove this damaging need to “win” and I call it damaging
because it means I am not, not pursuing what it means to be human on
my own terms, but I am pursuing to be the “winner”, which isn’t my
possibilities I am seeking… to pursue to be the “one religion” is to deny
all other possibilities… I am not seeking the equal sign but to ‘‘win’’
the numbers game… to say, the truth lies with me, because
I am the ‘‘winner’’… is to deny that there are other possibilities…
to pursue the equal sign is to allow and engage with
other possibilities of being human… to hold to no god, to one particular
god, or to many gods…it isn’t about ‘‘winning’’ or ‘‘losing’’
but about seeking your own possibilities and beliefs…

the competition isn’t between human beings, but within ourselves
seeking to discover what it means to be human…

to find our possibilities and make the most of them…
not to ‘‘win’’ or ‘‘lose’’…but seek the equal sign in our lives…

Kropotkin

4

what does it mean to be a “winner” or a “loser”
to “win” means to gain something that the other person doesn’t have…
if I “win” I get something the other person doesn’t have,
either money, a job, titles, fame, power, prestige…
we are so indoctrinated into “winning” and ''losing" that
we cannot see past or outside of this “winning” or “Losing”…
it has become the only criteria we have or use…

I read a headline this morning that says this:
“GOP is ecstatic about the inflation rate”
because it gives them issue to run on… now
the fact that this inflation rate hurts everyone
seems to be irrelevant to the GOP… it isn’t about whether people
are being helped or hurt, as long as the GOP benefits from it…
the goal is to “win” the next election, not to aid or benefit people…
the numbers are what is important, not the equal sign…
this is what I mean by an engagement with “winning” and “losing” as
oppose to seeking an equality between people…

inflation is a tool meant to win elections instead of creating better people
or making life easier for people to live in…obviously inflation damages
those who are poorer because they have no way to keep up with inflation…
whereas the wealthier can keep up with inflation… it might hurt them, but
it doesn’t permanently damage them like inflations hurts or damages the poor…

if the GOP actually cared, it would seek the equal sign instead of trying to
make political hay out of something that is harmful to people…
it is trying to become a “winner” over something that is best dealt with
in regards in trying to end inflation… not score political points over it…
now one might say, well the democrats do that to…as if that makes it right…
it doesn’t… the point is to seek our potential, not to “win” the game…

in fact, I would argue that “winning” the game is harmful to
our becoming better human beings… to seeking out what is possible for
us is best served by us seeking equality between us, not to “winning” the game…

I am attempting to overcome centuries of individuals, societies, the state, of
“winning” instead of striving for equality… to seek the numbers instead of
seeking the equal sign…

we have to overcome the modern understanding of being human… which isn’t
about “winning” or “losing” but about finding out what it means to become a better human
being… the seeking of our possibilities, not about “winning” or “losing”…

and in this context, communism is a better suited system for us in seeking out
what it means to be human because it isn’t about “winning” or “losing”
but about becoming the best possibility we can become…

it is no longer about seeking the trinkets of existence, the wealth,
power, titles, fame, material goods, but about becoming what is
possible for us… be it becoming the best philosopher I can become or
the best historian or the best thinker or the best runner I can be,
not about being the “winner” or “loser” of existence…

finding the equality sign, and not being fixated on the numbers around the
equal sign…

Kropotkin

5

:laughing:
This is too funny -
The irony - :laughing:

Or — look what happens when Fox News tells the truth - :-"

Some blokes are just really really slow to wake up. :laughing:

These questions about ethics have already been answered - but waiting for some blokes to wake up could take a lifetime - and then some.

6

to think of it this way…

I go into a casino… think of life as being that casino…
I go into that casino and I do what one does in a casino, I gamble,
I bet money on games of some sort…as I have done… and I walk out of
that casino with some winnings, say, I won $100… so I go out into the world
and say, I won $100 bucks in that casino… the point is I was able to walk out
with some money in my pocket… but in life as a casino, we can’t walk out with
any money… we die and we die without being able to take any money out of the
casino…so, if we understand that if we are in the casino, and we break even
or even lose money, it becomes another game… How much fun or how I enjoyed
gambling… It becomes something other then winning or losing in a casino
because in life as a casino, we can’t take the money with us once we die…
so, in life, it becomes more then winning or losing… it is how much we
enjoyed playing the game or gambling… or perhaps we can say, how much
did I help people… or some other factor beside winning or losing because in life,
we cannot walk out of life with any type of success… we die, it doesn’t matter if
we were president of the United states or a janitor or a checker in a supermarket…
we will still die…there is no money in our pockets when we leave life, unlike
a casino, maybe…winning or losing becomes irrelevant when we are faced with death…
does it matter that we conquered the world like Alexander the great or Caesar or
Napoleon… nope, does it matter that we barely survived our lives, nope…

death is the great equalizer… everyone becomes equal because of death…
so it is no longer about the numbers we put up, making millions or pennies,
because in death, we cannot take it with us…it stays in the casino…
and every person only has so much time in the casino and no more…
then another person comes into the casino and plays their money on games…
and it doesn’t matter if they win or lose, they will still die…
so, winning and losing is unimportant in our fictional casino, which we
know as life…we cannot take with us, so we are in fact, equal in existence
because we, all of us, leave life, the casino empty handed…

Kropotkin

7

K: as one who won’t even admit they aren’t an American, you have no place at the table…
at least Pedreo admitted he isn’t an American… the committee of truth, you are so proud
of, isn’t true if you can’t even admit you are not an American… so don’t tell me about the truth,
when you lie about one of the most basic part of who you are… your nationality… it calls into
question everything you have ever said, your nationality, your sex, your religion, your basic beliefs
are in question if you can’t even tell the truth about your place of birth…

Kropotkin

8

as for me, I am exactly who I say I am…
I am a senior citizen, about to turn 63, I am male,
I was born in Minnesota and now live in California,
I am married, for 25 years, with one daughter…
I am hearing impaired, needing a hearing aid to hear anything…
I have written the exact truth about who I am…

but you can’t even admit you aren’t an American…
need we know anything more about your pretend allegiance to the “truth?”…
if you lie about who you are, you can lie about anything and everything…

Kropotkin

9

So your idea of ethics is - "he hasn’t told me where he lives - therefore he is a LIAR!!.

I think a lot of people would say that kind of accusation is UNETHICAL! - not to mention UNTRUE.

Yet that isn’t going to stop you from preaching ethics and truth. #-o
:laughing:

10

K: if we have two men and we are face with two different versions of the truth,
as told by these two men, who should we believe? the one man who has spoken
the truth about himself as it exactly is, or should we believe the other man,
who hasn’t spoken the truth about who he is? I for one, would believe the man
who has spoken the truth, exactly as it is, instead of the other man, who hasn’t
spoken the truth about who he is… it is a matter of credibility and the man who
hasn’t spoken the truth, has no credibility… just as you have no credibility because
you haven’t spoken the truth… to lie about one thing, yes, just one thing damages
your credibility to the point of not being taken seriously…

if you are a proven liar, then why should we trust anything you say?

and that is the point, in case you missed it… you can’t be trusted to speak
the truth, because you have lied about who you are… it isn’t a big deal in your eyes
because you are a liar…and to a liar, the truth is not that important or worth pursuing…

to me, the truth is everything… and the trust that comes with telling the truth
is important to me…I value the truth and you don’t…
so why should we trust you?

Kropotkin

11

K: the fact that Ur can’t even tell that his lying is making him untrustworthy
and not credible, says a lot about ethics/moral in the 21st century…

he holds that because he tells the “truth” about the other side, makes
him truthful and honest… and yet, we cannot take at face value what he
says because of his dishonesty about who he is…and there will be many on
ILP who hold that Ur is somehow honest and moral because he holds the
same "truths’’ as they do, and that somehow makes him a truthful sort…
that is why UR is a polemists and not a philosopher, because he
begins with a dubious “truth” and expects us to follow that “truth”
because he says so… instead of a philosopher’s route which is to
begin with evidence that leads to a truth, the search for the truth,
not begin with a truth and lead outward, but seeking the truth…

I ask, where is the evidence for his truth? he says, Kropotkin is wrong…
but he hasn’t shown us where Kropotkin is wrong… just that he is wrong…
I say the evidence is this and this and this, thus, this is true…

the 21st century search for the truth requires, no demands that we don’t take on
faith that this is true (or false for that matter)… we demand some sort of evidence
for our beliefs…no faith for holding a truth, a truth has to be demonstrated, not
taken on faith… as UR shows us how he holds the truth on faith, not on facts…

an example, his how he continues to call me a “commie” and yet, I have
shown, demonstrated time after time after time I am not a communist…
but that doesn’t stop him from calling me a “commie”… he isn’t after the truth,
he is after faith in his chosen belief system…a polemists, which is one who
is not interested in seeking the truth but in proclaiming they already have the truth…

ethics/morals in the 21st century is about us no longer engaging in polemical
post… it requires us to demonstrate, with facts evidence, that we are seeking
the truth… not already holding the truth and proclaiming that we alone, hold the truth…

IQ45 is a perfect example of what has happened to the truth in the
21st century… it is on our side or it is “fake news”… there is no in between…
one who shouts “fake news” isn’t interested in the truth… they are interested in
being the bearers of a certain type of “truth”… that which supports their position…
if it doesn’t support their position, it is “fake news”…

for them the truth is already determined… hence ethics/morals in the 21st
century is about holding certain truths, not finding the truth…

Kropotkin