Greed, lies, and arrogant stupidity.

For a long time I have touched based on what I think of morality and finally I have a complete answer for it all.

It is clear that objective morality is non existent and nowhere to be found which only leaves us with a subjective morality of the social contract.

I shall say it again that subjective morality is folly, mass stupidity and arrogance perpetuated by mass greed.

Subjective morality in a nutshell is a wealthy man or a well off person economically, claiming to know virtue and goodness in life while pronouncing that all must follow in their footsteps of being but at the same time ironically through contradiction these same hypocritical souls have no problem utilizing the services of slaves who are in a constant state of exploitation at their disposal and every whim.

Can we really call these men moral when they lay in obvious contradiction?

I am going to be bold in saying that all of morality doesn’t exist period and that it is a fantastic construction of make believe in all those who embrace it.

The moralists are really amoralists in disguise who have become so persuasive over the thousands of years in trickery that they have manipulated all to think of themselves as saints when infact they remain the masters of the whip over all slaves who suffer daily degradations that they command simultaneously in this great illusive masquerade.

What separates moralists from all other amoralists is that they have made themselves untouchable or irresponsible for all acts of destruction in the world hiding behind law and justice down to the very religious canons that people surrender themselves to in complete cowardice. A amoralist knows when they are responsible of acts committed by themselves but a moralist can play ignorance behind religion or law as to shield themselves of any wrong doing since anyone can bend those institutions to one’s own imagination should they have the opportunity.

Like amorality what we call morality is a product of greed and trickery with the only difference being that outspoken amoralists are more honest with themselves far more in comparison to moralists who pretend ignorance all the while they oppress others through constructed legalities.

[b]Analogy:

A amoralist has no morals and therefore does what they want without pity or remorse defending their integrity whenever they have to.

A moralist does whatever they want and if they should come to grips in fear they can hide behind laws of the fantastic idiotic social contract or with religion from those that they find to be a threat in cowardice without every having to defend themselves individually.[/b]

Why do we still have subjective morality or any at all?

Because if it was to be accepted that all of morality is a great lie, who then would we be able to enslave with everyone aware of such a grand conspiracy so that the few may prosper on the backs of a majority suffering?

Without morality the deluded chosen would crumble into nothingness, therefore they fight so eagerly presently like they always have throughout history to keep the reigns of power but they do so by lies not that by anything that is substantial in the cosmos.

Morality and slavery are one since both cannot exist without the other hence it’s total non-existence.

Morality is a social contract. It’s basically something people with similar emotional sensitivity agreed to follow. Some people don’t like killing animals so they think eating meat is immoral.

Why not? What end is subjective morality hindering?

Joker! Good to hear from you again.

OK: even when our attitude is negative, it’s still other-directed. There’s no way to go beyond morality without creating a new one. We can understand this purely analytically. Take Jacques Lacan (French psychoanalyst) who writes: “The unconscious is ethical at its core.” Even if we turn away from a particular morality, we’re not going to get around the fact that at root, our unconscious is structured around the Other.

Anti-morality is still a morality. Nietzsche particularly, right? He’s going ‘beyond’ good and evil in a way which is (or will eventually be understood as) moral.

What think ye?

Morality is a means to an end.

Amoralist? How? All humans are genetically programmed into some kind of consistent mode of interpretating experience. You want to it away, but you can’t, you can only replace it. There is always a sense of judgement, of good and bad, as I can see in your post, as in all philosophy. Show me a moralless philosopher.

I’m a moral nihilist and I’ve been one for a long time. I assume a moral nihilist is simply a amoralist by another name.

However, I think moral nihilism is often similar to moral subjectivism, and the difference between them is often merely terminological. That is to say, most so-called moral statements can be worded in amoral terms.

For example, instead of saying “X is immoral,” we might say:
“X is harmful to a certain person or group.”
“I don’t like X.”
“X disgusts me.”
“Society discourages X.”

You see, moral statements are often just amoral statements worded in an archaic way–stemming from the old days of religion and myths before science gave us a more empirical understanding of the world.

To any moral nihilist. I’m sure this is a style of questions you’ve already heard plenty of times from those with lack of research in moral nihilism. So you’ll have to thwart me the way you do them. But . . .

As an amoralist . . . why did you get out of bed?

Clearly it wasn’t to start a productive day doing good deeds for some arbitrary group.

I suppose it could be for gratification because you realized your hedonistic endeavours depend on you fulfilling certain obligations . . . or your mind got bored and instinct kicked in. But was the instinct driven by some evolutionary purpose? Aren’t you following an evolutionary program that we all seem driven toward? Why obligate yourself to something so arbitrary?

If you shouldn’t want anything, what do you want?

I suppose I need to see explaination of moral nihilism in bullet form to better understand. I’m left with too many paradoxes to make sense of.

Also the discussion of moralists against amoralists seems to pin moralists as cowards and tricksters. But to an amoralist, what does that matter? What’s wrong with cowardice and trickery? Maybe the masquerading moralists like it. Why not? There isn’t an amoralist chivalry that the moralist refuses to practice, is there? I guess the amoralist may as well stand back and say: “Good for those masqueraders looting the village in the name of god. More loot for our camp of amoralists.”

As a moral nihilist, I just view and describe human behavior and choices descriptively rather than prescriptively. I believe people have desires. I believe people have goals. We all act to fulfill our own desires and become happy. I get out of bed in the morning because I want to, not because I think it is moral.

I don’t punch babies because I don’t want to, not because I think it is moral.

Amorally speaking, people want to avoid pain and suffering and achieve happiness, so we make our choices based on that.

Additionally, I want to note that a moral nihilist can have values, they just don’t have moral values. For example, I like the taste of certain foods, and I like to see my baby niece smile; I don’t see anything “moral” (or immoral) about those things though. Additionally, I amorally value my bed and I wouldn’t sell it for 10 dollars, because it is worth more much than 10 dollars to me.

Also, I want to stress the difference between moral nihilism and epistemological nihilism. Moral nihilism simply rejects morality, but a moral nihilist can still believe in other forms of truth and knowledge. In contrast, an epistemological nihilist would reject all forms of truth, value and knowledge altogether.

Hope that helps other people understand moral nihilism (as I see it) a little better.

If there is no objective morality and you want to dispose of subjective morality we wont have any morality at all. There would be no happyness apart from that which you can take from others, Not a fun existance for 99% of the population. Think of things in terms of Mass oppinion not just your oppinion. Perhaps we should just all give up now and destroy ourselves, there is afterall nothing to live for, subjective morality is folly right? Sounds like your saying there is no perpose to life, which is fine to have that oppinion but why push it on everone else? It should not matter to you if there is a society that does not work, if morality is faulse because in the grand sceme of things nothing matters right? so stop caring ffs

you need to sort your head out and look beond your nose m8

Since when is subjective morality the only think to “live for”?

Surely, there are plenty of other things to “live for” besides morality.

I try to achieve happiness, not because I think it is moral, but just because I want to be happy.

I choose to live because I like life, not because it is moral/immoral.

Most of us do things because we want to, not because they are supposedly moral. We make our choices because we think our choices will result in more happiness for us–on average. For example, we go to work so we can get a paycheck and buy things that we want, not because going to work is moral. We don’t go around murdering people because it will make us unhappy (in that we would feel bad for the victim and also that we would get in legal trouble).

God was created in our image.

According to Nietzsche, anarchy would help evolution. Morality decreases its rate by protecting the weak who would lose a fight.

The point is if morlaity must be rejected just for being subjective so must all other things of a subjective nature, that includes, happyness and wants which you listed

I think you are confusing with moral nihilism with epistemological nihilism or all-around nihilism.

A moral nihilist can still believe in subjective values, such as human desire, taste, etc.

The point is that we can reduce prescriptive moral claims to descriptive amoral statements.

Agreed.

Morality is a system utilized by the elite few to justify their enslavement and oppression of the majority thus hindering other people’s lives to freedom while ironically claiming to defend it insidiously.

From all moral propositions comes suffering.

Since morality in all actuality is completely worthless and bankrupt offering promises of salvation yet enslaving many people simaltaneously it is indeed a form of amorality in disguise but unlike all other amoral forms of thinking it uses a more cowardly approach by it’s users as to make themselves sacred and untouchable even though no such thing exists today nor has it ever.

I think people have it all wrong.

I think all forms of morality is really amorality in disguise since everyday moralists utilize the suffering of other people everday of their lives to the point that in no way may we call them moral human beings.

If we are to accept that then the moralists will have to accept other amoralisms as a means to an end.

The reason moralists will not, is that they have tricked the entire world into believing the illustrious lie of there being an absolute truth even though none exists.

If we would accept morality as just a another means of amorality chimerical concepts like law, justice, authority and government would eventually have to go by the way side but since morality has such a stranglehold on all of public civic life the moralists will only keep perpetuating the lie of truth to distract the populance so that the elite can keep constructing their ivory towers with ease seeking idleness and apathy on the backs of other people’s suffering turmoil.