This is a thought experiment articulating what an ‘evil’ person would say about morals.
This thread is for Faust. I am trying to express an alterior perspective other than my own
in this post, and in that way it could be a little like some perspectivism.
I’m hoping that Faust will understand that and find some value in my summary of morals.
"Ah where to start? At the lowest levels of drunken madness and filth.
It is claimed by the moralist that the most revolting things are the immoral things.
First of all, sickness is a moral concept. Bad feelings are moral concepts.
Therefor the basis of the concept of filth, is a moral concept. All of the moralist’s hate,
disgust, fear and aversion is an integrated part of the moral concepts he produces.
When a moralist hates, fears, or dislikes a concept, he devises a way in which to
shift the blame and the responsability of his own pain unto the shoulders of the
object which causes him pain. Whenever something or someone harms him, it is the
harmful which he claims is wrong, bad, out of place, or immoral. Incapable of a
satisfcatory form of revenge, the moralist seeks to avenge himself by means of
manipulating a system of thoughts and values. To the moralist, the meaning of
a values system is only equal to its usefulness. However well a morality
shelters and feeds the needy and inadiquite, that is how good the moralist
will consider it to be. So because a moralist dislikes pain and disability,
he can say that filth and sickness is bad. A moralist is typically unable
to treat his tourmentors badly, but he still seeks that these tourmentors
be thought of badly, so that they will be treated badly. In this way,
the moralist preaches that the criminal deserves to be punished, and
if the moralist can persuade others that the criminal is bad, then these
people will treat the criminal badly for him. If the people do not agree
with the moralist, he will claim that those people are wrong, or immoral
and apathetic. Unable to control the minds of fellow people, the moralist
insists that the only justice would be a world where everyone agrees upon
the morals he has created. He will project his emotion that a police officer
is good whenever the police officer stops his own enemies, but we must realize
that if this person is committing crimes, he will most certainly believe
and say that police are shit. The moralist chooses his values based on what
he percieves as friends and enemies, benifites and losses to himself.
Due to the commonalities between men, that men typically all behave in
a certain similar way, common morals have been created and accepted by
the masses. Common values are tools which reward and punish behaviors
based on what the masses want. In this way, the masses have achieved
control over eachother, and with this control of behavior, comes the
sensation of security. When control has deeply been established,
a sensation of victory fills the moralist. Ever since men were born,
their desires remain somewhat the same. They want. Whatever they want,
is good, and whatever they don’t want, is bad. Tears and wailing evolves
into long complex strings of sophistry and persuation, rhetoric and
even philosophy. As soon as a man learns how to get what he wants,
he believes that he’s made actual progress. He may still be a man,
stupid, weak and very breif in the universe, but that is not what he
believes. A man believes that when he has gotten what he wanted,
that his world is good, that his life is worth while, and that his
values are truly right.
Evil people have morals, too. Evil people believe that they should
get what they want, even if it comes at a cost to the good people.
Good people believe that they should get what they want, even if
it comes at a cost to the evil people. Good and evil people are one
and the same. Morality is a code of influence and behavior control.
Morality is an expression of human nature.
I’m so amoral, that i don’t think morality is good or bad.
That is why i’m evil, if you disagree with me, but if you agree
with me, that’s what is good about me, that’s what makes me a good
philosopher."
My personal view is that morals are a form of knowledge.
If I do this, then these people will think feel and have this situation.
Morality is the knowledge of life.
I like the idea of fluid property belonging to everyone so that all of us have a stake in seeing to its good use and care. There’s a way that people get careless and thoughtless when it’s not theirs. Also, if there is no concept of personal property but universal stewardship, you don’t really need morality, ethics, or philosophies thereof. Sounds like a win win to me.
I like the way that Black Elk spoke on the sacred hoop that joins us all. When that hoop gets broken, then we get divisions and boundaries and all the contingent “moralities” and “laws” regarding property.
“Everything the Power of the World does is done in a circle. The sky is round, and I have heard that the earth is round like a ball, and so are all the stars. The wind, in its greatest power whirls. Birds make their nest in circles, for theirs is the same religion as ours. The sun comes forth and goes down again in a circle. The moon does the same and both are round. Even the seasons form a great circle in their changing, and always come back again to where they were. The life of a man is a circle from childhood to childhood, and so it is in everything where power moves. Our tepees were round like the nests of birds, and these were always set in a circle, the nation’s hoop.”
It makes me recall that property is so often set off in squares and rectangles. Maybe that is the symbol for moral lines and boundaries as well. I prefer the circle.
This reminds me of the first book of The Republic by Plato, in which Socrates touches on a very similar point–
Of course, the conversation is put into terms of “just” vs. “unjust”; though the concept of justice seems to be treated much like, if not synonymous with, morality. Anyway, if I remember correctly, Socrates essentially reaches a conclusion that even the “unjust”, or immoral, groups must be “just”, or moral, to some degree insofar as they must retain an allegiance to their respective group(s) as well as a common interest in some goal or ideal.
Absolute immorality in every sense is just impractical and not profitable – not to mention, in my opinion, impossible. Nobody would trust you, like you, pay you, help you, want to be in your company, etc. So, as the debate goes on, he comes to another conclusion that the most “perfectly unjust”, or perfectly immoral, person is not immoral in the absolute sense - meaning not the opposite of moral in any/every case, all the time. Rather, a more “perfect” version of the unjust, or immoral, is one with immoral (unjust or utterly selfish) intent while giving the appearance, and owning a reputation, of one who is extremely moral. So, in essence, the greatest of evil people are likely to be great actors – giving an illusion of a more common morality. However, even beneath that superficial surface, there is something of a moral code actually being followed. This is often a very narrow, or esoteric (I suppose), view of morality as perceived by particular person or group. Without any moral grounds whatsoever, immorality would be turned on its head – Evil people would essentially bring evil upon themselves.
I thought it was an interesting idea, and something I had not considered prior to reading The Republic. I agree though – even the most seemingly immoral, or “evil”, people adhere to some moral/ethical code (whatever it may be) in the interest of loyalty and profit. Even serial killers, for example, often have very specific rationale behind their actions, or experience some degree of cognitive dissonance, because they do at least recognize, or desire justification by, some moral standard.
This is plausible and logical in theory, but is it always true in practice … in the real world? The way oppression and fear work on people, for example, can instill a forced morality on them; and I would presume that those practicing oppression and instilling fear are sociopathically amoral. Furthermore, this behavior is all predicated on property ownership, so then the issue expands out into the morality, or lack thereof, in such things as exploitation, slave labor, and the elitist ideas that seem to arise from an arrogant, proprietary entitlement to decide for the rest of us exactly what “goodness” and “morality” are and how “we” should all behave. What then might have been a Kantian categorical imperative universally applicable to everyone then becomes a selective imperative applicable only to those who are owned, exploited, or oppressed. Bit of a sticky wicket, eh, when it comes to philosophizing with a laser gun?
Well, I don’t think much of anything is always true in practice…
As far as I know, there do exist sociopaths who literally lack the capacity for certain emotional connections - I suppose empathy being one of those key faculties. That would seem more of an ‘amoral’ situation to me, as opposed to someone who is just interested in personal gain to the extent that he is willing to use, and expend, other people (which seems more ‘immoral’). Then again, you have those that try to exercise oppression because they believe to be acting morally - that is, in the interest of the majority, which can be any of the three (moral, immoral, amoral) depending on one’s perspective.
Actually, in The Republic, they spoke in more general terms of “benefit” before they incorporated profitability. So I’d say the behavior is predicated upon ownership, but not necessarily property (or material).
That it does, and has. This is where subjectivity forms biases that push this proprietary entitlement into one of the three categories. The tricky part is that the intent and methodology of the oppressors are never recognized universally in a single way, nor do the views/opinions of the oppressors generally reflect those of the oppressed. Therefore, the morality of a ruling body is never really known, but always questioned and scrutinized (for good reason). People will generally measure morality by their own conception, so the moral standing of a single ruler will likely be interpreted as a comparison - weighing the “good” vs. “bad”.
Let’s not waste time in pretending that any universally applicable morality is even possible, let alone practical.
I would say your idea of a “selective imperative” would break down even further amongst those who are oppressed. If you think about it, you are bound to have an optimist, pessimist, and everything in-between in a large enough group holding some common opinion. Plus, in certain ways, the oppressed become oppressors in their own right. There is more a hierarchy of power that trickles down from the most powerful, rather than just a single entity of complete power acting as an umbrella under which all else sits and obeys. That master morality is used, amended, molded, bent, etc. by the oppressed (being that ‘master morality’ is not concerned with intention, but avoiding consequences), forming a ton of differing slave moralities, which become, in turn, the master to other subsequent slave moralities. Each beginning with a primary focus on intent and eventually evolving, shifting the focus to consequences.
I’m not sure what you mean by a “laser gun”. A pricing gun, perhaps?
If so, I think the sticky wicket you’re referring to may just be political philosophy. Fortunately, I tend to believe morality extends beyond politics and property. Even a man of the poorest social/economic standing ought to have some moral fabric. I think there is something intrinsic in human beings which gives us a very basic moral framework – if not an appeal to authority, I think it likely an appeal to emotion.
Excellent point. I suppose there is great potential for dramatic irony and paradox in the idea that the foundation of a person’s actions is predicated on the belief that s/he is acting morally or in the right based on some sort of authority like the bible, the “science” behind eugenics, or even the economic principles behind self-interested free-marketism, for example. It might even be something as simple as being over-sensitive and able to see too much out there while unable to see what’s inside, like Hamlet, or vice-versa, like Oedipus.
Thus, how does moral and ethical philosophy deal with the very questions that seem to defy the ability of philosophy to deal with when the paradoxes, the ironies, and the ambiguities beset us? What then is evil, for instance? Is the great sensitive person of noble heart and mind who believes and writes that “all men are created equal” and “endowed with certain inalienable rights,” while he himself owns slaves as part of the selectively franchised property-owning minority that denies equality and rights to the great majority of people, subject to the same morality and ethics as everyone else? Is he considered an “evil” man or a “good” one?
Moreover, what happens to the idea of conscience when moral boundaries become so blurred and ambiguous? Can a person be held accountable for crimes against humans if they believe they are operating on Mosaic principles or those of scientific “authorities” who narrow the definition of what is “right and normal” and broaden the bounds of what is “wrong and abnormal” to the point that they feel that what they are doing is “for your own good” or for “the good of the economy” or whatever good is at stake at the moment?
Philosophy as a genre does not seem to be the modality for handling these problems, but fiction and drama most definitely are. I’ve been thinking considerably about Nietzsche’s take on three tragedies: those of Hamlet, Oedipus, and Prometheus. The materia of each tragedy seems to boil down to one singular essence, that of excess. Where that excess lies and how it works gives us the insight to the hero’s particular tragedy, to the question of his excess, and to the problem of conscience or guilt. For Nietzsche, the hero’s excess was in his noble or divine attribute, which he considered Dionysian in its source and energy, and the tragedy resulted from the need for society to counterbalance that excess and bring down to human proportions. However, I think there is more to it than that. I see the great noble or divine attribute of the hero as an exemplum bonum, a model for what humanity can be, without the need for justification or acquittal. The excess is in the assumptions underlying the way it’s used or the way it’s aligned with the pride or hubris that says “I am above the law; I have no limits because this trait has made be so great.” Therefore, I deserve something that other humans don’t, maybe a kingship, or a seat on Mt. Olympus, or some other great reward. Then, when the hero is forced by human affairs to face the crimes he is goaded into committing, the great effect turns into an affect of such proportions that the tragedy is completed as though it were foreknown all along. But where does morality fit into the scheme; how can blame or guilt be assigned to those who were blind to their own faults so that everything they did for the greater good ended up corrupting it or harming it?
Absolutely, and I suppose property could include humans, animals, and ethereal things like “intellectual” creations and inventions, even something like empty space.
Don’t forget to add the even more obfuscatory problems of mind control and brainwashing to the mix, not to mention the cynical use of the memes of “morals” and “values” as blankets or hoods over actions motivated by other underlying beliefs such as those of white supremacy and racism. Can philosophy deal with this? Probably not, but I suppose Psychology can and does, along with fiction and drama.
Is it really a waste of time? Remember, the universal ideal makes a good contrast to the problem posed by the particular and helps us define it. In fact, there might be a challenge there, to consider how ideals inform particulars; and that, I believe, is the province of philosophy.
I can’t make out the coherence in this argument; it keeps shifting outward to more complex particulars that seem to grow exponentially to the point of absurdity. However, I would agree that the first and most intense urge of an oppressed person is to become an oppressor because it obviates the need to push through the shame and humiliation enough to get to the place where s/he is able to see and empathize with other humans on all levels, meaning the ability to see that every oppressor is a person who has been oppressed just like them.
Thanks for the question. I was trying to think of something along the line of Nietzsche’s hammer, which was really a tuning fork, and I never did like the use of “laser gun.” I really almost said “laser fork,” but that doesn’t work for obvious reasons; but I wanted to get at the idea of philosophizing with a sharp, incisive light that opens the mind like a laser would.
Agreed. Well said.
And thank you very much for your comments, all well put and provocative of more thought.
I think that is a good example of why moral terminology (ex. “good”, “evil”, “right”, “wrong”, etc.) looses much of its credibility to a thinker. Aside from being highly subjective interpretations, these terms are also necessarily relative. Even our most fundamental moral convictions are understood and justified differently, in accordance with individual perception – so, from the beginning, there really are no solid grounds by which to ensure some equality in moral understanding (as this seems to be largely of individual merit). Moreover, moral judgments can be easily confused (or persuaded) in attempting to consider all the possible variables affecting a given situation and all actors involved. There is no doubt, in my opinion, that morality is a relative concept, but I think we often underestimate just how relative moral perspectives are.
And even further – who is to hold such a person, or group, accountable? Who has not advised another person, at some point in his life, by moral persuasion - by which I mean appealing to someone’s conscience or emotional state?
Is a moral judgment only “wrong” when it has been deemed my a majority and exposed as such? Also, how does one determine a difference between a [b]moral mistake[/b] and an [b]immoral act[/b] (and vice-versa). After all, we are human; just as capable of error as we are willful deception.
Interesting thoughts, and well said. I think, perhaps, a differentiation between excess and ‘decadence’ may be somewhat prudent in this capacity. Excess being the result of amoral drives, which we may naturally benefit from by talent, inheritance, or a natural appreciation or desire in particular drives. Decadence, on the other hand, could be considered willful accumulation of ‘excess’ to such a degree that it is essentially masturbation – totally selfish in meaning and purpose, with express intent to benefit only oneself.
Indeed. I think philosophy can provide a great deal of insight, especially for ontological questions regarding human beliefs and our need for them. However, as you said, I think psychology plays a much larger role in overall philosophical understanding since Nietzsche, Freud, and the like.
I honestly do not think Kant’s efforts a waste of time; I think I am one of the few regulars here that really likes Kant. I do, however, think them impractical now that the ideas have been explored, considered, and understood. The problem with using an absolute/universal idea of morality to examine particulars as such is that it just seems unrealistic (like comparing a wild horse to a unicorn). Of course we can see how our ideas differ from what we may consider ‘ideal’ by simple comparison, but our conclusions will have little to no bearing on how we perceive reality. I say this because the ideal we are considering has never been a reality, so rather than actually determining something practical about life, we’d essentially be determining how flawed our ideal is – which, I suspect, is what happened in the case of the categorical imperative.
Haha, understood. I was essentially saying that - for example - an oppressed person finds himself in a position of power by promising/practicing good intention (or the illusion of such). As the position of power solidifies, he can get a bit more comfortable and begin to test the limits of his position by disregarding intent and focusing on the probable consequences of his actions – this is where I see the feeling of proprietary entitlement that you mentioned coming into play. Now, people trust his intent and he becomes concerned with expansion of his power, which includes knowing and avoiding negative ramifications of abusing said power. Then, below the ideal position of power, other, lesser authorities are elected/chosen in the same way - with a focus on intent first (to ensure loyalty and reverence) then evolving to a focus on the limits of the respective position, the consequences associated with abusing it. As that authority reaches a ‘Master Morality’, newer, and yet lesser authorities are appointed by means of ‘Slave Morality’. Slave becomes Master, giving occasion to yet another form of authority. And so on…
Hope that is a bit more clear.
Ah, I get ya. I was thinking that you were referring to philosophizing while continually questioning our values. Always weighing profit and cost. Which, in a way, I think we all do – and should do.
No problem, man. I’m enjoying the conversation myself; so likewise. I just hope I’m not derailing the OP too terribly.
I see your point of view here. The question is, though, whether morality is only a relative concept or perspective to the exclusion of the universal, one that would be quintessentially human any place, any time, as it were.
Accountability is another big question, and it really gets thorny in the context of a relative morality, doesn’t it? Even worse, or more thorny, is the question of who decides what is moral in any one context, so that the question of accountability also itself becomes relative both to circumstances and the position of each person on the power spectrum, from weakest to strongest. Thus, if it is the most powerful who decide what is moral and, at the same time, who is held accountable on the basis of this imposed morality, then I think that all thinking systems as a whole become stuck in a morass or tangle when it comes to sorting out and explaining the concepts themselves and how they work practically in a human society. What I mean by this is that there is no rational or logical construct that can deal with it because the complexity and layers seem to grow out to the point of absurdity and chaos. Thus, you can probably now see why I believe that The Age of Reason is now defunct. I’m starting now to wonder whether Chaos Theory would serve as a better tool or modality for thinking about the absurd mess that we find ourselves in regarding ethics, morality, and accountabllity.
Thanks. More questions arise here. Are you saying that “excess” is the result solely of amoral drives? If so, I would strongly disagree, in that it appears to me that much excess also derives from moral and immoral drives as well; perhaps it’s the passion and motivation behind those drives that create the excess and not so much the particular drives themselves – although I would expect there to be a mutual interaction of force between the two.
Also, your ideas on “decadence” are not clear to me, either intuitively or obviously. I appreciate your wanting to make the distinction, which could lead to some very interesting conclusions later on; but first the distinction must be clear, plausible, and understandable, which right now for me, it is not. First, I question the idea that excess derives solely from amoral drives. Next, I don’t think I would define decadence as excess turned into selfish masturbation. What I mean is that certainly that scenario could be one of many that might manifest itself in a decadent way, but I don’t see it as decadence itself in the larger and more definitive sense.
Thus, the questions are: what exactly is decadence? What causes the breakdown of moral constraints and other social and religious boundaries that results in decadence? Perhaps it has something to do with the excess of some power or force outside the society working on the minds of the people within it in such a way that all the underlying systems with any sort of universal foundation for morality and behavior suddenly crumble. That’s what decadence really is, isn’t it… a crumbling, a rotting at the core spreading outward? It might do us good, then, to look at the great writers on this subject; the one that is first and foremost in my mind is Thomas Mann. His books portray both the bourgeois, the elite and the aesthetic German society of his day as it descended into decadence, and the impact is both disturbing and sublime in its artistry. Another great artist who was able to depict decadence in the context of more radical, leftist views was Bertolt Brecht. And it is interesting that both artists, Mann and Brecht, were also connoisseurs and experts on music and its relationship to the decadence spreading out into the world from the aspect of one society’s little microcosm with all its varied characters, both good, evil, and all shades in between.
What do you mean by “ontological questions regarding human beliefs and our need for them”?
Join the club. I like Kant too, whether practical or impractical. I think we will have to agree to disagree on the merit of an absolute/universal idea of morality, though. Even if western society has dissolved into a morass of relativism when it comes to morality, further complicated by power issues and questions of accountability, I don’t think that it is unrealistic to hold to an ideal, universal such as Kant provided. In fact, I think that the ideals are just as real as the particulars, even more so as they exist a priori and form the foundation for the existence of the particulars in the first place. However, it is also clear to me that Reason alone, even in the interests of an “enlightened” human community governed by laws and principles designed for the common good, cannot move humans to put into practice those laws and principles designed through the activity of Reason. I know this sounds circular, but I think it makes sense.
Lol. I would just add that I don’t believe that humans are inherently masters or slaves; that is simply a virtual construct that can be dissolved at any moment humans decide not to be glammed by it. As for intention, that in my mind is a powerful energy, both individually and collectively. It might well be the province of philosophy to consider the relationship between intentionality and morality; and I don’t think that intentions always result in master morality and slave morality.
I like your idea equally well. Wasn’t it Rilke who said: “love the questions,” for they tell us that life is to be lived, including the questions. Live the questions.
Just to end, this is turning into quite the oasis for philsophical watering of the flowers of thought… as though one thought or question moves us naturally to the next, like a wonderful fractal of infinite beauty and variety. Well done.
