Rationality/amorality/liberalism creates world peace and....

Philosophy Forums Society, Government, and Economics
1

I thought it over and decided that for one to let rationality be their primary mode of being they will see that the best option for world peace is to take on the liberal ideology and yet still insist on moral nihilism.

This is how it works. When rational ideas and liberalism are mixed there is a proven recipe for a safer less violent world. Moral nihilism is included by default because it is rational.

Let me explain what I mean by moral nihilism. The recognition that the word “morality” and all related words such as “good”, “nice”, “righteous” and their negative counterparts are nothing more than a system unconsciously developed throughout history by people who live off of others, so that they may fool those others into not fighting them. It has been used in the most profound ways; one country being taken advantage of another is shamed into not fighting. And it has been used in the most mundane ways; “turn the other cheek” (if you enjoy hitting people, you must appreciate that “moral” ideal).

Back to world peace; one may object that without the idea of morality there’d be no basis for world peace. I say let world peace be its own basis. People must have goals or something to fight for and some wish to fight for world peace; what is important is that there’s no necessity for anyone to confuse themselves and others into thinking that theirs is the moral/good/righteous fight, it is actually harmful to their cause to do so. Because as I said rationality is a necessity, if one wants to convince others to fight for world peace effectively without being vulnerable to taking part in dead ends or fool’s errands, they must be taught to be rational; obviously one can’t be taught rationality while being taught something irrational such as morality.

Some may argue that the idea of world peace is only asking lambs to go to the slaughter. I agree that it often is. For a fight for world peace to be effective there must be absolutely no horseshiting by those in the fight, but only rationality; even if it means that it would take more time to find people to help with the cause.

Now I’m not claiming that rationality, liberalism, moral nihilism combined with the fighting spirit of one who believes in world peace as its own foundation is plausible or even possible. But, the facts speak for themselves as to the progress made so far. Everything about the first world that promotes safety, long life, easy living for large numbers is due to rationality and liberalism, without an overt emphasis on morality. So that was the trend, it stands to reason that a continuation of those causal factors will continue those (supposedly) positive attributes of the world.

The question then comes to whether or not one should take on this cause. It is of course each individual’s decision, but let me explain the reasons that I will not.

Firstly:

It’s ironic that, while the fight for world peace would take people of the utmost conviction and energy to be accomplished, it would require the utmost apathy and languor for it to be maintained. I see nothing inspiring about what the long term effects of that would be. Another way of expressing my objection is through the idea of equality. Few want to settle for equal, even if it means safety, which is self-evident in the way people who become rich enough to retire at a young age usually live.

So what would be this peacful humanity of apathy and what would it come to, one may ask. It is a sickening reflection for me. One may say people can be non-violent and peaceful but keep their fighting spirit by only fighting for recognition as achievers in scientific, artistic and athletic fields. Does anyone find this plausible, if so please explain? I’ll save my argument for its implausibility for perhaps a later time.

Secondly:

To speak nothing of the end results, I still don’t wish to help the world become peaceful. Meaning it is not something I would find to be worthwhile to do with my time, it’s not the fight for me.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=180179&p=2343136#p2340742

I’m not entirely opposed (not completely and utterly anyway) to the idea of the “good death”, but not that death, that is an empty death, for me anyway. Let’s put aside my objections to the end result and pretend that the end result of world peace would be consistent with humanity progressing (space travel, unheard of philosophical insights, larger more efficient brains). But, what would we have until this peaceful humanity progressed to astronomical limits? We would have what I would consider a false equality, that is an equality that is only enough to maintain peace. Think about it, the goal is world peace for some, not equality. There can’t be world peace without some equality, but it would be quite a double effort to make one’s goal both. So those working towards world peace would have their hands full just establishing enough equality for peace, without having the time for real equality.

This is where it becomes an issue that relates to pure preferences, related to personal experience. I’ve been out-equaled (the term I coined to mean made unequal in all the little ways that no one notices as inequality, but still can destroy the individual) most of my life… This hypothetical progressive peaceful humanity would still have many others out-equaled; it’s not in my disposition to create the hypocritical continuance of ills I know so well. I say let one fight, and possibly die; rather than be tricked into thinking they have no room for complaint simply because humanity has reached the lowest common denominator for peace.

But, I understand why others, who haven’t been out-equaled, would find world peace to be a nice cause to devote their excess energies to, at least I will assume as much for the moment, because I now await the answer to my earlier question:

Does anyone find it plausible that humanity can utilize it’s fighting spirit peacefully through science, the arts and athletics, if so please explain?

2

Liberalism requires things that are outside rationality. The two only “mix” when they happen to align from time to time. Conservatism also happens to align from time to time. Rationality chooses neither as a fixed partner.

That is an impression that you have been given. It isn’t totally without truth, but it’s certainly not the definition of “morality”.

You didn’t define “rationality” and I think you are presuming too much concerning it.
From my list;
Rationed ≡ serially portioned components that sum to a whole.
Rationale ≡ rationed steps of logic aimed toward a goal or purpose.
Rationality ≡ the essence of having rationale or logically rationed steps in pursuing a goal.

Basically being rational means maintaining a discipline aimed at accomplishing a chosen future state. It infers that a specific future state has been chosen and a design for obtaining that state has been put forth and is being upheld.

If world peace is the goal or purpose, what is the specific rationale (design) for obtaining it?

Liberalism merely means to resist “the establishment”, whatever that might be. But if one establishes a rationale toward world peace, then the liberal is the adversary to that rationale (by definition).

A conservative is one who is attempting to conserve an establishment, an order or discipline (such as a chosen morality or social structure). Again if one establishes a society based upon rational pursuit of world peace, then the conservative is the one actually maintaining that establishment against the liberal who is resisting it.

And whatever rules for general behavior are a part of that rationale, are “the morals” proposed to maintain the rationale so as to obtain the world peace. If you annihilate all morality, you have merely annihilated your own rationale.

If it isn’t possible, how can it be rational? There could be no rationed logic toward it.

The trick is merely to openly know why you are doing what you are doing. Wars are fought only because the masses never really know the truth of the situation. Every war is a pawn game wherein the players move the masses through deception. Wars are designed, often by both players merely to alter the entire situation rather than to win or conquer. “Causes” are created else the masses would not fight.

The more serious question is “what happens when you have no more causes because you have accomplished the goal?”

What is the rationality, not of obtaining world peace, but of maintaining it?
What are you going to do when you have nothing to do?
Start another war? … out of boredom?

The rationality of obtaining world peace, in order to be able to maintain world peace, involves a design of momentous activity, yet harmonious with other activity. Thus “peace” isn’t exactly the right word, but rather “Harmony”. Harmony is not still or boring. It requires effort toward a perceived hope and away from a perceived threat.

But what that means is that the hope being perceived cannot be one of disharmony. And it must be merely disharmony that is perceived as the potential threat. The goal cannot be divided between both Harmony and also “I am the King” or anything else.

And what that yields is a morality involving the maintenance of harmony and the avoidance of disharmony.

There are a lot of details required to go into the actual “rational” architecture and what it looks like in the long run.

3

I’m actually trying to explain something similar in my thread entitled, “The origins and practices of morality.” here within this ILP section.

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=184070

Nice description utilized here. I mean that sincerely.

4

I see in one of your threads you’re speaking of the fate of morality if the world turns to the opposite direction of world peace. I disagree with your premise that it would be an amoral world because of the exposition of the hypocrisy of morality, in fact I see the blood soaked world you foresee as the beginning of one of the most moral (sic) worlds yet known. But, I will in time catch up on my reading and then make a thorough explanation on one of your threads.

Back to this thread’s topic; I know you don’t believe in the idea of world peace being a possibility for a second, but my question for you is do you agree that rationality, moral nihilism/amorality and liberalism would be the best chance at creating world peace, if there was a chance?

5

Ah, you have very well interpreted what I was saying in that thread. Very good. Nobody else here caught onto that, yet you have.

You must have a very apt mind then.

Well, if you have counter arguments to that premise I would very much like to hear them.

6

James: Liberalism requires things that are outside rationality. The two only “mix” when they happen to align from time to time. Conservatism also happens to align from time to time. Rationality chooses neither as a fixed partner.

In this instance I actually mean the American Democrat Party’s conception of liberalism. They are as rational or irrational as just about any other American ideology. One can’t be rational at all times; one must embrace the absurd as a necessary condition of life and being human. To me world peace is especially absurd, but if one must choose that form of absurdity they can still concern themselves with rationality. The rationality for those who insist on peace being their absurd goal, will find liberalism as I defined to the most rational option by far.

That is an impression that you have been given. It isn’t totally without truth, but it’s certainly not the definition of “morality”.

Perhaps those fighting for peace wouldn’t have to work to do away with whatever form of behavior you constitute as morality but the terms themselves would of necessity need to be abolished or changed into meaninglessness.

If world peace is the goal or purpose, what is the specific rationale (design) for obtaining it?

The goal doesn’t have to have a rational, it is absurd, and if others wish to rationalize it then let them. My point is that if one is hell-bent on the goal for whatever reason, there are certain notions that must be accepted if one wants to go about that goal rationally (that in itself is quite an assumption, though). For example; if I had the absurd goal of climbing Everest, I could go about it rationally, by reading on it and seeking help/training/supplies from those experienced, or I can just start walking in that direction supplied with nothing but my naive optimism.

And whatever rules for general behavior are a part of that rationale, are “the morals” proposed to maintain the rationale so as to obtain the world peace. If you annihilate all morality, you have merely annihilated your own rationale.

Like I said, the behavior can stay, but the word is so ill-defined or ill-understood it would have to go.

The trick is merely to openly know why you are doing what you are doing. Wars are fought only because the masses never really know the truth of the situation. Every war is a pawn game wherein the players move the masses through deception. Wars are designed, often by both players merely to alter the entire situation rather than to win or conquer. “Causes” are created else the masses would not fight.

The wills of individuals have been weakened over the years, but they aren’t destroyed yet. The reason why they are weakened is obviously because those whose will isn’t weak have always, unconsciously, found it easier to stay in power among the weak willed. The irony is that for world peace to happen, every single person on the planet without exception will have to eventually become weak willed.

The more serious question is “what happens when you have no more causes because you have accomplished the goal?”

We graze sheep-like as a species for thousands of years until the apes surpass us and study us.

There are a lot of details required to go into the actual “rational” architecture and what it looks like in the long run.

Of course, but I’m not advocating fighting for world peace, I’m only explaining some aspects of the reality of the fight as a means of discouraging others from still buying into it.

7

The best option for world peace is to kill everybody but me.

In other words, ‘world peace’ isn’t an acceptable good-in-itself without a hell of a lot of definition, and that definition will change depending on if you’re a liberal or something else.

8

Is there any definition that’s not outrageous?

9

World peace requires world conflict. And conflict requires interest.

If certain nations or people would stop raping the world for greed and gain, then we’d already be three quarters of the way to world peace.

10

I dunno, you brought it up.

11

Neither Nor, I know you have interests, I know that just from the fact your interested enough to post on this forum. You interests create conflict, such as in my mind I can’t decide if I’m happy you responded at all or would rather you not have responded at all having failed to address many issues in my OP. That is a minor conflict that will lead nowhere, but axiomatically the fact that there are major conflicts in the world is because there was minor ones that didstart to slowly accumulate and grow. Its really just about sweeping front porches and such, I mean why not make sure your own is thoroughly swept before having talking about the many front porches of the world?