The absurd emotionally irrational social order of things.

[ObnoxiousCynic]

My main focal point of this thread is to illustrate how morality and ethics is merely social propaganda or a form of mental warfare as a propaganda device used in order to subdue minds and people into a sort of mental submission to authority which ultimately punishes persons who live their lives in non-conforming defiant disobedience.

(I also propose that morality and ethics are merely forms of social propaganda which deals largely with conformity or non-conformity issues which basically revolves ultimately around obedience and disobedience.)

I call morality and ethics a form of social propaganda because both systems are forms of propaganda aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Punishment is another way of primarily influencing a audience considering it utilizes fear as a antidote to curbing disobedience because it presents the audience member with a message that if they should act in a manner that is disobedient or nonconforming their lives will end in a particular manner that is both painful and miserable.

Clearly morality is relative for one man’s perspective of good is another man’s perspective of bad whereas one man’s perspective of what is bad is another man’s perspective of what is good.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity

Under moral skepticism the terms and definitions of good,evil,right, and wrong don’t actually define anything that is real beyond people’s emotions. Where further it illustrates that moral knowledge or moral certainty is impossible for any person to have in that moral skepticism is opposed to moral realism that advocates the view that there are knowable, mind-independent moral truths.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_skepticism

If moral skepticism is correct ( Which I think it is) than the next position would be to take the moral nihilist position that nothing is moral or immoral.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism

Which with the moral nihilist position one than might also embrace the amoralist position that the position of morality or ethics is immaterial.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoralism

If moral skepticism is correct ( Which I think it is) where the terms and definitions of good,evil, right, and wrong don’t actually define anything that is real beyond people’s emotions where there is no ultimate basis or understanding to judge people’s character and actions.

If we are to accept these understandings, how then is one to define the subjects of morality and ethics?

How does morality and ethics function when it concerns general society or social interaction?

For many years I have pondered as to what morality and ethics is beyond all it’s fabrications, fictions, facades, and contradictions.

In my final conclusion I think morality and ethics are merely expressions of social propaganda that revolve around conformity and non-conformity issues as I said before where the main concerns of both systems is obedience and disobedience.

What is considered immoral or unethical is merely that which is non-conforming un-routine that disrupts whatever manufactured social authority that exists for the subject of social order is merely another way of describing social conformity.

( Social order is merely a manifestation of a established routine conformity.)

( Social order and social conformity are the same thing.)

Therefore what is considered immoral, wrong, and evil is reduced to behaviors that are nonconforming and disobedient that disrupts whatever routine that exists whereas what is moral, right, and good are reduced to behaviors that are conforming and obedient to pleasing levels of whatever manufactured authority that exists.

Also note the is and ought dichotomy of morality and ethics. The implied ought is an expression of a command or authoritive prescription which only illustrates how morality and ethics are merely forms of social propaganda that revolves around conformity and obedience against their opposites in behavior.

When a person kills, rapes, steals, and cheats for instance it’s not that they actually did anything “wrong” since the universe is largely indifferent and inequal where it itself cares less as to what transpires because it’s incapable of caring it’s just that when a person commits those specific acts they disrupt the routine of whatever manufactured authority that exists that implemented that particular routine where through manufactured based judgements through a equally manufactured metanarrative they are emotionally perceived to be “wrong” for their nonconforming disobedience from the accepted conforming routine “norm” from which later punishment derives. This is how morality and ethics works beyond all the fictions or facades that surround both subjects.

Likewise persons that are considered good, virtuous, honorable, and civil are those persons who usually live and behave in a manner that is the most conforming or obedient to whatever routine form of living establised by whatever manufactured authority that exists.

Then there of course is the various contradictions of morality and ethics. Manufactured authority historically rests upon shifting fads or trends from which morality and ethics derive.

What is interesting is how one social convention might be deemed “right” in one historical generation where later it is deemed “wrong” in another which only illustrates the contradictions of morality and ethics all the more.

Other various contradictions of morality and ethics is where specific types of inequal cruel behaviors are ligitimized or legalized where people generally are less proned to question them where unfair cruel practices when it concerns social interaction in a society are left uninterrupted.

So what have we learned in this thread by now assuming you are a person who has had the patience to scroll down in reading the entirety of this thread and are not intellectually lazy?

Morality and ethics= Social propaganda that acts as cohesive social systems of maintaining a routine conformity and obedience fron nonconformity or disobedience by a established manufactured authority that imposes both systems on people with it’s variety of commands.

[Dairdo]

It only appears the way you describe because we’re conditioned from a young age to “accept” our morality as opposed to “reasoning” it out for ourselves. The “moral skepticism” or “subjective morality” that you’ve alluded to are perfect examples of how we’ve been conditioned to think. We’re taught that their can be multiple truths when it comes to right and wrong - as you’ve pointed out - “who’s to say what’s right or wrong?”.

We live in a real world, bound by real laws and real consequences. Furthermore, we’re simply a unique kind of animal within this world. To survive, we must think. There is no survival instinct mechanism built into us. We don’t know to hibernate, or bury acorns, or smell a rain storm. Our only means of survival is our mind. To survive, we must choose to use our mind; to apply it to the world around us. Our tools and their application - are who we are. Without them - it’s arguable that human beings would have disappeared from existence ages ago.

Accordingly, if who we are as beings are a product of our ability to “think” and then apply those thoughts on the world around us - a preliminary “objective” argument can be made that any action that resonates with this fundamental acknowledgement is necessarily “moral”. Conversely, any action that directly limits a human beings ability to exercise its mind - is consequently “immoral”. It is from this basic premise that we can build up the much larger philosophy of liberty - and more importantly, its foundational assumptions that all human beings are created equal, with an inalienable right to life. I digress.

There is no room for relativism here - if we agree on what a human being is - and more specifically, what it means to be a human animal, separate and distinct from other primates and animals in nature.

If we agree - then there is no room for “revealed [divine] morality” where “my truth” is not “your truth” but both are somehow “truth”. There is no room for any actions that would directly restrict a single human being from acting any way that they saw fit.

[Jakob]

I agree that public exhibition morality usually leads to nothing but putrid nonsense, but I see morality as warfare in a different degree and warfare a natural state of man. By warfare I mean competition, not driven by any kind of sublime morality. Formulated laws of conduct can only approach true ethics, the rest is up to the individual. Most people don’t want to be ethical, don’t need to be. Ethics only exist in closed circuits. Circles of trust - most naturally, family ethics, which we see that these are often held in high esteem in refined cultures. It is therefore useless to invent a global morality before the majority of the population thinks of “it-self” (morality as operative principium individuationis) in terms of a bond as real as a family or something approaching that level of trust.

Will a morally unified world ever exist? I doubt it, and I wonder if it is desirable. The majority may continue value diversity over a super-morality in order to keep it’s procreation interesting. Fixing the old structures up to something a bit more practical and appealing to strangers is the best any civilization can do to prevent war in the first degree with another one. If there even is a reason to interact at all, self-evidence of which may be overrated. Maybe humans, those who are bold creatures at least, even have a fundamental use for wars. It is the only time moral debate really surfaces. Perhaps then an answer to ethics lies in war. It is known that soldiers often consider each other as brothers. In the end, this bond of battle may be stronger than a (moral?) division into different sides of a conflict.

[The_Last_Man]

@Dairdo

It only appears the way you describe because we’re conditioned from a young age to “accept” our morality as opposed to “reasoning” it out for ourselves. The “moral skepticism” or “subjective morality” that you’ve alluded to are perfect examples of how we’ve been conditioned to think. We’re taught that their can be multiple truths when it comes to right and wrong - as you’ve pointed out - “who’s to say what’s right or wrong?”.

We live in a real world, bound by real laws and real consequences. Furthermore, we’re simply a unique kind of animal within this world. To survive, we must think. There is no survival instinct mechanism built into us. We don’t know to hibernate, or bury acorns, or smell a rain storm. Our only means of survival is our mind. To survive, we must choose to use our mind; to apply it to the world around us. Our tools and their application - are who we are. Without them - it’s arguable that human beings would have disappeared from existence ages ago.

Accordingly, if who we are as beings are a product of our ability to “think” and then apply those thoughts on the world around us - a preliminary “objective” argument can be made that any action that resonates with this fundamental acknowledgement is necessarily “moral”. Conversely, any action that directly limits a human beings ability to exercise its mind - is consequently “immoral”. It is from this basic premise that we can build up the much larger philosophy of liberty - and more importantly, its foundational assumptions that all human beings are created equal, with an inalienable right to life. I digress.

There is no room for relativism here - if we agree on what a human being is - and more specifically, what it means to be a human animal, separate and distinct from other primates and animals in nature.

If we agree - then there is no room for “revealed [divine] morality” where “my truth” is not “your truth” but both are somehow “truth”. There is no room for any actions that would directly restrict a single human being from acting any way that they saw fit.

*Dairdo, how do you reconcile this view of yours (the “objective”, as you call it, stance that man is such-and-such an animal with specific survival needs (e.g. free mind/body/etc) and that the liberation/actualisation of these needs may be seen as the foundation for a practical morality) with the reality that man survives at the behest of the efforts of other men, i.e. socially, as a product/particular within a set of social relations and social systems/collective mechanisms (economic, political, judicial, anthropological, monetary, military, cultural, linguistic, educational, etc)? If the moral rights of man are so “objectively” (with respect to an externality or practicality) derived, ought these rights be seen fundamentally as a right to participate in societies; indeed to the extent that man survives only as a result of his social membership (in that without it he would, lacking the essential rustic strength and diverse learned survival skills to survive in the wilderness on his own, perish otherwise) ought the moral compass that you deem objective be aligned with respect to collective entities themselves? In other words, to the rights of society to organise, socialise, repress and control man to such an extent and effect that man’s survival is to the utmost guarantees so long as he exists in conformity and homogenity with his surrounding society and its codes?

Perhaps you see no conflict here, and perhaps your conception of the morality of individual rights is not exclusively tied to the individual, but I cannot help but see your conception of morality looping back into the “social order” described by the OP here. But specifically your last line here, “There is no room for any actions that would directly restrict a single human being from acting any way that they saw fit” does seem at odds with the fundamental implications of your moral view here – namely that man’s survival requirements constitute a foundation for morality. If man survives at the behest of society, indeed even expressly because this society is repressive and controlling to an extent that it may so organise itself and its systems to provide for an effective survival of as many as possible, how can your last statement be upheld? It would appear to be able to be upheld only at the expense of man’s survival itself (i.e. of the ability of society to effectively organise)!

*To ObnoxiousCynic, nice post, although I would be remiss if I did not point out that morals are psychological constructs as much as social products. Society appropriates and manipulates the moral instinct within man, but this instinct nonetheless remains a psychological one, of man’s nature, so to speak. Does this make it any more “real” “objectively” or in the universe at large? No, certainly not. But it does cast a slightly different angle upon the understanding of what morals are and what functions they uphold (morals work towards social functions, as you point out, but what you do not point out is that society is expressly able to take control of and pre-empt these moral instincts in man precisely because in so doing it fulfills a psychological need of man, namely, to have and uphold a personal code of behavior, a set of laws of action and right/wrong conduct . . .a set of expectations and presumptions with which he may judge himself or others “good” or “bad” as the case may be (i.e. as his psychological needs/drives of the moment impel him to so do)).

*note - please do not misconstrue any of my above as a defence of any particular social organisation, form or type of collective relationship.

[Dairdo]

@The Last Man

*Dairdo, how do you reconcile this view of yours (the “objective”, as you call it, stance that man is such-and-such an animal with specific survival needs (e.g. free mind/body/etc) and that the liberation/actualisation of these needs may be seen as the foundation for a practical morality) with the reality that man survives at the behest of the efforts of other men, i.e. socially, as a product/particular within a set of social relations and social systems/collective mechanisms (economic, political, judicial, anthropological, monetary, military, cultural, linguistic, educational, etc)?

A fair question to be sure. I see the “reality” that you’ve identified as being a choice . We each choose to live within a set of social relations and systems, not because it is simply “the way things are” but rather, because the opposite–living without social relations–is incredibly difficult and, likely, unsatisfying (however you choose to define satisfaction in life). A life without the social relations you itemized would necessarily require that we spend the vast majority of our time simply surviving. This option may have been rational in a different era of human civilization - but today, rational arguments supporting such a choice are few and far between.

Whether individuals today actually recognize/acknowledge this rational choice to remain as a particular within a social network, I think, is a separate issue – as there are those that recognize the choice, which assumes a choice exists whether it is acknowledged or not. (Though I suppose only the illusion of choice is possible…)

I see the iterative anthropological development of various social systems as deliberate, and a recognition of the species on some level of the most efficient way to grow, and benefit from, the body of knowledge accessible to us. Nomads were wiped out by agrarian societies that recognized the tremendous advantages gained through the development of and participation in social systems that facilitated specialization–the opportunity to focus individuals on specific tasks. However, the superiority of the “collective” over the nomadic way of life does not speak to the morality of how human beings ought to live - simply that “some” form of collective organization is superior in the ability to expand knowledge and improve quality of life.

Accordingly, I don’t see the existence and definitive superiority of social systems/organization as a direct contradiction to the notion that we are individuals first, “voluntary” participants in the organization second. Not (hopefully) as a matter of force, but rather, as a matter of reason.

@The Last Man

If the moral rights of man are so “objectively” (with respect to an externality or practicality) derived, ought these rights be seen fundamentally as a right to participate in societies; indeed to the extent that man survives only as a result of his social membership (in that without it he would, lacking the essential rustic strength and diverse learned survival skills to survive in the wilderness on his own, perish otherwise) ought the moral compass that you deem objective be aligned with respect to collective entities themselves?

I’ve had to read this over a number of times - and I apologize if I’ve missed your meaning. Is the observation/question: if successive generations of social membership has made survival of man as an individual in nature impossible, why would an “objective” morality not focus more on the way things are now, and align the morals to one of survival within reality as it “is” - reducing our morality to a product of social conformity?

If that is the question, I think it’s an interesting one. I’m new to philosophy - but would this be an example of an “is-ought” problem? The fact that things “are” the way the are does not necessarily preclude the way things “ought” to be? Whether humans, as a result of their increasing (through time) dependence on the collective are incapable of living in the wild is not necessarily sufficient in and of itself to describe what morality “ought” to be. This is why I believe the debate should be on whether human beings are unique animals - complete with our own method of surviving in nature - whatever that nature might be (wilderness vs developed civilization). I believe that regardless of what our environment might be - to live as a human in that environment is directly proportional to our freedom to think and act accordingly.

Further, and technically speaking, I don’t think we could ever term a morality that aligns with circumstance as “objective” as it would be subject to a changing reference point and be, therefore, relative.

EDIT - after some research, I don’t believe my reference to the “is-ought” issue is appropriate. I think the larger point I’m trying to make stands… just that my reference and understanding of the “is-ought” issue was incorrect.

@The Last Man

Perhaps you see no conflict here, and perhaps your conception of the morality of individual rights is not exclusively tied to the individual, but I cannot help but see your conception of morality looping back into the “social order” described by the OP here. But specifically your last line here, “There is no room for any actions that would directly restrict a single human being from acting any way that they saw fit” does seem at odds with the fundamental implications of your moral view here – namely that man’s survival requirements constitute a foundation for morality. If man survives at the behest of society, indeed even expressly because this society is repressive and controlling to an extent that it may so organise itself and its systems to provide for an effective survival of as many as possible, how can your last statement be upheld? It would appear to be able to be upheld only at the expense of man’s survival itself (i.e. of the ability of society to effectively organise)!

Would this be similar (though simplified) to a situation whereby I controlled all of the water - and to receive water - you had to conform to my rules. Your survival is dependent on conformity to my rules as you would not receive water otherwise. Does this make whatever my unique brand of socially controlling codes “moral”? I’ve suggested that those actions that are “life affirming” are moral - as they contribute to your survival. Is this a fair approximation of your point above?

Personally, I don’t see simply “surviving” as being equivalent to “living” - as human beings are capable of living. Slaves conformed to the rules their mastes laid out - yet that didn’t make their actions “moral” - so simple conformity with society as a means to basic survival, in my opinion, has no bearing on the morality of action. Though it may still be the rational thing to do when choosing among available alternatives. I see the denial of the freedom to choose (master over slave, collective over individual) as the immoral action.

If a society implements (at the point of a gun) a law that you believe to be inherently immoral relative to the objective morality described above - compliance with the law can still be rational while you work for its repeal, as failure to comply could result in more dire circumstance than compliance. That said, non-compliance with a law can also be rational – if, for instance, the law required you [insert something ludicrous here], as compliance with that law could be worse than non-compliance.

I guess I’m suggesting that the “degree” to which a law is determined immoral dictates the appropriate response; however a law, and conformity with that law, exists as separately from the question of whether the law is moral or not.

[ObnoxiousCynic]

@Dairdo

It only appears the way you describe because we’re conditioned from a young age to “accept” our morality as opposed to “reasoning” it out for ourselves. The “moral skepticism” or “subjective morality” that you’ve alluded to are perfect examples of how we’ve been conditioned to think. We’re taught that their can be multiple truths when it comes to right and wrong - as you’ve pointed out - “who’s to say what’s right or wrong?”.

We live in a real world, bound by real laws and real consequences. Furthermore, we’re simply a unique kind of animal within this world. To survive, we must think. There is no survival instinct mechanism built into us. We don’t know to hibernate, or bury acorns, or smell a rain storm. Our only means of survival is our mind. To survive, we must choose to use our mind; to apply it to the world around us. Our tools and their application - are who we are. Without them - it’s arguable that human beings would have disappeared from existence ages ago.

Accordingly, if who we are as beings are a product of our ability to “think” and then apply those thoughts on the world around us - a preliminary “objective” argument can be made that any action that resonates with this fundamental acknowledgement is necessarily “moral”. Conversely, any action that directly limits a human beings ability to exercise its mind - is consequently “immoral”. It is from this basic premise that we can build up the much larger philosophy of liberty - and more importantly, its foundational assumptions that all human beings are created equal, with an inalienable right to life. I digress.

There is no room for relativism here - if we agree on what a human being is - and more specifically, what it means to be a human animal, separate and distinct from other primates and animals in nature.

If we agree - then there is no room for “revealed [divine] morality” where “my truth” is not “your truth” but both are somehow “truth”. There is no room for any actions that would directly restrict a single human being from acting any way that they saw fit.

It only appears the way you describe because we’re conditioned from a young age to “accept” our morality as opposed to “reasoning” it out for ourselves.

In my humble opinions human beings are far from being reasonable or rational creatures where I tend to look at human beings as emotional messes.

I think human beings are unable to be rational or reasonable where I question anybody who uses those words generally anymore.

The “moral skepticism” or “subjective morality” that you’ve alluded to are perfect examples of how we’ve been conditioned to think.

Not exactly. Where is this conditioning coming from?

We’re taught that their can be multiple truths when it comes to right and wrong - as you’ve pointed out - “who’s to say what’s right or wrong?”.

Not really. In most circuits of society moral skepticism and subjective morality isn’t promoted or accepted especially given the institutionalization of today’s society in one dimensional thinking.

We live in a real world, bound by real laws

Fictional laws built between a metanarrative.

and real consequences.

Sure.

Furthermore, we’re simply a unique kind of animal within this world.

You think so? I don’t. Sure we might be super intelligent in comparison to most other animal species but we are animalistic all the same where we have the basic proponents to the will to survive just like any other animal.

To survive, we must think.

Not really. There are plenty of animal species that survive just well without thinking.

There is no survival instinct mechanism built into us.

I would argue that there is.

We don’t know to hibernate, or bury acorns, or smell a rain storm. Our only means of survival is our mind.

I think it is a little bit more complicated than just that.

To survive, we must choose to use our mind; to apply it to the world around us.

Hmm…K

Our tools and their application - are who we are. Without them - it’s arguable that human beings would have disappeared from existence ages ago.

Well it depends on what you mean when your discussing the application of tools.

Before the last hundred and somthing years for instance we survived just well without the automobile.

Accordingly, if who we are as beings are a product of our ability to “think” and then apply those thoughts on the world around us - a preliminary “objective” argument can be made that any action that resonates with this fundamental acknowledgement is necessarily “moral”.

Thinking in of itself is not moral. I’m having a hard time understanding this quote of yours as it does not make any sense to me.

Conversely, any action that directly limits a human beings ability to exercise its mind - is consequently “immoral”.

And yet human beings have their willpower confined, stripped, and gone against everyday where nothing is said of it because such displays of behavior are legalized where we have legal forms of social oppression that generally becomes accepted within society.

Your words,terms, and definitions of moral or immoral are filled with so many contradictive forms of reasoning.

It is from this basic premise that we can build up the much larger philosophy of liberty - and more importantly,

Freedom? What a illusion.

its foundational assumptions that all human beings are created equal, with an inalienable right to life.

Human beings have never been equal. Inequality is the mark of human beings. Inequality defines human beings.

There is no such inalienable right to life in which you speak of.

There is no room for relativism here -

Of course there is.

if we agree on what a human being is - and more specifically, what it means to be a human animal, separate and distinct from other primates and animals in nature.

We don’t agree.

To me human beings are nothing more than just another savage primate.

A smart and intelligent primate no doubt but a savage cruel territorial one nonetheless.

If we agree - then there is no room for “revealed [divine] morality” where “my truth” is not “your truth” but both are somehow “truth”. There is no room for any actions that would directly restrict a single human being from acting any way that they saw fit.

There is no room for any actions that would directly restrict a single human being from acting any way that they saw fit.

Of course there is. It happens everyday and with great frequency.

[ObnoxiousCynic]

@Jakob

I agree that public exhibition morality usually leads to nothing but putrid nonsense, but I see morality as warfare in a different degree and warfare a natural state of man. By warfare I mean competition, not driven by any kind of sublime morality. Formulated laws of conduct can only approach true ethics, the rest is up to the individual. Most people don’t want to be ethical, don’t need to be. Ethics only exist in closed circuits. Circles of trust - most naturally, family ethics, which we see that these are often held in high esteem in refined cultures. It is therefore useless to invent a global morality before the majority of the population thinks of “it-self” (morality as operative principium individuationis) in terms of a bond as real as a family or something approaching that level of trust.

Will a morally unified world ever exist? I doubt it, and I wonder if it is desirable. The majority may continue value diversity over a super-morality in order to keep it’s procreation interesting. Fixing the old structures up to something a bit more practical and appealing to strangers is the best any civilization can do to prevent war in the first degree with another one. If there even is a reason to interact at all, self-evidence of which may be overrated. Maybe humans, those who are bold creatures at least, even have a fundamental use for wars. It is the only time moral debate really surfaces. Perhaps then an answer to ethics lies in war. It is known that soldiers often consider each other as brothers. In the end, this bond of battle may be stronger than a (moral?) division into different sides of a conflict.

I agree that public exhibition morality usually leads to nothing but putrid nonsense,

I would argue that all morality and ethics is exhibitionary.

but I see morality as warfare in a different degree and warfare a natural state of man. By warfare I mean competition, not driven by any kind of sublime morality.

I see morality as a defence mechanism especially used by those in power, status, and rank in society since it is they who benefit from implemented morality or ethics the most considering they use it as a means of consolidating their power where they outlaw any irregular form of competition that they cannot control and regulate that could challenge the legitimacy of their own power or position.

Morality and ethics is not pro-competition as you speak of because it puts limitations and restrictions on competition.

Morality and ethics defines competition quite narrowly within such limitations and restrictions.

I’ve always looked at competition as doing whatever and everything it takes to win myself. ( Where there are no limitations or restrictions where everything and anything goes upon the quest to win or achieve victory in one’s ends.)

Morality and ethics is basically a figure in the corner of the room saying to everyone that they can compete but only within certain limits and guidelines where some restrictions do apply.

Formulated laws of conduct can only approach true ethics, the rest is up to the individual.

What is true ethics?

Most people don’t want to be ethical, don’t need to be.

Yes.

Ethics only exist in closed circuits. Circles of trust - most naturally, family ethics,

Generally because human beings are nepotistic. Outside of family circles there is only the cruelty of strangers to one another.

Of course even circles of families can breached if anybody is to read the feudal side of history where brothers killed brothers and sisters in order to grab the throne.

It is therefore useless to invent a global morality before the majority of the population thinks of “it-self” (morality as operative principium individuationis) in terms of a bond as real as a family or something approaching that level of trust.

Bonds don’t necessarily need to be defined moral or ethical to exist. All that is necessary is somthing to gain for a bond to exist.

And yes I do believe morality and ethics is purely a invented fabrication.

Will a morally unified world ever exist? I doubt it,

Me too. Infact I would just straight out come forward and say no.

and I wonder if it is desirable.

Nope.

The majority may continue value diversity over a super-morality in order to keep it’s procreation interesting. Fixing the old structures up to something a bit more practical and appealing to strangers is the best any civilization can do to prevent war in the first degree with another one.

With so called morality or ethics we still have war, violence, and social oppression.

It’s almost like it wouldn’t really matter if morals and ethics existed or not because the outcome of the world would still be the same where the same undying conflicts would still exist.

If there even is a reason to interact at all, self-evidence of which may be overrated. Maybe humans, those who are bold creatures at least, even have a fundamental use for wars.

War and conflict is useful because obviously somebody benefits from them.

It is the only time moral debate really surfaces.

I’m not so sure. It seems human beings are caught in a habit of lying to themselves.

[ObnoxiousCynic]

Last Man I’ll get to your post later.

[The_Paineful_Truth]

@ObnoxiousCynic

My main focal point of this thread is to illustrate how morality and ethics is merely social propaganda or a form of mental warfare as a propaganda device used in order to subdue minds and people into a sort of mental submission to authority which ultimately punishes persons who live their lives in non-conforming defiant disobedience.

Yes, that’s the way “morality” has been used by revealed religions, where “morality” is taking a simple moral code governing the equal protection of our rights from violation by each other through force or fraud, and tacking on a lot of issues of virtue where the church can only advise (not condemn), and the government should not legislate.

I call morality and ethics a form of social propaganda because both systems are forms of propaganda aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience.

If you are referring to the abuse of virtue, I agree. But if you’re also grouping true morality as I’ve defined it, in with that, then you are either an aspiring despot or a loose canon/anarchist. Either way, obnoxious would be an understatement.

FYI, I am a romantic cynic. I see good people letting themselves be exploited by the bad, while I quixotically pursue my way to Toboso, a romantic symbol for Truth/God. True, I often come off as obnoxious, but it’s only incidental if substantive at all. I take neither pride nor shame in it as it’s usually their problem and ignorance.

[Dairdo]

@ObnoxiousCynic

The “moral skepticism” or “subjective morality” that you’ve alluded to are perfect examples of how we’ve been conditioned to think.

Not exactly. Where is this conditioning coming from?

Generations of “revealed” morality from our respective religions. We’ve been taught not to think - just accept.

We live in a real world, bound by real laws

Fictional laws built between a metanarrative.

? No water = death. I’m fairly certain biological laws of this kind aren’t fictional. I wasn’t referring to legislated laws.

Furthermore, we’re simply a unique kind of animal within this world.

You think so? I don’t. Sure we might be super intelligent in comparison to most other animal species but we are animalistic all the same where we have the basic proponents to the will to survive just like any other animal.

So which is it? Are we simply governed by a strict survival instinct or does our unique ability to reason as a matter of living somehow distinguish us from the other primates? I think something significant separates us from our chimp cousins - else we’d still be swinging from trees in Africa… or extinct.

To survive, we must think.

Not really. There are plenty of animal species that survive just well without thinking.

I wasn’t referring to other animal species. Sure billions of animal species survive without thinking. I don’t think we’re one of them. Which suggests if that if our survival is dependent on our ability to think - then restricting another person’s ability to think would be a violation of our nature as human beings.

There is no survival instinct mechanism built into us.

I would argue that there is.

On what basis?

We don’t know to hibernate, or bury acorns, or smell a rain storm. Our only means of survival is our mind.

I think it is a little bit more complicated than just that.

How so? We don’t have an advanced nose to detect bacteria in water… nor can we detect electromagnetic changes in our environment… nor do we have hightened sense of hearing to find our prey… what specifically is it in a human being that you think lends evidence to a sufficiently developed “instinct” that enabled us to survive the eons…?

Our tools and their application - are who we are. Without them - it’s arguable that human beings would have disappeared from existence ages ago.

Well it depends on what you mean when your discussing the application of tools.

Before the last hundred and somthing years for instance we survived just well without the automobile.

I’m speaking very broadly here. We’re not a physically strong primate - nor, as noted above, comparatively advantaged in the 5-senses department. Our unique tool is our mind - and its ability to look at our environment and bend it to serve whatever purpose we need. We build our shelters and create tools to extend our ability to hunt. Hell, we even created fire to expand the range of food products available to us.

For these reasons and many more, I argue that human beings are unique in nature in that our comparative advantage is our ability to think and apply those thoughts.

Accordingly, if who we are as beings are a product of our ability to “think” and then apply those thoughts on the world around us - a preliminary “objective” argument can be made that any action that resonates with this fundamental acknowledgement is necessarily “moral”.

Thinking in of itself is not moral. I’m having a hard time understanding this quote of yours as it does not make any sense to me.

Ive argued that human beings are only capable of “being” human if they’re able to exercise their minds in nature. To survive through thinking and applying those thoughts. To restrict anothers ability to think would therefore be immoral - as it would be violation against our nature as beings. So no, “thinking” per se is not necessarily moral. However, acting with the recognition of every individuals “negative” right to be free from actions that interfere with their ability to think would, in this context, be considered objectively moral.

Your words,terms, and definitions of moral or immoral are filled with so many contradictive forms of reasoning.

Shrug - I’m still learning to think. I try to avoid contradiction. So if you see contradictions, please point them out.

It is from this basic premise that we can build up the much larger philosophy of liberty - and more importantly,

Freedom? What a illusion.

Depends on your definition of freedom and your context.

its foundational assumptions that all human beings are created equal, with an inalienable right to life.

Human beings have never been equal. Inequality is the mark of human beings. Inequality defines human beings.

There is no such inalienable right to life in which you speak of.

Again, this depends on how you’re defining equal. Does the inequality you speak of justify slavery? Some humans genetically have more aptitude for this or that… or more physical strength… sure. What are you implying? When I refer to “equality” - I mean that all humans are equal in that we must each think in order to survive as a human being. Whether we’re the “best” or the “worst” at what we do isn’t the point. To pretend it is is to confuse the issue.

if we agree on what a human being is - and more specifically, what it means to be a human animal, separate and distinct from other primates and animals in nature.

We don’t agree.

To me human beings are nothing more than just another savage primate.

A smart and intelligent primate no doubt but a savage cruel territorial one nonetheless.

To each their own I suppose.

[Echo]

I’ve learned to eat my vegetables and stop complaining. I know bedtimes and curfews are unfair but social order prevents injustices that even you take advantage of. Remember that when you want to drive your car with other licensed drivers who follow the stop lights and speed limits or when you want to go to a restaurant without roaches crawling on the walls.

[north]

@ObnoxiousCynic

My main focal point of this thread is to illustrate how morality and ethics is merely social propaganda or a form of mental warfare as a propaganda device used in order to subdue minds and people into a sort of mental submission to authority which ultimately punishes persons who live their lives in non-conforming defiant disobedience.

(I also propose that morality and ethics are merely forms of social propaganda which deals largely with conformity or non-conformity issues which basically revolves ultimately around obedience and disobedience.)

I call morality and ethics a form of social propaganda because both systems are forms of propaganda aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Punishment is another way of primarily influencing a audience considering it utilizes fear as a antidote to curbing disobedience because it presents the audience member with a message that if they should act in a manner that is disobedient or nonconforming their lives will end in a particular manner that is both painful and miserable.

Clearly morality is relative for one man’s perspective of good is another man’s perspective of bad whereas one man’s perspective of what is bad is another man’s perspective of what is good.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity

Under moral skepticism the terms and definitions of good,evil,right, and wrong don’t actually define anything that is real beyond people’s emotions. Where further it illustrates that moral knowledge or moral certainty is impossible for any person to have in that moral skepticism is opposed to moral realism that advocates the view that there are knowable, mind-independent moral truths.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_skepticism

If moral skepticism is correct ( Which I think it is) than the next position would be to take the moral nihilist position that nothing is moral or immoral.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism

Which with the moral nihilist position one than might also embrace the amoralist position that the position of morality or ethics is immaterial.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoralism

If moral skepticism is correct ( Which I think it is) where the terms and definitions of good,evil, right, and wrong don’t actually define anything that is real beyond people’s emotions where there is no ultimate basis or understanding to judge people’s character and actions.

If we are to accept these understandings, how then is one to define the subjects of morality and ethics?

How does morality and ethics function when it concerns general society or social interaction?

For many years I have pondered as to what morality and ethics is beyond all it’s fabrications, fictions, facades, and contradictions.

In my final conclusion I think morality and ethics are merely expressions of social propaganda that revolve around conformity and non-conformity issues as I said before where the main concerns of both systems is obedience and disobedience.

What is considered immoral or unethical is merely that which is non-conforming un-routine that disrupts whatever manufactured social authority that exists for the subject of social order is merely another way of describing social conformity.

( Social order is merely a manifestation of a established routine conformity.)

( Social order and social conformity are the same thing.)

Therefore what is considered immoral, wrong, and evil is reduced to behaviors that are nonconforming and disobedient that disrupts whatever routine that exists whereas what is moral, right, and good are reduced to behaviors that are conforming and obedient to pleasing levels of whatever manufactured authority that exists.

Also note the is and ought dichotomy of morality and ethics. The implied ought is an expression of a command or authoritive prescription which only illustrates how morality and ethics are merely forms of social propaganda that revolves around conformity and obedience against their opposites in behavior.

When a person kills, rapes, steals, and cheats for instance it’s not that they actually did anything “wrong” since the universe is largely indifferent and inequal where it itself cares less as to what transpires because it’s incapable of caring it’s just that when a person commits those specific acts they disrupt the routine of whatever manufactured authority that exists that implemented that particular routine where through manufactured based judgements through a equally manufactured metanarrative they are emotionally perceived to be “wrong” for their nonconforming disobedience from the accepted conforming routine “norm” from which later punishment derives. This is how morality and ethics works beyond all the fictions or facades that surround both subjects.

Likewise persons that are considered good, virtuous, honorable, and civil are those persons who usually live and behave in a manner that is the most conforming or obedient to whatever routine form of living establised by whatever manufactured authority that exists.

Then there of course is the various contradictions of morality and ethics. Manufactured authority historically rests upon shifting fads or trends from which morality and ethics derive.

What is interesting is how one social convention might be deemed “right” in one historical generation where later it is deemed “wrong” in another which only illustrates the contradictions of morality and ethics all the more.

Other various contradictions of morality and ethics is where specific types of inequal cruel behaviors are ligitimized or legalized where people generally are less proned to question them where unfair cruel practices when it concerns social interaction in a society are left uninterrupted.

So what have we learned in this thread by now assuming you are a person who has had the patience to scroll down in reading the entirety of this thread and are not intellectually lazy?

Morality and ethics= Social propaganda that acts as cohesive social systems of maintaining a routine conformity and obedience fron nonconformity or disobedience by a established manufactured authority that imposes both systems on people with it’s variety of commands.

Look

I see morality and social behaviour of a Human being as looking beyond religion and/or conformity

I see , morality and social behaviour as the very backbone of our , Human , survival

the psychology of this abuse is devastating to our very Humanity and survival

[Fent]

@ObnoxiousCynic

My main focal point of this thread is to illustrate how morality and ethics is merely social propaganda or a form of mental warfare as a propaganda device used in order to subdue minds and people into a sort of mental submission to authority which ultimately punishes persons who live their lives in non-conforming defiant disobedience.

(I also propose that morality and ethics are merely forms of social propaganda which deals largely with conformity or non-conformity issues which basically revolves ultimately around obedience and disobedience.)

I call morality and ethics a form of social propaganda because both systems are forms of propaganda aimed at influencing the attitude of a community toward some cause or position. As opposed to impartially providing information, propaganda in its most basic sense, presents information primarily to influence an audience.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

Punishment is another way of primarily influencing a audience considering it utilizes fear as a antidote to curbing disobedience because it presents the audience member with a message that if they should act in a manner that is disobedient or nonconforming their lives will end in a particular manner that is both painful and miserable.

Clearly morality is relative for one man’s perspective of good is another man’s perspective of bad whereas one man’s perspective of what is bad is another man’s perspective of what is good.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivity

Under moral skepticism the terms and definitions of good,evil,right, and wrong don’t actually define anything that is real beyond people’s emotions. Where further it illustrates that moral knowledge or moral certainty is impossible for any person to have in that moral skepticism is opposed to moral realism that advocates the view that there are knowable, mind-independent moral truths.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_skepticism

If moral skepticism is correct ( Which I think it is) than the next position would be to take the moral nihilist position that nothing is moral or immoral.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_nihilism

Which with the moral nihilist position one than might also embrace the amoralist position that the position of morality or ethics is immaterial.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amoralism

If moral skepticism is correct ( Which I think it is) where the terms and definitions of good,evil, right, and wrong don’t actually define anything that is real beyond people’s emotions where there is no ultimate basis or understanding to judge people’s character and actions.

If we are to accept these understandings, how then is one to define the subjects of morality and ethics?

How does morality and ethics function when it concerns general society or social interaction?

For many years I have pondered as to what morality and ethics is beyond all it’s fabrications, fictions, facades, and contradictions.

In my final conclusion I think morality and ethics are merely expressions of social propaganda that revolve around conformity and non-conformity issues as I said before where the main concerns of both systems is obedience and disobedience.

What is considered immoral or unethical is merely that which is non-conforming un-routine that disrupts whatever manufactured social authority that exists for the subject of social order is merely another way of describing social conformity.

( Social order is merely a manifestation of a established routine conformity.)

( Social order and social conformity are the same thing.)

Therefore what is considered immoral, wrong, and evil is reduced to behaviors that are nonconforming and disobedient that disrupts whatever routine that exists whereas what is moral, right, and good are reduced to behaviors that are conforming and obedient to pleasing levels of whatever manufactured authority that exists.

Also note the is and ought dichotomy of morality and ethics. The implied ought is an expression of a command or authoritive prescription which only illustrates how morality and ethics are merely forms of social propaganda that revolves around conformity and obedience against their opposites in behavior.

When a person kills, rapes, steals, and cheats for instance it’s not that they actually did anything “wrong” since the universe is largely indifferent and inequal where it itself cares less as to what transpires because it’s incapable of caring it’s just that when a person commits those specific acts they disrupt the routine of whatever manufactured authority that exists that implemented that particular routine where through manufactured based judgements through a equally manufactured metanarrative they are emotionally perceived to be “wrong” for their nonconforming disobedience from the accepted conforming routine “norm” from which later punishment derives. This is how morality and ethics works beyond all the fictions or facades that surround both subjects.

Likewise persons that are considered good, virtuous, honorable, and civil are those persons who usually live and behave in a manner that is the most conforming or obedient to whatever routine form of living establised by whatever manufactured authority that exists.

Then there of course is the various contradictions of morality and ethics. Manufactured authority historically rests upon shifting fads or trends from which morality and ethics derive.

What is interesting is how one social convention might be deemed “right” in one historical generation where later it is deemed “wrong” in another which only illustrates the contradictions of morality and ethics all the more.

Other various contradictions of morality and ethics is where specific types of inequal cruel behaviors are ligitimized or legalized where people generally are less proned to question them where unfair cruel practices when it concerns social interaction in a society are left uninterrupted.

So what have we learned in this thread by now assuming you are a person who has had the patience to scroll down in reading the entirety of this thread and are not intellectually lazy?

Morality and ethics= Social propaganda that acts as cohesive social systems of maintaining a routine conformity and obedience fron nonconformity or disobedience by a established manufactured authority that imposes both systems on people with it’s variety of commands.

Nicely said. I appreciate realist interpretations of morality; ones that reduce it to nothing other than power structures. This insight obliterates any moralities that try to preach ‘first principles’, or an essence, or grund, or any staticity whatsoever. It’s often quite amusing to watch idealists, conservatives and other idiots preaching supposed moral superiority and then having to implement their morality through force or the threat thereof. That said, I don’t deny the utility and pragmatism in morality. All societies require a set of binding beliefs to function. Seeing through the illusion that is morality then takes us to the next step: isn’t morality of some kind necessary?

There’s an art in creating moralities for the herd. Statecraft is an art.

[kuzakahn]

My contention is that morality and ethics is an evolution of a set of principles and beliefs to maximize survival of the human species. Those terms were labeled “after the fact.” So, back when we lived in small tribes, we noticed that our tribes were being killed off by people internally, especially without rules, so we created internal rules to protect our tribe. Let’s call those rules morality or ethics, to make it seem as if there is some absolute truth out there as to how to act and to use as “propaganda” so that in actuality we can save ourselves and the ones we love. In reality, deep inside, let us not actually believe such an absolute truth is out there because life is more complicated than that.

However, the terms “morality” and “ethics” are absurd whenever they attempt to be absolute, across all times, in all places, among all people, because it is not being concordant with the complexities of reality, but that’s just the way they appear to be defined, which is why posts like these are created. I would rather consider the study of ethics (morality is whole different beast) as being a set of principles that changes depending on the population (no matter how small or big), setting, and a multitude of other outside factors, and that exists for the sole factor of creating maximum benefit (I admit, the benefit is difficult to define) for that population.

Currently, morality and ethics has evolved to a highly structured system where you should consider following them for several reasons: 1)to avoid the consequences of punishment 2) to avoid alienation 3) to avoid being deprived of societal benefits 4) if you prefer a society where morality and ethics are in place and thus wish to propagate them, since society may be more peaceful or “aesthetically pleasing” that way. Current society has evolved to where you would benefit greatly if you followed certain principles of morality and ethics as opposed to in the past during more rapacious times when if you did not kill, you would probably be killed. To gain from any society, you must at least study its moral code to behave properly and to gain benefits from that society.

Morals that are detrimental to current society usually have been passed on by tradition from when they were more relevant and advantageous to past societies. It will take time for those rules to be weeded out. You can compromise on these rules of morality and ethics, especially those that you deem to be of questionable societal value, if you do not require the societal benefits that go along with following them. Or, you can devote your life to changing them (good luck to that).

[Moral_Jeff]

Before I even begin, I would technically qualify as a ‘moral nihilist’. That is very information to have while reading anything that I write on morality.

@ObnoxiousCynic

For many years I have pondered as to what morality and ethics is beyond all it’s fabrications, fictions, facades, and contradictions.

While reading the entire OP, I kept scrolling back up to this and laughing… not because it is ridiculous… not because it is false… but because it is so very true that morality and ethics have been hidden behind fabrications, fictions, facades, and contradictions, and so few people (at least, that I’ve met) notice this.

Regardless of how many people ‘notice’ it, I’d like to focus on the contradictions of, say, modern American ‘mainstream’ morality/ethics. First, social morality…

1.) It is morally wrong to lie.
2.) I will be severely punished if I speak the truth concerning my actions.
3.) Therefore, I will lie.

Well, didn’t the ‘Saint’ just kill himself (morally speaking), there? Assuming nobody will deny that logic (which I’ve used before, admittedly dozens of times), I will continue…

1.) It is morally wrong to lie.
2.) Kayla is romantically interested in me.
3.) I’m not romantically interested in Kayle.
4.) Kayla would probably become depressed if I rejected her totally.
5.) I will say “I liked you at first, but it disappeared”.

It’s a stupid persuasion technique (“Used to like you” BAM!!! Suddenly Kayla feels important and warms right up to ya)… once you think about it, a person would have to be purposefully overlooking their situation (Kayla would have to be, in this case) in order to miss that. Here is the problem though: It was a damn lie. So, if you are somebody who is ‘moral’ or ‘believes’ in morality, then why make these “exceptions” during cases where empathy gets in the way? I mean, let me go onto stealing and use it in the exact same way:

1.) It is morally wrong to steal.
2.) Kayla keeps a ring that her late mother used to wear as a sentimental object.
3.) The ring seems to upset her whenever she views/wears it.
4.) Kayla would be locked into a state of depression if the ring stayed in her reach.
5.) I’ll steal the ring.

Well, it doesn’t match, analogously speaking. But one trait that both of my previous 2 examples share is this: empathy obstructing morality. Isn’t it morally ‘wrong’ to allow someone to become depressed (or remain in that state) whenever you can ‘stop’ it (or influence the situation in a way that would seemingly stop it)? Of course it is. Isn’t it morally wrong to lie and/or steal? Of course it is. But, of course it is a contradiction.

Now… why is murder wrong, but if you see a stranger attempting to murder a family member, you’ll try to murder the stranger? You can’t do it! It’s wrong!!! But, of course, there is a 10-minute long rationalization from each ‘moral believer’ about this, including a proclamation of “self-defense” almost every time, or some heroic story about how the moralist would be a bold defender of loved ones, even though that ‘stranger’ was a human being who they just murdered, but I think that it is based on something more subtle than all of their usual rationalizations… perhaps humans tend to enjoy inflicting violence and suffering upon others… by nature? It sounds wrong to assume, but why is it that, given the slightest excuse to cause someone else suffering (for example, the ‘fat man’ in Judith Jarvis Thomson’s ethical dilemmas), people take pride and lose all hesitation in doing just that. Are these a bunch of false claims? Random assumptions I’ve made?

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ticking_time_bomb_scenario

Just look at what the wonderful moral thinkers have come up with!

Your responses/thoughts?

Kind Regards,
~Moral Jeff

[Diekon]

@ObnoxiousCynic

Morality and ethics= Social propaganda that acts as cohesive social systems of maintaining a routine conformity and obedience fron nonconformity or disobedience by a established manufactured authority that imposes both systems on people with it’s variety of commands.

Yeah, Morality on a larger scale is crowd control.

Jacob makes a fine point about trust in closed circles. I still believe in some form of morality and ethics there, it beats stabbing eachother in the back non-stop. Nepotism, yeay!

And I think Fent is also right in that it is probably a necessary feature of any larger society, and won’t go away. So we have to deal with it one way or another.

So the real question, how are we going to act in light if this information?

Probably not so unlike how countless of other people act, playing the game of public morality with a lot of conviction, only to serve their own interest, and the interests of their friends and families.

[The_Paineful_Truth]

@Moral_Jeff

Before I even begin, I would technically qualify as a ‘moral nihilist’. That is very information to have while reading anything that I write on morality.

So is there any effective difference between that and anarchism? You covet your neighbors wife so you kill her husband and tie her to your bed and it’s no problem?

1.) It is morally wrong to lie.
2.) I will be severely punished if I speak the truth concerning my actions.
3.) Therefore, I will lie.

It is morally wrong to falsely accuse someone of being immoral, or to bolster your own immoral behavior. Of course if you’ve already killed someone, and you lie about it, that’s only more wrong if it violates someone else’s rights in the process.

1.) It is morally wrong to lie.
2.) Kayla is romantically interested in me.
3.) I’m not romantically interested in Kayle.
4.) Kayla would probably become depressed if I rejected her totally.
5.) I will say “I liked you at first, but it disappeared”.

No, it isn’t morally wrong. You didn’t violate her rights, and would not have even if you’d told her she was a boring hag. Tact is a virtue, and as you point out, you have to use it wisely, if the “used to” doesn’t work, it’s time to drag out the “boring hag.” And if that doesn’t work, well, you’re probably justified in the Smith & Wesson self-defense, defense.

1.) It is morally wrong to steal.
2.) Kayla keeps a ring that her late mother used to wear as a sentimental object.
3.) The ring seems to upset her whenever she views/wears it.
4.) Kayla would be locked into a state of depression if the ring stayed in her reach.
5.) I’ll steal the ring.

Who’s this Kayla? Stay the hell away leaving the ring alone in the process.

Well, it doesn’t match, analogously speaking. But one trait that both of my previous 2 examples share is this: empathy obstructing morality.

In the first case no, and in the second case you’d be using (false?) empathy to irrationally justify immorality.

Isn’t it morally ‘wrong’ to allow someone to become depressed (or remain in that state) whenever you can ‘stop’ it (or influence the situation in a way that would seemingly stop it)? Of course it is. Isn’t it morally wrong to lie and/or steal? Of course it is. But, of course it is a contradiction.

No.

Now… why is murder wrong, but if you see a stranger attempting to murder a family member, you’ll try to murder the stranger? You can’t do it! It’s wrong!!! But, of course, there is a 10-minute long rationalization from each ‘moral believer’ about this, including a proclamation of “self-defense” almost every time, or some heroic story about how the moralist would be a bold defender of loved ones, even though that ‘stranger’ was a human being who they just murdered, but I think that it is based on something more subtle than all of their usual rationalizations… perhaps humans tend to enjoy inflicting violence and suffering upon others… by nature? It sounds wrong to assume, but why is it that, given the slightest excuse to cause someone else suffering (for example, the ‘fat man’ in Judith Jarvis Thomson’s ethical dilemmas), people take pride and lose all hesitation in doing just that. Are these a bunch of false claims? Random assumptions I’ve made?

It doesn’t take 10 minutes, only 10 seconds: You are entitled to defend yourself from the violation by others, of your rights.

The principle behind morality is enlightened self-interest. For THE definition of morality, please read my previous post.

[Moral_Jeff]

@The Paineful Truth

So is there any effective difference between that and anarchism? You covet your neighbors wife so you kill her husband and tie her to your bed and it’s no problem?

Yes. As a moral nihilist, I use a different, more concrete and factual system in determining what actions to personal take in any given situation(s). Of course, I have life goals, so I scale the importance of others and whether I base my actions upon them based only upon my life goals (call it sociopathic or call it perseverance, whichever word you wish to use for it). Being at this forum, engaging in philosophical discussions? My goal is to learn. Same with whenever I research science (which I do quite frequently, especially biology in the past year). My personal life goals don’t involve anything romantic, marriage-related, and I have no active life goals to obtain sex, regardless of desire. I don’t believe in morality; it wouldn’t be ‘wrong’ for me to kill her husband and tie her to the bed. But what would I do with her once she’s tied? Honestly, I don’t see myself engaging in a pointless murder followed by pointless bondage. Let’s say I did, though… what would I be hoping to achieve? Let’s observe the possibilities, shall we?:

1.) Maybe she could be my sex slave. Oh, there’s a life goal! Wooo!; I’ve always dreamed of having a sex slave!
2.) Maybe I could beat her with a whip. LIFE GOAL successful!
3.) Tell her “I am in full control of you” and laugh maniacally. YES! Mission accomplished.

Okay, those were sarcastic. What I am saying is that my actions have to be aligned with my goals, with one exception being the “Eye for an eye” code, which is something that I strongly believe in (one of the only things I believe in, by the way).

Now, if you can produce a conflicting scenario in which a life goal of mine would drive me to commit an immoral action, then take a shot. But, random outbursts of ‘coveting’ (or anything else romance-marriage-sex-related) do not drive me to such actions.

@The Paineful Truth

It is morally wrong to falsely accuse someone of being immoral, or to bolster your own immoral behavior. Of course if you’ve already killed someone, and you lie about it, that’s only more wrong if it violates someone else’s rights in the process.

I don’t understand what you mean… are you saying that lying is morally right? Or are you saying lies that don’t hurt anybody aren’t wrong to tell?

@Moral_Jeff

1.) It is morally wrong to lie.
2.) Kayla is romantically interested in me.
3.) I’m not romantically interested in Kayle.
4.) Kayla would probably become depressed if I rejected her totally.
5.) I will say “I liked you at first, but it disappeared”.

@The Paineful Truth

No, it isn’t morally wrong. You didn’t violate her rights, and would not have even if you’d told her she was a boring hag. Tact is a virtue, and as you point out, you have to use it wisely, if the “used to” doesn’t work, it’s time to drag out the “boring hag.” And if that doesn’t work, well, you’re probably justified in the Smith & Wesson self-defense, defense.

Alright. This is exactly what I see as ‘contradicting’ about morality. Intentionally hurting others is something that is supposed to be morally ‘wrong’ (from what I’ve heard and seen from other people, that is the catchy description of it). My question to you, concerning your response to be 1st Kayla scenario, is this: Why is it so difficult for you to randomly murder an innocent person, yet so easy for you to be apathetic about what others desire?

I mean, most people are so indifferent about that sort of thing, which is why I pull out every trick in the book to make them care (to a reasonable extent) whenever I need someone’s attention in order to accomplish a life goal (e.g. a boss, my professor, etc.). Let’s say I had romantic goals… and I experienced my 1st Kayla scenario, but from Kayla’s perspective instead of mine. Wouldn’t that sort of brew hatred? Or perhaps it would give rise to a misanthropic persona? Then again, I am already moderately misanthropic, so it wouldn’t be a life change or anything.

Why is it that, whenever morality is called into question during a ‘sexual’ scenario, people drop every moral they have? If you could see it from my view, it’s entertaining; people almost instantly seem to drop every moral they’ve learned throughout life when it has to do with mating. Was that why you used the ‘covet’ scenario? Because you thought I shared your asexual morality? Anyway, can you see how I could raise my question about apathy?

Based on evolution, it would make sense that people value mate choice more than morality. Do you? (I don’t; I equally devalue both)

1.) It is morally wrong to steal.
2.) Kayla keeps a ring that her late mother used to wear as a sentimental object.
3.) The ring seems to upset her whenever she views/wears it.
4.) Kayla would be locked into a state of depression if the ring stayed in her reach.
5.) I’ll steal the ring.

Who’s this Kayla? Stay the hell away leaving the ring alone in the process.

Kayla is fictitious; a made up person to place into my hypothetical situations.

Why not take the ring, at least until she is finished grieving?

@Moral_Jeff

Well, it doesn’t match, analogously speaking. But one trait that both of my previous 2 examples share is this: empathy obstructing morality.

@The Paineful Truth

In the first case no, and in the second case you’d be using (false?) empathy to irrationally justify immorality.

It isn’t ‘false’ empathy. You are viewing her situation through her perspective, understanding that she gets sad every time she views/wears the ring, based on the fact that you seen her crying about it on numerous occasions. If stealing the ring (temporarily, I suppose) means alleviating her depressed feelings, then isn’t it right? In what way is it wrong? Aren’t you helping Kayla to finish grieving/coping without being constantly reminded of her mother’s death?

@Moral_Jeff

Isn’t it morally ‘wrong’ to allow someone to become depressed (or remain in that state) whenever you can ‘stop’ it (or influence the situation in a way that would seemingly stop it)? Of course it is. Isn’t it morally wrong to lie and/or steal? Of course it is. But, of course it is a contradiction.

@The Paineful Truth

No.

Oh, I see. So, your actions can be wrong, but your lack of actions whenever there’s no legal obligations simply can’t be wrong…? Are you saying that it is right to let someone close to you (let’s assume Kayla is your ‘friend’) suffer without even attempting to help them? Sounds pretty wicked. Just what do you call wrong, then?

@Moral_Jeff

Now… why is murder wrong, but if you see a stranger attempting to murder a family member, you’ll try to murder the stranger? You can’t do it! It’s wrong!!! But, of course, there is a 10-minute long rationalization from each ‘moral believer’ about this, including a proclamation of “self-defense” almost every time, or some heroic story about how the moralist would be a bold defender of loved ones, even though that ‘stranger’ was a human being who they just murdered, but I think that it is based on something more subtle than all of their usual rationalizations… perhaps humans tend to enjoy inflicting violence and suffering upon others… by nature? It sounds wrong to assume, but why is it that, given the slightest excuse to cause someone else suffering (for example, the ‘fat man’ in Judith Jarvis Thomson’s ethical dilemmas), people take pride and lose all hesitation in doing just that. Are these a bunch of false claims? Random assumptions I’ve made?

@The Paineful Truth

It doesn’t take 10 minutes, only 10 seconds: You are entitled to defend yourself from the violation by others, of your rights.

That’s straight from law books. I’m talking about morality, not legal rights. In court, it’s right to murder due to “self-defense”. But, forget the court for a minute. Isn’t it wrong to murder somebody? (“Yes, but…”) Why does there have to be exceptions? Can’t you just make any old random exception that you’d like?

The principle behind morality is enlightened self-interest. For THE definition of morality, please read my previous post.

Doesn’t morality involve other people in most cases (all cases?)? Why, then, would ‘self-interest’ qualify as something relevant to morality?

I look forward to your response(s).

Kind Regards,
~Moral Jeff

[Kriswest]

I am picturing a society without morals and ethics, its invisible. Because it can’t exist. Without standards of morals and ethics we would destroy ourselves. We are but an infant species lacking self control and self discipline. We must have the parenting of ethics and moral standards to tech control and discipline. Its working, we are more civilized and less likely to go into feuds of violence, we are less likely to walk past a starving creature and not help. As each generation passes we become less selfish and more social. It will be a long time before each person can live up to being civil. It has yet to be truly passed on or ingrained that violence is not the answer, that selfish acts cause ourselves more pain then gain.

[Xunzian]

So, what do the contributors to this thread think of Liah Greenfeld’s book: “Nationalism: Five Roads to Modernity”?

The cardinal fact of human existence is that humans lack built-in “models for” behavior in groups. Social integration and cooperation are necessary for the preservation of the human species (as well as for its individual members), but there is no innate knowledge of how this should be accomplished. The lack of innate knowledge results in the need for models and blueprints, for an image of order, or created symbolic order, among human beings. (18)

The OP and many subsequent comments clearly agree with the initial assertions: that humans lack built in models for social behavior. Unlike Greenfeld, they feel that this creates a divide between the human being and society – indeed, it creates a gulf that cannot be crossed.

What I find interesting is that Greenfeld starts with the same assumptions but reaches dramatically different conclusions. So whose system is better? Which makes more sense?