Discordianism and Morality

[Malcoid the Malcontent]

So I recently discovered Principa Discordia. Being a stridently individual malcontent, and also an Asker of Pesky Questions, I have always had trouble identifying with any established framework of religion or philosophy. Because of this I have found the Discordian idea of generally disassembling the framework that confines our thinking to be quite attractive.

As I take my first tentative steps into the pool, I'm having trouble resolving a particular question: How does Discordianism relate to morality?

One could say that morality is a useful form of order that allows us to (generally) live without the constant threat of violence. However, would it not be valid for to suggest that morality is simply a construct designed to function within this particular time/place, and that it too can be deconstructed to suit ones purpose?

If that is true it would leave us wading in the stagnant swamp of moral relativism, which I consider to be more or less an abdication of our responsibility as rational being, an idea that causes me indigestion.

My brain requires additional input to resolve this problem. I would appreciate any thoughts, ideas or poop jokes that you might have.

Thanks!

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

So I recently discovered Principa Discordia. Being a stridently individual malcontent, and also an Asker of Pesky Questions, I have always had trouble identifying with any established framework of religion or philosophy. Because of this I have found the Discordian idea of generally disassembling the framework that confines our thinking to be quite attractive.

As I take my first tentative steps into the pool, I'm having trouble resolving a particular question: How does Discordianism relate to morality?

One could say that morality is a useful form of order that allows us to (generally) live without the constant threat of violence. However, would it not be valid for to suggest that morality is simply a construct designed to function within this particular time/place, and that it too can be deconstructed to suit ones purpose?

If that is true it would leave us wading in the stagnant swamp of moral relativism, which I consider to be more or less an abdication of our responsibility as rational being, an idea that causes me indigestion.

My brain requires additional input to resolve this problem. I would appreciate any thoughts, ideas or poop jokes that you might have.

Thanks!

An excellent question. Recall the Sermon on Ethics and Love in the PD?

[AFK]

First, Welcome
Second, The pool is up on The Roof.
Third, the issue of morality is tricky.  Especially if you run it through the "Reality Grids" part of Discordia.  In other words, if you were to plot out "morality" and then overlay your grid upon another's, you obviously are going to find areas of agreement and areas of disagreement.  And then, there's the effort to sell one vision of morality to others.  And that can of course turn to violence.  (see also: Abortion Clinic Bombings).

I think in a perfect world, morality is a "to each their own proposition", until you realize you have to live with other monkeys.  And then there is the push to find agreement so that we can somehow coexist without the constant threat of violence.  And I think it mostly works, kinda.  I mean, we aren't living in complete madness and awfulness.  But, it seems like more improvements can be made.  

[LMNO]

Hold on a second.

Remind me again why, if someone has a different set of morals than I do, that's an "abdication of responsibility"?

[Malcoid the Malcontent]

I am filled with fear and tormented with terrible visions of pain.
Everywhere people are hurting one another, the planet is rampant with
injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers
imprison sons, children perish while brothers war. O, woe

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT
TO DO?

"But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it!"

OH. WELL, THEN STOP.

This leads into my issue... What if someone keeps kicking other people in the groin, because he thinks its really really funny? Or a pedophile, who really really wants to have sex with children? Can a Dischordianism show that they are wrong?  

Does it even want to?

[Elder Iptuous]

Hold on a second.

Remind me again why, if someone has a different set of morals than I do, that's an "abdication of responsibility"?

most people feel some responsibility to employ thier intellect in discerning the universal and godly morality....

[LMNO]

Mmm  hmmm.


Sounds like a personal problem.

[AFK]

I am filled with fear and tormented with terrible visions of pain.
Everywhere people are hurting one another, the planet is rampant with
injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers
imprison sons, children perish while brothers war. O, woe

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT
TO DO?

"But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it!"

OH. WELL, THEN STOP.

This leads into my issue... What if someone keeps kicking other people in the groin, because he thinks its really really funny? Or a pedophile, who really really wants to have sex with children? Can a Dischordianism show that they are wrong?  

Does it even want to?

Eventually he runs into someone with the morality of "Punch groin-kicker inna face."  Or, "Stab pedo in the nuts and the face"

So, eventually, the person learns that these activities are "wrong" in terms of maintaining personal freedom and safety in the long term.  

[Malcoid the Malcontent]

Hold on a second.

Remind me again why, if someone has a different set of morals than I do, that's an "abdication of responsibility"?

Not having different morals, but giving into a rather pervasive trend of completely accepting moral relativsim.

The idea runs that because we all come from different cultures, different backgrounds blah blah blah, you cannot impose your set of morals on another. This is a fair enough premise. But lets take that too the extreme.

In some particularlly horrible excesses of the 20th and 21st century, soliders used mass rape agaisnt an enemy. It was generally accepted by those overseeing the actions, and these men escaped any punitive action. Lots of them probably really enjoyed it and thought nothing was wrong at all.

Well, I disagree. Rape is wrong. It is always wrong. Therefore I cannot accept moral relativism. To do so would abdicate responsibility for our actions.

[Golden Applesauce]

I am filled with fear and tormented with terrible visions of pain.
Everywhere people are hurting one another, the planet is rampant with
injustices, whole societies plunder groups of their own people, mothers
imprison sons, children perish while brothers war. O, woe

WHAT IS THE MATTER WITH THAT, IF IT IS WHAT YOU WANT
TO DO?

"But nobody wants it! Everybody hates it!"

OH. WELL, THEN STOP.

This leads into my issue... What if someone keeps kicking other people in the groin, because he thinks its really really funny? Or a pedophile, who really really wants to have sex with children? Can a Dischordianism show that they are wrong? 

Does it even want to?

If the only reason you want a morality is so you can tell other people that they're doing it wrong, then, um... you're doing it wrong.

If you want to protect the groins and children of the world, then I suggest you stop trying to get a religion to do it for you and invest in some automatic weaponry.

[Cramulus]

from what I can tell, the Principia doesn't give much advice about how to act (in a moral sense). If anything, the Principia tells you not to take your moral cues from musty old written texts, and to come up with rules for yourself.

I'll note that this stance has caused a lot of Discordians to acquire "questionable" moral stances on things like crime, pedophilia, and civil disobedience... but if I combat them on those issues, I'm doing so as an individual and not as a Discordian.

[LMNO]

Hold on a second.

Remind me again why, if someone has a different set of morals than I do, that's an "abdication of responsibility"?

Not having different morals, but giving into a rather pervasive trend of completely accepting moral relativsim.

The idea runs that because we all come from different cultures, different backgrounds blah blah blah, you cannot impose your set of morals on another. This is a fair enough premise. But lets take that too the extreme.

In some particularlly horrible excesses of the 20th and 21st century, soliders used mass rape agaisnt an enemy. It was generally accepted by those overseeing the actions, and these men escaped any punitive action. Lots of them probably really enjoyed it and thought nothing was wrong at all.

Well, I disagree. Rape is wrong. It is always wrong. Therefore I cannot accept moral relativism. To do so would abdicate responsibility for our actions.

Again, that sounds like a personal problem.  It also sounds like you're venturing into either/or territory.

"Either morals are universal and good, or they're meaningless and evil!"

Fuzzy logic, buddy.

First premise is good:  A person from a different culture will have different morals than you.
Second premise is off base: A different set of morals must be fully accepted.

What Moral Relativism allows is for the realization that both YOU and THE FOREIGN GUY have different belief systems, and that YOU might but just as fucked up as you see HIM to be.

It allows for a middle ground, and it allows for objective discussion of morals. 

While it removes UNIVERSAL right and wrong, it also doesn't throw RELATIVE right and wrong out the window.

[hooplala]

Well, I disagree. Rape is wrong. It is always wrong. Therefore I cannot accept moral relativism. To do so would abdicate responsibility for our actions.

I am a relativist in every sense.

If you rephrase your comment "rape is wrong.  it is always wrong" in E-Prime I suspect you will find that the certitude vanishes.  The only way something is 'always wrong' is if a set of Objective Values exists, and as far as I have been able to discover, it simply doesn't.  I'm not claiming I am pro-rape, far from it, I consider it to be a heinous and disgusting action, but I understand that my view is exactly that, my personal view, not the view of some Objective Value of the universe.

When a male gorilla mounts a smaller female who isn't interested in him, this could be classified as rape, but who says its wrong?  The other gorillas?  The monkeys watching?  The birds and the bees?  God?  You?

If you find it to be an abdication of responsibility, that's completely fine, but you should understand that this too is simply your view and not some objective fact.  

To me, Discordianism is about taking personal responsibility of our thoughts and actions, and not needing some fairy tale objective value to define our world for us, which is basically what the entire idea of "God" is... passing the buck for your own views and actions on to a 'higher power'.  It's one of the central concepts that I loathe about AA.

That, to me, is an abdication of responsibility, and not the other way around.

[hooplala]

Perhaps Randian Objectivism is more your speed?

[Bebek Sincap Ratatosk]

Well, I don't think that Discordians will necessarily agree on the answer to that question (its more a meta-system than a system). In my opinion, if some guys likes to kick people in the balls... the people getting kicked in the balls should probably hit him in the head with a brick.

The sermon on ethics and love, IMO, tells us one very important thing. Ethics, morals etc are a problem that must be solved by the humans living with the issues... not by magical systems that always produce the right answer, or fickle deities that love to lay down the laws, but then are nowhere to be found when a miracle is required to stop some horrible amoral event.

I think 'relativism' and 'post modern' get a bad rap, because so many people get a taste of the idea and then run off to do anything that they want, as though it was a free pass to 'Do Ill as Thou Will'...

That, IMO is not what relativism is about. Rather, its about taking the conditions, the society etc into account when considering morality and realizing that morals may vary based on the social background etc. NOT THAT ALL MORAL SYSTEMS ARE EQUAL IN ALL RESPECTS.

So, in a society where 14 year old girls are expected to get married... it would be inappropriate to call the husbands of those girls pedophiles. We may argue that the custom is unhealthy for the girl (if we have medical/psych evidence to support it) or we might argue that its a impact on their freedom, since they have no choice... but it becomes a fundamentally different argument than the one used against Bob The Happy Pedophile who gets his rocks off by using his power and position to trick little girls into sex, or abuse the trust he has to manipulate little girls.

Random dude in far off land is just getting a wife the way his society thinks best... Bob the Happy Pedophile, PROBABLY has some psychological issues and may be far more interested in the power than in a future wife/mate/mother of his children.

Doesn't mean either is a Good Idea... but to think they're identical seems silly to me.