Principia Discordia

I've decided to become completely amoral.
Not immoral; I have neither reason nor wish to do things against morality for immorality's own sake, because that's just being perverse. As far as I'm concerned, being "bad" is the same as being "good"; you're still making your decisions based on a scale of moral behavior. Screw that.
No, I've decided to become amoral because morality is the biggest mindfuck humanity has ever played on itself. As a social artifice, it sucks, and I no longer want anything to do with it.
Morality is supposed to be a social standard of right and wrong. The problem with that definition, though, is that society is not homogenous. While one person might think a particular issue is not particularly outrageous, another might think that the issue is the worst offense to humanity that has ever happened. There's simply no such thing as a moral absolute.
A better definition for the term is "Morality is whatever you want it to be whenever you need to justify your outrageous decisions that are guaranteed to harm someone else by completely trampling on their rights."
At least it's a more honest definition.
Let's take our Beloved Leader, for instance. He's anti-abortion. Well, he says he's pro-life, but that's obviously not true - in his term as governor of Texas, he certainly put that state's death penalty to use; he's even executed retarded people. And now he's involved us in a war that is killing innumerable women and children. Let me reiterate that point real quick - children. You know, those innocents that shouldn't be killed, just as he no doubt believes wholeheartedly is his justification for his anti-abortion stance. Murdering innocents is bad, yeah - but only when he says it is bad.
And let's take his stance on gay marriage - it destroys family values, yeah. Nevermind that divorce is the number one destroyer of families. We don't see him banning divorces - oh, no. Anyone with any wit whatsoever can see that the entire reason men and women can no longer be bothered to stick it out, ride out the bad times, work on their problems, and honor their promises to each other is because them unholy fags have cheapened the concept of marriage, right? Right! That's morality in action for you, right there! A shining example of it, in fact.
So, yeah. Well, I, for one, am tired of caring about people who don't care about other people in return. I'm tired of trying to make up my mind what is best for other people to do, especially since it's not my responsbility to decide for other people what's best for them. I'm tired of pretending it matters, when it obviously doesn't, because no one else really gives a damn about what's "best", especially when what is "best" might actually be the very thing that makes them go "ew!"
So screw morality.
Murder might be "bad," but frankly, some people just need to die.
Sex might be "bad," but I like it, and I'm too busy pursuing it myself to bother telling other people that they shouldn't do it, in whatever combinations they might prefer.
I personally might prefer to be bitten on the ass by a rabid polar bear than get married, but gay people want to do it, so I say let them slug it out with the self-righteous hypocrital santorum-heads masquerading as love-your-neighbor Christians, and may the best fag win. Although, I do think it would be interesting to see what happened if the gays were packing Uzis while the Christians relied on their One True God to help them win.
I'm tired of chewing my nails and missing out on sleep because of being worried about what's happening in Iraq - I've reached my tolerance point. If anyone else feels the same, I have booze, porn, and a bigscreen tv if you want to come over.

From now on, I'm not going to fool myself into thinking that "morality" is something that has any meaning or importance, that it's not just to make me toe the line and be a good girl. Can I get a "Fuck You" for moral values and a "Hell yeah!" for the loss of innocence?

In conclusion, I'd like to leave you with some lovely words of wisdom from Terrence McKenna that I've blatantly ripped off from someone who quoted him to me:

". . .what is real is you and your friends, and your associations, your highs, your orgasms, your hopes, your plans, your fears.
And we're told no, we're unimportant, we're peripheral. Get a degree, get a job, get a this, get a that, and then you're a player.
You don't even want to play in that game."
http://www.livejournal.com/users/laughingferret/6378.html

cheers.

opersonally i have my own set of ethics that i'm hard at work at breaking every last rule within thereof.

when you've run out of things to rebel against, you can always rebel against yourself.

You guys are all growing up so fast, it brings a tear to my eye. :(
This is how I work it.  If I hear that small still voice, which is probably my conscience, I listen and think.  If it says something stupid, I tell it to shut the fuck up.  If I think I will feel guilty about something, I usually don't do it.  Not because someone else tells me I should feel guilty.  

That's where most religions have it all wrong, sex is good.  Most of the rules about sex are actually rules about property, because that is all we were.  If we had sex before marriage, our future husband would get damaged goods, which is abother reason marriage is bullshit.  If not for my son, I probably would never have gotten married.  

And the best description of the the "pro life" position comes from George Carlin.  They are concerned with the fetus, but don't give a shit about you after your born.  Prenatal, you're cool, preschool, you're fucked.

i'll grow up when i'm cold and dead.


/me slaughters a million newborns and charges admission.

Quote from: EraPassingMorality is supposed to be a social standard of right and wrong. The problem with that definition, though, is that society is not homogenous.

You are right and wrong.

The problem with definition is, as you so rightly point out, is that it is fucked.

The solution is not to become amoral. The solution is to realise that you have your definition wrong.

Morality is how you, as an individual, decide how you are going to act. Notice that the word "justification" was not included there.

The following three quotes have no relevance whatsoever:

Quote from: Robert A. HeinleinDo not confuse "duty" with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different. Duty is a debt you owe to yourself to fulfill obligations you have assumed voluntarily. Paying that debt can entail anything from years of patient work to instant willingness to die. Difficult it may be, but the reward is self-respect.

Quote from: P. J. O'RourkeThere is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.

Quote from: Apocrypha DiscordiaIt is your responsibility... no, your duty... no, that,Äôs not right either... It,Äôs lots of fun to upset the equilibrium of the placid, plodding, sure-footed Thuddites with a bit of mystery -- and irritating mystery at that!

Quote from: Veritas Aequitas Probitas

Quote from: EraPassingMorality is supposed to be a social standard of right and wrong. The problem with that definition, though, is that society is not homogenous.

You are right and wrong.

The problem with definition is, as you so rightly point out, is that it is fucked.

The solution is not to become amoral. The solution is to realise that you have your definition wrong.

Morality is how you, as an individual, decide how you are going to act. Notice that the word "justification" was not included there.

The following three quotes have no relevance whatsoever:

Quote from: Robert A. HeinleinDo not confuse "duty" with what other people expect of you; they are utterly different. Duty is a debt you owe to yourself to fulfill obligations you have assumed voluntarily. Paying that debt can entail anything from years of patient work to instant willingness to die. Difficult it may be, but the reward is self-respect.

Quote from: P. J. O'RourkeThere is only one basic human right, the right to do as you damn well please. And with it comes the only basic human duty, the duty to take the consequences.

Quote from: Apocrypha DiscordiaIt is your responsibility... no, your duty... no, that,Äôs not right either... It,Äôs lots of fun to upset the equilibrium of the placid, plodding, sure-footed Thuddites with a bit of mystery -- and irritating mystery at that!

This is the correct answer.  "Morality" as portrayed by Bush and Co IS a fraud.  However, morality itself is not wrong or hypocritical.  For example, morality dictates that children are to be protected.  Is that wrong?

as a matter of fact, yes.

children should be exploited until/unless they prove smart enough or physically gifted enough to do something more useful than assemble shoes.

morality is a farce that is, at best, situationally appropriate.

8)

Quote from: That Communist Bastardchildren should be exploited until/unless they prove smart enough or physically gifted enough to do something more useful than assemble shoes.

Newt Gingrich?  Is that YUO?

Quote from: horab fibslageri'll grow up when i'm cold and dead.

I did not mean to imply that anyone was turning into a gr'up, just that I see people learning life's lessons and taking off the blinders that society forces onto us.  It makes me feel all fuzzy inside.  Since most of what I view of the human species makes me feel like all steely and barbed wirey inside, this is a pleasant change.  Again, I meant no offense.

Quote from: eldora_avalon

Quote from: horab fibslageri'll grow up when i'm cold and dead.

.  Again, I meant no offense.

i didn't take any.



yes consequences.



i laugh at the fools who when faced to face with the music try to run from the dance.

shjall i also point out that act and consequence are among the basic corners of what i s called magick? no i think i shall not. wu-wei is totally more advanced.

Rog, I'm pro-choice.  So, obviously, there are times when I think that the child should not be protected - or at least, even as I deplore the choice made by the woman, I will stand by and do nothing to stop it from happening.  
And, no, I'm not going to quibble over the definitions of when life begins, when a child is a child or if it's "just" a fetus, in order to wiggle out of the moral guilt of allowing children to be murdered.  A fetus is a child.  It's a human being.  Hundreds of children are killed by their mothers every day.  I hate it, but I allow it, because I don't believe that the rights of an unborn child supersede the rights of a woman to decide what will happen to her own body.    
Murdering children is not "right," it is not "good."  But I believe that sometimes it is necessary, to protect what is "good," what is "right," for the woman.  The morality of either choice is in direct conflict with the other - and as I said, I have no wish to be deliberately immoral.  So this is an example of me being amoral, stepping away from the standards of right and wrong that society has taught me, and forming my opinion without using morality as a guide because morality, in this case, is as useless as it is heart-breaking.


Veritas, even if the situation calling for a moral choice is decided on an individual basis, it is still a social standard of right and wrong.  Who else do we learn right and wrong from, and who do we apply it to?  The choice of action may be individual, but the standard of right and wrong is a cultural construct.  Moreover, with the laws that are imposed by government, making a moral choice that is against the social standards can be a punishable offense.  Which only goes to emphasize that morality cannot be held as an individual standard alone.
I could also have defined morality as a cultural standard, but I think that in this case, "cultural" would have been misleading, since morality is only a standard that we apply in social situations, to make decisions that will affect more people than ourselves.  (I mean, c'mon, you guys, raise your hand if you've ever really pondered the morality of jacking off just before making the decision to do so.)
So, imo, "social standard" is the definition more suitable to the point I was making.
Being amoral is not admitting of moral distinctions or judgements, which quite neatly lets me escape the bond of having to agree with society's standards when I don't think those standards are apropriate to the situation.
I don't think that becoming amoral is so much the correct answer for everyone, as it is just the answer that I personally want to go with, in order to avoid continuing to get my heart broken by things that I cannot change.  I have a remarkably silly heart, after all, and if I don't look out for it, who will?  Bush definitely won't.
And I'd really appreciate it if you fucked off and didn't try to make the decision as to what is best for me.

Quote from: EraPassingVeritas, even if the situation calling for a moral choice is decided on an individual basis, it is still a social standard of right and wrong.  Who else do we learn right and wrong from, and who do we apply it to?  The choice of action may be individual, but the standard of right and wrong is a cultural construct.  Moreover, with the laws that are imposed by government, making a moral choice that is against the social standards can be a punishable offense.  Which only goes to emphasize that morality cannot be held as an individual standard alone.

First off, the law and morailty are seperate. People who don't deserve it get punished and people who do derserve it, don't. We use our moral ideas to decide who should be punished and who shouldn't. This doesn't always agree with the legal outcomes. The law and morality approach things differently and often arrive at different conclusions. I hope you'll grant that they really don't have anything to do with one another even though people often use the same sorts of words to justify their laws as they do to justify why they hold particular moral beliefs (which just confuses the whole issue -- I submit that they use these words to mean quite different things, even though they sound very the same).

Right. The big reason that I think that morality is not a social construct is that there is no set of beliefs that you can point to and call morality within a society (but I say that there is on an indiviual level). Take for example the whole abortion thing. You say above that you are pro-choice. There are people who claim to be extremely opposed to abortion. For most of the people on both sides of the debate, this is a moral position. Now, if morality was a social construct and these two positions are diametrically opposed to one another, half of these people would be being immoral. I think that's crazy. I say that all of these people are being moral, they are just adopting different moral positions. This can only happen (and be logically consistent) if morality is something that occurs on an individual level.

I do agreee that similar people who see the world in similar ways often have similar sets of moral beliefs but I think that, in order to say that morality is a social thing, you need to make a stronger claim and say that social groups subscribe to the same set of moral beliefs. I do not think that one'll fly and am prepared to try and argue it.

The politicians, media and the sheep among us use the myth of social morality to score points in arguments that win them the ability to do what they want (and get other people to do what they want). I submit that they have corrupted moral language for use as a persuasive tool.

You also use the example of your pro-choice position as being amoral. You say that you're pro-choice because the 'good' of a woman's right to choose outweighs the 'good' of not murdering babies in those sorts of circumstances. This sort of thinking is exactly what morality is all about. Adopting a position that is different to a group of people around you is not amoral, nor is it immoral (even though they may accuse you of being so since, as they see it, you are). It is a moral poistion. Imagine if you and one of the anti-abortion folk when travelling to a society where pro-choice was the norm. Suddenly you'd have a socially accepted moral position and they wouldn't. If morality was a social construct then, simply by travelling a few hundred miles, moral has become immoral and immoral has become moral. That's crazy.

-----

That all said, I hear the point that you make about the difficulty of flying in the face of public opinion. It sucks. Hang in there. Kia Kaha.


.

Quote from: Veritas Aequitas Probitas
First off, the law and morailty are seperate. People who don't deserve it get punished and people who do derserve it, don't. We use our moral ideas to decide who should be punished and who shouldn't. This doesn't always agree with the legal outcomes. The law and morality approach things differently and often arrive at different conclusions. I hope you'll grant that they really don't have anything to do with one another even though people often use the same sorts of words to justify their laws as they do to justify why they hold particular moral beliefs (which just confuses the whole issue -- I submit that they use these words to mean quite different things, even though they sound very the same).

I don't grant it, not in the context of my argument.  
The law and morality are not supposed to be the same thing, especially in a society like ours.  The law is supposed to be the law for everyone, and not force one social group's morality on all the others.  But what is supposed to be, and what actually is, are not always the same thing, either.  So you can submit whatever logic you want, but just because something is logically consistent doesn't make it true, when you're talking about humans.
The basis of the laws against murder is a moral one.  Murder is immoral, therefore, murder is illegal.  Gay marriage is immoral, therefore, Bush and Co. are trying to make it illegal - with the full support of a huge chunk of our society, who wouldn't allow it to be illegal if they didn't think it was immoral first.  

QuoteRight. The big reason that I think that morality is not a social construct is that there is no set of beliefs that you can point to and call morality within a society (but I say that there is on an indiviual level). Take for example the whole abortion thing. You say above that you are pro-choice. There are people who claim to be extremely opposed to abortion. For most of the people on both sides of the debate, this is a moral position. Now, if morality was a social construct and these two positions are diametrically opposed to one another, half of these people would be being immoral. I think that's crazy. I say that all of these people are being moral, they are just adopting different moral positions. This can only happen (and be logically consistent) if morality is something that occurs on an individual level.

Yeah, it's crazy, but it's still true - and there you go again, expecting logic to matter to human behavior.  Yes, in the social group of the anti-abortionists, prochoicers are immoral; and in the society of the prochoicers, the anti-abortionists are immoral.  
Morality is one of those abstract things like religion and art, in that it only exists in a cultural context.  It is something that is learned, not innate, and it evolves in tandem with the changes in any given society.    
Societies are always in a huge state of flux at any given moment, where one minority group will disagree with what consitutes morality in regard to some issues.  Societies always have minority societies within the larger group.  That doesn't make morality any less a social construct.

QuoteI do agreee that similar people who see the world in similar ways often have similar sets of moral beliefs but I think that, in order to say that morality is a social thing, you need to make a stronger claim and say that social groups subscribe to the same set of moral beliefs. I do not think that one'll fly and am prepared to try and argue it.

OK...  *scratches head*  How is it you think that similar people who see the world in similar ways and have a similar set of moral beliefs are NOT a social group?   Whenever you gather a number of people who agree on the way the world should work, you've got yourself a social group.  That's a huge chunk of what the phrase "a social group" means, and a set moral standard is one of the many ways that you can group people together.

QuoteThe politicians, media and the sheep among us use the myth of social morality to score points in arguments that win them the ability to do what they want (and get other people to do what they want). I submit that they have corrupted moral language for use as a persuasive tool.

I also submit that social morality is a myth that people use as a means for justifying whatever it is that they want to do.  That's what I've been saying.
I'll continue doing what I feel is right, but only when I have used reason and honesty to make that decision, instead of a knee-jerk moral reaction.  In my case, "right" will start to mean reason, instead of obedience to society.  I'm taking myself out of the moral question; I am refusing to accept the moral guilt that society wants me to take on my own shoulders.  I have declared myself no longer a sheep.
Why are you arguing with me, again?

QuoteYou also use the example of your pro-choice position as being amoral. You say that you're pro-choice because the 'good' of a woman's right to choose outweighs the 'good' of not murdering babies in those sorts of circumstances. This sort of thinking is exactly what morality is all about. Adopting a position that is different to a group of people around you is not amoral, nor is it immoral (even though they may accuse you of being so since, as they see it, you are). It is a moral poistion.

It ceases to be a moral position and becomes amoral when you use reason to make the decision instead of a moral standard.  If I were using a moral standard, then I would be firmly in the anti-abortionists' camp, since, morally, I agree with them that women who get abortions are murderesses.  Also, morally, I would have to accept the guilt of such murders as an accomplice, as I did nothing to stop them.
Reason, however, allows me to understand that not only is abortion sometimes necessary, it is not my business to tell other women what they can or cannot do with their own bodies.

QuoteImagine if you and one of the anti-abortion folk when travelling to a society where pro-choice was the norm. Suddenly you'd have a socially accepted moral position and they wouldn't. If morality was a social construct then, simply by travelling a few hundred miles, moral has become immoral and immoral has become moral. That's crazy.

Once again - crazy, but true.  
There's a small community I know of in my state where interracial marriages are vulgar, disgusting, and an affront to God.  Travel a few miles to one of the larger cities, and you'll get to an area where interrracial marriages don't even cause a blink.
The distance between an Amish community and the next community over that doesn't contain Amish people, can be measured either in miles, or in the sense of a complete cultural shift.
Some states in the U.S. have capital punishment, and believe it is moral.  Travelling a few hundred miles due north, you'd cross the border into Canada, where capital punishment is immoral.  If a Canadian travelled a few hundred miles due south, they'd come to Texas, where capital punishment is moral.
Thus, the difference of a few miles or a few hundred miles can mean the difference between morality and immorality.
That was a silly argument, dude.   :P

Quote from: EraPassingOK...  *scratches head*  How is it you think that similar people who see the world in similar ways and have a similar set of moral beliefs are NOT a social group?  

I think you've missed my point. Social groups have similar sets of moral beliefs but not the same. For morality to be a social construct, they have to subscribe to the same set of moral beliefs.

Society is polarised on the abortion issue, on the gay marriage issue, on this moral issue and on that moral issue. For any two individualsm while thy may agree on almost anything, you will (in my experience at least) always be able to find a moral question that they differ on.

The punchline: if morality is a social construct then the largest social unit one can have is the largest unit of moral uniformity. The largest unit of moral uniformity is the individual. Therefore, the largest social unit is the individual.

I think that this conclusion is silly so I must argue that morality is not a social construct.

(In a strange twist of irony, I also believe that the largest social unit is two entities and the relationship between them but the implications for my ethical system is left for another time).

Quote from: EraPassingThus, the difference of a few miles or a few hundred miles can mean the difference between morality and immorality.

Holy Flying Batshit! You genuinely believe that morality works this way? No wonder you want to be amoral. That level of relativism must be liberating at times.

You know what?
I had an argument, but it doesn't matter.
Morality doesn't exist as an absolute.  It never has.  The whole idea of "moral values" is a myth being used to justify horrendous deeds.
And if I'm too sick of it to live by it, I'm certainly not minded to continue arguing about it.

Quote from: Veritas Aequitas Probitas

Quote from: EraPassingThus, the difference of a few miles or a few hundred miles can mean the difference between morality and immorality.

Holy Flying Batshit! You genuinely believe that morality works this way? No wonder you want to be amoral. That level of relativism must be liberating at times.

I looked up "relativism", and...  Friggin' DUH, dude.
But it's not liberating - it's confusing, and tiring, and depressing, and that's the reason I want to be amoral.

A brief thought, but first, a summary of one of my catmas:

I think morality is indeed relative, and tends to be based upon a mixture of personal experience and social conditioning & re-conditioning.

That much said, it would only stand to reason that there are very few people who have exactly the same moral values, no matter what the Republicans say.

Even further, when Era proposes that Morality is a means of justifying atrocity (if I'm over generalizing, forgive me), that justification in itself is generally regarded as an immoral act.

Hence, there was no morality in those actions and justifications to begin with.

Not to mention that "amoral" seems to imply that literally anything goes; that paedophilia, beastiality, cannabalism, murder, and rape are acceptable to an amoral person.

But I could be wrong.

Quote from: LMNONot to mention that "amoral" seems to imply that literally anything goes; that paedophilia, beastiality, cannabalism, murder, and rape are acceptable to an amoral person.

But I could be wrong.

I think you are, but let me explain why.  Amoral people are those which give up on society's ideas of morality, they do not give up on morality itself.  The people who do the things you mention are immoral, because they have been messed up by society, they have bought into this ideal of what people "should" or should not do.  When they figured out they could not live up to these ideals, they snapped and decided to violate them.  

Amoral people come to the same point, but instead of snapping, they make their own ideals.  I remember going through this.  I questioned everything anyone ever told me was right or wrong.  I have a nasty habit of questioning authority anyway, so it was easy for me. I think Erapassing is in the middle of this process. I can't climb into her head, but she is in the middle of something.  I am just glad all of us crazies are here for her to bounce all of this off of.  

A lot of words have been thrown around, but I think what it amounts to is this:

Do what is "right" because you think it is "right", not because someone else does.

Do not do what is "wrong", not because someone says it is "wrong", but because you believe it to be "wrong"

Right, wrong, moral, immoral, should, should not, whatever.  You have to develop your own moral compass.  Unfortunately, society does not encourage this.  And I don't mean just the scoiety that I live in, all societies are like this.

Man, I hate doing this, but:

My Dictionary (//www.dictionary.com) gives "immoral" as "Contrary to established moral principles."  

It also defines "amoral" as "Not admitting of moral distinctions or judgments; neither moral nor immoral", and "Lacking moral sensibility; not caring about right and wrong."


That much said, if someone still believes in things that are "right" and "wrong", but they happen to go against society's definitions, you are still a "moral" person; that seems closer to Immoral that Amoral.  Amoral is the lack of a value system entirely.

All I'm saying is that you may want to think of a different term than "amoral".  Perhaps "alter-moral" or "counter-moral".

"Counter-moral" would work. Or "Super-extra-moral." Or you could just wear a button that reads "Ask me about my moral values of the day!"

I think the key word there is "ESTABLISHED." To be amoral is to be contrary to "ESTABLISHED" moral principles - but those established principles could very well be bullshit nonsense, like the sex laws in some states, or the prohibition against alcohol sales on Sunday(so this prevents drinking HOW?)

Or, say, a religion that professes to take good care of its members' spiritual and familial health, whose members are there for you 24-7 to help you with everything from marriage to cleaning out your fridge, and are insufferably kind and gentle - unless you're gay, in which case they electrocute your dick until they think you're straight. (The Mormons, in case you were wondering.)

Morals may make sense at an individual level for individual needs, but once society gets a hold of them, they often get distorted into these ridiculous contradictions.

[semantic alert]

Quote from: agent compassionTo be amoral is to be contrary to "ESTABLISHED" moral principles - but those established principles could very well be bullshit nonsense, like the sex laws in some states, or the prohibition against alcohol sales on Sunday(so this prevents drinking HOW?)

Actually, to be immoral is to be contrary to established moral principals.  Other than that, I agree.

[/semantic alert]

Personally, I prefer to think of these things in terms of values instead of morals.  There are certain things I value more than most anything else, so my behavior arises from this.  I value equality, so I don't walk around calling everybody idiots or proles and I don't kick the homeless.  I value non-violence, so I don't go to bars and pick fights.  That's not to say I think violence is wrong, it's just not something I'm particularly into.  

I don't know, maybe it's the difference between defining acceptable behavior in terms of DOs rather than DONTs.  

Quote from: agent compassion
I think the key word there is "ESTABLISHED." To be amoral is to be contrary to "ESTABLISHED" moral principles - but those established principles could very well be bullshit nonsense, like the sex laws in some states, or the prohibition against alcohol sales on Sunday(so this prevents drinking HOW?)

Fun Fact: I can buy liquor at the grocery store on Sundays now.  :D

Yea! You're teh win!

Whoops! I just looked back and yep, I misread "immoral" as "amoral", LMNO. Anyway - I haven't had breakfast yet, and....

:scans the board, spots Taco Jones:

Anyone want this taco?

No?

::CHOMP::

8)

Quote from: LMNO
Not to mention that "amoral" seems to imply that literally anything goes; that paedophilia, beastiality, cannabalism, murder, and rape are acceptable to an amoral person.

But I could be wrong.

yeah, you could be.

let's not forget that at various points in various societies throughout history (and in some places today, even), every single one of the abovementioned activities was not only condoned, but considered de rigeur...so why don't you just quit trying to pass off your newfangled humanist values on the rest of us and leave the cannibalistic baby donkey rapers alone.

8)

There's always a lot of confusion in any debate about the nature of "morals" and so far I haven't found a way of untangling the arguments that seems meaningful to everybody.

However, I think the whole concept of "morality" is pretty much empty words. You can talk about a "system of values" which is accepted by the majority if you ask them. Probably there is such a system that is statistically reasonably stable and even seems non-contradicting. But then there are real situations where people have to face tough decisions and sometimes they have to weigh one "value" against another. It suddenly boils down to gut feeling. Not that the gut feeling excludes what you think others will think about your decision... but, still, a moral decision becomes something entirely different when it's about you. Maybe we should just stop pretending that it doesn't.

And you get all sorts of "other" factors entering into it. Ask almost anyone if killing is OK and you'll get a "no". Still, a country can go to war and most of the population thinks that is OK because, well, they started it, or it's about freedom or whatever. It's so far away and we're too caught up in choosing the texture of our new wallpapers, and so on. And still, Joe-on-the-street, if asked, will not agree that things like personal comfort should have impact on moral decisions.

"Right", "wrong", "good", "bad", "evil", ... all concepts people use when they need to give children reasons why they can't do this or that. It's always a simplification; perhaps they don't want to have to explain something about sex or death, or maybe they just don't know. But children start to associate the words with punishments and rewards, which means that later on they can be led by the nose by people who know this. These are the real fnords. And they're usually the reasons that people get so worked up over moral issues in a debate. But when the real, infinitely complex situations occur, the simple words aren't there and people suddenly have to make their own decisions.

So yes... "amorality" sounds pretty good to me actually. Even though I don't think it's possible to rid oneself entirely from these semantic reactions, making yourself aware of them is the first and probably the most important step.

Quote from: Not NurbldoffThere's always a lot of confusion in any debate about the nature of "morals" and so far I haven't found a way of untangling the arguments that seems meaningful to everybody.

Confusion in debates tends to arise from people using language differently. This confusion generally vanishes when people come to agree on what words mean.

If you want to have a debate that references the moral literature that is around (and much of it is worth looking at, if only to uncover why you disagree with it) then you should understand the accepted techhnical meanings for the following terms:
moral code
moral theory
meta-ethical theory.

You should also understand the difference between duty-based and value-based ethics, consquentialism and intentionalism, and moral relitavism and moral absolutism.

For the keen, compare and contrast the ethics of Plato and Aristotle and gain an appreciation of why their veiw of the world shaped the way they thought people should act. Our American readers may enjoy looking at the history of Utilitarianism (much of it happened at about the same time as your Founding Fathers were founding stuff and several of them were quite involved in the debate) and ask yourself why European ethics were so different at the time.

Learn to distinguish between moral and non-moral assertions.

And then ask yourself where all this confusion went.

-----

Alternatively, get really high and realise that none of that shit matters and it all sounds like too much effort.


.

Veritas: well, if you must know, I did actually study philosophy for a while, and I do think I have a fair grasp of most of the fancy terms that you mentioned. I agree that these studies was mostly useful for finding out what I don't agree with.

In any case, I've found out that a) until I rejected basically all the theories I leared (except perhaps the semantic and ontological theory of emotivism/value-nihilism which seems kind of neat) I was even more confused than before, because I was bombarded with all sorts of questions and dilemmas that I had never even contemplated before. This was all well and good, because I came out of it with a much clearer picture (IMHO).

But the thing is, b) trying to use this knowledge in a debate with most people who have not studied moral philosophy (and some who have) is just not workable. They will either dismiss you as a total academic with no real understanding of reality, or they will be confused because their words don't mean the same as yours. And this is not a very productive confusion that usually leads nowhere. It's not made any easier by the fact that many people get very emotional over hypothetical examples of moral dilemmas, etc.

It's easy to say that philosophers have worked the whole thing out (and they're not even agreeing, are they?) but that just doesn't matter to most people.

Quote from: Not NurbldoffVeritas: well, if you must know, I did actually study philosophy for a while, and I do think I have a fair grasp of most of the fancy terms that you mentioned.

I am very happy for you. Perhaps you could explain why you continue to dribble things along the lines of:

Quote from: Not NurbldoffHowever, I think the whole concept of "morality" is pretty much empty words. You can talk about a "system of values" which is accepted by the majority if you ask them.

because I sure as shit can't figure out why you've managed to completely fail to have a clue after studying all that philosophy. (Either that, or explain to me why the people who you studied with were being paid to avoid educating you.)

Quote from: Not Nurbldoff... or they will be confused because their words don't mean the same as yours. And this is not a very productive confusion that usually leads nowhere.

At least we agree on something. We seem to disagree on the solution to this though; I still maintain that agreeing on language is the best way to disolve this confusion.

Quote from: Not NurbldoffIt's easy to say that philosophers have worked the whole thing out (and they're not even agreeing, are they?) but that just doesn't matter to most people.

To start - I never said that. Not even close (and here I am assuming that you had a point and this wasn't just a poorly executed Discordian Non Sequitur Troll).

Second - Philosphy isn't about figuring things out or agreeing with everyone. It is about understanding the arguments, their strenghts and weaknesses, and why there are no answers.

Third - Your actions seem to be entirely governed by your moral intuitions and your hind brain, correct me if I'm wrong. Did you actually pay attention during all your study or did you just passively sponge up enough to squeeze out all over your exam paper?

QuoteDid you actually pay attention during all your study or did you just passively sponge up enough to squeeze out all over your exam paper?

Ooh! Ooh! Philosopher fight! ::grabs some cookies and popcorn and takes a seat to watch::

Quote from: agent compassionOoh! Ooh! Philosopher fight! ::grabs some cookies and popcorn and takes a seat to watch::

Sorry for the poor show but I doubt that the monkeys will actually get anything that isn't an ad hominem attack.


The gazing at ones navel is irrelevant if one doesn't know what one is looking at.

Normally, when discussing evolution with creationists, you do have a serious problem with terminology.  For example, to most creationists, the term "theory" means something different than it does to a scientist.  So the first thing you have to do when debating with a creationist (not that there's any point to it) is make sure that they understand the terminology the scientist is using.

So, yeah, most scholars of a given subject will understand each other almost immediately, but the scholar and the laymen will circle around each other, growing more and more frustrated, because they do not understand the other.
When you (the scholar) converse with the layman, you have to be careful to define all the jargon you're using, or understanding will always lay outside your reach.  
In this, I have to agree with Veritas.

/me walks in and raps everyone on the head with an oak walking stick.


would your grandmothers be so kind?

Veritas: You're really trying to piss me off aren't you? :D I'm not really motivated to discuss with you, especially since you seem more interested in pointing out my stupidity than actually making your point, which makes me tired.

But okay, if (IF) what you're saying is that "morals" are defined as exactly the same thing as our basic biological motivations, then what is moral philosophy? Just psychology, without the actual experimenting?

I gather the definition of "morals" used in this thread to be something like "the most common set of behaviour rules consciously propagated by society". Of course, some people might prefer the definition "the set of facts about Right and Wrong" or something else entirely. Everyone picks their favorite! And then: take cover...

compassion: Sorry for the lame response, I suppose I'm just not certain enough in my beliefs to get worked up over them :)

Morals are in the eye of the beholder.

fact.

I tend to think that human relationships tend to be little more than (usually) unspoken social contracts by which we barter with each other for various things, including information, support, and entertainment. I tend to think that its worthwhile to give other people something that they might regard as equal or greater in value than what they give to me, because that is something that encourages them to be more valuable in the future. People who are not valuable to me in any way, I simply do not associate with.

The paradox of altruism, which I am fond of, is that altruism is something that often acts for its own benefit.

And yet, I am still capable of acting extremely selfishly if I can convince myself that the other person deserves it. The problem there, is that while I trust my judgement, I dont immediately trust the judgements of other people... and they probably dont trust my  judgement either.

Fuck 'em, I say.

<thump>


<thump>


<thump>


<thump>


<thump>


<thump>


<thump>


<thump>


<thump>


<thump>


<thump>


<thump>


<thump>


<thump>


... Nope ... not yet ...


<thump>


<thump>


<thump>


<thump>

Oh, you're just too cute, Veritas.  ;)

Morals: I think they're a collection of do's and don'ts that vary person to person depending on their environmental influences that attempt to answer the broader question of "What is right, and what is wrong?"

For example - I have no f'ing problem with gratuitous swearing. Some people do. My husband's parents feel that alcohol and tobacco are taboo, I've had both in our house at times. Some cultures think it's ok to eat a dog, others say "stay away from the cow" and righteous vegans will tell me that if it doesn't have roots, eating it is murder. YMMV!

But ultimately all these attempts at rulemaking are really just line-drawing; Good's over here, Bad's over there somewhere, and depending on your perspective, we're all varying shades of PURE EVIL.

8)

Quote from: Not Nurbldoff
I gather the definition of "morals" used in this thread to be something like "the most common set of behaviour rules consciously propagated by society".
:)

Yeah, that's the definition I was using.
And within that definition... I'm right.  Neener neener neener.

Oh... I get it. *Wanders off*

I don't.  ::wanders off::

Quote from: B23.77I don't.  ::wanders off::

bleach. mouth. now.

Are you suggesting that I change my name back to Bleargh, thus offending the whole world of passerbys?

no, I'm suggesting you ingest copious levels of bleach. immedietly.

Just call me Mr. Clean.

We're never lacking in intelligent commentary, are we?

In other news, the world's supply of sarcasm has been completely exhausted. A leading independant team of Swiss scientists are looking into using irony and satire as renewable replacements.

And now, here's Tom with the weather...

QuoteIn other news, the world's supply of sarcasm has been completely exhausted. A leading independant team of Swiss scientists are looking into using irony and satire as renewable replacements.

And now, here's Tom with the weather...

With that attitude, are you sure you want to study Conflict Resolution? Maybe Conflict Startination would be more up your alley...

8)

Quote from: agent compassionWith that attitude, are you sure you want to study Conflict Resolution? Maybe Conflict Startination would be more up your alley...

She toys with me as if I were nothing more than citrus garnish impaled on a cocktail straw.

Hey, Garnish chicks are hot!

QuoteShe toys with me as if I were nothing more than citrus garnish impaled on a cocktail straw.

I aim to please.(http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung0304/aktion/action-smiley-057.gif)

Quote from: Era PassingI've decided to become completely amoral.
Not immoral; I have neither reason nor wish to do things against morality for immorality's own sake, because that's just being perverse. As far as I'm concerned, being "bad" is the same as being "good"; you're still making your decisions based on a scale of moral behavior. Screw that.
No, I've decided to become amoral because morality is the biggest mindfuck humanity has ever played on itself. As a social artifice, it sucks, and I no longer want anything to do with it.
Morality is supposed to be a social standard of right and wrong. The problem with that definition, though, is that society is not homogenous. While one person might think a particular issue is not particularly outrageous, another might think that the issue is the worst offense to humanity that has ever happened. There's simply no such thing as a moral absolute.
A better definition for the term is "Morality is whatever you want it to be whenever you need to justify your outrageous decisions that are guaranteed to harm someone else by completely trampling on their rights."
At least it's a more honest definition.
Let's take our Beloved Leader, for instance. He's anti-abortion. Well, he says he's pro-life, but that's obviously not true - in his term as governor of Texas, he certainly put that state's death penalty to use; he's even executed retarded people. And now he's involved us in a war that is killing innumerable women and children. Let me reiterate that point real quick - children. You know, those innocents that shouldn't be killed, just as he no doubt believes wholeheartedly is his justification for his anti-abortion stance. Murdering innocents is bad, yeah - but only when he says it is bad.
And let's take his stance on gay marriage - it destroys family values, yeah. Nevermind that divorce is the number one destroyer of families. We don't see him banning divorces - oh, no. Anyone with any wit whatsoever can see that the entire reason men and women can no longer be bothered to stick it out, ride out the bad times, work on their problems, and honor their promises to each other is because them unholy fags have cheapened the concept of marriage, right? Right! That's morality in action for you, right there! A shining example of it, in fact.
So, yeah. Well, I, for one, am tired of caring about people who don't care about other people in return. I'm tired of trying to make up my mind what is best for other people to do, especially since it's not my responsbility to decide for other people what's best for them. I'm tired of pretending it matters, when it obviously doesn't, because no one else really gives a damn about what's "best", especially when what is "best" might actually be the very thing that makes them go "ew!"
So screw morality.
Murder might be "bad," but frankly, some people just need to die.
Sex might be "bad," but I like it, and I'm too busy pursuing it myself to bother telling other people that they shouldn't do it, in whatever combinations they might prefer.
I personally might prefer to be bitten on the ass by a rabid polar bear than get married, but gay people want to do it, so I say let them slug it out with the self-righteous hypocrital santorum-heads masquerading as love-your-neighbor Christians, and may the best fag win. Although, I do think it would be interesting to see what happened if the gays were packing Uzis while the Christians relied on their One True God to help them win.
I'm tired of chewing my nails and missing out on sleep because of being worried about what's happening in Iraq - I've reached my tolerance point. If anyone else feels the same, I have booze, porn, and a bigscreen tv if you want to come over.

From now on, I'm not going to fool myself into thinking that "morality" is something that has any meaning or importance, that it's not just to make me toe the line and be a good girl. Can I get a "Fuck You" for moral values and a "Hell yeah!" for the loss of innocence?

In conclusion, I'd like to leave you with some lovely words of wisdom from Terrence McKenna that I've blatantly ripped off from someone who quoted him to me:

". . .what is real is you and your friends, and your associations, your highs, your orgasms, your hopes, your plans, your fears.
And we're told no, we're unimportant, we're peripheral. Get a degree, get a job, get a this, get a that, and then you're a player.
You don't even want to play in that game."

bump!

Quote from: EraPassing on January 08, 2005, 09:05:21 PM
And let's take his stance on gay marriage - it destroys family values, yeah. Nevermind that divorce is the number one destroyer of families. We don't see him banning divorces - oh, no. Anyone with any wit whatsoever can see that the entire reason men and women can no longer be bothered to stick it out, ride out the bad times, work on their problems, and honor their promises to each other is because them unholy fags have cheapened the concept of marriage, right? Right! That's morality in action for you, right there! A shining example of it, in fact.

Marriage is the leading cause of divorce in this country. 

Marriage originally was 1-  A way to increase survivability of the family unit; and later became 2- A way for men to exert control over women.

In the modern era where natural selection is an ever decreasing part of the life equasion and where the state seems determined to develop children to it's own standards, the institution of marriage is superfluous.

I find it the height of arrogance to expect to be everything a partner would need for their development for the rest of our lives.  Add that to the reality that I am not the same person from one day to the next, much less one year to the next, it would be unfair to expect another individual to grow in the same ways that I do.

I like the Heinlein model of family where groups of people live communally with understanding and love, each performing according to their strengths, but then, since there are people involved, with all their attendant feelings and tendencies to get those feelings hurt, I really don't know about the practicality of that setup.

Also, I find the inundation of america's children with the Disney Ideal of a One True Love that will ride in and sweep the Little Princess off her feet to his castle to Live Happily Ever After to be a deplorable practice.  Brainwashing children to expect an Ideal results in disappointment.  People are fallible, mistakes inevitable, and it is unfair of the entertainment industry to offer any other version of reality.


As far as the main concepts of the post go, I view morality as a function of the indoctrination of the general viewpoints of the larger society a person grows up in, as that code relates to the intellectual revision applied due to personal experience and expedience of the moment/circumstance in which applied.  The most important thing though, in my opinion, is to explore yourself, and be comfortable with what you find, or change.  But above all, the standards must be your own, not blind obedience to what everyone else seems to expect.

Quote from: East Coast Hustle on November 19, 2006, 06:35:32 AM

Quote from: Era PassingI've decided to become completely amoral.
Not immoral; I have neither reason nor wish to do things against morality for immorality's own sake, because that's just being perverse. As far as I'm concerned, being "bad" is the same as being "good"; you're still making your decisions based on a scale of moral behavior. Screw that.
No, I've decided to become amoral because morality is the biggest mindfuck humanity has ever played on itself. As a social artifice, it sucks, and I no longer want anything to do with it.
Morality is supposed to be a social standard of right and wrong. The problem with that definition, though, is that society is not homogenous. While one person might think a particular issue is not particularly outrageous, another might think that the issue is the worst offense to humanity that has ever happened. There's simply no such thing as a moral absolute.
A better definition for the term is "Morality is whatever you want it to be whenever you need to justify your outrageous decisions that are guaranteed to harm someone else by completely trampling on their rights."
At least it's a more honest definition.
Let's take our Beloved Leader, for instance. He's anti-abortion. Well, he says he's pro-life, but that's obviously not true - in his term as governor of Texas, he certainly put that state's death penalty to use; he's even executed retarded people. And now he's involved us in a war that is killing innumerable women and children. Let me reiterate that point real quick - children. You know, those innocents that shouldn't be killed, just as he no doubt believes wholeheartedly is his justification for his anti-abortion stance. Murdering innocents is bad, yeah - but only when he says it is bad.
And let's take his stance on gay marriage - it destroys family values, yeah. Nevermind that divorce is the number one destroyer of families. We don't see him banning divorces - oh, no. Anyone with any wit whatsoever can see that the entire reason men and women can no longer be bothered to stick it out, ride out the bad times, work on their problems, and honor their promises to each other is because them unholy fags have cheapened the concept of marriage, right? Right! That's morality in action for you, right there! A shining example of it, in fact.
So, yeah. Well, I, for one, am tired of caring about people who don't care about other people in return. I'm tired of trying to make up my mind what is best for other people to do, especially since it's not my responsbility to decide for other people what's best for them. I'm tired of pretending it matters, when it obviously doesn't, because no one else really gives a damn about what's "best", especially when what is "best" might actually be the very thing that makes them go "ew!"
So screw morality.
Murder might be "bad," but frankly, some people just need to die.
Sex might be "bad," but I like it, and I'm too busy pursuing it myself to bother telling other people that they shouldn't do it, in whatever combinations they might prefer.
I personally might prefer to be bitten on the ass by a rabid polar bear than get married, but gay people want to do it, so I say let them slug it out with the self-righteous hypocrital santorum-heads masquerading as love-your-neighbor Christians, and may the best fag win. Although, I do think it would be interesting to see what happened if the gays were packing Uzis while the Christians relied on their One True God to help them win.
I'm tired of chewing my nails and missing out on sleep because of being worried about what's happening in Iraq - I've reached my tolerance point. If anyone else feels the same, I have booze, porn, and a bigscreen tv if you want to come over.

From now on, I'm not going to fool myself into thinking that "morality" is something that has any meaning or importance, that it's not just to make me toe the line and be a good girl. Can I get a "Fuck You" for moral values and a "Hell yeah!" for the loss of innocence?

In conclusion, I'd like to leave you with some lovely words of wisdom from Terrence McKenna that I've blatantly ripped off from someone who quoted him to me:

". . .what is real is you and your friends, and your associations, your highs, your orgasms, your hopes, your plans, your fears.
And we're told no, we're unimportant, we're peripheral. Get a degree, get a job, get a this, get a that, and then you're a player.
You don't even want to play in that game."

bump!

Homogenous morality is the devil's smut shack, but conscience is divine when it learns to mind its own biznass.