Messages

Thanks for the emphasis, Burns. That's exactly what I was saying. If people just follow arbitrary code instead of morality, then they are not being moral, but rather amoral, since to defy the code would hurt their conscience and they don't want that.

It also seems the code often contradicts itself, and is often not best for the person holding the code or for other people.

When I said to stop moralising, I meant that to rationally discuss morality is silly because if you scrape a nerve or point out inconsistencies people get defensive, and may just start laughing at you to make you go away; if we want people to conform to our way of morality, then rationality is not the way to go.

I mean, of course we aren't being immoral in our actions, but is this due to morality, or just due to the coding we have? Think about it, if morality existed it would be consistent; we would look at our actions and deem them unacceptable as applied to our moral code.

But this begs the question of what morality is, and I propose it is a cluster of statements collected together to form a basis of action, for example: 'don't victimise'. But even this basic statement is defied by normal everyday action, whereas if the statement was actually a basis of action instead of just an illusionary basis, this wouldn't be.

So I propose we stop moralising to people and instead start programming them, for morality seems only to be a habit people get into, and although it hurts to be immoral it also hurts to break habits and soon we'd be free of them.