Morality sucks

[EraPassing]

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

[Horab Fibslager]

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.

[Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy]

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.

[Horab Fibslager]

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


/me slaughters a million newborns and charges admission.

[Guido Finucci]

Morality 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:

Do 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.

There 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.

It 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!

[The Good Reverend Roger]

Morality 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:

Do 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.

There 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.

It 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?

[East Coast Hustle]

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.

[The Good Reverend Roger]

children 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?

[Eldora, Oracle of Alchemy]

i'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.

[Horab Fibslager]

i'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.

[EraPassing]

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.

[Guido Finucci]

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.

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.


.

[EraPassing]

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.  

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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

[Guido Finucci]

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?  

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).

Thus, 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.

[EraPassing]

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.

Thus, 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.