hi

hi

Congrats on your first post.

Thought I'd add something.

If you believe life begins at conception, you need to not only show evidence of that but also show that life itself contains value. If you're amoral, you can't assume moral premises of any kind, including ones that assert that human life has worth.

Thought I'd add something.

 

If you believe life begins at conception, you need to not only show evidence of that but also show that life itself contains value. If you're amoral, you can't assume moral premises of any kind, including ones that assert that human life has worth.

This is something I have considered. Logically, I consider it a dead end. Obviously, no good came from mass loss of human life from events such as the Holocaust or the Great Leap Forward; so rather than chase my tail into nihilistic oblivion, it's simpler to just say that the average human being, until proven otherwise, is of more use to the world with his heart beating than without.

I don't consider it a moral because it's not an absolute. Osama Bin Laden and Che Guevara are of more service to the world as corpses, but they are far from the average human being.

In other words, I'm a cynic, not a nihilist.

I'm definitely not amoral, but agreeably throwing morals into places where it doesn't concern them is irrelevant and foolish. I think it's annoying when someone justifies political, economic, or social ideas with "BECAUSE IT'S THE RIGHT THING TO DO!" or something similar. Here's the reality: people won't always share the same morality that you do, so placing it anywhere where it doesn't concern it basically means that only your morality is correct and everyone else that isn't with me is wrong.

That's why I've taken a more moderate position in politics, especially when I realized that some liberals like to use their "superior" morality to justify stuff like gun control or free healthcare or free education. I can be up for any of these, but I want to see solid proof, not sentimental BS and "appeal to the commom man" rhetoric.

I disagree more with the philosophy of cynicism, though, not because of the concepts of it but what people have used it for. Based on my experiences with debating I always feel like people use pessimism, cynicism, or defeatism to paint themselves as the intellectual "realist" while berating the patriot or the optimist as the delusional and ignorant reactionary. It honestly just pisses me off.

Other than that, pragmatism over morality in the realm of politics and economics. If you need to crush a gnat, best do it with a sledgehammer.

I disagree more with the philosophy of cynicism, though, not because of the concepts of it but what people have used it for. Based on my experiences with debating I always feel like people use pessimism, cynicism, or defeatism to paint themselves as the intellectual "realist" while berating the patriot or the optimist as the delusional and ignorant reactionary. It honestly just pisses me off.

I agree that pessimism and realism are not one and the same. Saying the sun is going to explode tomorrow is certainly pessimistic, but you'd have a hard time finding an astronomer who can back that claim up.

There are delusional morons on any side. What they have in common is that most of them (not all) love to stand atop a high moral horse and preach about how their way is the only way to see the world. Others use their "morality" to justify actions that are beyond despicable, since no train of logic or rationality would have ever led there. Seeing too many of those people in the world is what made me a cynic.

First I just want to say, good blog; it was well thought out and well written.

Now, about the way you're regarding morality...

I like to think about this in a way that looks at the "cause of the cause."  In this case, I believe that is: Laws must exist.  But the thing about social issues (such as abortion) is that there are too many people on both sides, such that any outcome is never a true "win."  But nonetheless, there must be a law (for obvious reasons) about abortion (one way or the other, regardless).  The existence of the "need" for the law, in itself, causes more problems than the law's stance on the issue.

So, as to the way you describe both sides, in terms of abortion, whether or not you're right about the way they describe their reasoning for their stances, you've got to take in mind the fact that there doesn't exist (and didn't exist) and other route to any other current possible situation.  Ergo, inevitability. 

With my predisposition in understanding that it's an inevitable "thing" for people to sugarcoat their stances, for either side, I'm not so sure I can follow what you mean by saying you're amoral (in terms of abortion specifically).  

Moving on to racial issues...

Simply put, I agree with you. 

Next, SJWs...

I really just don't like them, lol.  I don't have much to say about them.  I agree with your view on them.  

---

As a side note to all of this...

As much as I hate having to use this word... I believe there exists two types of "moralities" - an objective one, and a subjective one.  Now, understand that I believe nobody can judge their own morality or anyone else's on an objective level - only may we judge it subjectively.  The "objective" morality I speak of is in a different sense - I see it as "does a moral exist in this [situation]." If it does or doesn't, that is the objective morality I'm talking about.  But one's *view* on what that morality *is*, is the subjective part.  

Of course, that is my own subjective view on the matter.

In simpler terms: interpretation is subjective morality.  For example, how we here on the forums sometimes debate over the morals of MLP episodes... The way I see it is that "of course, a moral exists in the episode" - but how we each interpret what it is and our views on it is the subjective part.

To apply that route of thinking to your position in your blog blog here - when you say that you're amoral, you're saying you don't have a subjective view (or possibly rather, don't care to have one) on the morality of the issues, right?

Essentially what I'm trying to understand is whether or not you agree that morality exists by default in the way I see it or not...  

(And I'm not saying it exists everywhere.  The question of "should I try to find a spot to park my car closer to the entrance, or just park back here away from it while this spot is already open in front of me" holds no moral value).

~ Miles

With my predisposition in understanding that it's an inevitable "thing" for people to sugarcoat their stances, for either side, I'm not so sure I can follow what you mean by saying you're amoral (in terms of abortion specifically).  

The entire post was written as a stream-of-consciousness, which is why it reads more like a rant than a scientific journal. One major point of this that I possibly didn't do very well in elaborating was my view that morality is a disguise.

Complex issues, requiring an incredible amount of logic and evidence to debate effectively, are effectively reduced to soundbites and buzzwords because it's easier to build an echo chamber. Morality is built inside of these echo chambers, and screamed at max volume whenever people don't want to argue like adults.

Pointless buzzwords that serve no logical purpose, draped in a guise of morality. This is what has taken over political discourse in our world. I have an opinion on abortion, I just don't drape it under undeserved righteousness.

As much as I hate having to use this word... I believe there exists two types of "moralities" - an objective one, and a subjective one.  Now, understand that I believe nobody can judge their own morality or anyone else's on an objective level - only may we judge it subjectively.  The "objective" morality I speak of is in a different sense - I see it as "does a moral exist in this [situation]." If it does or doesn't, that is the objective morality I'm talking about.  But one's *view* on what that morality *is*, is the subjective part.  

So, when a Muslim man beheads his wife in an honor killing, you are not disturbed by the fact that there are millions who consider his actions "objectively moral?"

One can "interpret" morals to their heart's desire, but this does not change the fact that all existing schools of moralistic thought can, have, are, and will be used to promote atrocity. Whether it's the middle east, the DPRK, or the Soviet Union, once enough people believe that something is "right" simply because it is, that is the course that history will take. And it usually does not end well.

To apply that route of thinking to your position in your blog blog here - when you say that you're amoral, you're saying you don't have a subjective view (or possibly rather, don't care to have one) on the morality of the issues, right? Essentially what I'm trying to understand is whether or not you agree that morality exists by default in the way I see it or not...  

I believe that morality is a construct of the human mind, either built within a man's mind to justify or temper his own actions, or indoctrinated into his mind by somebody else.

In either case, the idea of moral principles superseding reality is what I despise. There is no shorthand to life. There is no cheat guide to making good decisions. There is no checklist to being a "good person," and putting on a righteous mask does not score you a shortcut.

I am amoral because I own neither the checklist nor the mask.

The entire post was written as a stream-of-consciousness, which is why it reads more like a rant than a scientific journal. One major point of this that I possibly didn't do very well in elaborating was my view that morality is a disguise.

 

Complex issues, requiring an incredible amount of logic and evidence to debate effectively, are effectively reduced to soundbites and buzzwords because it's easier to build an echo chamber. Morality is built inside of these echo chambers, and screamed at max volume whenever people don't want to argue like adults.

 

Pointless buzzwords that serve no logical purpose, draped in a guise of morality. This is what has taken over political discourse in our world. I have an opinion on abortion, I just don't drape it under undeserved righteousness.

Ahh okay I get what you mean.

So, when a Muslim man beheads his wife in an honor killing, you are not disturbed by the fact that there are millions who consider his actions "objectively moral?"

 

One can "interpret" morals to their heart's desire, but this does not change the fact that all existing schools of moralistic thought can, have, are, and will be used to promote atrocity. Whether it's the middle east, the DPRK, or the Soviet Union, once enough people believe that something is "right" simply because it is, that is the course that history will take. And it usually does not end well.

??? What ???

Of course I'd be disturbed.  I think you misinterpreted me...

Let me use your prior example of abortion... On one side, people say the moral is allowing the woman to make her own decision rather than taking it away from her - on the other side the moral is not taking away the life of the unborn child.

My view is that both of those are valid moral arguments...

But I subjectively think it's immoral to take the life of an unborn child (aka, I'm pro-life [or anti-abortion as you say]).  

In other words, even though I understand that they are arguing from their own moral perspective, I view their stance as immoral.

I'm not amoral like you say you are.

I believe that morality is a construct of the human mind, either built within a man's mind to justify or temper his own actions, or indoctrinated into his mind by somebody else.

 

In either case, the idea of moral principles superseding reality is what I despise. There is no shorthand to life. There is no cheat guide to making good decisions. There is no checklist to being a "good person," and putting on a righteous mask does not score you a shortcut.

 

I am amoral because I own neither the checklist nor the mask.

I can't say I agree with you on this.

Essentially you're saying morality doesn't logically exist.  

I believe it does logically exist.  Just because something may be a construct of the human mind doesn't mean it doesn't exist in reality.  

To be honest, the more I think about it, for one to say he is amoral sounds slightly socio/psychopathic.  

Not that I'm saying you are - I'm saying that I think you're explaining yourself in an odd fashion.  

~ Miles 

Let me use your prior example of abortion... On one side, people say the moral is allowing the woman to make her own decision rather than taking it away from her - on the other side the moral is not taking away the life of the unborn child. My view is that both of those are valid moral arguments...

But for the concept of morality to have validity, two polar opposing actions can not both be valid and moral.

This is why I contend that the issue lie in the hands of biology. There is no "biological relativism" or nonsense like that to muddy the issue.

Simply put: Subjective morality defeats itself, and objective morality leads to atrocity (as is the case with honor killings)

But I subjectively think it's immoral to take the life of an unborn child (aka, I'm pro-life [or anti-abortion as you say]).   In other words, even though I understand that they are arguing from their own moral perspective, I view their stance as immoral.

Let me explain it like this: You believe them to be immoral. They believe you to be immoral. These premises can't simply be argued against one another. They rely on moral ideals that exist only in the minds of those who already agree with them. It's like an Englishman debating a Spaniard, neither understanding the other's language.

"Choice" and "life" are banners which masquerade as arguments. It gets even worse when camps start referring to their opponents as "anti-choice," or "anti-life," as if the issue has been boiled down to the point that it's completely light and dark. No point inbetween.

I'm not amoral like you say you are.

I'm not telling you to be, but I am asking you to keep a tally of how often ideologues substitute meaningless, esoteric moral arguments in the place of substance.

The governor of my state recently signed a $15 minimum wage despite acknowledging that it made no economic sense. Guess what word he used to defend it.

I can't say I agree with you on this. Essentially you're saying morality doesn't logically exist.   I believe it does logically exist.  Just because something may be a construct of the human mind doesn't mean it doesn't exist in reality.  

Constructs of the human mind have no physical form. They don't necessarily "exist" per se, but some can be said to be accurate representations of reality. Mathematics, for example, is a carefully constructed series of rules and operations designed to work in tune with a wide variety of fields. Science, economics, history, music... Math has been proven to accurately predict and describe the workings of the world in a way that morality has not.

To be honest, the more I think about it, for one to say he is amoral sounds slightly socio/psychopathic.   Not that I'm saying you are - I'm saying that I think you're explaining yourself in an odd fashion.  

:\

I know you didn't mean it that way, but there really is no nice way to say that.

I'm an emotional sap just like anyone else. I hug dogs and cry at the end of movies . Feeling is great, just don't let it dictate the way the country is run.

*Shrug*

I guess we're at an impasse.

Oh I'm an emotional sap as well, btw.   

~ Miles

 

I think this may be relevant:

Science Can Answer Moral Questions | Sam Harris | TED Talks

youtu.be/Hj9oB4zpHww