Morality

[whatever76]

Now firstly I just want to make it clear that I don't come from any religion at all. I've been brought up an Atheist, and a very rational thinker.

But, it seems to me that atheism brought to it's logical conclusions is; nihilism... Nietzsche is another who came to this same stance.

Nietzsche was not a nihilist. He saw Christianity (as well as Buddhism) as nihilism and his philosophy was an attempt to respond to it.

To put it simple, religion (along with corporations and governments today) impose a morality that supports the continuation of the institution to the detriment of the individual. The basic principle is seen in Christ's crucifixion-- the sacrifice of the individual for the herd. Nietzsche's idea was to reverse this principle; i.e. the sacrifice of the herd for the good of the individual. This is what he meant by "Will to Power". Other philosopher's have come up with similar conclusions (albeit, distinctive from Nietzsche in their own right), such as Ayn Rand's rational self-interest. There are flaws in Nietzsche's philosophy, but he was not a nihilist.

That morality is non existent, and the only purpose left of life is to pursuer our own maximum pleasure, by any means necessary.
Love, moral values, and meaning is just an self delusion, no different to the delusion of god.
This seems the only honest conclusion. Just one big vanity fair, where anything goes.

To seek out maximum pleasure by any means necessary has consequences that outweigh the benefit of momentary gratification. Reason sublimates passion.

Shooting heroin and seeking a cure for cancer would both have similar neurological effects, but the one pleasure has a deterioration that slopes quickly while the other slowly accumulates.

Atheism destroys the idea of an absolute moral standard, but not morality itself. An absolute morality creates a duality in a human being between the way they should act (ie God) and the way that they actually behave (i.e. human). The gap between the ideal and the real person is the cause of most evil in the world on both an individual and group level. As Feuerbach puts it, God is man alienated from himself.

A better morality is one that is integrative-- one that removes the gap between reality and ideal-- rather than being perfectionist and authoritarian. The primary integrative behavior is acceptance of inconsistency, uncertainty, and impermanence. Ironically, it's that acceptance that permits a sense of wonder, spontaneity, creativity, and love.

but, this is not something I can agree with... Not simply because of the despair it entails, but because it just doesn't make sense to me in my own personal life, and I doubt it does in yours either!

That existential despair is ironically significant. Many people won't cross that abyss to the other shore, but it is well worth the trip.

Despite my love of reason, and distaste for dogma, I can no longer call myself an atheist... unless a solution is presented

So I'm here to ask how you guys deal with this dilemma?
What grounds for morality is there without some type of god(I'd probably prefer the word "consciousness") that we all come from?
nationality? power? science?

I wrote about it. I kept a journal for a year beginning in the depths of despair. I ended up with over 200,000 words and I learned a lot about myself. I read ferociously: Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Fromm, Carl Rogers, BF Skinner, Camus, Sartre. I had some good friends, one in particular who who helped me immensely. I wish you could meet her. Ultimately, I didn't accept anyone's answers as truth. I wanted to uncover what was me.

[crud]

Thanks for the reply.
BF Skinner's totalitarian behaviorism, is actually one of the reasons I started this thread.
If morals are merely relative, than this Orwellian 1984 kinda thought seems like the only way, to bring peace and order..?

---

"The gap between the ideal and the real person is the cause of most evil in the world on both an individual and group level. As Feuerbach puts it, God is man alienated from himself."
This kind of thought concerns me... without ideals, morality can only mean "doing whater you want"??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZLVi4v7lSM

[Cato]

No I didn't, I said it appears that way to me... then, I asked "why is this not the case?" to the forum... so far Rahul, has been the only one who's engaged in that discussion.


Richard Dawkins said: "The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference."

^When people like dawkins say things like this, it sounds an awful lot like nihilism

Disengenuous much? Dawkin's observation is true, with no moral implication.

Again, if nihilism is all you consider opposed to a god's dictate, then you are fucking pig dick ignorant; therefore, you are without hope.

[crud]

"Dawkin's observation is true, with no moral implication.".... well he did say: "no evil and no good"
How can this be anything other than nihilism?

---

If there is no good and evil.... and what I deem "good" is actually equally "evil"
Then, to hold that my actions really are "good" would just mean I'm deluding myself...

[fr0d0]

Interesting question. I think this explains religious endeavour... people desire happiness and find reality slightly negative. Coupled with an ethical sense born of special (as in species) development, there is no reason to understand how positivity is beneficial, ultimately. That's how I reason it, and I'm not insisting on any one answer to that. Or that people with belief in deity on the grounds that deity provides reason to support positive outcomes necessarily get to overcome this negativity.
That's how I understand sacrificial practice came about. A recognition of a shortfall and and attempt to offset the loss/ redress the balance.

It's the hard reality you're bound to face. Life is awesome, warts and all, kind of thing. I think Dawkins has that right.

[whatever76]

Thanks for the reply.
BF Skinner's totalitarian behaviorism, is actually one of the reasons I started this thread.
If morals are merely relative, than this Orwellian 1984 kinda thought seems like the only way, to bring peace and order..?

Why do you think BF Skinner's behaviorism is totalitarian?

Regarding your question about bringing peace and order 1984-style, let's use yourself as a microcosm of society. There is a big brother in your head that demands that your body conform to a particular protocol. Whenever you behave outside of that protocol, your inner-big brother hits the offending part of your body with a hammer. Big brother's justification is that the protocol brings peace, order, certainty to your organism. Yet, obviously, big brother brings violence, confusion, and fear. Eventually, absolute peace will be achieved because at some point you'll hit yourself in the head for thinking bad thoughts.

Now let's consider a democratic version. Instead of big brother, you've got a little buddha inside your head. Little buddha doesn't have a protocol, he just observes your behavior, being compassionate to you without any conditions on how you should behave. Sometimes, you still do stupid shit and that's unfortunate (there are still consequences), but your tendency is to be peaceful and compassionate like little buddha because that's an attractive way to be.

"The gap between the ideal and the real person is the cause of most evil in the world on both an individual and group level. As Feuerbach puts it, God is man alienated from himself."

This kind of thought concerns me... without ideals, morality can only mean "doing whater you want"??

Isn't the ideal a representation of what one wants? So, paradoxically, removing the ideal brings one closer to being the ideal. It is in the absence of alienation that one acts morally and it is the ideal that is creating the alienation.

Let's say your ideal is someone who is peaceful and wise. Plenty of people don't act peaceful and wise, which can be disturbing and that disturbance can lead to unwise responses to their behavior. But what if people don't have to be peaceful or wise; how can their behavior disturb you?

I have found it interesting that the best way to condition another person (and to not be conditioned by them) is through unconditional positive regard for that person. They automatically want what you got and what you got isn't eternal submission to an authoritarian deity, it is personal freedom. It has nothing to do with god commanding anyone to do anything.

[max-greece]

Crud,

You missed my reply (again) on page 4.

[Gilgamesh]

Empathy doesn't necessarily have anything to do with morality, although it can.

I agree with you, though. All morality is subjective and anyone who agrees with that statement can only be a moral nihilist. Not sure why people are so afraid of that label.

[crud]

BF Skinner... from what I know...
stated that we are merely just pieces of matter completey determined by our environments, all moral values are simply our "programming".. And therefor freedom and dignity mean nothing, and should be replaced with control to assert order - He seems much like Stalin to me.
But if naturalism is true, and all morals values are subjective.. then his views seem like the rational thing to do.


The distinction between authoritarian religion(your big brother metaphor) and some type of "god" within our consciousness, that we can choose to align with(your little Buddha metaphor) needs to be made.

"Isn't the ideal a representation of what one wants? So, paradoxically, removing the ideal brings one closer to being the ideal. It is in the absence of alienation that one acts morally and it is the ideal that is creating the alienation.
Let's say your ideal is someone who is peaceful and wise. Plenty of people don't act peaceful and wise, which can be disturbing and that disturbance can lead to unwise responses to their behavior. But what if people don't have to be peaceful or wise; how can their behavior disturb you?"
My answer to this is also paradoxical;
Accepting both yourself, and the world the way they are, is very important!... contentment
By this in now way means, that we should not aspire to improve/evolve, both as individuals and society.

---

^@ whatever76

[max-greece]

Empathy doesn't necessarily have anything to do with morality, although it can.

I agree with you, though. All morality is subjective and anyone who agrees with that statement can only be a moral nihilist. Not sure why people are so afraid of that label.

Fair point. I am not sure how empathy, love and morality relate together but they do all seem to be features of the human condition..

I am also not sure accepting morality as relative makes you a nihilist. Almost everything in our lives is relative (art, architecture, music, toaster ovens..) yet we can assess and assign values to them relative to alternatives of their ilk.