An inherent flaw in morality?

[utopian]

I was listening to some material about population control earlier, and I heard something that made me consider the validity of legal fictions and other things that are just "ideas in our heads". Things that are in opposition to many of the stances Stephan and many people here take.

 

 

 

For example, the idea that there is no state. The state is just an idea, a thought in people's heads. The idea that part of a land belongs to one state, and part of the land belongs to another. If I were to be just on one side of the border of the first state, nothing would happen to me. Now, there might be a wall where the idea of the border is supposed to be, or their might not. Regardless, if I cross the imaginary line of where the states are supposed to be, I might be attacked, imprisoned, or many other things may happen to me. All because of the idea in our heads, the idea of the state. 

 

 

 

So here's the inherent problem; morality is an idea in our heads as well. It is something we develop in our evolution and age. There is even a fairly well known term, pre-morality, that is used to describe the age period of 0 to 5. During that time, our consciousness is not fully developed, and we "do not know right from wrong" yet.

 

 

 

All that exists during that time is the philosophy, recognized or not, of survival of the fittest. Only when we come of age and develop our consciousness does morality exist. Do you see the bigger problem now? Morality is just an idea in our heads, and the truth is, we are all still operating by the philosophy of survival of the fittest, while... lying? to ourselves with this idea in our heads about morality.

 

 

 

Now, ok sure, there are plenty of valid reasons to operate morally. But if you accept that, if you accept the concept of morality being a valid way by which to operate in your day to day life, you also have to accept the validity of OTHER ideas, especially philosophical and moral ideas, including statism, collectivism, the greater good, and so on.

 

 

 

So in conclusion, either survival of the fittest is valid and everything else a lie, or collectivism and the greater good is valid, in which true freedom for the individual can never be achieved. Which, actually, could never be achieved by anyone except the top 10% of the species anyway.

[A4E]

I disagree with several of your statements, but I would just like to share my reached conclusion regarding morality, which Stefan undoubtedly helped me reach.

 

A person does not want anyone to harm him or steal from him. Which means that he wants a peaceful society around him. When every person does not want anyone to harm or steal from them, we all implicitly agree that we need a peaceful society.

 

Morality is thus not an idea in our head. It is a logical conclusion of our desire to stay alive and keep what we have.

 

I do not see that the same can be said about the other things you mentioned.

[dsayers]

if you accept the concept of morality being a valid way by which to operate in your day to day life, you also have to accept the validity of OTHER ideas

No. You accept the validity of something because of its validity, not the validity of other things.

 

It's not even a question. The person committing theft, assault, rape, or murder is telling you with their own actions that their own actions are wrong.

 

So in conclusion, either survival of the fittest is valid and everything else a lie, or collectivism and the greater good is valid, in which true freedom for the individual can never be achieved.

How do you measure what is a "greater" good? How do you achieve good for a group if you don't achieve good for the individuals within that group. Individuals exist. "Group" is a concept.

[utopian]

 

A person does not want anyone to harm him or steal from him. Which means that he wants a peaceful society around him. When every person does not want anyone to harm or steal from them, we all implicitly agree that we need a peaceful society.

 

Morality is thus not an idea in our head. It is a logical conclusion of our desire to stay alive and keep what we have.

 

 

Your first statement is true, people don't want bad stuff to happen to them. This is true pre-morality, before conciousness kicks in. The problem is when you say we all implicitly agree. Don't you see, that is collectivism? It may be collective humanity, but it's still collectivism. Society develops out of this collectivism. If the biggest cave man does not care for morality and decides to take what he wants, how are you going to stop him? Only by subjecting yourself to collective morality, going to "the group" and expecting all of them to agree what the cave man is doing is wrong, will you override that philosophy. Even then, you are going to need others to fight with you when the cave man decides to fight all of you, meaning you need collective action.

 

No. You accept the validity of something because of its validity, not the validity of other things.

 

It's not even a question. The person committing theft, assault, rape, or murder is telling you with their own actions that their own actions are wrong.

 

 

Wrong by WHAT though? Collectivist morality? The idea in our heads that we should all behave a certain way, and we will oust anyone who does not conform? You just validated collectivism, which validates a host of other things.

[ProfessionalTeabagger]

But it's no more of an idea in our heads than the logic you are using for your argument that it is just an idea in our heads.

 

Murder, rape, theft and assault were wrong before they were ever ideas in anyone's head. All justifications for such behavior fall into contradiction. Justifications that fall into contradiction are wrong. So if you choose to engage in such behavior then you do so knowing that there is no moral justification for it. 

 Don't you see, that is collectivism? 

 

 

Morality is still valid even if there's only two people in a room. So it can't be founded on collectivism because that would require more than two people. Unless you can explain how two people can be collectivism? 

[dsayers]

Wrong by WHAT though?

By way of performative contradiction. "This statement is false." Can you see how that's "wrong"?

[Torero]

Utopian, you propose a divide which I think is not there and by resolving the absence of that divide your question may be answered.

 

I think you're right in saying that animals (which we are) do behave according to 'survival of the fittest'. But that does not stop when we pass the pre-morality age. It continues as it's the essence of us.

 

Anarchism for me is so powerful and true because it's closest to what we are as animals. Statist slanderers use the poisoned term "darwinism", but in essence the survival of the fittest (= best adapted) is what drives our existence.

 

It's the mask of mankind that has put the smoke screen of "laws" onto a natural state of freedom.

 

As people are social animals and we have to interact with each other, we need measures to do so, in order to survive. The best measures for that are those who make us adapt most to what we are; those social animals.

 

It means:

- free market = just like the ecological niches of an ecosystem = successful species (compare: businesses) thrive and unsuccessful ones struggle and may die out (compare: go bankrupt). That leaves room for new species/businesses, either by the same person or by other people.

-> the statist crapitalist system has destroyed this. Now, the success is guaranteed for some as they have the power to outsource the risks (bail-outs) and use unnatural (anti-free market) means to survive while they actually according to natural laws couldn't do that

 

- morality; the basis of morality, the principles upon which we interact with each other, are no stealing, no raping, no deceiving, no murdering. Those principles are universal in the sense that every animal is negatively affected by this (by definition of the words themselves; if it's wanted "rape", it's not rape anymore) and thus prevents those. In essence every individual human being thus thrives without those factors and strives to do without them.

-> the statist system has institutionalised those terms and made them OK for people wearing a Statist uniform (murder; wars, deceit; money printing, propaganda, lying, stealing; state debt, taxation) while at the same time it is forbidden for anyone not wearing that uniform. The natural state of mankind is also here destroyed.

 

There have been several topics on "why be moral" now. I still think that the answer to that question lies in the fact we are social animals. Reciprocity is the main argument why be moral. It makes sense to act moral and not immoral to prevent other animals around you, sharing this world, to start attacking you and cause nasty situations. That is for everyone of us the same. If 1 person starts murdering others and the response is that others start murdering the population of animals (humans) will quickly die out.

 

So it's not in the interest of survival to be immoral.

 

I hope it makes sense, feel free to comment, I just quickly voiced my thoughts on this.

[labmath2]

There is one assumption that dsayer's argument is based on. For stealing to be a performative contradiction, i must both accept and reject property rights.

 

Lets do a thought experiment. Lets assume i am an objectivist who rejects the existence of the state. Yet every year something interesting happens, i file my taxes. Why do i file my taxes? I do so because i do not want to go to prison. Prison is also legal fiction its the forced kidnapping of a person. The further you question me, you will eventually find that i am acquiescing to an idea in people's head known as the state. Since other people believe it, it has real consequences.

 

Lets turn to another person, the man who is doesn't have any moral framework. When he steals, he isn't benefitting from it because he believes in property rights, he benefits because everyone else believes in property rights. He has also acquiesced to the society around him. If he was born into a society where the believes were different (like world of kings and pharaohs) he would simply learn what works to his benefits and what doesn't in that context.

 

If someone really did believe in property rights, then they would be engaging in performative contradiction.

[utopian]

 

But it's no more of an idea in our heads than the logic you are using for your argument that it is just an idea in our heads.

 

 

Murder, rape, theft and assault were wrong before they were ever ideas in anyone's head. All justifications for such behavior fall into contradiction. Justifications that fall into contradiction are wrong. So if you choose to engage in such behavior then you do so knowing that there is no moral justification for it. 

 

Morality is still valid even if there's only two people in a room. So it can't be founded on collectivism because that would require more than two people. Unless you can explain how two people can be collectivism? 

 

But that's what I am saying, they ARE just ideas in our heads. Survival of the fittest exists whether we accept cognitions or not. Where does morality exist? If there are two people, and one believes in morality and the other does not, guess what? The moral guy is dead! The other guy killed him and took his stuff. Or beat him until he did what he wanted. By survival of the fittest, that is not wrong. Ghengis Khan would murder husbands in front of their wives before he raped them. Completely morally wrong. Regardless, there is a 5% chance that any random person in the world is related to him. Completely right and justified by survival of the fittest. 

 

Morality only survives, because the weaker moral individual who would not survive the aggression of the individual who succeeds at survival of the fittest, used other weaker moral individuals to avoid being killed or enslaved.

 

 

By way of performative contradiction. "This statement is false." Can you see how that's "wrong"?

 

I don't see where that applies, except where the validity of morality is concerned. I just explained that in my response to teabagger. In fact, 

 

If someone really did believe in property rights, then they would be engaging in performative contradiction.

 

Labmath seems to get it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think you're right in saying that animals (which we are) do behave according to 'survival of the fittest'. But that does not stop when we pass the pre-morality age. It continues as it's the essence of us.

 

Anarchism for me is so powerful and true because it's closest to what we are as animals. Statist slanderers use the poisoned term "darwinism", but in essence the survival of the fittest (= best adapted) is what drives our existence.

 

It's the mask of mankind that has put the smoke screen of "laws" onto a natural state of freedom.

 

 

Ok, good. So right here. Do you see how, in survival of the fittest, only about the top 10% of the species is free? I say that because within 10% you could have a margin of error where, in fighting, the 100th percentile could always make a mistake that the 90th percentile could capitalize on, and so it's best for these "alpha males" to simply never risk fighting each other. However, the 100th could likely always defeat the 89th, therefore it's always best for the 100th to assault the 89th and lower for their resources or servitude.

 

 

As people are social animals and we have to interact with each other, we need measures to do so, in order to survive. The best measures for that are those who make us adapt most to what we are; those social animals.

True and not true. I needed my parents to get me through the years which I could not fend for myself, thus socializing. Then I needed them, or some other source, to teach me the basics of surviving in whatever times might have existed, including modern. After that, the measure of socializing depends upon the environment. In America, for example, we are drafted into collectivism and pay our taxes. In Africa, the strongest and smartest takes whatever he wants, and sometimes beats others into fighting for him, which is not morality, but slavery. The weaker individuals survive not by morality, but servitude. Only in collectivism does morality exist. 

 

 

- morality; the basis of morality, the principles upon which we interact with each other, are no stealing, no raping, no deceiving, no murdering. Those principles are universal in the sense that every animal is negatively affected by this

-> the statist system has institutionalised those terms and made them OK for people wearing a Statist uniform (murder; wars, deceit; money printing, propaganda, lying, stealing; state debt, taxation) while at the same time it is forbidden for anyone not wearing that uniform. The natural state of mankind is also here destroyed.

 

EXCEPT the alpha males, who lose the opportunities they would have got doing such things, because they have the power to get away with it. Sure, they can also do pretty well by subjecting themselves to morality, but never as well as they could beating everyone into submission and compliance and taking the spoils for themselves. That is what I am arguing, this IS the natural state of mankind, we have just modernized it.

 

 

There have been several topics on "why be moral" now. I still think that the answer to that question lies in the fact we are social animals. Reciprocity is the main argument why be moral. It makes sense to act moral and not immoral to prevent other animals around you, sharing this world, to start attacking you and cause nasty situations. That is for everyone of us the same. If 1 person starts murdering others and the response is that others start murdering the population of animals (humans) will quickly die out.

 

So it's not in the interest of survival to be immoral.

 

I think it is in the interest of weaker beings to be moral, as reciprocity is just an idea in our heads that we are just hoping will happen. It does not seem like morality to me, it seems like supplication, hoping that other weaker individuals will conform, and stronger individuals will not agress against us anyway. This is itself a survival tactic.

[vahleeb]

Hi utopian,

 

Just trying to re-frame the conversation from your original post.

 

 

So here's the inherent problem; morality is an idea in our heads as well. It is something we develop in our evolution and age. There is even a fairly well known term, pre-morality, that is used to describe the age period of 0 to 5. During that time, our consciousness is not fully developed, and we "do not know right from wrong" yet.

 

That needs to come with a definition in order to restrict it to something that is only in our head. Stefan's definition of morality is that it is Universally Preferable Behaviour and that is clearly in contradiction to something that is "only in our heads".

 

Second, the fact that something is "fairly well known" is neither an argument nor is it proof of existence. The bible is fairly well known. To further contradict your statement empirically small children are far more rational than most adults, in fact they "know right from wrong" at a much higher rate than adults provided they have not been propagandised against.

 

Now, ok sure, there are plenty of valid reasons to operate morally. But if you accept that, if you accept the concept of morality being a valid way by which to operate in your day to day life, you also have to accept the validity of OTHER ideas, especially philosophical and moral ideas, including statism, collectivism, the greater good, and so on.

 

This is what is called a non-sequitur. Presenting a conclusion based on faulty reasoning. We accept things as valid if they are valid (proof, reason, the whole nine yards), not because of some kind of "legal precedent".

 

So in conclusion, either survival of the fittest is valid and everything else a lie, or collectivism and the greater good is valid, in which true freedom for the individual can never be achieved.

 

The non-sequitur above makes you end up with a false dichotomy. If you wanted to create a clearer example for why "False => Anything" I don't know if it were possible.

Edited April 2, 2016 by vahleeb