An Amoralist's Philosophical Standpoint

[brianthephysicist]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1326494125' post='2368519']
It is a terminology thing. I understand what you mean, but I am struggling to articulate the difference between what I mean when I say create and what you mean when you say create.
Coordinating soldiers via a set of rules can create a functional army whereas without those rules the army might be disfunctional. So in this sense rules can create.
But they are not creating abilities in the strictest sense of the term "abilities" they are simply discovering the abilities that are (and have always been) available to them.
[/quote]

Ok, I'm still having trouble understanding this so I'll spend some more time thinking about what you mean by create.

[bridgejumper]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1326499239' post='2368575']
I can understand a person not believing in God concluding this nonexistence of morality. What I do not understand is this same person believes people should do good, which implies there is a bad action. B/c if there is no morality then all people's actions are void of good and bad. This begs the question, if God and morality do not exist, why not be evil? Why should I not lie, cheat and connive to get ahead in life?
[/quote]

What Might help here is Nietzsche's distinction between good/bad and good/evil. Basically, before Judaism and Christianity, we acted based on one's ability (physical power/ability) to do so. WIth this, the good are the strong, the bad are the weak. After, he argues that the "priests" (aka. the physically weak people) have perverted this "natural order" and made up the idea of good/evil in which the good are obedient and evil are not.

We Catholics use good/evil as placing value on our actions. Good/bad has no value per se, but is simply descriptive of excercising one's physical abilities or not. As far as I can tell, this is where the amoralist would fall?

Its been a few years, so this is a bit rusty, but I think it helps.

[Amppax]

Stevil I'll be able to appreciate this thread much more at the end of this semester. I'm taking Ethics, it should be pretty interesting to come back and look at all this after learning about the subject more.

I've been reading the Amoral Manifesto. I've noticed several parts that I'd call into question, but I don't nearly have enough time to give it the justice it deserves. It's an interesting read i'll give it that.

[stevil]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1326494635' post='2368524']
this is an interesting thread

i think i understand your ideas, but I do not see what you are trying to show.

I did get a little lost when you said...


Why does person B have the "right" to live? Hasn't his ability to live just been removed by some force in the universe (person A)?
[/quote]
Well yeah, after the person has died then they have lost that ability(right) as this is the way the physical universe is. But when person A wants to murder person B, well person A has the ability to murder person B and person B has the ability to live, so these are conflicting abilities. Both cannot happen.

[stevil]

[quote name='bridgejumper' timestamp='1326500637' post='2368593']
Basically, before Judaism and Christianity, we acted based on one's ability (physical power/ability) to do so.
[/quote]
I disagree with this statement and will attempt to show you why.

[stevil]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1326499239' post='2368575']
This begs the question, if God and morality do not exist, why not be evil? Why should I not lie, cheat and connive to get ahead in life?
[/quote]
This is what I will attempt to show. I think we are almost ready to move on, most people seem to have understood the premises.

[bridgejumper]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1326510111' post='2368695']
I disagree with this statement and will attempt to show you why.
[/quote]

You disagree with its truth value, my understanding of Nietzsche, or its similarity to the amoralist perspective?

[stevil]

[quote name='bridgejumper' timestamp='1326556104' post='2368877']
You disagree with its truth value, my understanding of Nietzsche, or its similarity to the amoralist perspective?
[/quote]
I disagree that before the onset of religion we acted in a way that the powerful individual acted however they wanted over the weaker individual.

[Laudate_Dominum]

stevil, you might like Alex Rosenberg (maybe you already do).

[url="http://www.unc.edu/~gsmunc/Evolution/Rosenberg2.pdf"]Darwin's Nihilistic Idea: Evolution and the Meaninglessness of Life[/url]

He recently published a popular book called [i]The Atheist's Guide to Reality[/i].


P.S. This dude Feser has been writing an interesting polemic against Rosenberg on his blog. Here is part five: [url="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/12/reading-rosenberg-part-v.html"]http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/12/reading-rosenberg-part-v.html[/url]

Edited January 14, 2012 by Laudate_Dominum

[bridgejumper]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1326563828' post='2368958']
I disagree that before the onset of religion we acted in a way that the powerful individual acted however they wanted over the weaker individual.
[/quote]

Oh, I agree with you. I was simply trying to illustrate the difference between value-terms of good/bad (no moral evaluation) vs good/evil (moral evaluation). The truth of what he says is largely irrelavent to this purpose.

[Papist]

[quote name='Laudate_Dominum' timestamp='1326567066' post='2368972']
stevil, you might like Alex Rosenberg (maybe you already do).

[url="http://www.unc.edu/~gsmunc/Evolution/Rosenberg2.pdf"]Darwin's Nihilistic Idea: Evolution and the Meaninglessness of Life[/url]

He recently published a popular book called [i]The Atheist's Guide to Reality[/i].


P.S. This dude Feser has been writing an interesting polemic against Rosenberg on his blog. Here is part five: [url="http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2011/12/reading-rosenberg-part-v.html"]http://edwardfeser.b...erg-part-v.html[/url]
[/quote]

I attended an event at Belmont Abbey College where Dr. Feser spoke. He was very good.

[stevil]

Continuing on towards the conclusion.

Consider in the amoral philosophical viewpoint the following:

[b]The three significant actors:[/b]
[b]Individual [/b]– There are many of these, for our purposes we will assume the individual is not uniquely in a position of power
[b]Society[/b] – Although there are sub groups within society, they all belong to this one society. This represents the collection of the individuals, cohabitating and interacting with each other.
[b]Government[/b] – There is one of these. This is the governing body ruling over society and hence the individuals. Government sets Legal law and hence defines the Legal abilities of the individuals within society.

The significant attributes of each actor (please bear in mind these are generalisations only, there will be exceptions to the rule):
Individual
Desire to survive
Desire to protect and pass on survival skills to dependents
Desire to interact with society rather than live a reclusive life
Can be emotive (happy, sad, angry, empathy, compassion…)
Can be violent
Prioritises Physical Abilities (with some being more important than others)
Intelligent (can consider the future, can extrapolate ideas)
Varying degrees of power

Society
Mechanism for companionship/social interaction of members
Mechanism for survival of members
Environment of danger for members
Complex environment where different individual’s abilities can conflict
Powerful members can overpower less powerful members
Powerful sub groups can overpower less powerful sub groups

Government
Hold the position of power over society
Is not necessarily more powerful than the sum of society
Defines Legal law
Enforces Legal Law by force



So please offer any objection to the above. Bear in mind this is an amoral perspective. If you think any specific attribute requires morals to exist then please specify.

[Kia ora]

[quote]But unfortunately "rights" is such a commonly used term that I am forced to use it.[/quote]I don't think you have to.

A right, as I understand you, is a description of the ability of things to do what they are able to do. So exceeding the speed of light is not part of our right. But this also means that sub-atomic particles, bacteria, oxygen molecules, rocks also have rights. They certainly can't go faster than light. This doesn't sound like a concept of right that anyone else would use, whether we give it a moral aspect or not. So in order to stave off confusion from others, I think it'd be best to call right 'the ability to do what we can'.

The idea that we are able to do what we able to do sounds to me like a simple truism.

Edited January 15, 2012 by Kia ora

[stevil]

[quote name='Kia ora' timestamp='1326631003' post='2369479']
I don't think you have to.

A right, as I understand you, is a description of the ability of things to do what they are able to do. So exceeding the speed of light is not part of our right. But this also means that sub-atomic particles, bacteria, oxygen molecules, rocks also have rights. They certainly can't go faster than light. This doesn't sound like a concept of right that anyone else would use, whether we give it a moral aspect or not. So in order to stave off confusion from others, I think it'd be best to call right 'the ability to do what we can'.

The idea that we are able to do what we able to do sounds to me like a simple truism.
[/quote]

Thanks Kia ora
We have moved on from using the term "rights" and are instead using the term "ability", for the purposes of this thread the term "rights" is now considered nonsensical.

[sixpence]

behavioral ecology (which is the direction you seem to be headed in) is all fine and good... but it is still kind of lacking in its explanation of SOME types of self-sacrificing behaviors that we humans exhibit