An Amoralist's Philosophical Standpoint

[stevil]

[quote name='sixpence' timestamp='1326656363' post='2369592']
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
[/quote]
I am not looking to show how amoralism could lead to self sacrifice, that would be a different topic.

[brianthephysicist]

So I've still been thinking about 'create' and I browsed your latest post on defining individuals, society, and government.


I felt that the list of desires for individuals was somewhat lacking, but I can't really quantify it very well. I thought, "Hey man, he left out the desire for happiness", but then I realized that some people act completely contrary to what is required to bring them happiness (and I'm not talking about self-sacrifice, I'm talking about people that actively do things that make themselves sad) and other people will act in a way to remove themselves of emotions, both positive and negative. Then I thought about how we act contradictory to our desire to survive (speeding, drinking and driving, smoking, etc.) or the desire to [color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]protect and pass on survival skills to dependents (*cough* abortion[/font][/color] *cough*). We act contradictory to our desires on a regular basis. We have the capacity to be rational, but so often we are completely irrational. People don't make sense; I'm not sure if I'll feel comfortable with any definition of an individual.



Going back to our previous discussion about the creative power of rules. I guess the best example to use would be society itself. Earlier, you and Amppax discussed the necessity of laws. You admitted that at least some laws are necessary for society. In one sense, I could argue that no, they're not necessary. If people choose, of their own free will, to act in a way that builds and perpetuates society, then there is no need for them to write down any formal laws. If no one ever killed anyone, why would we need a law against murder? The reality is that, because we can be completely irrational, we need laws.

I'm not denying the restrictive power of rules and I'm not trying to say that every rule has creative power, but some do have that capacity.

[stevil]

[quote name='brianthephysicist' timestamp='1326758053' post='2370188']
I felt that the list of desires for individuals was somewhat lacking, but I can't really quantify it very well. I thought, "Hey man, he left out the desire for happiness"
[/quote]
People are extremely complex. I am creating an extremely simple model for the purposes of showing how an amoralist may desire law and order and how this may lead to the desire to allow euthanasia. Just so that you can understand how an amoralist might rationalise their perception of reality. Of course this is only my view, but being a self proclaimed amoralist, I feel I understand this point of view.

With regards to abortions, a person may not have connected with the baby (out of sight, out of mind) hence they might put more value on other things rather than the baby's life. They may not even consider the embryo to be a baby. Maybe they don't consider the baby's POV because they don't think the baby even realises that it is alive.
But once that baby is born and they start to take care of it and fall in love with it then most people accept the responsibility required to keep their baby alive.

[quote name='brianthephysicist' timestamp='1326758053' post='2370188']
I'm not denying the restrictive power of rules and I'm not trying to say that every rule has creative power, but some do have that capacity.
[/quote]
I don't think that it is important to dwell on this point. Since we have gotten in rid of the term "rights" it is not so much important anymore.
I'll have one more go at it

Before the Wright brothers invented the plane, people could not fly, they didn't think it possible, they didn't think that they have the ability.
If the Universe were a conscious being, it would have told people to keep searching.
The Wright brothers did keep searching and eventually they discovered a way to get people to fly.
The rules of the Universe always allowed people to have this ability, but people just needed to understand the Universe better in order to work out how they could do it.

[stevil]

So lets look at a world without morality or government or law.

You might think, with no moral compass and no legal repercussions a person might act selfishly and do whatever it is that they want.
I would agree in part with the "act selfishly", but I disagree with the "do whatever it is that they want" part.

Let's say person A doesn't like person B and decides his life would be better off if person B was dead, so he goes over to person B and attempts to kill person B.

Person A is taking a risk because person B may act violently towards person A in self defense of their own ability to live. So person A has weighed up this factor and will choose to kill person B only if person B is much less powerful than person A, thus reducing the risk of being hurt. Problem with this is that person B may also have friends and family who are either individually or collectively capable of harming person A.
Of course the friends and family of person B will factor in the risk to themselves in coming to the aid of person B, but they also know that their lives will be worse off without person B and also they know that if they don't have a habit of banding together, supporting and protecting each other then person A might eventually pick them off one by one.

In recognition that with unity comes strength, people become motivated to join alliances, to form societies and to protect each other from each other and from other societies.

[b]Conclusion:[/b]
It is the desire for survival and the ability of people to perform violent acts that prevents person A from killing person B.
It becomes in person A's best self serving interest not to commit murder.
A society desiring safety of themselves and their loved ones would naturally want a rule against murder and value the ability for life above the ability to commit murder.
Note: I am focused on a simple case of first degree murder here, where the victim does not what to die and the perpetrator is premeditated in their desire to commit murder.

[Amppax]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1327028057' post='2371818']
So lets look at a world without morality or government or law.

You might think, with no moral compass and no legal repercussions a person might act selfishly and do whatever it is that they want.
I would agree in part with the "act selfishly", but I disagree with the "do whatever it is that they want" part.

[/quote]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you disagree with the "do whatever they want" in that it is not in their best self interest to perform such an action. However they can still perform any action that they want. There self interest probably does factor heavily in the decision making process but its not the end all be all.

[stevil]

[quote name='Amppax' timestamp='1327074133' post='2371991']
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you disagree with the "do whatever they want" in that it is not in their best self interest to perform such an action. However they can still perform any action that they want. There self interest probably does factor heavily in the decision making process but its not the end all be all.
[/quote]
Their critical thinking comes into play, they recognise and foresee the likely response from ordinary people within society. They realise that the consequences of their actions could be very detrimental to their own self.
From the non aggressor's point of view they recognise that life is more survivable if they belong to a society with rules that protect them from certain dangers. Thus they desire society and laws and law enforcement, hence a governing body, however they want a governing body that represents them rather than one that oppresses them.

Edited January 20, 2012 by stevil

[Guest James Battle]

If I understand you correctly: Laws protect the The Weak Individual from the Strong Individual, and protect the Strong Individual against retaliation by a Mob of The Weak.

[stevil]

Haven't got to the purpose of law yet.
Just one, hopefully obvious, scenario where amoral people want to belong to a society and want a rule against first degree murder. No morality required so far.
The desire for the rule so far is to improve the chances of survival of the individual.

[Guest Vendetta]

Bottom line folks is that Stevil doesnt argue that euthanasia is moral (cause there is no such thing in the amoralist view) just desirable for him. It does contradict the survival desire and combined with abortion as well as contraception may very well lead to the demise of that society which is undesirable. Therefore the society may deem it illegal which an amoralist may not consider "bad" or "immoral" just undesirable. It is not "wrong" if the society chooses not to allow it therefore the amoralist has no standing in protest.

[stevil]

[quote name='Vendetta' timestamp='1327159357' post='2372635']
...therefore the amoralist has no standing in protest.
[/quote]
As I have stated originally, I will not debate until a full understanding is reached, otherwise we are investing time in strawman arguments.

[Guest Vendetta]

I make no strawman argument . The strawman is yours. "Desire" is something which can be defended as a moralist or an amoralist. Really the whole post is a waste of time and it would seem solely an opportunity to proselytize the reader.

[stevil]

[quote name='Vendetta' timestamp='1327258576' post='2373270']
I make no strawman argument . The strawman is yours. "Desire" is something which can be defended as a moralist or an amoralist. Really the whole post is a waste of time and it would seem solely an opportunity to proselytize the reader.
[/quote]
We can revisit your post once I have made my position clear enough to people so that it can be understood, but will only revisit if it seems valid to people.

My intent is not to proselytize, only to show how my amoralist standpoint can lead towards a desire to allow people to choose euthanasia for themselves. I truly believe that there is benefit in people understanding each other, we don't need to convince people to change their worldview to that of our own.

[Guest Vendetta]

It's obvious not only that but why an amoralist would desire euthanasia. There is no need to bloviate regarding the matter. Get on with it its taken 4 pages and you've made two points.

[stevil]

[quote name='Vendetta' timestamp='1327319190' post='2373697']
It's obvious not only that but why an amoralist would desire euthanasia. There is no need to bloviate regarding the matter. Get on with it its taken 4 pages and you've made two points.
[/quote]
The problem is that some people's posts show me that they haven't understood so far. I think it is a simple topic, but some people are holding onto preconceived ideas and are thus not listening.

[stevil]

Society Vs Government

So I think I have shown how a society can desire rules, the opposite of this is when a society opposes rules, this highlights that the government is not the be all, end all when defining how a society is to function.

If a government sets laws whereby it is legal to enslave certain people, let's say people from a different society e.g. America taking Africans as slaves. The free society initially does not see this as a threat to their own survival. The individual within the free society knows that they are not an African and hence are safe from becoming a slave themselves. The Africans obviously need to be taken by extreme force, they need to constantly under coercement and force to comply with their enslaved position.
As time goes by, they become part of the free society. The free individuals start to see the African individuals as people, as friends, as lovers. The free individuals start to apply their own desire for freedom onto the slaves. Eventually some free individuals take a stand by force (risking their own lives) to oppose their government, in order to change society and to give others the freedoms they themselves cheerish. This is not a moral stance. It is a stance of survival, a stance of friendship and love. A stance for an inclusive society valuing freedom and choice for all.

Edited January 23, 2012 by stevil