An Amoralist's Philosophical Standpoint

[bridgejumper]

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

I can fully understand why even a completly amoralist society would desire law, but won't an amoralist perspective only ever be able to appeal to self-centered motives? Even if one values the life of someone close to them, would an amoralist be able to say anything other than this value is based on the pleasure, fun, etc. that this person brings to their own life?

I don't disagree that an amoralist framework could come up with a fairly decent set of laws. In fact, they may be able to put together a better code of law than many religious people. But this is not because they negate what religions have said on morality, but because they use reason which is common to human beings in general. What will be different is not the laws that are created, but the motivations and the considerations that go into making the laws. The Christian will consider that to love God and neighbor is fundamental and try to build a law based on this, the amoralist will use self-interest to do the same.

I may be missing something, particularly whether or not an amoralist can argue for any kind of non-self-centerd motivation. Please let me know.

[bridgejumper]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1327350453' post='2373942']
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.
[/quote]

This is exactly the part I was wondering about previously, how does one qualify love: valuing the other in and of themselves without benefit to the self?

[stevil]

[quote name='bridgejumper' timestamp='1327350650' post='2373945']
I may be missing something, particularly whether or not an amoralist can argue for any kind of non-self-centerd motivation. Please let me know.
[/quote]
It is a very good question.
It is hard for either one of us to really understand the other side of the fence. This makes it especially difficult for me to connect with you, as my audience, in order to try and explain it. The words and phrases I use, sometimes have different meanings to you, sometimes I know this, sometimes I don't.

I see the same dilemma of the theist, especially if you suggest that motivation of the theist is non-self-centered. Presumably theists believe in eternal happiness in heaven for following their god's law and eternal damnation and torture for disobeying their god's law.

Christians were on both sides of the fence when it came to the slavery battle in America. So something made some of them in favour of the African's freedom and this something wasn't compelling for others.

When I talk of love, this is a highly complex emotion. Sometimes love manifests as lust which is obviously a necessary incentive for a species to survive via procreation. Love can also manifest as compassion or strong friendship. Humans are social animals, we interact with each other and form strong bonds. Friendships are important for survival, we take care of our friends, we support each other, we are willing to put ourselves at risk for our friends. Unity makes us stronger and improves our chances of survival.

I presume Catholics don't think that non human animals have morality, that there is no such thing as a moral Buffalo or an immoral Elephant.
Here is an interesting [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LU8DDYz68kM"]youtube clip[/url], about society, survival and putting one's self at risk to save another.

There was also a [url="http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/642731.stm"]story of Elephants killing Rhinoceroses in South Africa[/url]. Elephants have the upper hand with regards to power. They don't have a god belief and moral code telling them not to go killing Rhinos, but generally they don't behave this way. In SA, an elephant cull occured. They decided to kill the adults and leave the young. The young males banded together and started killing Rhinos. Once adults were introduced into the environment then the killings stopped.

[bridgejumper]

[quote name='stevil' timestamp='1327355095' post='2373993']
It is a very good question...killings stopped.
[/quote]

But what motivations do you ascribe such actions to? Can they be fullly altruistic, or do they in some way or another always serve the self?

[stevil]

[quote name='bridgejumper' timestamp='1327356042' post='2374013']
But what motivations do you ascribe such actions to? Can they be fullly altruistic, or do they in some way or another always serve the self?
[/quote]
Hard to say.
I think, naturally they are derived from self serving interests but they can become altruistic via cultural/social norms, behavioral status quo etc.

Children often aren't as wise as the more experienced and self controlled elderly. Adults often need to teach children (via reward or coercion) into certain behavioural patterns. When children become rebellious to their parent's authority they are developing critical thinking and reasoning skills, they are becoming independent which is important for survival. At this stage and over the next many years they tend to replace learned behaviour with reasoned behaviour. Unfortunately, especially early on this does not come with much experience or wisdom or forethought. Governments tend to recognise this and dish out less severe punishments on juveniles as they would on an adult for the same crime.

But anyway, sometimes certain behaviours are habitual. The individual no longer requires reward or coercion however they may not have focussed on replacing their learned behaviour with reasoned behaviour, so potentially that could be likened to being altruistic rather than self-serving.

Edited January 23, 2012 by stevil

[stevil]

[b]Legal Precedence[/b]

From Wiki
"In [url="http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law"]common law[/url] [url="http://simple.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Legal_systems_of_the_world&action=edit&redlink=1"]legal systems[/url], a precedent or authority is a [url="http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_case"]legal case[/url] establishing a principle or rule that a [url="http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court"]court[/url] or other judicial body adopts when deciding later cases with similar issues or facts."

An amoralist individual within a society will be careful of legal precedence. Even if a restrictive law does not impact them directly or immediately they can see that the same type of reasoning could potentially be used against themselves.

e.g. If there were to be a law against practising Islamic belief then an amoralist would have reason for concern. Potentially this law came about because someone from a competing religion created it. If this religion (I am using this term loosely) was not atheism then potentially at some point in the future someone could create a law against atheism under the same reasoning that they outlawed Islam.

[b]Note:[/b]
In the above example Legal precedence wouldn't be the only concern:
- Violence and conflict would be the likely result of outlawing a particular religion, thus making society unsafe.
- Noticing the impact this law might have on the lives of friends, family or acquaintances within society may also spark the atheist into action in support of members of their personal alliances.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

i understand, but there are laws that can be bent and some that can be broken, broken due to validility of the law in the light of a greater understanding of a certain natural law. Broken not in the sense that it is done away with though i will throw away rotten fruit because it has passed it's used by date. I'm just getting at how you said matter can not move faster than the speed of light, this may be true for now untill we are gifted with a higher reason of interlect to accomplish such a feat. possibly. But on euthanasia for me it seems to be a cop out from people that hate the whinning dog next door and chuck baited meat over the fence to get rid of it.

Peace.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

my dog comment is stupid but so is euthanasia to me, surely duty of care is an exact moral law that can not be broken, it is inheritaly ingrained in the human psyche because it is undeniabley natural because without the care of our parent or parents we would be farmed animals like chucked out into the middle of a field to learn for ourselves, which hopefully we know is not possible to throw a 1 year old toddler into the middle of a field and expect it to survive right. Even animals feed there babies for a period of time. If you put a baby in the middle of a field and see if it survives and it dies and i find out you have, realise i may just crack your skull ok morally of course All i'm getting at is that some laws are so human that if broken we deny our humanity and the end of that road is becomming more animal which sounds fun untill someone stabs you in the throat over a piece of meat. Get my point dude ?

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

and i do understand there is a pro choice matter that if the person want's to die we should accomadate them as a duty of care to end there suffering. But as you can see legal abortion has gotten out of control due to it not only being legal for a women whom is in danger of death and one example is the epitopical pregnancy where the baby doesn't descend into the womb and 100% will kill the women and baby. (untill we figure out how to help the baby descend into the womb.) Like 1 in 4 babies end up in abortion in the u.s. and this so called pro choice(not that i don't believe in choices but some are good choices and some are bad,both we are to learn from, and bad choices need to be frowned upon like rape and murder etc etc and not legalised) has caused people to force people to have an abortion due to lifestyle choice or because they simply don't wan't a baby (hear that word Don't wan't, that is actually pro no choice Don't wan't) If murder woz legal murder would happen all the time for whatever reason, and what of the choice of the person being murdered. Do you get what i'm getting at dude, i don't explain myself so well possibly. In holland pro euthanasia has lead to pro assisted suicide,which i hate because possibly many or some or 50/50 think about ending there lives or desire to die at times because things are getting kinda rough and not according to there idealist view (me inclusive.) not that ideals are wrong but are not always achieved instantly or a short amount of time and some not even in this life time, but most don't actually follow through with it or attempt it un-succesfully and decide against it for the future. Do you see the evil in this, it is like giving a 5 year old a loaded m16 after he has been playing with toy guns and putting the toddler in a crowded shopping mall.

Peace.
Peace.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

i'm sure all i have said sounds kind of dictative and relatively no choices as such , but i am very pro choice it's just that humanity has learnt over thousands of years the differance between good coices and bad choices and it seems we don't wan't to listen, me to at times . Bad choices have consequences that can not be removed even if we find the cure to aids i guarentee you there will still be consequences for sleeping around,condoms inclusive. We are fighting against God whom is our teacher and a good parent whom rewards and disciplines. For me even a bad choice of my own that effect no one else particularily like getting drunk by myself and listening to music, but it reduces my ability to be truely charitble to my duty of care in accordance to natural human law. Some may say to me "oh it is just a guilt trip the church plays on you." But if so i'm glad for this guilt trip or i may have murdered somone and spent my life in prison.

Peace

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

like really there is no relative natural human law except duty of care and to learn from our own mistakes and right choices,and the mistakes and right choices that others have made and learnt from,including our parents,not that we need to dwell on the past so to speak but some of what to do and what not to do you would be suprised how long these have been in your family for from generation to generation, but alas family alone even with such a long history can not teach all things good, hence God and friends.

Edited January 25, 2012 by Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

and even than family is not an exact chain because a chain can be broken say 2 members a mum and a dad have become practising drug addicts or alcoholics (just one example,or for whatever reason) and the lessons from the past members of the family are suddenly forgotten and the pair try and establish there own law which of course in visa versa can be good if the children of an unchanging alcoholic or drug addicted parents breaks that chain and seeks a new law to live by.

[sixpence]

lol

[stevil]

Hello Tab'le Du'Bah-Rye

Thanks for your input. I know the stuff I am posting may feel cold and callous.
I think your care bear avatar is very appropriate for you

[MaryJJD]

what about laws, where breaking them would not necessarily affect the society and even the a persons physical ability to survive, but which might still impact a person in some way? Then doesn't a sliding scale of 'importance' or rank then apply to whether a law is regarding survival or non-survival?

For example, the law against murder vs the law against theft. Murder affects society by decreasing its members; theft does affect people, but not always in the same way. There are many different types of theft, but all of them are physically able to occur and so must be allowable for an amoralist, although if according to the law, one which would not occur. But if it does, the person affected, whose things they were, is still physically able to live as such without these (whatever they are) items, and there are still laws against theft. It could be really small or really big (economically, 'sentamentally I guess' or by some other scale; but the classes between needed for survival and not needed for survival will do), but where the loss still has an impact of some sort on the person, there is a sense of injustice evoked inside (sorry, I can't think of another way putting it to fit the discussion). But apart from the absense of the item, there something else thats missing that isn't something physical I can see or quantify, and could differ between people (some may not 'care', others do), but its still there.

Now, the person that takes these, has that physical ability but doesn't care about the law that regulates against theft-as it doesn't affect anyones ability to survive, so what recourse does the law fall on? Or are laws only made strictly to aid survival? Then that doesn't reflect real societies, nor take into account peoples physical ability to collect things.

I find this discussion really interesting, thanks for it!