Morality without Justification

I no longer need to justify my morality with Kantianism, Utilitarianism or Social Darwinism, nonetheless I think I have a morality, or moralities, we all do, we all approve and disapprove of others and their behaviour, but I don't need to justify it with some external standard, whether it be God, if it exists, or a man, or men, or objective principles, for I myself am the standard. Also, I no longer have to stick with one standard, I can employ as many as I wish, I can have one standard at one time and place, and another standard at another time and place, or one stand for myself, another for him, and another for her, I can have double, tripple, or even quadruple standards. I think we can intelligently and intelligibly discuss our morality, we can even influence another's morality by indicating facts they may have missed, but two people may have the same facts regarding a predicament and come to very different conclusions about what needs to be done. Ultimately I am the standard, I select whether to have no standard, or to have this or that standard, and discard them at my convenience.

eyesinthedark wrote:

I no longer need to justify my morality with Kantianism, Utilitarianism or Social Darwinism, nonetheless I think I have a morality, or moralities, we all do, we all approve and disapprove of others and their behaviour, but I don't need to justify it with some external standard, whether it be God, if it exists, or a man, or men, or objective principles, for I myself am the standard. Also, I no longer have to stick with one standard, I can employ as many as I wish, I can have one standard at one time and place, and another standard at another time and place, or one stand for myself, another for him, and another for her, I can have double, tripple, or even quadruple standards. I think we can intelligently and intelligibly discuss our morality, we can even influence another's morality by indicating facts they may have missed, but two people may have the same facts regarding a predicament and come to very different conclusions about what needs to be done. Ultimately I am the standard, I select whether to have no standard, or to have this or that standard, and discard them at my convenience.

In other words you, despite what you claim, do have one single standard, as you seem to be the standard for all.
The context does not matter because you remain the fixed point of reference.

What the other may "have missed" is that he, like you, share the same standard, which is yourselves, but one admits to it while the other deflects it towards an ambiguity, an ideal, through which he can love himself without feeling overly guilty about it.
One might feel guilty about something because one has been conditioned to feel that way.

The only true love is the one based on this starting proposition of selfishness. I love you, or an other, only in as much as you or this other satisfies my needs or shares my love by sharing my principles or the terms by which I wish to live my life.
The only reason people evoke multiple standards is because they wish to avoid the single one which permeates their every judgment and activity.

When I claim to over another for selfless reasons I am evoking this redirection of standards which makes me feel like my love is selfless and so more pure and honest.
I pretend that it is something about the other and not how this something affects and satisfies my needs which explains my emotions.

When I feel love for my son, for example, I might pretend that it is he which makes me feel like that, when it is what he reminds me of in myself, what similarities he has with me, which is the real reason. I see myself in my son and if I love my self then I love my self through my son.
The only reason to deny this is mortality or the limits placed upon me due to temporal existence.
I cannot live forever nor live more than I can, and so my son represents an extension to my life.
I love and tolerate him because he will go on when I die. He is an extension of my existence and a continuance of my past.
I honor my past, my ancestors, through him, and he represents my sacrifice towards their memory; I offer homage and give meaning to their pains and suffering by having him and raising him in accordance to my nature, as this has been determined by this past.
I give meaning to their existence, and this is the highest honor I can give.

Also, we can force the pliable to adopt our morality, by condemning them and peer pressuring them.

However, even whilst adopting our morality, it is still they who have consented to adopting it, and if they realize this, they can choose to discard our morality, or keep it, in accordance with their nature.

Morality is both a selfless and, selfish activity, in the metaphysical sense, as are all things. We are by virtue of how we are effected by others, and by virtue of how we affect others, for nothing stands alone. Interactionism is perhaps the supreme truth.. if there is one. I love and hate, approve and condemn by virtue of what I am, just as much by virtue of what the person/behaviour is. Thus, in the metaphysical in addition to the practical sense, I am an egoist and an altruist. Life beginds and ends in the inbetween. To be immortal/nonexistent is to be incapable of interacting with others, to affect or be effected by others, perfect immortality and nonexistence are the same. Existence begins and ends in the inbetween. Existence implies finality.

I'll get back to Satyr when I get a chance.

Quote :

In other words you, despite what you claim, do have one single standard, as you seem to be the standard for all.

What I meant to say was, ultimately I am my standard, however, I can choose to adopt someone elses standard. For example, if my standard is to hate people with black skin, or hate people who kill cats, but also to follow others, I can chose to follow my brother who loves people with black skin, and loves people who kill cats.

Also worth considering, ultimately I, a phenomenon, here, now, in the present, am the arbiter of what is good and evil, however, via introspective, phenomenal experience, I can abstract a standard from the various experiences I've had of myself, making various moral decisions. For example, if I always or usually place happiness above pleasure, or dilligence over sloth, I can say it is my standard is to place happiness above pleasure, and dilligence over sloth, thus, formulating a more/less fixed principle behind my behaviour. I believe this principle is probably less real than the phenomena of my many, individual moral decisions, that this principle is a lesser form of reality than me, but I'm not entirely certain. I don't think I should follow the abstraction of myself, I should follow myself, here, now, what I want, not based on what I generally wanted, or what I think I will want, or is this wrong. I'm been flirting with Stirner like thoughts as of recent, I'm sure you're familiar with them, but I'm not sure they can encompass the whole of reality.

What are your thoughts on Stirner, your philosophy seems to resemble his, partially, if I may say so, though it is certainly is braoder and richer than that, in that it encompasses yourself, your thoughts, feelings and experiences, and the thoughts of Schopenhauer, Nietzsche, Heidegger and Evola. What do you think of Parmenides, Heraclitus, Plato, Aristotle, Hegel and Giovanni Gentile?

Also worthy of mention.. I think, just as an architect requires plans and blueprints to construct a building, a person requires plans and blueprints to construct his life. Sometimes we need abstract principles to follow, like a diet plan, rather than just eating whatever comes our way, in order to secure our future happiness and survival, or the happiness and survival of others, if we care. For example, I like white bread, however, if I discover white bread is generally or always more trouble than it's worth, I may formulate a principle for myself, do not eat white bread, I know if I stick to it, I'll be better off in the long run, and the long run is important to me, I sympathise with my future self. I may extend this principle further, thinking it is better for all not to eat white bread, and I may indeed be right. You see, perhaps principles, even if they ultimately serve us and others, but I don't think we should, or even can, serve our principles. I don't necessarily think we should abandon morality, or the need for advice and ordering our lives and the lives of others, rather our morality and our order should ultimately serve ourselves, only if we care about our future self, and if we do not, or we decide our strategems no longer serve our future selves, than we should pragmatically discard our antiquated, obsolete maxims, in exchange for new ones, or temporarily live without them.

Quote :

What the other may "have missed" is that he, like you, share the same standard, which is yourselves, but one admits to it while the other deflects it towards an ambiguity, an ideal, through which he can love himself without feeling overly guilty about it.
One might feel guilty about something because one has been conditioned to feel that way.

The only true love is the one based on this starting proposition of selfishness. I love you, or an other, only in as much as you or this other satisfies my needs or shares my love by sharing my principles or the terms by which I wish to live my life.
The only reason people evoke multiple standards is because they wish to avoid the single one which permeates their every judgment and activity.

When I claim to over another for selfless reasons I am evoking this redirection of standards which makes me feel like my love is selfless and so more pure and honest.
I pretend that it is something about the other and not how this something affects and satisfies my needs which explains my emotions.

When I feel love for my son, for example, I might pretend that it is he which makes me feel like that, when it is what he reminds me of in myself, what similarities he has with me, which is the real reason. I see myself in my son and if I love my self then I love my self through my son.

This partially contradicts what I posted originally, my thought is constantly evolving, if I know your philosophy as well as I think I do, I don't think you'll like it much, but perhaps it makes as much sense to say-- your son is just as much the cause of your love for him as you are the cause of your love for him. Remove your son, or radically alter him, and your love will die, remove you, or radically alter you, and your love will die. To separate the subjective from the objective, the self from the other is, perhaps, a logical fallacy, why should one be given primacy over the other? I am more, naturally inclined to the subjective in this instance however, as of recent, I have been exploring the possibility of objective value, and it doesn't seem as ludicrous to me as I once thought. Perhaps the twin phillosophies of subjectivism and objectivism are too rigid and one sided to account for and encompass the complex, dynamic world we live in. I think it may be the interplay of these two ideals.. that giveth rise to world.

It is just as possible, naturally, the ardent egoist does not want to entertain the possibility of altruism, or the need for an external cause of our loves, our hates, our approvals and disapprovals, for fear this somehow deprives him or her of theirselves, they feels they're being swallowed up by others, engulffed, so in order to maintain their sense of false autonomy, sovereignty, and self mastery over their hopes and fears, they deny the influence the external has over them, can it not just as easily be posited the external compels us to like it? if I'm not mistaken, I believe this is how some of the ancients used to think, mixing the internal with the external more than the moderns do. Perhaps it is a form of narcissistic solipsism, this modern fixation with subjectivism.

Do we choose our loves, do they choose us.. does it matter?

What is the cause of the moon rotating 'round the earth? Is the moon attracted to the earth, or is the earth attracting the moon?

eyesinthedark wrote:

Also, we can force the pliable to adopt our morality, by condemning them and peer pressuring them.

Not only explicitly morality, but also some concepts back of morality, concepts which can themselves create their own imaginary artifice, and so impede one's understanding of things.

I've lately been interested in the concept of "ownership" as a very good example of this: of a concept that can take on a life of its own. A simple example: Person A has a log and informs person B that he "owns" the log. When person B accepts this premise as a matter of principle, he has essentially accepted a false reality. The claim of ownership could easily be disputed, even refuted, at any time by simply picking up the log and using it; but, even though Person B may want the log, he will be held back by an imaginary concept and will be unable to develop a rational understanding of his own motivations.

A similar confusion can occur when thinking with rather intangible ethico-moral concepts, effecting an eventual slide into a meditation on ethics as an object in itself. Then you catch yourself doing a kind of philosophical puzzle-making, seeing where these pieces go and looking for similarities and differences. But the real object of ethics is your own self: the evaluation of it, and of it's relation to the world. The application of your unaided reason to analyze your own motivations and emotions; and to construe the outer world that one may properly place those motivations within its structure: a mediating subject, both looking in and considering, and looking out and investigating.

Quote :

I've lately been interested in the concept of "ownership" as a very good example of this: of a concept that can take on a life of its own. A simple example: Person A has a log and informs person B that he "owns" the log. When person B accepts this premise as a matter of principle, he has essentially accepted a false reality. The claim of ownership could easily be disputed, even refuted, at any time by simply picking up the log and using it; but, even though Person B may want the log, he will be held back by an imaginary concept and will be unable to develop a rational understanding of his own motivations.

Yes, and I think there could be several reasons for this. Wherever you go, there you are, ultimately, we cannot eliminate ourselves from any equation, even if we try, however, we can forget ourselves and the role our cognitions and motivations play, focusing more on the perceptions and motivations of others than our own, or the perceptions and motivations of others as filtered through our own, I should say, for we'll always be involved at some level. The question is, why would early modern people and philosophers and even some contemporary people and philosophers, even want to? Why would we try to go beyond our own perceptions and motivations, why woulod we want to subtract ourselves from the world?

Person B may have his own motivations for not taking Person A's log. Person B may empathize and sympathize with Person A, he may know Person A has grown accustomed to the log, and that if he were to lose the log, his expectations would be disappointed. Person B's motivation to not disappoint Person A, may be stronger than his motivation to take the log. Person B may also fear Person A's retaliation, or the communities retaliation, if he were to take the log.

All in all, in this example, Person B is still aware of his own desire, but desires to repress his desire to take the log from Person A, for his desire to not to disappoint Person A, and/or his desire not to suffer Person A's and/or the communities retaliation, is stronger than his desire to take the log.

Things get more interesting when we consider, Person B may be cognitively unaware of his own cognition and motivation. If Person B desires to be rational, fully aware and conscious of the intricacies of this scenario and of life, he has to take into account his own drives and perceptions, in addition to the drives and perceptions of others. Person B may forget his own and see the world through Person A's eyes. He may think the way Person A sees the world is the world, or the only way to see it. His cognition may be impaired, biologically or psychologically, so he lives his life through others, never or rarely acknowledging his own life. His own wants, needs and perceptions burried beneath the wants, needs and perceptions of others, perhaps they subconsciously plague him, demanding to be satiated, but lie just beyond reach of his awareness, for he's an idiot, or naturally inclined to place others above himself (a naturally humble, unconfident, servile sort), or programmed to do so.

He may have been conditioned by institutions to perpetually deny or mitigate his own drives and perceptions, taught to defer to God, the king, the pope, his parents and teachers, friends and family first, for they are wiser and superior to him, taught only satisfy himself if it aids and assists him in satisfying others, and taught never to trust his independent assessment of reality. Wherever and whenever his own drives and perceptions make an appearance, he was taught that that is sin, that he should repress his urges, for fear of God's wrath, or his communities wrath. He was taught he is weak, pathetic, of lesser quality than God and the nobility, that his wants and needs are insignificant, of lesser importance. He may believe this because he is an idiot, or naturally inclined to defer to others

eyesinthedark wrote:

Also worthy of mention.. I think, just as an architect requires plans and blueprints to construct a building, a person requires plans and blueprints to construct his life.

Perhaps you've missed it but I've provided my blueprints and I try to live in accordance with them.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

eyesinthedark wrote:

Quote :

I've lately been interested in the concept of "ownership" as a very good example of this: of a concept that can take on a life of its own. A simple example: Person A has a log and informs person B that he "owns" the log. When person B accepts this premise as a matter of principle, he has essentially accepted a false reality. The claim of ownership could easily be disputed, even refuted, at any time by simply picking up the log and using it; but, even though Person B may want the log, he will be held back by an imaginary concept and will be unable to develop a rational understanding of his own motivations.

Yes, and I think there could be several reasons for this...*snip*

Yes, and I broadly agree with the rest of your post, although I think you're a bit of a whacko.

The world emerges as a clusterfuck. It's the ordering of the stuff, the work we do as a "mediating subject", which both determines and is determined by our character.

Hence the forum's title and motto. It's not so much about "justifying" a certain morality (to whom?) as it is about developing a deeper understanding.

The underlying foundation of morality stems from personal defense and extends outward. This is why one can have a hypocritical value system where one's values are self-protective but predatorial against another in it's simple, unevolved and less aware state.

The further evolution of morality develops from our relations with others. For every action, there is a reaction.