RyanS2

I was working on some of my philosophical beliefs, and would appreciate anyone willing to critique it or to let me know what they think. It's a bit long, but I think it's filled with good information, (at least that's my perspective, feel free to disagree), and I wanted to see how others thought about it as well:

<a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/philosophy/moralitypt1.html" target="_blank">Part 1</a>
<a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/philosophy/moralitypt2.html" target="_blank">Part 2</a>

French

Dear RyanS2

I have no idea about satanism. Here, in Europe, some groups claim to be satanist : in fact, these groups are pro-nazis. Their main occupation is to destroys jewish cemetery or freemansonies' graves. Sometime, also, they murder a priest. So, of course, the words "satanism" is unpleasant here, and associated to anti-semitism and racism. The same can be said in Europe about pagans : most religious groups who claim to be pagan are in fact fascist and antisemitic. I suppose you have no relation with these terrifying peoples.

However, I schall try to read your opus. As I have some difficulties with the english langage, it might be long. Just a first remark : Virgil was roman, not greek. His work is of cource greatly influenced by the hellenistic poets ( especialy Theophilius) but was written in latin.

Have you readen the poem poet abou satan by the arab poet of the 10th century Abu-Nowas ? and the poetries on the same topic by Baudelaire ("Satan, have mercy for my long misery") who wrote many splendid texts about your idol ?

More seriously, I like the idea that immorality and illegality are diffferent things. But for me, this difference is a consequence of the declaration of human rights. What is forbid is what can cause damage the freedom of others. So as long as a bad action does not limit the freedom of others, it must be allowed. If your girl-friend leaves you, what she does is not nice, it hurts you a lot, it might incit you to commit suicide, however, your freedom is not damaged by her action. And her behaviour must not be forbidden.

Camille

French

I meant Theocritus not Theophilius. Sorry

RyanS2

Greetings French, thanks for correcting the oversight, I'll rectify it as soon as possible.

The Satanists in Europe belong to a group called the ONA, stands for "Order of Nine Angels", and their offshoots. They're a bunch of freaks who do weird things like invocations to Hitler, (they actually worship Hitler, have altars with him, etc.) Satanists here despise them because we feel the worship of anything external is a violation of the LHP, (Left-hand path). The left-hand path exalts "Man as God", but not "race or religion" as God. I don't know if you can get a hold of American books where you are, but Dr. Stephen Flowers wrote a book called "Lords of the Left-hand path" which deals with why the ONA and their ilk is disqualified from the list, as did I:

<a href="http://www.satan4u.8m.com/philosophy/left.html" target="_blank">Left-hand path</a>

It's strange though to think why they'd be anti-Semitic, the founder of Satanism, Anton Lavey, was a Jew, and most of the mystical orientation is from Kabballah, a Jewish form of mysticism.

However, one important thing for the function of any group is to have a proper amount of "scapegoating". Quite simply, it's hard to get any followers off merits alone, generally, somebody has to be the bad guy, so the ONA stuck it with Christians, Jews, and any other such groups which they believe are infringing upon their "rights" as the "elite".

"Have you readen the poem poet abou satan by the arab poet of the 10th century Abu-Nowas?"

No, I haven't. Thanks for the information though. Do you know if he's talking about Satan or about Iblis? The Islamic perspective of Satan is much different than the Christian one, it falls more in line with Judaism.

owleye

Ryan...

I found the attitude you brought to the development of your moral theory, as indicated in the first half of the first part of it, quite distasteful. As a result I could not get beyond this. I'm aware that I could have merely moved on without responding at all, but I thought I'd give you a chance to tell me something about your theory but where I don't have to wade through the clutter that comes from your having to ridicule other theories, which in almost every instance I find unbecoming of a serious thinker.

owleye

RyanS2

Owl, it's quite alright, you are entitled to your opinions. The only viewpoint I make fun of at any length is an idea that I consider harmful, that there is a certain commandment, (which is just an adaptation of "Ethics of Command") of moral laws that always come into play at any situation. For instance, thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, etc. The overall concept is more important than having moral commandments is having the ability to think in a moral way, or be morally rational. In some cases I am declamatory, and with good reason. Steven L. Ross comment that all women who choose abortion just want to murder and have no respect for life is tasteless, so I don't apologize for berating him.

I think you may be knee-jerking, however. In very few instances do I say "my way good, your way bad", in fact: 'The trend within ethics has been to disregard one point of view, and to maintain what looks like exclusionist camps. That is to say that you must believe "X", anything outside of "X" is bad, you're not one of them.... all philosophical arguments have their weak points and their strong points.'

Even in my criticism of Kant, I still maintain that having the right intent is a good part of a moral formula, (Kant's idea), but without seeking good ends as well, the intent is pointless. The only other thing I reject outright is Neo-Platonic idealism, or that we should identify something as the "all-good". However, if something is all-good, something else must be "all-bad", and whatever doesn't fit your all-good must be this all-bad. It leads too quickly into psychological scapegoating to try and put the blame onto something else, real or imaginery. I listed 9 forms of ethics, and in the discourse, showed how they could be applicable to a situation, and when they were not. The only one dutifully criticized is "Ethics of Command", but I really have a hard time imagining any atheist agreeing that we should base our morality on the Bible, the Qur'an, or any other holy book. (Typically, Neo-Platonic ideology fits in with "Ethics of Command", so much so that the later Church period started banning Aristotle because his ideas followed to the end would lead to the natural conclusion of pantheism and a rejection of the supremacy of the Church.) I think you may want to re-read it and realize that even when I criticize something, I also point out the parts of it that are true as well.

owleye

Ryan...

l did take some time to read through Part 2, which presumably had something to do with a contrast between "Satanism" and "Humanism." However, in no way was I able to read with understanding. I'm sure it must be a difficulty on my part. I often have trouble with reading. I look for certain landmarks, and finding none, I can't be sure what it is I'm reading.

With respect to humanism, I do have some understanding. But, I was not able to find anything meaningful in your depiction of it. Perhaps I should try again, but first let me offer my own interpretation of it to see we are on the same wavelength.

Though I respect that there is a majjor difference between a religious humanism and a secular humanism, I think the main emphasis on the part of humanism is that humans have a capacity to bring about goodness and evil from their own powers. This is contrasted, if I understand it, with those who believe god or the devil are responsible for the goodness and evil in the world.

Is this compatible with your thesis?

owleye

RyanS2

Greetings Owl;

Thanks again for the input. The idea behind secular humanists is almost always for that of what's called utilitarianism, or that we should seek to do a maximum amount of good for society. However, taken to the fullest extent, this means that activities like watching a movie or other mindless activities humans do all the time are almost seen as bad, they do nothing to enhance humans. So, I believe that utilitarian approach is only necessary to an extent, a greater portion of our relationship is between ourselves, family, and friends, rather than to society as a whole.

Pretty much. It's basically the idea that humans can influence their World, for better or for worse, and that to externalize this into something else is pointless, and not only pointless, but harmful because it doesn't seek to rectify a problem that exists. As James Still puts it in another thread, (he's quoting someone, but I'm unsure of whom), if atheism were to take over today, we'd still have to deal with the problems that made theism arise. In other words, a mock battle with Satan might make us feel better, but in the end, it's ultimately fruitless to real problems.

owleye

Ryan...

"The idea behind secular humanists is almost always for that of what's called utilitarianism, or that we should seek to do a maximum amount of good for society."

If what you say is true about secular humanism being "almost always" utilitarian in their ethics, why do you think this is the case? That is, which is the origin and which is the result, or, alternatively, what is it they have in common that links them? Utilitarianism is rather of late origin developed within a longer history of the ethics of utility itself, from Hobbes and Hume within the British tradition. It blends in well with modern capitalism, since it considers preferences and interests of individuals worthy of satisfaction. The greatest good for the greatest number presumably is just this sort of preference satisfaction. Most theorists, I think, try to amplify this basic premise with something that would make higher goods, such as "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," good even if folks did not prefer them.

In any case, I don't believe it is accurate to say that utilitarianism is the theory that each of us should do the maximum amount of good we can for society. It is consequentialist, to be sure, and if we find ourselves in a moral dilemma, I gather we should weigh the costs against the benefits, but I don't think society itself is the target, rather it is its members, taken individually. And this is one of the things Marx fought against.

"So, I believe that utilitarian approach is only necessary to an extent, a greater portion of our relationship is between ourselves, family, and friends, rather than to society as a whole."

Does this mean you have two theories? If so, what happens when there is a conflict? Should a mother not send her son to war, knowing there is a good chance of his being killed?

owleye

RyanS2

Greetings Owl:

"why do you think this is the case?"

I'm not exactly sure why, but I formulated this opinion after going through several atheist writers on this webpage and getting the overall consent. Naturally, there are people who disagree, but even among atheists who believe in meta-ethical relativity, (two people can have different opinions and neither be wrong nor right), the underlying argument is one for utilitarianism. You do point out that is a new development, and so is hardcore atheism like it is today. There are some arguments of it having existed in Greece and even possibly Arabia, but from my investigation, it appears that most of it was a deitistic attitude that the God that created this World had left this World, rather than strict denial of any supernatural being or beings. Even in the Arabian to English translation of atheist, it doesn't mean "one who doesn't believe in God", it means more along the lines of "one who doesn't honor God". I.e. the concept of a strict denial of God simply wasn't even in their language. However, even disregarding that, secular humanism is certainly even a newer movement than utilitarianism is, so I don't think the age of the movement means anything.

"In any case, I don't believe it is accurate to say that utilitarianism is the theory that each of us should do the maximum amount of good we can for society."

I took that definition from Rawls, "A Theory of Justice", p. 407-16. It's called the "counting principle", which is to say that we should seek to meet a maximum number of good acts for society as a whole by a system of accountability. However, by taking the conclusion to its logical ends by greatly exaggerating it, it means actions which are not really benefiting society are almost the equivalent to evil, though lesser in evil than something which takes away from the counting principle. I found the idea too Hegel/Marxist for me that somehow individual autonomy should be given up for pure purpose to people I don't know. If you disagree with that, you are disagreeing more with Rawls concept of utilitarianism more than me, but I begin to sense thta you are not a strict utilitarian, and believe that the right of an individual takes precedence over the right of a state.

"Does this mean you have two theories?"

Using the "counting principle", I'd say that if the choice was between fifty points for society, or fifty points for yourself and family, (and neither adding to society nor detracting from family by choosing one or the other), the family and yourself is more important. Also, taking utilitarianism to its furthest extreme, it seems to justify predation so long as predation is good to the society as a whole. So, I think on this grounds, neither you nor I accept pure utilitarianism, and agree that an individual has certain rights which take place over the needs of society as a whole. This is of course, agreeable or disagreeable by you, and also on whether or not you think I'm making a strawman out of a utilitarian argument.

"If so, what happens when there is a conflict? Should a mother not send her son to war, knowing there is a good chance of his being killed?"

I don't think it's possible for a mother to "send" her son to war. Whoever is going to war is making their own choice, (self plus family are the most important), I would strongly disagree with the concept of anyone being able to send other people to war, which is why I am against drafting, which I'll briefly mention in a minute. In a strict utilitarian society where society itself is always more important, than it should be of no choice to the person if they want to go to war or not, provided it benefits the population as a whole. I believe that if a society protects an individuals' autonomy and rights, then an individual of their own free will shall sign up to go to war to protect that right, and not just that right for themselves, but for the rights of that mother who may not want her son to go to war. If the people of a society are not willing to fight for their freedoms, I almost have to wonder if that civilization is even worth preserving.