Totalitarianist

Ethics and morals are merely religious prejudices collected by the masses over time, with a beginning prior to the end in logical-priority, and hence irrational. The most convenient ones remain, whilst the others are dispelled with. The former are dogmatically pushed into everyone's faces at all times under such banners as "Human Rights" and "Humanitarianism".

I do not have any moral or ethical code. I dismiss them all as mystical and imaginary. I get a good laugh our of "Animal Rights" activists. I get a good laugh out of "humanitarianism". I get a good laugh out of "champions" of "equality". These people are bigots, forcing their beliefs on everyone, without at any time attempting to prove a thing. (There has been some people throughout the course of history, but they are all failures.) We should accept them, they say, because it is morally right to accept. (I could show you their exact reasoning, but it is laughably circular.) That is their reasoning. If they could present us with sufficient evidence in favour of their ethics, perhaps their bigotry and dogmatics would be rational. And so "Bioethics" is bigotry. "Animal rights" is bigotry. "Humanitarianism" is bigotry. "Human rights" is bigotry. "Christianity" is bigotry.

It becomes a greater laugh when, in the case of equality concerning the races and the sexes, Science points to the contradictory position of egalitarianism -- i.e. that we are not equal at all. (I am not saying that one race or sex is "better" than another; just that the evidence indicates a certain degree of inequality.) Even if we suppose that morals and ethics are true, we still cannot logically treat unequals as if they are equal. What would be next? Treating cats as dogs? It is the same thing.

Men of wisdom need evidence. Where evidence is insufficient, belief is irrational.

Eric H

Hello Totalitarianist

I know you have used reason to come to your conclusions, but is it morally right that a billion people on this Earth should live in filthy conditions close to starvation on a dollar a day?

Do you have a comfortable life style?

Do you never feel the need to contribute something towards the disadvantaged?

Peace

Eric

Lobstrosity

Of course you do. You respect the human right to life (at least I sure as hell hope you do--I assume you don't kill at will). This is the only foundation morality needs, and it is this foundation that allows humans to exist within societal groups. There's nothing mystical about morality--it serves the definite concrete purpose of allowing humans to be social animals. No human would ever choose to live within such close proximity to other humans without some reasonable assurance that they will not try to kill or rob him. To live in a society you enter into a social contract where you agree to sacrifice your right to steal and murder in order to obtain the same sacrifice on the part of your neighbors. This is known as ethics, and this a real, physical, behavior-oriented system. To say morality is just a "mystical" and "imaginary" is as foolish as saying that the economy is mystical and imaginary because it's based on paper money.

Theli

Although there is something in what he says, morals has, just like truth been used as sales-argument.
Humans are in a way self-righteous, and the person who is "right" at the moment is the one who makes the most noise or have the most power.

Lobstrosity

Sure, people have fucked with the idea of morality just like incompetent presidents can royally screw up an economy. Religions use their power to push ideals that are rooted in the land of make-believe and have no true benefit to anyone living in the real world. It is this sort of corruption that has tainted the word "moral" for all of us. The point is, though, that ethics serve a concrete purpose and abolishing them completely to live asocially in total anarchy is certainly not the way to go. They can be implemented objectively sans corruption to our benefit.

dk

I don't follow, morals govern human conduct because people are reasonable creatures with free will, and truth connects reason with reality. If we are to get along and prosper as families, communities and nations then the basis of moral law must be truth, which in turn makes the "rule of law" a bases for people to truly understand one another. Suppose I'm honestly a mean rotten person, then the truth might seem to hurt me, but it might also teach me the futility of being a mean rotten person. There’s another interpretation of, "The squeaky wheel gets the grease”. People that knowing the truth choose freedom, and people ignorant of the truth get greased.

philechat

I would argue against any objective morality arrived through reason alone. The basis of morality has always been plain-ol' feeling, and people trying to rationalize feelings into some universal laws.

It does seem reasonable to poke some holes in people's moral assumptions from time to time. Usually morality exists for utility's sake, or for the instinct of self-preservation in our nature. And I do see morality as values which could not depart from our own character and emotional disposition.

Dominus Paradoxum

You're contradicting yourself, idiot. If there's no morality, why shouldn't they be bigots and force their opinions on other people, yourself included? It can't be because to do so is "wrong". It must be, if for any reason at all from your perspective, because it's "irrational" in some very dubious technical sense. But then the question is, why not behave irrationally? To say that they shouldn't because it's irrational is to beg the very question at issue.

Lobstrosity

That's a good point, DP. What do you have against bigotry, Totalitarianist? Clearly you can't think there's anything wrong with being either a bigot or irrational or both? Without morals, it's perfectly fine for anyone to do anything at any time, including promoting bigotry or acting irrationally. If you would rather live in a world devoid of bigots and irrational behavior, you would be projecting your code of ethics on the rest of us, which according to your arguments makes you a bigot yourself--and now we're just going in circles.

Lobstrosity

Actually, I'd argue that the basis of our subjective morality is derived more from what we were taught as a youth. Our parents tell us what behaviors society expects of us. What they don't teach us we learn ourselves through societal interactions (usually these lessons begin when we first enter school and are forced to deal with other kids and then continue as we grow and interact with new people in new ways). Each person's subjective morals will clearly be the product of these learned lessons colored by his own character and emotional disposition, as you say. The global phenomenon of morality itself, however, can still be objectively assessed using reason (I'm talking about looking at the macroscopic picture here). Your argument above does not work in refuting this suggestions because it commits the fallacy of appealing to tradition. You cannot argue that something is correct simply because it has always been done that way. We may currently base our morality on plain-ol' feeling, but this doesn't necessarily mean we are correct in doing so. Look what that imperfect, subjective practice has given us: the Crusades, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, .... Perhaps there is a more reasonable way to go about it? Who knows, I'm just suggesting there might be a way to tackle the notion of morality from a somewhat more objective standpoint (and I'm not alone...there are quite a few secular philosophies devoted to objectifying morality: utilitarianism, contract egoism, Kant's absolute moral laws, etc.

It is this very belief that leads me to think that one can more rigorously lay out under what circumstances it is reasonable to poke holes in people's moral assumptions. Just the very idea that someone can judge someone elses' morals indicates that there is some degree of objectivity involved, and it seems we all realize this. Perhaps we should work to flesh out what this objective morality involves.