Terxpahseyton
Nobody
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 10,759
We all got collective and our ideas about what is „right“. Emotions (I don't like this / like this), instincts (I have to stand against it / I want to belong to it), world views (this makes it run / this destroys it), religion (this bring us salvation, this does the opposite), politics (these are human rights, these are crimes against humanity)
…
I find we rarely have nuanced, substantial debates about what is right. That is normal, IMO. We carry our cultural rules in directives rather than pages-long debates without clear results because the former does a much better job in enforcement. But that does not make them “right”, it just makes them ready to be understood and easy to be implemented.
Speaking of such, I am not going to dispute that viewing killing as a sacrilege is “good”. By which I mostly mean “necessary”.
What I will dispute is why it is such an act against all holy. And why, ultimately, only circumstances make it so. Not the act itself.
This question about a pillar of our moral code leads us to the pillar of morality as such. “God”, “Decency”, just being a “good person”, culture... They are all intellectual constructs bestowed upon us. They don't even intend to describe but prescribe.
So does, ultimately, a supposedly scientific investigation of morality which views morality as something pre-existing worthy of investigation. Again they don't wonder “why should anything be wrong or right to being with?” but instead they look for a given base line, a given set of commandments, to work with. Some universal similarities of morality and such. They, again, effectively are forgiving responsibility. Shrieking away from existentially facing morality. And seeking solace in tradition.
Our last hope is pure philosophy. This task should fit their job description perfectly. Unraveling all which made a thing what it is. Getting to the heart of it and dissecting the onion layers around it. But while philosophy did concern itself with it, of course, it always seemed to me to only half-heartedly do so, for the most part. A bit dissecting and questioning, but ether falling back to traditional half-truths or just working within a given system of moral axioms to begin with.
Very lackluster.
This is where I need to take over, and will do so quit succinctly: Morality is about what is good and bad, right and wrong. Only looking at things which are most likely real or extremely likely to be real: To the generally mentally more or less healthy honest being, there is only one ultimate source for such categories: emotions.
Emotions are, by definition, where good and bad are even born and where the development of any path chosen will eventually actually manifest. Emotions are, again by definition, what gives meaning to anything. To summarize: Emotions are the beginning and end of anything of relevant consequence.
If so: to end a life means to end its emotions means to end consequence means to end relevance of whatever kind.
IF ONLY: retaliative, friends, loves and about everyone else because they could be him or her did not matter. But they do, of course, on account of them being still alive and still feeling stuff.
Sooo: To end a life does matter, at least in the humane world, most of the time, because one way or the other it effects the rest of us. And on a very emotional note. Thoughts-logic-consequences-blablabla - ending a life should be a sacrilege. But only because we humans hold its continuation so dear. Not because the continuation of life had value as such. Not at all. That would mean to describe value to the existence of value. Which is logically impossible since it misses an outer frame of reference. Which unmasks as you as a charlatan proclaiming “x is y because......... because z!” without being able to say what z even is, at all.
I know – too high sigh
Well so just go ahead and angrily disagree with me
Okay put differently: The abstinence of suffering or pleasure is not... feeling bad. It is NOTHING. Nothing is the (meta)-opposite of emotions. People aren't depressed because they feel nothing. It is something you will find them say – but it is not literally true, at all. Otherwise, they wouldn't complain about how bad they feel.
Nothing is a state of pure float, something constant which just happens devout of interaction ot life in itself. However, we strongly tag feeling indifferent and feeling bad – rightly so – but we don't mean literally feeling indifferent.
We only wish that was how animals felt. Or at least in an animal-like inconsequential matter (a bogus idea on the face of it). But that is another topic. I eat industrially-farmed animals. But not because I deem it right. But basically for the same reason I don't send 70% of my income to starving children in Africa.
The bottom line is: Nothing bad or good happens to you when dead. Just nothing. Nothing is the most neutral thing imaginable. Including the moral real if you care to make sense.
However, that terrifies you, being alive. And it is only morally right to account for your feeble instincts
…
I find we rarely have nuanced, substantial debates about what is right. That is normal, IMO. We carry our cultural rules in directives rather than pages-long debates without clear results because the former does a much better job in enforcement. But that does not make them “right”, it just makes them ready to be understood and easy to be implemented.
Speaking of such, I am not going to dispute that viewing killing as a sacrilege is “good”. By which I mostly mean “necessary”.
What I will dispute is why it is such an act against all holy. And why, ultimately, only circumstances make it so. Not the act itself.
This question about a pillar of our moral code leads us to the pillar of morality as such. “God”, “Decency”, just being a “good person”, culture... They are all intellectual constructs bestowed upon us. They don't even intend to describe but prescribe.
So does, ultimately, a supposedly scientific investigation of morality which views morality as something pre-existing worthy of investigation. Again they don't wonder “why should anything be wrong or right to being with?” but instead they look for a given base line, a given set of commandments, to work with. Some universal similarities of morality and such. They, again, effectively are forgiving responsibility. Shrieking away from existentially facing morality. And seeking solace in tradition.
Our last hope is pure philosophy. This task should fit their job description perfectly. Unraveling all which made a thing what it is. Getting to the heart of it and dissecting the onion layers around it. But while philosophy did concern itself with it, of course, it always seemed to me to only half-heartedly do so, for the most part. A bit dissecting and questioning, but ether falling back to traditional half-truths or just working within a given system of moral axioms to begin with.
Very lackluster.
This is where I need to take over, and will do so quit succinctly: Morality is about what is good and bad, right and wrong. Only looking at things which are most likely real or extremely likely to be real: To the generally mentally more or less healthy honest being, there is only one ultimate source for such categories: emotions.
Emotions are, by definition, where good and bad are even born and where the development of any path chosen will eventually actually manifest. Emotions are, again by definition, what gives meaning to anything. To summarize: Emotions are the beginning and end of anything of relevant consequence.
If so: to end a life means to end its emotions means to end consequence means to end relevance of whatever kind.
IF ONLY: retaliative, friends, loves and about everyone else because they could be him or her did not matter. But they do, of course, on account of them being still alive and still feeling stuff.
Sooo: To end a life does matter, at least in the humane world, most of the time, because one way or the other it effects the rest of us. And on a very emotional note. Thoughts-logic-consequences-blablabla - ending a life should be a sacrilege. But only because we humans hold its continuation so dear. Not because the continuation of life had value as such. Not at all. That would mean to describe value to the existence of value. Which is logically impossible since it misses an outer frame of reference. Which unmasks as you as a charlatan proclaiming “x is y because......... because z!” without being able to say what z even is, at all.
I know – too high sigh
Well so just go ahead and angrily disagree with me
Okay put differently: The abstinence of suffering or pleasure is not... feeling bad. It is NOTHING. Nothing is the (meta)-opposite of emotions. People aren't depressed because they feel nothing. It is something you will find them say – but it is not literally true, at all. Otherwise, they wouldn't complain about how bad they feel.
Nothing is a state of pure float, something constant which just happens devout of interaction ot life in itself. However, we strongly tag feeling indifferent and feeling bad – rightly so – but we don't mean literally feeling indifferent.
We only wish that was how animals felt. Or at least in an animal-like inconsequential matter (a bogus idea on the face of it). But that is another topic. I eat industrially-farmed animals. But not because I deem it right. But basically for the same reason I don't send 70% of my income to starving children in Africa.
The bottom line is: Nothing bad or good happens to you when dead. Just nothing. Nothing is the most neutral thing imaginable. Including the moral real if you care to make sense.
However, that terrifies you, being alive. And it is only morally right to account for your feeble instincts
