Morality is a guilt trip

[Viscera]

this post was originally a reply to this thread,

https://bitcointalk.org/index.php?topic=244258.0

About this survey

http://kwiksurveys.com/s.asp?sid=9fgng77f80xbtr9177028

I decided to create my own thread where I could encourage conversation about math that is less subjective than morality and see if I can reach out to others who understand this point of view,

thanks for reading.

-----------------------------------

I will have to retake the test and lie to find the other questions. I got as far as question one. I do believe I can make a case for when it would be wise to take money from you but moral, perhaps the survey should define morality first before assuming it means the same thing to everyone.

If you want to make the case that something is moral or immoral then you first need to define what you believe is moral. Once you accept that this is subjective and needs defining then you have to accept that logic (read math) and morality cannot co-exist. (I hope the majority will one day accept the objective morality of math)

Is it wrong to kill someone? Wrong is subjective, what if you're at sea and killing means you will live? While I would feel this is a horrible decision to have to make and I would sympathize with anyone who decided they would rather die than live with the guilt, the guilt is subjective and does not result from a logical interpretation of events.

As you will see if listen to the majority, I have a minority point of view. That's ok, the way the majority of humanity is behaving right now I'm happy to be in the minority. I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm doing my best to use logic and reason to prove that morality is a subjective emotion used to create weakness in others.

If animals had morals (as described by the majority) they would not survive, humanity is suffering from a bad case of moral superiority right now, and all these so called "libertarians" are blind to a mathematical interpretation of morality.

Is there a better way? well I sure hope so.

-----------------------

edit

Ok so I've answered yes to all the questions purely to see the outcome, I guess some would judge me as immoral for lying, it was interesting to get to the end and find the purpose of this was to explain that Tax is Theft

Math and logic should tell you that Tax is Theft, using morality to trick people into feeling guilty for stealing, that's priceless LOL

[1714890562]

1714890562

[1714890562]

1714890562

[1714890562]

1714890562

[hawkeye]

Of course, morality is a guilt trip.  If you've done something wrong or support bad behaviour in others you should feel guilty.  You should feel guilty enough to want to make reparations.

If you have morals and follow them you don't feel guilty.  In fact, you feel pretty good.  A moral life is a good life.

[Rassah]

There may be an issue with the poll question with some people differentiating between moral and ethical. E.g. I think "moral" is a word often used subjectively, especially when morality is taken from authority (such as "the bible says homosexuality or sex before marriage is immoral). On the other hand, "ethical" is a more objective word, describing the value of a behavior based on observation and rational deduction (such as, "smoking weed doesn't hurt anyone but the smoker, so it's morally ambiguous, but taking someone's property may be unethical, because widespread lack of respect for property would mean real actual harm to the survival of our species). In short, the former is more external and taken on faith or gut feeling, and the later is more internal, and based on philosophical and/or rational deduction.

[Viscera]

Of course, morality is a guilt trip.  

Exactly right!

If you've done something wrong or support bad behaviour in others you should feel guilty. (says who?) You should feel guilty enough to want to make reparations.

If you have morals and follow them you don't feel guilty. (this is an impossible statement since the only purpose of morals is to make you feel guilty for not following them, and if you always followed them how would you even know you had morals?)

 In fact, you feel pretty good.  A moral life is a good life. (again, say's who? if it's subjective as I believe then an immoral life can be a life filled with good things and happiness. A life with an ethical code based on science seems impossible for some people to comprehend, not easy to explain either)

Let me make it clear that I DO believe stealing is a poor way to distribute resources and that win/win trading is far more advantageous, I do not make this distinction base on a moral understanding, but rather a mathematical comprehension of reality.

[Ekaros]

Good is also subjective and relative term.

But cleary there is some basis of what is moral and how these rules are good for general working of society.

And these basis are rather smaller than what moral is now used for...

[4mherewego]

If animals had morals (as described by the majority) they would not survive, humanity is suffering from a bad case of moral superiority right now, and all these so called "libertarians" are blind to a mathematical interpretation of morality.

This is a very weird way of thinking. Why would it even matter? If ants had morals like you would they survive? So what? We are not different animals.

And you don't give any reasoning why "libertarians" are blind.

You don't even define the position think are blind.

From what I have read libertarians are usually the few who are not blind.

Mathematical intrepretation, what does that even mean?

If you want a really good analysis of libertarian morality try this book:
http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1137281650

Most Helpful Customer Reviews
35 of 37 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars The best book of libertarian political philosophy around January 18, 2013
By Bryan Caplan
Format:Paperback
I've read almost every work of libertarian political philosophy ever written. This is simply the best book in the genre.

What's so great about it? Simple: Huemer scrupulously reasons from widely shared moral premises to surprising conclusions. There's no question begging, no obscurantism, and no bullet biting. The book begins by pointing out that if a private individual acted like a government, almost everyone would consider his behavior immoral. He then charitably considers all the major attempts to defend this asymmetry.

If you'd like to learn more about political views you disagree with, *The Problem of Political Authority* is ideal. Huemer earnestly tries to engage thoughtful readers of all descriptions. He toes no party line, makes no ad hominems, and never hectors. He's just a very smart, broadly knowledgeable scholar making a careful case for a controversial conclusion.

It will blow you mind, maybe not his views, but they way he is able to reason and write them.

PS I am not libertarian, I'm anarcho capitalist, but I think the libertarian position is defensible.

[crumbs]

...
If you want to make the case that something is moral or immoral then you first need to define what you believe is moral. Once you accept that this is subjective and needs defining then you have to accept that logic (read math) and morality cannot co-exist. (I hope the majority will one day accept the objective morality of math)

If you're seriously interested in logic, Kurt Godel, & his Incompleteness Theorems, are worth knowing.  Also check out THIS.  Just a taste of why "proof" is a much squirmier concept than most people believe
 

Is it wrong to kill someone? Wrong is subjective, what if you're at sea and killing means you will live? While it's a horrible decision to have to make and I would sympathize with anyone who decided they would rather die than live with the guilt, the guilt is subjective and does not result from a logical interpretation of events.

There is nothing intrinsically irrational in ethics or guilt; at least everything could be easily interpreted relying on nothing more than basic behaviorism.  Guilt, for instance, serves as negative reinforcement after pointless killing, just as revulsion & squeamishness serve as a deterrent.  Both optimize the survival & propagation of a group or a species.  From that perspective, morality is an effective means to a very pragmatic & utilitarian end.  You don't want mom eating Shnookums just because she's too lazy to run out to the store, do you?  *Not* life-affirming.

As you will see if listen to the majority, I have a minority point of view. That's ok, the way the majority of humanity is behaving right now I'm happy to be in the minority. I'm not asking you to agree with me, I'm doing my best to use logic and reason to prove that morality is a subjective emotion used to create weakness in others.

Just because morality may be subjective doesn't imply that it's wrong, "unnatural," or only exists as a tool to "create weakness in others."  If you posit a goal for mankind, you can start grading ethical systems by how well they serve that goal.  If you believe, like the Christians, that the goal is to serve God, the Bible serves as a good starting point.  If you adhere to hedonism, anything that maximises hedons & minimises dolors is right; if you think depopulating earth is the way to fly, then a moral code that advocates killing and frowns at compassion is for you.  Name a goal, rate a moral code accordingly.

If animals had morals (as described by the majority) they would not survive, humanity is suffering from a bad case of moral superiority right now, and all these so called "libertarians" are blind to a mathematical interpretation of morality.

If animals had morals, and there's absolutely nothing telling us they do not, they'd be just fine -- what's bad for one critter is good for the herd, if GI Joe throws himself on a grenade, he saves several of his buddies.  Nothing wrong with morals.  Morals are life-affirming.

Math and logic should tell you that Tax is Theft, using morality to trick people into feeling guilty for stealing, that's priceless LOL

Wha?  You have to be clearer.

[Viscera]

Good is also subjective and relative term.

THAT'S WHAT I SAID!?!

But cleary there is some basis of what is moral and how these rules are good for general working of society.

So clear you fail to say what your basis is.

And these basis are rather smaller than what moral is now used for...

WTF?!?! this just sounds like a reaction rather than a thought out reply.

[Viscera]

If animals had morals (as described by the majority) they would not survive, humanity is suffering from a bad case of moral superiority right now, and all these so called "libertarians" are blind to a mathematical interpretation of morality.

This is a very weird way of thinking.

Weird is subjective and there is no explanation why, any further comments on this thread that fail to define the words used in the argument will be deleted, thanks for attempting to join the discussion

Why would it even matter? If ants had morals like you would they survive? So what? We are not different animals.

Exactly!!! perhaps a Freudian slip, but I think it's correct non the less. We are not different from animals, it's only the "God complex" that makes some humans assume animals do not have a "conscience"

And you don't give any reasoning why "libertarians" are blind.

Let me re-iterate my reason is they ignore maths based reasoning

You don't even define the position think are blind.

An error? I'm not perfect, we all make mistakes, perhaps we could both learn to take a little more time replying and a little less time reacting to new ideas and concepts.

From what I have read libertarians are usually the few who are not blind.

Here you ask us to trust that you read something without giving us any details. Think P2P trustless currency and maybe you will see why this is illogical (as opposed to unethical)

Mathematical intrepretation, what does that even mean?

Well you ask, but it's sounds like you don't expect a reply, in fact you follow this up with an assumption that I will be interested in your "intrpretation". My interpretation of your error is that you have already decided your position are you are not open to debate, I would be happy to be wrong.

[Viscera]

morality seems to be a social construct, basically all the additional behavioural stuff above and beyond the survival instincts of loner~predator species.

Were a social-omnivore species, not a longer-predator one. So things like social needs and joint survival may be in our DNA

Holy effing shitballs, "social needs" and "joint survival"?!?! This is not an argument, this is an assertion of undefined terms. Define your terms if you wish to make a real argument. I haven't deleted a post yet. I don't like censorship even when it's stupidity, I just want the posts to actually address the concept of logic and actually argue a position otherwise they really are pointless in this thread.

[Viscera]

There is nothing intrinsically irrational in ethics or guilt; at least everything could be easily interpreted relying on nothing more than basic behaviorism.  Guilt, for instance, serves as negative reinforcement after pointless killing, just as revulsion & squeamishness serve as a deterrent.  Both optimize the survival & propagation of a group or a species.  From that perspective, morality is an effective means to a very pragmatic & utilitarian end.  You don't want mom eating Shnookums just because she's too lazy to run out to the store, do you?  *Not* life-affirming.

I am not saying guilt doesn't exist internally or that is serves no internal purpose, I'm saying that is an advantage for the powerful to use it against the weak and the weak don't understand how guilt is USED as a weapon against them.

Just because morality may be subjective doesn't imply that it's wrong, "unnatural," or only exists as a tool to "create weakness in others."  If you posit a goal for mankind, you can start grading ethical systems by how well they serve that goal.  If you believe, like the Christians, that the goal is to serve God, the Bible serves as a good starting point.  If you adhere to hedonism, anything that maximises hedons & minimises dolors is right; if you think depopulating earth is the way to fly, then a moral code that advocates killing and frowns at compassion is for you.  Name a goal, rate a moral code accordingly.

These moral codes that you speak of all seem illogical to me, I feel like you are clarifying my point.

If animals had morals, and there's absolutely nothing telling us they do not, they'd be just fine -- what's bad for one critter is good for the herd, if GI Joe throws himself on a grenade, he saves several of his buddies.  Nothing wrong with morals.  Morals are life-affirming.

NOT for GI Joe!!!

Math and logic should tell you that Tax is Theft, using morality to trick people into feeling guilty for stealing, that's priceless LOL

Wha?  You have to be clearer.

Agreed

[Viscera]

Just a quick reminder that this post is self moderated. Please do not ignore my requests to define your terms before trying to make an argument. I'm happy to take constructive criticism however abusive posts will be deleted. I don't have time for flame wars. Keep it civil or keep it elsewhere.

[Anon136]

erm its a bit of a false dichotomy. morality can be entirely subjective while still being necessary for the world to be good according to my subjective interpretation of what is good.

[cryptoanarchist]

The code of competency is the only moral philosophy on a gold standard. 

[dancupid]

Morality is an attempt to formalize pain and suffering in terms of personal experience. For most of us that includes empathy (unless we are psycho/socio-paths).
Morality is therefore a pain limitation exercise.
This is situational - my situation is comfortable 21st century wealthy healthy and happy. So my moral (pain avoidance) decisions are typically limited to avoiding social embarrassment. The worst I fear is faux pas - using the wrong spoon to eat my soup.
Throw me into a situation of genocide were I kill or be killed and my whole moral universe will change - I will morally justify genocide if it means I survive.

[cryptoanarchist]

Full quote:

“There's nothing of any importance in life - except how well you do your work. Nothing. Only that. Whatever else you are, will come from that. It's the only measure of human value. All the codes of ethics they'll try to ram down your throat are just so much paper money put out by swindlers to fleece people of their virtues. The code of competence is the only system of morality that's on a gold standard.”

Everything else is just subjective mental meanderings...

[crumbs]

^^^ ^^^
Ayn Rand -- Tries to write world's longest book, comes in 9th.   (1,088 pages, Atlas Shrugged, Signet Books, '96 paperback edition)

[Viscera]

Morality is an attempt to formalize pain and suffering in terms of personal experience. For most of us that includes empathy (unless we are psycho/socio-paths).
Morality is therefore a pain limitation exercise.
This is situational - my situation is comfortable 21st century wealthy healthy and happy. So my moral (pain avoidance) decisions are typically limited to avoiding social embarrassment. The worst I fear is faux pas - using the wrong spoon to eat my soup.
Throw me into a situation of genocide were I kill or be killed and my whole moral universe will change - I will morally justify genocide if it means I survive.

wow, thanks for your interesting input

[Viscera]

^^^ ^^^
Ayn Rand -- Tries to write world's longest book, comes in 9th.   (1,088 pages, Atlas Shrugged, Signet Books, '96 paperback edition)

I think Ayn Rand tries to give people 99% of the truth so she can give you the 1% lie... the end of atlas shrugged "let's RE-WRITE the constitution and start again" lol (emphasis added)

one of her most well known students, ex federal reserve chairman Alan Greenspan

[Rassah]

you haven't offered any thing to prove that morals are hard wired into us, and I still don't believe they are anything more than bad feelings.

Interesting. So you think feeling bad about something is a conscious choice?