The suggestion that philosophy or morality are subjects of whimsical introspection of the Human condition by elitist intellectuals without regard to the actual daily lives of the majority of people is in itself, whimsical. We all operate under a philosophical and moral imperative whether or not we can delineate it intellectually. The process of delineating our moral position is testing to see whether or not it is plausible or beneficial. One of the common tenets of morality is to "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you". Which is fine unless you're a psychopath or masochist. We share many characteristics of the other animals on the planet, one of which is to act instinctively rather than introspectively. We do not attempt to judge other animals morally because they act mainly on instinct. As do we. The difference is that we have the mental faculties with which can posit alternative actions to acting emotionally or on instinct. We act immorally because we abandon our intellectual assets in favor of acting impulsively or selfishly. Acting morally in the real world implies rigorous study of the Human condition not only in the moment but in introspection and in the context of the social contract.
Elitist intellectuals do, quite often, disregard the fact that their mental abilities are not shared by the average human ding dong. Most individuals do not understand they are making decisions based on either their human or animal nature. If anyone truly believes the average bozo is going to have the mental prowess and discipline to rigorously study the Human condition....yada yada yada...then they are not only elitist but delusional to boot. The people who believe this way are the Ted Kaczynskis and Timothy McVeighs of the world who place judgments of immoral behavior on governments and other groups. They blow people up without any instructions from either muffin or god, just rigorous introspection and hatred for the lack of morality found in their study of the human condition.
ReplyDeleteEven the average Human ding dong or meat Popsicle needs to act morally and recognize the moral implications of their acts. The problem is that in the United States they do have the mental capacity to discern moral behavior but have abdicated that responsibility. Much like the voting franchise, they have acceded authority to their party affiliation, favorite sports figure or celebrity and as a consequence have given that power away. The consequence is that the government they choose acts immorally by running up insurmountable debt and stifling Human progress through autocratic bureaucracies that perpetuate themselves by feeding on the apathy of the masses as they are fed entertainment instead of knowledge. They have to obey the law, which has penalties if caught, but not act morally if there are no explicit penalties, even if it is in their best interests. The Kaczynskis, Catholic Priests and Pol Pots of this world have acceded their moral compass to dogma and rhetoric. Most of the planet has done the same in one way or another. All religion, from where most people derive their morals is based on myth. Morality must be based on empirical evidence. We have children for 12 years of education and rarely spend any time figuring out why we act the way we do. The children are told who they are and what they are to do without any sense of individuality. The result is the junk mail, junk food, junk bond, trash sport society in which we live. Whether or not the salivating masses have opted out of their moral responsibilities does not forgive them their societal obligation to examine and be responsible for their actions.
DeleteDividing Human nature into Human and animal sectors is a futile pursuit. We are animals in every sense, but have the extra memory storage and complexity that allows the option of acting instinctively or intellectually. We were built to survive in the wild, which requres quick and instictive responses to environmental challenges. That is also the way we currently react, but in a typical civilized situation, the better otion is to act after consideration. Instinct is easy, introspection and analysis are learned behaviors.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAll the more reason to know and acknowledge the difference. This seems to be the crux of our differences in reasoning and approach to any solution whatsoever. I completely agree with many of your moral tenets but fail to see the logic in your pursuit of any logical resolution to the problem. There are times when people need instructions to build or fix that of which they are unfamiliar. You seem to feel just the opposite—morals should be self taught or innate and unlearned. I see nothing wrong with "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife" as much as "Thou shalt not abdicate thy moral obligations away". I won't burn the message because of its source. A nose by any other name would smell.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteSome morals are innate. Our propensity for cooperation within a familial or societal setting is certainly part of our genetic makeup. As is the ability to empathize with another member of our species. These are moral and innate but are also fundamental values which require little introspection. This is only one example of the basic moral precepts that allowed our species to prosper in an environment of relatively little communication or intellectual tools. In the context of modern societies, there can be very complex moral issues not easily defined or resolved. But the basis for resolving those issues lies with the fundamental understanding of individual rights and cooperation which served us in the pre-civilization era. Certainly acting morally in our daily lives is a lesson in morality. Teaching morality, like teaching geometry, is far more efficient than allowing the individual to discover that knowledge on their own. We just have to be careful what we teach and that it has a sound evidential and empirical foundation. I have never excluded any text from any source if it has value in the current social context. Coveting in the biblical sense is a thought crime. The wish to have something that is not yours is not an immoral act. To take something that is not yours, is. The derivation of biblical commandments necessarily includes the presence of an omniscient dictator. No evidence for such an entity has ever existed and by default many of the moral precepts are without merit.
DeleteAgain, I agree with much of what you say. I believe, however, our disagreement remains with how we view and understand the people around us and the groups and ideologies to which they attach themselves. Many years ago I read quite a bit of the Bible. It was filled with stories of moral and ethical behavior. I never took it as literal material. It was mythology at its finest. The parables were as good as any I had ever read as a youth. Many teachings of the Buddah any other religious big shots are extremely similar, if not identical, to teachings and stories told of Jesus in Biblical times. Coincidence? I doubt it!
ReplyDeleteEven the most pious of people do not live their lives following the literal teachings and rules set forth by biblical scripture. They usually live their lives telling others to do that. It is futile to me to waste time or focus any attention on the literalists who carve their self-exempt moral standards on someone else's forehead.
I still refuse to disregard "Thou shalt not kill" as invalid because thinking is a verb and a bunch of maniacs believe they own the rights to the book that says so.
I know you are familiar with Joseph Campbell and comparative mythology. It should come as no surprise to you that the New Testament is very derivative of eastern religions and Roman mystery cults. Certain Orthodoxy still survives based on the literal interpretation of the Bible and Koran. This is marginalized is most religions for good reason. These religious manifestos were written (by humans) centuries ago. I cannot speak for the Koran, but the Bible version in common use is the King James Version completed in 1611, which was translated from ancient Greek, Aramaic and Hebrew text from a time and mental state completely removed from our current reality. It makes no sense to be a literalist unless you are an Aramaic editor from the first century A.D. So interpretation abounds and accounts for all the various sects of Christianity derived from a single text. The reason I don't take "Thou shalt not kill" from the bible is all of the religious baggage that comes along with it. If I ascribe to a commandment, then I also ascribe to Christianity having some moral validity, which I do not. I can express the same sentiment outside of the Bible and more accurately (the simple statement of not killing taken from the Bible would prohibit me from eating (killing plants or animals) or walking (killing bugs and microbes)) without the dogma and associations with religious beliefs, which are myth and therefore not fit for moral consideration.
ReplyDeleteAgain, I am not as concerned with the source of the message as I am with the message itself. My father raised me to "...keep my goddam hands off things..." that didn't belong to me. He further threatened to "...break both my goddam legs..." if I didn't heed his version of "Thou shalt not steal".
ReplyDeleteI see nothing wrong with mythological, philosophical, idealogical or other means to a common end—especially an end resulting in moral affinity. Not one single method will work, necessarily, for all humans. For example, not all roads to success, necessarily, pass through a college degree or well connected family affiliation. Did Steve Jobs attain the same success as many who had founded similar companies, but gained knowledge and business acumen through the hallowed halls of an institution of higher learning?
Some use college in the same way some use church and religion. Some have God or the stars and cosmos to point them towards the truth. Some have a father who tells them what is goddam expected of them, period.
I do not wish to waste any energy on deconstructing religion or any other entity through denotation and argumentative fallacy. And I don't believe in the reasoning that we can affect a moral change in society by having every individual think the same way. I would like to focus on a moral commonality among humans despite individual differences.
I am not concerned with the source of the message either when you are talking to your father about your behavior. I am concerned when I am talking about how 7 billion people should behave. Citing any religious or mythological book as valid moral guidance, even if it is only one phrase or sentence, is validating the religion or myth. Morality has to be derived like a mathematical proof, it has to make sense. For every Steve Jobs the success there are tens of thousands of bright people abstaining from the educational system dumpster diving behind the grocery store. While a Ph.D. doesn't make you a genius, it does give you the opportunity to make some money. Harvard pumps out MBA's and most are not CEO's. Most are doing well. They get a skill set valued for whatever reason by the people who hire them but a minority are also dumpster diving. You got to work driving your car because some engineer is thinking the same way and using the same mathematical tools as every other engineer at every other car maker. It is not moral to tell you what to think. It is moral to tell you how to behave in a collective. You can sit around all day thinking that the police should be executed while having lunch at a pizza place and nobody can tell you not to until you think it’s a good idea to do it. The moral commonality in no way restricts anyone's imagination. That is your problem. But the moral commonality derives from an empirical understanding of the Human condition within a collective and how we are going to make the most of it now and in the future.
ReplyDeleteMathematical proofs don't often involve human emotions or other attributes to be solved or executed. Morality does. How simple life would be if we could control everything about ourselves just by processing information mentally. If only the world was completely made up of MBAs, making decent money and processing all their moral behaviors through their wonderful MBA brains before taking any action. By the way, are most MBAs atheistic moralists?
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be suggesting a class in moral behavioral science. Another great fantastical idea. What percentage of that 7 billion people, piquing your concern, do you think we can get to follow a morality instruction manual? About 2.3 billion are already using the Bible, which you have proclaimed to out as invalid. That leaves you with just over 4 billion to teach and make morally whole. Let me know how that works out.
NOTE:
I have noticed some odd similarities between yourself and the religious icon of your distain and mocking.
1. Jesus turned water into wine.
You turned from beer to wine.
2. Jesus sought to save the collective moral SOULS of the human race.
You seek to have 7 billion people act morally in a collective or face having you kick them in their immoral ass with the SOLE of your boot.
3. Jesus had disciples.
You have (blog) followers.
4. Jesus was born in a manger.
You were born a little mangy. (lol)
5. Jesus called the poor "the least among us".
You call the poor "dumpster divers". (nice)
Just saying. You and the Jeeze have a lot in common. And if it walks like a duck, and looks like a duck.................
Maybe you should get a bunch of friends and acquaintances together to start writing books about you.
Morality has to be derived from empirical evidence for us to advance as a species. It is vital that we take on the challenge of acting on information instead of adrenaline. While I may go through my life without pounding someone else's brains out or getting my brains pounded out, the cost of acting on our emotions, individually in the case of murder or mayhem or collectively in the case of war, is far too great with 7 billion people trying to live like the United States.
ReplyDeleteI am not expecting to convert anyone. The masses have not been weaned from the teat of ignorance and dogma. Perhaps we will learn, as we have in the past, from a great catastrophe to change our ways. Perhaps not.
As to my comparisons to Jesus F. Christ:
1. I turn from beer to wine to beer on occasion, and sometimes upon no occasion. The only transformation I make in the chemical nature of the above is changing the above to urine.
2. A boot stomping on the human face forever: Lovely imagery(1984) I would ask people to opt in or opt out. If they opt in, it will not be my boot in their face, but their own. Morality is like a sewer, you only get out of it what you put into it. If they opt out, get your own hunk of land and do what you will, again suffering or surviving on your decisions. Like science, morality would constantly evolve as better information comes to light.
3. I have no followers and wouldn't belong to any club that would have me as a member.
4. I was born in Pomona, which was always a little rough around the edges, with the cord wrapped around my neck which a former psychologist and intimate of mine explained why I like explosions.
5. Jesus should get off of high horse. The least among us. The least among us sit in the capital building feasting on the blood sweat and tears of the masses. Best said by the Floyd of Pink persuasion:
You gotta be crazy, you gotta have a real need.
You gotta sleep on your toes, and when you're on the street,
You gotta be able to pick out the easy meat with your eyes closed.
And then moving in silently, down wind and out of sight,
You gotta strike when the moment is right without thinking.
And after a while, you can work on points for style.
Like the club tie, and the firm handshake,
A certain look in the eye and an easy smile.
You have to be trusted by the people that you lie to,
So that when they turn their backs on you,
You'll get the chance to put the knife in.
If I had friends and acquaintances who could write, I would hope they would have better things to write about.
"If I only had a brain"......
DeleteAlthough delighted by your use of the word "teat", I must insist on some pretty extensive empirical evidence which proves a large number of people are capable of acting morally by means of mere introspection and self control. However, if this has all been a simple philosophical exercise, then I agree with you completely and admire your Disneyesque dreams. Real living human beings, however, will always act upon greed, lust, desire, pride, prejudice, jealousy etc... To passively ponder otherwise would simply be waiting for Godot. Unfortunately, "The Real World" has very little to do with what "should be" and a whole lot to do with what "is". Experience kicks conjecture's ass every time.
ReplyDeleteAs the late Sam Kinison of Professor Turguson persuasion once said when speaking to a student about her understanding of the Vietnam War:
"...I know that's the popular version of what went on there. I know a lot of people like to believe that. I wish I could, but I was there. I wasn't here in a classroom...hoping I was right, thinking about it. I was up to my knees in rice paddies...with guns that didn't work, going up against Charlie..slugging it out with him, while pussies like you..were back here partyin', puttin' headbands on...doin' drugs, listening to the goddamn Beatle albums!"
I love that scene from Back to School. The empirical evidence, much like anthropic principle, is that we are here and we are better off than we ever have been in the brief history of human civilization. Even outside of first world countries, 7.2 billion are alive (the most in history) and living longer with more freedom, opportunity and entertainment. That requires acting morally in the defined sense of acting in a way that ensures the long term survival of the species. Here comes the big BUT. But the advancements have been very uneven across the planet; we still have war, hate, politicians, murder, rape, Miley Cyrus, and various other horrors. We all have the option to go to our sister-in-law's house and slaughter the family, but choose not to do so. We act morally 99% of the time which is why 99% of us lead secure dull long lives. A vast plurality must be acting morally or the whole thing would fall apart and acting like Genghis Khan would be the product of introspection and self-control. But we are still acting short term. Having nuclear weapons in the hands of religious or political zealots could start a chain reaction that would end civilization. We could end up fucking ourselves to death when the ecosystems that provide the food for the expected 9 billion people in 2050 collapse. We could fall into another epoch of totalitarianism and ignorance where dogma decides who lives and dies. We are still on the edge and whether or not our ability to act morally will supersede our ability to act single-mindedly should be decided within the next 50-100 years.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you completely (about Miley Cyrus).
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I believe our moral success is much more organic than contrived. We live longer and are a less warring people due to many factors having nothing to do with our morally-conscious decision making. Advancements in technology and medications have more to do with our moral behavior than that of our human conscience. It is because we are a healthier people and more financially well off than ever before that we have extended our life span and turned away from the quagmire of Genghis Khan-like immoral behavior. Morality has become the byproduct of a more advanced, thriving world.
Where we once fought immorally to gain territory, power and control, we now fight morally to hold on to it. Where we once exploited children, women, minorities and common laborers to gain profits, prestige and monumental engineering achievements, we now employ henchmen countries to do our bidding. As you have suggested, we stand at the precipice of that same immoral quagmire of long ago, just one backwards step away. It is here we find morality not manifested out of any altruistic, righteous behavior but, rather, out of the absence of a need for "immoral behavior".
Because we automate our decisions unless they are completely novel situations does not mean that we are not acting with regard to morality. The human mind creates habits for those things that occur frequently so we don't have to use precious higher brain functions thinking about them. We spend our youth figuring out right and wrong in detail, and then act habitually on those precepts, which for the most of us, increase the chances for survival of the species. Were we to contemplate the morality of all of our actions fully, we would be overwhelmed and unable to act and this is not recommended. To act solely on preconceived moral precepts is not recommended either. It leads to the sheeple mentality so pervading our society and so admired by marketers and salesmen. The unexamined life is not worth living and neither is the over-examined life. The need for immoral behavior is certainly part of my everyday experience. I would love to drive idiots off of the road and steal immense wealth instead of working for it. I do not because of my ability to discern moral behavior, habitually or contemplatively, the consideration is not automatic. As new condition arise, and in the information age they arise at a quickening pace, I will act differently and morally to similar situations at different times. On the whole, society needs more empirical consideration of our moral behavior.
ReplyDeleteYou hardly qualify for poster boy of "having a need for immoral behavior". You were raised in Clareville, CA for crissakes and probably had a decent if not great upbringing. You now own a nice house in a nice neighborhood, own or lease reliable transportation and have a well-paying, steady job. You take vacations, a dip in the jacuzzi from time to time and write blogs. You have a beautiful wife, a great family and good friends (all from what I have observed). You were born with an intellect that lies somewhere on the human brainiac border that separates genius from madman (a.k.a. smart from smart-ass). Unless you are driven to immorality by overwhelming fear, lust, greed, rage or insanity, you will probably live out the remainder of your days in some quiet bloggers bar drinking Immoral Ice Teas with Corrupt Government chasers.
ReplyDeleteYes, we do develop our moral precepts as we grow and mature. Yes, many of these precepts do become second nature to us as we encounter similar situations time and again. Our differences, however, still run the gamut between extreme similarities to polar opposites. In humans, just as in nature, mixing many of the same chemicals at different proportions can render dramatically different outcomes. We certainly all experience birth, childhood, adolescence, adulthood and old age (as a general concept). But do we all experience these life-times the same way? How do each of our developed personalities react to our environments and other stimuli. Not all people are born into poverty nor all into wealth. Not all are born into tolerant, inclusive societies nor all into oppressive, religiously fanatical regions of the world. We must find commonality beyond our individual perceptions of morality.
And let us not forget one other important factor. Our moral behavior is based partially on deterrents. You may not run idiots off the road or steal immense wealth because of your moral self-awareness, but that may not be the whole of your decision making. We are well aware of the possible outcomes of our choices. A poor decision on your part could have dire consequences, of which the knowledge is as natural to you as your moral compass. You could easily lose your nice house, beautiful wife, family, good friends and all else you possess. Most decide not to run that risk, leaving self-preservation to render us another moral byproduct.
Wow, whose life was that again? I won't delve into the misconceptions as observed from afar, but I will admit to waiting like Vladimir and Estragon for that glorious day in 2022 when I can fulfill my destiny of being an existential pain in society’s ass. Despite the pervasiveness of Media in our lives, most still live lives of quiet desperation while following the mass lead, which is generally moral. But we have also institutionalized immorality. It is not moral to be dependent on non-renewable resources or run up debt we will never be able to pay back. It is immoral to have children you are not fit to raise. It is immoral not to speak the truth and especially so if you are charged with making decisions for the rest of us. But so it goes.
ReplyDeleteThere is plenty of room for deviation from the norm that does not conflict with morality. (Coming from someone who is more than three standard deviations from the norm.) Within this society (currently) there is sufficient room for a deviant such as myself to have a roof, food, and entertainment for myself and wife ( and other related parties that find themselves at my door.) And having seen the best minds of mine and other generations destroyed by madness, I am grateful and aware of the tenuous hold we have on this existence. Those who have lost that hold are among us and are moral and immoral with the randomness of quantum fluctuations and have no compass.
There are deterrents, but I focus on the rewards (2022) to provide my moral compass. If I were to lose those rewards at the whim of my employer, I would still be moral to friends and family. I could still display some disastrous lack of judgment; it is part of the human condition. And I could still suffer great poverty and deprivation, as do most of the humans on this planet, but it would still be in my best interest to act morally. Except in the direst of circumstances, this is not what defining morality is about. It is about the way the vast majority of us live, and in this country, that is fairly well (currently). And it is about improving those circumstances for the long run for the vast majority.
“Poem by Howard A. Walter (Character)
I would be true, for there are those who trust me;
I would be pure, for there are those who care;
I would be strong, for there are those who suffer;
I would be brave, for there is much to dare.”
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteYou couldn't be more right. I shouldn't have assumed anything from afar. When not being judged from afar, priests are not all pedophiles, politicians are not all lying bastards, religious worshipers are not all delusional sheep, comedians are not all depressed, suicidal ingrates and children of Claremont, CA neighborhoods are not all fairly well-adjusted, well cared for youngsters. As a matter of fact, I'm sure there's a kid somewhere in the African Sudan who would give their father's right arm in gratitude for not having to have experienced your horrible life as a young man. Besides, not all people are a product of their environment. A childhood in Clareville could very easily have been just as hellish as that of one from any crap-hole in the world.
ReplyDeleteAnd I'm surely as equally guilty in my assumption of your lifestyle. You probably no longer drive a gas guzzling truck around—a Prius perhaps. Maybe a Vespa to to get yourself back and forth to work and a scooter, skateboard or ten-speed for around town. Your house is most likely solar powered and your jacuzzi has been drained until the drought is over. You have a wood burning stove and make all your own clothes from hemp grown in your backyard. You are one morally conscious, cool bastard.
I am humbled by your service to mankind.
"Do not let me hear
Of the wisdom of old men, but rather of their folly,
Their fear of fear and frenzy, their fear of possession,
Of belonging to another, or to others, or to God.
The only wisdom we can hope to acquire
Is the wisdom of humility: humility is endless."
—T.S. Elliot
P.S. Please, tell us more about this scary prognostication of yours. 2022 sounds both ominous and chuckle provoking. After the second time you mentioned this foreboding date, I wasn't sure if I should be excited or crap my pants in fear.