4 ms·

I think it's a mistake to believe they all believed in good and evil in the first place. I don't. Those ideas exist for the purpose of domination. Social life,

I think it's a mistake to believe they all believed in good and evil in the first place. I don't. Those ideas exist for the purpose of domination. Social life, in that respect, is actually just conflict. Attempting to make ones will seem objective are what concepts like "good" and "evil" are for. Ethics should rather be focused on what we all want and equitable conflict resolution. Anyway, I think a lot of those people just reject the concepts as well, but probably for less enlightened reasons.

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
>Those ideas exist for the purpose of domination I wonder how you decided that. Most religions and many philosophers expound the virtues of good and why it matters. It goes by different names: loving kindness, metta, the Golden Rule, and a host of others. If the concept exists for dominance alone, why do these religions and philosophers discuss it so much?
- guerrilla 4y ago
  > I wonder how you decided that. It's impossible for there to be an objective good or evil. As soon as there are no humans, then there is no good or evil, because it was subjective judgement, our emotions, all along, evolved to help us cooperate. Now, if it's not objective, then we know that people claiming it to be are either deluded or doing so in order to make their own will the norm (which philosophers love to do.) > loving kindness, metta, the Golden Rule, and a host of others. This confounds good and evil with ethics itself. Things like the Golden Rule, for example, can be deduced logically to generally be in all of our interests. As I said in my original comment, ethics can be reconstructed without superstition. > If the concept exists for dominance alone, why do these religions and philosophers discuss it so much? Obviously to get people to do what they wanted and that's exactly how it was always used by religious institutions which subsisted as parasites more often than not.
  - JackFr 4y ago
    > Things like the Golden Rule, for example, can be deduced logically to generally be in all of our interests. By that do you mean you present a theory about why people behave the way they do (whether or not they know it)? Or do you mean you can logically deduce the way people should behave? > As I said in my original comment, ethics can be reconstructed without superstition. Again, by that do you mean a description of what is observed or a normative proscription for behavior? Because I don’t see how the latter is possible without assuming meaning or purpose, which you would seemingly describe as “superstition”.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      > By that do you mean you present a theory about why people behave the way they do (whether or not they know it)? Or do you mean you can logically deduce the way people should behave? No, I guess you could do that, but I meant: Do you want to live in a situation where anyone is allowed to kidnap and torture anyone? It's not really in your interest, is it?
- openknot 4y ago
  I'm not a philosopher or a Nietzsche expert, but Nietzsche wrote about this at length in his book "Beyond Good and Evil." It's been a while since I read the book (surface-level Wikipedia summary link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Good_and_Evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Good_and_Evil), but the argument he advanced was to frame morality as a means of people who lack power to feel superior over people who do have power. For example, he speculates that gluttony may be seen as a sin, because it was a way for disempowered people to feel superiority over people who had an abundance of food and wealth. If this frame is true (a big if), then one can be guided to not care about morality, and do what is in one's best interest. Of course, there are good psychological reasons for why it is a bad reason to throw away morality. If one's identity is tied to being a good person, doing bad acts in conflict with one's identity can cause a lot of distress. There is also a "hedonistic treadmill" where one gets used to more and more wealth, and how additional wealth at a certain point doesn't make someone happier. Lastly, there are society reasons for why morality is important (e.g. the Golden Rule as you wrote); a low-trust society where no one is moral is not a healthy society to live in. Counter-arguments aside, there is quite a bit of writing, also by philosophers, who argue that morality does exist for dominance alone (though I disagree with this, largely from a psychological rather than a philosophical perspective, due to lacking background to make rigorous-enough philosophical arguments).
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    > Of course, there are good psychological reasons for why it is a bad reason to throw away morality. If one's identity is tied to being a good person, doing bad acts in conflict with one's identity can cause a lot of distress. There is also a "hedonistic treadmill" where one gets used to more and more wealth, and how additional wealth at a certain point doesn't make someone happier. Lastly, there are society reasons for why morality is important (e.g. the Golden Rule as you wrote); a low-trust society where no one is moral is not a healthy society to live in. These aren't counter arguments to what I said. They don't require concepts of objective good and evil, as I pointed out in my original comment and follow-up.
    - openknot 4y ago
- ClumsyPilot 4y ago
  > Most religions and many philosophers expound the virtues of good and why it matters Most religions where spesifically used, abused and maybe invented to control the masses
dabbledash 4y ago
"Ethics should rather be focused on what we all want and equitable conflict resolution." Whence "should"? Why "equitable"? Why care about what everyone wants? You trying to dominate somebody with these normative assertions?
- guerrilla 4y ago
  > Why care about what everyone wants? Because anyone could be in anyone else's situation. You want norms that don't fuck you when you draw the short end of the stick. > You trying to dominate somebody with these normative assertions? I'm literally and transparently trying to convince you to do what I want.
  - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
    > I'm literally and transparently trying to convince you to do what I want. Didn’t work. Partially because I don’t understand it.
  - JackFr 4y ago
    > You want norms that don't fuck you when you draw the short end of the stick. Not necessarily. You’re claiming your worldview as universal. It’s easy to imagine an ethics where strength and power are virtues and weakness is a moral failing, and the strong owe nothing to the weak.
    - guerrilla 4y ago
      > Not necessarily. You’re claiming your worldview as universal. So you're fine with a system where anyone is allowed to kidnap and torture you? That's in your interest? No, I didn't think so and you agree with me.
      - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
        If I’m stronger and have more guns, why wouldn’t I want that system? Then I could kidnap, steal, etc. become wealthy through theft and spread my genes through rape. Isn’t this what we had a few tens of thousands of years ago?

TedDoesntTalk 4y ago

>Those ideas exist for the purpose of domination I wonder how you decided that. Most religions and many philosophers expound the virtues of good and why it matters. It goes by different names: loving kindness, metta, the Golden Rule, and a host of others. If the concept exists for dominance alone, why do these religions and philosophers discuss it so much?

guerrilla 4y ago
> I wonder how you decided that. It's impossible for there to be an objective good or evil. As soon as there are no humans, then there is no good or evil, because it was subjective judgement, our emotions, all along, evolved to help us cooperate. Now, if it's not objective, then we know that people claiming it to be are either deluded or doing so in order to make their own will the norm (which philosophers love to do.) > loving kindness, metta, the Golden Rule, and a host of others. This confounds good and evil with ethics itself. Things like the Golden Rule, for example, can be deduced logically to generally be in all of our interests. As I said in my original comment, ethics can be reconstructed without superstition. > If the concept exists for dominance alone, why do these religions and philosophers discuss it so much? Obviously to get people to do what they wanted and that's exactly how it was always used by religious institutions which subsisted as parasites more often than not.
- JackFr 4y ago
  > Things like the Golden Rule, for example, can be deduced logically to generally be in all of our interests. By that do you mean you present a theory about why people behave the way they do (whether or not they know it)? Or do you mean you can logically deduce the way people should behave? > As I said in my original comment, ethics can be reconstructed without superstition. Again, by that do you mean a description of what is observed or a normative proscription for behavior? Because I don’t see how the latter is possible without assuming meaning or purpose, which you would seemingly describe as “superstition”.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    > By that do you mean you present a theory about why people behave the way they do (whether or not they know it)? Or do you mean you can logically deduce the way people should behave? No, I guess you could do that, but I meant: Do you want to live in a situation where anyone is allowed to kidnap and torture anyone? It's not really in your interest, is it?
openknot 4y ago
I'm not a philosopher or a Nietzsche expert, but Nietzsche wrote about this at length in his book "Beyond Good and Evil." It's been a while since I read the book (surface-level Wikipedia summary link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Good_and_Evil https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Good_and_Evil), but the argument he advanced was to frame morality as a means of people who lack power to feel superior over people who do have power. For example, he speculates that gluttony may be seen as a sin, because it was a way for disempowered people to feel superiority over people who had an abundance of food and wealth. If this frame is true (a big if), then one can be guided to not care about morality, and do what is in one's best interest. Of course, there are good psychological reasons for why it is a bad reason to throw away morality. If one's identity is tied to being a good person, doing bad acts in conflict with one's identity can cause a lot of distress. There is also a "hedonistic treadmill" where one gets used to more and more wealth, and how additional wealth at a certain point doesn't make someone happier. Lastly, there are society reasons for why morality is important (e.g. the Golden Rule as you wrote); a low-trust society where no one is moral is not a healthy society to live in. Counter-arguments aside, there is quite a bit of writing, also by philosophers, who argue that morality does exist for dominance alone (though I disagree with this, largely from a psychological rather than a philosophical perspective, due to lacking background to make rigorous-enough philosophical arguments).
- guerrilla 4y ago
  > Of course, there are good psychological reasons for why it is a bad reason to throw away morality. If one's identity is tied to being a good person, doing bad acts in conflict with one's identity can cause a lot of distress. There is also a "hedonistic treadmill" where one gets used to more and more wealth, and how additional wealth at a certain point doesn't make someone happier. Lastly, there are society reasons for why morality is important (e.g. the Golden Rule as you wrote); a low-trust society where no one is moral is not a healthy society to live in. These aren't counter arguments to what I said. They don't require concepts of objective good and evil, as I pointed out in my original comment and follow-up.
  - openknot 4y ago
ClumsyPilot 4y ago
> Most religions and many philosophers expound the virtues of good and why it matters Most religions where spesifically used, abused and maybe invented to control the masses

dabbledash 4y ago

"Ethics should rather be focused on what we all want and equitable conflict resolution." Whence "should"? Why "equitable"? Why care about what everyone wants? You trying to dominate somebody with these normative assertions?

guerrilla 4y ago
> Why care about what everyone wants? Because anyone could be in anyone else's situation. You want norms that don't fuck you when you draw the short end of the stick. > You trying to dominate somebody with these normative assertions? I'm literally and transparently trying to convince you to do what I want.
- TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
  > I'm literally and transparently trying to convince you to do what I want. Didn’t work. Partially because I don’t understand it.
- JackFr 4y ago
  > You want norms that don't fuck you when you draw the short end of the stick. Not necessarily. You’re claiming your worldview as universal. It’s easy to imagine an ethics where strength and power are virtues and weakness is a moral failing, and the strong owe nothing to the weak.
  - guerrilla 4y ago
    > Not necessarily. You’re claiming your worldview as universal. So you're fine with a system where anyone is allowed to kidnap and torture you? That's in your interest? No, I didn't think so and you agree with me.
    - TedDoesntTalk 4y ago
      If I’m stronger and have more guns, why wouldn’t I want that system? Then I could kidnap, steal, etc. become wealthy through theft and spread my genes through rape. Isn’t this what we had a few tens of thousands of years ago?