>Where I depart from Mr. England is that while we agree that we cannot
>rationaly derive moral values, he then tries to derive moral values
>from that failure--even more irrational. He says, in effect, that
>since your morals cannot be rational, be less judgmental of others
>and less committed to your own.
Judging from a couple of your posts, I thought you would be inclined to
understand my presentations more than some of the others. With no disrespect
intended, I sadly say I was mistaken. Numerous times in my posts, I stated
quite clearly and uniquovically that I reject the concept, morality, as
myth. What was it in my post that led you to conclude that I really didn't
mean it, that I was must be promoting my own brand of "morality?"
If I announce to a theist that I do not believe an omni god exists, what I
say my position is does not register in the mind of the theist. The theist
believing that "God" created and maintains all of existence cannot envision
existence without "God". Thus it registers in the mind of the theist that I
do believe but am oppposed to "God". Since the theist equates all of
existence with "God" any criticizm is emotionally taken as life-threatening.
Encounter a devout governmentalist and you will find the same thing. On
numerous occasions I have explained to one or some that I see government as
the initiation of force. Often, I have illustrated this in great detail,
presumably leaving no impression other than my viewpoint of government as
initition of force and coercion. I then say that I am opposed to government,
which is opposed to the initiation of force and coercion. In opposing this
offensive action called government, I state that I prefer and am an advocate
of individualism and freedom. The words may vary some, but the response I
have gotten time and time again is this: "Nobody can have complete freedom.
You can't shake your rug in somebody else's yard, or go take their property
just because you want to." etc.
No one tries to refute my assertion that government is initiation of force
and coercior. No one challenges my claim of desire for individualism and
freedom, but immediately assumes that "freedom" means "freedom to rule" and
"absolute freedom" is absolute rule. Without any conscious awareness of the
fact, they regard rule as absolute. They cannot envision freedom; so the
term is emotionally equated with rule in direct contradiction. No amount of
words or actions will induce them to believe that one could abhor doing the
ruling as much as being ruled.
Nor suprisingly, I encounter exactly the same response when I oppose the
concept, morality. "Gods, governments and morality" all have the same roots
and same psychology; they're all one epistemological, philosophical and
psychological package: that all individuals are property of some "superior
being" outside of self. The concept, morality, has no objective identity or
merit whatsoever. (See other posts for detail) So, I reject it, but who so
far has accepted this fact? If you think "morality" is objective and real,
can you envision a world not including it and really understand my position?
If you think it is not objective, but subjective and a matter of personal
choice, then one could toss it aside, couldn't one, i.e., not believe? Or do
you think that "morality" is absolute? Objective absolute? Or "subjective
absolute?" Contradiction? I'm looking for the reason why do you not believe
me when I clearly and repeatedly state that I reject the concept morality as
myth. Again, I ask: from what in my posts did you conclude that >he then
tries to derive moral values from that failure--even more irrational.< ?
I do not argue the issue of selfishness vs altruism, for there is no such
issue. I argue that altruism is myth. Expose this myth and what remains is
individual looking at self and admitting self interest providing a truth as
some basis for the discussion and efforts to resolve conflicts.
In the same vein, I do not argue the virtue of one "moral code" over others.
I argue that "morality" is myth. In conjunction, I argue that the basis for
the concept, morality, is illusory superior being. I stated this several
times. Ergo, "morality" is a concept of superior being and subordination of
individual. If I am mistaken about this, fine, show me and will appreciate
it. Suppose, however, that I am not mistaken; that the concept, morality, is
actually a support of anti individual oppression, would not exposing the
myth of morality go a long way toward the promotion of individualism? Is
individualism your preference? If so, how do you propose to promote the
idea? "Moral argument?" If so, your choice, but when I observe, The
Crusades, The Inquisitions, Jonestown, Waco, world wars, on and on and on as
"resolution" of "moral arguments", I'm inclined to take a different approach.
>I also have to agree with Max that this is pretty esoteric stuff,
>irrelevant to everyday use.
Then so is individualism and freedom.
Delmar England