Ethics of the Road

[kswiss]

What unequivocal truth of this universe exists, and when can it be reveled to us? We going to have to wait a few more hundred years until we can get closer to it with words, and if it's really there does an explanation do any more for a person than just believing/doing what is perceived as "good" or "moral" right now?


Also, can some point me to some good vaporwave that doesn't have vocals in it?

 

[SELCOUTH]

Branching off from a conversation about morals and politics in chat, In this thread, we talk about moral and political philosophy. can you be ethical without reliigon? is left or right wing politics more ethical? is nihilism the only way forward?

discuss

It all just boils down to the individual. You can choose to be a dick, you can choose not to be. Whether or not you're religious, Atheist, Liberal or Conservative. I've met people who are Conservative who would give me the shirt off their backs if they had the chance. I've met Christians who suck, I've met Liberals who are just terrible people. I've met Atheists who value life more because they believe that you only get to experience things for a very short time. Bad people are going to just be bad people regardless of what world view they have, and often times they mask their real world view with another out of pure convenience.

 

[Deleted member 3578]

I used to feel more secure in my concepts of moral/ethics/politics, but am less so these days. On a wide range, I go in for egalitarian ideas, but am weary of authoritarian vibes. I have been actively reconsidering my place in ~lefty shit~ as I've seen a lot of performative, bad faith shit. And people tearing each other down thru a prude's level of doctrine and One Upping eachother. Going past burn out point. Like, I've been personally thrown to the Judgement over innocuous actions and not always Yes Anding the scene.

So, I've leaned into my esotericism. Have less answers, more questions. Embrace a lil humility and drop ego pride shit. If it's about helping others, don't make it about yourself.

 

[Outer Heaven]

Branching off from a conversation about morals and politics in chat, In this thread, we talk about moral and political philosophy. can you be ethical without reliigon? is left or right wing politics more ethical? is nihilism the only way forward?

Its possible to act ethically without religion but it is impossible to be perfectly ethical without religion. The simple reason is that without God you're left with nihilism no matter what anyone tries to argue. From here human beings can and will make philosophies around what they perceive as virtues, which in the absence of God are ultimately meaningless. The result is that you get as many moral systems as there are people and no real way to distinguish between them objectively.

You can argue for systems that promote survival but even survival becomes meaningless in a meaningless universe. You can argue for 'intrinsic realities' but all of those have no impact on morality without God since going against our nature would be just as meaningless as going along with it in a nihilist frame. This is if you can even come to a consensus on what our nature even is, something impossible to do without a creator telling you directly.

Its for this reason I don't argue with anyone about particular political or moral issues anymore since their root always comes down to a difference in moral systems. Arguing with a person who doesn't see liberty as the highest value that free speech is good is pointless for example. If people want to argue about particulars within my moral frame, that's fine and I indulge it based on the axiomatic beliefs of my religion. Outside of that, unless other people are willing to get into a debate about religious beliefs, arguing about particulars is meaningless.

To be completely transparent here what I believe is the best way to structure society is Islamic theocracy but like I said before, having a discussion on whether that's moral or not goes back to whether Islam is true, so its pointless to argue about the particulars of the political or moral structures it prescribes.

considering hedonic nihilismhttp://www.justethics.com/Articles/ArtMID/2952/ArticleID/8/Hedonic-Nihilism

This is just secular utilitarianism. I do agree with the conclusion of the article that the only rational end in this case is suicide since in the long course of life, displeasure always exceeds pleasure. There's a phrase in Arabic I heard once that it reminds me of which translates to "the intelligent atheist commits suicide" lol

 

[Sable]

" can you be ethical without religion?"
Ethics and morality and whether or not they are a product of nature or nurture has long been under contention.

In short, I believe yes, you can be ethical without religion. Most human beings are born with an innate moral compass and you can see this through the development of empathy at an early age. We realize when others are in pain or distress, which in turn causes us also to feel pain or distress on an emotional level. This response is even more intense if you hold sympathy for the person and as a result you strive to help relieve the individual of their pain. You can explain the existence of empathy and sympathy as resulting from either the work of a divine power ensuring that humans do what is "right" or as an evolutionary development which helps us maintain communities and relationships but either isn't really important. What is important is the fact that we do have an innate understanding of right and wrong which prevents us from doing harm without just cause.

This is not to say that religion serves no purpose in terms of ethics and morality. As human societies become more complex, so too does our understanding of "right" and "wrong" and we lose sight of the bigger picture. This complexity muddies the waters of morality and results in sin. This is where Religion becomes important. Religion serves as an authority on what is morally appropriate and puts to words and to writing what is present already within us so as to prevent us from losing sight of what is "right".

 

[kswiss]

Its possible to act ethically without religion but it is impossible to be perfectly ethical without religion. ...

I really do like what you're saying, but is it really impossible for an ethical individual to be born, live, and die and be able to exist within that world without having religion interfere at all?

 

[Outer Heaven]

I really do like what you're saying, but is it really impossible for an ethical individual to be born, live, and die and be able to exist within that world without having religion interfere at all?

This comes down to your belief about the nature of humanity. If you're an atheist this question is meaningless because like I explained before ethics wouldn't be objective. If you believe in a God, this depends on your religion's view of humanity. A Catholic for example would tell you that man is born in a fallen state and is flawed by definition, and therefore cannot be ethical without embracing Catholicism. My religion believes that every human being is born with intuition as to what is and isn't moral but said intuition can be influenced by external factors and must be maintained through Islam so it doesn't get corrupted. A simple example of this is that every person on earth is born knowing that stealing is wrong, but if they are raised in an environment where it is normalized or they themselves slowly normalize it through stealing, their moral compass is skewed over time. In most if not all religions I know of the answer to your question is no for different reasons based on their view of humanity.

 

[kswiss]

If you're an atheist this question is meaningless because like I explained before ethics wouldn't be objective.

I got to say I've been reading a lot about this and admit that this is way over my head due to some of the fucking mental gymnastics that seem to be involved in some works. Anyway, just really enjoy this stuff and actually found an article that is very interesting

Is ethics possible without religion?

Since God is worshipped as being absolutely good, all moral judgements must use God's absolute goodness as a standard.

www.malaysiakini.com

(it relates to Malaysian culture too but try to see past that)
and in a way helps my difficulty with accepting this concept that you made earlier how the existence of morality is fundamentally non-existent/pointless outside of its relationship to a God/ultimate authority, I think.

But ultimately, like the author of that article, ethics can and probably did (in the early days of man), outside of the concept of religion. I'm not arguing whether or not a God-concept exists, it's just that it's very intertwined and unless you're on either one side or the other it doesn't really matter because the arguments galvanize each party against the other's ideas more anyway in the process.

 

[Outer Heaven]

But ultimately, like the author of that article, ethics can and probably did (in the early days of man), outside of the concept of religion. I'm not arguing whether or not a God-concept exists, it's just that it's very intertwined and unless you're on either one side or the other it doesn't really matter because the arguments galvanize each party against the other's ideas more anyway in the process.

The question of ethics in early human societies gives you one of 2 options:

If god exists, most religions will not concede that ethics pre existed religion. In the Abrahamic faiths at the very least, Adam was the first human and was immediately tasked with following god. So the assumption itself here is contested.

If god doesn't exist, so what if ethics pre exist religion? What makes early human ethics objective in any way? What makes any ethics objective in any way? The ultimate flaw in secular ethics is that they have no objective ground to stand on. If a human tribe 10,000 years ago deemed cannibalism ethical does that objectively make it ethical? What about slavery? Is it ethical because people used to think its right 200 years ago? Secular ethics are shaped by their time and place in history and are fluid so nobody can claim their personal secular ethics are the correct ethics.

 

[Ataxtia]

I'm super drunk right now, so sorry if this is incoherent schizo babble. Also I know this was last posted on 2 years ago but I wanted to chime in, so sorry in advance for the thread necro.

People can be good without nihilism or religion. goodness comes from the heart and the quality of the person. Nihilism justifies hedonism, which easily justifies atrocities conducted towards the human race. If one does "only what feels good", then inevitably there will be those who use such weak moral justification to continue their own crimes against people; whether they are aware of it or not. For take the man who simply goes along with a corrupt and evil government or institution, one who refuses to fight back. Either he is fearful or he is in the mindset of "let people enjoy things", in either case he is allowing evil things to happen around him. Simone de Beauvoir, a famous existential philosopher and known communist, would call these types of people a "useful idiot". They would follow the rules and actions of those above them, blindly follow ideologies, and be a servant to "something greater". Hedonists and nihilists fit this role so well in the modern age it's a shame they aren't recognized as some sort of cult. They follow the words of "science" (or those that take bribes from corps or governments to confirm data that benefits their contractors) and refuse to do any research themselves. They are the antithesis and a mockery of the scientific method and should be ashamed of themselves.

On the other hand religious teachings do not make a man a better person. They can lead to salvation, for they are the teachings of our ancestors, but blind faith makes you nothing more than another useful idiot. It is through critical thought, an open mind, and a love of those around you that allows you to fully grasp what the teachings of many religions attempt to convey. Religion is a personal journey towards truth and salvation, and we all find something different at the end. Sometimes we take this journey again from the start, other times we never walk the path of discovery again.

It is neither religion nor science alone that makes someone good. It is the paths they walk and the conclusions they come to that allows you to know if they are moral or not. Some people are still in the middle of their journey; others need to look upon the world with a fresh perspective. there is good in all, they just need time to realize it.

 

[punishedgnome]

I'll take this opportunity to indulge myself.

Government should establish robust public infrastructure like roads, public transport, hospitals, parks, schools, universities and libraries. Government should make a reasonable attempt to keep others from harming you, including polluting your environment, grooming children and directly harassing you. Government should provide a basic social safety net, a warm room, meals and an Internet connection, basically. Government should break up monopolies. Government should maintain a standing army to prevent an invasion. They should put a reasonable tax regime in place to fund these things.

That is all the things I think government should do.

They should not police who goes in what bathroom. They should not pay people to make art nobody wants. The should not tell people they can't put things up each other's butts. They should not tell people they can't say certain words. They should not legislate that I can't smoke if I want to. If I want my bar to be a bar people smoke in, I should be able to have a smoking bar. If you don't like cigarettes, don't come in my bar, don't apply for a job at my bar. They should not be able to tell you the siding on your house has to be a certian color or that you can't have a shed or chicken coop. They should not have legions of bureaucrats getting paid more than an average worker with 50 sick days a year who don't do anything other than nit-pick regulatory compliance. I can go on and on.

That is basically the entirety my politics. What would you call it? I dunno. Fiscally centrist, socially libertarian?

 

[Remember_Summer_Days]

Can you be ethical without religion? Obviously yes. But this question is trivial imo. The better question is wherever we provide a proper ontology for morality without appealing to some sort of Theism. This is a very controversial issue, philosophers argue about it to this day.

I guess I'll drop some of my opinions on the issue. Ontologies of morality predicated on system of ethical naturalism haven't been able to overcome the is-ought problem, in my opinion. Platonism is the best bet for a non-Theistic moral ontology imo.

 

[Jessica3cho雪血⊜青意]

I find it difficult to discuss the nature of morality and ethics, whether or not either stems from or is reliant on religion, and whether or not a morality or set of ethics can exist that would be viewable as objective. Typically, this is because many arguments fall onto subjective interpretations or a basis set in a subjective worldview, whether it be of nature or nurture.


The questions I find truly interesting, what I feel is a better basis to begin with, are as follows:

• What need, or purpose, is there for moral or ethical frameworks?
• From what does the concept of "morality" or "ethics" derive itself?
• What place do 'morals' and 'ethics' have in he world, society, and generationally?

 

[Remember_Summer_Days]

I think its clear that iy is more probable that moral facts exist in some real, mind-independent way, than not. To say that torturing a baby for fun is wrong is as clear of intuition as there are no square circles or 2+2=4.

 

[Remember_Summer_Days]

I find it difficult to discuss the nature of morality and ethics, whether or not either stems from or is reliant on religion, and whether or not a morality or set of ethics can exist that would be viewable as objective. Typically, this is because many arguments fall onto subjective interpretations or a basis set in a subjective worldview, whether it be of nature or nurture.


The questions I find truly interesting, what I feel is a better basis to begin with, are as follows:

• What need, or purpose, is there for moral or ethical frameworks?
• From what does the concept of "morality" or "ethics" derive itself?
• What place do 'morals' and 'ethics' have in he world, society, and generationally?

These are all good questions. But I don't think you could answer any of these without revolving back to a discussion of what morality is. Like for example your second question, from where you think morality derives from will define what you believe the nature of morality to be. If you're a naturalist then its way more likely than morality came only from evolution as a form of natural selection, if you're a theist then God gave us morality via natural means or divine intervention... If you believe God have us morality, then that will radically alter what place you think morals have in society.

But I appreciate the input.