Revenge?

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

Yes. Conscience is an illness. Again, do not equate lack of consience with evil intentions; rather, lack of conscience is freedom, freedom to do whatever you may. A person with no conscience whatsoever, observed objectively, might do more 'good' and appear to act more 'morally' than a very conscientious person.

Conscience is an "illness"? Wow! I will agree it would be nice to live in a world in which pangs of conscience never occurred, but to conclude it an "illness" is IMO the height of ego. If we cure conscience, welcome to a world of Ted Bundy's. Conscience is our internal guide as it primarily relates to other people in our innate programming to "do no harm". Ego could care less about that as it's primary concern is "self". That's the "illness".
William

1 Reply

@William,

Sorry BrightNoon, I'm now having trouble taking you seriously.

Out.

1 Reply

@Jay phil,

Jay wrote:

Sorry BrightNoon, I'm now having trouble taking you seriously.

I often find myself in the very same place, Jay, having trouble taking seriously the claims of such a brand of egoism. But, I think, we have a duty to take these claims seriously. I've seen BrightNoon on these forums for a while, and he is most certainly an intelligent human being. I'd venture to call him nice and respectful if I was not worried he might take offense. Smile

My point is that we should take these claims seriously. BrightNoon is articulate and intelligent: at the least we owe him the respect of taking his claims seriously.

0 Replies

@Didymos Thomas,

We are having difficulty understanding one another. You are misunderstanding my use of the terms, 'egoist' and 'morality.' Let me try to clarify. A morality is unavoidable, if by that we simply mean a system of values or a modus operandi. The sort of morality that I object to is that which is adopted out of fear (of God e.g.) or out of a feeling of obligation (moral imperative). I have no objection to any sort of morality if it is chosen by a person who simply desires to behave in that way. This sort of person is the egoist to which I keep referring, as opposed to the self-abnegator, who for the reasons noted above accepts a doctrine that is foreign to him 'from on high' (whether from God, social democracy, et alia).

Quote:

You are creating a false dilemma. One does not have to subordinate one's will to an external authority in order to be something other than an egoist. For example, I might be an altruist of my own choosing, acting according to my conscience.

If you choose to be an 'altruist,' which for the sake of argument I will assume exists, you are not neccessarily submitting to an external authority. That is the case only if you feel compelled to adopt altruism. The content of the morality is of no concern to me, only the reasons for which it is adopted: desire/will versus fear/obligation. It is grotesque to obey a moral law not because it expresses your own true nature, but because you believe that you have to obey it. Of course, one does not. Even the most humane and reasonable moral law is not given; it is only agreed upon. 'Should' is a meaningless construction, albeit uselful for our purposes at times. That said, I do feel that the prevailing morality, which rests on a Judeo-Christian foundation, would not be the choice of very many if they were more aware.

So, there is no need to bring up examples like this. They miss the point I'm making. These arguments are only convincing or effective if we already assume as given certain commonly held moral laws: e.g. the golden rule.

Quote:

Do you really want to argue that feeling bad for bashing in the skull of a young single mother of five is degenerative and sick? Or that having empathy for a rape victim is degenerative and sick? Or that having love for one's children is degenerative and sick?

As far as this issue of illness is concerned, let me say this. Not long ago, homosexuality was, by definition, a mental illness; people were thought insane who doubted basic tenets of Papal doctrine, etc, etc. To brand the egoism I'm talking about 'sociopathy' or to call it a mental illness is meaningless; standards for mental health presuppose certain moral values. As I understand it, sanity is a purely statistical condition; any sufficient deviation form the norm is labelled insane.

Didymos Thomas, thank you very much. I appreciate that. We often disagree and I wouldn't expect anyone to just 'take my word for it,' but we can certainly be respectful. :a-ok:

2 Replies

@BrightNoon,

WOW, how do we get from "having trouble taking you seriously" (IMHO), to "Disrespectful"? Sorry, I diden't mean to hurt anyone's ego.

1 Reply

@Jay phil,

Jay, relax. I wasn't calling you disrespectful. I wasnsn't even talking or referring to you. I was just responding to Didymos T. If you don't want to take me seriously, that fine with me.

0 Replies

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

We are having difficulty understanding one another. You are misunderstanding my use of the terms, 'egoist' and 'morality.' Let me try to clarify. A morality is unavoidable, if by that we simply mean a system of values or a modus operandi. The sort of morality that I object to is that which is adopted out of fear (of God e.g.) or out of a feeling of obligation (moral imperative). I have no objection to any sort of morality if it is chosen by a person who simply desires to behave in that way. This sort of person is the egoist to which I keep referring, as opposed to the self-abnegator, who for the reasons noted above accepts a doctrine that is foreign to him 'from on high' (whether from God, social democracy, et alia).

If you choose to be an 'altruist,' which for the sake of argument I will assume exists, you are not neccessarily submitting to an external authority. That is the case only if you feel compelled to adopt altruism. The content of the morality is of no concern to me, only the reasons for which it is adopted: desire/will versus fear/obligation. It is grotesque to obey a moral law not because it expresses your own true nature, but because you believe that you have to obey it. Of course, one does not. Even the most humane and reasonable moral law is not given; it is only agreed upon. 'Should' is a meaningless construction, albeit uselful for our purposes at times. That said, I do feel that the prevailing morality, which rests on a Judeo-Christian foundation, would not be the choice of very many if they were more aware.

BrightNoon, I am of the opinion the word "morality" exists as it relates to behavior because there are behaviors that go against life and are antagonistic to life itself thereby necessitating another word, "immoral". I am of the belief man, if unfettered from external inertia and allowed to be free there would be no moral or immoral issues. Of course we have no proof of that for it has never existed so we are stuck with defining it as best we can. Here comes the hard part. Those in the minority who are the most offended with any construct of morality that would be suitable to the majority, are those who have adopted a behavior that is against life and is antagonistic to natural "morality" that IMO is innate in mankind. Which brings me to the statement you made above:

"I have no objection to any sort of morality if it is chosen by a person who simply desires to behave in that way".

In this context you are saying all desires if chosen by any individual are moral regardless of how threatening the behavior is to the "natural, innate" blueprint so very evident by the behavior of the majority of mankind if one chooses to do so. To me, what should be asked at this point is why? Why would anyone want to behave in such a way that is so inconsistent with the majority of human beings? Simply because it is their right? If it is damaging to the majority, who has such a right? If it threatens life and that innate "morality" that as I said is an innate part of the blueprint that is man, is that not horrifically and universally wrong? Then you go on to say;

"The content of the morality is of no concern to me, only the reasons for which it is adopted: desire/will versus fear/obligation. It is grotesque to obey a moral law not because it expresses your own true nature, but because you believe that you have to".

What about natural and un-natural? Does that have any bearing whatsoever? Simply by observing nature itself we can obtain a reasonable understanding of what is natural, for un-natural cannot exist there. If it does, it won't for long. The universe will not allow it. Just because someone "desires" something doesn't make it right nor does it inclusively indicate one's "true nature". If it were a true nature, desire would not be an issue. It would be innate. You yourself maintained it a "choice". Again why would anyone want to go against the grain? So to speak. Simply because they desire to do so? I am sorry, BrightNoon, I can't agree with you here. You said "conscience" is an illness; I for one think desire is. It is an extremely selfish construct that does but one thing: Feed the ego and could care less about others. Of course any pang of conscience would definitely be a detriment. Yet you have no problem with this as you deem it "moral" as you deem any effort to establish a moral code "grotesque" as you, which is "always" the case in these discussions, bring religion into the fray maintaining any morality it efforts to establish is through fear and obligation. For the record, I would like to add here it is not fear that drives it's efforts to reach a moral code, but that it is at least trying to establish one the majority can cling to considering the temptations we are all expose to on a daily basis that is enormously out of control. There is a big difference in "need" and "desires". The reality we have created not only thrives on those desires that feed our economy, but is responsible for feeding the flames. Fodder for another thread.

IMO those who "protest" any sense of morality do so for extremely selfish reasons an in all probability are behaving in away that stifles the conscience creating a coldness that is hard for me personally to understand. Without a conscience mankind would have ended long ago. It is the only reason we have survived. Eliminate it and we will no longer be.

William

1 Reply

@William,

William wrote:

BrightNoon, I am of the opinion the word "morality" exists as it relates to behavior because there are behaviors that go against life and are antagonistic to life itself thereby necessitating another word, "immoral". Those in the minority who are the most offended with any construct of morality that would be suitable to the majority, are those who have adopted a behavior that is against life and is antagonistic to natural "morality" that IMO is innate in mankind. Which brings me to the statement you made above:

I am of the opposite opinion. Who are you to decide what is antagonistic to life? I was unaware that truth, or goodness was a statistical phenomena. According to your logic, in the south in the 1920's, hatred of blacks would have been moral, and the minority view to the opposite would have been antagonistic to life. Likewise in the Classical world with the circus. There are many such examples. How can this be; how can the sadist of today be immoral because he in a minority and the good Roman citizen of 40 B.C. be moral because he was in the majority, when both enjoy watching the butchery of fellow human beings? Is that not a contradiction of your universal moral rules?

Quote:

In this context you are saying all desires if chosen by any individual are moral regardless of how threatening the behavior is to the "natural, innate" blueprint so very evident by the behavior of the majority of mankind if one chooses to do so. To me, what should be asked at this point is why? Why would anyone want to behave in such a way that is so inconsistent with the majority of human beings? Simply because it is their right? If it is damaging to the majority, who has such a right? If it threatens life and that innate "morality" that as I said is an innate part of the blueprint that is man, is that not horrifically and universally wrong?

I'll address each underlined section by number.

(1) Why is the common morality of today THE MORALITY, which is innate and natural? Why not the common morality of the middle ages, the classical age; why not the minority morality of southern abolitionists, etc?

(2) This statement of yours translates into, "Why would anyone want to do what he wants to do?" I could ask a similiarly unasnwerable wuestion by asking you "Why do you prefer salty foods to sweets?" The answer to 'Why?" is "Because I do;" the answer to "How can you do this in the face of the moral law?" is "Just as I do, apparently the mora law does not have any authority."

(3) This statement of yours translates into "Isn't something immoral wrong?" You have already assumed that X behavior is immoral, so there is no need to ask if it is wrong;those are synonyms. I do not accept that it is immoral and so I don't accept that it is wrong. I'm not denying that some group fo people would clal it wrong, I just object to the notion that it is 'universally wrong.'

Quote:

What about natural and un-natural? Does that have any bearing whatsoever? Simply by observing nature itself we can obtain a reasonable understanding of what is natural, for un-natural cannot exist there.

Exactly. Whatever exists is natural. 'Unnatural' only exists in the imagination. For example, "universal moral laws' are unnatural, imaginary.

Quote:

If it does, it won't for long. The universe will not allow it. Just because someone "desires" something doesn't make it right nor does it inclusively indicate one's "true nature". If it were a true nature, desire would not be an issue. It would be innate. You yourself maintained it a "choice".

When have your so called 'universal moral laws' ever been universal? There have always been people or groups that do not except the prevailing morality, and moreover, the prevailing morality has often been antithetical to the common morality today.

Quote:

Again why would anyone want to go against the grain? So to speak. Simply because they desire to do so? I am sorry, BrightNoon, I can't agree with you here. You said "conscience" is an illness; I for one think desire is. It is an extremely selfish construct that does but one thing: Feed the ego and could care less about others.

This is not a personal insult, so don't take it that way, but I find the attitude you express above to be disgusting, worthless and in fact 'antagonistic to life.' This is attitude of buddhists and Hindus and what is it that they hope to accomplish; Nirvana, Nothing; they desire to not desire by ceasing to exist. They want to be 'released form the world and from life. Neti, Neti...they want to deny life. Because I am not a moralist, I won't call this wrong. I just personally am repulsed by it, as I am repulsed by a particularly bad peice of corperate art, or a rotting deer carcass. It is unpleasant.

Quote:

IMO those who "protest" any sense of morality do so for extremely selfish reasons an in all probability are behaving in away that stifles the conscience creating a coldness that is hard for me personally to understand. Without a conscience mankind would have ended long ago. It is the only reason we have survived. Eliminate it and we will no longer be.

I agree, denying the herd morality and 'going against the grain' as you say, is selfish. This is where you and I differ. I believe in life, as experienced by the individual. I believe in my own emotions, desires and actions. On the other hand, you deny the importance of your own will and happyness and are willing to sublimate all of your own natural instincts for whatever the majority preaches at any given time. The tragedy of moralists of this variety lies in the failure to realize that all those 'universal moral laws' which they 'should' obey, exist only in their imagination, their OWN minds. In other words, you have invented abstractions in your mind and then decided that 'you' should bow to 'their' will. All the while, you never experienced anything but you. And no one else experiences anything but themselves. The 'majority' does not exist, 'mankind' does not exist; they are just ideas, abstractions, within the minds of INDIVIDUALS.

0 Replies

@xXKanpekiXx,

xXKanpekiXx wrote:

We always have some justification, no matter how convincing it may be, all to dissillusion ourselves to how selfish and immature we are being.

i believe that it is a natural human reaction.
As you said we all have some justification, some explanation to explain why we are this selfish. So we all know why it is bad but we can not stop it.

Sometimes the most 'powerful' reaction to me, even stronger than a revenge, is accepting all selfish behaviours i did and answering with silence. That can be classified as a revenge too?

and sometimes, revenge seems necessary in order to 'protect' ourselfs.

1 Reply

@grasshopper,

BrightNoon,
I have often mention my inability to participate in many threads because I have a hard time understanding them. Had you truly commented on what I had to say without selecting certain pieces and taking them out of context and spinning them around is such a way that absolutely made no sense to me, we could have commnicated. As it is, I have no idea of what you are talking about, sorry.

The reason I got involved in this thread is in response to the comment you made about conscience being an illness. IMO for anyone to make such a statement desires to live a life that totally separates them from other people and the effect that particular lifestyle has on the lives of other people. To me it is the ultimate selfishness. Now if that lifestyle had no effect on the lives of others, then there would be no need to consider conscience. It would be a moot point. The conscience would remain at ease so to speak. Only when it roars is it a concern.

When it does roar it takes an enormous amount of rationalization to calm it down. That's were the ego comes in. To shut the conscience up. IMO the conscience is our guide to being truly human and allow us to be complimentary and harmonic with each other. The conscience is only offended when we effort to exist outside whatever that harmony consist of. Eliminating the conscience is the very worst thing we can do if we are to survive. It is there for a reason and the only thing that can override it is a selfish love of self that has no regard or consideration for another. IMO.

To live and let live is a wonderful motto provided everyone has the freedom to live. Unfortunately many can't afford to live in this reality.
Only the conscience of man will seek those solutions to the despair of others, whereas the ego with the conscience in check, could care less for it may infringe and instill a little remorse. Something the ego cannot tolerate.

William

1 Reply

@William,

Quote:

I have often mention my inability to participate in many threads because I have a hard time understanding them. Had you truly commented on what I had to say without selecting certain pieces and taking them out of context and spinning them around is such a way that absolutely made no sense to me, we could have commnicated. As it is, I have no idea of what you are talking about, sorry.

I believe I did nothing but divide your long post into several parts, which I commented on in the order you originally wrote them. If that is taking your words 'out of context and spinning them around,' I don't know what to tell you. I'm not interested in your sermons, so if you can't understand my arguments, I guess this debate is over.

1 Reply

@BrightNoon,

BrightNoon wrote:

I believe I did nothing but divide your long post into several parts, which I commented on in the order you originally wrote them. If that is taking your words 'out of context and spinning them around,' I don't know what to tell you. I'm not interested in your sermons, so if you can't understand my arguments, I guess this debate is over.

Sorry, BrightNoon. I do admit my posts do come off a bit preachy. I came here to share my thoughts and frankly find debates, as far as the knowledge I have gathered over my life, fruitless. My insight is not easily corroborated and I know that. My only wish is to put it out there and let others decide for themselves. As I said my only reason for entering this thread was because in all my life I have never heard such a comment and I wanted to discuss your rational, of which you haven't done; only attack me. Common debating strategy.

As far as you not interested in my "preaching", that's entirely okay with me. I am not here to get you to change your mind. No one can do that. I can only hope what I have to say will offer a little more insight that will allow others to be a little more introspective and perhaps add new meaning to the questions that they have. There is one thing that I know for sure, anyone who considers the conscience an illness would have absolutely no interest in anything I have to say. I just wanted to know why you felt that way. That's all.
Regards,
William

1 Reply

@William,

Ok Will, we don't need to have an humility-thon. Looking back over the thread I can't see where either of us was rude. Neither can I find any instance where I personally attacked you, as you just claimed. I was under the impression that we were having a useful, rational debate until you claimed earlier that I somehow misrepresented you with your own quotes, in the original order, in the last topical post in this thread. I guess that's a convenient way of ending a debate. That's all, there nothing more to be said unless you would like to explain how I misrepresented you. If you can do that, by all means, I retract everything I said in that post.

Quote:

As I said my only reason for entering this thread was because in all my life I have never heard such a comment and I wanted to discuss your rational, of which you haven't done; only attack me. Common debating strategy.

? :nonooo:

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know