Anarchy (Ethical, Moral, Spiritual Progression) - Page 7

Cultural Revolution Is Our Business

We are a global network of artists, writers, environmentalists, teachers, downshifters, fair traders, rabble-rousers, shit-disturbers, incorrigibles and malcontents. We are anarchists, guerilla tacticians, meme warriors, neo-Luddites, pranksters, poets, philosophers and punks. Our aim is to topple existing power structures and change the way we live in the twenty-first century. We will change the way information flows, the way institutions wield power, the way the food, fashion, car, and cultural industries set their agendas. Above all, we will change the way we interact with the mass media and the way in which meaning is produced in our society.

-Kalle Lasn "Design Anarchy"

On February 11 2015 06:45 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On January 06 2015 09:51 lebowski wrote:   On January 06 2015 02:40 Baalim wrote: get into details, that is all ive been asking, I want people to stop saying shit like "oh it cannot work" and not say why, thats an idiotic way to argue. The point was that the main body of anarchists today as well as historically doesn't share this vision of a stateless capitalism, so doubts/criticism here in lp no matter how vague are probably directed at multiple and more mainstream versions of anarchism; ones that I assume you reject too. I think that when you support a fraction of an already unpopular political view the most effective way to communicate would be to immediately focus on what makes said fraction different and better from what people will assume you refer to, instead of speaking up for the entire spectrum as if it were cohesive. By focusing on what separates your version of anarchy from the ones that you too find non pragmatic those who challenge your view would find it easier to get into detail (and be convinced if you're right) Well first of all people should recognize that the government is immoral, and the "how" its actually secondary. If you were living in USA 200 years ago and saw slavery you would want to abolish it.... and people would tell you "but how will the crops survive, our economy depends on slavery!" and they would be right... but hopefully you would say Ï dont give a fuck, we will figure it out, but this is immoral and it has to stop" You are born somewhere and for the state you at the moment of birth signed a "social contract" which means that you will give a big chunk of your income to the government so they can spend it however they see fit, for example... bombing the shit out of brown people in the middle east, you cant refuse to participate even if you dont plan on using the government resources, if you refuse the government will send armed men to put you in a cage, if you fight those men you will be killed.

seriously Baal? You play the morality card?
This is amazing, I even referred to anarchists who think in Christian terms despite being atheists in the previous post from the one you quoted.
It's ridiculous to use morality as an argument because everyone has a different view on it, except maybe those who just say what their religion says.
To think that there perhaps exists a scientific view of things that could objectify morality (not saying you believe this necessarily, just expanding) would be even sillier; different people have different goals and needs and there's no God to objectify good and evil.On the contrary, the progress of science along with the industrialization of society has given objective morality a kick in the nuts; modernity and post modernity have given rise to individuality and morality can't escape the same fate.

People who had slaves weren't objectively immoral, they were the products of their times and you could def argue that they weren't hardcore humanitarians, but bringing ethics into this is like you demanding everyone in the known universe to accept your view of things as true when there is no judge to decide but the guys arguing. imfo if you want to convince over your view of social reconstruction start focusing on what is beneficial for those involved or how it would work, not on honorable duties.

Okay then, how about if he changes the word immoral with the word irrational ? Rationality is certainly something very strictly defined and it certainly describes the given case as well. You're right overall imo, but you went into an extreme

I can also argue about the morality of slave owners since not all of them were the immoral bastards everyone thinks they were and given the times they lived in I'd say it were pretty justified, then again slavery was something despicable so..

General Motors knew its ignition switches were ineffective, but for ten years they did not tell anyone - they kept it a secret. They were well aware that the faulty parts would cause deaths, but they decided to roll the dice and take their chances. If you or I did something like that - knowingly killing people - we would get dragged into court. We would get life, or even the death penalty.

GM should not be allowed to escape justice by paying a fine. The time has come for We, the People, to invoke that old American tradition of keeping corporations on a short leash - and demand that Attorney General Eric Holder charge General Motors with premeditated murder... and if GM is found guilty, its corporate charter must be revoked, which is the equivalent of a death sentence for a corporation. This would send a clear message to boardrooms and CEOs everywhere that criminality cannot be just another cost of doing business and that the death penalty hangs over their heads if they grievously break the public trust.

-Adbusters, Nov/Dec 2014

Everything is perfectly the way that it should be.

On February 11 2015 22:35 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On February 11 2015 06:45 Baalim wrote:   On January 06 2015 09:51 lebowski wrote:   On January 06 2015 02:40 Baalim wrote: get into details, that is all ive been asking, I want people to stop saying shit like "oh it cannot work" and not say why, thats an idiotic way to argue. The point was that the main body of anarchists today as well as historically doesn't share this vision of a stateless capitalism, so doubts/criticism here in lp no matter how vague are probably directed at multiple and more mainstream versions of anarchism; ones that I assume you reject too. I think that when you support a fraction of an already unpopular political view the most effective way to communicate would be to immediately focus on what makes said fraction different and better from what people will assume you refer to, instead of speaking up for the entire spectrum as if it were cohesive. By focusing on what separates your version of anarchy from the ones that you too find non pragmatic those who challenge your view would find it easier to get into detail (and be convinced if you're right) Well first of all people should recognize that the government is immoral, and the "how" its actually secondary. If you were living in USA 200 years ago and saw slavery you would want to abolish it.... and people would tell you "but how will the crops survive, our economy depends on slavery!" and they would be right... but hopefully you would say Ï dont give a fuck, we will figure it out, but this is immoral and it has to stop" You are born somewhere and for the state you at the moment of birth signed a "social contract" which means that you will give a big chunk of your income to the government so they can spend it however they see fit, for example... bombing the shit out of brown people in the middle east, you cant refuse to participate even if you dont plan on using the government resources, if you refuse the government will send armed men to put you in a cage, if you fight those men you will be killed. seriously Baal? You play the morality card? This is amazing, I even referred to anarchists who think in Christian terms despite being atheists in the previous post from the one you quoted. It's ridiculous to use morality as an argument because everyone has a different view on it, except maybe those who just say what their religion says. To think that there perhaps exists a scientific view of things that could objectify morality (not saying you believe this necessarily, just expanding) would be even sillier; different people have different goals and needs and there's no God to objectify good and evil.On the contrary, the progress of science along with the industrialization of society has given objective morality a kick in the nuts; modernity and post modernity have given rise to individuality and morality can't escape the same fate. People who had slaves weren't objectively immoral, they were the products of their times and you could def argue that they weren't hardcore humanitarians, but bringing ethics into this is like you demanding everyone in the known universe to accept your view of things as true when there is no judge to decide but the guys arguing.

Of course there are moral absolutes. Moral relativism is a total self-contradiction. The uiniversal rule 'anything goes' self-destructs, because it says that there is a universal rule that there are no universal rules. Just because something is commonly seen/done in one place (i.e slavery) doesnt make it moral. Of course the slave owners were objectively immoral. Is a rapist in a bad neighborhood where rape is more common less immoral than a rapist in an upscale neighborhood?

moral relativism does not mean anything goes. it's more a way of withholding judgement of the people who perpetuate what we consider immoral behavior, because we realize that we cannot possibly put ourselves in the position of the people we are judging.

For me, I certainly subscribe to moral relativism. (In fact, I recently described myself as an absolute moral relativist ). But that doesn't mean I don't consider certain actions immoral, it means that I don't consider the people who perpetuate said actions immoral.

To take rape as an example, we can look at two extremes. (normally I prefer to stay within the realm of reality, but when the topic is moral absolutes, extremes are very useful for establishing scenarios where most people can agree that it's much harder to judge the individual -> and then we've already established that moral absolutes don't exist. )
One is me. Raised in a loving, feminist home by stable parents. Never experienced real hardship through my life. Well educated, well read, pretty popular with girls and by no means sexually frustrated. Rape has never even really crossed my mind - it's so distant from me that I can easily laugh at, or even make, rape jokes.
Second is say, one of Genghis Khan's horsemen. These guys would be conditioned from a very early age into a very different life. Firstly, what can probably be considered brainwashing into having a combined set of ideas that make rape pretty much perfectly acceptable. For example; Guys and girls have different value, girl is property of man, if man cannot defend girl then she becomes property of other man. Hell, rape was also their only actual way of getting laid - which is a pretty basic human need. And frankly, through pre-modern history, this was largely how it was. Reading Xenophon's (whose remembrance signifies that he was exceptional in his time and age) account from a Greek raiding squad on Persia from like, 300BC, he passes no judgement on the soldiers who take sex slaves, no judgement on the pillaging of villages, no judgement on the idiotic leaders who avoid battle because the soothsayers claim that these particular goat entrails indicate that the gods are unfavorable, because all of this was so commonplace in his time an age that there was no question of its morality.

See,the thing is, when you examine individuals who deviate from society, it's easy to just judge those individuals as immoral. But when you examine entire societies who deviate from our definition of morality, then you can no longer judge the individuals. You can't hold people accountable for being brainwashed.

Frankly, moral absolutism in a world of changing morality is much more of a contradiction. If moral absolutism were real, then morality would be unchanging. But it changes across timelines and cultures, and even within such a narrow culture as "Norway from 1990 and onward" there are significant differences in people's perception of what constitutes moral behavior. Not that any Norwegians consider slavery moral anymore, no, because our society has achieved a sort of, collective maturation of thought, but there are great differences regarding say, to what degree we can exploit / harm animals for the benefit of people. It's not unlikely that 150 years from now, we can witness a similar shift as we have with slavery relating to say, industrial cattle farming - one way or the other.

Rejecting this, you choose to condemn virtually everyone who lived more than 150 years ago, because their views on morality would greatly differ from our own. Of course there are some exceptions - some of the great humanitarian philosophers who have shaped our way of thinking for the past millenia were people whose kindness were great outliers in their contemporary societies. Something mostly all of those people had in common was exceptional mind and ability, and the opportunity to spend their lives philosophizing rather than working. In segments of society where the population was bereft of this opportunity, there was little or no moral evolution, which also makes sense, and which you cannot judge the individuals who were part of that society for.

but to the victim the action is equally immoral. And that's the point. Im not saying to hold past immoral actions from dead societies against them. The people are gone.
I'm saying there is a correct way to behave (morality) and theories can be tested against it within its framework. That Universally Preferred Behavior exists. Morality doesn't "exist" in the real world, that's true. But the scientific method and numbers don't exist either. They're a framework to test if things are true or not.

the point is that once you establish the principle that people in the past cannot be judged for their immoral behavior because under their circumstances the behavior might not have been immoral, then that principle extends to the contemporary world as well.

I mean, take some Kony child rather than Ghengis Khan soldier, and take bodily mutilation rather than rape. Of course bodily mutilation is an absolutely abhorrent action, but you cannot judge one of the children who was forced to rape his mother with a machete before a month long drug infused brainwashing program started to make him continue down that path.

And in line with this, I also don't think you can judge the slave owners as immoral, because their behavior was in line with their contemporary surroundings and experiences they had thus far in life. It becomes less clear cut the less vicious the variables that make someone turn out the way they did are, but (from my perspective) the principle always holds true. I agree that we can talk of some type of universal morality (where a Golden Rule/silver rule is the basic simplified guideline), I just don't agree that anyone can be held accountable for not adhering to this, if anything it makes me want to pity them because I firmly believe that morality ties together with a good life - that people who live good lives are likely to be moral, and that people who are immoral are likely to live, and have lived, bad lives.

"The desire for "freedom of will" in the superlative, metaphysical sense, such as still holds sway, unfortunately, in the minds of the half-educated, the desire to bear the entire and ultimate responsibility for one's actions oneself, and to absolve God, the world, ancestors, chance, and society therefrom, involves nothing less than to be precisely this causa sui, and, with more than Munchausen daring, to pull oneself up into existence by the hair, out of the slough of nothingness."
F. Nietzsche

Consciousness is epiphenomenal , people can't even control the thoughts that pop into their minds; the terms "free will" and even "self" are simplifications when used in everyday life.

How could a universally accepted morality ever exist when it's obvious that the differences between the people would make said morality harmful for some (and their personal goals)?
Under whose authority should (even a minority of) people accept a set of morals that they feel is harmful for themselves ? Science is a tool in the hands of the individual using it, it can't possibly be the way to reveal the universally ideal behavioral patterns, because these simply don't exist when holding a naturalistic view of the world.
Even on the basis of sincerely claiming to be humanitarians, people have behaved in completely different ways throughout history; a basis that isn't too common anyway.

Sure we can make laws and jails and prevent people from mannerisms that are widely accepted as wrong, in more modern societies the judges and lawmakers (hopefully) don't claim to be the voice of a universal principle though. Or at least they don't have to, because the main reason they are doing their jobs is far more practical.

On February 14 2015 15:23 Liquid`Drone wrote: Frankly, moral absolutism in a world of changing morality is much more of a contradiction. If moral absolutism were real, then morality would be unchanging. But it changes across timelines and cultures, and even within such a narrow culture as "Norway from 1990 and onward" there are significant differences in people's perception of what constitutes moral behavior. .

good point, I'd like to add that there's also no compass to objectively claim a certain era's morality is superior, or that humanity is evolving morally. Sure it may seem that way to us, but that isn't enough to make a universal archetype out of a behavioral code. Our own taste is hardly something that we control after all and being brought up in this certain type of society inevitably makes us biased in favor of it

people’s existing moral preferences are irrelevant to the science of morality, just as people’s existing beliefs that the world was flat was irrelevant to the physical sciences.

On February 14 2015 22:59 thewh00sel wrote: people’s existing moral preferences are irrelevant to the science of morality, just as people’s existing beliefs that the world was flat was irrelevant to the physical sciences.

explain how the science of morality would work, only thing I've heard of is some vague statements from Sam Harris (respect though)
How can you quantify life goals and personal meaning along with personal idiosyncrasies/weaknesses into some universal mathematical formula that will become mankind's behavioral compass?

Watch



and tell me Sam Harris wasn't destroyed in this video by the christian dude regarding his stance on morality, William Lane Craig asks the right questions, Harris gets cornered from the consequences of his disbelief in free will and reverts to attacking the ridiculousness of Lane's belief in God instead of answering convincingly.
Using terms like "avoiding the worst possible misery for everyone" , along with a weal health analogy, Harris is easily countered in Lane's rebuttal at around 45 min. (btw we've discussed this vid here in LP some time ago)

Some good reading material:
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nietzsche-moral-political/

step 1: apply the non aggression principle to everything
Step 2: ????
Step 3: PROFIT

On February 15 2015 03:47 thewh00sel wrote: step 1: apply the non aggression principle to everything Step 2: ???? Step 3: PROFIT

this aggression will not stand, man.
I must have missed the latest scientific discovery that proved aggression to be useless and immoral.

On February 15 2015 15:22 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On February 15 2015 03:47 thewh00sel wrote: step 1: apply the non aggression principle to everything Step 2: ???? Step 3: PROFIT this aggression will not stand, man. I must have missed the latest scientific discovery that proved aggression to be useless and immoral.

[ ] useless
[x] immoral


What is this fucking ridiculous discussion of morality, killing is immoral fucking period, its not a slippery slope and the way the state operates does not fall into a grey area, the fact that people dont choose to see it it doesnt mean its not immoral just as slavery was.

The so called social contract where you have no choice and no reasonable alternative but to submit to whatever rules of the state is immoral, any initiation of force is immoral (non aggression principle). You can try to dig some weird exception but "give me your money and Ill spend it as I see fit and maybe some will help you or I will kill you" its not a fucking exception

On February 17 2015 06:02 Baalim wrote: Show nested quote + On February 15 2015 15:22 lebowski wrote:   On February 15 2015 03:47 thewh00sel wrote: step 1: apply the non aggression principle to everything Step 2: ???? Step 3: PROFIT this aggression will not stand, man. I must have missed the latest scientific discovery that proved aggression to be useless and immoral. [ ] useless [x] immoral What is this fucking ridiculous discussion of morality, killing is immoral fucking period, its not a slippery slope and the way the state operates does not fall into a grey area, the fact that people dont choose to see it it doesnt mean its not immoral just as slavery was. The so called social contract where you have no choice and no reasonable alternative but to submit to whatever rules of the state is immoral, any initiation of force is immoral (non aggression principle). You can try to dig some weird exception but "give me your money and Ill spend it as I see fit and maybe some will help you or I will kill you" its not a fucking exception

everything alive in nature kills in one way or another for food, pleasure or dominance, aggression has been an asset for the survival and thriving of countless species on the planet,
yet here you dudes have apparently decided to label nature "objectively/scientifically" immoral because of your personal taste; the fucking cheetah doesn't care how much disney you've watched when you were young, it enjoys killing because it's in it's nature.

So either nature is inherently objectively immoral, in a very Christian outlook of the universe , or it is amoral and we too are also balls of mass/energy interacting with each other the best way we see fit through complex situations. The latter interpretation of the world leaves no room for bad conscience, as it presupposes that humans too, as a product of the bloody and slow evolutionary process , always do what they perceive as the best action for their growth and well being, no matter how stupid or fucked up their actions may seem; decision making processes on the brain have differences from person to person, not to mention how personal experience can produce vastly different behaviors.

So the only thing that seems to be ridiculous about this discussion is to demand that everyone accepts the non killing (or even non aggression, for a more new agey suggestion) principle as objective moral duty.We don't want needless killing so we agree to make rules to protect human life to make our own life better as we understand "better" to be; that doesn't mean we should label our own self centered bias as the objectively moral truth

People accept the state's existence as a necessary evil. Nobody likes paying taxes or to be told what to do, it's convinced otherwise ppl like yourself that should show how a stateless society could practically work and the ways it would be beneficial for most and I seriously doubt the moral imperatives will work even on the simplest of minds

Btw it's rare to see anarchists talking of "non aggression" principle or whatever this is . Are you saying that aggressive acts even vs tyrants are inherently immoral? How about killing a mass murderer? For food? Etc

The Non-Aggression Principle – also called the Non-Aggression Axiom – is the idea that each person has the right to make his or her own choices in life so long as they do not involve aggression, defined as the initiation of force or fraud, against others. It is considered by many to be the defining principle of libertarianism. More technically, the principle asserts that aggression, a term defined by proponents as any encroachment on another person's life, liberty, or justly acquired property, or an attempt to obtain from another via deceit what could not be consensually obtained, is always illegitimate. According to some libertarians the NAP and property rights are closely linked, since what aggression is depends on what a person's rights are.[1] Aggression, for the purposes of NAP, is defined as initiating or threatening violence against a person or legitimately owned property of another.

Supporters of the NAP often appeal to it in order to argue for the immorality of theft, vandalism, assault, and fraud. Compared to nonviolence, the non-aggression principle does not preclude violence used in self-defense or defense of others.[59] Many supporters argue that NAP opposes such policies as victimless crime laws, taxation, and military drafts.

From wikipedia

On February 17 2015 14:07 lebowski wrote: Show nested quote + On February 17 2015 06:02 Baalim wrote:   On February 15 2015 15:22 lebowski wrote:   On February 15 2015 03:47 thewh00sel wrote: step 1: apply the non aggression principle to everything Step 2: ???? Step 3: PROFIT this aggression will not stand, man. I must have missed the latest scientific discovery that proved aggression to be useless and immoral. [ ] useless [x] immoral What is this fucking ridiculous discussion of morality, killing is immoral fucking period, its not a slippery slope and the way the state operates does not fall into a grey area, the fact that people dont choose to see it it doesnt mean its not immoral just as slavery was. The so called social contract where you have no choice and no reasonable alternative but to submit to whatever rules of the state is immoral, any initiation of force is immoral (non aggression principle). You can try to dig some weird exception but "give me your money and Ill spend it as I see fit and maybe some will help you or I will kill you" its not a fucking exception everything alive in nature kills in one way or another for food, pleasure or dominance, aggression has been an asset for the survival and thriving of countless species on the planet, yet here you dudes have apparently decided to label nature "objectively/scientifically" immoral because of your personal taste; the fucking cheetah doesn't care how much disney you've watched when you were young, it enjoys killing because it's in it's nature. So either nature is inherently objectively immoral, in a very Christian outlook of the universe , or it is amoral and we too are also balls of mass/energy interacting with each other the best way we see fit through complex situations. The latter interpretation of the world leaves no room for bad conscience, as it presupposes that humans too, as a product of the bloody and slow evolutionary process , always do what they perceive as the best action for their growth and well being, no matter how stupid or fucked up their actions may seem; decision making processes on the brain have differences from person to person, not to mention how personal experience can produce vastly different behaviors. So the only thing that seems to be ridiculous about this discussion is to demand that everyone accepts the non killing (or even non aggression, for a more new agey suggestion) principle as objective moral duty.We don't want needless killing so we agree to make rules to protect human life to make our own life better as we understand "better" to be; that doesn't mean we should label our own self centered bias as the objectively moral truth People accept the state's existence as a necessary evil. Nobody likes paying taxes or to be told what to do, it's convinced otherwise ppl like yourself that should show how a stateless society could practically work and the ways it would be beneficial for most and I seriously doubt the moral imperatives will work even on the simplest of minds

saying that morality doesn't exist naturally is silly because we are humans...who came to our current state...naturally. we live in social cultural states because it is our very nature to do so. Saying morality isn't natural is like saying hunting with tools or agriculture isnt natural.

So if you accept that humans can naturally evolve to use tools, grow our own food, communicate on wider scales, becoming closer and closer to "optimal" then you cannot deny that morality and other ethical ideas can be honed and become closer to optimal as well. And accepting that means that there is such a thing as optimal moral behavior or ideals.