Morality is fake and doesn’t exist

[URUZ]

What exists are values in relation. You as a valuer ascribe value to things, and then you value them also in terms of each other because quite often values are interwoven through each other or you at least need to make choices between them; “morality” is the false deification or primacy of one value over others and without having engaged in that comparison and ranking of values with each other. Morality is nothing more than a word for how people refuse to actually engage their values honestly in relative terms of each other.

Morality is built on an emotional foundation, it is basically a half-emotion that stirs up your feelings at certain times when you would otherwise be required to engage in a value analysts and hierarchizing of values but instead the emotion of morality hits you and destroys your attempt to more deeply understand and rank your values.

Morality as false emotion, morality as laziness, morality as ideology.

Nothing is “right or wrong” unless you say it so, and unless it really is according to you. What are the how’s and why’s of right and wrong according to you? Don’t you feel strange being compelled by morality when you haven’t even worked through that hardly at all?

Morality is the equivalent of an instinct, it is an instinct; a compelling force of feeling that shuts down mental processes that would otherwise have taken place.

And realizing that morality is bullshit doesn’t mean you now have to do all this crazy shit that you thought or still think is wrong, you don’t lose your ability to do value-calculus when you understand the falsity of morality, rather you actually gain the ability to do that value-calculus for the first time. If something seems right or wrong to you then find out why, and compare that to other values and possibilities. Push the analysis as far as you can toward whatever goal you’ve determined, whatever highest value you have.

Morality is blindness and silly religion. When we act according to what seems and feels right or wrong, we are not acting according to morality, we are acting according to our own estimations of values and how and why we self-value as we do, as we must. There is nothing right or wrong outside of what is so for you; after acknowledging this we can then get together and find some agreements or disagreements on that.

[URUZ]

If I value something it’s because it’s important to me for some reason, probably for many reasons; it’s good for me in some ways, adds to my being. If I don’t like something or it seems wrong then this is indication that it is bad/harmful for me for some reasons and subtracts from my being. We don’t value anything or anyone because they have inherent value, we value them because they have some additive positive value to us, the valuer.

So called universal morals are just additive positive valuations that a lot of people have made in the past, leading that valuing type to become more common. This is a sign that something important exists in those common valuations, otherwise they would not be common. So find that deeper importance and understand it, then you can revalue the common and uncommon in accordance to the greater standard and meaning. By doing this you increase your self-valuing; by automatically following common moral prescriptions you at minimum maintain your being where it is, and risk lessening it. Living secondarily by assumed moral codes is just a form of vicarious denial, deny the actual realm of meaning that is the basis for moral codes and then distance yourself from how you have denied it by pretending like you had no choice in the matter, this is accomplished by submerging yourself in the common morality as if you and it were indistinguishable.

Try not to do that. You actually do exist, you know.

[URUZ]

This also relates to the idea of free will. When you lose the silly religious belief in free will, when you understand what deterministic causality and the principle of sufficient reason mean, then you don’t lose your ability to act with freedom, you actually gain and increase that ability.

Similarly, when you see through the falsity of morality you do not lose the ability to act according to right and wrong, good and bad, instead you truly gain it for the first time. You cease being a species-thing, extension of the group-think, and you start being an individual. Since all of your values are already individual, to you, this is what allows you to begin to properly exist before what is actually right and wrong, good and bad for you, and how and why all that is the case.

[Serendipper]

Isn't moral relativism a leftist thing?

[Magnus Anderson]

Morality is fake and it does not exist

That's not true. I think it's pretty apparent that morality exists. Morality is simply a description of how one should interact with other people.

Morality is blindness and silly religion. When we act according to what seems and feels right or wrong, we are not acting according to morality, we are acting according to our own estimations of values and how and why we self-value as we do, as we must. There is nothing right or wrong outside of what is so for you; after acknowledging this we can then get together and find some agreements or disagreements on that.

Yes, we are acting according to some morality, though not necessarily according to some specific morality.

You are making these matters unnecessarily complicated.

If I value something it’s because it’s important to me for some reason, probably for many reasons; it’s good for me in some ways, adds to my being. If I don’t like something or it seems wrong then this is indication that it is bad/harmful for me for some reasons and subtracts from my being. We don’t value anything or anyone because they have inherent value, we value them because they have some additive positive value to us, the valuer.

Yes, most people agree that value is relative. I think that's quite obvious. Even people who think that there are things that are inherently valuable agree that value is relative.

Try not to do that. You actually do exist, you know.

So if people adopt common morality, they do not exist?

[encode_decode]

Morality is fake and it does not exist

That's not true. I think it's pretty apparent that morality exists. Morality is simply a description of how one should interact with other people.

Morality is blindness and silly religion. When we act according to what seems and feels right or wrong, we are not acting according to morality, we are acting according to our own estimations of values and how and why we self-value as we do, as we must. There is nothing right or wrong outside of what is so for you; after acknowledging this we can then get together and find some agreements or disagreements on that.

Yes, we are acting according to some morality, though not necessarily according to some specific morality.

You are making these matters unnecessarily complicated.

If I value something it’s because it’s important to me for some reason, probably for many reasons; it’s good for me in some ways, adds to my being. If I don’t like something or it seems wrong then this is indication that it is bad/harmful for me for some reasons and subtracts from my being. We don’t value anything or anyone because they have inherent value, we value them because they have some additive positive value to us, the valuer.

Yes, most people agree that value is relative. I think that's quite obvious. Even people who think that there are things that are inherently valuable agree that value is relative.

Try not to do that. You actually do exist, you know.

So if people adopt common morality, they do not exist?

AGREED!

The problem is no-one can so neatly pack morality away like for example General Relativity - so people do their soft heads in over it.

[Mr Reasonable]

Morality is the structure, values are the content. Form and content. Some old school philosophy for ya right there. The content can be subjective. The form isn't. X is moral, Y is immoral. X receives praise, Y receives blame. That's how it works. People fill in the blanks however they like. Morality is real. Ask anyone who's in prison.

[URUZ]

Morality is fake and it does not exist

That's not true. I think it's pretty apparent that morality exists. Morality is simply a description of how one should interact with other people.

The description is bullshit, is my point. It isn't actually accurate. There is no "should" that comes from outside and over-determines you, unless you have already failed to take yourself into account, unless you already do not... exist in that purview.

Morality is blindness and silly religion. When we act according to what seems and feels right or wrong, we are not acting according to morality, we are acting according to our own estimations of values and how and why we self-value as we do, as we must. There is nothing right or wrong outside of what is so for you; after acknowledging this we can then get together and find some agreements or disagreements on that.

Yes, we are acting according to some morality, though not necessarily according to some specific morality.

You are making these matters unnecessarily complicated.

From your point of view that is how it looks, because you insist on using this obfuscating blinder term "morality", for some reason. I am looking at the actual things going on here, not glossing them over with a mere word.

If I value something it’s because it’s important to me for some reason, probably for many reasons; it’s good for me in some ways, adds to my being. If I don’t like something or it seems wrong then this is indication that it is bad/harmful for me for some reasons and subtracts from my being. We don’t value anything or anyone because they have inherent value, we value them because they have some additive positive value to us, the valuer.

Yes, most people agree that value is relative. I think that's quite obvious. Even people who think that there are things that are inherently valuable agree that value is relative.

I didn't say relative. Values are hierarchical, and we are made out of them, out of the dynamic inter-activity and mutual perspective-making of them. Truth writes itself upon the material present moment, it is that moment; the moment is merely a representation, an expression, of certain truths-in-relation. Just because something is subjective does not mean it is also not objective, in fact you cannot have one without the other.

I don't really use the word "relative" outside of strict physics, because it tends to confuse rather than clarify. The concept is not precise enough.

Try not to do that. You actually do exist, you know.

So if people adopt common morality, they do not exist?

Right. Talk to a religious ideologue or a moralist, you will quickly find there is a massive void in their soul, behind their eyes... they "exist" but only in a certain, very limited, very derivative way.

Overcoming the myth of morality is a basic test and standard of measure, it allows you to know much about another person the degree to which they have overcome this either directly (consciously, with understanding) or indirectly (in their instincts, force of unconsciousness).

[URUZ]

Overcoming morality leads to a kind of purity, a freedom. In contrast, moralistic people are small, boring, unthoughtful, unfree, and generally just annoying as fuck.

[URUZ]

It's the difference between doing something unquestionably and doing something with an eye to examining and understanding it better.

The word "morality" clouds this over and makes things appear unquestionable. This is nice for priest and political groups to control people, and they do. But if you want to be a free individual, if you want to truly exist, then you have to break the shackles and start thinking for yourself. You have to start trusting yourself, which requires the highest possible demand of your strength.

Weak (dishonest, cowardly, hyper-reactive) people cannot revaluate morality, and when they try or are made to they simply degenerate into sociopathic goo. But I never address myself or my philosophy to weak people.

[Magnus Anderson]

The description is bullshit, is my point.

Which one? Are you saying any? If so, it follows that your own description of what you value, i.e. what you consider good and what you consider bad, is also bullshit.

There is no "should" that comes from outside and over-determines you, unless you have already failed to take yourself into account, unless you already do not... exist in that purview.

Are you saying that one's own decisions are as good as they can be? it's not possible for others to know better than us what is good for us?

From your point of view that is how it looks, because you insist on using this obfuscating blinder term "morality", for some reason.

The reason is it's a well-known term with a well-established definition. Morality is simply a system of values or a set of rules governing what is good and what is bad. It is an answer to the question "how one ought to live".

On the other hand, self-valuing is a neologism, and a strange one, that has no clear definition.

What I find strange is your opposition to the word "morality".

I didn't say relative.

You said we value things because they are good for us and not because they are good in themselves.

[Mad Man P]

It's the difference between doing something unquestionably and doing something with an eye to examining and understanding it better.

The word "morality" clouds this over and makes things appear unquestionable. This is nice for priest and political groups to control people, and they do. But if you want to be a free individual, if you want to truly exist, then you have to break the shackles and start thinking for yourself. You have to start trusting yourself, which requires the highest possible demand of your strength.

Weak (dishonest, cowardly, hyper-reactive) people cannot revaluate morality, and when they try or are made to they simply degenerate into sociopathic goo. But I never address myself or my philosophy to weak people.

Define "morality"

Because my understanding of the term boils down to "a code of conduct".
Unless you live entirely separate from human society, you cannot concoct a code of conduct independent of other people... if nothing else, it would fail as a tool for navigating the social space you occupy if you were to break it loose from your fellow human beings and their interests, in favor of shifting the focus to merely your own values... when you transgress into territory that is not permitted by others, you are now alone against a horde. Possibly you can take pride in being uncompromising in your beliefs but you'll be dead or behind bars... unless you expect the balance of that choice to shift in the afterlife this must be considered a tactical misstep, at the very least.

Human cooperation demands an agreement about acceptable conduct be reached... to say this agreement is to be defined by an individual's personal values seems absurde on the face of it...
So I have to assume you define "morality" differently.

[WendyDarling]

MA wrote

You said we value things because they are good for us and not because they are good in themselves.

I'm curious to read a response to this.

[URUZ]

It's the difference between doing something unquestionably and doing something with an eye to examining and understanding it better.

The word "morality" clouds this over and makes things appear unquestionable. This is nice for priest and political groups to control people, and they do. But if you want to be a free individual, if you want to truly exist, then you have to break the shackles and start thinking for yourself. You have to start trusting yourself, which requires the highest possible demand of your strength.

Weak (dishonest, cowardly, hyper-reactive) people cannot revaluate morality, and when they try or are made to they simply degenerate into sociopathic goo. But I never address myself or my philosophy to weak people.

Define "morality"

Because my understanding of the term boils down to "a code of conduct".
Unless you live entirely separate from human society, you cannot concoct a code of conduct independent of other people... if nothing else, it would fail as a tool for navigating the social space you occupy if you were to break it loose from your fellow human beings and their interests, in favor of shifting the focus to merely your own values... when you transgress into territory that is not permitted by others, you are now alone against a horde. Possibly you can take pride in being uncompromising in your beliefs but you'll be dead or behind bars... unless you expect the balance of that choice to shift in the afterlife this must be considered a tactical misstep, at the very least.

Human cooperation demands an agreement about acceptable conduct be reached... to say this agreement is to be defined by an individual's personal values seems absurde on the face of it...
So I have to assume you define "morality" differently.

I addressed this in the OP. I gave at least two definitions of what is morality. I also addressed the common shared values, society thing.

Push those common values to extremes of not understanding or deepening them while simultaneously deifying or reifying them and turning them into ideology, is basically what is morality. Morality is for people who do not like to think much; self-valuing is for people who have those things called honesty, courage, pride, joy, curiosity, thoughtfulness, intelligence.

[URUZ]

MA wrote

You said we value things because they are good for us and not because they are good in themselves.

I'm curious to read a response to this.

You value things in terms of that which you already are or are already becoming. Objective vs subjective is a false construct, but as conceptual tool can be useful so long as you don’t abuse it. As long as you value it, and it isn’t valuing you.

[Faust]

Morality is fake and nonexistent, but only trivially so. Think "unicorn". if you want to think well, productively, about morality, you gotta know going in that it's nonexistent. Moral actions exist, but only because someone labels them so. Moralities are sets of rules for conduct. Not like the rules for chess or pledging for a fraternity. Moral rules are designed for the overall security and safety of those who formulate the moral code in question - a particular moral code. When you're using an explosive, read the instructions first, so you don't hurt yourself. If someone else can get hurt, read your moral code. Exercise can be a benefit, but you have to do it right. When it may benefit someone else, there is a moral component.

Rules don't literally exist. But because we have a memory, and a collective one, we (some group) can agree to some rules. Or not.

This is not difficult.

[Jakob]

But rules do exist. Morality is only a way of behaving according to rules that otherwise wold be enforced by some dire consequence.
A rule is for example to not eat for children. It just won't work out for you, evolutionarily speaking.

A morality can be a beautiful thing, a thing that brings about a lot of art, or it can be a prison camp, or a lobotomy. But whatever its manifestations may look like, morality is always a pre-emptive strategy in accordance with very real rules or laws, consistencies in the behaviour of the world wherever you are.

For example, a case where someone trips and falls among other people. In no circumstance would this person be elevated in rank the next moment. A blunt example of how basic morality really is, how it is more of a reflex than a consideration, and how to be free of its grasp (its valuing-you in its terms) requires a very agile and grounded mind, one the tis always a few steps ahead of the moral code, ahead of it on the same path, not in contradiction to it. That would simply be another morality.

[Mad Man P]

I addressed this in the OP. I gave at least two definitions of what is morality. I also addressed the common shared values, society thing.

Push those common values to extremes of not understanding or deepening them while simultaneously deifying or reifying them and turning them into ideology, is basically what is morality. Morality is for people who do not like to think much; self-valuing is for people who have those things called honesty, courage, pride, joy, curiosity, thoughtfulness, intelligence.

If that is your definition that would make your thesis here a semantic tautology...
I don't want to accuse you of sophistry, so I'll assume the equivocation by re-definition of a common term is accidental.

The resistance you're running into here is semantic... most people do not subscribe to your definition of morality.

[URUZ]

A blunt example of how basic morality really is, how it is more of a reflex than a consideration, and how to be free of its grasp (its valuing-you in its terms) requires a very agile and grounded mind, one the tis always a few steps ahead of the moral code, ahead of it on the same path, not in contradiction to it. That would simply be another morality.

Exactly, yes.

[Faust]

Jake - I beg to differ. Rules do not exist. But sure, moral rules stylize revenge, for instance. The more immediate problem with eating children is that they often belong to someone who values them. Morality has always been an aid to a well run economy.

Probably most people shouldn't try to be a step ahead of the morality that their group lives with. Most people aren't that creative. But those who are successful probably have the most fun overall.

Your last point illustrates why ignoring the extant morality is a very bad idea. Using it as a theme upon which variations may be made makes for a happier, healthier, more successful moral scofflaw.

[Magnus Anderson]

I think it's excessive to say that rules do not exist. Just consider what a rule is. An example would be a conditional statement such as "if you kill someone, the police will arrest you". The statement describes what will happen if you kill someone. That's a decription of reality. It's a description of how things work. It's a description of what consequences will follow if you make certain kind of choices. As such, the statement has a truth value. It is either true or false. It is either describing something that exists or it is describing something that does not exist. I think we will all agree that a rule such as "if you kill someone, the police will arrest you" exists pretty much in every country in the world whereas a rule such as "if you kill someone, the police will make you rich" has no match in reality. The first rule exists whereas the second one does not.

Now, when people say something like "morality does not exist" or "morality is fake" what they normally mean is that some specific morality they have in mind (e.g. Christian morality) is not practiced in reality -- not even by those who claim to be practicing it.

[Prismatic567]

Currently there are lots of research indicating in the direction, humans are born with a faculty of morality, like faculty of reason, intellect, and other mental faculties.

Morality is not just something that people learn, argues Yale psychologist Paul Bloom: It [morality] is something we are all born with.

At birth, babies are endowed with compassion, with empathy, with the beginnings of a sense of fairness. It is from these beginnings, he argues in his new book Just Babies, that adults develop their sense of right and wrong, their desire to do good — and, at times, their capacity to do terrible things.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... of-babies/

[Faust]

Magnus, you're example is inapt. That's more of a threat than a statement of fact. Nonetheless, rules do not exist experientially, empirically. Novels don't exist, but my copy of Farewell to Arms does. That's the wacky world of the nominalist.

To your last point, to expect near universal practice is no measure of the realness of a moral system. Because moral systems aren't real to begin with... no, never mind. Someone is just bitching about someone they are morally judging. Humans keep doing that, over and over. It's just what we do. Philosophers attempt to find some external basis for it.

[Magnus Anderson]

Magnus, you're example is inapt. That's more of a threat than a statement of fact.

That's a description of reality which can either be true or false. Either the police will arrest you when you kill someone or it won't.

We use symbols to describe reality. The symbols themselves aren't reality, i.e. they are not what they are symbolizing, but they are nonetheless symbolizing something and that something either exists or it does not.

[Faust]

Yeah but this doesn't work very well for moral imperatives. It is to say, "If you sin, you will go to Hell, unless of course I am mistaken."

Your second point is trivial. For it is a certainty that anything we symbolize either exist or it does not. The Big Question is of which is which.