Towards a theory of amorality?

[tcaudilllg]

Although the ethics theories I have been offering of late would say a lot about the reasons people take the moral stances they do and why, they offer very little as to why a person would choose amorality. Granted such a person would find it "immoral" or "untruthful" (or at the very least, unhelpful) to maintain an absolute moral standard, but how would we represent that in terms of Model B intrarelational dynamics?

This seems to me a very relativistic topic.

I first offer that the cheif interest to the amoral person is in assisting their dual. They will choose first the ethical options and, if the ethical options are insufficient, then they will consider unethical options. I am not sure how this would manifest in terms of Model B interfunctional relations, though.

I think Bill Clinton is an example. On personal terms, he's duplicitous and unethical, imminently untrustworthy. However, on a large scale he demonstrates profound (relativistic) ethical integrity that earned him the praise of a majority of Americans during his presidency. We could thus say that he is morally ambivalent with regard to interpersonal relations, yet morally upright in regards to his relationships with many people.

[consentingadult]

On personal terms, he's (i.e. Clinton) duplicitous and unethical, imminently untrustworthy.

This is interesting: why do you think this?

However, on a large scale he demonstrates profound (relativistic) ethical integrity that earned him the praise of a majority of Americans during his presidency.

This could very well be, but I've heard social psychologists say other reasons for his success as a president: the first impression he made on people was an exceptionally good one, and once you start out with having made a good impression, it's hard for people to change their concept, even though he did 'wrong' later on. The reason for this, social psychologists say, is that if people have to admit the were wrong about their first impression, this would cause cognitive dissonance, and they'd rather rationalize away the dissonance, instead of adapting their views to a more realistic understanding of his character. He got away quite clean with adultery, didn't he? Now would we accept that from a person like G.W. Bush?

Let's look at the other side for example. apart from some bad things, Richard Nixon did some good things as well, still people remember him for his 'bad' deeds, and this is attributed to the idea that people had a bad impression of Nixon in the first place, and whatever good he did after that, could never make up for his bad first impression (I think I must mention that I'm not an admirer of Nixon).

[tcaudilllg]

I'm not saying that for a moment. I hold only the highest personal ethic. What I was hypothesizing is that you can have people who fall somewhere in between rigorous ethic and rigorous non-ethic. (to be consistently evil, you must fear being good.)

Here, let me spell it out for you in AD&D terms.

Most people: Good
Amoral people: Neutral
Pathological "shadow" people: Evil

Most people: Lawful
Extremist form of immanance: Chaotic

Not sure that it covers the whole spectrum, though. One imagines it should be a binary list, being as it is a typology.

Think of all the people who have gone to prison because they got "caught up" in the schemes of sociopaths? Think of the people close to you who betrayed you. Why did they do that?

I'd define Lawful as playing against one's internal shadow from within. I'd define Chaotic as trying to fight it from without. (extremism) Good is social; Evil is anti-social/id-driven. This gives us:


Lawful good: most of us
Chaotic good: extremists like Osama bin Laden, Che Gueverra

Lawful neutral: Bill Clinton types; open to duplicity
Chaotic neutral: ? (I've seen this type a lot in videogames. Actually I could see Karl Rove as this type. Bob Scheiffer once said that if he could hurt someone to gain political advantage "he would". This guy, if a creative leader, conforms to the idiotroph of the "magnificent bastard" who manipulates everyone around him in service to some larger arcane end known only to himself.)

Lawful evil: most psychopaths and sociopaths.
Chaotic evil: ****** types willing to take on the entire world in the name of their perverse inclinations.

All of this on a function-by-function basis, of course. You can be lawful in one function and chaotic in another.

[consentingadult]

you're contradicting...

Elaborate, because I don't see what you mean.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Here, let me spell it out for you in AD&D terms.

Most people: Good
Amoral people: Neutral
Pathological "shadow" people: Evil

Most people: Lawful
Extremist form of immanance: Chaotic

But surely, acts such as murder are at the core of our social institutions?

Consider:

''Murder is a dangerous business only for inelegant murderers - witless and impulsive brutes who lack all psychological understanding. An intelligent and rational man may, with ineffable serenity, commit all the murderes he desires. He is assured of immunity. The superiority of his calculations will always prevail against the routine of police investigations with which presiding magistrates enjoy dabbling. In this business, as in all others, it is the small who pay for the great.''

[tcaudilllg]

But surely, acts such as murder are at the core of our social institutions?

Consider:

You mean the core of their existence? Sure, just as we have regulations on industry to keep the id-driven pursuit of the "all mighty dollar/Euro/whatever" from ending up killing people. (although I caution that the id takes many forms and it would appear the Left sociopaths have concluded environmental preservation to be in the long-term interest of the species.)

But what's your point?

[Not A Communist Shill]

But what's your point?

I'm saying that all 'inelegant murderers' should be punished for the good of the species. While those who are too intelligent and rational to get caught murdering shouldn't be caught, for the good of the species and also for the good of the individual murderer (who gets the thrill of the chase etc.).

[tcaudilllg]

I'm saying that all 'inelegant murderers' should be punished for the good of the species. While those who are too intelligent and rational to get caught murdering shouldn't be caught, for the good of the species and also for the good of the individual murderer (who gets the thrill of the chase etc.).

Get real.

[iAnnAu]

Lawful good: most of us
Chaotic good: extremists like Osama bin Laden, Che Gueverra
Lawful neutral: Bill Clinton types; open to duplicity
Chaotic neutral: ? (I've seen this type a lot in videogames. Actually I could see Karl Rove as this type. Bob Scheiffer once said that if he could hurt someone to gain political advantage "he would". This guy, if a creative leader, conforms to the idiotroph of the "magnificent bastard" who manipulates everyone around him in service to some larger arcane end known only to himself.)
Lawful evil: most psychopaths and sociopaths.
Chaotic evil: ****** types willing to take on the entire world in the name of their perverse inclinations.

Whoa! AD&D breakdown? Flashback, man!

[Ezra]

If people looked at the facts, everyone would be amoral. That is, they'd have their own view of morality. There is no objective morality. People only think there is because of their god, who gave them morality. But there is no right or wrong way. It's a matter of opinion.

On that note, your explanation is rendered void, tcaudilllg. This is because, like Subterranean suggested, corruption is at the core of any political institution, meaning it is amoral, contrary to what you are suggesting. On top of this, in a duality, individuals in my eyes simply act according to what they feel is the best way to act towards their partner. They don't consider morality. It's not a case of morality, because morality is something far from relations; it's about a conscious way of living your life to get on with others.

[tcaudilllg]

If people looked at the facts, everyone would be amoral. That is, they'd have their own view of morality. There is no objective morality. People only think there is because of their god, who gave them morality. But there is no right or wrong way. It's a matter of opinion.

On that note, your explanation is rendered void, tcaudilllg. This is because, like Subterranean suggested, corruption is at the core of any political institution, meaning it is amoral, contrary to what you are suggesting. On top of this, in a duality, individuals in my eyes simply act according to what they feel is the best way to act towards their partner. They don't consider morality. It's not a case of morality, because morality is something far from relations; it's about a conscious way of living your life to get on with others.

Actually, morality is very clearly definable: it is the path of least strife between persons. The point of the Golden rule is to use personal desire for reciprocation; however, for reasons you just detailed, the Golden Rule does not apply to all psyches equally, because some people can desire retribution against themselves for perceived moral failure....

I assure that the Democratic Party as it now stands has erected an internal firewall against corruption and amoral viewpoints (easy amorality is a minority view), something Barack Obama's victory is a part of. You see what it's doing to the Republicans....

I assure you that UDP has only the highest moral standards, and that his standards are quite innate. Expat, RMCnew, and many others here are similarly disposed that I can see.

On top of this, in a duality, individuals in my eyes simply act according to what they feel is the best way to act towards their partner. They don't consider morality. It's not a case of morality, because morality is something far from relations; it's about a conscious way of living your life to get on with others.

Although you apparently do not realize it, you have by that statement affirmed my hypothesis of amorality, for I anticipated duality as the very motivation for choosing amoral activity. However, more work remains to be done.

But this is good, isn't it, Labcoat? :wink:

Still, I can't help but find calculable psychodynamics that are not in the best interest of everyone reprehensible by nature.

[krieger]

I assure you that UDP has only the highest moral standards, and that his standards are quite innate. Expat, RMCnew, and many others here are similarly disposed that I can see.

Did you just define yet another morality class, something like "super-good" as in "pure-good" in RPG terms...?

But this is good, isn't it, Labcoat?

I suppose. I don't exactly rejoice when it turns out there is another level of complexity behind the things we had been investigating, though. If anything I "want" a theory of personality that is simple rather than complex, "snap-judgment accessible" as behooves my "double-Result" nature.

[Slacker]

Morality = living in right relations with others and the world.

[tcaudilllg]

Did you just define yet another morality class, something like "super-good" as in "pure-good" in RPG terms...?



I suppose. I don't exactly rejoice when it turns out there is another level of complexity behind the things we had been investigating, though. If anything I "want" a theory of personality that is simple rather than complex, "snap-judgment accessible" as behooves my "double-Result" nature.

So would I. But reality does not offer such....

I could imagine Enron being the product of an object moralist (Kenneth Lay) taking the suggestions of a psychopath as good advice, however. In fact, in light of field morality Kenneth Lay is an immediately sympathetic character.

One wonders if he would have preferred the diagnosis of a mental disorder (and the loss of most of his money) to prison.

And of course, field morality explains Bill and Monica. (and Bill and Obama, for that matter...)

Edit:
A recent example of either field or object morality (can't tell which)
http://www.cnn.com/2008/SHOWBIZ/book....ap/index.html

[Not A Communist Shill]

This message is endorsed by rmcnew (blame him!).

[crazedrat]

The assumption is society is moral, and anarchy is immoral; which I disagree with. I actually think it's the exact opposite

[Not A Communist Shill]

The assumption is society is moral, and anarchy is immoral; which I disagree with. I actually think it's the exact opposite

"If the bee disappeared off the surface of the globe then man would only have four years of life left. No more bees, no more pollination, no more plants, no more animals, no more man." - Albert Einstein.

[UDP]

This message is endorsed by rmcnew (blame him!).

Is she getting spanked?

[crazedrat]

the quote actually supports my position; anarchy is living in closer union with nature

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Morality is so complex that nobody can use big general statements such as good, neutral or evil. Different people are going to bring out the best in others, and other people bring out the worst. It depends on environmental circumstances, what you're accomplishing etc. Everybody is messy shades of gray.

Yes, that includes ******. *sigh*

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Therefore, the best we can do is adopt libertarian policies and put people where they're best suited, instead of a one-size-fits-all approach that doesn't work, and only seeks to discriminate people who are different. Ie naturally violent or extremely introverted people aren't bad, they just are by conventional society means, and need to be put in their proper places.

[Trevor]

Morality is so complex that nobody can use big general statements such as good, neutral or evil. Different people are going to bring out the best in others, and other people bring out the worst. It depends on environmental circumstances, what you're accomplishing etc. Everybody is messy shades of gray.

Yes, that includes ******. *sigh*

[ArchonAlarion]

Good and Evil do not exist.

Before we could evaluate their existence we'd have to define them:

Good might = The way to gather the most nachos.
Evil might = The way that loses you nachos.

Of course this doesn't make good and evil objective or intrinsic. It begs the qustion, "Why is it good to gather nachos?"

There is no answer, but what if we created a broader definition such as:

Its good to gather things
Its evil to discard things

That once again begs the question, "Why is it good to gather things?"

There is never an answer to oughts.

The best we can do is be mature and figure out a subjective moral system.

Because value and morality are subjective, it seems right to me to find the system that allows people the most freedom to pursue their values, and minimizes the interhuman prohibition of value pursuit.

There will be a most efficient solution for this and I believe that solution to be Free market anarchism.

[Trevor]

Good and Evil do not exist.

Yeah, if you're not conscious.

[ArchonAlarion]

Yeah, if you're not conscious.

okay.....

A measurable, intrinsic, and objective Good and Evil do not exist.

How bout that?

[Trevor]

okay.....

A measurable, intrinsic, and objective Good and Evil do not exist.

How bout that?

I disagree. But since i can't prove it to you, I'm going to retract myself from further discussion.
Good day to you.

[munenori2]

Jackie Chan is some kind of demigod.

[Hot Scalding Gayser]

Why are you getting so defensive about this?

If we put you in a situation with people that did not complement you or bring out your best traits, at best you wouldn't blossom and you'd allow your true self to be vanquished by them, thus destroying the dichotomy in the first place- or at worst you would lash out and do evil actions towards them with the intention of thinking you're the good guy. But you would be justified in your anger toward others, because they did after all, persecute you.

However we put you in a situation with people that understood you, and helped you develop, and brought out your best qualities- you would be considered good.

You just seem a little sheltered that's all. (Argh I know that sounds condescending)

[crazedrat]

I would say our circumstances do presuppose certain morals. For example, it is good to gather nachos because we are alive and we must remain alive. So for me, as a human, it is good to gather nachos. But my existence in the first place; is that good or bad? Only from my perspective it is good. But from the perspective of the cows that I eat, it is bad. Ultimately I think the problem reduces to a state of chaos where there is nothing living in the universe; and nothing that can be lost. And so that nothing is good or evil because it will all return to death in the end anyway. Like ... you killed 6 million Jews, but ultimately we are all dead men ....

[crazedrat]

Did I say I rejected that I exist? No, just that there is a certain argument the universe is apathetic to it. That things are geared toward chaos.

There is also a certain argument that the universe is geared toward life. Inwhich case it is the duty of the lesser to serve the greater. Cows die for humans and we die for aliens. !
And appeals to higher authority seem legitimate from that angle. But then you have to analyze the nature of such a higher authority, and that if it also has the best interests of the universe and the extension of life in mind.

Really, it depends on how you think the universe is organized. Toward life and order or toward death and chaos.

[Trevor]

Reality is as it is. Misunderstandings are produced because of different points of view.

[crazedrat]

Im gona go get some coffee and let you continue

[ArchonAlarion]

The universe isn't geared towards anything. Its just an emergent phenomenon and we only see order to it in hindsight.

There is no good and evil. It sucks, but its true. There is no reason to serve any beings nor to not serve other beings.

Morality must come from a preference. You can have a preference that will produce the best quality of life for mankind, but in the end it is a preference.

[Bardia]

An excerpt from C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity:

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to-whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter, but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong- in other words, if there is no Law of Nature-what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?

The whole thing can be found online if anyone's interested: http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt

[ArchonAlarion]

An excerpt from C. S. Lewis' Mere Christianity:

I know that some people say the idea of a Law of Nature or decent behaviour known to all men is unsound, because different civilisations and different ages have had quite different moralities.

But this is not true. There have been differences between their moralities, but these have never amounted to anything like a total difference. If anyone will take the trouble to compare the moral teaching of, say, the ancient Egyptians, Babylonians, Hindus, Chinese, Greeks and Romans, what will really strike him will be how very like they are to each other and to our own. Some of the evidence for this I have put together in the appendix of another book called The Abolition of Man; but for our present purpose I need only ask the reader to think what a totally different morality would mean. Think of a country where people were admired for running away in battle, or where a man felt proud of double-crossing all the people who had been kindest to him. You might just as well try to imagine a country where two and two made five. Men have differed as regards what people you ought to be unselfish to-whether it was only your own family, or your fellow countrymen, or everyone. But they have always agreed that you ought not to put yourself first. Selfishness has never been admired. Men have differed as to whether you should have one wife or four. But they have always agreed that you must not simply have any woman you liked.

But the most remarkable thing is this. Whenever you find a man who says he does not believe in a real Right and Wrong, you will find the same man going back on this a moment later. He may break his promise to you, but if you try breaking one to him he will be complaining "It's not fair" before you can say Jack Robinson. A nation may say treaties do not matter, but then, next minute, they spoil their case by saying that the particular treaty they want to break was an unfair one. But if treaties do not matter, and if there is no such thing as Right and Wrong- in other words, if there is no Law of Nature-what is the difference between a fair treaty and an unfair one? Have they not let the cat out of the bag and shown that, whatever they say, they really know the Law of Nature just like anyone else?

The whole thing can be found online if anyone's interested: http://lib.ru/LEWISCL/mere_engl.txt

"Right and wrong" are deeply ingrained cultural memes, which emerged in order for the continuation and progression of the human species. They are neither intrinsic nor objective.

At certain times a former "right" may become a wrong and a "wrong" may become a right. This reflects the snipping and streamlining of survival of the fittest. Old, archaic, and destructive beliefs die out and are replaced by ones which ever increasingly reflect objective reality.

Although, of course, this is based on broad trends. Occasionally societies will slip into the darkness, but this may also be a cleansing mechanism. A lesson, if you will, for the survivors.

[crazedrat]

life being an emergent phenomenon doesn't mean the universe isn't geared toward emergence. By deviating from natural order you are evil in the eyes of the universe. And the universe is the highest power. So if you were to go kill 1 buffalo for the fun of it, that would be evil. but if you were to kill one to eat, that wouldn't be evil. It is possible to reason through moral issues by expanding their context and looking for conflict. That is exactly what you see people do out of instinct when discussing moral issues

[ArchonAlarion]

life being an emergent phenomenon doesn't mean the universe isn't geared toward emergence. By deviating from natural order you are evil in the eyes of the universe. And the universe is the highest power. So if you were to go kill 1 buffalo for the fun of it, that would be evil. but if you were to kill one to eat, that wouldn't be evil. It is possible to reason through moral issues by expanding their context and looking for conflict. That is exactly what you see people do out of instinct when discussing moral issues

You can't deviate from the natural order. Everything that any human has done ever is natural. It occured in nature via natural laws. There is no synthetic-natural distinction. That is the flaw in which primitivist-anarchists fall into. Blowing up the earth with nukes, is just as natural as a meteor doing the same. Human technology is as natural as anthills and birdnests.

Emergence is a concept that things are built bottom-up. First being simple components and later interacting to form complex structures. Also emergence realizes that the simple components have no plans for grand design and that macro structures, such as multi-celled lifeforms or a society, are basically an accident.

Killing one buffalo for the fun of it is a movement of atoms, chemical reactions, and physical changes. Why is breaking a large stone okay, but breaking a buffalo isn't? The reason why people feel its wrong is because we've evolved to empathize with other animals, and we know that its a waste of resources. Like I said, cultural memes.

[crazedrat]

No, human technology is not natural like anthills. The difference is the ends for which they aim. It's the same difference as killing a buffalo for fun, or killing it for food. It's a deviation from natural order. Natural order is a universal call for balance. An anthill doesn't have the potential to kill a buffalo for fun. It is in balance with its environment.

You can deviate from natural order. An unnatural order is anything which is imbalanced so as it's not indefinitely supported by the universe. This means any form of life is unnatural.

An unnatural order occurs inside a dish filled with bacteria. When the bacteria pollute their environment, they then kill themselves off. When a planet full of human beings pollute their world, they destroy themselves. This is necessarily unnatural because it is not sustained by the universe. Therefor, it is not of the universal order. Its death is its return to a natural state.

But that the universe is not balanced; and that life does exist, shows the universe is also geared toward the development of unnatural orders; and that these unnatural orders balance one another out in a natural fashion. The primary difference between something unnatural, and something natural, is the presence of organization. Although these organizations occur accidentally, they cannot not occur. Therefor, they are scripted into the universe. If they weren't, the universe would be in a state of Zen.

What this really is, is the presence of smaller universes within a larger and largest universe. It is impossible for two similar universes to exist and create a largest universe. They must be opposite one another. Therefor we know that the nature of any smaller organization is predetermined by other organizations it's relevant to. Life couldn't develop the way it has if we were closer to the sun.

An unnatural order is when something tries to develop too closely to the sun; and naturally the sun incinerates it. Ultimately, the entire universe gets incinerated by the existence of opposing forces.

The difference between a nuclear explosion and a meteor killing off humanity, is that the nuclear explosion is the unnatural order destroying itself; the bacteria in the pitri dish eating up their food and polluting their environment, where the meteor is the universe returning the unnatural order of humanity to nature by destroying them; it is the food in the petri dish running out.

Killing a buffalo for fun is the same as the bacteria in the petri dish polluting their environment, or as nuclear explosions killing off life on earth. Killing a buffalo for food is the same as the meteor striking earth, or as the food in the petri dish being consumed and eventually running out. The first is an unnatural order which is expanding itself, the second is a return to natural order.

What this means for morality is that it's okay for the sun to incinerate something which gets too close to it, but it isn't okay to make space shielded greenhouses and try and grow something too closely to the sun. Doing that would create the potential for death. The first is the bringer of death.

[Not A Communist Shill]

Something dying is not returning to a 'natural state'. If the physics of an universe allows something to happen, it can happen. There is nothing unnatural about organisation. It is pointless to say 'organization' is scripted into the universe, because if you have identified it, then how could you possibly deduce otherwise?

[crazedrat]

Yes, dying is something returning to a natural state. I can know that life will be organized differently on a different planet in a different environment. Altogether if you look at the universe there will be no transcendent organization to it. All organization will balance itself out. An organization unfolds as a reaction to the environment inwhich it exists. So we can know that there is no organization to the universe, that it is chaotic, but that organization is an illusion of existing within a confined environment. And this means attempting to transcend this environment which organization is adapted to is going against the natural order of the universe, and that this is fleeting and will eventually die. Defying the natural order of the universe is what is immoral. Life is reactive, not deliberated. As human beings we have the unique ability to organize the world around us in a way which defies the laws of nature. This is our immorality