Freedomain Radio

If morality was created to control people, then why continue to use it at all?

To control people.

just because blades were invented to cut people, does not mean that you can't use them to chop firewood

Morality wasn't invented, or created. It evolved.

We all have a capacity to make value judgments, and have an acute awareness of other's value judgments of us, as part of an array of biological adaptations (including reciprocal-altruism, empathy, and sympathy) that constitute the human moral sense (or 'faculty', if you will).

In otherwords, we have no choice but to use it. In the same way that we can't avoid using our lungs, we cannot help ourselves but to desire that what we are doing or what we believe is "right" and "good" (e.g., By simply asking the question you asked, you're using your moral faculty, and there's no way to formulate the question, without doing so). Even the most broken of evil people pour an enormous amount of energy into convincing themselves and others that they are morally justified. Hitler had vastly elaborate explanations for why what he was doing was "good". 

Only the most rare examples of humans are completely devoid of concern for the rightness of their actions.

Accepting the obligate nature of this faculty, I think it's absolutely essential that we ask ourselves how we are using it? What's the most correct way to use it? What happens when we use it incorrectly? How do we know we're using it correctly or incorrectly?

We've certainly done a lot of fumbling in the dark on these questions in the past, and have fallen prey to a lot of nonsense about it as a result. Including surrendering ourselves to those who offered easy conclusions for these questions.

Let's not do that anymore.

Bricks:

If morality was created to control people, then why continue to use it at all?

Your question is common coming from people who tries to falsify liberty by proving absolute liberty is impossible. Think of philosophy as a battlefield. Assume you've got the socialists lined up in front of your army ready to fight you. If you look right behind you, you will find those deceitful people who pretend they love the idea of freedom if it wasn't for the impossible of getting it in full. Their argument goes like this: "Because even carrots can kill you if you eat too much of it, carrot cannot be essensial in a diet". Yeah, I know, it makes no sense, but this is how they think. If they want liberty, they say, they want it in maximal. Not optimal like anarchists. The axiom of socialism can be written like this: "Earth is own by all men as in a collective". To them, it doesn't matter what you do with what you own. They are born into owning. You as an anarchist are performing to get ownership.

Now that we have established our value system, it's easy to love the fact that objective moral can protect it. If it must be done by controlling people who do not respect the individual's right to control himself and what he produce, then so be it. By reason we must recognize the fact that two indviduals cannot occupy the same space. This is the fact regardless of what value system you're using.

Jalla:

Bricks:

If morality was created to control people, then why continue to use it at all?

Your question is common coming from people who tries to falsify liberty by proving absolute liberty is impossible. Think of philosophy as a battlefield. Assume you've got the socialists lined up in front of your army ready to fight you. If you look right behind you, you will find those deceitful people who pretend they love the idea of freedom if it wasn't for the impossible of getting it in full. Their argument goes like this: "Because even carrots can kill you if you eat too much of it, carrot cannot be essensial in a diet". Yeah, I know, it makes no sense, but this is how they think. If they want liberty, they say, they want it in maximal. Not optimal like anarchists. The axiom of socialism can be written like this: "Earth is own by all men as in a collective". To them, it doesn't matter what you do with what you own. They are born into owning. You as an anarchist are performing to get ownership.

Now that we have established our value system, it's easy to love the fact that objective moral can protect it. If it must be done by controlling people who do not respect the individual's right to control himself and what he produce, then so be it. By reason we must recognize the fact that two indviduals cannot occupy the same space. This is the fact regardless of what value system you're using.

Well said.

Jalla:

Now that we have established our value system, it's easy to love the fact that objective moral can protect it. If it must be done by controlling people who do not respect the individual's right to control himself and what he produce, then so be it. By reason we must recognize the fact that two indviduals cannot occupy the same space. This is the fact regardless of what value system you're using.

I didn't understand the first paragraph, alas. But this one brought up a question for me:

Why control someone who does not honor your values if you can just disassociate from them?

If I understand you correctly, GregG, you are saying that we all innately desire to be good (having a 'moral faculty'). And only the most rare examples of humans lack this faculty.

GregG:

I think it's absolutely essential that we ask ourselves how we are using it? What's the most correct way to use it? What happens when we use it incorrectly? How do we know we're using it correctly or incorrectly?

We've certainly done a lot of fumbling in the dark on these questions in the past, and have fallen prey to a lot of nonsense about it as a result. Including surrendering ourselves to those who offered easy conclusions for these questions.

Let's not do that anymore.

And I agree!

Which leads me to ask what I think to be a very important question, which is: 

If people want to be good, why do we need rules? (Note that I am not asking: "why do we need truth or rationality?" I accept those.)

Why do we need to control people if they want to be good?

Jalla then refers to the distust we have in others -- that some people choose to do bad things. And that we need a system to control them.

To which I asked another question I think is equally important.

I wish somebody would respond.

I would suggest that y'all want to use morality because you do not trust people.

Without it, you fear that you will be exploited.

Preference is not enough -- control is absolutely necessary, or all will descend into chaos and violence.

 I think this is a very interesting point, and similar ideas have come up for me. I also wonder about people's relationships to their preferences and if these have been ignored or maligned by others. I think it is possible for a person to be afraid of their preferences, afraid of themselves, and this inevitably projects onto others. Of course I have no evidence, only my own musings.

Polly:

 I think this is a very interesting point, and similar ideas have come up for me. I also wonder about people's relationships to their preferences and if these have been ignored or maligned by others. I think it is possible for a person to be afraid of their preferences, afraid of themselves, and this inevitably projects onto others. Of course I have no evidence, only my own musings.

Ah, very interesting! :)

Stefan Molyneux:

just because blades were invented to cut people, does not mean that you can't use them to chop firewood

I'm sorry but that metaphor doesn't make sense to me. You go from "blades are bad when used on people", to "blades are good when used to cut wood for people". If we were using morality on something other than people, then this might make sense. What you're talking about though is just using blades on people in a different way.

What do you think?

Bricks:

If morality was created to control people, then why continue to use it at all?

I wonder what your reason was to ask this question? What bad experience have you had with the use of morality (on FDR?) recently?

There's I think a huge difference between using moralistic justifications for atrocities (e.g. murder in the name of God, the fatherland etc.), and discovering objective morality in a philosophical way. The last one shows that use of violence is immoral, so that's already one way in which you can't justify violent control. I guess you could push rules as 'it's evil to hit, steal, kill' on others, especially children. 'Indoctrinating' conclusions, instead of teaching rational thinking. But it's the form of indoctrinating that's controlling to children, not so much the moral conclusions themselves.

Philosophical exploration and demonstration is the way to go I think. People might have a vague idea of good and evil. There's been so much propaganda that all kinds of immoral acts are considered moral and beneficial (I myself believed that state violence could be used for good). For those who desire the truth, the best you can do is give them the tools to philosophically investigate moral propositions. This is exactly what the book/framework UPB offers.

 

Anna :

For those who desire the truth, the best you can do is give them the tools to philosophically investigate moral propositions. This is exactly what the book/framework UPB offers. 

I agree, and it works fantastically, however it does not explain why anyone "should" be "good", and thus cannot bind anyone to "morality" -- hence "preferable" instead of "required". But it is the ideal handbook for an amoralist if you get rid of the use of "good," "bad," "moral," and "immoral", and will work just the same having nothing to do with "morality" (an absolute ought, not derived from preferences).

It's interesting that morality always centers around the justification of the use of force.

I follow the NAP, but I don't follow it because I have to -- I follow it because I think it's an awesome idea that will breed a better society.

Anna :

Bricks:

If morality was created to control people, then why continue to use it at all?

I wonder what your reason was to ask this question? What bad experience have you had with the use of morality (on FDR?) recently?

There's I think a huge difference between using moralistic justifications for atrocities (e.g. murder in the name of God, the fatherland etc.), and discovering objective morality in a philosophical way. The last one shows that use of violence is immoral, so that's already one way in which you can't justify violent control. I guess you could push rules as 'it's evil to hit, steal, kill' on others, especially children. 'Indoctrinating' conclusions, instead of teaching rational thinking. But it's the form of indoctrinating that's controlling to children, not such much the moral conclusions themselves.

Philosophical exploration and demonstration is the way to go I think. People might have a vague idea of good and evil. There's been so much propaganda that all kinds of immoral acts are considered moral and beneficial (I myself believed that state violence could be used for good). For those who desire the truth, the best you can do is give them the tools to philosophically investigate moral propositions. This is exactly what the book/framework UPB offers.

 

Hey Anna

 

UPB is great for testing the universality of moral theories.

UPB however, is a machine that tells you what is preferable, not what "should" be done.

Morality is about "shoulds". I personally don't think we need that. If we know what is universally preferable, then why do we need objective morality?

 

Bricks

(p.s, For some reason, I remember that you played minecraft. Is that correct? Have you heard of a game called Terraria? It's basically like 2d minecraft with lots more stuff. I really recommend it!)