Freedomain Radio

I finally understand...

I hate my parents because they used violence, threats, ad hominems, and manipulations against me!

And yet I no longer believe in any such thing as morality.

Why? How can this hold?

Because I don't need a moral justification for my feelings. I simply didn't want to be treated that way -- in fact I was strongly averse to it!

That is all the reason I need -- which I find to be extremely validating. And this is the most rational, empirical, logically consistent, simple, and (I think) beautiful view. :)

Yes!

I do not understand what you mean by using morality to justify your feelings.  Is there a situation where this occurs?  Would you say this justification one of the main purposes of morality?

Lowe:

I do not understand what you mean by using morality to justify your feelings.  Is there a situation where this occurs?  Would you say this justification one of the main purposes of morality?

Stef said it was. He said you need a moral highground in order to justify feeling angry at your parents. It's in the podcast with keithgel

There's also the hypocritical aspect of them always saying "we love you and only want the best for you" at the same time as completely ignoring my needs and preferences.  In fact they would say it to justify actions which directly violated my (emotional) needs and preferences.

At least that was my experience.

Lowe:

I do not understand what you mean by using morality to justify your feelings.  Is there a situation where this occurs?  Would you say this justification one of the main purposes of morality?

Stef says that you cannot be angry at your parents unless you have the moral high ground.

And yes, I think "the validation of feelings" is a major justifcation for morality.

When you think about it like that, you realise that morality is always consequentialist. It always serves some individual preference (end goal).

Hajnal:

I finally understand...

I hate my parents because they used violence, threats, ad hominems, and manipulations against me!

And yet I no longer believe in any such thing as morality.

Why? How can this hold?

Because I don't need a moral justification for my feelings. I simply didn't want to be treated that way -- in fact I was strongly averse to it!

That is all the reason I need -- which I find to be extremely validating. And this is the most rational, empirical, logically consistent, simple, and (I think) beautiful view. :)

By your reasoning, your parents were entirely justified in their behavior towards you because they were following their preferences and you were violating theirs.

That doesn't really say anything about whether you get to be angry or not, but it doesn't make them any more or less wrong than you.  If this does validate your anger, it also validates their anger and that they inflicted it on you.

And, of course, that's entirely OK because you don't believe in morality.

Unless, of course, there's a hidden principle involved here which is that it is wrong to violate other people's preferences in which case... oooooooooooooops

I don't think anybody truly believes it's across-the-board wrong to violate other peoples' preferences, James, not even you.

If you are renting a house out to someone, and they stop paying rent, but they prefer to stay in your house anyway, and you kick them out, you are violating their preference, but I doubt you'd think that's "wrong" to do.

kremlin:

I don't think anybody truly believes it's across-the-board wrong to violate other peoples' preferences, James, not even you.

If you are renting a house out to someone, and they stop paying rent, but they prefer to stay in your house anyway, and you kick them out, you are violating their preference, but I doubt you'd think that's "wrong" to do.

If the position is that no moral framework is needed to justify anger towards someone who has violated your preferences in some manner - in a sense it almost is saying that it's across-the-board wrong to violate other peoples' preferences. Wrong is obviously the wrong (heh) word because it's a nihilist position - I would rephrase the logical outcome as:

It is no more right or wrong according to any universal principle to steal from someone than it is to prevent someone from stealing from you - the thief is just as justified in his anger towards the would be victim who thwarted him as the victim would be justified if they were stolen from.

If someone genuinely believes this then I definitely can't accuse them of inconsistency - but if they somehow differentiate between victims and abusers then a massive disconnect appears. As was said before, what then differentiates a parent's hatred and anger towards a child for not following their preferences from a child or adult child's hatred and anger towards a past abuser?

You named some of the differences in your very question.

The danger here is not whether you're allowed to be angry with how your parents treated you, but that you can feel justified in acting out your anger against those who violate your preferences, which includes friends, lovers, and your future children.

That's why you need morality, to differentiate when a preference violation is a matter of objectivity or not.

Voluntary interaction. Nobody has to put up with any preference violation. You don't need objective morality to figure out the most efficient way to react to a situation. You just need to know your preferences.

Epic fail.

Children do not choose their parents.

K well when you realize this isn't 4chan and "epic fail" is not really something anybody is going to take seriously, you can calmly and uncondescendingly explain the relevance of that comment.