What Good Is Your Morality? No Good!

Should you think about your duty, or about the consequences of your actions? Or should you concentrate on becoming a good person?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2215
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

What Good Is Your Morality? No Good!

Post by RCSaunders »

I've been following all the debates about morality in recent months and have come to the conclusion that what is called morality is a totally useless concept of no value whatsoever to anyone's life.

With rare exception moral codes are all nothing but prohibitions and lists of what one must not do: don't murder, don't rape, don't assault others, don't be violent, don't steal, don't lie, don't have an abortion, don't enslave others, don't vandalize, don't abuse nature, don't abuse animals, don't hate, don't do drugs, don't drink and drive, don't break the law, don't spit, don't pick your nose, don't go out without your mask on--don't, don't don't!

For any human being who wants to know how to live their life successfully in this world, such codes are absolutely useless. What one wants to know is not what not to do, but what to do.

Life is not evading evil, life is doing good. Life is doing and achieving and becoming something. Your moral codes only address what not to do and what not to be, without a hint of what one must to do actually achieve or accomplish anything of any real importance or value. Your so-called moral codes are useless.

If the entire world should adopt any of your moral codes and live by them, the entire race would be dead in a week. No one would do anything, "morally wrong"--but they would also do nothing of any value, like productive work. Why would they since nothing of value is morally required?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9939
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

RC

Post by henry quirk »

For any human being who wants to know how to live their life successfully in this world, such codes are absolutely useless. What one wants to know is not what not to do, but what to do.

Successful living involves don't as much as do...

Don't stick a hand into fire.

Don't jump off the roof.

Don't pet bears.

etc...

As a wise man said...

There is nothing your life requires you can have or do without knowledge. When you are first born it is not your own knowledge that keeps you alive, fed, clothed, sheltered, and safe from the dangers of life, it is the knowledge of those who choose to love and nurture you, but it is still their knowledge of how to provide those things that make your young life possible. As you grow older, more and more of the things your life requires will depend on the knowledge you gain as you grow and mature. By the time you are an adult, most of how you live will depend on your own knowledge.

I say knowin' the don'ts is as important as knowin' the do's.

Don't steal another man's water is, as example, as important as do find and secure water.

The first can keep you alive just as surely as the second.
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5477
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What Good Is Your Morality? No Good!

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

RCSaunders wrote: Sat Aug 01, 2020 9:37 pm I've been following all the debates about morality in recent months and have come to the conclusion that what is called morality is a totally useless concept of no value whatsoever to anyone's life.

With rare exception moral codes are all nothing but prohibitions and lists of what one must not do: don't murder, don't rape, don't assault others, don't be violent, don't steal, don't lie, don't have an abortion, don't enslave others, don't vandalize, don't abuse nature, don't abuse animals, don't hate, don't do drugs, don't drink and drive, don't break the law, don't spit, don't pick your nose, don't go out without your mask on--don't, don't don't!

For any human being who wants to know how to live their life successfully in this world, such codes are absolutely useless. What one wants to know is not what not to do, but what to do.

Life is not evading evil, life is doing good. Life is doing and achieving and becoming something. Your moral codes only address what not to do and what not to be, without a hint of what one must to do actually achieve or accomplish anything of any real importance or value. Your so-called moral codes are useless.

If the entire world should adopt any of your moral codes and live by them, the entire race would be dead in a week. No one would do anything, "morally wrong"--but they would also do nothing of any value, like productive work. Why would they since nothing of value is morally required?
Of critical necessity, you have not even defined 'what is morality' and confirms it is that morality-proper that is inherent within humans, yet you started to condemn 'morality'.
You are just shooting at your imagined 'strawman'.

In the above case, you are shooting at what is pseudo-morality rather than morality-proper. Fact is your thinking is so harden, you are stubbornly and dogmatic in clinging to your archaic thinking.

Within the practice of morality-proper, moral maxims [principles, laws, facts] are not enforceable rules and precepts but they are merely GUIDES [applicable where necessary] as moral standards that one should strive towards.

Take for example the crude moral system of the UN Declaration of Human Rights and the related moral principles [facts], are they prohibitions and enforceable??
Nope! they are merely GUIDES. No one is charged in the International Court if they do not ratify those moral resolutions.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2215
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: RC

Post by RCSaunders »

henry quirk wrote: Sat Aug 01, 2020 11:06 pm For any human being who wants to know how to live their life successfully in this world, such codes are absolutely useless. What one wants to know is not what not to do, but what to do.

Successful living involves don't as much as do...

Don't stick a hand into fire.

Don't jump off the roof.

Don't pet bears.

etc...

As a wise man said...

There is nothing your life requires you can have or do without knowledge. When you are first born it is not your own knowledge that keeps you alive, fed, clothed, sheltered, and safe from the dangers of life, it is the knowledge of those who choose to love and nurture you, but it is still their knowledge of how to provide those things that make your young life possible. As you grow older, more and more of the things your life requires will depend on the knowledge you gain as you grow and mature. By the time you are an adult, most of how you live will depend on your own knowledge.

I say knowin' the don'ts is as important as knowin' the do's.

Don't steal another man's water is, as example, as important as do find and secure water.

The first can keep you alive just as surely as the second.
That's right! Of course there are things you should not do, and, "as the wise man said," you have to learn what they are. But that is just what no moral code tells them to do.

If one does not know what to do, it won't matter what he does not do.

If someone knows how to find and acquire his own water and does it, he won't need or want to steal anyone else's water. If one does not do the work of learning how to find water, and does not do the work of acquiring his own water, if he is not to die of thirst, his only alternative is to steal water from someone who did do those things.

Since most moral codes do not tell anyone they have to learn anything or actually do anything to live, and those who promote them do not quite have the chutzpah to say it's OK to steal someone else's water, they say if someone is thirsty (because they have not learned how to find water or done the work of acquiring it) and you have learned how to find it and have done the work of acquiring it, you must give your water to the one's that's thirsty. It's called altruism, which is where all moral codes of, "don'ts" must lead.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2215
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What Good Is Your Morality? No Good!

Post by RCSaunders »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 4:52 am Of critical necessity, you have not even defined 'what is morality' ...
Since this is not about morality but about the so-called, "moral codes," promoted by various (religious or philosophical) moralist you'll have to consult the moralists who promote those codes for their definition of morality. They are all different.

The only thing they have in common is that they only address what one should not do, with the exception of altruism, which is the default for not having anything useful to tell human beings to do.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9939
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: RC

Post by henry quirk »

That's right! Of course there are things you should not do, and, "as the wise man said," you have to learn what they are. But that is just what no moral code tells them to do.

but a moral code doesn't stand alone

I know of no circumstance where a moral code is expected to encompass all aspects of livin'

the purpose of don't steal, both practical and moral was never meant to stand in for the skills of self-preservation, but only to stand beside those skills


If someone knows how to find and acquire his own water and does it, he won't need or want to steal anyone else's water.

and still there are folks who know how to self-preserve who choose steal instead

why?


Since most moral codes do not tell anyone they have to learn anything or actually do anything to live, and those who promote them do not quite have the chutzpah to say it's OK to steal someone else's water, they say if someone is thirsty (because they have not learned how to find water or done the work of acquiring it) and you have learned how to find it and have done the work of acquiring it, you must give your water to the one's that's thirsty. It's called altruism, which is where all moral codes of, "don'ts" must lead.

most, mebbe, but not all

it's impossible to get altruism or parasitism out of my morality
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2215
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: RC

Post by RCSaunders »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 2:59 pm I know of no circumstance where a moral code is expected to encompass all aspects of livin'
That's right, too. That's why they are useless.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 2:59 pm ... the purpose of don't steal, both practical and moral was never meant to stand in for the skills of self-preservation, but only to stand beside those skills
Skills? I thought morality was about, "principles." The truth is, Henry, anyone who needs to be told, "don't steal," as an adult, because he is so stupid he otherwise would, is not going to be much influenced by a code of don'ts, and those who know how to live their lives don't need anyone to tell them don't cross the street without looking both ways, do not murder, do not steal, and do not blah, blah, blah.

My whole point is if all a moral code is going to do is remind people that some acts ought to be avoided because they have bad consequences, (or worse, because God said so), even as practical guides, they cannot help anyone actually accomplish the business of living. Your are right, moral codes are not the main thing, but those who believe in them certainly promote them as though they were and almost all political systems are justified on the basis of someones moral codes.

People judge their own and others virtue in terms of how well they adhere to their moral codes. In their terms, someone who never murders, rapes, assaults, steals, lies, or does any other prohibited thing is a moral paragon, even if they are a worthless bum who has never accomplished anything of value or produced anything that can possibly benefit themselves or anyone else.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 2:59 pm
If someone knows how to find and acquire his own water and does it, he won't need or want to steal anyone else's water.
and still there are folks who know how to self-preserve who choose steal instead
why?
It's not just knowing how, it is actually doing it that makes it unnecessary to steal. One who steals has obviously not learned that his own life cannot be successful as a parasite.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 2:59 pm Since most moral codes do not tell anyone they have to learn anything or actually do anything to live, and those who promote them do not quite have the chutzpah to say it's OK to steal someone else's water, they say if someone is thirsty (because they have not learned how to find water or done the work of acquiring it) and you have learned how to find it and have done the work of acquiring it, you must give your water to the one's that's thirsty. It's called altruism, which is where all moral codes of, "don'ts" must lead.

most, mebbe, but not all

it's impossible to get altruism or parasitism out of my morality
Then your, "morality," (if that is what you call the principles you live by) includes a lot more than mere prohibitions. From what you have said you seem to do a great deal to actually achieve things and be something.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9939
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: What Good Is Your Morality? No Good!

Post by henry quirk »

Then your, "morality," (if that is what you call the principles you live by) includes a lot more than mere prohibitions. From what you have said you seem to do a great deal to actually achieve things and be something.

my morality sez sumthin' about what a man is (his own)

from that comes prohibition against parasitism and tyranny (don't leash him, don't confiscate what's his, don't abuse or manipulate him for profit, etc.)

it tells no one nuthin' about what to do

but: if the prohibition is minded, one has no choice but to do for himself and leave the other alone

of course: langauge bein' what it is, I can recast my morality into a you ought to, but that opens the door to an ever expandin' list of you ought to's

I ain't havin' none of that

and: yes, I work my ass off
Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 5477
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: What Good Is Your Morality? No Good!

Post by Veritas Aequitas »

RCSaunders wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 12:10 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 4:52 am Of critical necessity, you have not even defined 'what is morality' ...
Since this is not about morality but about the so-called, "moral codes," promoted by various (religious or philosophical) moralist you'll have to consult the moralists who promote those codes for their definition of morality. They are all different.

The only thing they have in common is that they only address what one should not do, with the exception of altruism, which is the default for not having anything useful to tell human beings to do.
You stated the following;
I've been following all the debates about morality in recent months and have come to the conclusion that what is called morality is a totally useless concept of no value whatsoever to anyone's life.
Thus it is wrong for you to state 'what is morality' is a totally useless concept of no value whatsoever to anyone's life.

I am aware what had been supposedly claimed as 'morality' are merely pseudo-morality, the best humanity can come up with given the existing limitations.

Again you are ignorant to claim that these 'pseudo-morality' are totally useless concepts of no value whatsoever to anyone's life.

While these pseudo-moral systems are not that effective as expected, they have contributed greatly to the good conduct within humanity but unable to prevent certain evil conduct. Nevertheless I believe the results at this point are still net-positive.

The theistic moral system in the absence of more effective ones had and are restraining the majority of theists from committing evil acts with the threat of hell and this has worked for the majority of theists -with exceptions.
The non-theistic religions like Buddhism and others had and is promoting good moral conducts for the majority of their believers.

This pseudo-moral systems are covered by non-moral ones like Criminal Laws to restraint and discourage evil acts, albeit not perfect.

As often you are always denying the truths due to ignorance and dogmatic thinking.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2215
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What Good Is Your Morality? No Good!

Post by RCSaunders »

henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 4:29 pm Then your, "morality," (if that is what you call the principles you live by) includes a lot more than mere prohibitions. From what you have said you seem to do a great deal to actually achieve things and be something.

my morality sez sumthin' about what a man is (his own)
I don't call it, "morality," but this is exactly the principle I live by as well. I don't call it morality because of what everyone else means by that word. It used be called, "individual autonomy," two words which are considered obscene in public schools.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 4:29 pm from that comes prohibition against parasitism and tyranny (don't leash him, don't confiscate what's his, don't abuse or manipulate him for profit, etc.)
And, since an individual who own's himself and takes responsibility for his own life would never want or do any of those things anyway, he does not need anyone else to prohibit them.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 4:29 pm it tells no one nuthin' about what to do

but: if the prohibition is minded, one has no choice but to do for himself and leave the other alone
... or, from my point of view, if he's is busy living his own life and making something of himself he has neither time or motive to interfere in anyone else's life.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 4:29 pm ... of course: langauge bein' what it is, I can recast my morality into a you ought to, but that opens the door to an ever expandin' list of you ought to's
Which is just as wrong as an ever expanding list of you ought not to's. I agree.
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 4:29 pm I ain't havin' none of that
Me either!
henry quirk wrote: Sun Aug 02, 2020 4:29 pm and: yes, I work my ass off
And that is the whole point, isn't it? Human beings do not need some kind of code, a list of Do's and Don't's to live life successfully, but they do need some basic principles, like, "To live successfully as a human and be worthy of that life and enjoy it, you are going to have to work your ever-lovin' ass off."

You don't have to do that. As you say, "you own your own life," and it's yours to do whatever you want with, just like anything else you own. Throw it away, waste it, or spoil it if you choose to, but if you want to keep it, to preserve it unspoiled, to make it worth having, like any other valuable possession you'll have to learn what it is, how to keep and care for it, and do the endless work required to achieve it.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2215
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What Good Is Your Morality? No Good!

Post by RCSaunders »

Veritas Aequitas wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 7:23 am As often you are always denying the truths due to ignorance and dogmatic thinking.
I'm chagrined but incorrigible. Being right does that.
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9939
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

RC

Post by henry quirk »

I don't call it, "morality,"

I do cuz, as I say elsewhere, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another.

A man livin' in the wilderness, a man truly alone, has no need for morality.

A man, livin' among others, does. Not cuz he requires the prohibition but becuz other men may.

The codification, a man belongs to himself; he has an inviolate right to his life, liberty, and property; his life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, without just cause deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property, in a way is the fence that makes for good neighbors.

Ideally, all men would recognize ownness, in themselves and others, and abide, but it ain't an ideal world and many choose to deny the other's natural claim to himself.

The codification concretes the natural intuition of ownness, makes it unambiguous.

At the very least: the codification is sumthin' to put as the top of a declaration of war...

a man belongs to himself; he has an inviolate right to his life, liberty, and property; his life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, without just cause deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

You and yours, by way of ABC and XYZ have, knowingly and without just cause, deprived me and mine of life, liberty, and property.

This will not stand.


Morality (mine anyway) makes for civilization and fair transaction among men, and, it concretely draws the line between men.

As I say: the solitary has no need for morality and the ideal world has no need for moral codification; most of us aren't alone and the world is far from ideal.
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2215
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: RC

Post by RCSaunders »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 5:38 pm I don't call it, "morality,"

I do cuz, as I say elsewhere, morality is all about the rightness or wrongness of a man's intent, his choices, his actions and conduct, as he interacts with, or impinges on, another.

A man livin' in the wilderness, a man truly alone, has no need for morality.

A man, livin' among others, does. Not cuz he requires the prohibition but becuz other men may.

The codification, a man belongs to himself; he has an inviolate right to his life, liberty, and property; his life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, without just cause deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property, in a way is the fence that makes for good neighbors.

Ideally, all men would recognize ownness, in themselves and others, and abide, but it ain't an ideal world and many choose to deny the other's natural claim to himself.

The codification concretes the natural intuition of ownness, makes it unambiguous.

At the very least: the codification is sumthin' to put as the top of a declaration of war...

a man belongs to himself; he has an inviolate right to his life, liberty, and property; his life, liberty, and property are only forfeit, in part or whole, when he knowingly, without just cause deprives another, in part or whole, of life, liberty, or property.

You and yours, by way of ABC and XYZ have, knowingly and without just cause, deprived me and mine of life, liberty, and property.

This will not stand.


Morality (mine anyway) makes for civilization and fair transaction among men, and, it concretely draws the line between men.

As I say: the solitary has no need for morality and the ideal world has no need for moral codification; most of us aren't alone and the world is far from ideal.
Not sure I understand. I don't want to assume so please correct me if I get it wrong. You regard morality as some kind of social thing. Is that right?

So the purpose of morality would only pertain to how individuals acted in relation to others. Is that right?

Would you go so far as to say the purpose of morality was to assure that a society was a good one?
User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 9939
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Re: What Good Is Your Morality? No Good!

Post by henry quirk »

You regard morality as some kind of social thing. Is that right?

no, it's a freedom thing


So the purpose of morality would only pertain to how individuals acted in relation to others. Is that right?

no, it's about the natural, rightful boundaries between men


Would you go so far as to say the purpose of morality was to assure that a society was a good one?

no, a free one
User avatar
RCSaunders
Posts: 2215
Joined: Tue Jul 17, 2018 9:42 pm
Contact:

Re: What Good Is Your Morality? No Good!

Post by RCSaunders »

henry quirk wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 8:23 pm You regard morality as some kind of social thing. Is that right?
no, it's a freedom thing
OK I understand that.
henry quirk wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 8:23 pm So the purpose of morality would only pertain to how individuals acted in relation to others. Is that right?
no, it's about the natural, rightful boundaries between men
If you say so, but how is what is, "between men," not a, "relationship" between them?
henry quirk wrote: Mon Aug 03, 2020 8:23 pm Would you go so far as to say the purpose of morality was to assure that a society was a good one?
no, a free one
So the purpose of morality is to assure a society is a free one. Is that right?

I have no intention of arguing with your Henry. I really want to understand what you mean. That's all. So thanks for the straightforward answers. It's a rare commodity around here.
Post Reply