okay, here's my thoughts on morality.

[seeker36]

Hi Duszek,
But we can agree on a lot of things that make almost everyone happy: clean water and air, enough healthy food of our choice, a job which suits our abilities, social contacts of our choosing etc. etc.

Yeah that's fair enough.

A psychopath or sociopath does not have any conscience or any sort of remorse. So he is never excruciated by any remorse or bad conscience. That´s what makes him so succesful.

I'm gonna have to be mischievious here and say "What is a conscience?" Also, in what sense is a psycho sucessful? I assume you mean in doing what he/she does and "getting away with it" But do they? As i said, constant rage and hate sounds like torture to me, remorse or not.

[duszek]

Psychopaths are not constantly raging and hating.
The emperor Nero was one example of the species: he enjoyed his life and cold-bloodedly disposed of anyone in his way. He was playful and therefore fascinating like a wild beast.
Many stock brokers or investment bankers are more recent examples. If millions perish because of their gambling so what ? Some enraged (normal) protesters occupy the Wall Street. Have they achieved any justice ?

[seeker36]

Hello Duszek,

Psychopaths are not constantly raging and hating.
The emperor Nero was one example of the species: he enjoyed his life and cold-bloodedly disposed of anyone in his way. He was playful and therefore fascinating like a wild beast.

I'm sure that's exactly what the historical accounts say. I've no doubt that outwardly Nero may have appeared that way to his contemparies. What history cannot and does not say is what is was like to subjectively be Nero or Hitler or whoever. What is a person saying about themselves and the world as they see it when they "coldbloodedly dispose of anyone in their way"? The world is surely "every man for himself, may the best man win and fuck everyone in my way" If you believe the world is like this you believe that anyone who does not believe this is an imbecile. You believe the psychos(Who "get it") will get you if they can. Sounds pretty terrifiying to me. Come to think of it this is exactly how Stalin behaved. And (okay i know this is a fictional example) the emperor in Gladiator memorably says something like "Do you think the world is a dream? I think it is. A awful,terrible dream." I can imagine Nero privately thinking this way.

Many stock brokers or investment bankers are more recent examples. If millions perish because of their gambling so what ? Some enraged (normal) protesters occupy the Wall Street. Have they achieved any justice ?

Same goes with the Patrick Batemans of wall street.

[chaz wyman]

Hello Duzek and Chaz,
Further thoughts on utilitarianism:The problem i see is that utilitarianism is based on an absolute ideal of maximum happiness for maximum people. Who defines what happiness is? What about useful feelings like grief when a loved one dies? Is it not the most natural and expressive act to feel "unhappy"? And is this not "happiness"? I think that a society literally run on utilitarian principles could end up being a bit like the society in one the worst episodes of doctor who ever-"The happiness patrol"(You must conform to absolute happiness).

Hi Chaz,

My may criticism is that you have not really said anything, except to contradict yourself.
1) Morality must be grounded in the object and subjective reality, with meditative practices
2) Abstract principles cannot work because they are not grounded in the person's moral emotions.

However position 1) is requires adherence to abstract principles denied in 2)

I see what you mean chaz. In a sense, nobody can say anything at all without invoking "abstract principles". I'm suggesting that abstract principles(Such as utilitartianism) require intergration with concrete experience/sensory data and you are right to point out that this suggestion is, in itself an abstract principle. In Zen this is called the finger pointing at the moon. The finger is an abstract symbol that people interpret as "look at where this finger is pointing"(I don't think animals understand the distinction, they just look at the finger) and the experience of the moon is raw experience.

Further than that you have not hinted at what you think morality should contain.

Do you mean conceptually?

No - I mean practically.
At least Kant's CI, and Bentham's Utilitarianism gives you are direction and food for thought when trying to define appropriate modes of behaviour.
So you have said what you cannot do. But you have not really said what you ought to do, or with what sort of criteria you can assess moral acts.

Empathy makes one refrain from killing instinctively.
Killing makes one unhappy or even traumatized.
Morality is not only altruistic but in the long run also selfish.


This is only true of some people, probably most, but only SOME people.
Moral laws are devised to prevent those of us who forebear from murder due to empathy suffering at the hands of those for whom empathy is just a word, and killing means pleasure.

I think i'd say that the sociopath is as sociopathic towards himself as he is to others and so the sociopath suffers through his own actions.

But you are simply wrong. As s/he is not equipped with remorse s/he only has the rewards to gloat over.

Killing may be momentarily pleasurable but serial killing seems to reflect an unquenchable rage. To me that sounds excruciating.

No rage necessary. The most successful murders are committed with calm efficiency, and render the perpetrator all the advantages of his/her act. Many act at the highest levels and are often to be found as financial leaders.

[seeker36]

Hi Chaz,

No - I mean practically.
At least Kant's CI, and Bentham's Utilitarianism gives you are direction and food for thought when trying to define appropriate modes of behaviour.
So you have said what you cannot do. But you have not really said what you ought to do, or with what sort of criteria you can assess moral acts.

The problem is chaz, as you rightly point out I cannot say what we "ought" to do. This is because these is always an exception to every moral rule. I cannot offer moral rules.

I'm beginning to see why Zen masters just shut up and meditate. I think that at best, a person can only make generalisations about morality. If i say a moral rule is "do not inflict pain upon youself/another person" this is almost allways true. But what about vietnamese monks who self immolated in protest of the vietnam war? In my view, They were not commiting attrocities against themselves, they were saying "Look at what i am doing to myself. This is horrifying isn't it? This is what war looks like. An idiot setting himself on fire" So hurting youself is not always a no-no. There are no absolute moral rules, but postmodern nihilism aside this is i think a very real moral reality. Does this make sense?

I'm quoting myself because the point i am making here is the morality is entirely dependant upon the context which it is in. There is I think, in the tale of the vietnamese monks an example of observable moral behavoir that refects moral reality. The behaviour may look immoral if the meaaning of the act is misunderstood by another, but the act is a very moral one because it is based upon the expression of compassion for all beings(As in "War is humanity kicking itself reatedly in the balls.This hurts so i am going to radically demonstrate this by symbolically setting myself on fire to show the horror and stupidity of war.") As for criteria for the assessment of moral acts, I would say if you understand the explicit and implicit meanings of a persons behaviour(Including and starting with your own. Logs and eyes and all that) then you can assess the moral meaning of the behaviour and act accordingly. As far as this goes, the loose criteria i'm suggesting here is the closest I can come to moral rules. I'm sorry but I honestly don't think I can explain my position any better than that. If it seems contradictory fair enough. Morality is I am discovering infinately complex and paradoxical. I want to add that I think that Paradox is not the same as condradiction.

I think i'd say that the sociopath is as sociopathic towards himself as he is to others and so the sociopath suffers through his own actions.

But you are simply wrong. As s/he is not equipped with remorse s/he only has the rewards to gloat over.


Killing may be momentarily pleasurable but serial killing seems to reflect an unquenchable rage. To me that sounds excruciating.

No rage necessary. The most successful murders are committed with calm efficiency, and render the perpetrator all the advantages of his/her act. Many act at the highest levels and are often to be found as financial leaders.

See my repy to Duszek. Thanks,
Chris.

[chaz wyman]

Hi Chaz,

No - I mean practically.
At least Kant's CI, and Bentham's Utilitarianism gives you are direction and food for thought when trying to define appropriate modes of behaviour.
So you have said what you cannot do. But you have not really said what you ought to do, or with what sort of criteria you can assess moral acts.

The problem is chaz, as you rightly point out I cannot say what we "ought" to do. This is because these is always an exception to every moral rule. I cannot offer moral rules.

That is indeed the problem and I agree that morality implies a pseudo-objective state of affairs claimed as universal.
However there have to be ethical systems of some sort so that we can reasonably expect to be treated and other treated by us with minimum standards of behaviour. For example that which is spoken by a person ought to be the truth as a matter of course. People ought not to be able to dodge this prescribed behaviour by excusing themselves that all moral rules are subjective, even though one can think of many cases where it might be better to lie than tell the truth. Such situtations can always be seen as exceptional; exceptions that prove the rule.

I'm beginning to see why Zen masters just shut up and meditate. I think that at best, a person can only make generalisations about morality. If i say a moral rule is "do not inflict pain upon youself/another person" this is almost allways true. But what about vietnamese monks who self immolated in protest of the vietnam war? In my view, They were not commiting attrocities against themselves, they were saying "Look at what i am doing to myself. This is horrifying isn't it? This is what war looks like. An idiot setting himself on fire" So hurting youself is not always a no-no. There are no absolute moral rules, but postmodern nihilism aside this is i think a very real moral reality. Does this make sense?

I'm quoting myself because the point i am making here is the morality is entirely dependant upon the context which it is in.

That is one of the useful distinctions between Morality (objective) and Ethics (sensitive to the subject). Ther was a good article about this 2 or 3 issues back.

There is I think, in the tale of the vietnamese monks an example of observable moral behavoir that refects moral reality. The behaviour may look immoral if the meaaning of the act is misunderstood by another, but the act is a very moral one because it is based upon the expression of compassion for all beings(As in "War is humanity kicking itself reatedly in the balls.]This hurts so i am going to radically demonstrate this by symbolically setting myself on fire to show the horror and stupidity of war.") As for criteria for the assessment of moral acts, I would say if you understand the explicit and implicit meanings of a persons behaviour(Including and starting with your own. Logs and eyes and all that) then you can assess the moral meaning of the behaviour and act accordingly. As far as this goes, the loose criteria i'm suggesting here is the closest I can come to moral rules. I'm sorry but I honestly don't think I can explain my position any better than that. If it seems contradictory fair enough. Morality is I am discovering infinately complex and paradoxical. I want to add that I think that Paradox is not the same as condradiction.

It is clear enough, but there is nothing practical to take away from this position, and no course open to deal with what we might call sociopaths, psychopaths or the sort of structural aggression that had the effect of making the US nation appear psychopathic whilst not reflecting on the individual Americans that prosecuted that aggression. What we seem to be left with is an unfortunate relativism which gives licence for those that choose to murder and maim on the grounds that it makes moral sense for them - or their nation to behave in this way. Is it worth giving up universalising laws on the alter of personal preference?

I think i'd say that the sociopath is as sociopathic towards himself as he is to others and so the sociopath suffers through his own actions.
But you are simply wrong. As s/he is not equipped with remorse s/he only has the rewards to gloat over.
Killing may be momentarily pleasurable but serial killing seems to reflect an unquenchable rage. To me that sounds excruciating.
No rage necessary. The most successful murders are committed with calm efficiency, and render the perpetrator all the advantages of his/her act. Many act at the highest levels and are often to be found as financial leaders.

See my repy to Duszek. Thanks,[/color]

Not adequate I'm afraid.
Chris.

[chaz wyman]

I think i'd say that the sociopath is as sociopathic towards himself as he is to others and so the sociopath suffers through his own actions.

This is simply not good enough. Not only is it empirically wrong, but it is internally incoherent. Psychopaths act to their own motivation as we all do. Like all people they adjust their behaviour to restrict themselves to behaviours that they prefer. I fail to see in what way they are suffering here, when it is totally clear that it is others who suffer.
Whilst people loose their homes, bakers laugh all the way to the bank by picking up their bonuses. I fail to see where they suffer here. If you are trying to pretend that they suffer for their Karma then that is not only unverifiable, it is no help to the people they have harmed. The world is not a harmonious balance. To suggest that is to demand a universal. Exactly the problem you have talked about and thus yet another contradiction.


But you are simply wrong. As s/he is not equipped with remorse s/he only has the rewards to gloat over.
Killing may be momentarily pleasurable but serial killing seems to reflect an unquenchable rage. To me that sounds excruciating.
No rage necessary. The most successful murders are committed with calm efficiency, and render the perpetrator all the advantages of his/her act. Many act at the highest levels and are often to be found as financial leaders.[/quote]

[seeker36]

Hi Chaz,

That is one of the useful distinctions between Morality (objective) and Ethics (sensitive to the subject). Ther was a good article about this 2 or 3 issues back.

That is a really useful distinction, thanks Chaz.

That is indeed the problem and I agree that morality implies a pseudo-objective state of affairs claimed as universal. However there have to be ethical systems of some sort so that we can reasonably expect to be treated and other treated by us with minimum standards of behaviour. For example that which is spoken by a person ought to be the truth as a matter of course. People ought not to be able to dodge this prescribed behaviour by excusing themselves that all moral rules are subjective, even though one can think of many cases where it might be better to lie than tell the truth. Such situtations can always be seen as exceptional; exceptions that prove the rule.

It is clear enough, but there is nothing practical to take away from this position, and no course open to deal with what we might call sociopaths, psychopaths or the sort of structural aggression that had the effect of making the US nation appear psychopathic whilst not reflecting on the individual Americans that prosecuted that aggression. What we seem to be left with is an unfortunate relativism which gives licence for those that choose to murder and maim on the grounds that it makes moral sense for them - or their nation to behave in this way. Is it worth giving up universalising laws on the alter of personal preference?

You raise some important and very valid points here. I'm going to need some time to think about this. Regarding our discussion of psychopaths, i'm going to break the paragraph down and consider your points.

This is simply not good enough. Not only is it empirically wrong, but it is internally incoherent. Psychopaths act to their own motivation as we all do. Like all people they adjust their behaviour to restrict themselves to behaviours that they prefer.

Yes this makes sense.

I fail to see in what way they are suffering here, when it is totally clear that it is others who suffer.Whilst people loose their homes, bakers laugh all the way to the bank by picking up their bonuses. I fail to see where they suffer here. If you are trying to pretend that they suffer for their Karma then that is not only unverifiable, it is no help to the people they have harmed.

I am certainly not suggesting that "Karma" is some kind of universal justice system. It seems to me that we live in a causal universe though and therefore acts have consequences. If I believe that i'm going to hell it seems reasonable to suggest that that belief has emotional consequences. Simple cause and effect, not some abstract entity called Karma.

The world is not a harmonious balance. To suggest that is to demand a universal. Exactly the problem you have talked about and thus yet another contradiction.

The world is obviously far from harmonious. When psychos cause people to lose their homes and "laugh all the way to the bank" as you put it, in my view the laughter is hollow. It is hollow because their behavior operates from a belief system that might is right. Psychos undoubtedly do feel pleasure in the misfortune of others(or they feel indifferent), but it seems undeniable to me that they also suffer the emotional consequences of believing might makes right. In the psychos world others are either psychos or stupid as I said. If you need to fuck someone over to be happy, it follows that sensible psychos share your belief. Where is the lasting happiness? Where is the peace?

[seeker36]

Hi Chaz,

There have to be ethical systems of some sort so that we can reasonably expect to be treated and other treated by us with minimum standards of behaviour. For example that which is spoken by a person ought to be the truth as a matter of course. People ought not to be able to dodge this prescribed behaviour by excusing themselves that all moral rules are subjective, even though one can think of many cases where it might be better to lie than tell the truth. Such situtations can always be seen as exceptional; exceptions that prove the rule.

What we seem to be left with is an unfortunate relativism which gives licence for those that choose to murder and maim on the grounds that it makes moral sense for them - or their nation to behave in this way. Is it worth giving up universalising laws on the alter of personal preference?

Yes this is of tremendous importance. I remember starting to read Sam Harris's The moral landscape last spring and I started off passionately cheering Sam in his arguement against relativism as nilhilism. Anything does not "go". I agree, in the context of human society as it is now moral laws and injunctions are neccessary.

However, moral rules and criminal legislations are based ultimately on humany's pan-cultural ideas about itself. Moral and social laws are rooted in the idea that human beings need to be controlled because somehow if we weren't, our evil genes, our "demon Homunculus's" or whatever it is that makes us apparently evil and psychotic will destroy everything. There's a problem with this idea of humanity's about itself and that is that it's a self fulfilling prophercy.

So that leaves us with a sort of mexican standoff. We need moral rules and yet moral rules seem to doom us to viewing ourselves as demonic without rules. Here's my trojan horse.

An injunction: Attention. meditation. self reflection. Practicing thinking about what you are thinking about. What do my actions mean? I think that when human beings relect on the meaning of their actions,thoughts and feelings they become(over time and usually with help) morally autonomous. I can seriously envision a possible future where humanity does not need so many laws because knowing what is ethical will come much more naturally.