|
|
Part 4. The Friend
Continuation from #3:
(SG)
Finally comes he 'friend'. I had no trouble placing him last. This is someone
who for no personal gain sets out to destroy something wonderful (the man and
lady's love for each other).
(desertrat)
Just a dog-gone second! The friend is both friend of the man and the woman. The
man finds out that the woman has had sex with a stranger and is displeased. It
is possible, and very likely given what is known from the story, that the
friend also looks down on what the woman has done, morally. If it were me, of
course, I wouldn't think anything of it except for perhaps a slight interest in
possibly having an affair with the girl myself. If I were to tell the man it
would certainly not be for any personal gain which is subsequently why I
wouldn't bother, but how can you say the friend does this for no personal gain?
Obviously, he found out about it and has weighed the pros and cons of telling
his friend and has decided that it is his moral duty to do so. Perhaps he feels
it would actually be a sin to keep the news to himself. Maybe he thinks he'll
gain some reward in some heaven that he imagines.
Do you have a low opinion of private investigators? They receive monetary gain
for doing what this friend has done. The friend's reward may not be monetary,
but it is reward nonetheless. He might not think of it as destroying something
wonderful. I might think the relationship is an abomination and that the man
will thank him for bringing him the news. Do you have a low opinion of
journalists who work for gossip magazines? They dig up information that often
"destroys" things that are "wonderful" for monetary rewards. Of course, in
their opinion, how could it be so wonderful if the truth destroys it?
Then again, he might derive some sadistic joy in seeing lovers break up, in
which case he's taking a risk that this news won't actually strengthen the
relationship and terminate his friendship with the man. Who knows?
The only thing that can be said for certain is that when viewed from your
perspective it seems "bad" and when viewed from his perspective it seems
"good." The judgement is relative depending upon the subject. You, he, the man,
the woman, the boatman, the stranger, me,... we are moral equals so long as we
don't cross the line of legal duties and obligations.
(SG)
Here is an important point: the fact that he does it for no personal gain
(altruism) immediately makes this a more evil act than if he had done it for
personal gain.
(desertrat)
Stop reading all that Ayn Rand! Pick up some other books. Try reading Lysander
Spooner, Herbert Spencer, Arthur Schopenhauer. I've got one for you, "The Guide
to Getting It On," by Goofy Foot Press. This is a bible for understanding the
relativity or moral values and you just might learn something that will spice
up your sex life. Or perhaps a book like "The Myth of Natural Rights" by L. A.
Rollins might shake the foundations of this altruism fantasy.
(SG)
This is the exact opposite of conventional morality which states that the more
you sacrifice for no gain whatsoever, the 'better' the person you are. This is
the doctrine of altruism.
(desertrat)
Altruism doesn't really exist. The "sacrificing for no gain whatever" is a
ridiculous concept. True, people often do things for reasons other than
financial gain and even try to do things for the sake of just doing "good," but
their ultimate goal is essentially selfish. Furthermore, the attempts to do
"good" for the sake of "good" in and of itself is harmless, it's only when the
doing of a thing crosses the limit of one's own individual moral jurisdiction
that it becomes harmful to others and subsequently "evil."
Conventional morality doesn't have anything to do with sacrifice for no gain,
it has to do with sacrifice for "spiritual" gain. In that sense, conventional
morality is at least more realistic than your anti-altruism morality. There is
no such thing as altruism.
Conventional morality holds that there is some absolute "good" and absolute
"evil." True morality is subjective. True morality does not make an absolute
distinction between "good" and "evil." True morality makes a distinction
between moral and amoral.
(SG)
As you can see, even a simple philosophical puzzle forces you to think through
your complete value system and to start to order your thoughts. I hope you see
that even my briefest thoughts on the subject are very far from a standard
'slopped-out' response. A coherent philosophy is a powerful thing. It allows
you to move through life with power and certainty. A random or half-formed
philosophy fills you with doubt and fear - it leaves you paralyzed.
This brief discussion is not intended to describe my philosophy in detail. It
is just to get you thinking and to make you realise that these questions of
morality and ethics are complex unless you have a guiding system to see you
though. If I state that you need a rational and coherent philosophy to guide
your life, we would need to ask (at the very least); "What do you mean by
rational?" and "What is coherent?". Also, why is rationality important, or even
valid? How can we determine when one is acting rationally? Why is this 'better'
than acting irrationally? These, and many similar questions, need to be
answered before a philosophy can be built. This would take a book.
(desertrat)
This is called mental masturbation where I'm from.
(SG)
Most importantly, morals (ethics etc.) are to allow YOU to live your life in a
coherent manner. They are not for 'society' or to create a 'better world'. If
everyone had a rational philosophy, the world would be a better place, but it
is not in the pursuit of this that an individual man or woman embarks upon the
study of this subject. They do it selfishly - i.e. for themselves. This single
sentence is the key which will allow you to decode the philosophical minefield.
(desertrat)
Read one essay,
"Vices Are Not Crimes: A Vindication of Moral Liberty"
by Lysander Spooner and all of the noises you heard in your head while reading
the previous paragraph will be like the mindless clatter of heavy metal.
(SG)
Finally, let me ask you another moral puzzle. Cover up the small print at the
bottom of this page until you have thought about this puzzle, then have a look
to see what I think.
Supposing you alone were granted the power of invisibility. By uttering an
incantation, you could render yourself totally invisible. A second incantation
made you visible again. What, if anything, would you do with your power? In
case your imagination needs tempting, let me remind you that you could sit in
on secret meetings, gain advantages in business which would make you a
multi-millionaire overnight, become a voyeur, sit in on cabinet meetings at No
10, etc., etc. You could. in fact, have the power to rule the world, almost!
[The answer to this puzzle is found in the paragraph just above it. A system of
ethics is for you. It's function is to guide you to a happy and fulfilled life.
The function of ethics is not to produce a 'better society', although this
might be a by-product. You cannot force people to follow a moral code in order
to implement your vision of a 'better world'. This is religion.
(desertrat)
Whoa! Since when do religions force? I thought we substituted the state for
religion a long time ago.
The 'better' world or society idea would be brought about not by "coherent"
philosophies but by compulsion, specifically compelling others to observe legal
duties and obligations thus allowing everyone to observe whatever moral duties
and obligations they see fit. Unfortunately, this is a fantasy that will never
come about. At least not in our lifetimes and certainly not in the near future
which is all that really matters to us whether we realize it or not.
(SG)
So, ethics are for you - for your selfish benefit. This means that once you
have worked out a beneficial ethical code, you would follow it because it is in
your rational self-interest to do so. Note, you do NOT follow a code because it
is in the interests of others (e.g. 'society') to do so. This is the doctrine
of altruism.
(desertrat)
A moral code is not something you create once and live by forever like the Ten
Commandments. That's what a legal code is supposed to look like. A moral code
is constantly changing like your immediate environment.
Furthermore, everything a person does, whether criminal or not is always for
self-interest. You can call it irrational self-interest if you like, but that
is merely because you are not looking at it from the other person's
perspective. Everything a person does, whether for the benefit of himself or
another, is at root self-interest.
(SG)
Therefore, if it is in your rational self-interest to follow your own ethical
code, you would follow this code regardless of whether you were invisible or
visible! You would therefore do nothing 'evil' whilst invisible. You would not
cheat whilst invisible, but be honest whilst visible for example. This is the
mark of an incoherent philosophy, inflicted upon you from outside, and to which
you subscribe out of FEAR. Fear of being 'caught' or ridiculed.
(desertrat)
Whoa there! There are many things I think are not "evil" but which I would be
punished for if caught by the "authorities." A person who sees nothing wrong
with smoking marijuana, for example, would have a legitimate fear of being
caught and a homosexual couple who see nothing wrong with expressing affection
in public might have a legitimate fear of being ridiculed or beaten.
The test of true morals, if such a thing can be said to exist at all, is not in
what a person does in private or in public but whether or not they supersede
legal duties, that is to say, if a person's morals allow him to cheat, steal or
kill, his morality is pretense. If on the other hand, a persons morals include
above all observing ones legal duties, that person has true morals whatever
they may be, assuming there is such a thing as morality.
(SG)
The test of anyone's morality is always to ask what they would do if there was
absolutely no chance whatsoever of being caught. A rational person would never
act differently in these circumstances. Being caught has nothing to do with
their morals!]
---end----
(desertrat)
Let's be realistic. When one lives in a community surrounded by people who
claim to have morals but who actually punish others not for their crimes but
for what they perceive to be vices, the truly moral person, if he be a
pragmatist, will behave differently in secret than he does in public.
Part 5. The Deserted Island
|
|
Get your own
Free Home Page