|
|
Part 5. The Deserted Island
Continuation from #4:
|
|
The overwhelming majority of police officers today are cowardly and vicious,
with no moral scruples, only moral pretentions. Once you understand this fact,
the activities and motivations of these gubbnmintgungoons should be of no
surprize.
--Martin Lindstedt
|
(desertrat)
The story below should clarify the issue of moral pretense and true morality.
You live on a deserted island, let's make it a tropical paradise. You have a
bunch of jetsom and flotsom, gardening and construction tools, fishing gear,
guns, ammunition and an odd assortment of camping gear. Other than this you are
completely alone with the plants and wild animals.
At first, while you're preparing to plant your garden, you wander around
hunting and gathering whatever you can find that's edible, robbing the caches
of squirrels and birds' nests whenever you can find them. Is there anything
"immoral" about this?
While You're out gathering, a jaguar attacks you. Is the jaguar acting
"immorally?"
In your own defense, you manage to kill the animal. You take advantage of the
kill by skinning and tanning the hide and preserving the meat for later use as
emergency food or bait. Is this "good," "bad?"
You return to your camp and garden and notice that while you were out gathering
coconuts and killing jaguars that were attacking you, a gopher or rabbit and a
bunch of damn tropical birds have been stealing from your garden. Were they
behaving "immorally?"
You set some traps out and try to discourage the birds from robbing you,
killing a few in the process. Let's say, you could have used the dead bodies
but just didn't feel like it so you threw them away somewhere downwind of your
camp for some other wild animals to find. Are you a "bad" person for wasting
the bodies or for polluting the area downwind of your camp?
*** Commentary ***
This is an amoral scenario. There is no moral or immoral about any of this.
There is only the law of survival, the rule of success or failure. Not even the
cliche "might makes right" applies because there is no objective "right" and
"wrong." There is only success or failure with luck or fate playing a role
perhaps larger than any of us is willing to imagine. You're lucky you didn't
wash up on an island inhabited by more fearsome predators or more numerous and
persistent parasites. You might have been eaten by a crocodile or a hungry
lion, you might have been eaten alive by flies or ants. All the moral protests
in the world can do nothing to save you in an amoral environment.
But man has a "moral" sense, (morality is at best, an illusion,) so he
naturally describes things in moral terms regardless of its amoral nature. The
sunset is "good," the leaking roof is "bad," the taste of the coconut is
"good," robbing a bird's nest is "good," killing a defenseless baby bird is
"bad," and so on.
All such reasoning is subjective, illusory, often delusional. The only guide
are one's emotions, not one's reason. Happiness, which is the highest prize,
is, after all, an emotion. What makes the individual happy is for him "good."
What causes unhappiness is for him "bad."
*** The Story Continues ***
One day, there is a new arrival on the island. Another human washes up on the
beach. When your new companion has recovered somewhat from exposure he wanders
the island and happens upon your camp. He immediately demands that you provide
him with food and shelter since it is apparent that you have more than you
need. You're a bit surprised by his unfriendly manner and refuse telling him to
go gather some food the way you did and to start his own garden. You aren't
entirely without compassion. You feel morally compelled to give him a coconut
or two because he's hungry, this would be a very natural thing to do under the
circumstances, I think. You give him one of the jaguar skins you've tanned
because he's cold, you have more than you really need and you want him to go
away and leave you alone. Secretly, of course, you're cursing at yourself
because you've already killed the jaguars that he would likely have fallen prey
to. He becomes very angry when you tell him to go away and he storms off.
That night he sneaks into your camp and tries to steal some food from your
garden. Is he acting "immorally?"
*** More Commentary ***
How is his behavior any different from the behavior of the tropical birds and
the rodents? Only this, that he "ought" to bahave differently, he "ought" to
respect your possessions. But if he chooses not to, he is only "bad" or
"immoral" from your subjective point of view. From HIS subjective point of
view, he sees nothing "wrong" with taking from you what you "should have" given
to him to begin with.
Objectively, that is, removing all of the subjective values, looking at what
"is" as opposed to what "ought to be," the man's behavior is no different from
the other animals. There can be no "morality" between you so long as his
behavior is amoral. You must deal with him according to the rule of success or
faliure as you deal with all the other animals.
If you show him any kindness, it is no different from the kindness you show
defenseless or suffering animals. This morality, this sense of "good" and
"bad," comes from your emotions.
*** The Story Continues ***
You respond in whatever manner you find most appropriate, you try to reason
with him, you threaten him, whatever. He decides it's not worth taking your
property while you're there to protect it.
He sneaks back a few nights later and tries to kill you. Surprise is on his
side, he stabs you while you're sleeping with a sharp piece of bone he found in
his wanderings. But luck is on your side, he can't pull the bone out to stab
you a second time so while he's yanking on this bone that's lodged between your
ribs you manage to grab a gun blow his head off.
*** Commentary ***
Did he do anything "immoral?" Did you? How is his behavior any different from a
jaguar's if it had been a jaguar that stole into your cabin while you were
sleeping and tried to kill you? How is his behavior any different from your own
behavior when you were hunting for food? Where you living "honestly" when you
shot that bird the other day?
*** The Story Continues ***
You may have some crazy beliefs regarding humans. If it were me, I'd either
preserve the body for later use or simply dispose of it somewhere downwind for
scavengers to find. You may wish to bury it with some sort of ritual.
A few weeks later, another man surfs up to the shore riding on the plank of
some sunken ship. He strolls over to your camp and you have a pleasant
conversation with him. You invite him to dinner. Over dinner he asks you where
he could set up a camp of his own, where are the best places to gather seeds
and start a garden, and whether it's safe out in the jungle.
You offer him some seeds that you've already collected. You tell him where he
can gather fruits. You give him one of your guns and some ammunition just in
case any other jaguars have started expanding into the territories of the one's
you've killed and you let him borrow some construction and gardening tools so
he can get started.
*** Commentary ***
So long as you and this new arrival respect each other's person and possessions
you are at peace. Though morality will always be a form of illusion due to it's
subjectivity, so long as both of you are allowed to behave in accordance with
your individual moral beliefs, it can be said that your relationship is a moral
one. It can be said that your morals, though still subjective, are not
pretense.
*** The Story Resumes ***
One day your neighbor notices that you are enjoying your solitude in a manner
inconsistent with his personal moral beliefs. (Don't worry, I'm not going to
elaborate)
He confronts you and tells you to stop at once or else. "Or else what?" you
say. "Or else God will punish you severely."
*** Commentary ***
This is to say, a product of his imagination, this god, has devised a code of
morals which is objective and absolute. "Good" is something defined by this
imagined third party. He could have tried giving you reasons why he believes
the behavior is "bad," but you are under no obligation to accept his arguments
regardless of their reasonableness. If you like it, if it makes you happy, if
it doesn't harm anyone else, if it doesn't damage anyone else's possessions, if
it doesn't interfere with anyone else's behavior, by all means, feel free.
*** Continuing the Story ***
Later, he actually interrupts you and generally makes himself a nuisance.
*** Comment ***
You see, he believes that it is "good," that is to say, that his imagined god
wants to convince others that this or that moral rule must be followed in order
for a person to truly live a happy life.
*** Story ***
His first attempts are benign. He tries to convince you that he's right.
Frustrated perhaps by his inability to argue a convincing case or more likely
frustrated with your distrust or lack of interest, his next step is a bit less
benign. He becomes a screaming religious fanatic. He badgers you about it
whenever he gets the opportunity hoping that eventually you will cease out of
frustration yourself.
*** Comment ***
It's not uncommon in nature for things to interrupt your peace and quiet. The
cicada sometimes can create a deafening buzz. The same can be said of the great
tailed grackle when dozens of males congregate in one tree competing for the
attention of the females. With less effort, a fly or a cockroach can completely
spoil your mood by nothing more than it's presence.
The difference with your average screaming fanatic is the intent. But lest we
be inconsistent, we must consider such nuisances to be of an amoral nature
regardless of the human's supposed intelligence. You would think a human
"should" know better than to make himself a nuisance, but all subjectivity
aside, nuisances must be dealt with amorally, that is, by the rule of success
or failure.
If it's a noise that bothers you, complain to the noisemaker, make him/it go
away or plug your ears and try to ignore it. Try to reason with it, if it
continues to bother you get up and move, if it follows you, as a last resort,
you might try shooting. Would this be any different from swatting a fly or
shooting a noisy bird that just won't be discouraged?
Personally, I'd be reluctant to shoot a bird because I know it's intention is
not simply to bother me. I'd be reluctant to shoot another human only becuase
his friends would call me a monster and kill me in retribution.
And what goes for noise goes equally well for sights and smells.
*** Back to the Story ***
You plead with him not to scream and annoy you. You ball up some wax from a
nearby beehive and stick it in your ears. You tell him to return the items he
borrowed.
He never returns what he borrowed claiming that you gave those things to him.
You're disappointed by the new developments but decide to simply discontinue
the association and make no more agreements with him.
Some time later, he notices that one of your garden plants produces a drug that
you use occasionally because it makes you feel good. He thinks this is a sin
and spends a few days screaming at you about how evil it is for you to use the
plant that way. You put up with it as much as you can sticking the wax in your
ears again.
You wake up one morning to find that having become frustrated by your
disinterest, your neighbor has stolen into your garden and destroyed your
plants.
*** Commentary ***
He obviously believes that his god wants him to do this. Is he behaving
morally? His behavior is no different from the behavior of the tropical birds,
the rodents and the first human that landed on the island. His relationship
with you can no longer be said to be moral. The morality that justifies his
behavior is moral pretense.
You'd like to call this person "immoral" because he's not behaving as he
"ought" to behave. He has the ability to live morally but chooses not to. But
immorality is an aspect of morality and has no place in an amoral system.
Morality and immorality don't really exist, they exist only subjectively, in
the beholder's eye, or more precisely in the beholder's brain. When two humans
live at peace with one another, their relationship can be called a moral one,
but this is only because they share a certain fundamental, though subjective,
value, that is, humans should above all live at peace with other humans.
Although this moral sense is still illusion, it is fundamentally consistent.
When two humans do not share this same fundamental value, when the fundamental
value of one human is that humans should obey the mosaic law, the state law or
some other law, when the value of humans living at peace with one another takes
a secondary position in the "moral" sense of one human, that human's morality
is more pretense than illusion.
*** The Story Continues ***
You plant some more plants and this time watch them carefully making sure that
your neighbor doesn't destroy them.
Just when the plants are about ready to harvest, your neighbor stumbles over a
line that you've hidden which triggers a noise making device that warns you of
your neighbor's intentions. You run out to the garden with your AK-47 and fire
a few warning shots over your neighbor's head. You tell him not to approach the
plants, to turn around and go back to his camp.
He says, "You wouldn't shoot me in cold blood."
You ask him if he's seen you shoot and kill the birds, gophers and other
rodents that have tried to destroy your plants. "And I respect the rodents more
than I respect you," you say. "Those rodents haven't the intelligence to live
morally with other rodents much less with humans. They live amorally, but you
have the capacity to live morally and yet you choose to act amorally destroying
my plants like those birds, gophers and other rodents that I've been
destroying. You're morality is mere pretense. Go back to your camp and leave me
in peace or you force me to deal with you as I've dealt with all the other wild
animals on this island."
He stares at you with a blank dumbfounded expression. He doesn't really
comprehend your words much less your reasoning, but he feels you're just crazy
enough to kill him so he backs down, for now. Hopefully he'll just move away
somewhere and die.
After several more years of peaceful solitude, the inevitable occurs...
continued in Re #6: (never completed)
Re #6 would actually have been a rather pessimistic piece, a metaphor of my own
belief about the present and the future. I'm not certain I should share it. I'm
not certain I should have shared these last five posts. I don't imagine it will
do anyone any good. I haven't really said anything that hasn't been said
before.
Stuart Goldsmith soon responded to my five part reply in private
correspondence. I got his permission to forward his messages with my comments
to the AFS list thinking that it might generate some interest. It generated
less than I thought it would.
Replies and disjointed conversation
|
|
Get your own
Free Home Page