• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: JackARoe | Cheshire_Kat

Amorality

!!4iV4HF9R34g

Bluelighter
Joined
Aug 14, 2011
Messages
1,116
Philosophy is often bound or built on conceptions of ethics, or at least natural polarities.
However, isn't the true nature of reality consistently devoid of morals?

Do you believe in balance of forces?

I believe that the negative (that which isn't) far outnumbers the positive (that which is).
It's what affords us infinite capability. (:

And so, morality is a moot point faced with the vastness of Chaos.
 
Well, many would agree that negative things sting far worse and for far longer than the good things feel good...even if there aren't really more negative occurances in your life, you'll pay far more attention to them.

I think that in this vast chaos, order is constantly formed, and an important part of that order is morality and ethics. Morality is very much in touch with reality and there are right and wrong ways for entities within this chaos to interact with one another. "right ways" bring continuation of order and ease suffering while "wrong ways" cause uncertainty and suffering. It's all about suffering, and suffering is all too real for sentient beings.
 
Well, many would agree that negative things sting far worse and for far longer than the good things feel good...even if there aren't really more negative occurances in your life, you'll pay far more attention to them.
i don't think that's true at all. consider that negative things and positive things have some absolute value e.g. dropping a cup and breaking it is a -1, the loss of a loved one is a -100. finding a $1 bill in an old pair of pants is a +1, getting married is a +100.

if you compare negative and positive things of roughly equivalent absolute value (the cup and the $1, the death and the wedding), they have a similar impact whether it's positive or negative. sure, if you choose to compare the $1 and the death the negative thing stings "far worse and for far longer" than the good thing feels good, but that's a poor comparison to make.

alasdair
 
^I guess only in your world since everything has some basic and absolute mathmatic value to it.

Well, take this example in your scientifically inaccurate terms:

Get married +100

now, imagine the next day after your honeymoon, your wife dies(-100)...would you honestly feel "back to 0" or would you feel -100?
 
i don't recall saying anywhere that my analysis was scientifically accurate. it was simple a convenient way of expressing my point.

your claim is that bad things feel worse and for longer than good things feel good. i disagree with you.

it's pretty simple - i have a different opinion than you do. i'm not attacking you. i don't think you suck nor did i say that anywhere yet you're responding as if i did. i have a different opinion than you do. that's all.

alasdair
 
I wasn't referring to either negativity or positivity with reference to their inference by sentients..
Despite a seemingly solipsistic cylindrical loop for all, each consciousness is individual as well.
I was noting more their properties; how I said that negativity is what isn't, and positivity is what is.
But you can't have anything without what isn't, so it's still sort of a part of the Totality..
So, like, the universe has more potential than matter, or it's amoral. Chaotic neutral?
 
Last edited:
The OP is asking, at least I think, whether or not reality prefers morality. Some say there is an absolute ethical standard, others claim morals are relative. There are problems with both views - how are we to know the correct moral code, and if morals really are relative than the worst acts imaginable become justified. So does the objective universe (if one exists) have morals? Considering the harsh realities of survival and the hopeless struggles of creatures we will never know about, probably not. The universe wants to kill us!
 
The universe doesn't want anything it just is. It is we, who need to kill, in order to survive.
"For a morality to be inherent, it must be a morality of outcomes (effects) and not their causes, or the effects they in turn create. The only moral object that is inherent is the action; its consequences unfold over time and so are not inherent in the same way that material change is.
For example, our civilization has become thoroughly neurotic about killing: murder is bad, except when we kill murderers, or wage war. If we wage war, we also need to be murdering murderers, or we are the aggressor who attacked first. However, if we murder a killer before he murders, or wage war against a civilization that by growing lots of cheap food will eventually produce an invasion force that will destroy us, we are committing immoral acts in terms of outcomes, but committing moral acts in terms of the effects of those outcomes."
 
As humans always strive for equality amongst one another, rules are often put in place which punish those who deprive others of liberty. Unfortunately many rules, which govern what the majority assume is good and bad, also deprive the public of their liberty for free will, or to do as they want. So technically yes, morality and ethics is entirely human generated, but human's can't always rely on nature's consequences to make one reconsider one's actions - even with emotional consequences such as guilt.
 
i don't recall saying anywhere that my analysis was scientifically accurate. it was simple a convenient way of expressing my point.

your claim is that bad things feel worse and for longer than good things feel good. i disagree with you.

it's pretty simple - i have a different opinion than you do. i'm not attacking you. i don't think you suck nor did i say that anywhere yet you're responding as if i did. i have a different opinion than you do. that's all.

alasdair

Well, I wanted to say that I kinda think you do "suck", even you don't think I suck, but I just notticed your an admin now, so I want to pull up your kilt and tickle you until you are very, very happy. Is that a good answer?
 
^for someone who claims that they are witty that wasn't a very witty thing to say. Just saying you could probably come up with something better than that. At least I hope so :\
 
Section II.
Pain and pleasure.

It seems, then, necessary towards moving the passions of people advanced in life to any considerable degree, that the objects designed for that purpose, besides their being in some measure new, should be capable of exciting pain or pleasure from other causes. Pain and pleasure are simple ideas, incapable of definition. People are not liable to be mistaken in their feelings, but they are very frequently wrong in the names they give them, and in their reasonings about them. Many are of opinion, that pain arises necessarily from the removal of some pleasure; as they think pleasure does from the ceasing or diminution of some pain. For my part, I am rather inclined to imagine, that pain and pleasure, in their most simple and natural manner of affecting, are each of a positive nature, and by no means necessarily dependent on each other for their existence. The human mind is often, and I think it is for the most part, in a state neither of pain nor pleasure, which I call a state of indifference. When I am carried from this state into a state of actual pleasure, it does not appear necessary that I should pass through the medium of any sort of pain. If in such a state of indifference, or ease, or tranquillity, or call it what you please, you were to be suddenly entertained with a concert of music; or suppose some object of a fine shape, and bright, lively colors, to be presented before you; or imagine your smell is gratified with the fragrance of a rose; or if, without any previous thirst, you were to drink of some pleasant kind of wine, or to taste of some sweetmeat without being hungry; in all the several senses, of hearing, smelling, and tasting, you undoubtedly find a pleasure; yet, if I inquire into the state of your mind previous to these gratifications, you will hardly tell me that they found you in any kind of pain; or, having satisfied these several senses with their several pleasures, will you say that any pain has succeeded, though the pleasure is absolutely over? Suppose, on the other hand, a man in the same state of indifference to receive a violent blow, or to drink of some bitter potion, or to have his ears wounded with some harsh and grating sound; here is no removal of pleasure; and yet here is felt, his every sense which is affected, a pain very distinguishable. It may be said, perhaps, that the pain in these cases had its rise from the removal of the pleasure which the man enjoyed before, though that pleasure was of so low a degree as to be perceived only by the removal. But this seems to me a subtilty that is not discoverable in nature. For if, previous to the pain, I do not feel any actual pleasure, I have no reason to judge that any such thing exists; since pleasure is only pleasure as it is felt. The same may be said of pain, and with equal reason. I can never persuade myself that pleasure and pain are mere relations, which can only exist as they are contrasted; but I think I can discern clearly that there are positive pains and pleasures, which do not at all depend upon each other. Nothing is more certain to my own feelings than this. There is nothing which I can distinguish in my mind with more clearness than the three states, of indifference, of pleasure, and of pain. Every one of these I can perceive without any sort of idea of its relation to anything else. Caius is afflicted with a fit of the colic; this man is actually in pain; stretch Caius upon the rack, he will feel a much greater pain: but does this pain of the rack arise from the removal of any pleasure? or is the fit of the colic a pleasure or a pain just as we are pleased to consider it?

Section III.
The difference between the removal of pain and positive pleasure.

We shall carry this proposition yet a step further. We shall venture to propose, that pain and pleasure are not only not necessarily dependent for their existence on their mutual diminution or removal, but that, in reality, the diminution or ceasing of pleasure does not operate like positive pain; and that the removal or diminution of pain, in its effect, has very little resemblance to positive pleasure.1 The former of these propositions will, I believe, be much more readily allowed than the latter; because it is very evident that pleasure, when it has run its career, sets us down very nearly where it found us. Pleasure of every kind quickly satisfies; and, when it is over, we relapse into indifference, or, rather, we fall into a soft tranquillity which is tinged with the agreeable color of the former sensation. I own it is not at first view so apparent that the removal of a great pain does not resemble positive pleasure: but let us recollect in what state we have found our minds upon escaping some imminent danger, or on being released from the severity of some cruel pain. We have on such occasions found, if I am not much mistaken, the temper of our minds in a tenor very remote from that which attends the presence of positive pleasure; we have found them in a state of much sobriety, impressed with a sense of awe, in a sort of tranquillity shadowed with horror. The fashion of the countenance and the gesture of the body on such occasions is so correspondent to this state of mind, that any person, a stranger to the cause of the appearance, would rather judge us under some consternation, than in the enjoyment of anything like positive pleasure.

[Greek:
Hôs d’ hotan andr’ atê pykinê labê, host’ eni patrê,
Phôta katakteinas, allôn exiketo dêmon,
Andros es aphneiou, thambos d’ echei eisoroôntas.]

Iliad, [Greek: Ô]. 480.

“As when a wretch, who, conscious of his crime,
Pursued for murder from his native clime,
Just gains some frontier, breathless, pale, amazed;
All gaze, all wonder!”

This striking appearance of the man whom Homer supposes to have just escaped an imminent danger, the sort of mixed passion of terror and surprise, with which he affects the spectators, paints very strongly the manner in which we find ourselves affected upon occasions any way similar. For when we have suffered from any violent emotion, the mind naturally continues in something like the same condition, after the cause which first produced it has ceased to operate. The tossing of the sea remains after the storm; and when this remain of horror has entirely subsided, all the passion which the accident raised subsides along with it; and the mind returns to its usual state of indifference. In short, pleasure (I mean anything either in the inward sensation, or in the outward appearance, like pleasure from a positive cause) has never, I imagine, its origin from the removal of pain or danger.

Choke on this. Burke was pretty much right about everything.
http://ebooks.adelaide.edu.au/b/burke/edmund/sublime/part1.html#part1.2
On the Sublime and Beautiful by Edmund Burke.
 
^Not witty as well as immature. Congrats. Everyone prepare for a picture of ^this guys asshole being stretched to the limit.
 
fridgebuzz got it, my question.
And DeathDomokun, I think, nearly nailed it.

Something along the lines of, "Only you can feel what's right at the moment, but we can all see what's right in the end."
Of course, many people don't want to know the means often, only the results..
So I still don't know. Once we build our own worlds, it doesn't much matter anyway haha.
 
I wasn't referring to either negativity or positivity with reference to their inference by sentients..
Despite a seemingly solipsistic cylindrical loop for all, each consciousness is individual as well.
I was noting more their properties; how I said that negativity is what isn't, and positivity is what is.
But you can't have anything without what isn't, so it's still sort of a part of the Totality..
So, like, the universe has more potential than matter, or it's amoral. Chaotic neutral?

I see that I misunderstood your use of negative/positive, and I think that overall these forces are somehow balancing themselves. Sure, there's lots of chaos, but who's to say there isn't an equal amount of ordered creation coming from this chaos and returning to it? It seems for all the potential, there is lots of matter floating around too. It just might even out. True Neutral maybe.
 
Hmm.. Maybe haha. It does often seem like there is an exchange..
But that clashes with the pursuit of states like transcendence and almost negates the process of reality tunneling..
Free love doesn't come with an exchange.. And the forces aren't just dual..
There is the Observed and the Observer, but it's actually the Act of Observation which enforces lines.

Although, I suppose they could still balance.. Haha haha. Oh philosophy..
 
Top