Philosophy Now Forum

Bill Meacham finds Ethics Without Morals easy enough to live with.

http://philosophynow.org/issues/103/Eth ... Joel_Marks

This strikes me as a way to fan the flames of libertarianism. The notion that we only have duties to ourselves has wrought much of the current free-market madness of our age that is undermining society and basic ecological survival.

http://existentialcomics.com/comic/38

If amorality is true (and subsequently, a universal morality is false), and any perceived morality is community based founded upon evolutionary developments, and therefore moral decisions can be based solely upon the individual’s best interests, the individual is still bound to consider and abide by the group morality if he or she does not wish to face societal consequences. Thus, whether real or imagined, group ethics still impact individual moral decisions - right and wrong will continue to exist in the collective consciousness and law books of a society external to the individual.

Within the boundaries of tolerance a given society allows individuals to make choices, then amoralism can indeed be the driving force for the individual. As for guidelines, the amoralist could weigh the consequences of short-term versus long-term gratification and emotional versus logical choices.(i.e., Does the satisfaction of eating the extra donut now benefit me more than the satisfaction of losing weight over time? Is screaming at my boss when I’m angry the best logical choice for my long-term interests?) So individual morality therefore becomes goal driven versus an internal battle of right versus wrong.

The one potential consequence I see for promoting amoralism is that we must rely solely upon the individual’s level of empathy as a guide for acts like stealing, rape, murder, etc., if that individual knew he or she could get away with such harmful deeds. In other words, if the “shoulds” and “oughts” are absent when no one is watching, and if no societal consequence is feared, what beyond empathy is left to compete with the individual’s selfish desires? The death of Jiminy Cricket – even if imaginary – could lead to more harm. Which presents to me this question: Is this one of those occasions where – if weighing outcomes in terms of harm – it is better to suffer the illusion than the adverse consequences of truth?

I think that representing the philosophy of Liberty as a duty only to one's self is inaccurate and/or misleading. There are a great many moral libertarians who believe in contributing to society. If you believe that a majority can rightfully force an individual to contribute to society, can you explain where such a right logically ends? What are the origins and the limits to this collective power?

That article is incoherent babble and nonsense, selfcontradicting and talkative.

Not worth the read.

HexHammer wrote:That article is incoherent babble and nonsense, selfcontradicting and talkative. ...

If its incoherent babble and nonsense then it can't be self-contradicting? What the hell do you mean by "talkative"?

Try explaining why rather than just spouting the same old waffle.