MY ethical/political philosophy

[Wechtlein Uns]

I read annaM's ehtical and political philosophies, and thought it might be fun to offer my own for discussion. I will start with my ethical philosophy.

While no ethics exists outside of the human mind/brain/conciousness, we as humans still have notions of vague ideals such as "Right" or "wrong". These notions change from society to society. I believe they are the result of millions of years of evolution programming us to be a social and cooperative species.

Thus, while it is possible in theory to reject all notions of morality, we can't really get past our biological programming. So why do some people do things that are considered wrong by their society? Deviant behavior is nothing new, really. These are probably cases of evolution at work, and I wouldn't be surprised if the root cause was some structural anomaly in the criminal's brain. It has been shown in study after study that criminals tend to have stunted emotional growth, as well as stunted ability to make risk assessments and responsible choices. Immoral behavior is probably the result of stunted development in the brain.

Of course, if we were all to die right now, no ethics would remain.

Next: My Political Philosophy.

I've actually just recently gone through a major shift in my political philosophy. I recently was a democrat, though I wouldn't say hardcore, but my main ideals were to have: nationalized healthcare, social security, free education for all, and higher taxes for the rich.

I now believe that I was foolish to want such things.
Competition for resources: I believe the best way to distribute resources is to have laissez-faire capitalism. It works. So much wealth generated from people who work hard and smart. And people who are poor have no excuse.

Rights of humans: Big government is a no-no. The larger a government, the more likely it will become a police state. In my fantasy constitution, the government would be put in place for the sole reason to protect three rights. Right to life. Right to property. And right to choice. Period. That's it. Government should not be allowed to make any law reducing these rights, or to introduce new rights of their own, or to do anything else. Government's sole purpose should be the use of lethal force to make sure that these three rights go protected. EVERYTHING ELSE, would be laissez-faire capitalism.

Now, I know what you're thinking. or what you might realize would be a problem with this form of government. After all, what about money?? Don't we need government to enforce circulation of money? Nope!

My monetary system would be simple: Farmers would hire laborers or buy equipment to produce a commodity, in this case, wheat. Once the wheat is grown and harvested, said farmers pay their laborers or equipment dealers with shares of wheat. These shares may then be traded by the laborers for other goods like property, tv's, and cars.

In other words, the entire monetary circulation has a commodity backing. This has some advantages over our system:
1) It doesn't require government regulation. The inherent value of your shares depends upon how much wheat is grown and available for redemption. There won't be more shares than wheat, and there won't be less shares than wheat. Everythings backed up, thus these shares have inherent value.

2) Because your shares would have inherent value, rather than fiat value, two things result: If the circulation of shares goes up, the amount of goods in the economy would automatically go up to absorb that inherent value. This is because if prices went up instead, people might choose to redeem their shares of wheat themselves rather than allow it to become less valuable. If prices go up, shares become less valuable, people redeem them instead of buying goods, the good makers lose money. In other words, you can not have inflation[/i]. If the amount of shares of wheat go down, your shares will become more valuable. Unfortunately, this would also cause the amount of goods produced to go down, as the amount of value as a whole goes down. But the upshot is that your money would retain it's purchasing power no matter what happens. And as more and more wheat is produced, more and more goods will be produced to absorb that value! It's ever expanding.

So, in other words, having a commodity backed financial system seems like a really good idea.
And that's my political philosophy.

[Sophus]

Immoral behavior is probably the result of stunted development in the brain.

I don't think so. It really depends on the individual. When some behave immorally they know they're breaking a moral code that they hold. Thus they feel guilty. Typically these types of people are your theists. When someone such as myself defies one of societies morals I feel no guilt not because I broke no code of my own. Perhaps this is one of the major differences between theist and atheist (or at least Christians and atheists). Theists (or potential theists) are subject to guilt because they, in their lack of self-control and maturity, often are tempted to do what they think to be wrong. Atheists (well, actually I just speak for myself for now) never commit to any act they don't completely agree with so we never feel guilt.

Morality is, and will always be, subjective. I think it somewhat foolish to preach any form of rules to morality. We can't think up a rule that will function in every possible scenario. Instead we should encourage people to think (which most are lazy about) and come to their own reasonable conclusion for what is right for them to do. The problem is nobody wants people to think. They just want to recruit followers.

[AnnaM]

Thus, while it is possible in theory to reject all notions of morality, we can't really get past our biological programming. So why do some people do things that are considered wrong by their society?

Perhaps they feel that obedience to a figment of one's imagination is foolish.  The 'moral' sense, better called the 'social sense' is just as adaptable as the rest of our minds, indeed moreso than sexuality, which is so varied that the term 'deviant' is meaningless in actual fact.  One can easily evade the supposedly stupifying notions of our clerical culture by recognizing it as the prejudiced, myopic and farcical play it is.  Resolve to serve no longer, and at once you are set free.

[Wechtlein Uns]

Thus, while it is possible in theory to reject all notions of morality, we can't really get past our biological programming. So why do some people do things that are considered wrong by their society?

Perhaps they feel that obedience to a figment of one's imagination is foolish.  The 'moral' sense, better called the 'social sense' is just as adaptable as the rest of our minds, indeed moreso than sexuality, which is so varied that the term 'deviant' is meaningless in actual fact.  One can easily evade the supposedly stupifying notions of our clerical culture by recognizing it as the prejudiced, myopic and farcical play it is.  Resolve to serve no longer, and at once you are set free.

I never said that the moral sense wasn't adaptable, annaM. In fact, that's a good point to bring up. I think, however, that up until now the moral sense has been molded by evolutionary circumstances, rather than concsious shaping. Thing is, if we were to decide to conciously shape our moral sense to something completely different, I don't think we would. People tend to think of their morals as something that is correct, and that needs no change. And if they were going to try to change their morals conciously, then what criterion would they use to determine what moral system they want? The only criterion I can think of is survival, but that's allready been the thing that's shaped our morals in the first place!

[AnnaM]

I never said that the moral sense wasn't adaptable, annaM. In fact, that's a good point to bring up. I think, however, that up until now the moral sense has been molded by evolutionary circumstances, rather than concsious shaping.

Sexuality is molded by evolutionary circumstances, and is notoriously susceptible to conscious shaping.  To discuss morality as having some authority is in any case absurd, either one is subject to morality (and most obey it), in which case one has not the power to do otherwise.  Or, in the contrary case, one cares nothing for morality, or places other cares above it, in which case the 'moral' is not the actual and therefor is not at all, i.e. could not have been.

Thing is, if we were to decide to conciously shape our moral sense to something completely different, I don't think we would.

This is answered above, i.e. if we are trapped by the mental ghosts of morality then we lack the power to change it, to effect our will, but morality is not 'sacred' nor 'imperative' thereby, and one remains a fool, the chattel of the imaginary.

People tend to think of their morals as something that is correct, and that needs no change. And if they were going to try to change their morals conciously, then what criterion would they use to determine what moral system they want?

The presumption of a will to moral systems is absurd, all value and ideas only have their actuality in the individual perspective, one does not and can not justify values 'moral' or otherwise, a value is or is not the case for a particular perspective.  One's values post-morality will be shaped just as they had when morality reigned, by the person themselves, according to their own criteria and thoughts.

The only criterion I can think of is survival, but that's allready been the thing that's shaped our morals in the first place!

The idea that 'survival' is the highest value, and that it ought to be, especially when abstracted to race or 'mankind' in general is a unproven, unprovable and certainly non-'objective' fact as any other form of irrationalist moral prejudice.  It agrees neither with reason nor with observation.  Man's persona may be originated by evolutionary forces, but is itself not contingent upon evolutionary forces.  Nor has evolution shaped man's consciousness with a teleology; man's reason itself is noteworthy as opposed to those of the wasp because it is not composed of fixed ideas and values, but rather drives at the attainment of values.  Reason, with all other faculties, is a means at one's disposal but there is nothing properly 'reasonable' about the pursuit of any end, for ends ultimately have their justification in the non-cognitive dimension of satisfaction.  Evolution has not, in fact, embodied abstract Darwinian rules into a sort of animal 'class consciousness', it rather has tendencies of feeling, of experience, which (in the past, in cases) been positively efficaceous for evolutionary proliferation.  The scientism of imposing world-modeling as a basis for logic or ontology is precisely backwords, fatuitously so.

[Wechtlein Uns]

Riiight...

Well, I'm certainly looking forward to the day when you completely reject all morality.