Morality...

[Asimov]

Do you think reason and rationality are enough? The nazis reasoned that life was about survival of the fittest. They reasoned that in order for the german nation to survive then it needed to become the strongest. It reasoned that you needed to weed out the genetically inferior.

 

Is any good morality based on more than rationality? People can rationalise all sorts of horrendous behaviour. Maybe reason allied with love/compassion is better for morality? What do you guys think?

 

They reasoned it, but they were wrong.

 

Likewise, how do we accuse someone of being judgmental -- without being judgmental?

 

I have no problem with people being judgemental, that is not immoral.

[currentchristian]

A bit off topic here, but found the primary tenants of the National Socialist movement in America here: 25 Points of American National Socialism. Number 4 excludes me from citizenship!

 

And I see that there's going to be a great American book burning by the Nazis in Minnesota in January.

 

-CC in MA

[Legion]

A bit off topic here, but found the primary tenants of the National Socialist movement in America here: 25 Points of American National Socialism. Number 4 excludes me from citizenship!

 

And I see that there's going to be a great American book burning by the Nazis in Minnesota in January.

 

-CC in MA

I guess some people do want Hitler to be in their group. They make a lot of demands, don't they?

[Clergicide]

Do you think reason and rationality are enough? The nazis reasoned that life was about survival of the fittest. They reasoned that in order for the german nation to survive then it needed to become the strongest. It reasoned that you needed to weed out the genetically inferior.

 

Deontology doesn't take the 'intention' of the actor into account. So your premise is already weighing the issue in a superior manner.

[NotBlinded]

On an issue like murder, there is little information or expencience you can aquire that will alter the fundamental notion that murder in itself is wrong, which is why it and examples like it remain so concrete over time.

I would agree with the exception of being able to de-humanize the person one is killing. When we view the other person as being below the standard of what it means to be human, one is able to kill and feel that it is the right thing to do because of the horrific manner in which that person lives their life. Oh heck...I don't know.

 

That's the perfect example. It relates to the Nazi part of the discussion, and it's an example of tampering with that internal voice through information and experience. You knocked it out of the park.

Oh cool. Thanks for helping me understand just what the heck came out of my mouth!

 

I think sometimes that internal voice talks without my knowledge!

[dibby]

Deontology doesn't take the 'intention' of the actor into account. So your premise is already weighing the issue in a superior manner.

 

Sorry, I don,t understand.

[Lycorth]

If you don't feel it's an imposition or invasion of privacy, I'd like to know more about how you became involved with National Socialism, what the National Socialist purpose is in America, how you got out of it, and what you learned about yourself and others while being aligned with the National Socialist movement.

 

I got into NS after being exposed to it via talkshows that liked to feature skinheads and KKK members, ironically in efforts to debunk their ideas. MTV ran a special in the early 90s that first started it with me.

 

That, and growing up in a neighborhood where violence and problems with non-whites was a real issue didn't help. Partially it was hearing about how bad "those damn niggers" were from older folks, and partially it was seeing firsthand the urban decay and gang violence rampant in non-white neighborhoods. Being raised with racism and witnessing the accused peoples in question only seem to contribute to the complaints of the older folks doesn't do much to encourage a tolerant attitude.

 

Working with non-whites and otherwise associating with them was much like associating with gays - eventually, I saw that not all of them are alike. In regards to non-whites, I saw not all of them were the racist, kill-whitey, gangbanging scum I was accustomed to.

 

I got out of NS at the same time I deconverted. With NS, I just sort of stopped - period. At the same time all of this was happening, I was going through a bad fallout of my breakup with my then-girlfriend, which brought back my depression and really left me in a bad way. I just stopped caring about a lot of things, my NS ideals included. I threw out the swastika right along with the cross and pretty much everything else, and began second-guessing and questioning all I once thought important.

 

It felt good to just let go. I had gotten so sick of causes and issues and other shit. I'm much the same today; all I care about is myself and my loved ones for the most part (though I'd try help a stranger in need, of course). With NS, it had a similarity to Xianity - I finally stopped making excuses for myself to believe in it, admitted to myself I was buying into a bunch of oppressive bullshit, stopped trying to tell others how to live their lives, and got on instead with living mine.

 

The NS purpose in America is basically how its critics represent it - American NS want an all-white nation governed by absic NS ideology. Many Nazis can't agree on precisely what that is, sometimes, and standpoints run the gamut from peaceful separation from and tolerance for non-whites, homosexuals, and even the dreaded Jews, to forced repatriation, to extermination - in that order, I've observed. Nazis, like most other passionately ideological groups, want America to be shaped in their image and for everyone to either fit in with their program or be "done away" with somehow.

 

In regards to what I've discovered about myself and others, I've learned most passionately ideological groups are much the same. Nazis, Communists, hardcore environmentalists, hardcore feminists, fundy Xians or Moose-lims (or Atheists), etc - when people get all riled up about their way of thinking to the point of making their opinions into dogma and doctrine and forming organizations dedicated to the promotion of those ideas, they all usually get pretty intolerant and pretty oppressive. That's why I want no part of the NS movement anymore - or anything else that's so goddamned uptight about what they are. I may loathe Xianity, for example, but I'm not going to go form some Athiest group to make everyone an Atheist.

 

As the Wiccans may say, I try to live by one rule first - "and it harm none, do what you will."

 

Culture and heritage, getting back to how things ancestrally "used to be" was, and still is, important to me. Partially, that's why I am an Atheist - my earliest ancestors had no religion, and humans didn't invent gods nor write holy books for many centuries. To live and let live is also a common ancestral concept. If Atheism is the first Pagan "religion" then "and it harm none..." could be considered our earliest "religious" precept.

 

For me, I didn't find much peace until I was honest with myself and admitted that I couldn't believe much of the bullshit things I had for much of my life. Just dumping the trash and the man-made fairy tales, be they about race or religion or sexual orientation or whatever, helped me in a truly dire time in my life - and provided me with guidance when the dust settled.

 

You may now return to your regularly scheduled topic

[Mongo]

You may now return to your regularly scheduled topic

 

Thanks Varokhar. That was utterly facinating. I truly appreciate your honesty.

 

You are obviously intellegent so I'm curious as to how you rationalized that NS could ever overtake America and form a government.

 

Was that a goal you viewed as realistic? If yes, what went through your mind to sustain that?

 

Mongo

[roman]

"Tenets," people, please. T E N E T S. That's "tenets." OK?

 

Tenants are people who rent from you. Just a little pet peeve, there.

[currentchristian]

If you don't feel it's an imposition or invasion of privacy, I'd like to know more about how you became involved with National Socialism, what the National Socialist purpose is in America, how you got out of it, and what you learned about yourself and others while being aligned with the National Socialist movement.

 

I got into NS after being exposed to it via talkshows that liked to feature skinheads and KKK members, ironically in efforts to debunk their ideas. MTV ran a special in the early 90s that first started it with me.

 

That, and growing up in a neighborhood where violence and problems with non-whites was a real issue didn't help. Partially it was hearing about how bad "those damn niggers" were from older folks, and partially it was seeing firsthand the urban decay and gang violence rampant in non-white neighborhoods. Being raised with racism and witnessing the accused peoples in question only seem to contribute to the complaints of the older folks doesn't do much to encourage a tolerant attitude.

 

Working with non-whites and otherwise associating with them was much like associating with gays - eventually, I saw that not all of them are alike. In regards to non-whites, I saw not all of them were the racist, kill-whitey, gangbanging scum I was accustomed to.

 

I got out of NS at the same time I deconverted. With NS, I just sort of stopped - period. At the same time all of this was happening, I was going through a bad fallout of my breakup with my then-girlfriend, which brought back my depression and really left me in a bad way. I just stopped caring about a lot of things, my NS ideals included. I threw out the swastika right along with the cross and pretty much everything else, and began second-guessing and questioning all I once thought important.

 

It felt good to just let go. I had gotten so sick of causes and issues and other shit. I'm much the same today; all I care about is myself and my loved ones for the most part (though I'd try help a stranger in need, of course). With NS, it had a similarity to Xianity - I finally stopped making excuses for myself to believe in it, admitted to myself I was buying into a bunch of oppressive bullshit, stopped trying to tell others how to live their lives, and got on instead with living mine.

 

The NS purpose in America is basically how its critics represent it - American NS want an all-white nation governed by absic NS ideology. Many Nazis can't agree on precisely what that is, sometimes, and standpoints run the gamut from peaceful separation from and tolerance for non-whites, homosexuals, and even the dreaded Jews, to forced repatriation, to extermination - in that order, I've observed. Nazis, like most other passionately ideological groups, want America to be shaped in their image and for everyone to either fit in with their program or be "done away" with somehow.

 

In regards to what I've discovered about myself and others, I've learned most passionately ideological groups are much the same. Nazis, Communists, hardcore environmentalists, hardcore feminists, fundy Xians or Moose-lims (or Atheists), etc - when people get all riled up about their way of thinking to the point of making their opinions into dogma and doctrine and forming organizations dedicated to the promotion of those ideas, they all usually get pretty intolerant and pretty oppressive. That's why I want no part of the NS movement anymore - or anything else that's so goddamned uptight about what they are. I may loathe Xianity, for example, but I'm not going to go form some Athiest group to make everyone an Atheist.

 

As the Wiccans may say, I try to live by one rule first - "and it harm none, do what you will."

 

Culture and heritage, getting back to how things ancestrally "used to be" was, and still is, important to me. Partially, that's why I am an Atheist - my earliest ancestors had no religion, and humans didn't invent gods nor write holy books for many centuries. To live and let live is also a common ancestral concept. If Atheism is the first Pagan "religion" then "and it harm none..." could be considered our earliest "religious" precept.

 

For me, I didn't find much peace until I was honest with myself and admitted that I couldn't believe much of the bullshit things I had for much of my life. Just dumping the trash and the man-made fairy tales, be they about race or religion or sexual orientation or whatever, helped me in a truly dire time in my life - and provided me with guidance when the dust settled.

 

You may now return to your regularly scheduled topic

 

Thank you for sharing so much with us. It was a fascinating read and a fascinating journey you've been on. I share, very much, your views about causes and those who fight for them. That's why I'm not a member of any organization or group (except, I guess, exchristians.net!!). I write a letter now and then to my representatives or to the editor of the local newspaper or try to get a speed limit sign put up on a neighborhood street (my most recent cause), but that's about it. Live and let live as long as no one is harmed sounds very good to me.

 

Thank you again. I really appreciate learning about what others have experienced.

 

-CC in MA

 

 

"Tenets," people, please. T E N E T S. That's "tenets." OK?

 

Tenants are people who rent from you. Just a little pet peeve, there.

 

Was that me??

 

My pet peeves, and I see them all the time over and over and over in my students, are confusion with:

 

their, there, they're

it's, its

we're, where, were

 

 

-CC in MA

[Lycorth]

Thank you again. I really appreciate learning about what others have experienced.

 

Thanks Varokhar. That was utterly facinating. I truly appreciate your honesty.

 

I try

 

You are obviously intellegent so I'm curious as to how you rationalized that NS could ever overtake America and form a government.

 

The same way everyone obsessed with a cause rationalizes it; I saw my beliefs and politics as abaolutely right and that, with enough effort, I could convince others to change their minds. Same as the evengelical Xian, the grandstanding Republican or Democrat, etc. If you believe in something strongly enough, and also have a mind to try and change everyone else's, you trick yourself into believing that you can.

 

Most NS believe that with enough grassroots outreach, coupled with enough of their people getting elected yet hiding their NS stance until after election (ie, when they have power), they have a shot at getting control of America. Again, similar to a lot of passiontely ideological groups.

 

Was that a goal you viewed as realistic? If yes, what went through your mind to sustain that?

 

I thought it was realistic for awhile, but towards the end I got a little more burnt out each day, and when my breakup and deconversion (and subsequent questioning of everything) came to pass, I got totally burnt out and just gave it up. I used to think that people's minds were easier to change than they are (especially given the black sheep status of Nazism of any stripe), so that kept me going for awhile.

[Guest ConservativePessimist]

Of course you could make a choice based on bad reasoning, but at least the option to apply reasoning is available in other moral systems. A deontologist can 'knowingly' make a choice that will cause the most harm. A significant difference.

 

So, would you agree that the Nazi's were moral in what they did? Or because their reasoning was flawed, does that make them immoral?

[NotBlinded]

their, there, they're

it's, its

we're, where, were

 

 

-CC in MA

Oh! Don't forget then and than.

[Clergicide]

Deontology doesn't take the 'intention' of the actor into account. So your premise is already weighing the issue in a superior manner.

 

Sorry, I don,t understand.

 

You asked if adding reason and rationality was enough. Nothing you add will be enough to prevent bad choices 100% of the time, life is too complex. The best systems then are the ones that greatly minimalize the chance of making a bad choice. Adding reason and rationality is a good place to start. In your example a bad choice was still the result, which is going to happen. So rather than acknowledge the obvious, I thought it would be more rewarding to examine that you were at least taking a position of trying to understand the 'intention' behind the act. In the US 'intention' is the difference between manslaughter and 1st degree murder. So, you had already added another valuable element in your example, and in effect answered your own question.

[chefranden]

Of course, and I don't think Varokhar is discounting the value of emotions, but we are talking about reasoning out why things are right or wrong and whether or not they are right or wrong.

 

Pretty much so; perhaps I should've said that rationality is more important than emotionalism, as individual emotions do figure into it, as Mongo correctly noted. Yet, reason holds a more important place, I believe, since using feelings to determine right or wrong is, like Asimov said, arbitrary.

 

In the end, morals and ethics need a rational base.

 

I had intended to comment on this idea earlier, but I lost track of this discussion.

 

How would we know that rationality is "more important that emotionalism"? Some of the reasons are that in this culture emotionalism is looked on with disgust; that in this culture most people fear to be considered emotional; and that in this culture most people desire to be thought of as rational. This is to say that it is emotion that decides that emotionalism is less to be desired than rationality.

 

Emotion as a body/mind function comes before and after reason. Crudely speaking; the brain processes new sensory information first in the hippocampus where is is assigned an emotional tag by which it is sorted. If it is tagged interesting the info is sent to conscious rational processing or stored in short term memory for later. If the info is tagged with fear or anger it could be sent to consciousness awareness as a yellow alert, or if the tag is strong enough it could be sent directly to motor control as a red alert for immediate action. If the information is emotionally uninteresting (not tagged) it is ignored by the rest of the system.

 

Information that has been rationally processed also receives an emotional tag of some sort: this bit is important enough to be saved; this bit is important enough to be acted on immediately; this bit is embarrassing; this bit pisses me off; this bit gives me a warm fuzzy; this bit... One reason that idiot savants can remember so much is that their hippocampus is badly damaged and they don't have this sort of filter of sensory information.

 

The rational function can processes information into several different courses of action, but it will not decide which action is best. Perhaps it is able to give a general recommendation but it is the assigned emotional tag that decides the proper action.

 

Morals are not, nor can they ever be based on reason. They are based on emotion. Because we have evolved as social animals one of the core adaptations are the emotions that compel us to act socially. The development of reason is only an adjunct to that priority.

 

When I was a Christian I considered (felt) myself to be rational, as I'm sure most of you ex-Christians considered yourselves. I could easily see the logical flaws in non-Christian/wrong-religion/wrong-denomination thinking. It was via becoming emotionally detached from Christianity and becoming emotionally attached to more rational/scientific points of view that I was able to see the flaws in Christian/religion thinking. Now I realize that I rationalized both view points -- after coming to them. I used to claim that I read (read reasoned) myself back into Christianity, and likewise I claimed that I read (read reasoned) myself out of Christianity. However, neither claim is true and was only rationalized after the fact.

 

We often bemoan* the lack of reason among Christians, while misremembering that we felt reasonable enough while Christians. I think it unlikely that any of us reasoned "oh God if only I could be more logical like those atheists." Quite the contrary, we thought, "why can't those other people see the truth (logic) of my position. The reason for this dichotomy is that people's world views are held via emotion, not logic.

 

*In fact many of us, including me, have gotten quite emotional about this without much acknowledgment of the emotion.

[currentchristian]

I had intended to comment on this idea earlier, but I lost track of this discussion.

 

How would we know that rationality is "more important that emotionalism"? Some of the reasons are that in this culture emotionalism is looked on with disgust; that in this culture most people fear to be considered emotional; and that in this culture most people desire to be thought of as rational. This is to say that it is emotion that decides that emotionalism is less to be desired than rationality.

 

Emotion as a body/mind function comes before and after reason. Crudely speaking; the brain processes new sensory information first in the hippocampus where is is assigned an emotional tag by which it is sorted. If it is tagged interesting the info is sent to conscious rational processing or stored in short term memory for later. If the info is tagged with fear or anger it could be sent to consciousness awareness as a yellow alert, or if the tag is strong enough it could be sent directly to motor control as a red alert for immediate action. If the information is emotionally uninteresting (not tagged) it is ignored by the rest of the system.

 

Information that has been rationally processed also receives an emotional tag of some sort: this bit is important enough to be saved; this bit is important enough to be acted on immediately; this bit is embarrassing; this bit pisses me off; this bit gives me a warm fuzzy; this bit... One reason that idiot savants can remember so much is that their hippocampus is badly damaged and they don't have this sort of filter of sensory information.

 

The rational function can processes information into several different courses of action, but it will not decide which action is best. Perhaps it is able to give a general recommendation but it is the assigned emotional tag that decides the proper action.

 

Had to read this twice, closely, to (maybe?) "get it." Somewhere since this dicussion took a break, I ran across on the Internet an illustration that seemed "right on" to me. There were two circles. One reprsented the emotional brain; the other the rational brain. These two circles overlapped, forming a third area this author named (by the author of the illustration) "Wisdom." In this view, we naturally possess a rational brain and an emotional brain. It is in making full use of each manifestation of brain at varying times in the processing of sensory information, and in the marriage of the two sides, acting in concert as wisdom, that we fully realize the capacity to process information and determine a course of action. This author did not grant either the rational or the emotional brain a superior role.

 

Is this what you are saying, too, chefranden?

 

-CC

[currentchristian]

Morals are not, nor can they ever be based on reason. They are based on emotion. Because we have evolved as social animals one of the core adaptations are the emotions that compel us to act socially. The development of reason is only an adjunct to that priority.

 

When I was a Christian I considered (felt) myself to be rational, as I'm sure most of you ex-Christians considered yourselves. I could easily see the logical flaws in non-Christian/wrong-religion/wrong-denomination thinking. It was via becoming emotionally detached from Christianity and becoming emotionally attached to more rational/scientific points of view that I was able to see the flaws in Christian/religion thinking. Now I realize that I rationalized both view points -- after coming to them. I used to claim that I read (read reasoned) myself back into Christianity, and likewise I claimed that I read (read reasoned) myself out of Christianity. However, neither claim is true and was only rationalized after the fact.

 

We often bemoan* the lack of reason among Christians, while misremembering that we felt reasonable enough while Christians. I think it unlikely that any of us reasoned "oh God if only I could be more logical like those atheists." Quite the contrary, we thought, "why can't those other people see the truth (logic) of my position. The reason for this dichotomy is that people's world views are held via emotion, not logic.

 

*In fact many of us, including me, have gotten quite emotional about this without much acknowledgment of the emotion.

 

Not sure I understand this one. Let me ask some questions:

 

Are you saying that we attach ourselves emotionally to a religion/viewpoint/thought and then rationalize that attachment because we believe, emotionally, that views embraced for rational reasons are more legitimate/true/likely/correct than those adopted for emotional reasons?

 

What was the interplay between emotionalism and rationalism in your decisions to embrace and leave, then embrace again and leave again, the Christian religion?

 

-Thanks so much, if you get time to respond.

 

-CC

[chefranden]

Had to read this twice, closely, to (maybe?) "get it." Somewhere since this dicussion took a break, I ran across on the Internet an illustration that seemed "right on" to me. There were two circles. One reprsented the emotional brain; the other the rational brain. These two circles overlapped, forming a third area this author named (by the author of the illustration) "Wisdom." In this view, we naturally possess a rational brain and an emotional brain. It is in making full use of each manifestation of brain at varying times in the processing of sensory information, and in the marriage of the two sides, acting in concert as wisdom, that we fully realize the capacity to process information and determine a course of action. This author did not grant either the rational or the emotional brain a superior role.

 

Is this what you are saying, too, chefranden?

 

-CC

 

Not exactly. I'm not granting either sub-function of body/mind a preeminent place in the sense of superiority as in one ought to rule the other. However I think that emotion modifies reason more than reason modifies emotion. One sub-function is not "better" in a moral sense than another. Everything that the body/mind does to bring about our behavior is of a piece. This is what subjectivists and objectivists try to ignore when they want one or the other to rule.

 

I get my line of reasoning here from Lakoff and Johnson's Philosophy in the Flesh : The Embodied Mind and Its Challenge to Western Thought

[YDOAPS]

Yes, I know it's adressed in an article, but I'm having trouble with it. Could someone explain to me why murder is wrong.

First we have to define murder. Murder is the unjustified killing of a person. Since, by its definition, murder is unjustified, it is wrong(as there are times when killing is good, but we won't get into that atm). Why is killing(when it isn't for a good reason) wrong? It has to do with the definition of a person. A person is not necessarily the same thing as a human. Being a human means being a member of the species Homo Sapiens. A person is one who is self-aware. Personhood is a moral characteristic, as humanhood is not. Part of being self-aware is being able to contemplate your future. A basic psychological/emotional/spiritual need of most humans is the need to continue living. Killing violates the most basic need a person has. Thus, unless it is for a VERY good reason(such as ending the suffering of many or if such a person no longer desires to live and requests help to die), then it is wrong to kill a person. Therefore, murder, as defined above, is wrong. I didn't explain it very well, but you get the basic concept.