Existence of morals

[AlchmistFaust]

I have been an avid philosophy reader (mind you I'm not here to discuss philosophy vs science), and one of the things that always have caught my attention are morals. Having been born in a religious family, my tendency would be to simply accept the laws of "god" and follow them, but I still developed my opinion on the matter. After reading Nietzche, I started to think about the concept of morality and the übermensch, and I have come to the following conclusion: Morality is a law that is completely unecessary. While laws, which are created by men, serve to limit it's behaviour so that it doesn't interfere in the life of others and a somehow peaceful coexistance can happen, morality is psychological and purely illogical. You have to obey the law of not killing a man, but deeming the act immoral just limits our fields of action when a man HAS to be killed for a bigger purpose. In nature, if something threatens you, you try to defend yourself and, if that means you have to kill your opponent, you do it. No animal simply kills something, except if it needs to, be it for food, survival, or, as in case of dolphins man, sometimes, because it needs the feel of it. Man, like any other animal, seeks these things: Pleasure, survival, food. Morality is also variable, which means that different cultures have different morality. My idea is that, if morality was extinguished, and rational laws were applied, the true men would emerge, and these men is not limited by what it can or can't do, but limited to what it should or shouldn't do. That's a condensed version of what I think.

So, what are your opinions on morality? Do you guys believe in it?

[ganondorfchampin]

Ethics should be based on sympathy and logic, not fear, reward, or cultural standards.

[AlchmistFaust]

Dec 21, 2011 16:35:26 GMT ganondorfchampin said:

Ethics should be based on sympathy and logic, not fear, reward, or cultural standards.

Sympathy, however ,is also a variable, and as it varies from person to person, it can't be be applied to laws.

[ganondorfchampin]

We are discussing morals, not laws, are we not?

[AlchmistFaust]

Well, In my post, I was clarifying my vision on what was law and moral, and how I thought morals are just something that makes us stay still and not go further. When logic is used to make something that is limiting to human behaviour, and that actually improves the general existance of everyone, then it is a law. Logic can be applied to laws, however, not to morality (or ethics). Sympathy can't be applied to laws, but to ethics and moral, it can. That's what I mean.

[ganondorfchampin]

Laws are arbitrary things that are far too tight to be used effectively. Ethics are used on a case by case basis to better all men by each man doing his own part.

[Fringe Pioneer]

Does my Global Ethics class qualify me for this discussion? We'll see.

I'm afraid I haven't read anything from Nietzsche in spite of hearing so much about his [mis]quotations, so I can't really respond to anything concerning his works. From what I do know, morality is essentially whether something should or should not be done, and ethics is study of determining whether something is moral or not. An ethical framework determines whether something is moral or not, and the classification of something as moral or immoral determines whether something may be done. Notably, morality is not necessarily tied to religion: even an atheist has an ethical framework. Ethical frameworks do, however, seem to be tied to culture and circumstance (which helps to define a culture).

For instance, it was commonly agreed in Ancient Greece that when a person died, a person was to be cremated; to eat the person would be immoral. It was commonly agreed amongst Callatians that when a father died, he was to be eaten. It is commonly agreed amongst Americans and several other cultures that the elderly are to be cared for and, abortion issues notwithstanding, infants are to be cared for. It is commonly practiced amongst those to whom we refer as Eskimos that a family can only have so many infants before others that are born are to be left to die in the cold and that, when they can no longer care even for themselves alone, the elderly are to be sent into the cold to die. We are quick to say that this is immoral - our ethical framework dictates that life is to be held in highest regards; however, please remember where the Eskimos live and how scarce resources are where they live. To allow those who cannot help sustain the family to live in a family would only help to indirectly wipe out the family with starvation. Would circumstances permit, the Eskimos would have an ethical framework more similar to ours, but alas, the circumstances rarely permit.

From what I understand, even the superman has an ethical framework with which to classify whether something is moral or immoral to him; the difference between him and men/submen is that men and submen operate within an ethical framework supplied by others whereas the superman creates his own ethical framework without letting others influence it when he doesn't want others to influence it. Only the superman himself can influence anything belonging to him, for he by definition is entirely free, having full freedom to do things as he sees fit. So long as he creates an ethical framework entirely on his own, the ethical framework he follows will merely be him telling himself what is right or wrong, which is still freedom...

[AlchmistFaust]

I'll have to disagree with your observation of the übermensch. The übermensch sees no right or wrong, for right and wrong do not exist for the übermensch. Technically, the übermensch does not even have to follow the law, because the law is created by men, and is not natural to men, it is something imposed. The übermensch is the real man because it follows only his nature (that's one of the parts that I disagree with him, and that my point of view differs) . And nature for man, and for all other animals, is to seek survival, pleasure and avoid things that it does not like to do (Epicurianism, let's put it that way). Anything that limits the common man by his mind, laws, morality, fear, does not affect the übermensch. What he sees as something he can't do, for instance, break his own arm for no purpose, is something that he does not WANT to do, because it will cause him pain. But, let's say he likes to break his own arm.

[Fringe Pioneer]

The thing is, I'm saying that the only ethical framework the superman creates is his own ethical framework: nothing else and no one else is imposing it upon him. Indeed, he doesn't have to give himself a framework if he doesn't want it for himself: he has the freedom to do that. He also has the freedom to give himself an ethical framework, and who's to stop the truly free from giving themselves something of his own creation? If the superman wants to see certain things as right and certain things as wrong, then so be it. He has the full freedom to do that, and nothing and no one can stop him.

If the superman thinks he may not do something only because he does not want to do something, that's still an ethical framework - there are still things that he sees as right and wrong, it's only that he bases it off whether he naturally wants to do something or not...

[AlchmistFaust]

But the übermensch does not see things as right and wrong. Let's put an example:

1- He has an axe and he doesn't like a tree, for any reason, and he must cut the tree. Law would say that he can't do it on his own, because the tree is property of his neighbor, and his neighbor worships tree and sees cutting them as wrong. He goes and does it anyway, because he can and wants to, because for any reason he has to. If he needs to take down the tree because it blocks his house from the sun, or because he simply likes to cut trees and that gives him pleasure. He does not see the tree as wrong or right, he simply cuts it, because it he wants, has or feels like it, because it is an obstacle. Mind you that obstacles are not necessarilly wrong.

The übermensch can't give himself a personal moral or ethic because he does not see such things, he does not consider those things as something plausible and real, not because he is free. Nothing is trully free, there are several paradoxes that limit the infinite, see the "Can God create a stone he couldn't lift" example. He does not give himself laws, psychological limits and such because that goes against his own nature of being a true man, seeing that the true man knows no laws and his only limits are something physical, for instance, being an übermensch won't make you fly. And even though no one else is imposing the morals and ethics upon him, he himself is, and the übermensch does not impose something to himself. He can go step on a needle, but he will see it hurts, and so, he won't do it again. It does not mean that it is wrong to step on needles. That's what I mean.