Individualistic Morality

Baines vs Barcell on morality:

Baines:

existential nihilist and ethical egoist who believes that morality and ethics are foolish "limits" that the human mind projects onto itself because it is taught that way by a pre-established society and that life is worthless

He is an existential nihlist who believes that humans are hypocrites for valuing human life as special, but remorselessly crushing an ant, also a sentient being who can feel pain and death, and views religion as an oboslete fallacy humans have, just like their belief in ancient gods that were rendered obsolete through proper human inspection

He believes that the true law of nature is in fact consequentialistic darwinism, as exhibited by every other species, including man, to ever live, and the only way to achieve true happiness and live life to it's true potential ("True" Self-Actualization) is to live life to the it's fullest hedonistic enjoyment and indulge their whims, as it is the only time one will have to live, as any notion of an afterlife is a fallacy.


He is a moral nihilist believes "good" and any such cases of moral objectivism and altruistic ethics are nothing more than meaningless collectivism proprogated by religion and other pre-established societal conditions, and that humans are not intristinsitically altrusitic and only act such a way wasting their lives because they are "trying to earn brownie points to some fluffy cloud". He is a opportunistic ethical egoist who believes that the true worth of an action is how much it will benefit the individual

He is an individualist who believes that the only way to find true happiness for onself is not to be forced to sacrifice one's joys so they can assimilate themself into a collectivist estabilshment, but follow their happiness, regardless of societal implications, as such judgements by society are meaningless and foolish as it is impossible true objective viewpoint of ones actions and every human is flawed and thus unqualified to cast judgement


You are Barcell. Counter this argument....

Ok, this is my first try at this...

I probably would not (probably could not) try to argue against the beliefs/doctrin portion of the thesis, but argue against the actions/way of life suggested.

In attempting to live to the fullest & ignore judgements by society, one may find themselves locked up in one of society's special places for nihilists (many of whom don't even know they are nihilists). Where they may find it much harder to enjoy life to it's fullest, since bigger tougher nihilists there may intentionally remove that joy, as a form of entertainment.

But if Bains is a sado masochist as well, this argument may hold little sway.

Barcell.

He is an individualist who believes that the only way to find true happiness for onself is not to be forced to sacrifice one's joys so they can assimilate themself into a collectivist estabilshment, but follow their happiness, regardless of societal implications, as such judgements by society are meaningless and foolish as it is impossible true objective viewpoint of ones actions and every human is flawed and thus unqualified to cast judgement


You are Barcell. Counter this argument....

Dear Kursh36,

I do not know what you expect from us, and I do not know who Baines is, but the way you describe him, he is decided, he knows his way. So he doesn't need Barcells advice (or anyone else's). Wouldn't you think so?

best wishes philohof

Maldon007 has it right - the more people follow this particular way of life, the lower the standard of living for everyone becomes. Acting by the principles of ethical egoism achieves the exact opposite of what it aims for, that's why it's wrong.

Maldon007 has it right - the more people follow this particular way of life, the lower the standard of living for everyone becomes. Acting by the principles of ethical egoism achieves the exact opposite of what it aims for, that's why it's wrong.

Or it is exactly the other way round: the more people follow the common way of life, they will end up having no lifes of their own. That is: no lifes at all. The standard of living cannot sink deeper than that.

Philohof

That assumes the common way of life is only common for reasons other than it being rewarding & bringing happyiness to those who live it...

So an existential nihilist, as described might have a fine life, if the whims he acts on, are not deemed antisocial enough to rise to the level of broken laws/ruined relationships (if he values relationships). But if his whims include murder, he will likely end up not having the fun he was looking for. Though, again, if being put in prison is not a negative to him he may still be having fun!

Yes, in the case that the common way of life is not rewarding, you are right.

But please note that the same is not only true for the "existential nihilist". There could be also a truly ethical person who cares for others and tries to live after the moral rules. But sociecty - which has an opinion on morals, too - could differ in its moral judgement from that one of our ethical person.

Maybe the best thing in this case would be to give up thinking for oneself and stick to the rules of society?

Yet another in a long line of sophomoric arguments aimed at convincing the gullible that being a monumental anti-social arsehole is somehow laudable. So, I guess that, by this guy's lights, Caligula was good and Gandhi was bad.

The idea of existentialism is amorphous and not only married to the concept of nihilism. It is the individual ability to interact in an authentic way with others weather it be as part of a collective or of a loose affiliation of personalities with their own subjective insights and responses. Post modern collectivists attempt to dissolve this dynamic as illegitimate at the potential peril of humanity. Its implications suggest that human ingenuity must be synthesized to create some ultimate system that will somehow function in an ordered and just fashion despite the foibles of subjective variation. Because someone values individual freedom does not mean he can comprise or in essence play well with others. Without varying perspectives in this modern world where technology and communication are advancing at an unprecedented exponential rate, systems including; moral, technical, spiritual, economic ect.. would all have a tendency to move towards chaos even quicker. Collective systems are an attempt to find consensus in an inorganic way through the use of force and or social pressures. This inevitably leads to a split between orthodoxy and revisionism that could be avoided by allowing for a looser affiliation of humanity. A truly free society would allow for collectives to form and function freely within the system without having been forced to do so and without giving them any special privileges against individuals within the whole of the free society . Individuals may then react in a positive way when seeing certain groups function and seek to either join a collective that they hold in esteem or to perhaps create a collective of there own.

>>Collective systems are an attempt to find consensus in an inorganic way through the use of force and or social pressures. This inevitably leads to a split between orthodoxy and revisionism that could be avoided by allowing for a looser affiliation of humanity. A truly free society would allow for collectives to form and function freely within the system without having been forced to do so and without giving them any special privileges against individuals within the whole of the free society. Individuals may then react in a positive way when seeing certain groups function and seek to either join a collective that they hold in esteem or to perhaps create a collective of there own.

Your use of the terms such as "subjective veriation", "authentic" and "inorganic" is problematic for me. You claim that inorganic ways of imposing order lead to a split which could be avoided. This is vague. Does it necessarily need to be avoided or does it only need to be avoided sometimes? There are many good reasons to impose some limitations on human behavior of both individuals and collectives. What if some people do not react in a "positive" way to "seeing certian groups function"? What if some people positively decide to create a collective of people who murder homosexuals, people who smoke pot or people who drive hummers? MUST my truly free society NECESSARILY refuse to allow for the invocation of an institutional privilege to act to limit the behavior of these collectives?

I will attempt to be more specific as I was sharing some of my personal views of individualism in a free society without specifically describing what I meant by a free society. I espouse the idea of minarchy or a system of government that is stripped down to the bare essentials. Since there is no society that has achieved the creation of a sustainable type of energy and the use of renewable food sources there would still need to be a military for the common defense of the people within the country. Beyond this there would be a court system to enforce contract law and a police force to be a deterrent against violence to protect individuals and their property . The main difference between what I am suggesting and what the USA has now is that now collectives( mostly corporations) are able to gain special favors through the creations of regulations by un-elected officials in executive bureaucracies (which often take on the air of a favored collective within the whole themselves) that are able to enforce unfair practices through the imposition of their monopoly on force. The reason this system would be so limited is so that the society as a whole could benefit from human ingenuity and activity as more people would be involved in free enterprise and cutting their own deals.

I spoke of the dynamic between orthodoxy and revisionism as they pertain to collectives. I am of the mind that modern nation states are all variations of collectives. As the nation states governing influence expands on a macro level local communities become more subservient. This constant ebb and flow of the struggle between orthodoxy and revisionism is inevitable in any nation that depends on money and focuses its efforts on competing for resources. It takes money to make money and when a national government driven by national orthodoxy seeks to take resources from the people by force to use to try and make money in the global economy revisionists who do not agree with how the money is being spent or how much is being extracted from them will organize in opposition.

I base these ideas on a few basic premises.

1) The less government that exist the less corruption there will be. As the government grows accountability wanes and people become distrustful , there is a massive us against them dynamic that is moving through out the worlds nations as we speak. This is largely due to corporations who have been able to exploit national governments and then governments exploit their polities. The biggest examples here would be the international banking cartels , oil companies and the weapons and defense industries.

2) The idea of authenticity and inorganic were meant to be used in conjunction with one another as well as measuring device a cause and effect relationship. The more inorganic a system is ( over regulated , and over manned with citizens keeping less and less of what they earn in order to support a paradigm that does not necessarily have their best interests in mind) the less authentic productive energy will be available or initiated in local communities. If people all over the country had more personal responsibility when it came to providing for themselves there would be more authentic and innovate approaches to running communities efficiently. The more efficiently local communities were able to function the less need there would be for expansive national governments.

3) I do not believe that we have devolved enough from our growing reliance on the government that we could not sufficiently deal with groups such as gay haters, and hummer driver killers or that we would let people starve in the streets. The fact that there would be less of a national government would mean that people would organize more at local levels groups to voluntarily lend support to the assurance of the smooth operations of their communities. These examples already exist in charitable organizations, neighborhood watches and fire brigades.

Baines: existential nihilist and ethical egoist who believes that morality and ethics are foolish "limits" that the human mind projects onto itself because it is taught that way by a pre-established society and that life is worthless

Such an attitude is only possible when you are living in a society where cooperation already provides most of your needs. If you have to provide everything for yourself—food, clothing, shelter, medicine—and you cannot buy anything, then cooperation is essential to rise above a bare minimum standard of living. In fact you spend so much effort on getting the basics that the notion of developing your individuality is way down the list— something you may never get to.

Baines vs Barcell on morality:

Baines:

existential nihilist and ethical egoist who believes that morality and ethics are foolish "limits" that the human mind projects onto itself because it is taught that way by a pre-established society and that life is worthless

He is an existential nihlist who believes that humans are hypocrites for valuing human life as special, but remorselessly crushing an ant, also a sentient being who can feel pain and death, and views religion as an oboslete fallacy humans have, just like their belief in ancient gods that were rendered obsolete through proper human inspection

He believes that the true law of nature is in fact consequentialistic darwinism, as exhibited by every other species, including man, to ever live, and the only way to achieve true happiness and live life to it's true potential ("True" Self-Actualization) is to live life to the it's fullest hedonistic enjoyment and indulge their whims, as it is the only time one will have to live, as any notion of an afterlife is a fallacy.


He is a moral nihilist believes "good" and any such cases of moral objectivism and altruistic ethics are nothing more than meaningless collectivism proprogated by religion and other pre-established societal conditions, and that humans are not intristinsitically altrusitic and only act such a way wasting their lives because they are "trying to earn brownie points to some fluffy cloud". He is a opportunistic ethical egoist who believes that the true worth of an action is how much it will benefit the individual

He is an individualist who believes that the only way to find true happiness for onself is not to be forced to sacrifice one's joys so they can assimilate themself into a collectivist estabilshment, but follow their happiness, regardless of societal implications, as such judgements by society are meaningless and foolish as it is impossible true objective viewpoint of ones actions and every human is flawed and thus unqualified to cast judgement


You are Barcell. Counter this argument....

People tend to believe that ethics should be judge by the individual which is true. No one should be an ethical slave to anyone. But then again people get upset that people are unethical, and hypocrites. So there is a conflicting conclusion here about whether or not people should be ethical or not. I am thinking some ethics or needed, but then no one should be a total ethical slave to just anyone, and no one should get upset if people are not complete ethical slaves because people have a right to their freedom. So some ethics are needed, but I guess it would depend on the situation. I don't know who Barcell is, but I am just stating my opinion. Ethics is the hardest thing for me to understand and judge in philosophy.

Maybe the best thing in this case would be to give up thinking for oneself and stick to the rules of society?

I think the "rules of society" depending on how you define them, gives people a fairly wide continuum of acceptable lifestyles/behaviors. And if you don't mind moving, there may be countries/locals that even more specifically suit a given predilection.

I am refering more to breaking laws & ending up somewhere unpleasant... But if it is basic acceptance you are looking for, as in a need for the approval of society, that is a far narrower continuum... And is just not gonna work out if your doing the wrong crazy stuff

People tend to believe that ethics should be judge by the individual which is true. No one should be an ethical slave to anyone. But then again people get upset that people are unethical, and hypocrites. So there is a conflicting conclusion here about whether or not people should be ethical or not. I am thinking some ethics or needed, but then no one should be a total ethical slave to just anyone, and no one should get upset if people are not complete ethical slaves because people have a right to their freedom. So some ethics are needed, but I guess it would depend on the situation. I don't know who Barcell is, but I am just stating my opinion. Ethics is the hardest thing for me to understand and judge in philosophy.

This is exactly what I would say, too. If there is any ethics, it is individualistic ethics. Because otherwise the individual is not the subject of his/her actions. I am not sure the same thing is valid for morals, because morals (coming from latin "mores") are installed by society. They do not originate from the human being reflecting on what would be the right thing to do.