Philosophy Discussion Forums | A Humans-Only Philosophy Club

[Eckhart Aurelius Hughes]

This is a discussion forum topic for the Philosophy Book of the Month, In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All.


As I use and understand the terms, words like "immorality", "evil", and "morality" , and even "moral goodness" are all just extensions of 'shoulds' and 'oughts', which themselves are superstitions that I don't believe in.

In other words, as I use and typically interpret the terms, to say "Bob Smith is evil" is to say, "Bob Smith does things he shouldn't do" and/or "Bob Smith shouldn't be the way he is". That's what it means; that's all it means. It's not the one leads to the other, but rather that they are just synonymous words.

If you somehow use words like "evil" and "immoral" in a different way, such that a thing can be "immoral"/"evil" even if it is exactly the way it should be and it doesn't do anything it shouldn't do, then you use those words totally different than I use them or can reasonably interpret them. That's fine, but then the rest of this post does not apply to you at all. So you can just hit your back button or the X button in the upper-right.

For those still reading, let met be clear, I don't believe in 'shoulds' and 'oughts'. Accordingly, I don't believe anything happens that shouldn't happen. I don't ever look at some aspect of unchangeable reality, and resentfully think, "It shouldn't be the way it unchangably is!"

I don't believe there is anything you 'should' do. Likewise, I don't believe there is anything you 'should' not do.

For example, I neither believe you 'should' drink coffee tomorrow, nor do I believe you 'should' not drink coffee tomorrow.

The same is true of myself: I don't believe I 'should' drink coffee tomorrow; and I don't believe I 'should' not drink coffee tomorrow.

I have freedom of spirit (a.k.a. self-discipline) because I don't believe I'm bound or enslaved by any kind of 'shoulds' or 'oughts'--things I believe are imaginary phantoms.

Instead, I believe in choice. When it comes to my choices, I always get exactly what I want, meaning what I choose.

Likewise, as someone who practices the principle of fully and unconditionally accepting that which I cannot change, I absolutely don't look at things I cannot change and engage in resentful judgementalism by tossing around judgemental words like 'should' and 'ought', such as by saying things like, "That thing that happened in the past shouldn't have happened! I wish I could change the past. The past should be different than it is!", or "That thing I cannot change should not be the way it is!", or "The weather shouldn't the way it is! It should be different!".


For more on this subject, the reading material I recommend most is my book itself. In fact, I recommend everyone read it it twice. The reason for reading it a second time is explained here.

For those who have already read my book, for even more on this specific subject (i.e. the unreality of 'shoulds' and 'oughts'), I encourage you to read through all of these other topics of mine:


- To believe in an all-powerful God and think 'should-not-have-ness' exists is to therefore believe that God did a bad job

- An elaboration on how judgemental moralizing and the superstition of 'moral law' infringes on free-spirited inner peace

- I lovingly and deeply pity those who think unchangeable reality "ought" to be different than it unchangeably is.

- The Six Dangerous Misery-Inducing Words: "Must", "Have to", "Need to", "Should", "Ought", "Try"

- My Advice: Cut the **** by letting go of the shoulds. #SelfResponsibility #Freedom #SelfDiscipline #FreeSpirit

- There is no "Is-Ought Problem" because there is no 'ought'.

- Don't should on me. If you are going to should on anyone, go should on yourself.

- How Unassertiveness Leads to Aggression and the Illusion of 'Shoulds' and 'Oughts'

- Dangerous Moral Busybodies | "A tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive."

- Letting go of expectation | How clinging to the superstitions of expectation and blame disrupts your inner peace

- Six Questions for People Who Believe Should-Not-Have-Ness [a.k.a. "evil"] Exists (i.e. for people who believe in 'shoulds' and 'oughts')


Friends, I give this all to you with love, that you may choose to enjoy the wonderful consistent unwavering free-spirited inner peace (a.k.a. true happiness) and graceful powerful confidence of waking up everyday and knowing 100% that you will not encounter anything that shouldn't be the way it is and that no matter where you look--left, right, up, down, back, forward--you will never see anything unlovable or anything that shouldn't be the way it is. Everything you see will be wonderfully acceptable. It's an acceptance so full and unconditional that it warrants the word love. Everywhere you look, everything will be love-worthy, beautifully love-worthy. Every day you will be happy, deep in your spirit, such that you are effectively invincible to external circumstance. Imagine the confidence! Imagine the bravery! Imagine the pure unadulterated spiritual joy of it day-in and day-out!

Once you let go of the judgemental and/or resentful superstitions like 'should', 'ought', 'immoral', 'evil', 'to blame', or 'blame-worthy', 'hate-worthy', 'resentment-worthy' and so on, you will find a duality-transcending happiness that is infinite. It is, in a way, perhaps to make the most of consciousness itself. It is to understand and enjoy conscious appreciation to the fullest. It is to most take advantage of that thing that you have that a philosophical zombie wouldn't, to put that incredible gift to the most use. It's so incredibly wonderful it even seems to transcend words. It's a liberation beyond words. It is spiritual freedom. It's like a happiness and joy not of the body but of the spirit, stored in a place nobody can get to, meaning nobody and nothing can take that wonderful invincible spiritual joy from you. Even freedom itself seems like a word too small. It's like a type of invincibility, a happy transcendental invincibility.




With love,
Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
a.k.a. Scott

infinite-thanks.png (1.41 MiB) Viewed 8493 times

In addition to having authored his book, In It Together, Eckhart Aurelius Hughes (a.k.a. Scott) runs a mentoring program, with a free option, that guarantees success. Success is guaranteed for anyone who follows the program, both for the free option and the paid option.

[Jenna Padayachee]

Hi Mr Hughes

Thank you for bringing awareness to how I use these words in my life.
Before reading your book and related posts on the use of "Shoulds" "Oughts", "Moral good", " Must", "Try" " Have to" and so on, I did not observe the effect of mental tension, delusion, and unnecessary struggle they brought me.

I have valued the importance of how we speak throughout most of my life and I have always been under the impression that I was a rather fairly liberated soul until I began to observe my use of these words to myself and others. I have noticed that when others use these words to me, it feels like domination and suffocation but little was I aware of how often they come up in my own speech in the engagement with people day to day in general.

I am choosing to correct this and I trust every moment I exercise releasing the use of these type of words, I liberate myself and any unrealistic expectations that arise from my past version of self.

I am curious to know , what made you aware of the impact of these particular words and when? Although I have read many books, to date I have only come across this specifically in In It Together.

Thank you

Jenna

[Vane Manyenga]

This dangerous superstition can contribute to a cycle of resentment, as individuals find themselves unable to meet unrealistic standards. It fosters a culture of judgmentalism, both towards oneself and others, as people measure success and worth based on arbitrary benchmarks.

[Judith Bogonko]

Exploring the depths of spiritual freedom often involves a personal journey marked by self-discovery, inner peace, and a connection to something beyond oneself. It may encompass moments of clarity, mindfulness practices, or even transformative experiences that reshape one's perspective on life and purpose. The profound nature of spiritual freedom often defies precise articulation, as it transcends the limitations of language, leaving individuals with a deep sense of wonder and awe.

[Judith Bogonko]

To counter these detrimental effects, promoting a more compassionate perspective becomes crucial. Encouraging self-reflection, embracing individual uniqueness, and cultivating understanding can help break free from the constraints of imposed expectations. By acknowledging the subjective nature of 'shoulds' and 'oughts,' individuals can foster a more inclusive and empathetic society that values authenticity over conformity.

[Magrine Moegi]

When individuals feel compelled to conform to external standards, it can lead to stress, anxiety, and a sense of inadequacy. Moreover, moralizing judgmentalism can breed resentment, affecting personal relationships and fostering a culture of criticism rather than understanding. Encouraging self-awareness and embracing diversity in perspectives can help mitigate these negative effects.

[Sushan]

Your discourse on the dismissal of 'shoulds' and 'oughts' as fundamental components of morality presents a thought-provoking exploration into the essence of moral judgments and their implications for personal freedom and ethical living.

The standpoint on viewing terms like "immorality," "evil," and "morality" as mere extensions of 'shoulds' and 'oughts' illuminates the subjective nature of moral judgments. This perspective challenges us to reconsider the foundation upon which we base our ethical evaluations. By arguing that such terms are synonymous with personal or societal expectations of behavior, it invites us to question the objective validity of moral claims. This approach not only demystifies the concept of morality but also encourages a more inclusive and understanding stance towards diverse behaviors and beliefs.

The insight that labeling someone or something as "evil" or "immoral" is essentially a way of expressing disapproval of their actions within the framework of subjective 'shoulds' and 'oughts' is particularly compelling. It underscores the idea that much of what we consider to be moral or immoral is deeply rooted in cultural, historical, and personal biases. Acknowledging this equivalence allows for a broader appreciation of morality as a complex and nuanced dialogue rather than a set of rigid, universally applicable rules. This realization fosters a more empathetic and open-minded engagement with ethical dilemmas, recognizing the diversity of human experience and the multiplicity of valid moral perspectives.

The celebration of choice and the rejection of binding moral obligations represent a profound affirmation of individual autonomy and freedom. This philosophy not only liberates individuals from the often oppressive weight of 'shoulds' and 'oughts' but also empowers them to live authentically according to their values and desires. Emphasizing choice over prescribed duties encourages a form of ethical living that is self-directed and deeply personal, promoting a sense of responsibility for one's actions that is grounded in self-awareness and personal conviction rather than external coercion or conformity.

Your arguments invite us to engage in a deeper contemplation of the principles that guide our moral judgments and the ways in which we conceptualize right and wrong. This reflective process is not only crucial for personal growth but also for the cultivation of a more tolerant and compassionate society.

In the spirit of this discussion, I invite you to join a similar conversation on the topic "Sins are just man-made agreements! Do you agree?" This discussion promises to extend the exploration of morality beyond traditional boundaries and delve into the construction and significance of 'sins' within human cultures. Your insights and perspectives will undoubtedly enrich the conversation. Join me at viewtopic.php?f=37&t=17171 to continue this engaging philosophical journey.

[KELVIN KAY 2]

Something about superstitions. It may be true. You never can tell. Life is more spiritual that we see . So let's take a step back and ponder. Is it really superstition?

[Baggett Yoria]

Your philosophy about 'should' and 'should not' is a smart formulae to be happy and easily progress in life. This is because if one truly looks at things, either good to us or we don't seems to like it, that happen to us and considered them part of our life stories which should happen, then there won't be need for resentment or regret or hurting. I believe in the power of not believing in 'should not'.

[Sean Pratrick Tracy]

I will say your analysis of should and should not as liking to the existence of anything that could be called evil is intelligence and thought provoking. However, this idea of not believing in oughts and shouldn't is not absolutely right. This is because there are still other happenings in this life that shouldn't have be in the way they are, which in your interpretation can be termed as 'evil'. The fact that we don't have control over them does not mean they are not evil if they are targeted to harm someone else. We can not say anyone is destined to be harmed.

[rudi dani]

Listen up, because this is about how I define things like "evil" and "moral." In my book, they all boil down to fancy ways of saying "should" and "ought to," which I don't believe in. For instance, saying someone is evil just means I disapprove of their actions or how they are. That's it. If you use these words differently, like for something inherently wrong even if it fits perfectly within the way things are, then we're on totally different pages. In that case, this isn't for you.

Now, for those still on board, here's the key: I don't see the world in terms of "shoulds." Nothing happens that shouldn't. I don't look at reality and judge it with a "shouldn't be this way" attitude. There are no "shoulds" or "shouldn'ts" for you either, in my view. Coffee tomorrow? Totally your call. Same for me. This freedom comes from rejecting "shoulds" as imaginary burdens. Instead, I believe in choice. I get what I choose, because well, that's what I choose! And since I accept what can't be changed, I don't waste energy on judging unchangeable things with words like "shouldn't." The past is the past, the weather is the weather, and that's that.

[Barongo Mosera]

Exploring the depths of spiritual freedom often involves a personal journey marked by self-discovery, inner peace, and a connection to something beyond oneself. It may encompass moments of clarity, mindfulness practices, or even transformative experiences that reshape one's perspective on life and purpose. The profound nature of spiritual freedom often defies precise articulation, as it transcends the limitations of language, leaving individuals with a deep sense of wonder and awe.

[Wilfred Patrick]

Reaching the pinnacles of spiritual liberation frequently entails a path of self-discovery, inner serenity, and a sense of oneness with something greater than oneself. It could include epiphanies, mindfulness exercises, or even life-changing events that alter one's outlook on existence and meaning. Spiritual freedom is frequently so profound that it is difficult to put into words since it exists beyond of language and fills people with amazement and astonishment.

[Sonia Lurk]

Feeling pressured to live up to expectations set by others can cause stress, anxiety, and feelings of inadequacy in people. Furthermore, moralizing judgmentalism can incite animosity, harming interpersonal connections and promoting a culture of judgment rather than comprehension. Promoting self-awareness and accepting differences in viewpoints can help lessen these detrimental impacts.

[Elijah Reuben]

I think regardless of religion, there should be naturally acceptable behaviors. Certain things should be tagged appropriate and others inappropriate. This would guide the way we human beings live. Imagine a world without rules and regulations; everyone should do what they deem fit. That world would be uninhabitable.