This movie was by far my favorite of the three. There wasn’t actually anything I disagreed with this time. None of the religious conspiracy theories. I’m very impressed, I recommend you watch it.
Archive for the happy Category
It has been my humble observation that many of the non-religious are confused with the topic of morality and ethics in how it would be rationally extended from their particular breed of reasoning. Don’t get me wrong, the religious aren’t the masters of logical consistency, but this is specifically directed towards the unbeknownst confusion asserted from those who claim the negation of faith. By confused I refer to internal inconsistency within their perspective. In this blog-post I will discuss how the rational extension of non-religiosity in regard to ethics leads to Nihilism.
Regardless of how unpleasant it may seem to refer to morality as an illusion, the intellectually-honest non-religious individual must do so in-order to hold internal consistency.
First, a definition of terms; morality and ethics is a description of values and behavior that one ought to have. It is not simply describing behavior that is but rather behavior that ought to be.
To define ethics as simply a type of behavior in no way means that one ought to behave that way. The famous philosopher, David Hume, aptly pointed out that it is logically impossible to derive an ought from an is–or a value from a fact. So while you may define Altruism, compassion, and kindness as ethical behavior, you are really just describing a type of behavior that is, not one that ought to be.
It’s important to properly understand that ethics and morality is based on how things ought to be. To say giving food to the homeless is kind is completely different than saying that one ought to give food to the homeless. The statement that giving food to the homeless is kind, that is a fact. But to derive a value out of that, saying being kind is a value, that does not logically derive from the fact that giving food to the homeless is kind. You could also say the statement that beating up the homeless for fun is unkind is a fact–so would you then say that you ought to value being unkind, simply because it is a fact? No, all you are doing is stating facts and you’ll never get a value out of that. If someone kills another in cold-blood, it is a fact, it is what is whether or not one ought to have done it.
Now, remember, saying one ought to do this or do that is entirely different than the subjective statement of “I prefer to do this or that”. For example, I prefer water to soda but that does not mean I say one ought to drink water. A Nihilist may be reading this now who understands and agrees with everything I’ve written so far. Most likely they are someone who would say “I prefer people to be kind” or “I strongly dislike killing”, but they acknowledge that as their own subjective preference and they don’t believe in any kind of morality. So subjective preference, of preferring things to be a certain way, is in no way at all what morality and ethics is about. In this sense, Nihilists are Egoists. The Egoist who says self-pleasure is moral has purely a semantical difference with Nihilism, in actuality there’s no difference in how they behave.
To pull morality out of a hat, to derive an ought from an is, requires some convoluted sense of faith. So if you’re an individual who claims to be non-religious and asserts no code of morality then, congratulations, your ethics are consistent with your reasoning which produced your rejection of faith.
I also find it necessary to point out two different attitudes of Nihilism; Passive and Active.
Passive Nihilism is indicative of a decline in a personal sense of control. It is characterized by the inability to create, or in the extreme to react. The Passive Nihilist is one who, when faced with the world’s uncertainty, withdraws and refuses to engage the world. For him, uncertainty is a sufficient condition not to proceed through life, and so paralyzed by fear of the unknown and unknowable he does nothing or even to the extent that it can no longer be bared which results in insanity or suicide. The famous philosopher Frederich Nietzsche described this condition as “the weary Nihilism that no longer attacks..a passive Nihilism, a sign of weakness”.
Active Nihilism on the other hand, is indicative of a relative increase in a sense of personal control. The Active Nihilist sees freedom where the Passive Nihilist sees loss or meaninglessness. He chooses action and creation instead of passivity and withdrawal. For him, the lack of objective standards of moral truth motivates self-created standards and criteria. The Active Nihilist is not active despite the unknown but because of it. He possesses a store of creative energy and power which allows him to impose personal meaning on the world while never forgetting that he is the source of it all and progenitor of that meaning. He is heroic in this sense, facing the world with courage and purpose.
This short inquiry is not exhaustive in the least and would be chancy to change any minds but I felt it necessary of my own desire to give my two cents on the matter. Nihilism can be a very confusing thing for some people, especially those who see Nihilists like me who would easily confuse me with come kind of Gandhi character espousing robust Altruism. But so I don’t disappoint their mis-guided view of Nihilism as a meaningless, heartless and void of all things good I’ll close off by saying that I wish all my Nihilist friends well while they go brutally anal rape some crippled people and blow-up a church.
Through-out mankind’s history you have attempted to oppress us with your vision of morality. Every-time the world fell into chaos you cried “No, my code has been broken, that is what has caused this”. You pleaded that your code is a just one but mankind’s nature is not just enough to follow it. The world has, since the rising of modern society, been in a battle between those who tell us our rights are bestowed of us by God, a matter to be taken on faith, and those who tell us our rights are a gift society, to be changed at their arbitrary whim. Those who told you your right to life, to think and be a moral, rational being, is a matter to be dictated by your master; the all powerful sky-fairy. And those who replace this intellectual slave-holder with another; the collective, who say your purpose of living is to support it. But no one came to defend YOU and your right to YOURSELF, by the means of REASON, to your own ends of the preservation and advancement of your own happiness in a just way that does not conflict with rights of others to what is needed to secure what reason entitles them.
Your morality is the code of non-productivity. If it were not for greed, the very incentive for constructing the systems I am using to communicate with you now, we would still be in the dark-ages, which indeed was a time completely dominated by your so called code of morality. If it were not for lust, the very incentive for the creation of my existence and the capacity to think so to communicate with you now, intelligent life would have never arisen. If it were not for pride, the acknowledgment of ones own self-value and incontrovertible right to happiness, the very incentive that gets you up in the morning, puts nourishment in your belly, has you make plans of the future for your success and progression of your personal well-being, we would be reduced to savagery, unidentifiable from the animals. Only an irrational being would pursue a coarse which is knowingly to them the one of unhappiness. Even those who believe in heaven do what they do on Earth what they think gets them to heaven instead of hell. I do not hear of anyone who thinks doing good will put them in hell and then willingly chooses it. The pursuit of happiness, by the grace of REASON, is THE most basic purpose for a creature capable of feeling it.
You say without God there is no purpose? I say that since we can feel happiness, by REASON, we have a purpose to feel it. Not only will a rational man declare his undeniable right to that pursuit but also the way of which it must be obtained. For the highest quality results, it must work as a social system, one in which the pursuit of this principle is equal for all individuals. One that allows the most possible FREEDOM, the means of obtaining happiness, to each person as long as they aren’t interfering with the freedom of others so far as that person can use it with the same principle. This means no murder, no theft, no slavery, no rape, no fraud concerning the exchange of property, no reckless endangerment, etc. It is only through the critical and objective deduction of reason that any truth can be found, that purpose or justice can exist, not by the act of any god. If it is not to be decided by reason, that would make it unreasonable, which makes it invalid of exercising. You say your God creates reason? Since circular reasoning is impossible that would mean reason could not cause the nature of your God, which would make the nature of that God unreasonable and thus invalid of existing and unworthy of any worship even if it did.
The most selfish thing is the independent mind which recognizes no authority higher than it’s own. Selfishness, being defined as the pursuit of the preservation and advancement of ones own happiness, can have no negative outcome if it is pursued in only ways that do not conflict with the same pursuit of another. The two oppositions of this policy are self-denial, willingly causing ones own unhappiness. And the other, social injustice, the despicable imposing of your will upon the that of another. Each of those having no rationally justifiable consequences.
I think it is wrong to say that humans are humans because we have the ability to choose to end our lives and animals do not. I tell you, animals certainly will choose death, if they think it will bring them happiness, just as humans will. But what makes humans human is the ability to reason whether it truly will or not. Happiness and suffering, the two fundamental emotions, pleasure and pain, the two fundamental sensations, are evolutionary products to increase the outcome of life over death and act as direct sensual extensions of the two…but it is not perfect. For evolution does not make perfection but merely something that is usually just good enough. If you teach an ape that the administration of a certain drug to it’s other ape counter parts will certainly kill them by means of injection and then administer a small amount to the ape, a drug which actually causes extreme satisfaction, then give it a choice to have more, it indeed will choose death, able to reason that the drug will bring happiness but not that once it is dead it will be unable to experience it any further happiness. The human-being CAN, the human has the ability to reason that more happiness can actually be obtained by not taking the drug.
Just like happiness and pleasure are an extension of life, and unhappiness and displeasure an extension of death. So is your morality, being the morality of self-denial and social-injustice, also an extension of death. To every ends driving your actions, presumed preferable by that of your twisted code, your premise and goal is death. And your morality has for ages been highly successful at delivering this goal. My morality is the morality of life. Soon, just like the principles of life have conquered biology so shall it conquer culture. The time of your supposed morality is coming to an end, you know this. No longer will suffering, both for ourselves and others, drive our actions—but happiness!
And what it happiness? It is a state of non-contradictory joy, one that does not clash with negative sensation, emotion, or any of your personal values, having been obtained by reason. Not the joy a drunkard but of a producer, not that of escaping reality, but of using your minds fullest power.
If any of these words reach you and have begged you to finally ask the hard questions than let me leave you with these last words to ponder; Now that you may be realizing why civilization ever crumbles at it’s own hands, know that to correct it we need NOT to return to morality but to discover it.
I am now officially coining the term “Systemism”.
Sure, during a Google search I’ve seen it used a few times before but it has in no way become a popularized term. I’d like to do that now, and by my definition of it.
The First Tenet of Systemism is:
Every conscious entity with the ability to feel both happiness and non-happiness logically has from thence a direct, intrinsic and unalienable purpose to pursue the former.
The Second Tenet of Systemism is:
The way in which happiness can be most logically obtained is through an integrated system on an individual’s environment which applies the desired outcome of the first tenant universally. That is, a system which causes the most happiness for every individual contained within it.
The Basic Statement of Systemism:
Happiness is purpose and knowing how to best obtain it is morality.
Political implication of Systemism:
A Systemist should look for a political system which provides the best average between the highest maximum standard of living and the highest minimum standard of living. Systemism is not necessarily a majority rule. Since it implies a minimum standard of living it would be wrong, according to Systemism, for one group to be suppressed by another simply because it makes the majority happier.