-Caveat Lector- <A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">
</A> -Cui Bono?-
Nurev Ind Research wrote:
>
> Sounds like Christian theology to me.
> There is no such thing as good or evil in the natural world.
> It is purely a human construct, and a random one at that.
--
from:
"The Moral Maze" by desertrat
<http://www.geocities.com/golwis/mmaze5.htm>
--
Part 5. The Deserted Island
Continuation from #4:
...You live on a deserted island, let's make it a
tropical paradise. You have a bunch of jetsom and
flotsom, gardening and construction tools, fishing
gear, guns, ammunition and an odd assortment of camping
gear. Other than this you are completely alone with the
plants and wild animals. At first, while you're
preparing to plant your garden, you wander around
hunting and gathering whatever you can find that's
edible, robbing the caches of squirrels and birds'
nests whenever you can find them. Is there anything
"immoral" about this? While You're out gathering, a
jaguar attacks you. Is the jaguar acting "immorally?"
In your own defense, you manage to kill the animal. You
take advantage of the kill by skinning and tanning the
hide and preserving the meat for later use as emergency
food or bait. Is this "good," "bad?" You return to your
camp and garden and notice that while you were out
gathering coconuts and killing jaguars that were
attacking you, a gopher or rabbit and a bunch of damn
tropical birds have been stealing from your garden.
Were they behaving "immorally?" You set some traps out
and try to discourage the birds from robbing you,
killing a few in the process. Let's say, you could have
used the dead bodies but just didn't feel like it so
you threw them away somewhere downwind of your camp for
some other wild animals to find. Are you a "bad" person
for wasting the bodies or for polluting the area
downwind of your camp?
*** Commentary ***
This is an amoral scenario. There is no moral or
immoral about any of this. There is only the law of
survival, the rule of success or failure. Not even the
cliche "might makes right" applies because there is no
objective "right" and "wrong." There is only success or
failure with luck or fate playing a role perhaps larger
than any of us is willing to imagine. You're lucky you
didn't wash up on an island inhabited by more fearsome
predators or more numerous and persistent parasites.
You might have been eaten by a crocodile or a hungry
lion, you might have been eaten alive by flies or ants.
All the moral protests in the world can do nothing to
save you in an amoral environment. But man has a
"moral" sense, (morality is at best, an illusion,) so
he naturally describes things in moral terms regardless
of its amoral nature. The sunset is "good," the leaking
roof is "bad," the taste of the coconut is "good,"
robbing a bird's nest is "good," killing a defenseless
baby bird is "bad," and so on. All such reasoning is
subjective, illusory, often delusional. The only guide
are one's emotions, not one's reason. Happiness, which
is the highest prize, is, after all, an emotion. What
makes the individual happy is for him "good." What
causes unhappiness is for him "bad."
*** The Story Continues ***
One day, there is a new arrival on the island. Another
human washes up on the beach. When your new companion
has recovered somewhat from exposure he wanders the
island and happens upon your camp. He immediately
demands that you provide him with food and shelter
since it is apparent that you have more than you need.
You're a bit surprised by his unfriendly manner and
refuse telling him to go gather some food the way you
did and to start his own garden. You aren't entirely
without compassion. You feel morally compelled to give
him a coconut or two because he's hungry, this would be
a very natural thing to do under the circumstances, I
think. You give him one of the jaguar skins you've
tanned because he's cold, you have more than you really
need and you want him to go away and leave you alone.
Secretly, of course, you're cursing at yourself because
you've already killed the jaguars that he would likely
have fallen prey to. He becomes very angry when you
tell him to go away and he storms off. That night he
sneaks into your camp and tries to steal some food from
your garden. Is he acting "immorally?"
*** More Commentary ***
How is his behavior any different from the behavior of
the tropical birds and the rodents? Only this, that he
"ought" to bahave differently, he "ought" to respect
your possessions. But if he chooses not to, he is only
"bad" or "immoral" from your subjective point of view.
>From HIS subjective point of view, he sees nothing
"wrong" with taking from you what you "should have"
given to him to begin with. Objectively, that is,
removing all of the subjective values, looking at what
"is" as opposed to what "ought to be," the man's
behavior is no different from the other animals. There
can be no "morality" between you so long as his
behavior is amoral. You must deal with him according to
the rule of success or faliure as you deal with all the
other animals. If you show him any kindness, it is no
different from the kindness you show defenseless or
suffering animals. This morality, this sense of "good"
and "bad," comes from your emotions.
*** The Story Continues ***
You respond in whatever manner you find most
appropriate, you try to reason with him, you threaten
him, whatever. He decides it's not worth taking your
property while you're there to protect it. He sneaks
back a few nights later and tries to kill you. Surprise
is on his side, he stabs you while you're sleeping with
a sharp piece of bone he found in his wanderings. But
luck is on your side, he can't pull the bone out to
stab you a second time so while he's yanking on this
bone that's lodged between your ribs you manage to grab
a gun blow his head off.
*** Commentary ***
Did he do anything "immoral?" Did you? How is his
behavior any different from a jaguar's if it had been a
jaguar that stole into your cabin while you were
sleeping and tried to kill you? How is his behavior any
different from your own behavior when you were hunting
for food? Where you living "honestly" when you shot
that bird the other day?
*** The Story Continues ***
You may have some crazy beliefs regarding humans. If it
were me, I'd either preserve the body for later use or
simply dispose of it somewhere downwind for scavengers
to find. You may wish to bury it with some sort of
ritual. A few weeks later, another man surfs up to the
shore riding on the plank of some sunken ship. He
strolls over to your camp and you have a pleasant
conversation with him. You invite him to dinner. Over
dinner he asks you where he could set up a camp of his
own, where are the best places to gather seeds and
start a garden, and whether it's safe out in the
jungle. You offer him some seeds that you've already
collected. You tell him where he can gather fruits. You
give him one of your guns and some ammunition just in
case any other jaguars have started expanding into the
territories of the one's you've killed and you let him
borrow some construction and gardening tools so he can
get started.
*** Commentary ***
So long as you and this new arrival respect each
other's person and possessions you are at peace. Though
morality will always be a form of illusion due to it's
subjectivity, so long as both of you are allowed to
behave in accordance with your individual moral
beliefs, it can be said that your relationship is a
moral one. It can be said that your morals, though
still subjective, are not pretense.
*** The Story Resumes ***
One day your neighbor notices that you are enjoying
your solitude in a manner inconsistent with his
personal moral beliefs. (Don't worry, I'm not going to
elaborate) He confronts you and tells you to stop at
once or else. "Or else what?" you say. "Or else God
will punish you severely."
*** Commentary ***
This is to say, a product of his imagination, this god,
has devised a code of morals which is objective and
absolute. "Good" is something defined by this imagined
third party. He could have tried giving you reasons why
he believes the behavior is "bad," but you are under no
obligation to accept his arguments regardless of their
reasonableness. If you like it, if it makes you happy,
if it doesn't harm anyone else, if it doesn't damage
anyone else's possessions, if it doesn't interfere with
anyone else's behavior, by all means, feel free.
*** Continuing the Story ***
Later, he actually interrupts you and generally makes
himself a nuisance.
*** Comment ***
You see, he believes that it is "good," that is to say,
that his imagined god wants to convince others that
this or that moral rule must be followed in order for a
person to truly live a happy life.
*** Story ***
His first attempts are benign. He tries to convince you
that he's right. Frustrated perhaps by his inability to
argue a convincing case or more likely frustrated with
your distrust or lack of interest, his next step is a
bit less benign. He becomes a screaming religious
fanatic. He badgers you about it whenever he gets the
opportunity hoping that eventually you will cease out
of frustration yourself.
*** Comment ***
It's not uncommon in nature for things to interrupt
your peace and quiet. The cicada sometimes can create a
deafening buzz. The same can be said of the great
tailed grackle when dozens of males congregate in one
tree competing for the attention of the females. With
less effort, a fly or a cockroach can completely spoil
your mood by nothing more than it's presence. The
difference with your average screaming fanatic is the
intent. But lest we be inconsistent, we must consider
such nuisances to be of an amoral nature regardless of
the human's supposed intelligence. You would think a
human "should" know better than to make himself a
nuisance, but all subjectivity aside, nuisances must be
dealt with amorally, that is, by the rule of success or
failure. If it's a noise that bothers you, complain to
the noisemaker, make him/it go away or plug your ears
and try to ignore it. Try to reason with it, if it
continues to bother you get up and move, if it follows
you, as a last resort, you might try shooting. Would
this be any different from swatting a fly or shooting a
noisy bird that just won't be discouraged? Personally,
I'd be reluctant to shoot a bird because I know it's
intention is not simply to bother me. I'd be reluctant
to shoot another human only becuase his friends would
call me a monster and kill me in retribution. And what
goes for noise goes equally well for sights and smells.
*** Back to the Story ***
You plead with him not to scream and annoy you. You
ball up some wax from a nearby beehive and stick it in
your ears. You tell him to return the items he
borrowed. He never returns what he borrowed claiming
that you gave those things to him. You're disappointed
by the new developments but decide to simply
discontinue the association and make no more agreements
with him. Some time later, he notices that one of your
garden plants produces a drug that you use occasionally
because it makes you feel good. He thinks this is a sin
and spends a few days screaming at you about how evil
it is for you to use the plant that way. You put up
with it as much as you can sticking the wax in your
ears again. You wake up one morning to find that having
become frustrated by your disinterest, your neighbor
has stolen into your garden and destroyed your plants.
*** Commentary ***
He obviously believes that his god wants him to do
this. Is he behaving morally? His behavior is no
different from the behavior of the tropical birds, the
rodents and the first human that landed on the island.
His relationship with you can no longer be said to be
moral. The morality that justifies his behavior is
moral pretense. You'd like to call this person
"immoral" because he's not behaving as he "ought" to
behave. He has the ability to live morally but chooses
not to. But immorality is an aspect of morality and has
no place in an amoral system. Morality and immorality
don't really exist, they exist only subjectively, in
the beholder's eye, or more precisely in the beholder's
brain. When two humans live at peace with one another,
their relationship can be called a moral one, but this
is only because they share a certain fundamental,
though subjective, value, that is, humans should above
all live at peace with other humans. Although this
moral sense is still illusion, it is fundamentally
consistent. When two humans do not share this same
fundamental value, when the fundamental value of one
human is that humans should obey the mosaic law, the
state law or some other law, when the value of humans
living at peace with one another takes a secondary
position in the "moral" sense of one human, that
human's morality is more pretense than illusion.
*** The Story Continues ***
You plant some more plants and this time watch them
carefully making sure that your neighbor doesn't
destroy them. Just when the plants are about ready to
harvest, your neighbor stumbles over a line that you've
hidden which triggers a noise making device that warns
you of your neighbor's intentions. You run out to the
garden with your AK-47 and fire a few warning shots
over your neighbor's head. You tell him not to approach
the plants, to turn around and go back to his camp. He
says, "You wouldn't shoot me in cold blood." You ask
him if he's seen you shoot and kill the birds, gophers
and other rodents that have tried to destroy your
plants. "And I respect the rodents more than I respect
you," you say. "Those rodents haven't the intelligence
to live morally with other rodents much less with
humans. They live amorally, but you have the capacity
to live morally and yet you choose to act amorally
destroying my plants like those birds, gophers and
other rodents that I've been destroying. You're
morality is mere pretense. Go back to your camp and
leave me in peace or you force me to deal with you as
I've dealt with all the other wild animals on this
island." He stares at you with a blank dumbfounded
expression. He doesn't really comprehend your words
much less your reasoning, but he feels you're just
crazy enough to kill him so he backs down, for now.
Hopefully he'll just move away somewhere and die. After
several more years of peaceful solitude, the inevitable
occurs... continued in Re #6: (never completed) Re #6
would actually have been a rather pessimistic piece, a
metaphor of my own belief about the present and the
future. I'm not certain I should share it. I'm not
certain I should have shared these last five posts. I
don't imagine it will do anyone any good. I haven't
really said anything that hasn't been said before....
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are not allowed. Substance�not soap-boxing! These are sordid matters
and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, misdirections and outright
frauds�is used politically by different groups with major and minor effects
spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought. That being said, CTRL
gives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and always suggests to readers;
be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no credence to Holocaust denial and
nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://home.ease.lsoft.com/archives/CTRL.html
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
