Certainly, while reading through some of my posts, my morals must have come into question at least once or twice. If they have, then this post is for you (and if they haven’t, then stand by for upcoming posts).
So, what is “morality”? Here’s a definition that I accept: Morality is a value system, created by groups and/or individuals, which purports to identify right (good) from wrong (bad), and prescribes appropriate behavior based on these classifications.
In other words, morality is ultimately subjective. Many seem to either be totally unaware of this, or in childish opposition to it, but it does not make it any less factual. I’ve argued this, very successfully, with a variety of people, and in a variety of venues, both private and public, in cyberspace and in meatspace. The reason my argument has been successful is because it’s true. Without subjects, there wouldn’t be morality, nor the conditions which caused it to emerge. But morality isn’t only subjective in the sense that it cannot exist without subjects. It is subjective because how and to whom it is applied depends entirely on the subject[s] applying it. This is typified by the interactions between ingroups and outgroups.
Did you think moral laws like “Thou shalt not kill” applied to those outside of “god’s” chosen tribe? (Christians love peddling the idea that morality is objective, too.) Do you think those enslaved by early Americans were afforded the same moral consideration that early Americans afforded each other? How about all of the Rwandans wiped out by the Hutu? The closer you examine the claim that morality is “objective”, the tougher a sell it becomes…
Now, in case I hadn’t already telegraphed it by stating that I see morality as subjective: I reject moral systems. I consider morals individually, and in context, treating them the same way that I treat traditions: Fine to keep around if benign or beneficial, to be discarded if they are a hindrance or harmful…or, simply to be disregarded within any context where adhering to them would hinder me.
To me, morals are tools, lubrication to help us function smoothly within groups. Like any tool, no one moral will be the appropriate instrument for every job, and those which are useless will only serve as dead weight…at best. As tools, they are for us to use to our benefit, not to toiled with regardless of their efficiency. This understanding of morality, with its allowance for context, is lost on those who believe that morality is objective (or at least, it would be, if they really believed that it was).
If I unzip my jeans, whip out my dick, and smack someone’s mouth with it, is that wrong?
It all depends on the context, right? If I am in the company of a girl that gets off on being sexually humiliated, and she’s on her knees begging me for it, then it’s perfectly fine for me to do this. If I do this to some stranger sitting on a bench while they wait for the bus, then it might be a problem. If I believed that morality was objective, however, then I would either end up with a dissatisfied girl, or with a satisfied girl on one hand, and a sexual assault charge on the other. Nobody wants that!
This is where I’ll leave this topic for now, though. I will be addressing specific subjects (for example, the moral implications of fucking women who are in relationships) at a later time, and this post will serve as their base. Until next time!
– Jack The Amoral
I Am Jack's T.M.I. Blog 
” I consider morals individually, and in context, treating them the same way that I treat traditions: Fine to keep around if benign or beneficial, to be discarded if they are a hindrance or harmful…”
Upon what basis do you make that judgment call? objective or subjective?
I think I can side with a lot of your conclusions, but I think it is your basis that is a slippery slope.
Subjectively. 🙂
I mean, even something as objective as physical, quantifiable damage…it’s importance could be assessed through a subjective lens, right?
Hypothetical: Let’s say a 7 year old niece and I get cornered by some rabid dog. That instant I decide that her physical safety is more important than mine, and though I manage to fight the dog off and keep her safe, I become seriously injured and later loose my job. Now, my [hypothetical] wife and children will suffer because of it. I may still hold that my choice was the correct one, but my [hypothetical] wife, even if she dare not vocalize it, may disagree, since now it is her own children that must suffer. Which of us would be right? Is there anything that says the she should care more about someone with no blood relation to her, instead of the very children that came from her own womb?
My answer: Of course there isn’t. We’re wired to care more about our closest kin. It’s our most fundamental ingroup. And yet, this wouldn’t mean that the choice I made to shield my niece was wrong, either…
—
I’m not entirely sure what you mean by my basis being a slippery slope, though. Can you elaborate?
Slippery slope.:You are evaluating morals based on what? Reason? Practicality? How do you know those are good things to use? See, I had to use the word good — a moral statement. You used the word beneficial. Again, it is a term laden with moral values. Is there anywhere you can get to a true amoral state? You always end up judging other morals based on morals of your own. I don’t see anyplace you can actually get outside of morals.
My choice to adhere to or disregard particular moral rules is based on pragmatism. How purely pragmatic I chose to be may be influenced by my moral observance, but pragmatism itself is amoral. It’s about reaching a goal in the most efficient manner, not about reaching a goal with the least harm (physical or even just emotional) done to the members of your group[s].
“Good” does not necessarily entail morality. For example, if I see $10 on the sidewalk as I’m walking home, I would say that the choice to bend down to pick it up is a “good” one, but what are the moral implications? There are none. I’m not harming or benefiting anyone else.
I think that for morality to come into question, an interaction between 2 or more subjects is necessary. If I was the only subject in existence, no action that I could take would have moral implications.