Morality

[Mister E]

Just something I thought up/put into words, don't know whether I'm stating the obvious or not.

If we accept that a: we're forced to do things by our unconscious/readiness potential/etc. etc., and the ultimate conscious aim of our actions is to gain happiness within life, then the best path to take about life is the one that most easily achieves happiness. Obviously we can't do this either, since say, for me to be happy on the basis that I want to be happy is something I cannot comprehend. So I conclude that the overall objective of life is to do the easiest thing possible which you can truly comprehend doing to gain happiness.

Living in a society where everyone is generally selfish, yet a society which attributes charity and philanthropy to being a good thing, one could say that the easiest way of gaining happiness is to attribute happiness with helping others - as it is incredibly easy to do whilst being understandable. This objective is felicifically easiest too (even if society was to change to being selfless, you could always be selfish in order to fulfill other's needs, thus fulfilling your own, etc. etc. . The core ethic would always be achieveable until a utopia was reached, or society annihalated).

Discussion? It looks relatively logical to me.

[discus70]

Happiness must be defined.

Everyone is going to have their own interpretation of what it means to be happy. A serial Killer is generally happy with killing people. You mentioned a bit about consciousness. Letting go of the ego is a very hard and daunting task, it takes lot's of practice to try and reach an ego-less state. Even the most conscious people still have ego. Its just a matter of trying to keep themselves in a state of awareness.

Morality is governed by society, and in my opinion morality comes from being able to understand suffering, while at the same time being able to understand our self serving actions. Being able to realize that humans are animalistic in nature. Survival is our primary goal. Our actions and behavior are a result of this self preservation type mechanism on a more subconscious level. The good acts stem from understanding what it's like to suffer. compassion, kindness, empathy, sympathy ect.

The only action I have a hard time explaining is love.

[bernee51]

Happiness must be defined.

Everyone is going to have their own interpretation of what it means to be happy. A serial Killer is generally happy with killing people.

And differentiating between happiness (joy) and pleasure. Many confuse the two.


You mentioned a bit about consciousness. Letting go of the ego is a very hard and daunting task, it takes lot's of practice to try and reach an ego-less state. Even the most conscious people still have ego. Its just a matter of trying to keep themselves in a state of awareness. [/quote]

Ego is not the issue Without ego nothig would be achieved. Even the msot 'enlightened' have ego.

What they may not have is attachment to that ego. Or to the idea of an ego.

Morality is governed by society, and in my opinion morality comes from being able to understand suffering, while at the same time being able to understand our self serving actions. Being able to realize that humans are animalistic in nature. Survival is our primary goal. Our actions and behavior are a result of this self preservation type mechanism on a more subconscious level. The good acts stem from understanding what it's like to suffer. compassion, kindness, empathy, sympathy ect.

Survival of genes is the primary goal - not survival of the individual. Survival of a community relies on altruism, survival of an individual relies on egoism.

The only action I have a hard time explaining is love.

Every action is guided by the mindful awareness of the happiness and well being of all.

[discus70]

I guess I could of worded that a bit better. Your points are very valid


All though, we can only infer if the murder is in a state of joy or happiness. It could go either way.


Your explanation of Love is rather vague. It doesn't clarify why we love, or need to be loved.

Survival of an individual CAN rely on the ego, it doesn't have to.

[Mister E]

Happiness must be defined.

Everyone is going to have their own interpretation of what it means to be happy. A serial Killer is generally happy with killing people.

And differentiating between happiness (joy) and pleasure. Many confuse the two.

Ok, I'll redefine the objective of life as "The greatest possible human life, lived humanely", as Grayling puts it.

You mentioned a bit about consciousness. Letting go of the ego is a very hard and daunting task, it takes lot's of practice to try and reach an ego-less state. Even the most conscious people still have ego. Its just a matter of trying to keep themselves in a state of awareness.

I pretty much solved my ego problem via self taught cognitive therapy, it's much easier to achieve at a younger age whilst an adolescent is going through his ego-identity crisis. Not that I don't have an ego, just that is isn't as difficult as you say it is to keep under conscious control.

Morality is governed by society, and in my opinion morality comes from being able to understand suffering, while at the same time being able to understand our self serving actions. Being able to realize that humans are animalistic in nature. Survival is our primary goal. Our actions and behavior are a result of this self preservation type mechanism on a more subconscious level. The good acts stem from understanding what it's like to suffer. compassion, kindness, empathy, sympathy ect.

Survival of genes is the primary goal - not survival of the individual. Survival of a community relies on altruism, survival of an individual relies on egoism.[/quote]

I'm pretty sure it's the other way round, with survival of the individual at evolution's core. The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins, explains we have evolved to be selfish, which (because of its links with good/success/joy/etc. etc.) gives us our primary aims in life. I have a PDF of it if you'd like.

On love - the four definitions of love, etc. etc. mean you can't really define love as a whole. Altruistic love/interpersonal love/romantic love/sexual love are separate, I think those are the four.

[bernee51]

Survival of genes is the primary goal - not survival of the individual. Survival of a community relies on altruism, survival of an individual relies on egoism.

I'm pretty sure it's the other way round, with survival of the individual at evolution's core. The Selfish Gene - Richard Dawkins, explains we have evolved to be selfish,...[/quote]
I believe I was pretty well paraphrasing Dawkins. We are merely 'gene-containers'. The individual means nothing as long as the genes survive - and they can survive in a community (species).

On love - the four definitions of love, etc. etc. mean you can't really define love as a whole. Altruistic love/interpersonal love/romantic love/sexual love are separate, I think those are the four.

Do any of these apply conditions to love? If so they are not love they are love's near enemy, attachment

I pretty much solved my ego problem via self taught cognitive therapy,...

Really? How does that work?

Not that I don't have an ego, just that is isn't as difficult as you say it is to keep under conscious control.

That sounds like the words of an ego.

[Mister E]

I believe I was pretty well paraphrasing Dawkins. We are merely 'gene-containers'. The individual means nothing as long as the genes survive - and they can survive in a community (species).

Dawkins tells us to survive effectively in a community, but he specifically says to rebel against the selfish gene that tells us to work towards individual selfishness. The book explains how evolution is wired towards to passing on of the individual's genes, not the species as a whole, thus the link.

edit - I explained that ineffectively. "Genes that get passed on are the ones whose consequences serve their own implicit interests (to continue being replicated), not necessarily those of the organism, much less any larger level. This view explains altruism at the individual level in nature, especially in kin relationships (when an individual sacrifices its own life to protect the lives of kin, it is acting in the interest of its own genes)."

Do any of these apply conditions to love? If so they are not love they are love's near enemy, attachment

Only altruistic love - I never took attachment into account so I agree with you.

I pretty much solved my ego problem via self taught cognitive therapy,...

Really? How does that work?

Cognitive therapy essentially being improving your abilitiy to supress unconscious decisions, which is where the majority of your ego is stored (in memory matrices). Since that would take a lot of effort I also used techniques like anchoring and reframing out of NLP - though NLP in itself is a psuedoscience, the methods behind it are (generally) sound.

Not that I don't have an ego, just that is isn't as difficult as you say it is to keep under conscious control.

That sounds like the words of an ego.

There still is an ego, it's just that the less reasonable decisions made by it are suppressed. I like to be subjectively objective if you see what I mean. By "ego-problem" I mean the decisions made by the ego which affect the purity of happiness.

An reasonable example of ego getting in the way of judgement would be phobias.

[bernee51]

I believe I was pretty well paraphrasing Dawkins. We are merely 'gene-containers'. The individual means nothing as long as the genes survive - and they can survive in a community (species).

Dawkins tells us to survive effectively in a community, but he specifically says to rebel against the selfish gene that tells us to work towards individual selfishness. The book explains how evolution is wired towards to passing on of the individual's genes, not the species as a whole, thus the link.

edit - I explained that ineffectively. "Genes that get passed on are the ones whose consequences serve their own implicit interests (to continue being replicated), not necessarily those of the organism, much less any larger level. This view explains altruism at the individual level in nature, especially in kin relationships (when an individual sacrifices its own life to protect the lives of kin, it is acting in the interest of its own genes)."

I think this means we agree...

Do any of these apply conditions to love? If so they are not love they are love's near enemy, attachment

Only altruistic love - I never took attachment into account so I agree with you.

i.e. acting out of mindful awareness of the happiness and well being of all.

I pretty much solved my ego problem via self taught cognitive therapy,...

Really? How does that work?

Cognitive therapy essentially being improving your abilitiy to supress unconscious decisions, which is where the majority of your ego is stored (in memory matrices). Since that would take a lot of effort I also used techniques like anchoring and reframing out of NLP - though NLP in itself is a psuedoscience, the methods behind it are (generally) sound.[/quote]

I thought that was what you were referring to - or something similar. I am aware myself of the idea that we 'react' to stimuli rather than act out of mindful awareness.

Not that I don't have an ego, just that is isn't as difficult as you say it is to keep under conscious control.

That sounds like the words of an ego.

There still is an ego, it's just that the less reasonable decisions made by it are suppressed. I like to be subjectively objective if you see what I mean. By "ego-problem" I mean the decisions made by the ego which affect the purity of happiness.

I know what you mean. I think attachment to the outcome of actions is a result, or perhaps more accurately, a sympton of 'ego-driven' responses.

[Mister E]

I think this means we agree...

Agreed

I thought that was what you were referring to - or something similar. I am aware myself of the idea that we 'react' to stimuli rather than act out of mindful awareness.

I know what you mean. I think attachment to the outcome of actions is a result, or perhaps more accurately, a sympton of 'ego-driven' responses.

Quite often the attachment (or detachment) to the action itself can be incorrectly linked. The unconscious will link happiness or sadness (or whichever positive/negative emotion is present) to the action previously chosen by the person, even if outside influences mean it isn't the direct cause of said emotion.

For example, a phobia of toothbrushes could be developed if, whilst brushing your teeth, a man comes into your house and stabs you. You survive, but whenever you see a toothbrush, your unconscious decision behind it has switched to "the last time I brushed my teeth, I was wounded. Therefore I will produce feelings of disgust and terror when I go close to the said toothbrush, in order to move myself away from it". When the conscious finds it does not have enough control to continue, and backs away from the toothbrush, the unconscious decides "good, I have prevented a possible bad thing to happen. I have succeeded in protecting myself and will reinforce this belief".

Although the ego-problem prevents the person from "harm" and the person feels relieved to be away from the toothbrush, it does not protect the long term problem of smelly breath, thus it is detrimental.