Weltanschaung

The Philosopher’s Stone

zenothestoic@protonmail.ch

Tag: Morality

  • Does Evil Exist?

    Does Evil Exist?

    In the absence of conscious beings with free will, morality can not exist.  Picture a universe of infinite violence such as our own with no sentient life.  Is the extreme destruction of a super nova evil? Is a tsunami evil, or an earthquake? Surely not.

    Now assume a universe with consciousness and beings able to cause acts of violence and cruelty.

    Destruction of itself can not, presumably, be deemed evil (even if caused by sentient beings) unless other sentient beings suffer. And even then intent must be shown. Accidental destruction causing suffering can not be evil. There must have been an intent to cause suffering. Or callous carelessness without regard to the consequences.

    We know that consciousness exists even if we do not understand what it is. I think, therefore I am.

    We do not know whether free will exists. Without free will there can be no intent to cause harm and suffering. Nor indeed to cause good or happiness.

    But we must act as if free will does exist. We must believe free will exists. Not to do so makes all our thoughts, words and deeds pointless.

    So on those assumptions does evil exist? Does good exist? Are there any moral imperatives or are we free to interpret morality as we desire?

    I argue very strongly that moral imperatives do exist in a universe with sentience and free will.

    The most important moral imperative is to abolish suffering. To refrain from causing suffering to conscious beings. I can not, will not accept, as I have seen argued recently, that good and evil are subject to change and interpretation by different societies in different ages.

    This has absolutely nothing to do with a belief or disbelief in a deity. We do not need a deity to explain to us what suffering is and to tell us it is wrong.

    And please, please do not tell me that society of any age or geography genuinely believed that the barbarity handed out to their fellow men was justified. Was not “evil”. If they did so believe then very clearly they were wrong. Good and evil do very obviously exist in our universe and it is our duty to espouse the former and eschew the latter.

    We are not robots, surely? And on that assumption our duty is to prevent suffering.

    I recently sang in a Passion by the contemporary English composer Howard Goodall.

    The lyrics were profound (even if the music was not destined to become one of my personal favorites).

    In his Lamentations are found the words of William Wilberforce, spoken in the House of Commons on 18th April 1791, “You may choose to look the other way but you can never say again that you did not know”.

    Please do not tell me that among sentient beings with free will, morals are relative.

  • Love is……

    Love is……

    While many may disagree, my own belief is that love is a primary and immutable moral imperative and is not subjective or relative to any particular age or society.  We are only just beginning to discover its true nature.

    But what is “love” and can it exist in a universe without sentience?

    First of all, what love is not.

    I do not care to define love in a washy washy sentimental fashion such as you might find in a Charles Schultz Snoopy cartoon or on the back of some ghastly greetings card.

    Nor, despite my constant reference to Bishop Michael Curry, would I wish it defined in a conventional religious sense.

    What is sentience and can love exist without it?

    We do not know what consciousness is nor do we know its prevalence in the universe. Personally, I favor the pan-psychic flavor – that consciousness exists very broadly and in different degrees throughout the universe.  That consciousness is a matter of sufficient complexity in matter. Perhaps rocks have it but almost certainly individual “strings” as in String Theory do not. Nor, presumably, atoms or sub atomic particles. You need more complexity than such basic arrangements of matter provide. See Tononi’s Integrated Information Theory.

    Assuming my supposition is correct I would then define “love” as the abolition of suffering among sentient beings.  And the active promotion of a high hedonic set point.

    And yes, I do believe that this moral goal is imperative. And absolute. And existing with or without humanity. People speak of the difficulties involved and indeed these are great. How to you treat aggression? Should you abort a fetus which will lead, if seen to full term, to a being suffering agonies? Such questions go on, endlessly. But with science we will conquer and cure. Improve and amend.

    Has the Christian interpretation of love always been a good one? What of the tough love meted out over centuries of abuse and bestiality?

    Ignorance, self interest, a failure to appreciate the true meaning. No, the Christian interpretation has not always been a good one, in some hands at least. But that does not mean it is wrong. Merely wrongly applied.

    Sentience comes with its burden as well as its benefits. Its burden is to grow up. Its burden is the responsibility to abandon narrow self interest and work towards the abolition of suffering. For all sentient beings, animal, mineral or vegetable.

    Perhaps there is a universal consciousness. Perhaps Carl Jung was right and that his mysticism is a window on ultimate reality. If so, then that is perhaps where the absolute moral standard of “love ” originates.

    My personal best in the realm of philosophy is Davis Pearce and The Abolitionist Project.

    There is my moral imperative. And if it is not already yours, you should make it so.

     

     

     

  • Is there an objective morality?

    Is there an objective morality?

    If so, how can we learn about it?  Or is the whole idea of a universal morality misguided? A post on Self Aware Patterns raised the question and I felt moved to answer it.

    No I do not agree with Jason Mckenzie Alexander (Professor in Philosophy at the London School of Economics) that “morality is a social technology, one that goes out of date and frequently needs to be upgraded.”

    Morality is not personal preference. Morality is not subjective. And I don’t give a damn about game theory. Yes, we have evolved chaotically, in a Darwinian sense. We have evolved to fight and kill and maim to ensure that we survive and to do the next man out of his food and his shelter. The more hideous elements of capitalist society and politics continue to live this way and presumably see nothing wrong with their conduct. And it is certainly true that different societies over the ages have developed different moral standards, biased no doubt by their survival needs.

    My own “belief” however (for it is of course only a belief) is that there is an absolute morality but we are only beginning to grope our way towards it.

    I keep going back to that kindly old buffer at the recent royal wedding: love he said. Love is all. And I believe that, very firmly. That we are groping our way towards it seems indicated by the fact that in general we are becoming better behaved towards each other.

    I will tell you a funny tale. I was having a drink with an ancient colonel one night at his house down in Kent. He was talking about Africans, black Africans. Can’t remember in which country on that sad continent but this mad old buffer was talking about “blacks” and how the only way to keep them in their place was to shoot them. Or a few of them anyway. Few people think like that from later generations; hopefully anyway.

    Yes, different ages have different standards, different morals. Read the books of John Buchan to see how things have changed in the past hundred years. But I like to think we are changing for the better and not just for utilitarian purposes. I am afraid that like Teilhard de Chardin I see us heading towards the Omega point.

    But that is mere belief. And wishful thinking no doubt. Nonetheless the kindly old African American at the Royal Wedding had it right. Love. That is the essential and immutable moral from which all else should flow.

     

  • In Defense of the Trinity

    In Defense of the Trinity

    Are we living in the 21st Century? How do serious people honestly believe in such man made hogwash.

    In a perfectly reasonable article entitled “In Defense of the Trinity” blogger Haden Clark made his pitch.

    I commented as follows:

    I do not believe in the Trinity. Or the Bible. Or any of the many religions of the world. I do not believe in any deity. I believe that these beautiful writings may help us to concentrate our mind on ethics, morals and how we ought to lead our lives. Nothing else. Even then, there are some horrendous passages in all scripture which have to be simply ignored. The last two verses of Psalm 137 are a perfect example.

    Big Mistake!

    Haden Clark took my comments in the well meaning way they were meant but a major religious nutter waded into to attack with full bible bashing force:

    It’s fine that you do not believe… but, we know your ultimate destination after your death and resurrection; it is a lake of fire called Gehenna — a place of perpetual torment. Even the unrighteous, aka the wicked, will be resurrected, judged by the Law, and found guilty! I wonder if you will have a smug, Stoic smirk on your face when you are being judged by the firstborn of Creation…

    Woooo! Spooky! The dreaded lake of Gehenna!

    Hastily mopping my soiled underwear (yes, such was my terror my bowels involuntarily emptied all over a rather nice, and expensive Persian carpet) I replied to L. Alan Schuetz:

    Hilarious stuff. I’ll take my chances thank you. I really can not be bothered with Pascal’s Wager. In any event, even if I were a believer in such outrageous nonsence, I have done nothing in my life to deserve your lake of fire. I’m surprised you can sleep at night.

    My strong suspicion is that you must be joking. I do not believe that in the 21st Century people still have such backward beliefs.

    But there again, there is nowt so queer as folk. I wish you well L.Alan Schuetz but please tell me you are joking? Having a little laugh at my expense?

    At this point I made the momentous decision to let on my true identity:

    Actually, look Alan, I have to be honest. My real name is Gandalf the Grey.  I defeated the Balrog in the Mines of Moria and was instrumental in the downfall of the mighty Sauron.

    So look, honestly your lake of Gehenna is something I deal with on a regular basis.

    I am sorry to say that Mr Schuetz seems unable to see or appreciate my point of view. I am sorry that he can not see I am trying to meet him in the middle.  That I fear is typical of an extremist.

    There is good in every religion and there is bad. If you are determined to find Moloch under every bed, then I have no doubt you will be able to do so. Along with lucifer, the behemoth, the leviathan and the rest of the motley crew.

    I see great similarity between Mr Scultz’s attitudes and those of other extremists, in particular the Muslims.

    Jesus was a live and let live sort of man according to his chroniclers. He turned the other cheek. That is the sort of man I can (and do! ) admire.

    I am afraid the world becomes a very fearful and dangerous place when populated by the likes of L. Alan Schuetz.

    I hope that in time he may come to see that moderation, understanding and modesty are more in line with modern Christian theology that the hellfire he seems to adamant in promoting. His is not a religion I recognize. Nor one I wish to encounter.

  • Class Prejudice

    Class Prejudice

    Is it right to feel distaste for your fellow man?

    I was sitting on a train station this afternoon, waiting for my connection, minding my own business and munching a sandwich.  I had been listening to Dvorak and following along with the score, muzzing up for a concert at the end of June.

    So I was in a pleasant place.  I was sitting in my usual ivory tower, albeit in public rather than in my book-lined and very quiet study.

    I was in a contemplative mood; a mood in which I was likely to be interested rather than irritated by what was happening around me.

    My interest concentrated on my reaction to a couple of young men who started to chat to a couple of young mothers just down the platform.  I wasn’t being nosey but could not help overhearing their conversation.

    They were not a foursome: the two men (white, rough) just happened to start a chance conversation with the young mothers (one black and demure, the other white and not). It was simply jolly banter.

    The men were both shaven headed and in tracksuits. Both had topknots.  Both were either hungover or slightly drunk. One of the men was drinking wine out of a quarter bottle.

    One of the men said he would rather be back in prison than suffer the aggravation he had had the night before and the hangover he was suffering today. Every other word was anglo saxon. “F..k” this “c..t” that….and so forth.

    My language is bad anyway but not so openly.

    And it was all about graphic sex, alcohol and drugs. Their antics from the night before. One of them had slipped the other a big dose of some drug; I didn’t catch the name.  The victim was apparently curved round the lavatory bowl (I wasn’t quite sure why) and the drug donor apparently had to “p**s” all over him.   There were women involved the night before, casual strangers, it seemed.  For casual sex.

    You get the picture.

    I was not quite sure if I felt revulsion and if so, then why.  I don’t think I did and I was and am quite sure that if I did feel revulsion it was wrong to do so.  If some people choose to lead their life in this way, does it really matter? Is there anything wrong with it? Why should I mind or care? Or feel offended?

    And then I thought about my own luck in the genetic lottery; in having been born into the prosperous upper middle classes.  And my luck in the lottery of life in making out in a reasonably or comparatively satisfactory way.

    Pity would certainly be wrong: what business would I have to feel pity? Anger and derision would be equally wrong.  After considering it all and weighing things up in my mind, I found the right attitude (for me at least) was one of acceptance and neutrality.

    These were people. Living their own lives. They were not threatening or violent. They were simply different.

    Live and let live. They may have been far better people than I.  But I was glad I was not irritable, or tired or impatient today.  There are occasions when I am ashamed to say I can feel less charitable, although I know this is wrong.

    I made amends for my muddled thoughts by telling them they were on the right train when they enquired, a few stops down the line.

  • A Moral Dilemma

    A Moral Dilemma

    My own petty, unimportant and irrelevant moral dilemma should teach me something about the world and how to improve it. If I can not learn my lesson, then who can?

    So here I am, a lucky old man sitting in his sunny garden in the late spring, contemplating his life and wondering how he gets it so badly wrong.

    If I can get it so wrong and cause such ill feeling and anger then little wonder the world as a whole is a hotbed of war and bitterness. I do not have the excuse of poverty, childhood abuse, pain, illness.  I am not suffering torture or violence. I am not being turfed out of my jungle dwelling in the Amazon rain forest by corrupt corporates and greedy, bribe taking politicians.

    What I have been doing for the past three years is to battle for what I consider justice for a relative of mine who has been beset on all sides by others who appear to be less than rational, reasonable, nice or normal.

    My endless fear it that I have it the wrong way round. That said victim and I are the aggressors, the unreasonable monsters, the people with horrible behavioural problems.

    And perhaps we are. Or there again perhaps that is not the point.

    As ever I have been trying to do what I thought was right and just and am left wondering instead whether I have the whole of life arse about face.

    But endless questioning is right. Not to question is to leave oneself dangerously open to bigotry and a closed mind. In seeking to protect one relative I have been accused of seeking to “ruin” another.

    I have no doubt that that “other” sees the matter in just that way. That “other” must assuredly see white as I see black, or vice versa.  For me to claim that my intention is something else entirely is fruitless and yet to be meek and let my relative be trampled on does not seem to be just or equitable either.

    Sadly the meek do not inherit the earth.  When I see a bully I will take him on.  I must just make sure that I do not become that bully myself.

  • Must Try Harder

    Must Try Harder

    Unfortunately as an imperfect individual I find it necessary to question my own behaviour on a daily basis.  I wish I were perfect, saintly, good and Dalai Lama-ish. But I’m not.

    I have always wanted to meet a “saint”, not out of any religious fervour (I don’t have any) but because I would like to see whether such a person actually exists and if he does, then how he behaves.

    Does the saint ever get angry? Or even unreasonable? Does he ever harbour grudges or feel envy or jealousy? Is he or she ever less than perfectly kind, patient and loving? I would like to emulate any such person but alas I have feet of clay.

    I do not often feel envy or jealousy these days (but have been guilty in the past as, probably, we all have).  But anger – yes, anger does tend to sneak up on me and sandbag me on occasions, much as I wish it were otherwise.

    Or maybe it is more usually irritability. The “Grumpy Old Man” has become a much televised celebrity.  Shakespeare’s Enobarbus said of Cleopatra  “Age cannot wither her, nor custom stale Her infinite variety”.

    In my case age has withered me considerably and I never possessed infinite variety anyway.

    I largely gave up writing about finance and trading since I was becoming very “withered” indeed. Sick of the rubbish being peddled by an industry with nobody’s good in mind other than its own. So I turned to matters of greater interest and importance to me: behaviour, people, the (non-existent) “soul”, the big questions in life, the universe and everything.

    And yet when I read and comment on articles in the Guardian or the Independent or anywhere else I find myself battling with my own prejudice and intolerance.  When I become aware that I have been bitter, unreasonable or just plain vicious I try and remember to go back and change those offending and offensive sentiments – they were not meant, they sometimes just pop up out of ennui, tiredness, irritability.

    I guess it is human nature to have disagreements but I am always puzzled over that biblical phrase “The meek shall inherit the earth”.

    Was that Neville Chamberlain’s big mistake? Such tactics may have worked in the dissolution of the British Empire in India with Gandhi ‘s laudable non violent civil disobedience but would it have worked against Hitler? Presumably not.

    I fear I am not meek nor ever have been. Sometimes I dearly wish I was. Perhaps as an ersatz Buddhist I will have a few more lifetimes to try and get it right.

    But more seriously I do struggle on a daily basis with myself. I know I am a grumpy, puzzled and sometimes bitter old fool. Must try harder is, I suppose, all I can really say.