In Defence of Greed

I’m having a lively discussion over at Ebonmuse’s recent post “Why I am not a communist” where I’ve mostly been discussing with a member of the audience, Mrnaglfar.

At a point in our discussion, Mrnaglfar asserted that greed is not inherently bad after I explained that it is not possible to have a perfect society based on a vice (greed). Specifically, his comment was:

More to the point, where do you get off even calling greed a ‘vice’, as if greed was inherently morally wrong? It’s like calling a hammer wrong; greed is merely a tool that can be used for many things. In the proper context, greed can be good - it can inspire innovation, make people strive for lofty goals, and without greed, very little would have ever been accomplished. However, greed can also throw people in poverty and lead to acts of violence, among other things. To merely paint greed a wrong with one broad brush stroke is similar to denying human nature entails greed and that in a perfect society it would vanish, and that through merely teaching children we can somehow undo over a billion years of evolution.

In all honesty, this perplexed me as I’ve never seen someone defend greed before. I’ve heard people claim that greed was a human flaw that capitalism has been built to exploit so that the end result is better for everyone. I’ve seen people believe that greed is part of human nature, a necessary evil and unchangable. But never that greed is not a vice.

As the conversation progressed and more thought was poured into the subject, it became obvious to me that Mrnaglfar’s idea of what greed is is quite different from what anyone normally associates with the word:

“A selfish or excessive desire for or pursuit of more than is needed or deserved, especially of money, wealth, food, or other possessions” - from the Wiktrionary.

A telling example being how honour is explained as “greed for social status”. While Honour certainly entails a social status concept, there is nothing inherently greedy about it. People did not amass personal honour as an end in itself. Rather, if they did, then they had greed for honour or social standing, or to put more plainly, greed for glory and/or fame.

From the context, he seems to treat “greed” as a synonym for “desire” in order to base the idea that greed, by itself has a neutral moral value. However, greed entails aspects that go beyond the concept of simply desiring something. A Desire for money is not the same as Greed for money. A Desire for love, is not the same as greed for love. Indeed to treat greed like that in order to defend a concept is a form of equivocation.

As part of the converstation, there was a distinct defense of greed that I would like to tackle.

Greed as a tool

This was the initial argument that was raised in defence of greed. The concept being that since greed drives forward innovation, creativity and personal advancement under capitalism, it should be considered a tool and as such have a neutral moral value in the same sense that a knife can either be used for good (cutting food) or evil (killing people).

Initially I went with this definition although it did not sit well with me. Someting was amiss. I asserted that if greed is to be considered a tool then it is similar to a tool like a gun, whose main purpose is to do harm. However even this did not sound correct.

So I slept on it and with a fresh mind I think I can see what the problem is. Greed cannot be considered a tool at all.

A tool is something you manipulate in order to accomplish something. As an instrument it has no intrinsic value which is why you cannot label a weapon bad by default. However, even though the instrument has no moral value by itself, the action it is used to accompish does and that action takes its moral value not from the tool but by the desires.

And Greed is a desire.

You do not manipulate greed in order to accomplish something like you would a tool. Greed manipulares you (please save your “In Soviet Russia” jokes).
Say that I have greed for money. This is then my desire; to acquire money even though they are more than I need. My tool in this case is not greed as well but my brain and muscles. This is what I manipulate in order to acquire more money. The action that I decide upon on how to make more money can be labeled as good or bad depending on cumulative value of the desires and beliefs that manipulated me to do it.

Consider the following scenarios

A person robs a bank. The desires that led to this are:

• He had more than enough money to live on but had a greed for more. - bad
• The person has no avertion on intimidating and/or possibly killing innocent people. - very bad
• He has no avertion to taking items that do not belong to him - very bad
• He person was too lazy to find a legal way to acquire money. - bad

The cumulation of these three bad desires led to a bad action. You will also notice that the degree of how a desire or belief is bad varies. Thus a non-aversion to killing people is much worse than being lazy.

Now,if we are to take the same scenario with a twist on his desires:

• He did not have enough money to live. He had a desire to survive. - marginally good
• He did not have enough money to feed his family. He had a desire to help them. - good
• Even though he has an avertion on intimidating and/or possibly killing innocent people, it is not enough to overcome his desperation - very bad
• Even though he has he has an avertion to taking what does not belong to his, it is not enough to overcome his desperation - bad
• The person is very hard working but for various circumstances cannot find a job. This leads to desperation - good (hard working)

Even though the person has more good desires than bad, his weak avertion to intimidation and killing is cumulatively worse than all the good desires together. Nevertheless, any court of law would recognise the circumstances and would give him a more lenient sentence compared to the previous example.

Next, lets try something different but more related to greed. Say a televangelist is misapropriating funds from his wealthy church in order to have a wealthy lifestyle

• He has more than enough money to live. He is however greedy for wealth - bad
• He has no avertion to lying to cover this up - very bad
• He uses a very small part of his wealth to help the people who built up his wealth - marginally good
• He has not avertion to lying about his church’s powers in order to get more money. - bad

Now this person is not doing anything illegal under the law, but any moral person would condemn his actions.

Finally, let’s look at an example where the action of a greedy person is good. This person is a used car’s salesman.

• He is greedy for weath - bad
• He has a small avertion to lying but it can be overcome by greed - bad.
• He has a strong desire to avoid illegal activities - very good

Now this person, even though greedy and occasionally a liar, is still considered good (only marginally) as regards to his work. It is not because greed is neutral and does not count but rather because his good desires outweight his bad.

If we are to define greed as a neutral tool instead of a bad desire, then these calculation fail for we would have to define all desires as neutral tools. Lazyness is a tool (just not useful in capitalism as Mrnaglfar says), lying is a tool, intimidation is a tool etc. They can all possibly be used for good or bad purposes but if we are to make all desires and beliefs into neutral tools, how are we to judge an action as good or bad?

The answer is, we cannot. To do so would be to judge an action as good or bad on strictly subjective basis without any base. Even I do not promote such a way to judge.

So, Greed, like all desires, is not a tool. It has a moral value and that value is that greed is condemnable. One would thus be inclined to ask:

Why is greed wrong?

Circular reasoning

In regards to capitalism, greed does not apear to be all that bad, but I would like to show how this is a form of circular reasoning. It goes as thus.

• Greed is good because without it, capitalism would not work.
• Capitalism is good because every human is greedy and capitalism is the only system that can make it to serve good purposes.

This kind of circular reasoning does not allow a window where greed could be potentially phased out with a better desire, say, a like a desire to help people for emotional gain. As long as as capitalism remains the dominant culture, greed must be maintained and indeed increased if possible. As long as greed remains a powerful desire in most people, capitalism will work until it hits its other inenvitable hurdles.

Under this logic it is impossible to change things and indeed greed takes a perverted good moral value only because it derives this value from the perceived good value of capitalism.

The morality of Greed

Circular reasoning aside, how do we decide the moral value greed? I believe we can extract the value of greed from the definition and results it produces by itself, when not tempered by any other value.

Lets take the definition of greed once more.

“A selfish or excessive desire for or pursuit of more than is needed or deserved, especially of money, wealth, food, or other possessions“

I’ve highlighted the parts which are relevant.

1. A selfish desire: is the desire to hold yourself above others or have your own well being as your most powerful desire. This is not inherently bad but as far as desires go, it’s pretty low on the list (Objectivists begone!)
2. An excessive desire: is bad by definition. Excess is never good.
3. More than is needed: This denotes that this person, even though he has anything he might ever need from the subject of his greed, would still require more. This would in turn shift the supply and demand chain in a way that would create indirect suffering to other people.
   As an example, to borrow one from the Atheist Ethicist, is the desire to wash your dog every day when there is a shortage of water. You do not need to wash your dog every day, indeed, washing it less would aleviate the urging problems of other people with the small drawback of a little stink.
4. More than is deserved: Once again, this is bad by definition. Someone who desires things he does not deserve is prone to performing actions that deny these items from people that do deserve them.
5. Possesions: Indeed, it is true that greed mainly manifests itself for material goods. It does occasionaly appear as a greed for power or fame but it is the minority of cases and does not really work with capitalism that well (unless fame or power is gained through wealth).
   The problem with this is that excessive materialistic desires are prone to create a problem in a world where the resources are already severely limited.

But lets not jugde just by literal semantics. Greed can be shown to be wrong philosophically.

As mentioned above, greed is usually for material possesions. This goes contrary to the knowledge that the resources of this world are limited. A greedy person, would not care if what he takes (legally) would indirectly cause someone who needs it more to miss it. As long as he has it then his desire is quenched. This is easily shown if you look at the recent problems with gas. Even though poor countries are not necessarily the ones that are producing the food, the rising food prices all over the world because the food is being used as gas by rich countries is indirectly affecting them.

Secondly, greed feeds upon itself. When someone has a excessive desire to get more than what is needed, it means that when the current target is reached, the desire remains and a new target is acquired. It is not true that the person will stop acquiring the subject of his greed after the current objective is reached for this would not be greed anymore.

Thirdy, greed causes needless suffering to the humans who posses it. Someone who is driven by material greed will always crave for more material possesions, no matter how many he already has. This will never allow him to be at peace with himself.
Even if his greed is stopped by other desires, like an avertion to crime or an avertion to other’s suffering, his greed will not go away. It will stay within him, causing emotional pain for the things he desires but cannot have.

Epilogue

And thus we come to the end of my little article. I hope I’ve sufficiently proved, by definition and philosophy that greed is a vice for it is a desire with an inherent negative value. Claiming that greed is good because it can occasionally lead to good deeds it akin to saying that the end justifies the means.

One last thing I’d like to tackle is the “perfect society” comment. I, like many others, strive to better the world. There are various things that are ambiguous and difficult to label as bad or good but we try. When I mention a better world, I do not know what I mean. I have no solid idea if the perfect world would be communism, anarchism or a socialist capitalism or whatnot. However I do have a clear idea of what does not belong in a better world, indeed, what is contrary to the spirit of it. Vices.

And greed is one of them.

Truth as a tool for immoral purposes

The Barefum Bum today used the movie Fitna to discuss the issue of wether accurate information can be used for racist purposes and I have no reason to disagree. However during the course of our short discussion, the issue of whether Geert Wilders is a racist keeps coming up.

Initially, I assumed that this was some kind of subtle Ad hominem, in effect using Wilder’s presumed racism as a way to discredit the movie but the issue at heart, I believe, is more complex.

You see, if Wilders is a racist, he deserves all the condemnation he can get; however, what I see people are trying to accomplish is to argue that because Wilders is/might be a racist, the movie itself should be labeled racist as well and thus condemned. Call me slow, but this does not follow.

Lets say that, given Wilders background, he is indeed a racist. Lets also say that he probably has his own, deeper purposes for making this movie. Lastly, lets assume for now that the movie is factually correct and also that there are no racist insinuations within but rather just strong anti-Islamism (but without any propaganda.)

Do the first two points make the truth (in this case the Movie as I defined it) racist as well? I would argue not.

The truth is the truth. The truth can be a tool.
The fact that the untwisted truth might be used for the wrong purposed does not make the truth wrong in the same sense that because nuclear energy can be used as a weapon, nuclear energy is not wrong.

Someone might argue then, that there are many types of tools and some might be inherently wrong, like, say, a pistol which has no other purpose than to injure and kill humans.Setting aside for a moment whether a tool can ever be inherently wrong, my questions are thus:

• Is it possible that the truth might be packaged in such a way so as to become a tool suitable only for immoral purposes?
• Is the use of truth for immoral purposes (not the purposes themselves) condemnable?
• At the end of the day, don’t all of us have some purposes for which we use the truth to argue for?

Moral Relativism (and why I do not embrace it)

This is a post that was actually triggered by a piece (The Necessity of Combating Relativism) I discovered on the 90th Carnival of the Godless and further prodded by a recent comment over at the Atheist Ethicist. This label is one which, for some reason, has been directed at me various occasions in the near past.

Apparently, I am a “Moral Relativist/Subjectivist”. As an explanation of this label I will quote what was, in turn, quoted at me in the past before I was banned.

Moral subjectivism is that species of moral relativism that relativizes moral value to the individual subject.
In ethics, this amounts to saying that all moralities are equally good; in epistemology it implies that all beliefs, or belief systems, are equally true. Critics of relativism typically dismiss such views as incoherent since they imply the validity even of the view that relativism is false. They also charge that such views are pernicious since they undermine the enterprise of trying to improve our ways of thinking.
Perhaps because relativism is associated with such views, few philosophers are willing to describe themselves as relativists. Although there are many different kinds of relativism, they all have two features in common.

1) They all assert that one thing (e.g. moral values, beauty, knowledge, taste, or meaning) is relative to some particular framework or standpoint (e.g. the individual subject, a culture, [a society], an era, a language, or a conceptual scheme).
2) They all deny that any standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others.

– Internet Encyclopedia on Philosophy.

What initially strikes me as peculiar is that this is a position that not only have I never espoused directly but I find myself actively disagreeing with. Specifically, while I do agree with the 1st point, I most certainly do not agree with the second.

Initially this whole characterization was assigned to me in, what I believed then, an attempt for ad hominem against me. I was labeled as such when arguing against the notion that you can have morality without more than one person and at some point I expressed my sentiment that all morality is subjective.

Now apparently this triggered an automatic reaction on behalf of my opponent who assumed I was espousing all sorts of ideas I do not. For example, I would never accept that all moral values are equal, nor that we should not criticize other cultures’ morality. Nevertheless, this is how I keep getting labeled as and I thought I’d clear the misconception a bit. Here are my current beliefs in morality.

Morality is subjective

What I mean when I say this is that, throughout the ages, people have held various beliefs of what is right and wrong. From what I have understood (and feel free to correct me on this), these values are the result of the current period and environment the society existed in. Ultimately, the values are the result of evolutionary advantage of one morality meme over another. One of my favorite examples to explain this is Slavery.

A Perspective on Slavery

You see, in the vast majority of the history of mankind, slavery has always been a reality. Since the early Egyptian history, to Classical Greece, to Romans, Dark Ages and finally the American Revolution, slavery was something that a sufficiently large amount of people accepted.The reason this moral value (slavery = good) was accepted, was solely based on competitive advantage of the society that espoused it.

In the days before industrialization, slaves were the only real source of cheap production. As a result, any society that accepted slavery, gained the means to faster production (Egyptians), ability to concentrate on other tasks (Spartans on Warfare) and/or better standard of living (Romans). Especially in the largely agricultural societies of the time, the ability to assign the menial labor to cheap assets meant that there was a distinct competitive advantage to be gained by utilizing slaves.

This does not mean that all societies used slaves. It only means that those societies that did, were fated to overcome or conquer the ones that did not. This is precisely what was happening in most of the world until the recent centuries (I would consider feuds and imperialism as a form of slavery.) and as luck would hold it, the people of that time, happened to write down their ideas on how slavery is right as a proof for future generations (see the Christian bible or the Hindu caste system.)

Slavery, like most forms of production had some disadvantage. Specifically, even though the cost was relatively low, it was very prone to abuse. This could lead to destabilizing situations for the society that used it, as is what happened with the Romans and the slave revolution or Spartacus. This kind of disadvantage was not enough however to overcome the significant benefit of slavery.

Abolishing and the morality of it all.

Now, most of us living in the modern society automatically consider slavery wrong. This includes me.  The reason we do this is because our upbringing distilled in most of us the notion of freedom as a higher moral value than most others. Thus, for us, owning the freedom of another person is deemed as one of the lowest situations.

But how did we reach this level from when slavery was considered acceptable by most? Once again, competitive advantage.

As I mentioned before, Slavery has some disadvantages that were not sufficient to overcome it’s advantages. However, even during the time of slavery, there were people that considered slavery to be immoral. If you want, you can see this in an evolutionary perspective. The competing organisms in this case, are the societies (or even the members of each society). The traits of the organism are the various memes in effect (Slavery, Warfare, Tolerance, Religion etc). The Environment is the technological level.

People in each society would have various ideas on slavery. If that meme (Abolishing Slavery) took hold, then the society’s paradigm would shift. You could see this as a mutation in the society as a whole which was then called to prove it’s competitive advantage.
Unfortunately, as history has shown, this trait was actually disadvantageous to the society that possessed it as it could not compete with the ones that still accepted slavery.

What was necessary for this trait to gain the competitive advantage was a change in the environment. This change was the Industrial Revolution. Once that happened, it served as the catalyst that allowed the abolition of slavery to take hold. Not because of any objective goodness but because the already existing mentality that freedom is good, coupled with the alternative way to have cheap production (industrialization) as well as the lower cost (no chance of social upheaval) gave the society that abolished slavery a competitive advantage over those who did not.

Tying it all together

It is my impression, that history has shown us that all moral values that we accept in the western society are the result of such processes. A merciless war of ideas where only the ones that were competitively superior could survive. I cannot bring myself to call this process objective for I truly do not see it as such.

The morality I have currently is subjective, not in the sense that I cannot consider anything right and wrong but in the sense that the morality memes most of us possess are the result of natural selection and not of objective truths.

How does that leave me however? Am I predestined to be a “moral subjectivist” and decry all morality as inconsequential and relative? To this I respond no. This is not what I believe.
I have my own morality that is based on personal experiences, beliefs and desires. I base this morality on my reasoning and can explain why I think my moral values are superior to others. I can have a discussion and attempt to convince or be convinced. Always based on reasoning.

I just cannot go one step further and call my personal reasoning as objective as it seems disingenuous. Morality values, in the end, can be rated as better or worse by the degree to which they lead to a better life for the individual and the society that espouses them. However, each individual is different in their desires so the same things will lead to different results.

The only thing we can do is be the example first as individuals and then as a society.

In the first step, this will lead first other people who see our life to follow our example in order to achieve the same level of happiness. They do not need to copy all of our values but even a few will be enough. Given enough people who do this, the paradigm of the society’s moral values will shift.

As a society, all we need to do is the same. A more successful society can only lead to other societies copying the moral memes that led to this success. And thus the world paradigm shifts.

What I believe is that all this can be done peacefully but not by “bending over” to other cultures. On the contrary, when an individual performs an immoral action by our perspective, it should be our duty to speak against them. When a society as a whole acts in an immoral fashion, then is should be our duty to speak against them and/or take measures to disentangle ourselves from them.

Not speaking against an immoral person (by our beliefs), because of some misguided desire to “respect his culture” is only hurting ourselves. Nor speaking out against a society or a culture because we want to proudly display how tolerant we are, will only lead us to be overtaken by the more aggressive memes out there.

This is, for example, the primary reason I speak against European “tolerance” against Islam. Not only is it not helping anyone, it is outright dangerous as the immoral behavior of Islam is given ground to fester and spread.

Epilogue

This has gotten quite long-winded so I think it is time for me to stop.

I hope I have sufficiently explained how I can consider morality as subjective but not be a “moral relativist” myself. I am, however, the first person who will agree that I can be mistaken - indeed, this is the main reason why I shy from calling my beliefs objective. There are many very interesting takes on morality that I am currently checking out, as Desire Utilitarianism. I can see the point but I am not actually convinced that they are objective rather than just superior to what we have.

If I am convinced, I will only help to spread that idea and thus help make this meme the accepted paradigm. Even then however, there is a case that we will fail. Even if DU is “superior” to most other moral systems, if the competitive advantage is not enough, it will be lost in the pages of history.

It has happened before.

Comment on Subjective Morality

Amazing! I was randomly reading my feeds and the Exapologist mentioned the Prosblogion and I though to take a quick look. There, checking up on a recent post, I happened upon a comment that perfectly describes my opinion on subjective morality.

That’s the essential distinction. People almost always seem to think that if the basis of morality is subjective then its arbitrary and any set of values is as good as another.

This (considering morality subjective) was something that the Objectivists I was recently discussing with, stood (and still do) upon to declare that I was using a defeated philosophy (or whatever).

Nice to see that there are others that think, at least similarly. I think I might visit that place again to find other such juicy nuggets of thought.

Understanding of morality

My recent blogpost about my banning from Leitmotif has drawn a commenter who proceeded to give me a very lengthy and interesting reply. I was seriously impressed and started replying within the comments but seeing how big my reply was starting to become and how derailed from the original topic, I thought it might be worth giving it its own blogpost. What follows is Apple’s comment and beneath it you will find my own reply.

Forget about Objectivism. Let’s just focus on understanding what morality is.You sound like a nice guy just trying to struggle through life in a European society. Does the society you live in define what is moral? What is it that is moral in this society? Is it working 39 hours a week for a company, getting married at 29, having two kids, retiring at 59, living and vacationing to 69? Is that the moral life? WHO is society? Is it the local government? Is it the Eurocrat in Bruxelle?This is your life we’re talking about, man. Do you want to let somebody else or something else tell you what you should live for? As an atheist, there is no second ever-lasting life to look forward to. This is it! If so, I would think before you do anything in this life, you’d want to be damn sure you have figured it all out one step at a time.Morality is one of those pesky things that come up. Do you really know what it is? Ergo at Leitmotif, if I understand the gist, is remarking that, in your atheistic rush to abandon religion you in the process abandon morality. You throw the baby out with the bathwater. Is he right that morality is inescapable, even in the jungle? Who cares. But the point is you’re in a society, and there is a morality that many people in it accept. Is it right FOR YOU?As far as I can tell, morality is a collection of values to guide a man’s life. More simply, morality is a generic how-to manual for life. Like a car, you as a human being come out of an assembly line with the same owner’s manual. You may be painted black, blue, green; you may be a convertible, a hatchback, a sedan, a sporster; you may have six-cylinder, or four-, front-wheeled, automatic, or manual. But generically, you are like a car. And like cars, you have basic maintenance requirements: gas of this type here, oil of this grade here, anti-freeze fluid at this level here, brake shoes after so many km here, tire pressures per kpc here,

Unlike a car, which is designed and manufactured by some company, by some designer, by a creator, you as a human being aren’t designed by ANYONE, (Evolution is not any conscious entity; evolution is a process) But you still have basic maintenance requirements. But beyond that, even if there’s another twin you/car, the owner will want to customize it with different personality and style, accessories, companions, baggages, radio-station presets, aspirations,

Society didn’t design and create you. Society is just a bunch of people in a geographical area. They are just people like you. Do human beings have invariant maintenance requirement or not?

A morality, to repeat, is a how-to manual for life. And a human being is, as a matter of plain fact, an oxygen-breathing, water-drinking, omnivorous, thinking animal with varying desires for sex, rock-n-roll, sushi; Chances are very, very high that human beings have generic maintenance requirements.

That said, religions write a number of how-to manuals for life. Islam, for example, tells you to face Mecca and pray five times a day. That’s a how-to rule in the manual to a good life. Islam’s view of life is of a second, ever-lasting life. How Is this particular rule to be judge? Well, scientifically, you have to weigh it against human needs or generic maintenance requirements. Obviously, the goal –ever-lasting life– is false, and the means –praying 5 times a day– is therefore false. So, followers of Islam are using a how-to manual that is anti-this-life.

We can say this to just about every religion that posits an ever-lasting life or reincarnation. So, scientifically, religion provides moral codes that aren’t meeting the basic maintenance requirements for a human life on this earth.

But does that mean that morality as such is not a human requirement? You know what I mean? Every car comes with an owner’s manual. Just because human beings don’t come with one doesn’t mean that they don’t need one. We come with the ability to choose alternatives. Superficially, you choose vanilla and chocolate easily, but on the big choices that take your life in one long-term direction or another you do require some standard of maintenance requirements. (Driving without replacing shoe brakes after so many years will wreck it. Trust me.) Thus, morality, like oxygen, is a human need.

So everyone needs some morality, and everyone has to write his own owner’s manual–plus, to customize and accessorize his own life. But the question remains. As with organized religions, how does each person ensure that his copy of his maintenance manual is the CORRECT one and not some cheap, plagiarized version from a whole bunch of religious copycats? To be sure, the morality manual has to allow for customization. Some people are born stubborn, moronic, deformed, slow; some are born defective as a human being. Cars off the assembly line have defects too. So, the manual of life, while generic has to account for some slight differences. But at the very least, it has to get the generic principles the same for every car and every person.

You are then faced with two questions: 1) Is your moral code at the generic level a guide to your life to meet your human maintenance requirements as a living thing, a fucking animal, a thinking animal, a musician, a producer, a scientist, a businessman? 2) How are you customizing your moral code for your individual customized purposes?

The first question is absolutely crucial to get right if the second is to have any chance of coming close to correct. The first question is independent of you; it is not a subjective thing. It’s universal to every human being on earth, past, present, future. The second question is just about you, right here, right now.

If you throw out all religions and their crappy moral codes, I’m with you. But you still need to know how to conduct your life to meet your needs. Is a good life simply a mere subsistence–a subsistence of 2000 calories a day, 2 liters of water, a vitamin pill, and three conjugal sessions a week in an enclosed space?That may be a fulfilling life generically for an ape, but not for a thinking man.

WHO is privileged to write the moral code for everyone? No God. No one. Everyone is responsibile for writing his own owner’s manual, but the basic manual he writes–before he customizes it–is the same as everyone else’s because he is a human being, not an ape or a dolphin or a crow.

And that is what ethics is about. Ethics is a science that deals with studying man (not chimps) to define a proper morality at the generic level. Ethics is a science, like physics and biology and chemistry, to test each principle and weigh each in accordance to a human maintenance requirement. Its goal, like the goal of physics, is truth. In this case, the truth is in the realm of human conduct, at the generic level, truth for all humans, whether in a religious society, a secular society, or in a jungle.

Morality is thus the product of this effort of ethical/scientific inquiry? If it is scientific, morality is about the discovery of facts of reality–facts about human beings and the how-to of living. Morality, scientifically speaking, isn’t about a convention by this or that society. Morality is an objective discovery of what is true universally, to guide you on what ought to be done. What is true for you morally is also true for me morally (with some limited degrees of optional customization). In short, morality is a code of values to guide individual human beings.

Everyone human being has one whether he acknowledges it or not. He doesn’t have to discover a morality; he can choose from among the many moral codes available. But whichever he chooses, he has to take the consequence. The wrong moral code will give him a miserable life.

This is the sense that a morality is inescapable. It’s the job of ethicists and, yes, religionists to discover and define morality. (Well, in the case of religionists, they don’t discover; they get high, hallucinate, and dream it up.) But the responsibility to validate and accept a moral code cannot be shirked by anyone. You have one life to live, you cannot afford to be wrong at this fundamental level.

What are the basic principles for guiding your own life? THAT is your morality, dude? “There is no God to guide man’s life.” That is definitely one moral principle arising from atheism–the conviction that there isn’t a supernatural entity. It does offer moral guidance. It helps you to eliminate in one sweep a whole bunch of false, religious moral codes from consideration; these are codes that can potentially ruin lives, foremost yours. But there is more to a moral code than to reject other moral codes. What are the positive moral principles? What should you–or any man–do with your life? Considering your customized conditions living in the 21st-century in Europe in some town, with some degrees of competence, having two arms, two legs, presumably single, good-looking, what are you to do with your life, not just at this moment but in the continuous span of life ahead of you? Consider all the self-help books out there in bookstores. Which ones embody the correct moral code to help you improve yourself? Consider all the jobs out there, which ones will enhance your potential as a human being? Consider all the potential mates out there; which ones to choose from? By looks, by intelligence, by moral codes? By religion–bypass that… By ambition? By popularity? To make any choice in life, you really need a moral code. You need moral principles you hope to be universally true, not subject to revision by fickled bureaucrats or the consensus of some majority in society.

Do you have a morality? Of course you do. The code of values guiding you–the moral principles–are they true? Surely some are. Obviously, you are succeeding somewhat. But a comprehensive owner’s manual tells you what you can gain and keep by doing certain activities, telling you generically what is the best in you and how to go about achieving it. Do you know what is the best in you? Are you striving for it?

Everybody has a morality, just as everyone has a right to his opinion. Ah, but opinions can be wrong, and morality can be false. You know for sure the religious morals are false. How sure you know about yours?

So, what I am doing Apple, is not throwing out morality altogether. Nor am I considering all moral values to be on the same scale, as Evanescent and Ergosum want to think of me *[1]. I still have a sense of right and wrong and the root of it comes from my upbringing. However my own, subjective sense has evolved to the point where I personally do not accept many of commonly accepted moral rules. I avoid doing those things which would create problems with the law for me, and I do not always express my more radical ideas (altough this is what I’m slowly trying to do through my blog) out of fear of ostracising but I still keep them, not because I am irrational, but because I have judged them in my own mind and my own reason to be right.

However -and this will answer your final question - I am aware that I am not objective here. I do not perform the hybris of the Objectivist to assume that because I consider something moral, it must be rational. If, during the course of the conversation, one of my moral values are challenged and I am shown where and why they fail, I will either modify it or discard it altogether. This is not something that a person who considers morals something “Objective” will be willing to do however. For to accept that something he considered “Objective” all his life to be false, wrong or plain irrational, would have unfortunate reprecursions on his view of the world. “Who was it that decided this objectivity of the value for me” he will think (Bear with me, I know I am caricaturing).
Was it reason? “But that would mean that I was unreasonable! Irrational! And this simply cannot be for I know myself to be rational. Thus you are wrong and my moral value must still be true. We’re just missing something.”
Was it God through the holy scripture? “But that would mean that God is not infallible or that the Bible is not his word and this cannot be! I based my whole life on these rules so it must be true. There must be something else we are not considering. Let me ask my preacher…”

We all know what happens when a theist just knows that a moral value in the scripture is wrong. Because he must accept that morality is objective and comes from God, he will form excuses in his mind for this apparent problem and then ignore it. That is why it is so hard to change the morality of a person who considers morality to be objective, even when those morals are shown to be wrong. I do not suffer from such a drawback.

[1] To tell you the truth, this is a bit disheartening, I wanted to believe that other “rational” atheists would not be so quick to jump to conclusions. Like a theist jumping to conclusions from the label “Atheist. But I digress…

Καλο & Κακό

Συμπονετικός ή άκαρδος; Σωστός ή κάθαρμα; Αγαθός ή πονηρός; Λέξεις oi οποίες εκφράζουν 2 χαρακτηριστικές ταμπέλες που οι άνθρωποι τείνουν να κολλάνε στα άτομα που γνωρίζουν. Μια βασική ψυχολογική ανάγκη που νοιώθει ο κόσμος για να κατατάξει τους υπόλοιπους σε παρατάξεις και σαν αποτέλεσμα να ταιριάξει κάπου και συγχρόνως να προστατευτεί καλύτερα. Όλες αυτές οι λέξεις, συνήθως ανάγονται σε 2 έννοιες: Καλός ή Κακός;
2 έννοιες οι οποίες δεν έχουν καμία αντικειμενική βάση. Είναι τόσο άπιαστες και αόριστες που ο καθένας τις χρησιμοποιεί πια, όπου τον βολεύει. 2 έννοιες απάτη.

“Δεν υπάρχει καλό και κακό. Υπάρχουν μόνο εκφράσεις εγωισμού.”

Είναι μια πρόταση που λέει το ζουμί των σκέψεων μου μέσα σε λίγες λέξεις, άλλα ίσως χρειαστεί μια περαιτέρω ανάλυση για να γίνει κατανοητή.

Τι εννοούμε όταν λέμε ότι κάποιος είναι “καλός”;

Η καλοσύνη, σαν ταμπέλα, μπαίνει πάντα υποκειμενικά και σύμφωνα με τις εμφανείς πράξεις που βλέπουμε από κάποιον. Αυτές σχεδόν πάντα είναι αποδεκτές ή όχι ανάλογα με την ηθική της κοινωνίας που ζούμε άλλα υπάρχει ένα σύνολο πράξεων οι οποίες είναι πάντα αποδεκτές. Συνήθως αποκαλούνται αλτρουιστικές.
Κανείς δεν αντιτίθεται όταν κάποιος προσφέρει χωρίς αντάλλαγμα. Δεν έχω δει κάποιον να παραπονιέται επειδή ο διπλανός του προσφέρει σε εράνους και κανείς δεν πρόκειται να πει κακή κουβέντα εναντίων των γιατρών χωρίς σύνορα πχ. Δεν έχει σημασία ποιος και από πού είσαι, κάποιον που φέρεται αλτρουιστικά είναι δύσκολο έως απίθανο να τον αντιπαθήσεις, εκτός και εάν οι πράξεις του πάνε, για κάποιο λόγο, ενάντια στα συμφέροντα σου.

Τώρα σκέψου, ποιους ανθρώπους θεωρείς “Καλούς”; Μήπως είναι αυτοί οι οποίοι προσφέρουν χωρίς να ζητάνε αντάλλαγμα; Και δεν μιλάω μόνο για υλική προσφορά η οποία, ας είμαστε ειλικρινείς, είναι οι πιο εύκολες, άλλα και για την πνευματική υποστήριξη, την πραγματική φιλία αν το θες, και γενικά το να δίνεις κάτι που δεν σου περισσεύει.
Μην κάνεις λάθος, οι “καλοί” δεν είναι οι ηθικοί. Η ηθική είναι εντελώς υποκειμενική στην κοινωνία και την κουλτούρα του κάθε λαού και μερικές φορές (αν όχι πάντα) λαθεμένη. Ο Χίτλερ ήταν πολύ ηθικός και αυτό ήταν και ένας λόγος για τον οποίο εκλέχθηκε - δημοκρατικότατα παρακαλώ.
Καλός δεν είναι επίσης ούτε ο δουλοπρεπής. Μπορεί να τον βλέπεις και να νομίζεις ότι είναι καλός άνθρωπος επειδή δεν σου πάει κόντρα, άλλα τις περισσότερες φορές ένα τέτοιο άτομο κρύβει μέσα ένα υποχθόνιο μίσος που απλά περιμένει την κατάλληλη στιγμή για να εκραγεί.
Όχι. Απλά σκέψου ποια άτομα, τα οποία ξέρεις πολύ καλά, θεωρείς πραγματικά “καλούς”. Πιστεύω ότι θα φτάσεις στο ίδιο συμπέρασμα με ‘μενα.

Απο την άλλη πλευρά τώρα. Ποιόν αποκαλούμε αλήτη, άκαρδο, σκατόψυχο, κακό; Μα φυσικά αυτόν ο οποίος είναι στυγνός εγωιστής έτσι δεν είναι; Κάποιον ο οποίος κοιτάει το συμφέρον του και “Πατάει επί πτωμάτων” ας πούμε.
Πρώτα όμως σκέψου και κάτι άλλο: Υπάρχει άνθρωπος που θα αποκαλέσει εκούσια τον εαυτό του “Κακό”; Δεν το πιστεύω, εκτός και εάν έχει κάποια ψυχολογική ασθένεια.
Όμως εάν ο ίδιος ο άνθρωπος δεν κάνει αυτά που κάνει από “κακία” τότε γιατί τα κάνει; Αυτά τα άτομα δικαιολογούν τον εαυτό τους με διάφορους τρόπους ώστε να μην χρειάζεται να αντιμετωπίσουν αυτό που έχουν καταντήσει. Μπορεί να εξηγηθούν με φράσεις όπως “Είναι ένας σκληρός κόσμος και πρέπει να είμαι σκληρός για να επιβιώσω” ή “Το φέρομαι έτσι γιατί όλοι θα φερόντουσαν έτσι εάν είχαν την ευκαιρία” κ.ο.κ. ουσιαστικά, λέγοντας ψέματα στον αυτό τους.
Στην τελική, δεν θεωρούν τον εαυτό τους “κακό”, άλλα “Ρεαλιστή”, “Έξυπνο” και άλλες ανάλογες λέξεις.
Αυτά τα άτομα δεν μπορούν να συνηδειτοποιήσουν πως τους βλέπει ο υπόλοιπος κόσμος και ακόμα και όταν η εξωτερική πραγματικότητα εμφανιστεί μπροστά τους, το αποκαλούν ζηλεία ή παρεξήγηση. Φυσικά το γεγονός ότι αυτοί είναι συνήθως και οι άνθρωποι που ανεβαίνουν ψηλά κάνει την συνειδητοποίηση αυτή ακόμα πιο δύσκολη. Δυστυχώς η δύναμη θεωρείται αγαθό και αυτό τείνει να κάνει τον περισσότερο κόσμο να θεωρεί τον τρόπο με τον οποίο έφτασε εκεί ανεκτό, αν όχι αποδεκτό. Είναι μια άτυχη συγκυρία το ότι στην κοινωνία θεωρείται ύψιστο αγαθό ένα το οποίο μπορείς να το αποκτήσεις καταπατώντας τον υπόλοιπο κόσμο.
Το αστείο της υπόθεσης είναι ότι όλος ο κόσμος ξέρει με τι μέσα κάποιος μπορεί να αποκτήσει δύναμη άλλα κάνει, στην κυριολεξία…την πάπια, μέχρι φυσικά η πραγματικότητα να ξεσκεπαστεί και μετά να μπορεί να το παίξει έκπληκτος (σκάνδαλο είναι η τρέντυ λέξη), και να ξεκινήσει το λιθοβόλημα.
Άλλα ξεφεύγω…

Δεν υπάρχουν λοιπόν μαυροφορεμένοι μουστακαλήδες που κλωτσάνε κουταβάκια και δένουν άμοιρες κορασίδες στις γραμμές του τρένου. Υπάρχουν όμως άτομα τα οποία θέλουν “απλά” να αποκτήσουν πλούτη, φήμη, εξουσία κοκ, με κάθε τρόπο και είναι διατεθειμένα να λυγίσουν τους κανόνες που και που, ώστε να πάνε μπροστά. Στην πραγματικότητα, δεν κάνουν τίποτα περισσότερο από το να ακολουθούν τον εγωισμό τους, ο οποίος είναι που απαιτεί τα προαναφερθέντα. Είναι πολύ αργά όταν ανακαλύπτουν ότι τα κέρδη αυτά έχουν κούφιο πυρήνα, άλλα αυτό είναι άσχετο με το θέμα μας.
Κάποιος λοιπόν δεν είναι κακός άλλα εγωιστής και όσο περισσότερο εγωιστής είναι, όσο περισσότερα θέλει να αποκτήσει για τον εαυτό του, τόσο πιο εύκολο του είναι να αγνοήσει τον υπόλοιπο κόσμο για να το επιτύχει. Να γίνει στυγνός, με μια λέξη.
Όσο πιο στυγνός εγωιστής είναι κάποιος λοιπόν, τόσο πιο πολύ φαίνεται στους υπόλοιπους αυτό και εξού ο λόγος που βάζουν τις κλασσικές ταμπελίτσες. Απλά δεν μπορούν να συνηδειτοποιήσουν ότι αυτά που κάνει, δεν είναι γιατί θέλει το κακό τους άλλα γιατί θέλει το δικό του καλό περισσότερο απ’ όλα τ’ αλλα.

Συμπερασματικά λοιπόν, όσο πιο αλτρουιστής είναι κάποιος, τόσο πιο “καλός” και το αντίθετο ακριβώς ισχύει για τον εγωισμό.
Το Καλό/Κακό λοιπόν ανάγεται σε Αλτρουισμό/Εγωισμό.

Που μας φέρνει στο επόμενο κεφάλαιο.

Δεν υπάρχει αλτρουισμός

Ο αλτρουισμός τι υποδηλώνει; Μα το να προσφέρεις χωρίς να περιμένεις να κερδίσεις κάτι από αυτό φυσικά. Εδώ όμως βρίσκεται και η παγίδα. Πάντα κερδίζεις κάτι με τις πράξεις σου, απλά αυτό το κάτι δεν είναι πάντα υλικό. Αυτό που κερδίζεις είναι συναίσθημα.
Δεν νιώθεις καλά όταν κάνεις μια κλασσική “καλή” πράξη; Μπορεί να μην κέρδισες κάτι χειροπιαστό από αυτήν άλλα σου ανέβασε την ψυχολογία το να σκέφτεσαι ότι βοήθησες κάποιον, έτσι δεν είναι; Έτσι είναι, γιατί αλλιώς δεν θα το έκανες εξ’ αρχής.
Ο Αλτρουισμός σου λοιπόν είναι ψεύτικος γιατί κερδίζεις κάτι, κάτι που τονώνει την ψυχοσύνθεση σου, συναισθήματα σου, τον εγωισμό σου…
Είναι απλά μια διαφορετική έκφραση του εγωισμού. Παραδόξως, είναι και η μόνη μορφή του, η οποία είναι κοινωνικά αποδεκτή.

Πραγματικός αλτρουισμός μπορεί να υπάρξει μόνο με περιορισμούς, πχ μόνο σε υλιστικό επίπεδο’ οπού και θεωρείσαι έτσι γιατί δεν περιμένεις κάποιο αντάλλαγμα. άλλα όχι γενικά και αντικειμενικά.
Όλοι έχουμε ένα σκοπό για τον οποίο κάνουμε ό,τι κάνουμε, και ο υπέρτατος σκοπός μας είναι ο εαυτούλης μας. Άλλοι νιώθουν ολοκληρωμένοι μέσα στα υλικά αγαθά, άλλοι μέσα στην αγάπη των συνανθρώπων τους κοκ. Οι ίδιες οι εκφράσεις εγωισμού δεν είναι κατακριτέες άλλα ο τρόπος με τον οποίον τις αποκτάς είναι. Γι’ αυτό και θεωρώ τον αλτρουισμό την ανώτερη έκφραση από αυτές και θεωρώ ότι ο κόσμος θα ήταν πολύ καλύτερος εάν την είχε σαν υπέρτατη αρετή.

Σε μια κοινωνία όμως η οποία βασίζεται στην πλεονεξία για να λειτουργήσει (Καπιταλισμός), ο αλτρουισμός είναι για τους πολύ λίγους, τους “αθώους” και “αγαθούς”…
Εδώ είναι και ο βασικότερος λόγος για τον οποίο υποστηρίζω την φιλοσοφία του Open Source λογισμικού. Βασίζεται πάνω σε αρχές με τις οποίες συμφωνώ.

Δεν υπάρχει καλό και κακό λοιπόν, υπάρχουν μόνο εκφράσεις εγωισμού.