Allow me to elaborate on morals

Morals are constantly stressed by religious people to be some sort of God-given quality, which leads to the conclusion who choose to reject the existence of such an omnipotent, omniscient entity must lack this inherent moral compass. Incorrect. Morality, to me, can be defined as an artificial term for the instinctive practises which are of the most Edoefit to a species as a whole (besides, is the perceived “Wrath Of God” the only reason you choose not to practise immoral acts?). When an animal jeopardises or sacrifices its own life in order to protect its offspring from a predator, can this be defined as “moral” behavior? It can, but only if you’re being anthropomorphous. A moral act implies that you have behaved according to your “conscience” (I’ve always loved Mencken’s definition of the word; “the inner voice that warns us somebody may be looking”). Inferences drawn from scientific evidence testify to the fact that the overwhelming majority of discovered organisms in the world lack introspective consciousness (even homo Sapien infants have been shown to exhibit this lack of self-awareness up until a certain age) and as such are governed not by pre-ordained morality, but purely by instinct, ie. survival and reproduction. Any species which openly and orgiastically practises human-defined “immoral” behavoir as its norm is greatly threatening the success of its continued existence. There are three fundamental principles which moral behavior protects: life, freedom and truth. When these three values are optimised, conditions are prime for a self-aware species to flourish intellectually via the evolution of ideas.

Murder: the systematic and indiscriminate extermination of genetic material within a gene pool, either on a small or a large scale (genocide), which can lead to major problems down the line since the health of a species is reflected by its mean number and hence its chance of adaptation in the case of a catastrophic event. Also, from an artificial perspective, the archetypal contravention of an organism’s fundamental right to life.

Theft: from a purely naturalist standpoint, theft can be defined as the unearned possession of property which increases one’s status in a social group. Instinctive practises such as sexual selection ensures the survival of the fittest. If status is gained merely by deception, the fittest may not necessarily survive to pass on the superior genes to the next generation. Moreover, and far more pragmatically, it contravenes basic capitalist justice and equity (infringement upon freedom and truth).

Physical and sexual assault: intrusion upon an individual’s personal freedom.

There’s many more but you get the idea. My point is that morality is not a static mandate from the universe’s imaginary friend. To assume such would be to place the cart before the horse since the principles of moral behavior are irrelevant until artificial connotations are applied to it.

All experiences are subjective. Disregarding a priori knowledge (assuming it exists, which is a whole other epistemological topic entirely which I don’t currently feel like wading into), classified to me as the fundamental instincts of survival and reproduction, consciousness, that is the intangible quality composed of the set of experiences accompanied by the intelligence which necessitates self-awareness, is also subjective. For example, it cannot be proven that chicken tastes the same to me as it does to you. Nor can it be proven that my feelings of “happiness”, “sadness”, “depression”, “love”, etc, are remotely isomorphous to anyone else’s. As such, no individual has the right to dictate and control the life of another, as no one individual’s life can be deemed existentially “superior” to another, as the two are completely relative and as such incomparable. A person’s life is their responsibility and theirs alone. It follows logically not only that no-one has the right to end or shorten another person’s life if it is against their will, but also that no-one has the right to extend another person’s life if it is against their will. While suicide is in itself a grossly selfish and irrational act, to outlaw it is quite bizarre to me, and, considering a person has the perfect right to smoke 10 packs of cigarettes, drink a bottle of whisky and eat a bucket of fried chicken everyday, for example, rather hypocritical. Why legislate against one form of self-destruction, but not the other? Because one is longer and more drawn out? Oh, right, because there’s not nearly as much excise tax in someone strapping a hose to their exhaust pipe or tasting a gun barrel. How is laying murder charges on a person who kills another with their complete and unequivocal consent any different from allowing an obese person to sue McDonalds for their current state of health, or the person who had a car accident from drink-driving blaming the pub who continued to serve them alcohol, except by degree? Does personal responsibility count for anything anymore?

Continuing this argument on to the subject of medical ethics. In medicine, the health, ie. the quality of life, of the patient is based upon the informed opinion of the medical practitioner, but is ultimately the sole responsibility of the patient themselves or, in the case of the patient being a minor or of unsound mind, with the next of kin. As far as I’m aware, this is what legislation dictates, so I don’t have any problem with it. You can try to help a patient, but you can’t make them do what’s best for themselves. Lead horse water drink.

I think that’s about all I came up with. I know I’m not Edotham or Stuart-Mill, I have no formal philosophical training whatsoever that would permit me to use verbosely technical gibberish to explain myself or exhaust all avenues of thought in order to tie it all up in a nice, neat little essay, and frankly some of the points are slightly threadbare and could use some fleshing out which I lack both the time and patience to do, but I just had to let that out because it was starting to annoy me. When I start to dwell on an issue, I just have to let it out or else it keeps sneaking up behind me and consuming me. I suppose that’s the main reason I have this blog. *shrug*

Join me next week when I finally and indisputably disprove the notion that Creed are actually a fairly decent band.