Liberation from accepted patterns of morality

Post Reply New Topic

How many of you have a feeling that you are behind normal limitations of commonly accepted morality? I'm not talking about dilemmas like Rascolnikov's but what I mean is having known psychological mechanisms ruling common patterns of human behaviour through and through and having liberated ourselves from sociological conditioning having its source in pure biology itself. Evolutionary psychology - and that's it. Analysing them gives me almost sensuous pleasure. I rejected traditional morality which in fact being based on a natural inclination to avoid social disorder and useless mess is normally explained as even if being something which should be followed by every member of society, in fact isn't a thing having any other rational explanation than "we simply do it and don't ask why only do it so as not to be a freak" while what I truly hate is something deprived of rational explanations. There are no "sacred cows" in my mind, I'm free from prejudices, popular stereotypes and sexual inhibitions (apart from my lack of interest in having sex with others).

I freed myself - sometime during my teens I guess. . . partly as the result of constantly thinking about morality and observed human behaviour.

I have morals. But they are my own morals that don't perfectly match up with what society says.

Most of the conflict occurs around random courtesy's that serve no practical use whatsoever. Why is it such a big deal if someone's elbows are on the table? Why can I not wear a hat in school?

In theory I have no sexual morals - I think that the accepted ones are just male-orientated inventions that tend to diminish female choice. In practise though one might think I was extremely conventionally moral (I have only had sex with one person who became my husband).

I would say that through my free-thinking, I have discovered that the notion that "closed-minded is bad" is a closed-minded idea itself. I think there are some situations where it is good to be closed-minded. I am closed-minded to the idea that the Nazis did the right thing by mass murdering a lot of Jews, closed-minded to the idea that some races are inferior to others, closed-minded to the idea that Jesus is not God, and closed-minded to the idea that the Bible is not true. But I think we hear a lot about closed-minded being bad, however often those who say that closed-minded is bad are often closed-minded themselves to the idea that closed-mindedness can be a good thing.

I am not saying that we should not change our views if there is overwhelming evidence that we have been wrong. But I think in some cases it MAY be okay to have a set of beliefs that you will intellectually defend at all costs until you have no reasonable reason to hold to those beliefs.

I agree. What people call "morality" is based off of biology and social stability. I've felt better ever since I realized that the idea of "good and evil" or "right and wrong" has no legitimate basis. I think that moral beliefs only limit people's potential. "There are no 'sacred cows' in my mind, I'm free from prejudices, popular stereotypes and sexual inhibitions (apart from my lack of interest in having sex with others). " I agree 100% (except that I do have an interest in sex).

I disagree. I think that it is bad to be closed-minded, because I support being open-minded.

If I understood you correctly, then you are "closed-minded" to the things that you mentioned because you don't want to waste your time with them, and you are okay with your present set of beliefs. I don't think that you're being closed-minded, just practical, because you believe that you are consistent in your beliefs, you don't have time to explore every alternative to its end, and you already know that those alternatives are wrong.

I think that assessment well-captures it. But I think this is a good chance for a philosophical discussion - what does it MEAN to be open-minded? What are the full implications of being open-minded and the implications of being closed-minded? This can be a discussion about definitions.

If it comes down to a discussion about mere definitions, then it would be a waste of time. But anyway, I think that what it means to be open-minded is to hold no prejudices against anything that is "other" and approaching everything without judgement or a refusal to appreciate it for itself. For example, I am a musician and a fan of music, and I have talked about open-mindedness with respect to art a number of times. Someone is open-minded if he brings no expectations of what art should be or do and he experiences the art/music (or, to be pedantic, everything in general that he experiences at the moment, which is dominated by the music in this case) authentically (i.e. with no pretense or prejudice). The same outline applies to not only the experience of art, but to the world in general.

I tend to see people using the term ’closed minded’ when you refuse to accept their opinions as gospel truth.

Say you’re discussing the afterlife and whether it exists. If I say I believe it doesn’t exist, as I have seen no irrefutable proof otherwise. The one with the opposing viewpoint opens up with a barrage of how I am not open minded to the fact that there is (in their opinion) an after life. Who’s the closed-minded one in that situation?

Morality is relative to whatever culture you’re dealing with.

“It’s perfectly ok for me to beat the holy crap out of this person for doing me wrong? Well, damn Skippy, where I come from you end up sitting in jail and labeled a violent psychopath for doing that.”

Same here. I once had a discouraging discussion with a Christian who was describing to me that her belief was based on faith. Additionally, I find it sad that those people feel that they have to take a leap of faith for their lives to make sense to them. What's wrong with just experiencing the world as you encounter it? I feel very happy because I am open-minded and clear-headed and I just live life in the moment.

And the same about morality. The reason I wouldn't rob someone is that the chances are that I would get caught and the consequences would be terrible; it's not evil to rob someone.

Well, I have a good idea of what morality should be. It should be doing what is right. So what is right? That which helps and is self sustaining. So Stealing is wrong because it, if done to everyone, leads to chaos and dispair. Giving money to every bumb on the street is bad because it can lead to dependence and belief that they are entitled to it. It is also NOT self sustaining. As more take benefit, fewer can pay.

This obvious truism is present somewhere in everybody's mind but an issue of being aware of its rational reason is a different kettle of fish. Most people don't ponder it, taking the obviousness of common patterns of behaviour for granted - some morality is accepted in their culture so everybody follows it not taking pains to figure out why it is so. It's, I guess, mostly because of being immersed in judeochristian culture that sublimed purely biological inclination to order into noble virtues instilled into our souls by God and this explanation is sufficient enough for majority.

The nature of morality is something that has been paining me for the past few months ever since a discussion I had with AwesomelyGlorious in a thread in the Philosophy, Politics, and Religion subforum. The problem is this, if there is no higher power or transcendent realm that is the source of morality AND it is true that the assertion that one cannot use assertions of what is the case (for example, the statement "people are naturally altruistic" or the statement "homosexuality violates Natural Law") to determine how people ought to act is correct, how does one justify a non-relativistic, non-egoistic ethical system such as Utilitarianism or Kantianism?.