NationStates Jolt Archive

I have given the concepts of morality and ethics much thought. I have sought the core of morality and the answer to the question of what it is and what it should be. These are questions that haven't been asked enough. I think they should be because morality is very important.

The conclusion I have come to is that there are two types of morality. One is the morality of the Nietzschean, the capitalist, and the politician. It is the morality of power. The other is the morality of the anarchist. It is a respect for the freedom and happiness of others.

Anarchism, far from being violent, has always been opposed to some of the most violent institutions in existance. It is the supporters of government and capitalism that advocate coersion and violence. Even the most violent anarchists were less violent than the average government, which fights wars and enforces laws.

All authoritarians share the same basic morality and all true and consistant anarchists share the same basic morality. Their moralities are based on hate and love respectively. I don't mean hate as in wanting to beat someone up or love as in dating, but emotions that include those but cover a much larger range.

The morality of the authoritarian values order and the status quo. It exalts stability and more often than not logic. It is the morality of fascists, Islamic fundamentalists, and transhumanists alike. It is based on the principle of "might makes right" and the glorification of power.

Hense, it values power. What is power? It is the ability to commit violence. Power is enforcing your will on others and that implies violence. Thus, the will to power described by Nietzsche is the will to commit violence. In other words, it is hatred and malice, the desire to see others suffer.

This malice is the basis of all coersive authority. With the possible exception of machines from The Matrix who probably didn't have the emotional capacity for hate, it is hate that drives actions against others. They were fictional beings, anyway.

This hatred is essentially a an unprovoked desire to do harm to humans and often non-human life. It manifests itself in two ways: puritanism and a more general quality of authoritarianism. They form the basis of authoritarian morality, the opposite of anarchist morality.

Nietzsche falsely divided authoritarian morality into master and slave moralities, not realizing that the will to power and it's opposite, submission, are part of the same idea: Authority. It is impossible for the will to power to exist without people who value submission.

Thus he created a false dichotomy between the master morality and slave morality. He and modern élitists don't realize that they are the same thing, just from different angles. Much like the traditional view of collectivism and individualism, they are in fact two sides of the same coin.

Puritanism is the hate of the self. It is the view that the emotions that define as human are impure, animalistic, and irrational. Instead, a smothering hate of humanity in the guise of reason or purity pervades the mind. The puritan fears and hates their own humanity.

Authoritarianism in general is an extention of this principle. If you hate yourself, you will likely hate others readily. Thus, the Christian fundamentalist has trouble keeping their sexual repression to themselves. They feel the need to force others to give up pleasure.

In other words, these two forms of hate go hand in hand. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with pleasure so long as it does not lead the experiencer to hurt others. If they can appreciate pleasure, they will probably be less likely to make others suffer.

There are times when denying pleasure are justified. Smoking can cause cancer and too much food can cause obesity. It is caution, not anti-humanism that motivates moderation in these cases. However, there is no danger in having sex or watching R-rated movies.

Likewise, sacrificing yourself to save others is a love for others, not a hatred of yourself. On the other hand, commiting suicide is not a good act as it doesn't benefit anyone and if motivated by self-hate, shows a great deal of contempt for life.

Thus, the politician commits an act of malice when they use force to keep frustrated teenagers from using drugs when removing the cause of their stress would be a much better solution. The capitalist who orders workers around because he can depend on the government to arrest trespassers is also commiting an evil act.

The transhumanist whose contempt for nature and humanity drives him to seek perfection at the expence of racial equality and the environment is also commiting an act of hate. The drug-user and suicide commiter, while not commiting acts nearly as bad as the former, still exhibit hatred, though for themselves in this case.

The morality of the anarchist is different. It does not justify force but is measured by love. A true anarchist opposes the hatred inherent to authority and its agents and seeks to replace it with a society based on non-violent interactions. The opposition to authority is just one aspect of a truly consistant anarchist's morality.

If an anarchist opposes wage labor for being anti-human, then it is only consistant for them to oppose transhumanism for further imbuing humanity with the coldness of technology and destroying it in the process. Both are examples of hatred for humanity.

Likewise, if an anarchist opposes government for its coersive nature, then it is only consistant for them to oppose rape and murder on the same grounds. The difference between the rapist or pimp and the politician is only one of degrees. They both employ violence.

Instead of advocating force, we should instead act out of kindness whenever possible. If hatred is the morality of the establishmentist, then love is the morality of the anarchist. Anarchism is then the quest for the peace disrupted by hateful authoritarians.

Thus, instead of using force, an anarchist should base their actions on kindness and compassion. Instead of complex rules, the basic guideline of whether an action is based on kindness or malice is preferable. Complex rules make it harder to think about morality, which is what the authoritarians want.

Whereas an authoritarian advocates violence to keep teenagers from using pot, a true anarchist would look for the cause of their drug use. Whereas an authoritarian advocates violence to prevent violence they don't approve of, an anarchist advocates abolishing all violence.

Thus, it is better to deal with authoritarians through words rather than force. Only when you are left without other option is violence truly justified. To use violence at the first sign of trouble is the morality of the authoritarian. Ideally, it would be possible not to use violence ever.

In reality, this is probably not so. Unless you are extremely intelligent and can find a peaceful solution to everything or never end up a a difficult situation, you may be forced to use force. This is the nature of authority, though. It creates most of the violence it claims to suppress.

In addition, it should be remembered that these are suggestions based on my inquiries into the nature of authority. A true anarchist thinks for themselves and doesn't rely on premade solutions. Instead, it is much to remember the principles that will lead to peace and happiness for all and find a solution that works well.

To follow a suggestion blindly will lead to folly. A suggestion made by an anarchist is just that, a suggestion. I am not giving orders or defining anarchism, afterall. I am merely pointing out what I feel is necessary to be a consistant anarchist.

In conclusion, to quote Obiwan Kenobi, "Don't give into hate, that leads to the Dark side". The dark side is, in this case, authoritarianism. The light side, then, is anarchism.

Hey there....

First, please understand that I sympathize with your view, and that I do not intend my comments to be construed as critical of the anarchist philosophy. That having been said, here goes an attempt at a constructive discussion of the concepts involved...

The conclusion I have come to is that there are two types of morality. One is the morality of the Nietzschean, the capitalist, and the politician. It is the morality of power. The other is the morality of the anarchist. It is a respect for the freedom and happiness of others.

Well, I'm not so sure all "morality" or political philosophy can be so easily divided. But in a way, that's beside the point. What you're really saying is that you want to talk about power and freedom, and for you the two are mutually exclusive. Where there is power, there is no freedom; where there is freedom, there is no power.

That may be an interesting way to think about things... but, I would like to suggest to you that it may not be a very effective way to make your case. Why? Because there are plenty of people out there who value freedom very highly, but think that their freedom depends on the power of the state -- to protect each from another, of course. Clearly, you think they are incorrect... but do you really think you will gain many allies by simply telling them, from the get-go, that they do not really love freedom, in fact they do not even really know what it is, and that their own personal beliefs equate them with history's most violent oppressors? That seems hardly respectful.

Perhaps a more fruitful approach would be to say, "Hey, you love freedom, too? Awesome. You know, wouldn't it be great if we could all be more free? If you didn't have to worry about money? Well, let me convince you that that is possible." Something along those lines.

Even the most violent anarchists were less violent than the average government, which fights wars and enforces laws.

Hmmm... not exactly. Remember that when Jefferson thought of anarchism, he had in mind the local native American nations? More to the point, he was pretty much right -- their way of life was amongst the closest to anarchism in all of history. But, they were willing to fight wars to defend themselves. And, they had definite codes of behavior, which could be enforced by the group. You could even say they "governed" themselves. None of which requires a state -- but that is precisely the anarchist's point.

All authoritarians share the same basic morality and all true and consistant anarchists share the same basic morality. Their moralities are based on hate and love respectively.

Do you really think this is true? While I still think it's a bad idea, I can recognize that much authoritarian thought derives from a love of sorts... and honestly, doesn't some part of you desire anarchy because you cannot trust anyone to wield power? (Nothing wrong with that... but it's not all mushy and lovey.)

The morality of the authoritarian values order and the status quo. It exalts stability and more often than not logic.

Hmmm... There's a lot going on here. First of all, does the authoritarian really value order when his power is based on disorder? If there were no crime, if there were no ongoing class antagonism, if there were no terrorism or international instability, for what would we need the state?

On the other hand, existing authorities necessarily value the status quo. Your mistake is to equate the status quo and "order." Ever hear the famous phrase, "anarchy is order"?

On logic: This is a tough one. For one thing, not every authoritarian philosophy "exalts" logic. On the contrary, Fascism involves a desperate cult of the irrational. Moreover, I'm not so convinced "logic" is such a bad thing. Of course, I am also highly suspicious of how "reason" is invoked today. The real problems are positivism, behaviorism, and operationalism, which won't even let you get away from discussing immediate experience to reasonably think about what could be.

To paraphrase Marcuse, every aspect of the status quo seems to be justified in purely rational terms... which only serves to disguise the irrational totality.

It is based on the principle of "might makes right" and the glorification of power.

This is simply not true. Plenty of non-anarchists despise and/or fear power... but they regard it as a factual reality that cannot be simply wiped out. Many political thinkers spend many hours figuring out how to use power against power, to minimize it's total effects.

Again, I'm not saying anarchism is wrong... I am merely suggesting that if you really ever want it to happen, you will have to better understand what it is you oppose.

What is power? It is the ability to commit violence. Power is enforcing your will on others and that implies violence.

I think it is a mistake to confuse the two. First of all, there are plenty of ways to "enforce your will" on others that do not involve violence. In fact, the most difficult power to uproot does not require violence at all, because it has convinced its victims of the appropriateness, moral rightness, or inevitability of the status quo. Second, violence does not imply power. Many sports are inherently violent... and I don't think that's a bad thing. In fact, if I lived in an anarchist society in which I could not get rough with my friends... well, I guess I just wouldn't consider that an anarchist society.

This malice is the basis of all coersive authority.

I think love as well as malice can be the basis of coercive authority. Sometimes the ones you hurt most are the ones you love...

This hatred is essentially a an unprovoked desire to do harm to humans and often non-human life.

Unprovoked? Always? And, what about violence against non-life, like tearing down a mountain to make a strip mall? Happens all the time, and it sure looks violent to me.

It manifests itself in two ways: puritanism and a more general quality of authoritarianism.

Ok, we need to sort these concepts out. It seems a little odd to equate puritanism with authority when you look at the sexual freedom of Nazi Germany... or, for that matter, the freedoms of present-day America. There are good reasons to believe that the permissiveness of these societies lets the oppressed masses have as much raw "pleasure" as they can get... so that they forget, for a moment -- or rather, many moments over and over and over again -- that they are not happy... or really free.

Moreover, puritanism -- at least to some degree -- need not imply real "violence" against the self. (However, I will agree that we see it in that form all the time!!) Rather, sometimes we deny ourselves as a matter of determination to reach more lofty goals. It's all about balancing our ideals and our ambitions (primitive ambition being power), and tying them to the same things.

If they can appreciate pleasure, they will probably be less likely to make others suffer.

Really? I see a lot of Americans who really appreciate pleasure... but are no less likely to make others suffer (or allow it without caring).

However, there is no danger in having sex or watching R-rated movies.

What if you have so much sex, and watch so many R-rated movies, that you never discover the joys of political participation? You never understand that real freedom often requires hard work? Seems dangerous to me. Not saying we should ban it... but also wondering whether it is healthy for revolutionaries to believe that the "sexual revolution" was really a revolution.

On the other hand, commiting suicide is not a good act as it doesn't benefit anyone...

It might benefit me, if I am suffering and I want my suffering to end. It might also benefit my loved ones if I am a burden to them in my current condition. Freud saw suicide as a perfectly rational (and reasonable) solution to a world filled with pain. He saw other solutions as well, but saw no way to argue against this one. (Of course, he was dying of cancer when he wrote this in Das Unbehagen in der Kultur.)

...and if motivated by self-hate, shows a great deal of contempt for life.

A genocidal dictator takes a good look at himself one morning and hates what he sees. He puts a bullet in his brain. Might this not show a great deal of new-found respect and love for human life?

Instead of complex rules, the basic guideline of whether an action is based on kindness or malice is preferable.

Well, I'm not exactly a fan of complex rules (although a complex situation may require them)... but I definitely think it's dangerous to advise people that "as long as you do it out of kindness, it's ok." People do a lot of things out of kindness that turn out to be pretty nasty for the recipient. You can say, "Well, but they're confused" all you want... it's just not a very good way to explain right and wrong, since people can convince themselves of pretty much anything when it comes to their own motives.

Complex rules make it harder to think about morality...

Maybe. But maybe the point is that they make you really think about it instead of just referring to a one-size-fits-all rule.

I have given the concepts of morality and ethics much thought. I have sought the core of morality and the answer to the question of what it is and what it should be. These are questions that haven't been asked enough. I think they should be because morality is very important.

The conclusion I have come to is that there are two types of morality. One is the morality of the Nietzschean, the capitalist, and the politician. It is the morality of power. The other is the morality of the anarchist. It is a respect for the freedom and happiness of others.

Anarchism, far from being violent, has always been opposed to some of the most violent institutions in existance. It is the supporters of government and capitalism that advocate coersion and violence. Even the most violent anarchists were less violent than the average government, which fights wars and enforces laws.

All authoritarians share the same basic morality and all true and consistant anarchists share the same basic morality. Their moralities are based on hate and love respectively. I don't mean hate as in wanting to beat someone up or love as in dating, but emotions that include those but cover a much larger range.

The morality of the authoritarian values order and the status quo. It exalts stability and more often than not logic. It is the morality of fascists, Islamic fundamentalists, and transhumanists alike. It is based on the principle of "might makes right" and the glorification of power.

Hense, it values power. What is power? It is the ability to commit violence. Power is enforcing your will on others and that implies violence. Thus, the will to power described by Nietzsche is the will to commit violence. In other words, it is hatred and malice, the desire to see others suffer.

This malice is the basis of all coersive authority. With the possible exception of machines from The Matrix who probably didn't have the emotional capacity for hate, it is hate that drives actions against others. They were fictional beings, anyway.

This hatred is essentially a an unprovoked desire to do harm to humans and often non-human life. It manifests itself in two ways: puritanism and a more general quality of authoritarianism. They form the basis of authoritarian morality, the opposite of anarchist morality.

Nietzsche falsely divided authoritarian morality into master and slave moralities, not realizing that the will to power and it's opposite, submission, are part of the same idea: Authority. It is impossible for the will to power to exist without people who value submission.

Thus he created a false dichotomy between the master morality and slave morality. He and modern élitists don't realize that they are the same thing, just from different angles. Much like the traditional view of collectivism and individualism, they are in fact two sides of the same coin.

Puritanism is the hate of the self. It is the view that the emotions that define as human are impure, animalistic, and irrational. Instead, a smothering hate of humanity in the guise of reason or purity pervades the mind. The puritan fears and hates their own humanity.

Authoritarianism in general is an extention of this principle. If you hate yourself, you will likely hate others readily. Thus, the Christian fundamentalist has trouble keeping their sexual repression to themselves. They feel the need to force others to give up pleasure.

In other words, these two forms of hate go hand in hand. Likewise, there is nothing wrong with pleasure so long as it does not lead the experiencer to hurt others. If they can appreciate pleasure, they will probably be less likely to make others suffer.

There are times when denying pleasure are justified. Smoking can cause cancer and too much food can cause obesity. It is caution, not anti-humanism that motivates moderation in these cases. However, there is no danger in having sex or watching R-rated movies.

Likewise, sacrificing yourself to save others is a love for others, not a hatred of yourself. On the other hand, commiting suicide is not a good act as it doesn't benefit anyone and if motivated by self-hate, shows a great deal of contempt for life.

Thus, the politician commits an act of malice when they use force to keep frustrated teenagers from using drugs when removing the cause of their stress would be a much better solution. The capitalist who orders workers around because he can depend on the government to arrest trespassers is also commiting an evil act.

The transhumanist whose contempt for nature and humanity drives him to seek perfection at the expence of racial equality and the environment is also commiting an act of hate. The drug-user and suicide commiter, while not commiting acts nearly as bad as the former, still exhibit hatred, though for themselves in this case.

The morality of the anarchist is different. It does not justify force but is measured by love. A true anarchist opposes the hatred inherent to authority and its agents and seeks to replace it with a society based on non-violent interactions. The opposition to authority is just one aspect of a truly consistant anarchist's morality.

If an anarchist opposes wage labor for being anti-human, then it is only consistant for them to oppose transhumanism for further imbuing humanity with the coldness of technology and destroying it in the process. Both are examples of hatred for humanity.

Likewise, if an anarchist opposes government for its coersive nature, then it is only consistant for them to oppose rape and murder on the same grounds. The difference between the rapist or pimp and the politician is only one of degrees. They both employ violence.

Instead of advocating force, we should instead act out of kindness whenever possible. If hatred is the morality of the establishmentist, then love is the morality of the anarchist. Anarchism is then the quest for the peace disrupted by hateful authoritarians.

Thus, instead of using force, an anarchist should base their actions on kindness and compassion. Instead of complex rules, the basic guideline of whether an action is based on kindness or malice is preferable. Complex rules make it harder to think about morality, which is what the authoritarians want.

Whereas an authoritarian advocates violence to keep teenagers from using pot, a true anarchist would look for the cause of their drug use. Whereas an authoritarian advocates violence to prevent violence they don't approve of, an anarchist advocates abolishing all violence.

Thus, it is better to deal with authoritarians through words rather than force. Only when you are left without other option is violence truly justified. To use violence at the first sign of trouble is the morality of the authoritarian. Ideally, it would be possible not to use violence ever.

In reality, this is probably not so. Unless you are extremely intelligent and can find a peaceful solution to everything or never end up a a difficult situation, you may be forced to use force. This is the nature of authority, though. It creates most of the violence it claims to suppress.

In addition, it should be remembered that these are suggestions based on my inquiries into the nature of authority. A true anarchist thinks for themselves and doesn't rely on premade solutions. Instead, it is much to remember the principles that will lead to peace and happiness for all and find a solution that works well.

To follow a suggestion blindly will lead to folly. A suggestion made by an anarchist is just that, a suggestion. I am not giving orders or defining anarchism, afterall. I am merely pointing out what I feel is necessary to be a consistant anarchist.

In conclusion, to quote Obiwan Kenobi, "Don't give into hate, that leads to the Dark side". The dark side is, in this case, authoritarianism. The light side, then, is anarchism.
One thing you must understand is that Anarchism may be not as bad as Authoritarianism, but there are not those 2 things. The best thing is to be in the middle, like America, where the people have the power, and the rulers of the nation are the servants of the people. Not absolute Anarchy, that would be chaos, not absolute Authoritarianism, that would be too much control, but just in the middle is perfect. Trust me on this, we do not want to live under natural law, it really sucks.

Good points. I will revise my essay accordingly.

A state of nature*is* authoritatianism, with very few differences. The philosophy of might = right pervades both of them. Violence is the primary mover in both of them. The only difference is that in authoritarianism there's a scale of power, so that individuals can use force over large numbers of people; in a state of nature an individual rarely, if ever, can use force over more than a handful of other people. Anarchy as it is commonly understood refers to a state of absolute chaos and general social disorder - namely, a state of nature. However, the word that describes that condition is actually anomie. Anarchy is simply a lack of rulers and arbitrary authority. Anomie = authoritarianism, in many cases. Anarchy is something different. Sadly, the most obvious way to achieve a peaceful anarchy that doesn't lead to anomie is through a culture of extremely strict social rules governing behavior, which run deeper than arbitrary laws ever could. Essentially, that people use self-control to prevent themselves from committing actions that would harm the general society, which isn't very good individual well-being. Pity.

Ok, we need to sort these concepts out. It seems a little odd to equate puritanism with authority when you look at the sexual freedom of Nazi Germany... or, for that matter, the freedoms of present-day America. There are good reasons to believe that the permissiveness of these societies lets the oppressed masses have as much raw "pleasure" as they can get... so that they forget, for a moment -- or rather, many moments over and over and over again -- that they are not happy... or really free.
Aldous Huxley said essentially the same thing in "Brave New World" initially published in 1932.