Morality is Need

Discussions that deal with moral issues. Key questions in ethics include: How should one live? What is right (or wrong) to do? What is the best way for humans to live?

Morality is Need

Postby Gloominary on October 1st, 2017, 9:34 am 

Morality is practically synonymous with the word need.
We should take from nature and society what we need.
We should give to nature and society what it needs.

What is need?
Need is synonymous with the words survival, and health.
When we take care of our needs, or add little to them, our odds of surviving and being physically and mentally healthy, as well as feeling good, at least in the long run, increase, when we don't take care of our needs, or we add a lot to them, our odds of surviving and being physically and mentally healthy, as well as feeling good, at least in the long run, decrease.

This is not to say that we should never indulge in this or that frivolous pleasure or luxury, we are human after all, and occasionally we can satisfy our wants or desires without harming ourselves, society or nature very much at all, but that we should follow a more ascetic and minimalist path than a hedonistic and materialistic one, much more than many are at present.
This is also not to say our senses and instincts are stupid either, at least not entirely, and so if we have little-no reason to distrust them, we should go with them, because it feels good, and feeling good is good, at least in part, if not in whole, and because so long as reason has no reason to object, it probably is also good, for us.

For most species, most of the time, their instincts are aligned with need, and therefore, moral.
You could say other animals are unconsciously moral.
Man is perhaps the greatest exception to this rule.
Our intellect is perhaps superior, in many if not most ways, but our instincts are also inferior, in fact the stronger an animal's intellect tends to be, the weaker, or more pathological its instincts tend to be.

Therefore, while we must follow our instincts, often we must realign them with need.
Man's problem is not that our instincts are deficient in power or number, in the main, but that they are excessive in power and number, and this is what I mean by weak.
Once we begin realigning them, or removing ourselves from environments with a corrupting influence on them, they'll be healthier, serve us, society and nature better, and so we won't have to keep them in check as much.


What is property?
Property is also synonymous with need, and use.
Property is not absolute, there are degrees of property.
The more you need and are using something, the more it belongs to you, the more someone else needs and is using something, the less it belongs to you.
So we should by/large only produce goods and provide services that take care of others needs, and only consume goods and provide services that take care of our needs.

So what should be done with people who're physically or mentally disabled, or are physically and mentally able, but can't find work, because there's no work for them to do?
They have needs, but society doesn't need them.
Well they should be taken care of, so long as they're not burdening society too much, or significantly detracting from its needs.
Since we live in a society with abundant resources, this shouldn't be a problem.
However, people who're dependent on charity or the state, who can't take care of themselves, shouldn't be having any kids, so they must agree not to have any kids before receiving assistance.

And what should we do with violent people, or people who consume/produce much more than they/others need, or cling to things that aren't really theirs, things they don't really need or use?
If they refuse to reeducate themselves, or to be reeducated after ample opportunities, than I say they should be thrown out of our society.
What do I mean by our society?
I mean whatever community agrees that need is morality, and has the means to throw them out (I also think there should be a 2 child birth policy, because the world doesn't need more people).

And who should enforce this principle?
While I would rather see it enforced democratically, but if it's enforced anarchistically, by individuals, or oligarchically, than so be it.
Government too, if they are to exist, should only be as big as society needs it to be, if individuals can better take care of these things themselves, than they don't need one.


So what need do we have of science, tech and society at all?
I think there's such a thing as too much science, tech and society.
It's not that these things are bad, man is a scientific, technical and social animal, he's naked without being clothed, at least in part, with such things, but too much clothing suffocates, stifles, smothers, encumbers and atrophies, you can have too much of just about any good thing.
At some point more society, science and technological power is far more trouble than it's worth, and I say we are well passed that point.

Rather than continue to think of these things as absolute goods, we need to start rethinking moderation-minimization as the only absolute, that even society, science and tech, perhaps especially these things, are the greatest of all excesses, as they're destroying us/nature.
After all, the evils of inordinate hedonism, violence and religious fundamentalism, apart from social, scientific and technological sophistication at least do nature no harm, in fact perhaps by damaging and destroying ourselves we benefit nature as a whole.

It's not just the abuse of technology, technological power and efficiency of itself at some point becomes intrinsically abusive, more power to do this or that, and not just the doing of this or that, itself destructive.
Too much knowledge, or at least information, what you think you know, clutters, overexercises and stimulates the mind of society, prevents brand new or controversial info from being absorbed, and wastes precious resources (knowledge doesn't grow on trees, it's an ongoing project which must be funded, requiring a lot of unnecessary meddling, tinkering and toying with a nature that wasn't hitherto broken).

And yes there are some things humanity is better off not knowing, because with great knowledge comes great responsibility, and we've demonstrated to ourselves and whatever's watching to be irresponsible.
The more answers, the more questions, and so science has no end point.
We're not getting closer to omniscience, for the cosmos might be infinite, and regardless, aspects of it will continue to confound us, for obviously some aspects of it are too complex, or alien for the human mind to fully grasp, and so if we've been wresting with some question for generations, perhaps it's best to turn our attention elsewhere, to something that actually matters.
Perhaps the cosmos isn't completely causal, it might, probably does some things without rhyme or reason, and even if the cosmos isn't infinite, number of ways it can be interpreted or conceptually organized, at least are.

Society too doesn't need to be so big, we'd all be better off if we produced things more locally, if our culture too, was more localized.
I don't look upon society, technology and science any different than I look at food, drugs or gambling, they're'll addictions, we need more empty space, in our thoughts and in the world, for nature to grow.

There is no need for transhumanism, or some grand technological intervention.
As it stands now, if not forever, humanity and its technology is the greatest threat to nature/us, not an asteroid, comet or super nova.
Technology is making us all more sickly, even if the life expectancy has been increasing, which I doubt it has been, contrary to what mainline science purports, it's now declining, and will probably continue to do so for generations.
Our immortality is the next generation of our species, and the divine spark that we may all very well share.
Scientists know little-nothing about what existed billions of years ago, or what will exist billions of years from now, or what exists 'light years' away, this is all speculative nonsense.

If earthbound life wasn't designed by something supernatural, it was at least designed, and nurtured by something, it probably didn't just spontaneously generate out of the aether, perhaps life and even the earth have no origin, or perhaps they have an extraterrestrial or interdimensional one.
Even without any sort of immortality, it's still better to live a good, decent life than a bad one, and nature has an intelligence, what we do impresses upon and echoes throughout the cosmos in ways, a cosmos which we're a part of, and which's not fundamentally alien to or other than us.
By removing spirituality, spirituality of all forms, and metaphysics from the world, science makes man restless, and weary.
A restless heart, not fundamentally aligned with itself and the world, hastens sickness and our destruction.

So we must go back, uncover, scour and explore all the great spiritual and metaphysical traditions of the world, picking and choosing whatever resonates most with us, as well as developing them in new directions.
If man has this collective sense of feeling he's fundamentally alienated from the cosmos, than why're we so shocked and surprised when he winds up disrespecting and treating it with irreverence?
Nature itself, our feeling of ourselves immersed in it, and the Godhead, should help quench our existential thirst, give us a sense of ourselves, who we are, where we came from, where we're headed.
This need to feel at harmony with the cosmos is perhaps one of our greatest and presently most overlooked needs.
Gloominary
Forum Neophyte
 
Posts: 8
Joined: 28 Apr 2017


Return to Ethics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests