How Large is your Penis?

Thursday, July 1, 2010

Theory of Conflict Part 2

I was not planning to make a second part to this topic but a YouTube video (here) that I saw yesterday after I made that post inspired me to write a follow up one. We have established that conflict arises from the imposition of our will, but where does the will to impose comes from? This will comes from morality.

I have came to the conclusion, quite a while ago, that morality is used as a tool to control people. Morality does not exist. There is no objective morality. Rather what is "good" and "bad" is a way to instill control in people. A mental mechanism that influences the way people act. I have wrote about this topic, a little bit, back here. But I want to say more on it because it is connected to the question of where does the will to impose comes from.

A lot of atheists say, "you do not need God to be moral". But I say, "you do not even need morals". We can be "moral" without having any morals. Compassion, altruism, and kindness have little or sometimes nothing to do with morality. Friedrich Nietzsche's important contribution to the question of morality is the realization that history is not continuous. The problem with the evolutionary explanation of morality, as Nietzsche called them, "English psychologists", is that they incorrectly think of history as being continuous. What was moral thousands of years ago is no longer moral today, what is moral in one geography of the world is not moral here. Where do all of these major distinctions arise from? Evolutionary theory cannot explain this, it can only explain the "morals" or altruism and kindness, but as I said, these are not really morals.

What morality rather is, is a means to instill obedience to authority in people. Religion is really a specific kind of morality. And religious birth, as explained here, includes a set of morals to make the followers obedient to authority. Morality that exists today is either the direct birth of obedience to some kind of authority (religion) or either the continuation of morals that once served as obedience to authority. If people are taught "good" and "bad" then it is easier to impose controls over them. Morality served as a tool to instill in people behavior that to conform so that rule over them becomes more efficient.

People who are moral suffer the problem of imposing their will. Morality is what gives people a will to impose. It is the amoral people (not immoral) that do not have have this problem, or at least reduced by a lot. It is morals, be they religious or secular, that make people object to actions of two men having sex or a man engaging in bestiality even though there is no reasonable objection to these actions. Therefore, it precisely those people who have morals that shall have a will to impose. The people with morals are the ones much more likely to see the imposition of their will on what they consider to be "immoral".

A step beyond atheism is nihilism, where the very notion of morals is rejected. It is a step closer to freeing the human mind. It is most certainly possible to do acts of kindness with absolutely no morals. If I ever do an act of kindness to another person, I never think to myself "this is what God wants", nor do I even think to myself, "this is good and moral". I rather think, "I should help that person because it is just nice to help people". Morals are not necessary and they should be rejected because they have a negative side to them in the way explained above.

If we wish to greatly reduce conflict in the world we need to severely limit our imposition of will. But a way to come to such a mentality shall require us to give up the entire concept of morality, because morals is about imposing mental controls over people which in turns leads to the imposition of will.

Note: I know there are going to be people calling me a hypocrite. I reject the ideas of "good", "bad", "evil", "moral", "immoral", and so forth, but I nonetheless use them all the time in my discussions with people online. But I use them not because I accept them but because they are useful expressions to use. Useful expressions to make the people with morals to understand me. I also make reference to Zeus and Poseidon, this does not mean I believe in the Greek pantheon of gods, it is just an expression. Two atheists who have sex and say "Oh my God", are not saying that because they think God is observing them have sex, but because they use it as an expression of awesomeness.