Read on Twitter
Fuck it, thread explaining anti-moralism, what it is, and why morality sucks.
What is morality?
morality is a system for the ascription of the essentialized qualities of 'goodness', 'justice' and 'merit' to thoughts, people, actions etc etc.
morality is a system for the ascription of the essentialized qualities of 'goodness', 'justice' and 'merit' to thoughts, people, actions etc etc.
So what the fuck does that mean?
It means projected socially constructed notions of what constitutes goodness, badness, justice, injustice, or whether or not something is 'deserved' onto a world which intrinsically has no such concepts.
It means projected socially constructed notions of what constitutes goodness, badness, justice, injustice, or whether or not something is 'deserved' onto a world which intrinsically has no such concepts.
the fact that these concepts are not 'real' in the sense that they do not refer to a physical reality, but rather consitute a socially constructed system which refers to material impacts but does not occupy them, is the foundation for anti moralism.
Once you understand that these concepts are not 'real' but 'constructed' in the same fashion as a system of 'laws', then just as with legality you begin to question "why are they constructed the way they are"
How does Morality work?
Morality operates on several levels: society, community and singular.
I will now go through why every level sucks.
Morality operates on several levels: society, community and singular.
I will now go through why every level sucks.
Lets begin with the level of society, the most obviously detestable one.
When I speak of 'a society's morals' I refer to the overarching moral code of a society on the level of a nation or similarly sized cultural bloc
When I speak of 'a society's morals' I refer to the overarching moral code of a society on the level of a nation or similarly sized cultural bloc
A society's 'morals' are essentially the codes they function by, and in the case of nations are basically interchangeable with their laws, as these are simply the 'moral' codes of a nation.
In the case of a nation like the United States this means a callous unwavering
In the case of a nation like the United States this means a callous unwavering
attachment to capitalism, racism and other bigotries, sacrificed at the alter of Law and Order.
I dont think anyone reading this will need an explanation for why using morals as an absolute on this level will be harmful.
I dont think anyone reading this will need an explanation for why using morals as an absolute on this level will be harmful.
note: a society's morals are not those of all involved. they are the overarching tendencies which are enforced within a society upon moral grounds, what things are declared "right" and "wrong". individuals and communities within a society are unlikely to entirely agree
with everything present within a society's overarching morality.
We then move to the level of a community.
These are smaller cultural blocks, and are subdividable, meaning there are often communities within communities which operate as microcosms of their larger levels, in that they too are made of diverse elements which have an
These are smaller cultural blocks, and are subdividable, meaning there are often communities within communities which operate as microcosms of their larger levels, in that they too are made of diverse elements which have an
overarching consensus on morals.
The smaller the community the more likely that those within it will agree with the overarching moral consensus of the community.
However, the fact that the dynamic is less pronounced does not mean it is not present.
The smaller the community the more likely that those within it will agree with the overarching moral consensus of the community.
However, the fact that the dynamic is less pronounced does not mean it is not present.
Fundamentally, just as with a society the underlying bigotry and reactionaryism of the community will produce a dichotomous system wherein those more closesly aligned to the community's morals are judged to be the "most good", while those furthest from it tend to be exiled.
This is the point where many people agree*
*terms and conditions apply, in the sense that they have Outstanding Exceptions who they argue 'deserve' such treatment
*terms and conditions apply, in the sense that they have Outstanding Exceptions who they argue 'deserve' such treatment
This moves us to the lowest level (for a brief explanation): individual morality
Up until this point the immediate conclusion will likely seem to be that we should simply seek out those with similar moral structures as ourselves, while still holding onto our own sense of morals
Up until this point the immediate conclusion will likely seem to be that we should simply seek out those with similar moral structures as ourselves, while still holding onto our own sense of morals
This is closely tied to moral relativism, the belief that morality is relative and can be determined by the individual. However, I contend that this position is nonsensical as well
If you arrive at a point where you realize that any system of morals on a societal level will be informed by those with power, and will likely act in their service, the temptation is to see yourself as being the one who's right, and thus divide yourself from all others
as the one who is "the Ultimate Right", the most fair judge of morality. The problem with this is that everyone else thinks theyre right too, and no one agrees with you 100%.
When you begin to follow the logic of community morality, but with yourself as the sole member, then suddenly everyone else is at continuous risk of being cast into the pit of 'badness' should they ever disagree with what you consider to be 'bad'.
Additionally, morality is inflexible and uncompromising.
There is little room in a moral system for nuance. Once a person or action is judged to be 'bad' then it is uncritically accepted as such, because the moralist beliefs their cause is Absolutely Just.
There is little room in a moral system for nuance. Once a person or action is judged to be 'bad' then it is uncritically accepted as such, because the moralist beliefs their cause is Absolutely Just.
In our experience this usually means:
-uncritically sticking to dogmatic thinking of what is 'bad'
-aggressive persecution of anyone who even mildly disagrees with these
-prevention of genuine rehabilitative justice
-prevention of personal growth, since Moral Sin is forever
-uncritically sticking to dogmatic thinking of what is 'bad'
-aggressive persecution of anyone who even mildly disagrees with these
-prevention of genuine rehabilitative justice
-prevention of personal growth, since Moral Sin is forever
To clarify: i am not saying that all people who hold a moral code are like this, nor are all moral systems equally persecutorial or harmful. However, this is the logical *conclusion* for systems of morality. if a moral system holds itself to be 'correct' then it will logically
be correct to enforce it.
So what's the alternative? Just be cool with everyone? Get along with everyone? See everyone as equally right?
Fuck no!
So what's the alternative? Just be cool with everyone? Get along with everyone? See everyone as equally right?
Fuck no!
You don't have to do *anything*. Anti-moralism is anarchy, it's freedom. It's unshackling yourself from a view of the world grounded in Natures, Essentials and Obligations. Things simply happen. They are not good, or just, or bad, or evil, or deserved. They simply happen.
So what to do?
Idk whatever you want. If you dont like someone, then you dont have to be around them. If you dont like stuff theyve done, if you feel unsafe around them, then you dont have to be around them. You dont need a moral reason justifying this.
Idk whatever you want. If you dont like someone, then you dont have to be around them. If you dont like stuff theyve done, if you feel unsafe around them, then you dont have to be around them. You dont need a moral reason justifying this.
You dont need to have a reason why people are 'transcendentally bad', and deconstructing the fact that 'badness' is a produced fiction is not an obligation for you to associate or forgive people you dislike. It is the liberation for you to be free of such constructs and just
be who you want to be. Personally im not gonna be around nazis, duh, im an anarchist. Cant stand those fuckers (hot take). Do i think they're 'bad'? Not in any physical sense, i just hate them and everything they stand for and i dont need a moral reason to do so.
Some of you are likely recoiling at that take, hell even i do internally because it's hard to really be free of morality. But think about why, is it because im fundamentally wrong? is there actually some physical 'badness' attached to them, or is it a (understandable) emotional
response to me speaking with a system you're not used to and is shocking. it's an important distinction to make.
here's the thing, im not gonna tell you that you "should" be an anti moralist, that'd be redundant. if what i've said makes sense then cool, i agree with you.
here's the thing, im not gonna tell you that you "should" be an anti moralist, that'd be redundant. if what i've said makes sense then cool, i agree with you.
if not, then fuck off 
. you dont need to be around me, i dont need to be around you, bye bye.
i dont dislike moralists out of some nebulous inverted morality, nor do i like 'anti moralists' who act simply in counter to the morals of their immediate community, as they
. you dont need to be around me, i dont need to be around you, bye bye. i dont dislike moralists out of some nebulous inverted morality, nor do i like 'anti moralists' who act simply in counter to the morals of their immediate community, as they
only lend further power to these moral standards by doing so. I dislike moralists because they've hurt me and my friends with their worldview. Had moralizing and brigading not made us so fearful theres a fair chance we could have been more open with many of our issues
and been able to better address them. The thing is these totalizing views hurt the people espousing them too. When you hold yourself as being the standard for morality you're unable to see when you're hurting others, until it's too late and you start hurting those you care for.
I speak from experience.
This isnt a command, an obligation or an ideology. it's perspective. it's a perspective which i believe enables freedom and autonomy better than any moral system,
To me, to be against morals is to be anarchic and free. Thank you for reading.
This isnt a command, an obligation or an ideology. it's perspective. it's a perspective which i believe enables freedom and autonomy better than any moral system,
To me, to be against morals is to be anarchic and free. Thank you for reading.
