amorality and hypocrisy...
I know you'll find this hard to believe, but there are actually people out there who think they are "amoral" beings. Yes they do. They really have convinced themselves that they have "transcended" morality. Most of these people, I would venture to suggest, have yet to fully understand what is meant by the term "self-deluded fools". It leads, I think, to ideological supremacism, or intellectual arrogance i.e. a belief in one's own intellectual superiority. You might like to call it "mental racism", or "rednecks of the mind"...
"What's he on about?" Ok, let's start with a definition of "moral". I like this one from the Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1988 edition:
And now you can see what's wrong with those who have wandered off into Lalaland and have convinced themselves they are "amoral". These people would have you believe that they do not function from any value judgements. They subtly imply that value judgements are bad and wrong.
What ?!?!
Did I hear him correctly? Did he say they think value judgements are bad and wrong? Those fools! Do they not know the meaning of the word "oxymoron" and how it applies to this issue? Here are a few classics from one side of the "amoral" spectrum:
(1) To think homosexuality is bad/wrong is bad/wrong.
(2) To think abortion is bad/wrong is bad/wrong.
(3) The Catholic church's (or any other religion/philosophy/culture's) ideas of right/wrong are bad/wrong.
I think that's enough to get a good debate going but you might first like to check out this previous and related post >>>
.
"What's he on about?" Ok, let's start with a definition of "moral". I like this one from the Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary, 1988 edition:
"concerned with goodness or badness of character or disposition, or with the distinction between right and wrong;"So, morality is all about concepts of right/wrong, good/bad, better/worse.
And now you can see what's wrong with those who have wandered off into Lalaland and have convinced themselves they are "amoral". These people would have you believe that they do not function from any value judgements. They subtly imply that value judgements are bad and wrong.
What ?!?!
Did I hear him correctly? Did he say they think value judgements are bad and wrong? Those fools! Do they not know the meaning of the word "oxymoron" and how it applies to this issue? Here are a few classics from one side of the "amoral" spectrum:
(1) To think homosexuality is bad/wrong is bad/wrong.
(2) To think abortion is bad/wrong is bad/wrong.
(3) The Catholic church's (or any other religion/philosophy/culture's) ideas of right/wrong are bad/wrong.
I think that's enough to get a good debate going but you might first like to check out this previous and related post >>>
.
posted by The Editor at
5:14 AM
6 Comments:
You're asking us to THINK again??
Well, you should be doing the heavy lifting, seeing this is your house. What's your objection to "ideological supremacism, or intellectual arrogance"?
And believing that an issue is amoral doesn't preclude making judgements about the way people react to that issue, does it?
You're asking us to THINK again??
Only those of you who can manage it without too much straining... I'd hate to read about hernias and such...
What's your objection to "ideological supremacism, or intellectual arrogance"?
I wasn't objecting, merely pointing out what I believe to be a small matter of cause and effect i.e. that the belief that one has transcended morality leads one to become erroneously convinced that one is intellectually superior.
And believing that an issue is amoral doesn't preclude making judgements about the way people react to that issue, does it?
I don't understand your question, Deirdre. Care to give an example?
Oh come on, who can think without straining? Please...
I don't know whether "amoralists" (if they exist) think they have transcended morality (in the sense of being above and beyond it). Isn't it more about believing there are some things which can't be judged in moral terms? In other words, believing that judgements of "good" or "bad" aren't right or wrong, they're just irrelevant? (I have no idea, I'm just wondering.)
Deirdre, I have absolutely no trouble thinking. I have trouble trying to stop thinking.
The amoral thing?
Well, I was challenging those who scoff at those they label as "moralists" by pointing out that everyone is moral and that therefore everyone is a moralising moralist.
This then chucks us right back in the earlier post about which morals should shape the law (i.e. those morals by which the whole community shall be bound.) Let's remember, we claim to be a society that values the rule of law. In that earlier post I was asking "whose values/morals should inform the law".
In this post I'm trying to drag the gay rights activists and the pro-choice activists into a debate to highight some spurious moral propaganda they've been getting away with for far too long. Namely, the assertion that it's wrong (immoral) to hold a belief that (a) it's immoral to engage in homosexual activity, and (b) it's immoral to terminate a pregnancy. It's the hypocrisy of this kind of crap that I'm trying to expose.
I know I'll get accused of being "homophobic" (whatever that means) or anti-abortion by some but all I'm really trying to point out here is that those arguing for an amoral law regarding these two issues often carry on in extremely moralistic ways vis-a-vis those who have moral objections. I find that hypocritical in the extreme.
In other words, I argue that a truly amoral person doesn't invalidate another's morality because to do so is to moralise about the other's morals.
It's amazing the amount of hypocrisy these "activists for amorality" peddle and get away with.
They poison peoples' minds just as effectively as their religious fundamentalist counterparts do and it is no wonder that religious people bunker down in their own religions in reaction to such antagonistic and extremist behaviour.
These moralising hotheads are just the exact counterparts of the religious fundamentalists they so like to despise.
It's all just a huge moralistic wank. Wank wank wank.
But of course, Deirdre, they won't wander in here for a debate on this issue because they know that when the smoke clears they'll be seen for what they are: moral extremists of one persuasion locking horns with moral extremists of another persuasion. Nothing amoral about that at all I'm afraid...
And we're all going to hypocrite heaven when we die. :-)
If you're lucky...
Do you think there's a heaven?
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
==========
<<<<< Home
==========