i wasn't going to write this text today, but i got engaged in a discussion and i felt encouraged to elaborate on my attitudes, so i will elaborate. i mention it a lot, so obviously one would like to know what it is; i mention it especially in my philosophy reading journals. so what is it?
amoralism or immoralism is an attitude of rejection or indifference towards traditional morals and ethics. ranges from broad moral relativism - which emphasises the role of culture and whatever else - to the radical form which questions the usefulness of morality altogether, and which i represent. what's with the name, and why do i align with this?
people who hold this stance tend to be commonly be called "amoralists" nowadays. the originally used term, invented by nietzsche, was "immoralists". immorality provokes associations with celebrating what is considered immoral in the local culture rather than rejecting morality altogether; granted, i could also align with that to a level, as would know these who read sociopath rights activist, but my philosophy leans towards rejection of morality as useless in favour of rules that would be practical and protect people from each other's destructive instincts rather than shame these instincts and encourage repression, and this is what i would prefer to emphasise. i do often use the name immoralist in honour of nietzsche, though.
okay, kotte, we get it, you're a sociopath and ow the edge but why?
because i believe the human instincts, including the destructive ones, which are pretty deeply wired, can't be forced to disappear and in case of repression turn inwards, changing into conscience and self hate, which in turn produces guilt that calls for religious and political systems that help soothe it and a lot of the time end up preying on it and causing mass destruction. oppression is built on guilt, and guilt is built on conscience, and is a very unproductive emotion. some of my beliefs on destructive instincts overall align with freud, and can be found here. precisely the reason nietzsche was a warmonger is because he believed when individuals direct their destructive instincts towards outsiders, they won't step on each other's toes within the communities in terms of individual level harm as much, and also won't turn it against themselves. in this case nietzsche was wrong - not often am i willing to admit it, but right now i am; firstly, because for mulitple reasons, including economic factors nietzsche seemingly did not take into equation, war does not discourage individual actions of destruction within communities; secondly, with current methods of mass destruction - though i have to be fair to nietzsche here, he wrote that before the world wars - war barely even satisfies an individual's desire for destruction, as an individual soldier is mostly focused on surviving, and most damage is done by highly advanced weaponry that also results in destruction of civilians and infrastructure. pointless!
what instead, then? well, i don't know what instead, or at least i'm not fully sure; rest assured i am thinking about it, though, i believe it's going to be one of the greatest challenges of the future society - managing the human instincts of aggression within bounds where we all can also protect our interest which is to not become the object of said aggression from another - probably through finding ways to channel it. that's another thing humans have in commmon - we would rather not become the object of aggression of another; i see it as a conflict of interests, and since we have to coexist, i think the conflict of interest should be handled via some kind of agreements, compromising rules that protect us from each other. for that, the belief that just having these instincts is something shameful and denigrating that should be preferably done away with through systematic conditioning of self isn't necessary. it's a dangerous idea! morality is dangerous, and ethics as a philosophical field is a waste of time for the most part, so i believe. they consume a lot of resources because people, still religious-minded, find it difficult to reject the idea of some objective good and some objective evil - though when asked, no one can define what it means and it then grows into whole big problem old white men have debates about. why do i see it that way?
because morality is a construct that lets itself be deconstructed. take murder, nearly all people would agree it's immoral to kill. nearly all people would also agree it's acceptable to kill in self defence, or defence of a loved one, especially a helpless one like a child. most people would also agree it's not immoral to kill a rapist or a pedophile, especially if they pose active threat. probably not immoral to kill someone who hurt or murdered your loved one. most would agree mercy killing of someone who's suffering and begging for death isn't immoral. if something is okay and worth it in some circumstances then i can't be convinced it's "objectively bad". things that are "objectively bad" can't be "good sometimes". in this case it's about the circumstance being "bad", not the deed - context, not action - so it's contextual, conditional. in this sense i believe morality is a construct, even the "worst" immoral things that are immoral to most cultures are contextual, and aren't in themselves universally considered evil enough that there wouldn't be situations where they're of benefit and not breaking the taboo, not standing a reason for shame, guilt - did i mention it's a very unproductive emotion - and all that stuff immoral people are supposed to feel.
yet i talk about "productivity" and "harm", right? therefore surely i must condemn something. well. destruction is something most everyone benefits from avoiding. destruction means "evil" to moralists, destruction means "loss of potential" or "counterproductivity" to me, destruction means "less happiness" or "human misery" to a lot of people. things such as body damage and murder are destruction. so is sexual and emotional violence, psychological equivalent to body damage. arguably destruction is a negative, but i don't think it can be said it's immoral, because there's often reasons it can be justified with, and to some level it's not even avoidable, i mean, a lot of it is straight up accidental. when i mean destruction is a negative i mean both intended and unintended destruction, i mean destruction as a phenomenon, not limited to moral understanding. destruction is best avoided when avoidable, since it impacts negatively most people in the light of their values, as much as these values vary. how does it impact me?
i don't feel anything about loss of human life inherently nor have a feeling like it has objective value higher than plant or animal life, but i have values - for things such as art and science, plus i seek interesting people to be in relations with and i value them in particular, and i don't want them gone or harmed - that make me value at least some humans, and by extension humanity as the only environment the kind of humans who interest me can originate and thrive. murder is typically a negative in that takes away that a part of that potential. of course, it'll affect proportionally to how much i value that person. i don't really think anyone truly values humans equally - for me it's based on their personality, intellect and talents, for a christian on whether they're a fallen sinner or someone above others, aka a saint, for a "normal good person" it's "evil, bad" people who are less valued. however, all of us have different criteria. in other words:
my philosophy is highly individualist; value is a point of reference to measure, and values are all individual since they correspond to personality; therefore i value some people more than others, but they only have more value to me. but alright, let's leave my runes alone for a while, and return to destruction, murder and multiple reasons it goes against people's values in most situations.
the fact that in light of most values loss of human life is negative is very much understandable given humans are social species, and kind of evolved to have values that encompass other people, at least some; even the most antisocial individual would have an indirect stake at least in these they benefit from, and i'm not that antisocial. it is clearly a matter of stakes and interests - everyone has a stake in what they value - a conflict of interests which can be solved by diplomatic means, without all the emotional charge attached to it. do i have moral feelings about anything? yes, one thing - it's sexual violence, including csa. for two reasons. one is purely personal - traumagenic; this is meaningless in discussion, since it justifies having these feelings and i'm very much allowed to hate pedophiles for my own associations, it's enough justification for me, but one person having trauma is hardly enough to convince anyone something is worse than other kinds of destruction and carries a more inherently negative character, i know. fortunately i have a better argument.
which is that it's the only kind of destruction that never returns a proportional benefit. surely, there's situations where it makes sense to kill or to steal, or engage in physical violence, in the name of cardinal benefit such as survival or even smaller benefit such as increase in quality of life for oneself and loved ones. for sexual violence? nothing, of course beyond the rapist's pleasure, which is short lasting and disproportional to the immense amount of loss it causes, no matter what you defined as said loss - be it loss of potential due to trauma which will limit the person from achieving it, or misery and sadness, or negative impact on abilities to create a healthy community, or loss in mental health... multiple stakes one may have here, but it certainly is a destruction of great scale for what is practically nothing, the kind of pleasure which in itself must only originate from a love of destroying for no reason. i don't like kids who kick my sand castles. i think in order to find that much appeal in destruction for no benefit, one must love the idea of destroying another solely for fun; and i don't like unproductivity of that caliber. today i was told most self declared amoralists reason the opposite way - presumably, because they're amoralists to creep on kids in peace; myself, i am one because i don't understand morality and moralists annoy me, lack of affective empathy and remorse combined with autism will do this for you. plus of course being shamed for not understanding morality and portrayed as an evil monster for questioning it all of my childhood - hence why i say nietzsche saved my life. myself i do have desires for non-sexual violence solely for fun, and the reason i don't act on them is not because i would guilty if i would, but because it'd be not worth it.
anyway, that's it on amoralism in case anyone was in doubts, and my apologies to these who accidentally cut themselves on the edge while reading this text, i hope it heals soon!