anti-morality radicals

[gorillafuck]

what they think they advocate

http://newcastleradicalart.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/fall.png

what they actually advocate

--WCHbiiOWg

[The Douche]

I consider myself to be an anti-moralist...

[Luc]

I'm fairly certain being against moralism isn't exsclusivly being against morals but being against basing things like analysis on morals :unsure:

[Os Cangaceiros]

Anti-moralists also endorse eating poo-poo!

CChMgYHaOTs

[9]

define antimorality radicals

[The Douche]

I don't believe I need to justify my actions based on any sort of morality. I also do not believe in an objectively correct morality.

[9]

for once, I actually agree with cmoney.

[The Douche]

for once, I actually agree with cmoney.

What the fuck is the world coming to?

[9]

seriously.

[gorillafuck]

anti-morality would be opposing morality in general.

[gorillafuck]

Anti-moralists also endorse eating poo-poo!very true

[NewLeft]

What's with the bonnot gang cmoney

[The Douche]

anti-morality would be opposing morality in general.

Thats not really a definition. I would say that I am opposed to the concept of "morality" because I don't believe there is such a thing as an objective morality, and if there is no universally applicable morality, then its not a real standard one can be held to.

I also reject the idea of justifying any of my actions through any sort of morality, because if I did codify my morals, they wouldn't mean anything to anybody but me, I don't declare my morals to be universal, and don't expect them to be.

If I rob a bank, plenty of people are going to say thats "wrong" or immoral. And I don't think I necessarily need to make any moral justifications for it (even if I did, my justifications would be a proletarian or revolutionary morality, which would of course be immoral in the eyes of the dominant culture, which upholds a bourgeois morality), I would just say that I need money, and I don't care if I take it from the bank.

[gorillafuck]

Thats not really a definition. I would say that I am opposed to the concept of "morality" because I don't believe there is such a thing as an objective morality, and if there is no universally applicable morality, then its not a real standard one can be held to.

I also reject the idea of justifying any of my actions through any sort of morality, because if I did codify my morals, they wouldn't mean anything to anybody but me, I don't declare my morals to be universal, and don't expect them to be.

If I rob a bank, plenty of people are going to say thats "wrong" or immoral. And I don't think I necessarily need to make any moral justifications for it (even if I did, my justifications would be a proletarian or revolutionary morality, which would of course be immoral in the eyes of the dominant culture, which upholds a bourgeois morality), I would just say that I need money, and I don't care if I take it from the bank.how would you react if I was a serial rapist?

hypothetically

[The Douche]

how would you react if I was a serial rapist?

hypothetically

I would say your actions infringe on another's individual autonomy. You haven't violated "morality" in my opinion, because if you're a serial rapist you obviously have some sort of justification constructed for your behavior. So my calling it immoral is irrelevant. It might violate my morality, or the morality of many others, but the simple fact that there can be/are multiple moralities makes the concept of any morality void in my mind.

So instead of talking about whether an action is moral or not, we should figure out a better way of judging things, something that can be universal, like, autonomy of an individual.

[Os Cangaceiros]

What's with the bonnot gang cmoney

They were OG's.

[gorillafuck]

I would say your actions infringe on another's individual autonomy. You haven't violated "morality" in my opinion, because if you're a serial rapist you obviously have some sort of justification constructed for your behavior. So my calling it immoral is irrelevant. It might violate my morality, or the morality of many others, but the simple fact that there can be/are multiple moralities makes the concept of any morality void in my mind.

So instead of talking about whether an action is moral or not, we should figure out a better way of judging things, something that can be universal, like, autonomy of an individual.is it "wrong" to violate the individual autonomy of another person?

should there be any consequences at all?

[The Douche]

What's with the bonnot gang cmoney

Nothing, I'm into them.


is it "wrong" to violate the individual autonomy of another person?

should there be any consequences at all?

Yes, I think its wrong, and it deserves a reaction. But I don't frame my argument around the language of "morality". Just like I refuse to participate in discourse around the idea of "rights".

[gorillafuck]

I think its wrong, and it deserves a reaction. But I don't frame my argument around the language of "morality". Just like I refuse to participate in discourse around the idea of "rights".isn't that enforcing a morality on society? after all, the concept of right and wrong, and having punishment based on that, in this context is based in morals.

[Os Cangaceiros]

The whole "rights vs no rights" thing was debated a while back in the American anarchist movement. There was a sizable Egoist contingent who argued that all the morality and rights in the world wouldn't stop a bullet from ripping through your skull. But the response to this was also pretty convincing, I thought, in that a written prescription alone won't make you better when you're sick, and a recipe won't feed you if you're starving. In that respect "rights" (and probably morals) are merely the collective framework that humans have decided may make for a better world, not some kind of divine thing that's passed down from god or nature. But in the context of human society that doesn't make them less "real".

[The Douche]

isn't that enforcing a morality on society? after all, the concept of right and wrong, and having punishment based on that, in this context is based in morals.

But that doesn't mean I believe any specific morality is or ought to be universal. If my morality ought to universal, why shouldn't the rapist's?

[gorillafuck]

we're not talking about whether or not morals are objective. anti-morality doesn't refer to that because morals can exist in society while being acknowledged to be subjective.

how can you be an anti-moralist if you believe in punishing people in our society based on your morality?

[Bronco]

Not believing in absolute morals =/= anti-moralism

I think anyone who thinks there is a universal morality is pretty fucking stupid but I'm not an anti-moralist, and I think the vast majority of people who do incorporate morals into their political views don't believe in objective morals either.

[Rafiq]

I am an anti moralist Radical, and that first picture is disgusting Liberalist hippie postmodernism. What do you have to say to me?

I say Morals are artificial, inevitable as a result of the mode of production, amd require little to no serious analysation and endorsment to function.

What do you have to say to me, Zeekloid?

[Rafiq]

anti-morality would be opposing morality in general.

No serious radicals suggest this, I dare you to prove me other wise.

[Rafiq]

is it "wrong" to violate the individual autonomy of another person?

should there be any consequences at all?

Not in an objective sense.

[gorillafuck]

No serious radicals suggest this, I dare you to prove me other wise.you're actually hinting at the point. people think they they have certain beliefs, i.e. that they are against morality, but they actually don't. that was the whole entire joke of the original post, and it's true.


Not in an objective sense.it was rhetorical. I know that objective morality doesn't exist. that's irrelevant to whether or not someone opposes morality.


I am an anti moralist Radical, and that first picture is disgusting Liberalist hippie postmodernism. What do you have to say to me?

I say Morals are artificial, inevitable as a result of the mode of production, amd require little to no serious analysation and endorsment to function.

What do you have to say to me, Zeekloid?ALRIGHT YOU AND ME AFTER SCHOOL

[Rafiq]

When we say we oppose morality, we are saying we oppose the very concept, i.e., of course we know morals will always exist, though, we oppose the praising of it, and endorsment of it, as this is inherently bourgeois. Moralism, is the belief our social structure does not proceed morality, that the success of whole empires depend on the "morals" of a single or several persons, or that the building of "better morals" directly is aimed at. This is antithetical to Marxism.

So, when I say I oppose moralism I mean it quite in a literal sense: I oppose the concept of even recognizing that it is a large social factor and/or determinant in the way people behave, or the appearence of a society.

The hippie liberals you speak of in your first post, while speaking of morality, don't mean to say they oppose all MORALITY, but the morality of the conservative (contrary to liberalist) currents.

As for Nihilists, in this regard, you're heavily mistaken.

[9]

how can you be an anti-moralist if you believe in punishing people in our society based on your morality?

I dont believe in punishing people.

[gorillafuck]

When we say we oppose morality, we are saying we oppose the very concept, i.e., of course we know morals will always exist, though, we oppose the praising of it, and endorsment of it, as this is inherently bourgeois. Moralism, is the belief our social structure does not proceed morality, that the success of whole empires depend on the "morals" of a single or several persons, or that the building of "better morals" directly is aimed at. This is antithetical to Marxism.

So, when I say I oppose moralism I mean it quite in a literal sense: I oppose the concept of even recognizing that it is a large social factor and/or determinant in the way people behave, or the appearence of a society.

The hippie liberals you speak of in your first post, while speaking of morality, don't mean to say they oppose all MORALITY, but the morality of the conservative (contrary to liberalist) currents.

As for Nihilists, in this regard, you're heavily mistaken.well for one the grafitti that I was poking fun at is not a hippie liberal thing. it's more of a poetry reading feministish tumblr user fascination with nihilism type of thing. but thats irrelevant.

if morals will always exist, but the ruling class will not, how can morals be inherently bourgeois?

[gorillafuck]

I dont believe in punishing people.do you believe that rape is wrong?

[9]

do you believe that rape is wrong?

Im not interesting in making those sorts of judgements. I think it sucks that rape happens. I think there are social and psychological reasons why people rape other people. I dont think punishing and moralizing solves anything.

[Ostrinski]

It's not morals themselves that are bourgeois, it's the moral trends that are the outgrowth of bourgeois society that are bourgeois.

[black magick hustla]

i think "anti moral" posturing is a bit silly. because most people that actually call themselves "anti morals" have pretty strong beliefs.


i don't think it is possible, however pose a solid argument for a sort of "objective"ethical framework. there is all sorts of bores in philosophy depts. that get paid to come up with some crazy shit, but all of it is based at the end on basic axioms that are hard to substantiate. i believe in a sort of "silent ethics", in the way wittgenstein believed in them, that is, i don't feel compelled to justify whatever moral clockwork is inside me. what is right to me is revealed in the context i exist in, it is not a code based on words and logical deduction, it is a way of life that reveals itself clearly in the context without the need of verbal justification. i don't believe it is my job to convince people that a world without pain and misery is desirable, its something that it either has revealed itself to you or hasn't.

[gorillafuck]

Im not interesting in making those sorts of judgements. I think it sucks that rape happens. I think there are social and psychological reasons why people rape other people. I dont think punishing and moralizing solves anything.is rape undesirable, or desirable?


i think "anti moral" posturing is a bit silly. because most people that actually call themselves "anti morals" have pretty strong beliefs.


i don't think it is possible, however pose a solid argument for a sort of "objective"ethical framework. there is all sorts of bores in philosophy depts. that get paid to come up with some crazy shit, but all of it is based at the end on basic axioms that are hard to substantiate. i believe in a sort of "silent ethics", in the way wittgenstein believed in them, that is, i don't feel compelled to justify whatever moral clockwork is inside me. what is right to me is revealed in the context i exist in, it is not a code based on words and logical deduction, it is a way of life that reveals itself clearly in the context without the need of verbal justification. i don't believe it is my job to convince people that a world without pain and misery is desirable, its something that it either has revealed itself to you or hasn't.if this wasn't chit chat I would thank.

[Rafiq]

well for one the grafitti that I was poking fun at is not a hippie liberal thing. it's more of a poetry reading feministish tumblr user fascination with nihilism type of thing. but thats irrelevant.

if morals will always exist, but the ruling class will not, how can morals be inherently bourgeois?

Moralism is bourgeois.

Patriarchy's been around for a while, but today, it's bourgeois.

[gorillafuck]

you might define "moralism" as something different from morality.

[9]

is rape undesirable, or desirable?


its undesirable, obviously. I think that was pretty clear from the rape sucks part of my post.

[Decolonize The Left]

I think what we're all talking about here is moral relativism: the notion that morals are subjective value judgments and there is no such thing as 'objective morality.' This position is widely held by many (if not all non-theist) philosophers and political theorists.

So I fail to see what the issue is...?

- August

[Ostrinski]

Im not interesting in making those sorts of judgements. I think it sucks that rape happens. I think there are social and psychological reasons why people rape other people. I dont think punishing and moralizing solves anything.I will synthesize this with the proposition for Jacobian judgment.

[gorillafuck]

its undesirable, obviously. I think that was pretty clear from the rape sucks part of my post.why?


I think what we're all talking about here is moral relativism: the notion that morals are subjective value judgments and there is no such thing as 'objective morality.' This position is widely held by many (if not all non-theist) philosophers and political theorists.

So I fail to see what the issue is...?

- Augustthat's not what we're talking about.

[9]

why?

Because its fucked up? Because I care about other people, and I think it sucks when people get hurt. But I think thats different from being like X is wrong, so accordingly, people who commit X should be punished, which is what you seemed to be saying earlier in the thread. I dont know about the whole semantics thing, I havent sat thru a university philosophy course or whatever, but in any case, maybe you could say I am anti bourgeois morality, rather than being against any sort of personal ethics at all.

[gorillafuck]

Because its fucked up?yep. that's an assertions that bases itself in morality. it's an opinion contradictory to anti-moralism.


Because I care about other people, and I think it sucks when people get hurt. But I think thats different from being like X is wrong, so accordingly, people who commit X should be punished, which is what you seemed to be saying earlier in the thread. I dont know about the whole semantics thing, the point I was making was that if someone considers them self anti-moralist, but supports punishment based on moral assertions, then that would be contradicting views.


I havent sat thru a university philosophy course or whatever, but in any case, maybe you could say I am anti bourgeois morality, rather than being against any sort of personal ethics at all.I have not taken philosophy either (and am not in college)

and anti-bourgeois morality is definitely fair enough.

[Ostrinski]

the point I was making was that if someone considers them self anti-moralist, but supports punishment based on moral assertions, then that would be contradicting views.I disagree. First of all I don't think we've even established a definition for anti-moralism, but I understand it as synonymous with moral-relativism in that morality is not the foundation of humanity or civilization, but is characterized by whatever state humanity and civilization are in at whatever point in time. I don't see how holding this view contradicts support for punishment? Just because you understand that your moral understanding is not transcendent does not mean you can't support punishment based on this moral understanding.