My thinking is strong like a bomb, deep like the ocean, and creatively imaginative as if a star shining brightly.
Damien Marie AtHope: Axiological Atheist, Anti-theist, Anti-religionist, Secular Humanist. Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, Activist, with schooling in Psychology and Sociology as well as an Autodidact in Science, Archeology, Anthropology, and Philosophy. Damien Promotes Science, Realism, Axiology, Liberty, Justice, Ethics, Anarchism, Socialism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Philosophy, Psychology, Archaeology, and Anthropology; advocating for Sexual, Gender, Child, Secular, LGBTQIA+, Race, Class Rights and Equality.
Here is my external pages or content: Facebook Witter Page, My YouTube, My Linkedin, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, Instagram: damienathope, Personal Facebook Page, Secondary Personal Facebook Page, Main Atheist Facebook Page, Secondary Atheist Facebook Page, Facebook Leftist Political Page, Facebook Group: Atheist for Non-monogamy, Facebook Group: (HARP) Humanism, Atheism, Rationalism, & Philosophy and My Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Damien’s experience info
Damien scored 96 on Persuasion
People who score highly on Persuasion are gifted at crafting a position, expressing it effectively and convincing others of its merits.
- They are skilled at observing others and adjusting their style of communication to be more effective.
- They have strong convictions, and are able to articulate them in a compelling way.
- They are able to influence others without evoking negative feelings or reactions.
- They are comfortable with disagreement, and can advocate for their own
- They are adept at negotiating.
Damien scored 95 on Confident
Highly Confident people are marked by a strong sense of security in themselves and a conviction in their views and abilities. They are self-assured and do not require validation from others to confirm their status or views.
- They openly state their views and do not compromise them in the face of opposition or criticism.
- They are assertive and can hold firm even when challenged by authority.
- They are not afraid to make mistakes and are not easily embarrassed. They don’t mind attention.
- They are not easily intimidated and don’t need others to lead the way.
- They are capable of approaching new problems on their own and do not require extensive feedback or endorsements from others.
Damien scored 90 on Proactive
Proactive people make things happen instead of waiting for them to happen.
- They are able to act of their own volition without needing guidance or oversight, anticipating the best course of action.
- They require minimal instructions to get to work, tackling problems head on.
- Oftentimes they prefer to get out in front of things rather than waiting for approval.
- They try to influence the environment around them rather than responding to it.
- They are enterprising and often start new initiatives on their own accord.
Damien scored 86 on Detail-Orientation
People who score highly on Detail-Orientation usually want their work to be perfect, concerning themselves with the specifics in order to achieve a level of quality they are able to accept.
- They prefer to invest time in producing polished results rather than rushing their work.
- They are precise in their delivery and pay attention to all components involved, making sure important details are not overlooked.
- They often find errors or omissions that others are likely to miss and like to see that they are addressed.
- They are usually able to identify improvements needed in any stage of review.
My desired level of seniority:
I am most interested in roles that:
I have direct experience in the following industries:
Advertising & Marketing 3 years (damienmarieathope.com)
Digital Marketing 3 years (damienmarieathope.com)
Education & Training Information Providers: 6 years (my pages and groups on Facebook)
Information Services 3 years (damienmarieathope.com)
Trade & Business Publishing 3 years (damienmarieathope.com)
I would like my next job to be in the following industry/industries:
I excel above and beyond others when it comes to these three top skills:
Dedicated work ethic
I have the following specific skills:
Axiological Ethics Level 9
Methodological Rationalism Level 9
Axiological Atheism Level 10
Anarcho-Humanism Level 9
Dialectical Rhetoric Level 9
Truth Persuasion (motivational teaching) Level 9
Utilizing Dignity Level 9
Big Picture Intellectual Thinking Level 9
Emotional Intelligence Level 9
Methodological Skepticism Level 9
I am at my best when I am:
I would love a job where:
Tackle highly challenging problems
Flexible hours & schedule
A chance to impact company direction
My ideal work environment is:
Please add one city at a time
Fort Lauderdale, FL
San Diego, CA
Los Angeles, CA
Damien Marie AtHope was born and raised in Southern California. Damien was raised in a broken home with both parents pushing their “follow the rules” morals and brand of the Christian religion on him. Damien’s father was from a Christian religious cult called The Local Church and his mom’s Christian church was Pentecostal Evangelical were they danced in the aisles, flailing their arms in the air, and chanting. These two different and radical versions of Christianity were weird to Damien and seemed far removed from any idea of love and respect. Both parents like their faiths, said they believed in loved but more often just gave hate and pushed fear. Their fear worked and from the age of 13 to 15, Damien thought he was possessed by demons. Damien rejected their brand of Christianity until he tried to become sober. At 17, Damien became sober and again tried this god thing and became a strong Christian though not fundamentalist like his parents and much of his family. Damien was a true believer and did not doubt his Christianity. At 36, Damien entered college for psychology, was educated in science and religions, and turned atheist. Damien chose to leave god, his parents, and the other bullshit behind.
Damien is an Axiological Atheist, Antitheist, Antireligionist, Ignostic, Secularist, Humanist, Rationalist, Writer, Artist, Poet, Philosopher, Advocate, and Activist. He has a bachelor in Psychology, with addiction treatment, sociology, and a little teaching and criminology, and is an autodidact in many other subjects, thus is somewhat educated in philosophy, science, archeology, anthropology, and history. He promotes Science, Realism, Axiology, Liberty, Justice, Ethics, Anarchism, Socialism, Progressivism, Liberalism, Philosophy, Psychology, Archaeology, and Anthropology. He is an advocate for Sexual, Gender, Child, Secular, LGBTQIA+, Race, Class Rights, and Equality. Damien is also involved in advocating/activism for human rights in general but atheist and humanist as a main focus and even performing street activism for both.
Damien wishes to make a difference in others’ lives, to give back, and to bring about change in himself and others. Damien wishes to be bold in what he believes in and to match his actions with his words. Damien believes that many forms of bigotry and hate are still major problems in the world today and should be addressed thoughtfully. These issues of inequality need more than a voice of reason; they need the momentum of “action” and more action! Damien lives with his wife Shayna, with whom he has an open marriage and their two cats “Demon” and “Spirit.” Damien is a prolific writer and meme creator on Facebook with many followers, shares, and likes. In addition, he has a web page with a blog and a YouTube. Soon, Damien will published an atheist book called “The Tree of Lies and its Hidden Roots” (Exposing the Evolution of Religion and Removing the Rationale of Faith).
Do you believe in god?
What is a god? Are you asking me if magic exists? Well, my answer as an ignostic atheist is, first prove the actuality of simple magic before you try to ask anyone about the possibility of some supreme magic.
I am so out about my disbelief, as I support reality and not because I feel better than a believer in supernatural things, gods or religions. Actually, I too once was the same until somewhat late in my life. In fact, I did not stop being this way until I was 36. I am so open now with good belief etiquette focusing on reasoned belief acquisitions, good belief maintenance, as well as honest belief relinquishment and challenging not out of hate or loathing, but out of deep compassion and understanding. This care wishes to save the indoctrinated victims of magical thinking falsehoods. I wish then self-esteem, self-ownership, self-leadership, self-efficiency, self-empowerment, self-love and self-mastery all of which can and in some way, are undermined by God’s and Religions; which either directly attack/challenge or subvert in some lesser realized way.
Science is an intellectual endeavor to search for that which is accurate to the way the world is while religion is still desperately relying on fantasy stories and about what the world is not full of many inconsistencies as well as glaring inaccuracies in relation to true reality, thus religion is an unintellectual endeavor forcing a non-accurate/non-truth “faith” over “valid and reliable reason and evidence” so a blind searching to not understand the accurate to the way the world actually is in reality. This is likely because religions are not “real truth” searching endeavors and beyond all the other negative things, on the whole religions and their make-believe are but conspiracies theories of reality not worth believing in. Did you know Moses write nor asked for the writing of the Torah, the first five books Jewish holy book (the old testament)? Well, Moses didn’t, and neither did Jesus write nor asked for the writing of anything not one word in the Bible, just like how Mohammed did not write nor asked for the writing of the Quran: holy book of Islam. Do you see a theme? Well, here you go, because neither did Lao-Tzu write nor asked for the writing of the Tao Te Ching, the holy book of Taoism, and guess what neither did Gautama Buddha (the first Buddha) write nor asked for the writing of a book in Buddhism. And what do you know just like all the rest neither did nor guru Nanak write nor asked for the writing of Guru Gobind Singh the holy book in Sikhism?
What do you mean by god? Funny isn’t it how almost all of the world’s religions share the same facts that the claimed holy teacher never wrote their holy book and for that matter are not even sure if they are historical or made up. But please don’t say they were not fake or that we don’t know the truth about them. Ha, ha, ha, please, I feel safe in my anti-religionism, thank you very much. I am a reality revolutionary fighting hard to defend reality as it actually is in a world working hard to do the opposite. To offer that which is not true to reality is to offer a conspiracy theory about it, including the beliefs of ghosts, gods, and religions. Believe me wrong prove it with valid and reliable reason and evidence or I don’t believe you nor would anyone have good reason to either including your self if you are an honest thinker. I don’t really have trust it is just from experience I know many beliefs people like holding are not worth believing in and full of shit. Why do most religious people claim to have religious or spiritual experiences is they add make-believe to “reality.” And the general “WHY” people profess to have religious or spiritual experiences is because we are emotional beings, that while we can employ the thinking strategy of rationalism over faith or unreason/illogical beliefs, we still often seem to prefer to follow emotional driven thinking or simply learn to appeal to emotionalism. Things are not the other way around as we are not rational beings who understand the world accurately by employing the logical thinking strategies and not thinking clouded emotionalism needed to replace faith or unreason/illogical beliefs that follow such thinking, right? We are all emotional and thus will experience emotional wonder.
This common experience of things like emotional wonder or awe is just a positive emotional hijacking, as the experience of joy, but that is just the joy of being alive, it’s wholly cheapened to me by fantasy daydreaming delusions (supernatural) to this beautiful magic devoid reality. To me, rationalistic thinkers of intellectual character engaging in a thoughtful critical challenge, and thus should strive to disagree, debate, dispute, debunk, and degrade harmful unjustified beliefs (such as pseudo-science, pseudo-history, and or pseudo-morality the stuff religions love to promote) and not the swindled or reality deluded believer. However, I understand how we treat others matters even as an atheist dealing with theists. When I get angry or frustrated, I strive to have understanding and patience. When I get to where I think I will say something hurtful, so I strive, to say it a better way if possible, as I want to help not hurt. So, I wish to something not often offered to me; I wish to be kind, compassionate, and thoughtful as much as I can, as often as I can because how we treat others matters. Therefore, even as an out firebrand atheist I do respect people, I do not respect religion. I believe in people; I do not believe in religion. Tolerance has its limits for it will not stand for blind ignorance and the intolerance of bigotry, and it’s connected injustice cross that line first. I will NOT tolerate the unjust intolerance of oppression and harm.
Because I want to live a value-driven life to promote kindness and human flourishing as an axiological atheist not just the call for reason in thinking but also thinking in behaviors as well. Simply how we treat others reflects on us just like how we make others feel about themselves tells a lot about our chosen character. Thus how we choose to treat others, respond or react to others, will often identify the kind of person we are striving to be. I wish to be a person of value. I am 100 % sure not you nor anyone can honestly justify their claim of knowing even the concept of gods, if one like me simply demands a valid and reliable ontology of the term god. I see no honesty is saying that god anything as not one person can truly even say what it is and defiantly can offer no valid justification for the thinking either the concept of gods is a thinking error period. You have no ontology of god as you have not validated the term to mean anything but myths or confusions. Provide a support to even claim what a god could or could not be then validated hoe you know this and why it is valid and reasonable or as I already know, no one honestly can they must intellectually lie or be so under confusion they can’t think clear to do so. What is this god whatever you are supposedly agnostic about? if you don’t know then you don’t have something to doubt rather you are holding open a thinking error possibility from some myth others invented without reason as if it was reason.
What do you mean by god? The concept of gods begins with a faulty presupposition of an unsound thinker who has failed to demand justification an simply accepts the absurd. May the actions of my life be written deep with the poetry of my humanity. I have one big goal in life, I just want to make the world kinder. I am intelligent enough that I see I must be open to learn from everyone around me. I don’t try to compare people, Instead, I compare ideas. I am willing to have anyone teach me something and I hope I am always so wise. Some wish for empirical proof of some god. I say no start at what is god and how is it that you are claiming to know anything about it with a sound justification. I say empirical proof of what, when you cannot justify what the term god should contain? Start by justifying there is anything in the term god other than simply a three letter noise. Theists love their faith so much they unjustifiably appealed to the term god as if its attributes were a given, well they are not and to claim they are is uninformed, intellectually dishonest or confused. Actually, I know there is no theist that has done anything but start with something unjustified “the god claim” empty of worth to begin with, then take said unjustified claim to add something to this unjustifiably defined god term and then assert this willful theist with its myth and superstition driven attributes that not one of them are justified to be packed into the term god seems a kind of mental masturbation inventing unjustified attributes drunk on some wishful thinking hijacking, may simply be confused/uninformed, not truly thinking just willfully believing or outright intellectually dishonest.
What do you mean by god? God talk is unjustified until you can demonstrate that you can know anything even belongs in the term with valid and reliable reason and justification. What is a god is the first burden of proof that is required? Some wish for empirical proof of some god. I say no start at what is god and how is it that you are claiming to know anything about it with a sound justification. I say empirical proof of what, when you cannot justify what the term god should contain? Start by justifying there is anything in the term god other than simply a three letter noise. Theists love their faith so much they unjustifiably appealed to the term god as if its attributes were a given, well they are not and to claim they are is uninformed, intellectually dishonest or confused. Actually, I know there is no theist that has done anything but start with something unjustified “the god claim” empty of worth to begin with, then take said unjustified claim to add something to this unjustifiably defined god term and then assert this willful theist with its myth and superstition driven attributes that not one of them are justified to be packed into the term god seems a kind of mental masturbation inventing unjustified attributes drunk on some wishful thinking hijacking, may simply be confused/uninformed, not truly thinking just willfully believing or outright intellectually dishonest. God talk is unjustified until you can demonstrate that you can know anything even belongs in the term with valid and reliable reason and justification.
What do you mean by god? What is a god is the first burden of proof, that is required? You say some wish for empirical proof. I say no start at what is god and how is it that you are claiming to know anything about it with a sound justification. I say empirical proof of what, when you cannot justify what the term god should contain? Start by justifying there is anything in the term god other than simply a three letter noise. Theists love their faith so much they unjustifiably appealed to the term god as if its attributes were a given, well they are not and to claim they are is uninformed, intellectually dishonest or confused. It is not intellectually honest to support that that lacks a sound justification. So there is no way a theist or agnostic can honestly assess to know, it’s like you saying you without looking can affirm what is in box A compared to box B. You nor anyone can honestly know anything get it the god term (asserted unknown box you have not looked inside, nor an you: thus you cannot claim anything is inside the hypothetical available posable attributes) you and others see as something is an unjustified list of things added without justification thus you don’t know nor can anyone justify claim knowing what should be added removed fro a possible god term, not one, one attribute, nothing… and each peace anyone wishes to add must be justified. All terms are empty of reality anything unless justified, there is nothing to add to justify the term god after doing so I will create a justifiably offered concept of a god something. What else do you have as a justification if you are a theist or an agnostic available something to assert?
What do you mean by god? I am all ears? It is nothing that I have to know other than the term god is offered without justifying anything in the term deserves to be in the term. Is god, hod fod, nod, who knows its just letters put together, is this unknown whatever a woman, man, tansgender, or intersex? Is god pink, black collarless? All claims to everything or anything and there is no such valid confirmation for anything wished to be added in the term god must be proven to intellectually claim to know them. No such thing has ever happened or could thus there is no justified thing called god, period. So, are an ignostic now and agree no one can justifiably claim to know anything about the term god but myth terms or descriptions? I don’t start with debunking the offered term god instead I wish to show the absurdity of claiming the term god has anything of value. I begin with an argument of presumptive value, prove the accurate values for anything you wish to define the term god I assert until this is done the term god and all connected ideas that appeal to the god terms meaning which had not even justifiably been defined. You can’t get any church to 100% agree on what a fod/god is or how they think or behave because there is no valid ontology to begin with before everyone gets to do that, not even one of all the famous theistic apologetics nor any reported theist in history at all are the same no it’s a shit show with ideas all over the place, all are a little different you know like myths.
My response, and the Tanakh is rich with hate and fear literature, so yes he is indeed responsible for that so try again.
“You’re just repeating yourself now. I already specified why this meme is inaccurate. If you want to keep it up, that’s on your intellectual integrity to share false information, but I would delete it because I have intellectual integrity. And anyway, you didn’t say “WANTED: for SUPPORTING the Holy Bible,” but rather for “producing” it, which is just ridiculous. He did not write any of it either. This meme is just all kinds of falseness wrapped in a bundle. I see you criticize theists all the time for not being truthful. Do you not hold yourself to the same standard?” – Challenger
My response, see you still are the one inaccurate as the bible contains the old testament and jesus in only found in the new testament so your argument is beyond odd to say one cannot refer to the new testament the only place we would even know about the jesus character and in which irt is claimed to have not stayed dead and thus returned to the god state which was then claimed to continue to influence the bible so yes he is responsible by the bible itself. So, I need to hear a better argument from you than jesus id not responsible for the bible.
“Jesus could not have supported or “produced” the NT because every shred of it was written AFTER he allegedly died. That should be obvious, but your typo-filled run-on sentences do not establish the contrary. For someone who doesn’t think Jesus is god, this is just a dumb argument to suppose that he is in order to criticize him. It’s like giving something with one hand and taking it away with the other. Anyhow, you are not coming off as very intelligent here. Honestly, quite the contrary. Is it too much to ask that if you are going to produce antitheist memes, that you don’t inject the belief in god into them first (a very strange stance to take, but then you defend it)? You are a muddled mess, and it’s like you’ve never even pondered what it is you’re trying to accomplish on a pragmatic level.” – Challenger
My response, so no good argument to support your claim that the bible is not influenced by god/jesus?
Produce a meme against the belief in god, but then inject the belief in god into it, so that it’s only construed to be accurate if god exists? That is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard of in the atheist community, FYI. Yes, god and Jesus don’t exist. No need to have fictional characters produce or support or influence anything. If that’s not enough, then I have nothing more to offer.” – Challenger
My response, don’t you know you need more than empty claims that don’t prove your point that the general believers do not think the bible is not inspired by god/jesus?
“My estimation of your IQ just dropped by 35 points. How is it an empty claim if you also don’t believe god exists. Are you going to tell me that I need to somehow argue to you that god does not exist for this post to be inaccurate?” – Challenger
My response, this is one of the oddest things I have heard that someone would try to say that the general believers do not think the bible is not inspired by god/jesus. The meme is to address what bible believers believe its a visual added critique as one who talks of IQ would seem to be likely to know but here you are, asking how, “is it an empty claim if you also don’t believe god exists” trying to act as if you dont get what is being offered in the meme. Rather it makes you mad because of some other reason than actually claiming Jesus believers don’t think he influenced most if not all of the bible. To jesus believers jesus is god and influenced almost everything in the bible. I have a BA in Psychology with some sociology/addictions therapy as well as an Autodidact in Science, Archeology, Anthropology, and Philosophy.
“That is correct in terms of what Christians believe. They are, furthermore, comfortably ensconced in those beliefs in Jesus and god and the bible. The point of an atheist producing a meme against Christianity is to influence believers to not believe in Christianity as much, or otherwise it’s a circle-jerk between atheists, if atheists are the only intended audience. But an atheist producing a meme which takes fundamental Christian tenets to be pre-suppositionally true is not going to be effective because it does not push Christians to go outside their comfort zones. Before the meme, they thought Jesus is god and god exists and the bible is true. And the meme MAKES this same argument and so after the meme they are going to think Jesus is god and god exists and the bible is true. This is basic pragmatics, which obviously Damien has not studied via his auto-didacticism. So, yes, it is just a big atheist circle-jerk. I guess it’s too much to ask for an atheist to create and share memes which don’t take fundamental Christian beliefs as accurate. I mean, what would the world have to come to for that obvious point to have to be implemented?” – Challenger
My response, it was to point out two truths you are seemingly not wishing to address, like how it’s a wanted poster so it’s pointing out jesus is missing and the intellectual joke in that if you miss it is that the jesus character is not coming back and the other if you missed it was to attach the remainder of the bible’s hate and fear and connecting t to the jesus character. And as we stand is you tried to do a read herring logical fallacy trying to turn it to my education, then your ad hominem attack just for fun I guess and yet with all your believed superior to me talk are inferior in argument where is counts my friend. I must wonder if you now see you were wrong as still have not addressed your continual weak argument that is not yet supported as you still don’t have support that jesus/god is not responsible for inspiring the bible.
Moreover, to value faith as a means to know reality or the truth or something, is a mental weakness of wanting one’s beliefs about reality to matter more than the actual reality. Faith in relation to truth is at best just wishful emotions over rational understanding which could involve just admitting one lacks knowledge. Here is my blog: Authoritarian Truth Seekers and Anti-Authoritarian Truth Seekers?
My Writer Facebook Page: Damien Marie AtHope
Personal Facebook Page: Damien Marie AtHope
YouTube: Damien AtHope
Linkedin: Damien AtHope
Pinterest: Atheist Humanist: Damien AtHope
Main Atheist Facebook Page: Axiological Atheist
Secondary Atheist Facebook Page: Atheists For Non-Aggression
My Leftist Political Page: Axiological Leftist
Atheist for Non-monogamy: Atheist for Non-monogamy
Atheist for Non-monogamy group: Atheist for Non-monogamy
Atheist Nexus: Damien Marie AtHope
Secular Nest (Facebook for atheists): Damien Marie AtHope
Atheists Against Trump Facebook Group: Atheists Against Trump
HARP Facebook Group: Humanism-Atheism-Rationalism-Philosophy-HARP
HARP Meetup Group: Humanism-Atheism-Rationalism-Philosophy-HARP
Firebrand Atheism Meetup Group: Firebrand-Atheism
Here are 6 of my blog posts:
Here are 6 of my Youtube posts:
Losing My Religion
I don’t know if I should be called a just an atheist as this is too limited to define my disbelief.
Thus I am best discribed as an Axiological atheist: (Ethical/Value theory Reasoned and Moral Argument driven) Atheism, Anti-theism, Anti-religionism, and Secular Humanism I also value Ignosticism or igtheism. I was raised and forced to be Christian and for a time lived my whole life believing in the Christian faith. Though, I could have never have been touted as a holy person or a true follower of the Christian moral rules. My life more often resembled the sinner than the saint. However, I truly believed what was taught to me about Christianity was the truth. Though, I nitpicked and had qualms with some of the philosophy, I still wholeheartedly was a believer and felt I was born again.
So what changed?
The beginning of the change was getting a bachelor of arts in Psychology, grasping critical thinking, rational analysis, universal ethics, and the need of proof. However, the true starting point was Biology. In essence, learning that we all begin as female and it takes specific processes to turn into a male. But what fully made me “change” was two classes on religion the first comparative religions the second understanding the bible halfway through that class I stopped believing. So if woman was created first! If the Bible starts on a lie, how can it ever find truth? I started using a new rationale to analyze the Bible and not accepting it as truth outright. I thought how positive would we view a parent who puts a 2 years old child next to a cookie jar and tells them not to eat any cookies. Then not only punish them for the rest of their life but to every generation to the end of time for an action they did not understand. No parent would be seen as just. Even the Bible says we should forgive after 7 years and how can it be justified to punish everyone who is guiltless for the action of one even if they did understand. That would not be convictable in any court anywhere in the world. Yet, we are taught to praise a god who did just that. I could go on and on about my views on the Bible and Christianity but I will end with one statement. The Bible touts that the most important thing is the word. The word is so important that God himself wrote on stone with a lightening finger. Yet, we are to believe that Jesus comes to earth and does not write a word. Was he illiterate? If he was, how could he be God? Jesus never asked anyone to write anything more in the Torah. Maybe he just forgot since he was so busy or maybe he was not God. He had 12 disciples; why did not all of them author a book on his behalf? Instead they too are silent. If Jesus and his disciples were silent, maybe he was not God. Of if he was God, maybe he was silent because the Torah was already perfect. That would make the Christian Bible heresy.
I am unplugged from the faith Matrix
The matrix is all the biases, values, morals, stereotypes, beliefs, judgments, and requirements that society and religion mythologies force upon us. The faith matrix of religion tells us how to act, think, and behave, what is right or wrong, and good or bad. The religion matrix is often the heartstring of every culture. It forces upon us what it feels as right and never caring about what we really need. The matrix binds us and confines who we really are. To me, “Pseudo Morality” is seen when holy books or people “cognitively reconstruct” an inhumane idea or behavior to make it into something different from than it is, to something more moral than what it actually is. Or turn something highly immoral in to something highly moral. One way to do that is to cloak the behavior “in moral wrappings” or “in divine authority” such as god hates gays, gays are evil, thus killing gays is doing good by destroying evil. This thinking is obviously pseudomorality as gays are not evil but killing them is evil and inhumane idea or behavior thus very immoral. The god justified immorality into what is then called moral is some of the most common pseudomorality, though political leaders and others in power tend to employ it as well. They all are using “pseudomoral justifications” to describe something immoral as moral. True morality is not as simple as the golden rule… True morality is a valued behavior we do that interacts with others; it is not really related to what we do to ourselves. Which is why I do not agree with the so-called golden rule as it is what you don’t want do to others but this fails in that its focused on ourselves which is us focused and true morality needs to be other focused on what valued behavior we do that interacts with others. I say treat others the way they should be treated. People have self-ownership, self-rights, right to dignity, freedom and equality. True morality is a valued behavior we do that interacts with others starting with the conception that people matter, they have worth and value, It is in this way they should be treated. Real Morality is referring to “ethics” we use in judging the behaviors in a social dynamic behavioral event or interaction and can only accrue in a social dynamic (social behavioral realm) as such all morality propositions removed from a social dynamic and which accrue only in a personal dynamic lack attachment to “Real Morality” referring to the social nature of “ethics.” In other words, if you are by yourself and do something only to yourself, it is neither ethical nor immorality; thus, doing a behavior that is only personal (a believed moral or otherwise) by yourself and only something to yourself, is amorality to everyone but that chosen person doing a behavior that is only personal. One can chouse to personally value some moral standard for themselves but because morals (the personal valued behaviors) as opposed to ethics (the interpersonal/socal valued behaviors; which there is business never business morals as ethics is about our social behaviors we can hold others to, whereas, morals are only something we can hold ourselves to). I hold the assumptions that to understand morality more fully we need to understand its synthesis and properties by emphasizing its relations to conceptual tools understanding motivation and behavior such as biopsychosocial model, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, kohlberg’s moral development theory and formal axiology interactions across multiple levels. Real Morality is an emergent aspect limited to a sphere of social dynamics (social) result in human progress and social evolution understood in mental processes of high cognitively developed beings (biological) with developed psychological quality of awareness (psychological) and the so-called moral facts and the values that support or motivate them is limited to the realm of possible harm psychological or physical (actual external world or experiential internal world). I would like to offer my understanding of how I see the layout of morality, values, morals and ethics as I see them. I see the term “morality” proper as the main moniker to a philosophic group (values, morals and ethics) or a main heading that involves the subheadings of values, morals and ethics. Values, morals, and ethics, in a basic observational way should be understood as falling under branches expressing different but similar thinking and behavioral persuasion. Values are the internal catalyst often motivating our thinking and behaviors. Such as, a value of all human life, would tend to motivate you to not wantonly end human lives. Just as a lack of value for all human life, may tend to motivate you to not have an issue with the wanton ending of human lives. Morals to me, are the personal persuasion that you value, such as having a desire for truthfulness. Then we have ethics and we know this is a different branch of the morality tree, as there is business ethics/professional ethics but not really business morals or professional morals; other than one’s self-chosen persuasion which may be adopted from business ethics/professional ethics. Ethics are as I have expressed our social universal prescriptions/persuasions public morality whereas morals to me are personal morality. Therefore, we can hold others to universal ethics standards (public morality) and not our moral proclivities that are not universal on others, as morals are for us (personal morality).
How did I unplug from the religious and god matrix?
The first and most crucial element that must be grasped and lived wholeheartedly to be removed from the matrix and stay unplugged is the unilateral valuing of women, the way they think, and their gift of being to the world. Without this understanding of women, one can never be removed from the matrix. The matrix is male dominated in its width and breath and in the movie “The Matrix” movie all the agents were men.
Equality in power in important and how men and women do this is often different. Women under stress are more pron to tend and befriend then fight or flight and in our modern society this is of higher need. I am not saying this is only limited to women as there is some men who do this also but we need most men to move past the fight or flight as it would make a more humanistic world. When women lead it is more common everyone has largely rights and when men rule it is more common only men have the greatest rights. If you have a country or people who allow or support torture, mostly such a a country is one that women are not equal or valued and are oppressed. Its not the only factor but they do tend to go together.
The greatest unused asset occurring in the world that is untapped and could help solve many of the world’s problems is women. I have and do value women and am a feminist. Another key aspect is to remove religion. I started to unplug myself when I removed religion mythologies its pseudo science, pseudo history as well as its pseudo-morality and replaced them with real science, history, ethics and axiology. An ethics and axiologcal value removed from god deluded morals and sin. I no longer have religion morals which are pseudo moral judgments and sin which is a condemnation built on a judgment. I have axiologcal value driven ethics. I no longer follow good or bad handed down by some deity, culture, or family value. I have axiologcal value driven valuations of good or bad. I do what is healthy and pleasurable. I do not do what is harmful or causes pain. In this endeavor, I do not claim perfection. I am but a traveler and seeker of value, ethics, justice, and pleasure. Check out: Reasons for or Types of Atheism
My college books where:
First here are my thoughts on Real Morality vs. Pseudo Morality:
+Morals (Personal Morality relating to a “self” morality): are not held by all in the same way since all are not held to Orthodox faith and though most start with good and bad or right and wrong values, which usually are personally, familially, socially or religiously give or in some way otherworldly defined, thus not universal.
+Ethics (Social Morality relating to a “others” morality): Ethics are not constrained by a given religion’s value systems to motivate its ideas of right and wrong instead it relies on universal truths found in universal principles of just human action. Ethics is set standers uses to personally engage with others and universal truths assist goals of universal ethics standards. Thus, ethics are general prosocial prescription we as morality aware beings in a rather universal way tend to have some awareness of and it is not just an awareness as in one who holds to ethics often get it applies to all peoples. Some may wish to devalue people but to do so is not really unethical, though often it can lead to unethical behavior. So what I am trying to highlight is how in the behavior that the ethics violation could occur as the internal attitude of devaluing others would only be a possible morals violation such as one who valued virtue and not getting it but failing by the persuasion of devaluing the life of other humans. This simple internal devaluing of humans, that they may be doing is vile. But ethics would not be involved until public behaviors with others, as such ethics is not so much a persuasion as an adherence to a standard(s) that should cover all thus it is highly applicable to utilize in environmental decision making.
Axiology, Naturalism, Realism and Moral Theory Ideas
Real Morality is referring to “ethics” (Social Morality relating to a “others” morality) as opposed to +Morals (Personal Morality relating to a “self” morality) because we use Real Morality or need to to assist in judging the behaviors in a social dynamic behavioral event or interaction and can only accrue in a social dynamic (social behavioral realm) as such all morality propositions removed from a social dynamic and which accrue only in a personal dynamic lack attachment to “Real Morality” referring to the social nature of “ethics.” In other words, if you are by yourself and do something only to yourself, it is neither ethical nor immorality; thus, doing a behavior that is only personal (a believed moral or otherwise) by yourself and only something to yourself, is amorality to everyone but that chosen person doing a behavior that is only personal. One can chouse to personally value some moral standard for themselves but because morals (the personal valued behaviors) as opposed to ethics (the interpersonal/socal valued behaviors; which there is business never business morals as ethics is about our social behaviors we can hold others to, whereas, morals are only something we can hold ourselves to).
I hold the assumptions that to understand morality more fully we need to understand its synthesis and properties by emphasizing its relations to conceptual tools understanding motivation and behavior such as biopsychosocial model, Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory, kohlberg’s moral development theory and formal axiology interactions across multiple levels. Real Morality is an emergent aspect limited to a sphere of social dynamics (social) result in human progress and social evolution understood in mental processes of high cognitively developed beings (biological) with developed psychological quality of awareness (psychological) and the so-called moral facts and the values that support or motivate them is limited to the realm of possible harm psychological or physical (actual external world or experiential internal world). Pseudo Morality is seen when holy books or people “cognitively reconstruct” an inhumane idea or behavior to make it into something different from than it is, to something more moral than what it actually is. Or turn something highly immoral into something highly moral. One way to do that is to cloak the behavior “in moral wrappings” or “in divine authority” such as god hates gays, gays are evil, thus killing gays is doing good by destroying evil. This thinking is obviously pseudo morality as gays are not evil but killing them is evil and inhumane idea or behavior thus very immoral. The god justified immorality into what is then called moral is some of the most common pseudo-morality, though political leaders and others in power tend to employ it as well. They all are using “pseudo-moral justifications” to describe something immoral as moral. True morality is not as simply as the golden rule…
Did you know the Golden Rule is found in some variation in all faiths.
Baha’i Faith: “Lay not on any soul a load that you would not want to be laid upon you, and desire not for anyone the things you would not desire for yourself” –Bahu’u’llah
Buddhism: “Treat not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful” –Udana-Varga 5:18
Christianity: “In everything do to others as you would have them do to you; for this is the law of the prophets” –Jesus in Matthew 7:12
Confucianism: “One word which sums up the basis of all good conduct…loving kindness. Do not do to others what you do not want done to yourself” –Confucius, Analects 15:23
Hinduism: ” This is the sum of duty: do not do to others what would cause pain if done to you” –Mahabharata 5:15-17
Humanism: “Try to embrace the moral principle known as the ‘Golden Rule’, otherwise known as the ethic of reciprocity, which means we believe that people should aim to treat each other as they would like to be treated themselves – with tolerance, consideration and compassion.” – Maria MacLachlan, Think Humanism
Islam: “Not one of you truly believes until you wish for others what you wish for yourself” –The Prophet Mohammad, Hadith
Jainism: “One should treat all creatures in the world as one would like to be treated” –Mahavira, Sutrakritanga
Judaism: “What is hateful to you, do not do to your neighbor. This is the whole Torah: all the rest is commentary” –Hillel, Talmud, Shabbat 31a
Native American: “We are as much alive as we keep the earth alive” –Chief Dan George
Satanism: “Do unto others as they do unto you”; because if you “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you,” and they, in turn, treat you badly, it goes against human nature to continue to treat them with consideration. You should do unto others as you would have them do unto you, but if your courtesy is not returned, they should be treated with the wrath they deserve.” ― Anton Szandor LaVey, The Satanic Bible
Sikhism: “I am a stranger to no one; and no one is a stranger to me. Indeed, I am a friend to all” –Guru Granth Sahib, pg. 1299
Taoism: “Regard your neighbor’s gain as your own gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss” –T’ai Shang Kan Yin P’ien 213-218
Unitarianism: “We affirm and promote respect for the interdependent web of all existence of which we are a part” –Unitarian Principle
Wicca: “An’ it harm none, do as thou wilt” –The Wiccan Reed
Zoroastrianism: “Do not do unto others whatever is injurious to yourself. –Shayast-na-Shayast 13:29
True morality is a valued behavior we do that interacts with others; it is not really related to what we do to ourselves. Which is why I do not agree with the so-called golden rule as it is what you don’t want do to others but this fails in that its focused on ourselves which is us focused and true morality needs to be other focused on what valued behavior we do that interacts with others. I say treat others the way they should be treated. People have self-ownership, self-rights, right to dignity, freedom, and equality. True morality is a valued behavior we do that interacts with others starting with the conception that people matter, they have worth and value, It is in this way they should be treated.
Pseudo Morality is seen when holy books or people “cognitively reconstruct” an inhumane idea or behavior to make it into something different from than it is, to something more moral than what it actually is. Or turn something highly immoral into something highly moral.
One way to do that is to cloak the behavior “in moral wrappings” or “in divine authority” such as god hates gays, gays are evil, thus killing gays is doing good by destroying evil. This thinking is obviously pseudo morality as gays are not evil but killing them is evil and inhumane idea or behavior thus very immoral.
The god justified immoral into moral is some of the most common pseudo-morality though political and others in power tend to employ it as well. They all are using “pseudo-moral justifications” to describe something immoral as moral.
To me, true morality is not starting with an us or me focused morality as morality is a social interaction exchange thus it must be other focused. “treating others as they should be treated” To me, I see everyone as owning themselves all equal in this right as humans. Moreover, to me morality is behavioral and a social property, there is no immoral thing one can do to themselves as one cannot violate themselves or their own consent as they choose their own actions. Thus, to me, all morality is about others and our interactions with them and them with us. So, morality arises in a social context with all things not that all things have the same moral weight. Therefore, moral relationships with life outside humans have a different moral weight or value.Such as killing 100 humans is not the same as killing 100 dogs, killing 100 fish, killing 100 flies, etc. Of course, the method of killing used should inflict the least amount of suffering to the animal or plant. And to not do that could make it immoral. Such as torturing them to death is immoral even if the killing was not.
So, the golden rule? No thanks, I want real morality not reverse-selfishness driven morality.
Harm is often a violation of trust and a violation of expected trust makes bad things even worse like if I told you a child was killed, you would feel it was terrible but if I further told you it was the child’s doctor that murdered the child out of anger. You would be more angered as doctors are expected to care for people not harm them. And if you think that is bad what if I further told you the doctor who killed the child was her mother would you hold her even mone in contempt as mothers also are expected to care and not kill children, so a violation of trust is terrible and even makes things worse. Therefore, we can see why people that hold places of trust should never abuse them, and that we should hold them accountable if they do violate such trust by harming others. Morality first, that is morality should be at the forefront in all I do. I hope I am always strong enough to put my morality at the forefront in all I do, so much so, that it is obvious in the ways I think and behave. To better grasp, a naturalistic morality one should see the perspective of how there is a self-regulatory effect on the self-evaluative moral emotions, such as shame and guilt. Broadly conceived, self-regulation distinguishes between two types of motivation: approach/activation and avoidance/inhibition. one should conceptually understand the socialization dimensions (parental restrictiveness versus nurturance), associated emotions (anxiety versus empathy), and forms of morality (proscriptive versus prescriptive) that serve as precursors to each self-evaluative moral emotion.
Axiological Morality Critique of Pseudo-Morality/Pseudomorality?
True Morality summed up to me is largely the expression of axiological value judgments/assessments carried into an appropriate valueized action.
Why care? Because we are Dignity Beings.
“Dignity is an internal state of peace that comes with the recognition and acceptance of the value and vulnerability of all living things.” – Donna Hicks (2011). Dignity: The Essential Role It Plays in Resolving Conflict
I am inspired by philosophy, enlightened by archaeology and grounded by science that religious claims, on the whole, along with their magical gods, are but Dogmatic-Propaganda, myths and lies. Kindness beats prayers every time, even if you think prayer works, you know kindness works. Think otherwise, do both without telling people and see which one they notice. Aspire to master the heavens but don’t forget about the ones in need still here on earth. You can be kind and never love but you cannot love and never be kind. Therefore, it is this generosity of humanity, we need the most of. So, if you can be kind, as in the end some of the best we can be to others is to exchange kindness. For too long now we have allowed the dark shadow of hate to cloud our minds, while we wait in silence as if pondering if there is a need to commiserate. For too long little has been done and we too often have been part of this dark clouded shame of hate. Simply, so many humans now but sadly one is still left asking, where is the humanity?
Why Ought We Care?
Because kindness is like chicken soup to the essence of who we are, by validating the safety needs of our dignity. When the valuing of dignity is followed, a deep respect for one’s self and others as dignity beings has become one’s path. When we can see with the eyes of love and kindness, how well we finally see and understand what a demonstrates of a mature being of dignity when we value the human rights of others, as we now see others in the world as fellow beings of dignity. We need to understand what should be honored in others as fellow dignity beings and the realization of the value involved in that. As well as strive to understand how an attack to/on a person’s “human rights” is an attack to/on the value and worth of a dignity being. Yes, I want to see “you” that previous being of dignity worthy of high value and an honored moral weight to any violation of their self-ownership. And this dignity being with self-ownership rights is here before you seeking connection. what will you do, here you are in the question ever present even if never said aloud, do you see me now or are you stuck in trying to evaluate my value and assess worth as a fellow being of dignity. A violation of one’s dignity (Which it the emotional, awareness or the emotional detection of the world) as a dignity being can be quite harmful, simply we must see how it can create some physiological disturbance in the dignity being its done to. I am a mutualistic thinker and to me, we all are in this life together as fellow dignity beings. Therefore, I want my life to be of a benefit to others in the world. We are natural evolutionary derived dignity beings not supernatural magic derived soul/spirit beings. Stopping lying about who we are, as your made-up magic about reality which is forced causing a problem event (misunderstanding of axiological valuations) to the natural wonder of reality. What equals a dignity worth being, it is the being whose species has cognitive awareness and the expense of pain. To make another dignity being feel pain is to do an attack to their dignity as well as your own. What equals a dignity worth being, it is the being whose species has cognitive awareness and the expense of pain. When I was younger I felt proud when I harmed those I did not like now I find it deserving even if doing it was seen as the only choice as I now see us for who we are valuable beings of dignity. I am not as worried about how I break the box you believe I need to fit as I am worried about the possibility of your confining hopes of hindering me with your limits, these life traps you have decided about and for me are as owning character attacks to my dignity’s needs which can be generalized as acceptance, understanding, and support. As I see it now, how odd I find it to have prejudice or bigotry against other humans who are intact previous fellow beings of dignity, we too often get blinded by the external packaging that holds a being of dignity internally. What I am saying don’t judge by the outside see the worth and human value they have as a dignity being. Why is it easier to see what is wrong then what is right? Why do I struggle in speaking what my heart loves as thorough and as passionate as what I dislike or hate? When you say “an act of mercy” the thing that is being appealed to or for is the proposal of or for the human quality of dignity. May my lips be sweetened with words of encouragement and compassion. May my Heart stay warm in the arms kindness. May my life be an expression of love to the world. Dignity arises in our emotional awareness depending on cognition. Our dignity is involved when you feel connected feelings with people, animals, plants, places, things, and ideas. Our dignity is involved when we feel an emotional bond “my family”, “my pet”, “my religion”, “my sport’s team” etc. Because of the core sensitivity of our dignity, we feel that when we connect, then we are also acknowledging, understanding, and supporting a perceived sense of dignity. Even if it’s not actually a dignity being in the case of plants, places, things, and ideas; and is rightly interacting with a dignity being in people and animals. We are trying to project “dignity developing motivation” towards them somewhere near equally even though human and animals don’t have the same morality weight to them. I am anthropocentric (from Greek means “human being center”) as an Axiological Atheist. I see humans value as above all other life’s value. Some say well, we are animals so they disagree with my destination. But how do the facts play out? So, you don’t have any difference in value of life? Therefore, a bug is the same as a mouse, a mouse is the same as a dolphin, a dolphin is the same as a human, all to you have exactly the same value? You fight to protect the rights of each of them equally? And all killing of any of them is the same crime murder? I know I am an animal but you also know that we do have the term humans which no other animal is classified. And we don’t take other animals to court as only humans and not any other animals are like us. We are also genetically connected to plants and stars and that still doesn’t remove the special class humans removed from all other animals. A society where you can kill a human as easily as a mosquito would simply just not work ethically to me and it should not to any reasonable person either. If you think humans and animals are of equal value, are you obviously for stronger punishment for all animals to the level of humans? If so we need tougher laws against all animals including divorce and spousal or child support and we will jail any animal parent (deadbeat animal) who does not adequately as we have been avoiding this for too long and thankfully now that in the future the ideas about animals being equal we had to create a new animal police force and animal court system, not to mention are new animal jails as we will not accept such open child abuse and disregard for responsibilities? As we don’t want to treat animals as that would be unjust to some humans, but how does this even make sense? To me it doesn’t make sense as humans a different from all other animals even though some are similar in some ways. To further discuss my idea of *dignity developing motivation” can be seen in expressions like, I love you and I appreciate you. Or the behavior of living and appreciating. However, this is only true between higher cognitive aware beings as dignity and awareness of selfness is directly related to dignity awareness. The higher the dignity awareness the higher the moral weight of the dignity in the being’s dignity. What do you think are the best ways to cultivate dignity? Well, to me dignity is not a fixed thing and it feels honored or honoring others as well as help self-helping and other helping; like ones we love or those in need, just as our dignity is affected by the interactions with others. We can value our own dignity and we can and do grow this way, but as I see it because we are a social animals we can usually we cannot fully flourish with our dignity. Thus, dignity is emotionally needy for other dignity beings that is why I surmise at least a partially why we feel empathy and compassion or emotional bonds even with animals is a dignity awareness and response. Like when we say “my pet” cat one is acknowledging our increased personal and emotional connecting. So, when we exchange in experience with a pet animal what we have done is we raze their dignity. Our dignity flourishes with acceptance, understanding and support. Our dignity withers with rejection, misunderstanding, and opposition. Dignity: is the emotional sensitivity of our sense of self or the emotional understanding about our sense of self. When you say, they have a right to what they believe, what I hear is you think I don’t have a right to comment on it. Dignity is the emotional sensitivity of our sense of self or the emotional understanding about our sense of self. To me when we say it’s wrong to kill a human, that person is appealing to our need to value the dignity of the person.’ The person with whom may possibly be killed has a life essence with an attached value and moral weight valuations. And moral weight,’ which is different depending on the value of the dignity being you are addressing understanding moral weight as a kind of liability, responsibility, or rights is actualized. So, it’s the dignity to which we are saying validates the right to life. But I believe all living things with cognitively aware have a dignity. As to me dignity is the name I home to the emotional experience, emotional expression, emotional intelligence or sensitivity at the very core of our sense of self the more aware the hire that dignity value and thus worth. Dignity is often shredded similar to my thinking: “Moral, ethical, legal, and political discussions use the concept of dignity to express the idea that a being has an innate right to be valued, respected, and to receive ethical treatment. In the modern context dignity, can function as an extension of the Enlightenment-era concepts of inherent, inalienable rights. English-speakers often use the word “dignity” in prescriptive and cautionary ways: for example, in politics it can be used to critique the treatment of oppressed and vulnerable groups and peoples, but it has also been applied to cultures and sub-cultures, to religious beliefs and ideals, to animals used for food or research, and to plants. “Dignity” also has descriptive meanings pertaining to human worth. In general, the term has various functions and meanings depending on how the term is used and on the context.” Dignity, authenticity and integrity are of the highest value to our experience, yet ones that we must define for ourselves. People of hurt and harm, you are not as free to attack other beings of dignity without any effect on you as you may think. So, I am sorry not sorry that there is no such thing in general, as hurting or harming other beings of dignity without psychological destruction to the dignity being in us. This is an understanding that once done hunts and harm of other beings of dignity emotionally/psychologically hurts and harms your life as an acceptance needy dignity being, as we commonly experience moral discuss involuntary as on our deepest level as dignity beings. Disgust is deeply related to our sense of morality.
Babies & Morality?
“They believe babies are in fact born with an innate sense of morality, and while parents and society can help develop a belief system in babies, they don’t create one. A team of researchers at Yale University’s Infant Cognition Center, known as The Baby Lab, showed us just how they came to that conclusion.” Ref
Animals and Morality?
5 Animals With a Moral Compass Moreover, Animals can tell right from wrong: Scientists studying animal behavior believe they have growing evidence that species ranging from mice to primates are governed by moral codes of conduct in the same way as humans. Likewise, in the book: Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals: Scientists have long counseled against interpreting animal behavior in terms of human emotions, warning that such anthropomorphizing limits our ability to understand animals as they really are. Yet what are we to make of a female gorilla in a German zoo who spent days mourning the death of her baby? Or a wild female elephant who cared for a younger one after she was injured by a rambunctious teenage male? Or a rat who refused to push a lever for food when he saw that doing so caused another rat to be shocked? Aren’t these clear signs that animals have recognizable emotions and moral intelligence? With Wild Justice Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce unequivocally answer yes. Marrying years of behavioral and cognitive research with compelling and moving anecdotes, Bekoff and Pierce reveal that animals exhibit a broad repertoire of moral behaviors, including fairness, empathy, trust, and reciprocity. Underlying these behaviors is a complex and nuanced range of emotions, backed by a high degree of intelligence and surprising behavioral flexibility. Animals, in short, are incredibly adept social beings, relying on rules of conduct to navigate intricate social networks that are essential to their survival. Ultimately, Bekoff and Pierce draw the astonishing conclusion that there is no moral gap between humans and other species: morality is an evolved trait that we unquestionably share with other social mammals.
Moral Naturalism (James Lenman)
While “moral naturalism” is sometimes used to refer to any approach to metaethics intended to cohere with naturalism in metaphysics more generally, the label is more usually reserved for naturalistic forms of moral realism according to which there are objective moral facts and properties and these moral facts and properties are natural facts and properties. Views of this kind appeal to many as combining the advantages of naturalism and realism. Ref
Moral fear and Moral love (which together motivate my axiological ethics)?
“Sometimes justice has to outweigh care and sometimes care has to outweigh justice.”
And one may ask or question how do you discern the appropriate morality course of action between what is ethically right? To me, it takes Axiology (i.e. value consciousness: value judgment analysis of ethical appropriateness do to assess value involved).
MORAL FEAR (fight or flight “justice perspective”):
To feel a kind of morality “anxiety” (ethical apprehension to potentially cause harm) about behaviors and their outcomes empathy (I feel you) or sympathy (I feel for you) about something moral that may be done, is being done, or that has been done, thus feeling of distress, apprehension or alarm caused by value driven emotional intelligence concern; moral/ethical anxiety to the possibility; chance (to do something as a moral thinker and an ethical actor) or dread; respect (to take the sensitivity of a personal moral choice that leads one to choose an ethical behavior(s) and grasping the moral weight of the actions involved and potential outcomes this engagement can or will likely create (using data from learning whether theoretical or practical to lessen the effect of an unpleasant choice as much as posable (morality development/awareness/goals/persuasion). “Moral Anxiety, improves us, while Social Anxiety kills. Some anxieties are indicators of healthy curiosity and strong moral fiber, while others are a source of severe stress. Knowing which is which can help you to navigate your personal, professional, and intellectual life more effectively.” Ref Moral fear thus is a kind of morality “anxiety” that motivates a fascinating aspect of humanity, which is that we hold ourselves to high moral standards. With our values and emotional intelligence and moral development, we gain a developed prosocial persuasion thus “tend to self-impose rules on ourselves to protect society from the short-term temptations that might cause us to do things that would have a negative impact in the long-run. For example, we might be tempted to harm a person who bothers us, but a society in which everyone gave in to the temptation to hurt those who made us angry would quickly devolve into chaos. And once we accept that emotion plays some role in complex decisions, it is important to figure out which emotions are influencing different kinds of choices. Therefore, when we make these moral judgments to an extent we are somewhat driven by our ability to reason about the consequences of the actions or are influenced by their emotions to or about the outcomes of the consequences of the actions.” https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/ulterior-motives/201308/anxiety-and-moral-judgment
*ps. MORAL FEAR (fight or flight “consequentialist ethics/utilitarian ethics”) is roughly referring to the fight-or-flight response, also known as the acute stress response, refers to a physiological reaction that occurs in the presence of something that is terrifying, either mentally or physically. The fight-or-flight response (also called hyperarousal, or the acute stress response) is a physiological reaction that occurs in response to a perceived harmful event, attack, or threat to survival. An evolutionary psychology explanation is that early animals had to react to threatening stimuli quickly and did not have time to psychologically and physically prepare themselves. The fight or flight response provided them with the mechanisms to rapidly respond to threats against survival. This response is recognized as the first stage of the general adaptation syndrome that regulates stress responses among vertebrates and other organisms. The reaction begins in the amygdala, which triggers a neural response in the hypothalamus. The initial reaction is followed by activation of the pituitary gland and secretion of the hormone ACTH. The adrenal gland is activated almost simultaneously and releases the hormone epinephrine. The release of chemical messengers results in the production of the hormone cortisol, which increases blood pressure, blood sugar, and suppresses the immune system. The initial response and subsequent reactions are triggered in an effort to create a boost of energy. This boost of energy is activated by epinephrine binding to liver cells and the subsequent production of glucose. Additionally, the circulation of cortisol functions to turn fatty acids into available energy, which prepares muscles throughout the body for response. Catecholamine hormones, such as adrenaline (epinephrine) or noradrenaline (norepinephrine), facilitate immediate physical reactions associated with a preparation for violent muscular action and :
- Acceleration of heart and lung action
- Paling or flushing, or alternating between both
- Inhibition of stomach and upper-intestinal action to the point where digestion slows down or stops
- General effect on the sphincters of the body
- Constriction of blood vessels in many parts of the body
- Liberation of metabolic energy sources (particularly fat and glycogen) for muscular action
- Dilation of blood vessels for muscles
- Inhibition of the lacrimal gland (responsible for tear production) and salivation
- Dilation of pupil (mydriasis)
- Relaxation of bladder
- Inhibition of erection
- Auditory exclusion (loss of hearing)
- Tunnel vision (loss of peripheral vision)
- Disinhibition of spinal reflexes
The physiological changes that occur during the fight or flight response are activated in order to give the body increased strength and speed in anticipation of fighting or running. Some of the specific physiological changes and their functions include:
- Increased blood flow to the muscles activated by diverting blood flow from other parts of the body.
- Increased blood pressure, heart rate, blood sugars, and fats in order to supply the body with extra energy.
- The blood clotting function of the body speeds up in order to prevent excessive blood loss in the event of an injury sustained during the response.
- Increased muscle tension in order to provide the body with extra speed and strength. Ref, Ref
Here is a little on Consequentialist ethics and Utilitarian ethics
*Consequentialist ethics: involves a class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one’s conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. In an extreme form, the idea of consequentialism is commonly encapsulated in the saying, “the end justifies the means“, meaning that if a goal is morally important enough, any method of achieving it is acceptable. Consequentialism is usually contrasted with deontological ethics (or deontology), in that deontology, in which rules and moral duty are central, derives the rightness or wrongness of one’s conduct from the character of the behaviour itself rather than the outcomes of the conduct. It is also contrasted with virtue ethics, which focuses on the character of the agent rather than on the nature or consequences of the act (or omission) itself, and pragmatic ethics which treats morality like science: advancing socially over the course of many lifetimes, such that any moral criterion is subject to revision. Consequentialist theories differ in how they define moral goods. Some argue that consequentialist and deontological theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, T. M. Scanlon advances the idea that human rights, which are commonly considered a “deontological” concept, can only be justified with reference to the consequences of having those rights. Similarly, Robert Nozick argues for a theory that is mostly consequentialist, but incorporates inviolable “side-constraints” which restrict the sort of actions agents are permitted to do. Ref
*Utilitarian ethics: involve an ethical theory which states that the best action is the one that maximizes utility. “Utility” is defined in various ways, usually in terms of the well-being of sentient entities. Jeremy Bentham, the founder of utilitarianism, described utility as the sum of all pleasure that results from an action, minus the suffering of anyone involved in the action. Utilitarianism is a version of consequentialism, which states that the consequences of any action are the only standard of right and wrong. Unlike other forms of consequentialism, such as egoism, utilitarianism considers the interests of all beings equally. Proponents of utilitarianism have disagreed on a number of points, such as whether actions should be chosen based on their likely results (act utilitarianism) or whether agents should conform to rules that maximize utility (rule utilitarianism). There is also disagreement as to whether total (total utilitarianism) or average (average utilitarianism) utility should be maximized. Though the seeds of the theory can be found in the hedonists Aristippus and Epicurus, who viewed happiness as the only good, the tradition of utilitarianism properly began with Bentham, and has included John Stuart Mill, Henry Sidgwick, R. M. Hare, David Braybrooke, and Peter Singer. It has been applied to social welfare economics, the crisis of global poverty, the ethics of raising animals for food and the importance of avoiding existential risks to humanity. Because utilitarianism is not a single theory but a cluster of related theories that have been developed over two hundred years, criticisms can be made for different reasons and have different targets. Karl Marx, in Das Kapital, criticises Bentham’s utilitarianism on the grounds that it does not appear to recognize that different people have different joys:
Not even excepting our philosopher, Christian Wolff, in no time and in no country has the most homespun commonplace ever strutted about in so self-satisfied a way. The principle of utility was no discovery of Bentham. He simply reproduced in his dull way what Helvétius and other Frenchmen had said with esprit in the 18th century. To know what is useful for a dog, one must study dog-nature. This nature itself is not to be deduced from the principle of utility. Applying this to man, he who would criticize all human acts, movements, relations, etc., by the principle of utility, must first deal with human nature in general, and then with human nature as modified in each historical epoch. Bentham makes short work of it. With the driest naivete he takes the modern shopkeeper, especially the English shopkeeper, as the normal man. Whatever is useful to this queer normal man, and to his world, is absolutely useful. This yard-measure, then, he applies to past, present, and future. The Christian religion, e.g., is “useful,” “because it forbids in the name of religion the same faults that the penal code condemns in the name of the law.” Artistic criticism is “harmful,” because it disturbs worthy people in their enjoyment of Martin Tupper, etc. With such rubbish has the brave fellow, with his motto, “nulla dies sine linea [no day without a line]”, piled up mountains of books.
An article in the American Journal for Economics has addressed the issue of Utilitarian ethics within redistribution of wealth. The journal stated that taxation of the wealthy is the best way to make use of the disposable income they receive. This says that the money creates utility for the most people by funding government services. Many utilitarian philosophers, including Peter Singer and Toby Ord, argue that inhabitants of developed countries, in particular, have an obligation to help to end extreme poverty across the world, for example by regularly donating some of their income to charity. Peter Singer, for example, argues that donating some of one’s income to charity could help to save a life or cure somebody from a poverty-related illness, which is a much better use of the money as it brings someone in extreme poverty far more happiness than it would bring to oneself if one lived in relative comfort. However, Singer not only argues that one ought to donate a significant proportion of one’s income to charity, but also that this money should be directed to the most cost-effective charities, in order to bring about the greatest good for the greatest number, consistent with utilitarian thinking. Singer’s ideas have formed the basis of the modern effective altruist movement. ref
MORAL LOVE (tend and befriend “voice of care perspective”):
To me, this relates to care/caring ethics, which affirms the importance of caring motivation, emotion and the body in moral deliberation, as well as reasoning from particulars.This moral theory is known as “ the ethics of care” implies that there is moral significance in the fundamental elements of relationships and dependencies in human life. Normatively, care ethics seeks to maintain relationships by contextualizing and promoting the well-being of care-givers and care-receivers in a network of social relations. Most often defined as a practice or virtue rather than a theory as such, “care” involves maintaining the world of, and meeting the needs of, ourself and others. It builds on the motivation to care for those who are dependent and vulnerable, and it is inspired by both memories of being cared for and the idealizations of self. Following in the sentimentalist tradition of moral theory, care ethics affirms the importance of caring motivation, emotion and the body in moral deliberation, as well as reasoning from particulars. One of the original works of care ethics was Milton Mayeroff’s short book, On Caring, but the emergence of care ethics as a distinct moral theory is most often attributed to the works of psychologist Carol Gilligan and philosopher Nel Noddings in the mid-1980s. Though there are notable thinkers who express early strains of care ethics such as those that can be detected in the writings of feminist philosophers such as Mary Wollstonecraft, Catherine and Harriet Beecher, and Charlotte Perkins. Offering a general charged that traditional moral approaches contain a kinda of male bias, and asserted the “voice of care” as a legitimate alternative to the “justice perspective” of liberal human rights theory. Annette Baier, Virginia Held, Eva Feder Kittay, Sara Ruddick, and Joan Tronto are some of the most influential among many subsequent contributors to care ethics. Typically contrasted with deontological/Kantian and consequentialist/utilitarian ethics, is that of care ethics.
*ps. MORAL LOVE (tend and befriend “care ethics (ethics of care)/reciprocity (reciprocal altruism) ethics”) is similar to the fight or flight which is also only part of a bigger picture, according to Shelley Taylor, Ph.D., a psychology professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and her colleagues. In the Psychological Review, as in evolutionary psychology, researchers describe how stress can elicit another behavioral pattern they call “tend and befriend”–especially in females. Tend-and-befriend is a behavior exhibited by some animals, including humans, in response to threat. It refers to protection of offspring (tending) and seeking out the social group for mutual defense (befriending), tend-and-befriend is theorized as having evolved as the typical female response to stress, just as the primary male response was fight-or-flight. This kind of gender determinism within the field is the subject of some controversy but I see it as to limited as well because we tend to use multiple sstrategiesto further sucuresafty depending of avalable resorces and if one regardless of gender persuasion is not able to either adequately defend themselves/or others (the fight part of fight or flight ) or is not able to either adequately flee a given threat (the flight part of fight or flight ) then other options such as The tend-and-befriend theoretical model was originally developed by Dr. Shelley E. Taylor and her research team at the University of California, Los Angeles and first described in a Psychological Review article published in the year 2000.
Here is a little on Care ethics and Reciprocal altruism
*Care ethics: is a normative ethical theory that holds interpersonal relationships and care or benevolence as a virtue as central to moral action. It is one of a cluster of normative ethical theories that were developed by feminists in the second half of the twentieth century. Here is a link to Feminist ethics. While consequentialist and deontological ethical theories emphasize universal standards and impartiality, ethics of care emphasize the importance of response. The shift in moral perspective is manifested by a change in the moral question from “what is just?” to “how to respond?”. Ethics of care criticize application of universal standards as “morally problematic since it breeds moral blindness or indifference.”
Some beliefs of the theory are basic:
- Persons are understood to have varying degrees of dependence and interdependence on one another. This is in contrast to deontological and consequentialist theories that tend to view persons as having independent interests and interactions.
- Those particularly vulnerable to one’s choices and their outcomes deserve extra consideration to be measured according to their vulnerability to one’s choices.
- It is necessary to attend to contextual details of situations in order to safeguard and promote the actual specific interests of those involved.
Care ethics contrasts with more well-known ethical models, such as consequentialist theories (e.g. utilitarianism) and deontological theories (e.g. Kantian ethics) in that it seeks to incorporate traditionally feminized virtues and values which, proponents of care ethics contend, are absent in such traditional models of ethics. While some feminists have criticized care-based ethics for reinforcing traditional stereotypes of a “good woman” others have embraced parts of this paradigm under the theoretical concept of care-focused feminism. Care-focused feminism is a branch of feminist thought, informed primarily by ethics of care as developed by Carol Gilligan and Nel Noddings. This body of theory is critical of how caring is socially engendered to women and consequently devalued. “Care-focused feminists regard women’s capacity for care as a human strength” which can and should be taught to and expected of men as well as women. Noddings proposes that ethical caring has the potential to be a more concrete evaluative model of moral dilemma, than an ethic of justice. Noddings’ care-focused feminism requires practical application of relational ethics, predicated on an ethic of care. Ethics of care is also a basis for care-focused feminist theorizing on maternal ethics. Critical of how society engenders caring labor, theorists Sara Ruddick, Virginia Held, and Eva Feder Kittay suggest caring should be performed and caregivers valued in both public and private spheres. Their theories recognize caring as an ethically relevant issue. This proposed paradigm shift in ethics encourages that an ethic of caring be the social responsibility of both men and women. Joan Tronto argues that the definition of the term “ethic of care” is ambiguous due in part to the lack of a central role it plays in moral theory. She argues that considering moral philosophy is engaged with human goodness, then care would appear to assume a significant role in this type of philosophy. However, this is not the case and Tronto further stresses the association between care and “naturalness”. The latter term refers to the socially and culturally constructed gender roles where care is mainly assumed to be the role of the woman. As such, care loses the power to take a central role in moral theory. Tronto states there are four ethical elements of care:
Attentiveness is crucial to the ethics of care because care requires a recognition of others’ needs in order to respond to them. The question which arises is the distinction between ignorance and inattentiveness. Tronto poses this question as such, “But when is ignorance simply ignorance, and when is it inattentiveness”?
In order to care, we must take it upon ourselves, thus responsibility. The problem associated with this second ethical element of responsibility is the question of obligation. Obligation is often, if not already, tied to pre-established societal and cultural norms and roles. Tronto makes the effort to differentiate the terms “responsibility” and “obligation” with regards to the ethic of care. Responsibility is ambiguous, whereas obligation refers to situations where action or reaction is due, such as the case of a legal contract. This ambiguity allows for ebb and flow in and between class structures and gender roles, and to other socially constructed roles that would bind responsibility to those only befitting of those roles.
To provide care also means competency. One cannot simply acknowledge the need to care, accept the responsibility, but not follow through with enough adequacy – as such action would result in the need of care not being met.
This refers to the “responsiveness of the care receiver to the care”. Tronto states, “Responsiveness signals an important moral problem within care: by its nature, care is concerned with conditions of vulnerability and inequality”. She further argues responsiveness does not equal reciprocity. Rather, it is another method to understand vulnerability and inequality by understanding what has been expressed by those in the vulnerable position, as opposed to re-imagining oneself in a similar situation. Ref
Reciprocal altruism: (the evolution of cooperation)is a social interaction phenomenon where an individual makes sacrifices for another individual in expectation of similar treatment in the future. Originally introduced as a concept by biologist Robert Trivers, reciprocal altruism explains how altruistic behavior and morality can arise from evolutionary causes, as evolution selects for the best possible game theory results. If the benefit is higher than the initial cost, then multiple reciprocal interactions can actually out-compete more “greedy” forms of relationships, thus providing an evolutionary incentive for altruistic behavior. At the same time (and in opposition to unlimited altruism), reciprocity ensures that cheaters are also harmed when they choose to do so and are gradually made less fit as a result of their own behavior. Modern ethnology seems to support at least part of this hypothesis, as many societies on all continents have developed highly complex forms of gift economy where gifts are given with no immediately obvious material return, but the implicit societal expectation of “repayment” in gift form at some later point in time. Amazingly, those societies work. The custom of giving gifts for birthdays in the West may be seen as a remnant of this. It’s not uncommon for someone to engage in this behavior with the object of their affection, i.e. being nice to them with the expectation of a sexual relationship. Since a lot of these situations tend to involve lonely, single straight men, the common term for this is “Nice Guy” — in other words, the suitor’s claim “but I’m a nice guy…” translates to “I went through all the motions and she still won’t sleep with me.” As a general rule, this is not an effective strategy, and often even drifts into stalking behavior. Women who engage in the same behavior do not get as much attention but are still known (naturally) as Nice Girls. Either way, such people are seldom actually nice, and frequently come off as manipulative and bitter without realizing it. The fallacy lies in their equating sexual relationship with being nice – if their expectation of tit for tat was actually equal, aka being nice for being nice and being honest for being honest (which they, coming into relationship with entirely different expectations than they communicate, fail at), they wouldn’t face such a problem. Ref
I see my Axiological driven morality to involve an enmeshed union of both:
Fight or flight “justice perspective” and a tend and befriend “voice of care perspective”
Helping is Helpful: Valuing, Motivating, Supporting
How to Grow in Our Positive Outcomes: Gratitude, Empathy, and Kindness
We can become a more quality person by actively being aware and developing a gratitude for life, which supports as well as grows our feelings of empathy, that then motivates the behavior of kindness.
There are several ethical standards that are considered to be self-evident and seem to apply to all people throughout all of history, regardless of cultural, political, social, or economic context. The non-aggression principle, which prohibits aggression, or the initiation of force or violence against another person, is a universal ethical principle. My Examples of aggression include murder, rape, kidnapping, assault, robbery, theft, and vandalism. On the other hand, the commission of any of such acts in response to aggression does not necessarily violate universal ethics. There are obvious reasons why universal ethics are beneficial to society. For example, if people were allowed to kill or steal, this would lead to widespread chaos and violence and would be detrimental to the well-being of society. Most people agree that it’s better to prohibit aggression than to allow everyone to commit it. Therefore, aggression is intrinsically immoral. Although nearly all societies have laws prohibiting aggression, this does not mean that universal ethics are necessarily reflected by that society’s government or its dominant ideology. Universal ethics does not mean the imposition of one set of morals by one group on another. It means a shared way or means of reaching a consensus on norms and values that also accepts diversity. A shared understanding of what is right and what is wrong. In any circumstance or situation, we can start by examining the present state of affairs. This should be done with the aim of gaining an understanding of other cultural differences, history, and tradition, remembering that an explanation is not necessarily a justification. Next, what is the minimum that is acceptable? There has to be an acceptance that some disagreements cannot be resolved at that time. The aim is to change the present situation for the better. Once an acceptable minimum is reached, it is possible to work towards an eventual ideal state. We are all one community and we are all responsible for upholding human rights for each other. More than ever there is a need for agreement on the existence of universally held values and the content of those values. It may prove to be impossible to find one set of universal ethical principles that apply to all cultures, philosophies, faiths and professions but the destination is only part of the journey. The value lies in the search for principles that can be shared by all and can underpin the framework for global dialogue on ethical issues. A universal moral code might be a set of underlying dispositions we are all born with. Or it might be a set of explicit norms and values humans might one day universally accept. But a more important sense of ‘universal moral code’ is of a set of moral values that is universally valid, whether or not it is inscribed in our brains, or accepted by people. Of course, that is a very controversial idea. If there is such a universal moral code, then we have an imperative to try to discover it, and to make it universally accepted (to make it a moral code in the descriptive sense). But this requires thinking hard about ethics, not looking for some code that might or might not be written into our brains. Ref Ref Ref
1.Values (morality motivations):are a amalgam of personal, family, local or extended group environmental, religious and/or cultural content etc. we are what we eat we are the knowledge we consume and the ideas we are sounded by. Values to me thus are self driven ideals others influenced. I like to think myself out of the matrix though if I would have grown up in china would I not be a different me. Born rich and loved as a child be different or adopted be Angelina Jolie be forever changed. Or the love child of Jeffry Dahmer or Mahatma Gondi would I still be the same me with the same values? I think not. Values are not fixed they change throughout one’s lifetime they can be absolute or relative, the assumption of which can be the basis for any sort of chosen action. Thus, a value system is a set of consistent values and measures one chooses because of their connectedness to chosen ideals. Values to me can be a foundation upon which other thinking streams and measures of ideal integrity are based. Those values which are not physiologically determined and normally considered objective, such as a desire to avoid physical pain, seek pleasure, etc., are considered subjective, vary across individuals and cultures and are in many ways aligned with belief and belief systems only truth to a set of people.
2.Morals (personal morality): are not held by all in the same way since all are not held to Orthodox faith and though most start with good and bad or right and wrong values, which usually are personally, familially, socially or religiously give or in some way otherworldly defined, thus not universal.
3.Ethics (public morality): Ethics are not constrained by a given religion’s value systems to motivate its ideas of right and wrong instead it relies on universal truths found in universal principles of just human action. Ethics is set standers uses to personally engage with others and universal truths assist goals of universal ethics standards. Thus, ethics are general prosocial prescription we as morality aware beings in a rather universal way tend to have some awareness of and it is not just an awareness as in one who holds to ethics often get it applies to all peoples. Some may wish to devalue people but to do so is not really unethical, though often it can lead to unethical behavior. So what I am trying to highlight is how in the behaviour that the ethics violation could occur as the internal attitude of devaluing others would only be a possible morals violation such as one who valued virtue and not getting it but failing by the persuasion of devaluing the life of other humans. This simple internal devaluing of humans, that they may be doing is vile. But ethics would not be involved until public behaviors with others, as such ethics is not so much a persuasion as an adherence to a standard(s) that should cover all thus it is highly applicable to utilize in environmental decision making.
In general, I am a Universal Ethicist?
But What Good is a Set of Principles?
There are many tools for decision making, but few (secular) guides to indicate when situations might have an ethical implication. Yet this awareness is a crucial first step before decisions are made. Recognizing the moral context of a situation must precede any attempt to resolve it. Otherwise, what’s to resolve? Ethical dilemmas rarely present themselves as such. They usually pass us by before we know it or develop so gradually that we can only recognize them in hindsight – a little like noticing the snake after you’ve been bitten. But what are the signs that a snake might be present? An ethical framework is like a ‘snake detector’. I offer the following principles as landmarks – generic indicators to be used as compelling guides for an active conscience. They are NOT absolute rules or values. They are more like a rough measurement where an exact one is not possible. They often conflict with each other in practice, and some will trump others under certain circumstances. But as principles that need to be considered, they appear constant. These principles are compatible with the argument that we should simply follow our intuition and rely on the ‘inner voice’. However, that voice is not always audible, and today’s society presents a wide range of complex circumstances that require more guidance than simply ‘concern for others’ or ‘does it feel right?’ And so these principles are offered effectively as a more detailed reference. In a sense, the principles are outcomes of the mother of all principles – unconditional love and compassion – which appears in virtually all faiths, and is expressed here as ‘concern for the well-being of others’. (This principle is at the heart of the stakeholder model of ethics, i.e. what is my impact on others?) At first glance, they will appear obvious and perhaps trite or simplistic. Keep in mind that they are meant to be practical rather than groundbreaking, and that many people have found them useful in the absence of other guides.
“Universal ethics: there are several ethical standards that are considered to be self-evident, and seem to apply to all people throughout all of history, regardless of cultural, political, social, or economic context. The non-aggression principle, which prohibits aggression, or the initiation of force or violence against another person, is a universal ethical principle. Examples of aggression include murder, rape, kidnapping, assault, robbery, theft, and vandalism. On the other hand, the commission of any of such acts in response to aggression does not necessarily violate universal ethics. There are obvious reasons why universal ethics are beneficial to society. For example, if people were allowed to kill or steal, this would lead to widespread chaos and violence, and would be detrimental to the well-being of society. Most people agree that it’s better to prohibit aggression than to allow everyone to commit it. Therefore, aggression is intrinsically immoral. Although nearly all societies have laws prohibiting aggression, this does not mean that universal ethics are necessarily reflected by that society’s government or its dominant ideology. In ethics, a ‘universal code of ethics’ is a system of ethics that can apply to every sentient being.” Ref
Anarcho-Humanism, to me, is atheistic humanism with an unconditional social awareness:
Anarcho (anarchism): “No Gods – No Masters”
Humanism: “No Harm – Do Good”
I am a firebrand atheist, but to me, there is no right way to be an atheist. Atheism is done right if it is stopping belief in gods and it is not for everyone to have to be outspoken to the world as if that is the only worthy atheism style. I have been helped a lot by atheists just being my friend and supporting me never even telling anyone they are atheist. If you can and it is safe and you want to being out as an atheist can be rewarding but it is not an all or nothing. We all do a lot supporting each other in the cause of a reality devoid of god superstitions. I was asked if I was an angry atheist. No, I am not an angry atheist but I am a firebrand atheist, so I am outspoken. Though my moto is, attack thinking not people. I believe in people I just don’t believe in gods or religions. If religious people comment on my page I try to inform them not abuse them. I want to make a positive difference in the world with my atheism. But I am also not just limited to nonbelief as I am a humanist. So I try to inspire care for others as well not just rejection of gods and religion. Let’s do atheism with style. When you realize the word spiritual means nothing, it hits you right in the face. Many who now deeply grasp justice, were themselves victims of injustice. I once was an innocent child, religion you robbed that from me, religion you are not blameless!
Firebrand atheism, is people standing up against the lie of god and the indoctrination of lies that is religion. A good heart thrives on helping others, whereas a bad heart only cares for itself. We ignite excitement, action and change in the cause of reality. By challenging, exposing or insulting the inaccuracies and flawed reasoning, found in faith, gods, and other outdated untrue beliefs or methods. Like all reason-motivated atheism, firebrand atheists fight for freedom from the mental enslavement found in religious dogmatic-propaganda. Firebrand Atheism is a community of outspoken atheists with the goal of creating awareness, but we do this with strong challenge, free of aggression; knowing aggression is only needed when your argument is weak. When your argument is strong, as the truth of atheism is, its power has no need for aggression, and is only hindered by adding it. Firebrand atheists are reality revolutionaries, we will no longer be quiet, why, because we care too damn much. Never again will we close our eyes to the harms of religion or faith in imaginary things like gods. We heed the call, because we are firebrand atheists, won’t you join us.
I only wish a simple life but that is not my plight in life, with such need in the world. The road of life may be individually experienced, but this is not a determination that it must stay that way. There is a world of people that one can travel with. May I as much as I can, help my fellow travelers. And where, when, as well as who I cannot directly travel with may I at least be one who points the way.
I am a firebrand atheist roughly understood as outspoken atheism which for most who don’t know is in contrast with quiet personal atheism or atheist accommodationism. “Accommodationist” atheists are those who frown upon outspoken atheism or atheists who publicly attack gods or religious beliefs, most especially because they think people have the right to religious beliefs and believe firebrand atheism risks alienating so called open-minded liberal and moderate religious people, hinder support for separation of church and state, or other crucial matters of public policy.
To the thought of “accommodationism” atheist, I just say “NO” as I am a firebrand atheist and that is not to be against others choice of atheists styles. It is just my style and one I champion. According to an atheist philosopher Daniel Fincke “Anti-Accommodationism” is pro-philosophy. Anyway, I oppose anything even like religion including atheist church but that’s just me.
Some with the accommodationist approach seem to champion religious freedom while not extending this believed equality to outspoken atheism as I have been chastised by such atheist accommodationists many times and thus there are those using this accommodationism in regards to the separation of church and state opposes the separationist approach which has been dominant in the courts. According to accommodationists, the First Amendment should be read much more narrowly than it has been in recent years. Some go so far as to argue that the First Amendment prohibits the government from doing nothing other than creating a National Church and everything else is permitted. Some “accommodationist” atheist may prefer to be “semi-accommodationist” only okay with opposition to the bad stuff religion does.
Accommodationists, for example, usually look unfavorably as what is labeled “New Atheism” automatically seeing firebrand atheists as roughly New Atheism or an outgrowth of New Atheism. This thinking is wrong as to me atheist accommodationism is the “New Atheism” as old atheism is largely outspoken atheism. Of course, atheism was and is oppressed and could and still can get you hurt and or killed so quiet personal atheism was always a forced rather than happy uncoerced chosen norm. During the early modern period, the term “atheist” was used as an insult and applied to a broad range of people, including those who held opposing theological beliefs as well as immoral or self-indulgent people. Atheistic beliefs were seen as threatening to order and society by philosophers such as Thomas Aquinas 1225 to 1274 a Roman Catholic priest to Thomas More Lord High Chancellor of England 1529 to 1532 said that religious tolerance should be extended to all except atheists and John Locke 1632 to 1704, a founder of modern notions of religious liberty, argued that atheists should not be granted full citizenship rights.
Discrimination against atheists, both at present and historically, includes the persecution of those identifying themselves or labeled by others as atheists, as well as the discrimination against them. As atheism can be defined in various ways, those discriminated against on the grounds of being atheists might not have been considered as such in a different time or place. As of 2015, it was noted that 19 countries punish their citizens for apostasy, and in 13 of those countries it is punishable by death.
What is labeled “New Atheism” is seen as outspoken atheism or firebrand atheism and is far from anything “New”. We see such thinking in Robert Ingersoll 1833 to 1899 an American lawyer, political leader, and orator of disbelief in the United States during the Golden Age of Free Thought. The Golden Age of Free Thought is roughly from 1875 to 1914 and is referred to as “the high-water mark of freethought as an influential movement in American society”.
Although the Golden Age of Free Thought should more rightly be thought to have begun around 1856 with the publication and popularization of Charles Darwin’s Origin of Species, as well as the push for woman’s suffrage, and other political, scientific, and social trends that clashed with religious orthodoxy and caused people to question their traditional ideas about the world. Freethought is a philosophical position that holds that ideas and opinions should be based on science and reason, and not restricted by authority, tradition, or religion.
Moreover, greats of the past who championed firebrand atheism or outspoken atheism are not limited to Robert Ingersoll, we have Sigmund Freud, Karl Marx, and David Hume just to highlight few.
Sigmund Freud 1856 to 1939 the father of psychology, was an uncompromising out atheist who wrote in his book “The Future of an Illusion,” where he described belief in god as a collective neurosis. Freud regarded god as an illusion, based on the infantile need for a powerful father figure which can be set aside in favor of reason and science.
Karl Marx 1818 to 1883 a philosopher and revolutionary socialist and published The Communist Manifesto in 1848 is said to disliking religion and their gods for at least three reasons. First, they are irrational, as in religion is a delusion and a worship that avoids recognizing reality. Second, religion negates all that is dignified in a human being rendering them submissive and more accepting the status quo. Third, religion is hypocritical. Marx stated “I hate all gods,” with addition that they “do not recognize man’s self-consciousness as the highest divinity.” “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world” and “Religion is the opium of the people or masses.”
David Hume 1711 to 1776 a Scottish philosopher who is best known today for his highly influential system of radical empiricism, skepticism, and naturalism. Hume, asserts that certainty about anything is impossible, so one can never know for sure whether or not a god exists. However, Hume held that such unobservable metaphysical concepts as gods should be rejected as “sophistry and illusion”.
But out atheism goes further back as far back as 2,570 to 2,270 years ago.
Between 2,570 – 2,270 years ago there is a conformation of doubting as well as atheistic thinking mainly by Greek philosophers. However, doubting gods is likely as old as the invention of gods which should erode the thinking that belief in god(s) belief is some “default.” The Greek word is apistos (a “not” and pistos “faithful,”) thus not faithful or faithless because one is unpersuaded and unconvinced by god. Short Definition: unbelieving or unbeliever. Likewise, apistia derived from apistos, signifies unbelief.
Xenophanes who lived around 2,570 to 2,475 years ago is known for composing the first recorded atheistic critics, and famously stated “Men create the gods in their own image.” Xenophanes’ surviving writings display a skepticism that became more commonly expressed during the fourth century. He satirized traditional religious views of his time as human projections and once said “But mortals think that the gods are born and have the mortals’ own clothes and voice and form.” Xenophanes was critical of claims of the anthropomorphic conception of gods, summarized as, if cattle, horses and lions had hands or could paint with their hands and create works such as men do, they would like humans depict the gods’ shapes like their bodies of such a sort as the form they themselves have so horses would make their gods like horses, cattle would make their gods like cattle, and lions would make their gods like lions also. We see this in how Ethiopians of central eastern Africa say that their gods are snub–nosed and black while the Thracians of southeastern Europe say that they gods are pale and red-haired.
According to The Story of Civilization book series certain African pygmy tribes from around 2,400 to 2,500 years ago have no identifiable gods, spirits, or religious beliefs or rituals and even what burials accrue are without ceremony.
Democritus, who lived around 2,460 to 2,370 years ago, considered to be the “father of modern science” possibly had some disbelief amounting to atheism.
Around 2,430 years ago, we know Diagoras of Melos was accused by Greek courts of charges amounting to atheism and fled punishment.
Around 2,399 years ago, we know Socrates was accused by Greek courts of charges amounting to atheism of the gods that the city acknowledges thus was sentenced to death.
Epicurus who lived around 2,341 to 2,270 years ago is known for composing atheistic critics, and famously stated “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?”
Again I will proudly state I am a firebrand atheist, but to me there is no one right way to be an atheist. Atheism is done right if it is stopping belief in gods and it is not for everyone to have to be outspoken to the world as if that is the only worthy atheism style.
I have been helped a lot by atheists who were just being my friend and supporting me and never even telling anyone they are atheist. If you can and it is safe and you want to be out as an atheist, it can be rewarding but it is not an all or nothing. We all do a lot supporting each other in the cause of a reality devoid of god superstitions. I was once asked if I was an angry atheist. In said I am not really an angry atheist but I am a firebrand atheist, so I am outspoken with passion. My moto is always try to attack thinking not people. I believe in people. I just don’t believe in gods or religions. I want to make a positive difference in the world with my atheism.
Firebrand atheism, is people standing up against the lie of god and the indoctrination of lies that is religion. We ignite excitement, action and change in the cause of reality. By challenging, exposing or insulting the inaccuracies and flawed reasoning, found in faith, gods, and other outdated untrue beliefs or methods. Like all reason-motivated atheism, firebrand atheists fight for freedom from the mental enslavement found in religious dogmatic-propaganda. Firebrand Atheism is a community of outspoken atheists with the goal of creating awareness, but we do this with strong challenge, free of aggression; knowing aggression is only needed when your argument is weak.
When your argument is strong, as the truth of atheism is, its power has no need for aggression, and is only hindered by adding it. Firebrand atheists are reality revolutionaries, we will no longer be quiet, why, because we care too damn much. Never again will we close our eyes to the harms of religion or faith in imaginary things like gods.
Humans are prone to thinking errors, especially when they are uninformed and when they are limited to themselves and only a simple amount of knowledge about the world without science. For instance, if you are sitting or standing or lying down and not in motion you would say you are in a fixed place in time and space even common sense would seem to support this thinking however, you are on a planet that is spinning on an axis and it is likewise hurling through space in a revolving pattern around the sun. So without science understanding one may be fooled into thinking things that in reality are just not true. Some people think I tell about the flaw in thinking theism is true as some ploy to convert people to atheism. But this thinking is in error. I only want people to believe what is true and it just so happens that truth of the real proven world is in line with atheism.
Atheism is not looking for followers, it is a conclusion that the god claims are devoid of supporting evidence and are left with supported wishful thinking hopes of finite beings fearful of death and wanting to have control and hope in an often grubby often painful as much as pleasurable dangerous short life. You think looking honestly at the evidence available and not making things up needs to be promoted in some better way so people like it that sounds odd but how about the joy of intellectual honesty without myths devoid of reality for one. So, I say firebrand atheists unite. We heed the call, because we are firebrand atheists, won’t you join us. Firebrand Atheists Unite……
Ps. Firebrand atheism, is people standing up against the lie of god and the indoctrination of lies that is religion. We ignite excitement, action and change in the cause of reality. By challenging, exposing or insulting the inaccuracies and flawed reasoning, found in faith, gods, and other outdated untrue beliefs or methods. Like all reason-motivated atheism, firebrand atheists fight for freedom from the mental enslavement found in religious dogmatic-propaganda. Firebrand Atheism is a community of outspoken atheists with the goal of creating awareness, but we do this with strong challenge, free of aggression; knowing aggression is only needed when your argument is weak. When your argument is strong, as the truth of atheism is, its power has no need for aggression, and is only hindered by adding it. Firebrand atheists are reality revolutionaries, we will no longer be quiet, why, because we care too damn much. Never again will we close our eyes to the harms of religion or faith in imaginary things like gods. We heed the call, because we are firebrand atheists, won’t you join us. I like almost all other atheists, who are actively outspoken am a Firebrand not a militant. Here is why just read the definitions:
Atheism is the reality position.
Theism is the anti-reality position!
I am will to power!
My core definition of humanism is that humans can solve human problems by human means. I am not saying other things can’t or shouldn’t be added to it but to me a definition of humanism must always contain something coherent to such a thinking or not contradict such as I have offered. Thus, why it is appropriate to say “good without god” when one is a humanist.
Believe in Good, Humanist Morality?
If one states they are a humanist and they believe in good, are they for or against a form of axiology or formal axiology? Axiology is the philosophical study of goodness, or value, in the widest sense of these terms. It may be used as the collective term for ethics and aesthetics—philosophical fields that depend crucially on notions of value—or the foundation for these fields, and thus similar to value theory and meta-ethics. The word “axiology” (Greek: axios = good, worth, or value; logos = “science”) means “study of good”, “study of worth ” or “study of value.” The axiologists sought to characterize the notion of value in general, of which moral value is only one species. They argue (with notable differences between them), that goodness does not exclusively derive from the will, but exists in objective hierarchies. Formal axiology, the attempt to lay out principles regarding value with mathematical rigor, is exemplified by Robert S. Hartman’s Science of Value. The fundamental principle of Hartman’s Science of Value, functions as an axiom, and can be stated in symbolic logic, is that a thing is good insofar as it exemplifies its concept. To put it another way, “a thing is good if it has all its descriptive properties.” This means, according to Hartman, that the good thing has a name, that the name has a meaning defined by a set of properties, and that the thing possesses all of the properties in the set. A thing is bad if it does not fulfill its description. If it doesn’t fulfill its definition it is terrible (awful, miserable.) A car, by definition, has brakes. A car which accelerates when the brakes are applied is an awful car, since a car by definition must have brakes. A horse, if we called it a car, would be an even worse car, with fewer of the properties of a car. The name we put on things is very important: it sets the norm for how we judge them. If one states they are a humanist, are they for or against a form of universal or realism morality? The 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations can be seen as an example of global efforts to bring a universalist, equal and common moral justice to all people, and Moral Universalism is, at least in part, the basis for modern human rights, and an integral part of any Humanist philosophy. Human rights which are commonly considered a “deontological” concept, sometimes described as “duty-” or “obligation-” or “rule-” based ethics, because rules “bind you to your duty.” Which T. M. Scanlon advances the idea that human rights, can only be justified with reference to the consequences of having those rights. Secular morality is the aspect of philosophy that deals with morality outside of religious traditions. Modern examples include humanism, freethinking, and most versions of consequentialism. Consequentialism is the class of normative ethical theories holding that the consequences of one’s conduct are the ultimate basis for any judgment about the rightness or wrongness of that conduct. Thus, from a consequentialist standpoint, a morally right act (or omission from acting) is one that will produce a good outcome, or consequence. Consequentialist theories differ in how they define moral goods. Some argue that consequentialist theories are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, Robert Nozick argues for a theory that is mostly consequentialist, but incorporates inviolable “side-constraints” which restrict the sort of actions agents are permitted to do. Consequentialists can and do differ widely in terms of specifying the Good. Some consequentialists are monists about the Good. Utilitarians, for example, identify the Good with pleasure, happiness, desire satisfaction, or “welfare” in some other sense. Other consequentialists are pluralists regarding the Good. Some of such pluralists believe that how the Good is distributed among persons (or all sentient beings) is itself partly constitutive of the Good, whereas conventional utilitarians merely add or average each person’s share of the Good to achieve the Good’s maximization. Moreover, there are some consequentialists who hold that the doing or refraining from doing, of certain kinds of acts are themselves intrinsically valuable states of affairs constitutive of the Good. An example of this is the positing of rights not being violated, or duties being kept, as part of the Good to be maximized—the so-called “utilitarianism of rights”. None of these pluralist positions erase the difference between consequentialism and deontology. For the essence of consequentialism is still present in such positions: an action would be right only insofar as it maximizes these Good-making states of affairs being caused to exist. However much consequentialists differ about what the Good consists in, they all agree that the morally right choices are those that increase (either directly or indirectly) the Good. Moreover, consequentialists generally agree that the Good is “agent-neutral”. That is, valuable states of affairs are states of affairs that all agents have reason to achieve without regard to whether such states of affairs are achieved through the exercise of one’s own agency or not. “Consequentialism”, as described by Peter Singer, “start not with moral rules, but with goals. They assess actions by the extent to which they further those goals.” Consequentialism contains in itself no explanation for why pleasure or utility are morally good, or why consequences should matter to morality at all. Nor does consequentialism/deontology make any claims about how we know moral facts (if there are any). That is a meta-ethical question, so the question ‘how do we know that it is wrong to kill?’ is not a normative but a meta-ethical question. Some consequentialists and deontologists are also moral realists. Some are not. Moral Realism a similar position to universal morality, that certain acts are objectively right or wrong, independent of human opinion. that there exist such things as moral facts and moral values, and that these are objective and independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them. Therefore, moral judgments describe moral facts, which are as certain in their own way as mathematical facts. It is a cognitivist view in that it holds that ethical sentences express valid propositions (and are therefore “truth-apt” i.e. they are able to be true or false), and that they describe the state of the real world. Moral Realism has the advantage of purportedly allowing the ordinary rules of logic to be applied straightforwardly to moral statements, (so that we can say, for example, that a moral belief is false or unjustified or contradictory in the same way we would about a factual belief). It also allows for the resolution of moral disagreements, because if two moral beliefs contradict one another, Moral Realism (unlike some other meta-ethical systems) says that they cannot both be right and so there should be some way of resolving the situation. Two main variants of moral realism are: Ethical Naturalism and Ethical Non-Naturalism.
Ethical Naturalism: holds that there are objective moral properties of which we have empirical knowledge, but that these properties are reducible to entirely non-ethical properties. It assumes cognitivism (the view that ethical sentences express propositions and can therefore be true or false), and that the meanings of these ethical sentences can be expressed as natural properties without the use of ethical terms.
Ethical Non-Naturalism: holds that ethical statements express propositions (in that sense it is also cognitivist) that cannot be reduced to non-ethical statements (e.g. “goodness” is indefinable in that it cannot be defined in any other terms). G. E. Moore claimed that a naturalistic fallacy is committed by any attempt to prove a claim about ethics by appealing to a definition in terms of one or more natural properties (e.g. “good” cannot be defined in terms of “pleasant”, “more evolved”, “desired”, etc). Ethical Intuitionism is a variant of Ethical Non-Naturalism which claims that we sometimes have intuitive awareness of moral properties or of moral truths.
Critics have argued that, while Moral Realism may be able to explain how to resolve moral conflicts, it cannot explain how these conflicts arose in the first place. Others have argued Moral Realism posits a kind of “moral fact” which is non-material and unobservable (in the way as objective material facts are observable), and therefore not accessible to the scientific method. Some philosophers who only believe in the physical world and don’t believe in anything immaterial say that they are also moral realists, but when they describes the type of morality that they believe in, often what they are talking about is the moral beliefs that people have acquired through evolution, which is called evolutionary moral realism. This includes the human instinct to care for the well being of others in one’s own group and the instinct to hold others accountable for transgressions against members of the group. A physicalist/materialist understanding of morality is therefore purely descriptive of human nature within a deterministic system. The physicalist/materialist conception of morality differs from normative moral realism, in which one believes that things ought be a certain way or that people should act in a certain way because such states of affairs or actions would be better, not purely as a function of anything physical such as the instincts people have evolved to have, but at least partially for reasons that ultimately transcend the physical world. For example, if someone believes that oppressing others is always wrong even though humans have an instinctual predisposition to favor their own group over others, and this person does not otherwise explain how this belief is descriptive of something in the physical world, then this implies that this person believes in normative morality. A similar concept to normative ethics is prescriptive ethics, which are those that are supposed to logically commit someone to act a certain way. For example, the normative statement “Murder is wrong” can be restated as “Do not murder”, which is prescriptive. This is similar to how doctors can prescribe medications for one to use. Essentially, prescriptive moral statements are prescribed to people in order for them to act morally. Normative statements simply state the relation a certain state of affairs has to rightness or wrongness without telling anyone how to act. The distinction between descriptive and normative/prescriptive morality is important to understand. One study found that 56% of professional philosophers accept or lean towards moral realism and 28%: anti-realism. Cognitive psychologist Steven Pinker has argued that the game theoretic advantages of ethical behavior support the idea that morality is “out there” in a certain sense (as part of the evolutionary fitness landscape). Journalist Robert Wright has similarly argued that natural selection moves sentient species closer to moral truth as time goes on. Writer Sam Harris has also argued that ethics could be objectively grounded in an understanding of neuroscience. He has admitted to being committed to some form of moral realism (viz. moral claims can really be true or false) and some form of consequentialism (viz. the rightness of an act depends on how it affects the well-being of conscious creatures). Being a moral anti-realist is compatible with having, and following, a moral theory: you just think you have reasons to be moral which are not based on mind-independent facts. For example, you might think convention gives you reason to be moral, where conventionalism is traditionally described as a form of non-realism. see: link A delineation of moral realism into a minimal form, a moderate form, and robust form has been put forward in the literature. The robust model of moral realism commits moral realists to three theses:
The semantic thesis: The primary semantic role of moral predicates (such as “right” and “wrong”) is to refer to moral properties (such as rightness and wrongness), so that moral statements (such as “honesty is good” and “slavery is unjust”) purport to represent moral facts, and express propositions that are true or false (or approximately true, largely false, and so on).
The alethic thesis: Some moral propositions are in fact true.
The metaphysical thesis: Moral propositions are true when actions and other objects of moral assessment have the relevant moral properties (so that the relevant moral facts obtain), where these facts and properties are robust: their metaphysical status, whatever it is, is not relevantly different from that of (certain types of) ordinary non-moral facts and properties.
The minimal model, i.e. moral universalism, leaves off the metaphysical thesis, treating it as matter of contention among moral realists (as opposed to between moral realists and moral anti-realists). This dispute is not insignificant, as acceptance or rejection of the metaphysical thesis is taken by those employing the robust model as the key difference between moral realism and moral anti-realism. Moral universalism (also called moral objectivism or universal morality) is the meta-ethical position that some system of ethics, or a universal ethic, applies universally, that is, for “all similarly situated individuals”, regardless of culture, race, sex, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, or any other distinguishing feature. Not all forms of moral universalism are absolutist, nor are they necessarily value monist; many forms of universalism, such as utilitarianism, are non-absolutist, and some forms may be value pluralist. A moral theory must be able to solve and thus to be on solid philosophical grounds:
The ontological problem: an adequate theory must account for ethics without assuming the existence of anything that does not actually exist.
The epistemological problem: if we have knowledge of right and wrong, an adequate theory must explain how we acquire such knowledge.
The experience problem: An adequate theory about ethics must account for the phenomenology of moral experience.
The supervenience problem: An adequate theory must be consistent with the supervenient character of evaluative concepts.
The motivation problem: an adequate theory must account for the internal connection between moral belief and motivation (or if there is no such connection, it must offer an alternative account of how morality guides action).
The reason problem: An adequate theory must account for the place of reason in ethics.
The disagreement problem: An adequate theory must explain the nature of ethical disagreement.
I am a Realist in Many ways
I have a positive epistemic attitude (belief) towards or in philosophical realism that there is a real external world and that is can be know or substantially approximated by humans objectively.
I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in scientific realism that the content of the best scientific theories, models, and aspects of the world described by the sciences can be know or substantially approximated by humans objectively.
I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in logical realism such as that logic is the means of discovering the structure of facts and its projection in the language such as the Law of Non-Contradiction or logical fallacies which represent logical truths pertaining to aspects of the world and can be know or substantially approximated by humans objectively.
I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in mathematical realism such as that 2 + 2 equals 4 even if there are no intelligences or minds. Because math is in a sense a method of communication or description of and or about aspects of the world quantifying what can be know or substantially approximated by humans objectively.
I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in value realism roughly speaking “axiological realism,” is that value claims (such as, nurturing a baby is good and abusing a baby is bad) can be literally true or false; that some such claims are indeed true; that their truth can be know or substantially approximated by humans objectively.
I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in epistemological realism roughly speaking, is that what you know about an object exists independently of your mind. Relating directly to the correspondence theory of truth, which claims that the world exists independently and innately to our perceptions of it. Our sensory data then reflect or correspond to the innate world and that such truths can be know or substantially approximated by humans objectively.
I have a positive epistemic attitude towards or in moral realism roughly speaking, is that some moral claims do purport to report facts and are true if they get the facts right. Moreover, wile not all at least some moral claims actually are true or have connection to additional commitments which the truth can be reached, and those facts in some specified way can be know or substantially approximated by humans objectively.
(Rachels, James. Ethical Theory) a moral theory must be able to solve:
The ontological problem: an adequate theory must account for ethics without assuming the existence of anything that does not actually exist.
The epistemological problem: if we have knowledge of right and wrong, an adequate theory must explain how we acquire such knowledge.
The experience problem: An adequate theory about ethics must account for the phenomenology of moral experience.
The supervenience problem: An adequate theory must be consistent with the supervenient character of evaluative concepts.
The motivation problem: an adequate theory must account for the internal connection between moral belief and motivation (or if there is no such connection, it must offer an alternative account of how morality guides action).
The reason problem: An adequate theory must account for the place of reason in ethics.
The disagreement problem: An adequate theory must explain the nature of ethical disagreement.
Sociological and Psychological Ontology of Morality in Relation to the Objective and Subjective Correspondence to Reality.
To me morality (relatively involves moral actors, moral reasoning, moral capital, moral concerns and moral compulsions) is a thinking in relation of behavior to or with “other” and is involved in a cognitive aware (psychological development of, pertaining to, or affecting the mind, especially as a function of awareness, feeling, or motivation) interaction (most commonly social interaction) by humans and thus is both a subjective aspect in the world as it is only positioned to cognitive aware interaction of humans and objective to impacts on the moral actors, moral reasoning, moral capital, moral concerns and moral compulsions choices positioned to cognitive aware interactions of humans.
Nonhuman animals are not doing or held accountable for this thing/things we label morality, though this does not remove all moral capital they hold or moral weight in our relations to them, because what happens to nonhuman animals can be attach to moral relevant interactions with them or some indirect secondary connections to other factors (i.e. someone’s pet). I feel that morality and the moral relevant choices only relates to occurrences linked to thinking in relation of behavior involved in relation to or with “other” in cognitive aware interaction of humans.
I thus feel with no interaction relation to or with “other” then there is no such thing as morality occurring. In a sense to me when nothing of interaction is happening to an external “other” even if, the internal self in question is a cognitive aware human. Such as, if one is by them self and only do things to themselves there is no morality involved. I feel morality in a sense cannot happen to you by you, it is your interacting with others, other things, or their relation to “other” but to me this is likely an unavoidable reality that corresponds to morality.
Axiology, Realism, and the Problem of Evil (THOMAS L. CARSON)
Although moral realism is the subject of lively debate in contemporary philosophy, it would seem almost all standard discussions of the problem of evil presuppose the truth of moral realism. So, if nonrealism is true, then it would seem we need to rethink and/or re-frame the entire discussion about the problem of evil. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1933-1592.2007.00079.x/abstract
If evolutionary critics of morality seek to critique by revealing the unreliability of evolutionary origins by showing that they have generated moral beliefs we know to be false. Indeed, this sort of critique would be self-defeating, for if we were able to sort true moral beliefs from false ones, then we could rely on that knowledge to correct for any epistemically harmful effect, especially in a gradual or subtle way evolutionary influence on the formation of our moral beliefs.
Moral disagreement (Geoff Sayre-McCord)
The mere fact of disagreement does not raise a challenge for moral realism. Disagreement is to be found in virtually any area, even where no one doubts that the claims at stake purport to report facts and everyone grants that some claims are true.
But disagreements differ and many believe that the sort of disagreements one finds when it comes to morality are best explained by supposing one of two things: (i) that moral claims are not actually in the business of reporting facts, but are rather our way of expressing emotions, or of controlling others’ behavior, or, at least, of taking a stand for and against certain things or (ii) that moral claims are in the business of reporting facts, but the required facts just are not to be found.
Taking the first line, many note that people differ in their emotions, attitudes and interests and then argue that moral disagreements simply reflect the fact that the moral claims people embrace are (despite appearances) really devices for expressing or serving their different emotions, attitudes, and interests.
Taking the second line, others note that claims can genuinely purport to report facts and yet utterly fail (consider claims about phlogiston or astrological forces or some mythical figure that others believed existed) and then argue that moral disagreements take the form they do because the facts that would be required to give them some order and direction are not to be found.
On either view, the distinctive nature of moral disagreement is seen as well explained by the supposition that moral realism is false, either because cognitivism is false or because an error theory is true.
Interestingly, the two lines of argument are not really compatible. If one thinks that moral claims do not even purport to report facts, one cannot intelligibly hold that the facts such claims purport to report do not exist. Nonetheless, in important ways, the considerations each mobilizes might be used to support the other. For instance, someone defending an error theory might point to the ways in which moral claims are used to express or serve peoples’ emotions, attitudes, and interests, to explain why people keep arguing as they do despite there being no moral facts. And someone defending noncognitivism might point to the practical utility of talking as if there were moral facts to explain why moral claims seem to purport to report facts even though they do not.
Moreover, almost surely each of these views is getting at something that is importantly right about some people and their use of what appear to be moral claims. No one doubts that often peoples’ moral claims do express their emotions, attitudes, and do serve their interests and it is reasonable to suspect that at least some people have in mind as moral facts a kind of fact we have reason to think does not exist.
Moral realists are committed to holding, though, that to whatever extent moral claims might have other uses and might be made by people with indefensible accounts of moral facts, some moral claims, properly understood, are actually true. To counter the arguments that appeal to the nature of moral disagreement, moral realists need to show that the disagreements are actually compatible with their commitments.
An attractive first step is to note, as was done above, that mere disagreement is no indictment. Indeed, to see the differences among people as disagreements—rather than as mere differences—it seems as if one needs to hold that they are making claims that contradict one another and this seems to require that each side see the other as making a false claim. To the extent there is moral disagreement and not merely difference, moral realists argue, we need at least to reject noncognitivism (even as we acknowledge that the views people embrace might be heavily influenced by their emotions, attitudes, and interests). While this is plausible, noncognitivists can and have replied by distinguishing cognitive disagreement from other sorts of disagreement and arguing that moral disagreements are of a sort that does not require cognitivism. Realists cannot simply dismiss this possibility, though they can legitimately challenge noncognitivists to make good sense of how moral arguments and disagreements are carried on without surreptitiously appealing to the participants seeing their claims as purporting to report facts.
In any case, even if the nature of disagreements lends some plausibility to cognitivism, moral realists need also to respond to the error theorist’s contention that the arguments and disagreements all rest on some false supposition to the effect that there are actually facts of the sort there would have to be for some of the claims to be true. And, however moral realists respond, they need to avoid doing so in a way that then makes a mystery of the widespread moral disagreement (or at least difference) that all acknowledge.
Some moral realists argue that the disagreements, widespread as they are, do not go very deep—that to a significant degree moral disagreements play out against the background of shared fundamental principles with the differences of opinion regularly being traceable to disagreements about the nonmoral facts that matter in light of the moral principles. On their view, the explanation of moral disagreements will be of a piece with whatever turns out to be a good explanation of the various nonmoral disagreements people find themselves in.
Other moral realists, though, see the disagreements as sometimes fundamental. On their view, while moral disagreements might in some cases be traceable to disagreements about nonmoral matters of fact, this will not always be true. Still, they deny the anti-realist’s contention that the disagreements that remain are well explained by noncognitivism or by an error theory Instead, they regularly offer some other explanation of the disagreements. They point out, for example, that many of the disagreements can be traced to the distorting effects of the emotions, attitudes, and interests that are inevitably bound up with moral issues. Or they argue that what appear to be disagreements are really cases in which the people are talking past each other, each making claims that might well be true once the claims are properly understood (Harman 1975, Wong 1984). And they often combine these explanatory strategies holding that the full range of moral disagreements are well explained by some balanced appeal to all of the considerations just mentioned, treating some disagreements as not fundamentally moral, others as a reflection of the distorting effects of emotion and interest, and still others as being due to insufficiently subtle understandings of what people are actually claiming. If some combination of these explanations works, then the moral realist is on firm ground in holding that the existence of moral disagreements, such as they are, is not an argument against moral realism. Of course, if no such explanation works, then an appeal either to noncognitivism or an error theory (i.e. to some form of anti-realism) may be the best alternative. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism/
Benefit of Seeing Morality as a Matter of Objective Facts
(Liane Young & A.J. Durwin) getting people to think about morality as a matter of objective facts rather than subjective preferences may lead to improved moral behavior, Boston College researchers report in the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103112002375
Reject Moral Realism?
(Geoff Sayre-McCord) those who reject moral realism are usefully divided into (i) those who think moral claims do not purport to report facts in light of which they are true or false (noncognitivists) and (ii) those who think that moral claims do carry this purport but deny that any moral claims are actually true (error theorists).
It is worth noting that, while moral realists are united in their cognitivism and in their rejection of error theories, they disagree among themselves not only about which moral claims are actually true but about what it is about the world that makes those claims true. Moral realism is not a particular substantive moral view nor does it carry a distinctive metaphysical commitment over and above the commitment that comes with thinking moral claims can be true or false and some are true. Still, much of the debate about moral realism revolves around either what it takes for claims to be true or false at all (with some arguing that moral claims do not have what it takes) or what it would take specifically for moral claims to be true (with some arguing that moral claims would require something the world does not provide).
The debate between moral realists and anti-realists assumes, though, that there is a shared object of inquiry—in this case, a range of claims all involved are willing to recognize as moral claims—about which two questions can be raised and answered: Do these claims purport to report facts in light of which they are true or false? Are some of them true? Moral realists answer ‘yes’ to both, non-cognitivists answer ‘no’ to the first (and, by default, ‘no’ to the second) while error theorists answer ‘yes’ to the first and ‘no’ to the second. (With the introduction of “minimalism” about truth and facts, things become a bit more complicated. See the section on semantics, below.) To note that some other, non-moral, claims do not (or do) purport to report facts or that none (or some) of them are true, is to change the subject. That said, it is strikingly hard to nail down with any accuracy just which claims count as moral and so are at issue in the debate. For the most part, those concerned with whether moral realism is true are forced to work back and forth between an intuitive grasp of which claims are at issue and an articulate but controversial account of what they have in common such that realism either is, or is not, defensible about them.
By all accounts, moral realism can fairly claim to have common sense and initial appearances on its side. That advantage, however, might easily outweighed, however; there are a number of powerful arguments for holding that it is a mistake to think of moral claims as true. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/moral-realism
(Shin Kim) the cognitivist understanding of moral judgments is at the center of moral realism. For the cognitivist, moral judgments are mental states; moral judgments are of the same kind as ordinary beliefs, that is, cognitive states. But how are we to know this? One manageable way is to focus on what we intend to do when we make moral judgments, and also on how we express them. Moral judgments are intended to be accurate descriptions of the world, and statements express moral judgments (as opposed to command or prescription) just as statements express ordinary beliefs. That is, statements express moral language. The statements that express moral judgments are either true or false just as the statements that express ordinary beliefs are. Moral truths occur when our signs match the world. Language allows us to communicate with one another, typically using sentences and utterances. A large part of language involves, among many other things, influencing others and us. Normative language, in contrast with descriptive language, includes moral language (that is, moral language is part of evaluative or normative language). It is even more important not to be swayed by moral language because moral reality grips us. It is bad that others try to deceive us, but it is worse that we deceive ourselves into accepting moral facts simply because of the language that we use. That is, moral language — if it is not to describe the world —must not be mistaken as descriptive. Moral language binds us in a certain manner, and the manner in which it binds us is important.
If it is noncognitivism that provides the antirealist a way of rejecting moral truth, moral knowledge, and moral objectivity, the denial of noncognitivism (that is, cognitivism) must be necessary for the realist to properly claim them. Cognitivism is the view that moral judgments are cognitive states just like ordinary beliefs. It is part of their function to describe the world accurately. The realist argument that stems from cognitivism — as we saw from the above argument— is oftentimes guided by the apparent difficulties that the noncognitivist analysis of moral judgments faces. For instance, there is the famous Frege-Geach problem, namely, the noncognitivist difficulty of rendering emotive, prescriptive or projective meaning for embedded moral judgments.
Geach (1965) uses the “the Frege point,” according to which “a proposition may occur in discourse now asserted, now unasserted, and yet be recognizably the same proposition,” to establish that no noncognitivist (“the anti-descriptive theorist”) analysis of moral sentences and utterances can be adequate.
Consider a simple moral sentence: “Setting a kitten on fire is wrong.” Suppose that the simple sentence means, “Boo to setting a kitten on fire!” The Frege point dictates that the antecedent of “if setting a kitten on fire is wrong, then getting one’s friends to help setting a kitten on fire is also wrong” must mean the same as the simple sentence. But this cannot be because the antecedent of the conditional makes no such assertions while the simple moral sentence does. In other words, the noncognitivist analysis of moral sentences cannot be given to the conditional sentences with the embedded simple moral sentence. The problem can be generally applied to cases of other compound sentences such as “It is wrong to set a kitten on fire, or it is not.” Even if the noncognitivist analysis of the simple sentence were correct, compound sentences within which a simple moral sentence is embedded should be given an analysis independently of the noncognitivist analysis of it.
This seems unacceptable to many. For the following argument is valid: “It is wrong to set a kitten on fire, or it is not; it is not ‘not wrong’; hence, it is wrong to set a kitten on fire.” If the argument is valid, then the conclusion must mean the same as one of the disjuncts of its first premise. The argument would be otherwise invalid because of an equivocation, and the noncognitivist seems to be forced to say that the argument is invalid.
The Frege-Geach problem demonstrates the noncognitivists’ requirement of adequately rendering emotive, prescriptive, expressive, or projective meaning of those moral sentences that are embedded within compound moral sentences. (For more on the Frege-Geach problem, see Non-Cognitivism in Ethics. See also Darwall, Gibbard, and Railton 1992: 151-52.) http://www.iep.utm.edu/moralrea/
What do Professional Philosophers Believe?
What are the philosophical views of 1,972 contemporary professional philosophers?
On God: atheism 72.8%; theism 14.6%; other 12.6%.
Meta-ethics: moral realism 56.4%; moral anti-realism 27.7%; other 15.9%.
Moral judgment: cognitivism 65.7%; non-cognitivism 17.0%; other 17.3%.
Moral motivation: internalism 34.9%; externalism 29.8%; other 35.3%
Science: scientific realism 75.1%; scientific anti-realism 11.6%; other 13.3%.
Truth: correspondence 50.8%; deflationary 24.8%; epistemic 6.9%; other 17.5%.
It should be acknowledged that this target group has a strong (although not exclusive) bias toward analytic or Anglocentric philosophy. As a consequence, the results of the survey are a much better guide to what analytic/Anglocentric philosophers (or at least philosophers in strong analytic/Anglocentric departments) believe than to what philosophers from other traditions believe. http://philpapers.org/archive/BOUWDP
Consider the Judgment (Shin Kim)
“Suffering from lack of food is bad.” The judgment is usually expressed with the statement “suffering from lack of food is bad.”
Call it a “B-statement.” Sometimes, we find it necessary to express it with “it is true that suffering from lack of food is bad.” Call it a “T-statement.” (To complete it, there are “F-statements” like “it is false that suffering from lack of food is bad.”) We use T-statements to emphasize partiality toward “being true to the world.” However, regardless of what motivates us to use T-statements, the explicit ascription of truth in T-statements commands our attention. Does the T-statement add anything extra to the B-statement? If so, what is it that the T-statement says over and above the B-statement?
There are two broad ways to answer the question: deflationism and various forms of substantial theory (or what we called above “inflationist theory”). Substantial theorists deny that the B-statement and the T-statement are exactly the same while the deflationist maintains that the difference is merely stylistic. If the deflationist has her way, then it is obvious that antirealists could have truth in moral judgments. (David Brink argues against the coherentist theory of truth with respect to moral constructivism. See Brink 1989, 106-7 and 114; see Tenenbaum, 1996, for the deflationist approach.) Antirealist moral truths would seem irrelevant in marking the realist territory. If some form of substantial theory is true, then the T-statement adds something to what the B-statements say. Here are two alternatives. Letting a coherence theory of truth stand in for the range of “modified theories” (namely, the inflationist theories of truth that are different from the correspondence theory of truth), and the “B-proposition” for what the B-statement describes about the world, the T-statement adds that:
(1) The B-proposition corresponds to an actual state of affairs.
(2) The B-proposition belongs to a maximally coherent system of belief.
It is worth noting also that even the non-descriptivist may say that the T-statement adds to the B-statement, insofar as the B-statement expresses something other than the B-proposition. The non-descriptivist has two alternatives as well.
The T-statement adds that (letting a coherence theory of truth stand in for the range of “modified theories,” and the “B-feeling-proposition” stand in for the range of non-descriptivism, for example, the speaker dislikes suffering from lack of food):
(3) The B-feeling-proposition corresponds to an actual state of affairs.
(4) The B-feeling-proposition belongs to a maximally coherent system of belief. We may say that the T-statement specifies truth conditions for the B-proposition or for the B-feeling-proposition. It could be objected that the non-descriptivist must deny that there are truth-conditions for moral language. Nonetheless, she need not object to moral language describing something about the world figuratively.
If option (1) were true, then there would have to be an actual state of affairs that makes the B-statement true. That is, there must be a truth-maker for the statement, “suffering from lack of food is bad,” and the truth-maker is the fact that suffering from lack of food is bad. But no other alternatives require the existence of the fact for them to be true.
If one ignores deflationism, truth in moral judgments gives rise to exactly four alternative theories of truth. Realists cannot embrace options (3) and (4) because, as we saw, non-descriptivism is sufficient for moral antirealism. The remaining option (2), although it is a viable option for the realist, falls short of guaranteeing that there are moral facts. In other words, moral realists must find other ways to establish the existence of moral facts, even if option (2) allows a way of maintaining moral truths for the realists. Modified theories, for example, the coherence theory of truth are simply silent about whether there are B-facts. That is, option (2) could be maintained even if there were no B-facts such as suffering from lack of food is bad. Thus, the most direct option for realists in marking her territory from the above list of alternatives is (1). It appears then that the correspondence truth in moral judgments properly marks the realist territory. This is captured in C2:
(C2) S is a moral realist if and only if S is a descriptivist; S believes that moral judgments express truth, and S believes that the moral judgments are true when they correspond to the world.
Is C2 true? No, it is not. For the antirealist may choose to deny that moral judgments literally describe the world. http://www.iep.utm.edu/moralrea/
Axiology (value science) & Neuroscience (brain science)
(Demarest, Peter D.; Schoof, Harvey J. ) Axiogenics™ is, “the mind-brain science of value generation.” It is a practical life-science based on applied neuro-axiology1 — the integration of neuroscience (brain science) and axiology (value science). Neuroscience is the study of the biochemical mechanics of how the brain works. We are, of course, primarily interested in the human brain, which, owing to our genetics, is one of the most complex and magnificent creations in the known universe. Axiology is the study of how Value, values and value judgments affect the subjective choices and motivations of the mind—both conscious and sub-conscious. Formal axiology is the mathematical study of value—the nature and measurement of value and people’s perception of value. Both axiology and neuroscience have existed separately for years.
In many ways, the two sciences have approached the same question (What makes people tick?) from opposite directions. Neuroscience, a relatively young science, seeks to understand brain function and explain human behavior from a neuro-biological perspective. In contrast, for 2500 years, axiologists have sought to understand and explain human behavior and motivation from the perspective of the moral, ethical, and value-based judgments of the mind. Many human sciences, including neuroscience and axiology, have come to the realization that the mind-brain is value-driven. That is, Value, values, and value judgments drive many, if not most or even all, of the processes of both the brain and the mind, including our sub-conscious habits of mind.
Think about it—have you ever made a conscious choice that wasn’t, at that moment, an attempt to add greater value at some level? Unfortunately, to our knowledge, the neuroscientists and axiologists have not been comparing notes. Consequently, until now, the amazing value-based connection between the mind and brain has been overlooked. This book makes that connection and more. Axiogenics is not some rehashed mystical, moral, or religious philosophy, nor is it a newfangled twist on the rhetoric of so-called “success gurus.” It is a fresh, new paradigm for personal, leadership and organizational development. It is a science-driven technology for deliberately creating positive changes in how we think, how we perceive, the kinds of choices we make, and the actions we take.
Life is about adding value. Whether you realize it yet or not, your entire life is about one thing: creating value. Virtually every thought, action, choice, and reaction you have is an attempt to create or preserve value. Success in life, love and leadership requires making good value judgments. Real personal power is in knowing which choices and actions will create the greatest net value.
Axiogenics is based on four core principles. They are:
1. Value drives success in all endeavors.
2. Your mind-brain is already value-driven.
3. There is an objective, universal Hierarchy of Value.
4. Accurately answering The Central Question is the key to maximizing your success.
Demarest, Peter D.; Schoof, Harvey J. (2011-06-24). Answering The Central Question (Kindle Locations 130-136). Heartlead Publishing, LLC. Kindle Edition.
Moral Reasoning & Crime (Carey Goldberg)
People who commit crimes are dumb, but what happens is, in the moment, that information about costs and consequences can’t get into their decision-making.
Research shows that brain biology governs not just our choices but also our moral judgments about what is right and wrong.
Using new technology, brain researchers are beginning to tease apart the biology that underlies our decisions to behave badly or do good deeds. They’re even experimenting with ways to alter our judgments of what is right and wrong, and our deep gut feelings of moral conviction.
One thing is certain: We may think in simple terms of “good” and “evil,” but that’s not how it looks in the brain at all.
In past years, as neuroscientists and psychologists began to delve into morality, “Many of us were after a moral center of the brain, or a particular system or circuit that was responsible for all of morality,” says assistant professor Liane Young, who runs The Morality Lab at Boston College. But “it turns out that morality can’t be located in any one area, or even set of areas — that it’s all over, that it colors all aspects of our life, and that’s why it takes up so much space in the brain.”
So there’s no “root of all evil.” Rather, says Buckholtz, “When we do brain studies of moral decision-making, what we are led into is an understanding that there are many different paths to antisocial behavior.”
If we wanted to build antisocial offenders, he says, brain science knows some of the recipe: They’d be hyper-responsive to rewards like drugs, sex and status — and the more immediate, the better. “Another thing we would build in is an inability to maintain representations of consequences and costs,” he says. “We would certainly short-circuit their empathic response to other people. We would absolutely limit their ability to regulate their emotions, particularly negative emotions like anger and fear.”
If it’s all just biology at work, are we still to blame if we commit a crime? And the correlate: Can we still take credit when we do good?
Daniel Dennett a professor of philosophy at Tufts University who incorporates neuroscience into his thinking and is a seasoned veteran of the debates around free will. He says it’s not news that our morality is based in our brains, and he doesn’t have much patience for excuses like, “My brain made me do it.”
“Of course my brain made me do it!” he says. “What would you want, your stomach to make you do it!?”
The age-old debate around free willis still raging on in philosophical circles, with new brain science in the mix. But Dennett argues that science doesn’t change the basic facts:
“If you do something on purpose and you know what you’re doing, and you did it for reasons good, bad or indifferent, then your brain made you do it,” he says. “Of course. And it doesn’t follow that you were not the author of that deed. Why? Because you are your embodied brain.” http://commonhealth.wbur.org/2014/08/brain-matters-morality
Antisocial Personality; Not a Lack of Intelligence
Sociopaths and psychopaths, or the catch-all clinical diagnosis of Antisocial personality disorder, fall under the above description, except intelligence is often high. Consequences do not seem to detour them, so definitely something not right in the mind/brain, however, this is not lack of intelligence. Here are some books relating to this: The gift of fear, by Gavin Debecker. Without conscience, by Robert hare, Men who hate women and the Woman who love them, and the Sociopath Next Door.
Too quick to condemn?
However, But don’t be too quick to condemn all Sociopaths and psychopaths, or those with the clinical diagnosis of Antisocial personality disorder, because just having Mental Health Issues does not mean you cannot be moral. A scientist who studies psychopaths found out he was one by accident — and it completely changed his life. Around 2005, Fallon started to notice a pattern in the scans of some of the criminals who were thought to be psychopaths, which led him to develop a theory: All of them appeared to have low levels of activity in a region of the brain located towards its center at the base of the frontal and temporal lobes. Scientists believe this region, called the orbital cortex, is involved in regulating our emotions and impulses and also plays a role in morality and aggression. One day, Fallon’s technician brought him a stack of brain scans from an unrelated Alzheimer’s study. As he was going through the scans of healthy participants, they all looked normal — no surprises. But then he got to the last one. It looked just like those of the murderers. The identity of the brains in the scans had deliberately been masked so as not to bias theresults. But Fallon couldn’t leave it alone. “I said, we’ve got to check the [source] of that scan,” Fallon recalled recently to Business Insider. “It’s probably a psychopath… someone who could be a danger to society.” Turns out, the image wasn’t a scan of just any random participant — it was a scan of his own brain. http://www.businessinsider.com/psychopath-who-studies-psychopaths-2015-7 Here’s What It’s Like To Live As A Nonviolent Psychopath
Axiological Realism: The Human Desire to Lead, Follow, and Rebel (Robert L. Oprisko)
Axiological Realism (Joel J. Kupperman)
Many would consider the lengthening debate between moral realists and anti-realists to be draw-ish. Plainly new approaches are needed. Or might the issue, which most broadly concerns realism in relation to normative judgments, be broken down into parts or sectors? Physicists have been saying, in relation to a similarly longstanding debate, that light in some respects behaves like waves and in some respects like particles. Might realism be more plausible in relation to some kinds of normative judgments than others? http://www.jstor.org/stable/3751179?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents
Real Morality is both Nature and Nurture: Babies and Morality?
Are we born with a moral core? The Baby Lab says ‘yes’ Moreover, Studies have shown babies are good judges of character in fact, Even Babies Think Crime Deserves Punishment thins should make you consider The Case for Objective Morality.
Real Morality is both Nature and Nurture: Animals and Morality?
5 Animals With a Moral Compass Moreover, Animals can tell right from wrong: Scientists studying animal behaviour believe they have growing evidence that species ranging from mice to primates are governed by moral codes of conduct in the same way as humans. Likewise, in the book: Wild Justice: The Moral Lives of Animals: Scientists have long counseled against interpreting animal behavior in terms of human emotions, warning that such anthropomorphizing limits our ability to understand animals as they really are. Yet what are we to make of a female gorilla in a German zoo who spent days mourning the death of her baby? Or a wild female elephant who cared for a younger one after she was injured by a rambunctious teenage male? Or a rat who refused to push a lever for food when he saw that doing so caused another rat to be shocked? Aren’t these clear signs that animals have recognizable emotions and moral intelligence? With Wild Justice Marc Bekoff and Jessica Pierce unequivocally answer yes. Marrying years of behavioral and cognitive research with compelling and moving anecdotes, Bekoff and Pierce reveal that animals exhibit a broad repertoire of moral behaviors, including fairness, empathy, trust, and reciprocity. Underlying these behaviors is a complex and nuanced range of emotions, backed by a high degree of intelligence and surprising behavioral flexibility. Animals, in short, are incredibly adept social beings, relying on rules of conduct to navigate intricate social networks that are essential to their survival. Ultimately, Bekoff and Pierce draw the astonishing conclusion that there is no moral gap between humans and other species: morality is an evolved trait that we unquestionably share with other social mammals.
Moral Naturalism (James Lenman)
While “moral naturalism” is sometimes used to refer to any approach to metaethics intended to cohere with naturalism in metaphysics more generally, the label is more usually reserved for naturalistic forms of moral realism according to which there are objective moral facts and properties and these moral facts and properties are natural facts and properties. Views of this kind appeal to many as combining the advantages of naturalism and realism. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/naturalism-moral/
Realism, Naturalism, and Moral Semantics (David O. Brink)
he prospects for moral realism and ethical naturalism have been important parts of recent debates within metaethics. As a first approximation, moral realism is the claim that there are facts or truths about moral matters that are objective in the sense that they obtain independently of the moral beliefs or attitudes of appraisers. Ethical naturalism is the claim that moral properties of people, actions, and institutions are natural, rather than occult or supernatural, features of the world. Though these metaethical debates remain unsettled, several people, myself included, have tried to defend the plausibility of both moral realism and ethical naturalism. I, among others, have appealed to recent work in the philosophy of language—in particular, to so-called theories of “direct reference” —to defend ethical naturalism against a variety of semantic worries, including G. E. Moore’s “open question argument.” In response to these arguments, critics have expressed doubts about the compatibility of moral realism and direct reference. In this essay, I explain these doubts, and then sketch the beginnings of an answer—but understanding both the doubts and my answer requires some intellectual background. http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=3117452
Formal Axiology: Efficiency of good?
“I thought to myself, if evil can be organized so efficiently [by the Nazis] why cannot good? Is there any reason for efficiency to be monopolized by the forces for evil in the world? Why have good people in history never seemed to have had as much power as bad people? I decided I would try to find out why and devote my life to doing something about it.” – Robert S. Hartman http://www.hartmaninstitute.org/resources/journal-formal-axiology/
Formal Axiology is a specific branch of the science of Axiology. The late Dr. Robert S. Hartman developed this science between 1930 and 1973. It is a unique social science because it is the only social science that has a one to one relationship between a field of mathematics (transfinite set calculus) and its dimensions.
More About Formal Axiology http://www.cleardirection.com/docs/formalaxiology.asp
More About Dr. Robert S. Hartman http://www.cleardirection.com/docs/articles/drhartman.asp
The Dimensions of Value
Dr. Hartman identified three dimensions of reality, which he called the Dimensions of Value. We value everything in one of these three ways or in a combination of these dimensions. The Dimensions of Value are Systemic, Extrinsic, and Intrinsic.
More About The Dimensions of Value
Do you believe in god?
What is a god? Are you asking me if magic exists? Well, my answer as an ignostic atheist is, first prove the actuality of simple magic before you try to ask anyone about the possibility of some supreme magic. I am a hardcore methodological rationalist and will believe nothing without valid and reliable reason and evidence neither will I ever be pushed any skepticism unless I first appeal to its reason. Thus my default is like a null hypothesis: “no beliefs are true” then it must be proven otherwise with valid and reliable reason and evidence before I entertain any firm belief. I strive to employ an intellectually high standard in my thinking and value good belief etiquette.
Here is my external pages or content: Facebook Witter Page, My YouTube, My Linkedin, Twitter: @AthopeMarie, Instagram: damienathope, Personal Facebook Page, Secondary Personal Facebook Page, Main Atheist Facebook Page, Secondary Atheist Facebook Page, Facebook Leftist Political Page, Facebook Group: Atheist for Non-monogamy, Facebook Group: (HARP) Humanism, Atheism, Rationalism, & Philosophy and My Email: email@example.com