Championing Anarcho-Humanism and addressing its Enemies: Anarcho-Nihilism and Egoist anarchism

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Anarchism

“Anarchists may be motivated by humanism, enlightened self-interest, or any number of alternative ethical doctrines. As anarchism is a philosophy that embodies many diverse attitudes, tendencies, and schools of thought, disagreement over questions of values, ideology, and tactics is common. Its diversity has led to widely different uses of identical terms among different anarchist traditions which has created a number of definitional concerns in anarchist theory. Anarchists commonly employ direct action. This can take the form of disrupting and protesting against unjust hierarchy, or the form of self-managing their lives through the creation of counter-institutions such as communes and non-hierarchical collectives. Decision-making is often handled in an anti-authoritarian way, with everyone having equal say in each decision, an approach known as horizontalism.” ref

According to The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, “Anarchism is a political theory that is skeptical of the justification of authority and power. Anarchism is usually grounded in moral claims about the importance of individual liberty, often conceived as freedom from domination. Anarchists also offer a positive theory of human flourishing, based upon an ideal of equality, community, and non-coercive consensus building. Post-structuralism and trends in post-modernism and Continental philosophy can also be anarchistic and yet also so-called “post-anarchism.”  Emerging trends in things like post-humanism make the anarchist critique of “the state” more complicated, since anarchism’s traditional celebration of liberty and autonomy are critically scrutinized and deconstructed (to Damien, this involves anarchist non-humanism thinking). The difference between post-anarchism and traditional anarchism can be seen in the realm of morality. Anarchism has traditionally been critical of centralized moral authority—but this critique was often based upon fundamental principles and traditional values, such as autonomy or liberty. But post-structuralism—calls these values and principles into question.” ref

Humanism

“Humanism is a philosophical stance that emphasizes the individual and social potential, and agency of human beings, whom it considers the starting point for serious moral and philosophical inquiry. Humanism is strongly linked to rationality. For humanists, humans are reasonable beings, and reasoning and the scientific method are means of finding truth. Traces of humanism can be found in ancient Greek philosophy. Pre-Socratic philosophers were the first Western philosophers to attempt to explain the world in terms of human reason and natural law without relying on myth, tradition, or religion. The word “humanism” derives from the Latin word humanitas, which was first used in ancient Rome by Cicero and other thinkers to describe values related to liberal education. This etymology survives in the modern university concept of the humanities—the arts, philosophy, history, literature, and related disciplines. Humanism is moral; morality is a way for humans to improve their lives. Humanists engage in practical action to improve personal and social conditions. During the Age of Enlightenment, humanistic ideas resurfaced, this time further from religion and classical literature. Science and intellectualism advanced, and humanists argued that rationality could replace deism as the means with which to understand the world. Humanistic values, such as tolerance and opposition to slavery, started to take shape.” ref

“In the early 21st century, the term generally denotes a focus on human well-being and advocates for human freedom, autonomy, and progress. It views humanity as responsible for the promotion and development of individuals, espouses the equal and inherent dignity of all human beings, and emphasizes a concern for humans in relation to the world. Humanists tend to advocate for human rights, free speech, progressive policies, and democracy. Starting in the 20th century, some humanist movements are non-religious and aligned with secularism. Most frequently in contemporary usage, humanism refers to a non-theistic view centered on human agency, and a reliance only on science and reason rather than revelation from a divine source to understand the world. A non-theistic humanist worldview asserts that religion is not a precondition of morality, and objects to excessive religious entanglement with education and the state. The humanist attitude toward morality has changed since its beginning. A naturalistic criticism of humanistic morality is the denial of the existence of morality. For naturalistic skeptics, morality was not hardwired within humans during their evolution; humans are primarily selfish and self-centered. Antihumanism is a philosophical theory that rejects humanism as a pre-scientific ideology.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Anarcho-Humanism

Damien calls himself an anarcho-humanist (basically a socialist-collectivist-mutualist-anarchist as well as rather liberal, progressive, and revolutionary, he wants all positive change, ultimately leading to his desired anarchist-socialist society).

“Hierarchy, to Damien, means oppression and brutality.”

I am an Anarchist Socialist:

*Anarchist, the radical idea you own yourself…

*Socialist, the radical idea of sharing…

*Anarchy is synonymous with Socialism. Because both signify the abolition of exploitation and of the domination of man over man, whether maintained by the force of arms or by the monopolization of the means of life.” – Errico Malatesta (anarchist propagandist and revolutionary socialist)

*Revolution that divests itself of ethical values thereby lays the foundation of injustice, deceit, and oppression for the future society.” – Emma Goldman (anarchist revolutionary)

What Inspires Damien’ Anarcho-Humanism:

• We are all one connected human family.
• No one owns the earth.
• If you can’t trust people with freedom, how can you trust them with power?

To Damien, anarcho-humanism has three core truths to its ethical anarchist persuasion: 

1. We are all one connected human family,proven by DNA showing we should treat each other as fellow dignity beings, supported equally (no gods and no masters = “Anarcho”). 

2. No one owns the earth, we may make claims to it even draw lines on maps thinking this makes the fantasy borders, illusion supported by force and the potential for threat. Thus, the ethical truth is we need to share the earth as communally as possible. And use the resources as safely and ethically as possible striving towards sharing and caring. (do no Harm and do good = Humanism) 

3. If you can’t trust people with freedom how can you trust them with power?Government is only as good as what they provide but I don’t trust ones that have rights over my body. How much more of a violation do you need to show their harm? I am not anti-society, I value good governance just don’t need the extra dead weight of government. There is not one thing a government is valued for that a non-government group with the same financial support and resources could not also do. I get we rise by helping each other and supporting universal betterment and human flourishing. Helping is Helpful: Valuing, Motivating, supporting humanity is limited by nationalism and the, us Vs them, as if you should feel connected to only a few humans just because people invented the mental concept of land ownership, you mean you assert that you will harm others for an amount of the earth’s surface. Seeing with anarcho-humanism eyes helps you see 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 behaviour of kindness. And kindness flourishes in openness and freedom. (No gods no masters as well as do no harm and do good = Anarcho-humanism) 

States may often have powers, but only citizens have the glue of morality we call rights.  As they say, in Damien’s “dream society”, lots of things are free (aka. planting free food everywhere, free to everyone); but I wonder what you mean when people say you can’t just let things be free, I think, yeah, how can I take free stuff from a free earth. Anarcho-Humanism, to me, is atheistic humanism with an unconditional social awareness. Damien’ core definition of humanism is that humans can solve human problems by human means. Not saying other things can’t or shouldn’t be added to it but to Damien, a definition of humanism must always contain something coherent to such a thinking or not contradict such as Damien has offered. Thus, why it is appropriate to say “good without god” when one is a humanist. We who are “good/ethical” shine bright in our humanity no matter the darkness, whether it be a toxic individual, an oppressive society, or the larger world of harm that may be inflicted on us. Be better than the uncaring around us all.

Alexei Borovoy’s Anarcho-Humanism

“Alexei Borovoy, a Russian anarchist thinker of the early 20th century and author of the anarcho-humanism theory, which presents anarchism as a constant striving towards an individual’s self-liberation through the negation of social reality; and this striving shall be seen as a universal condition for the development of all mankind rather than some social utopia project. Similar to the “anarchist ideal”, his approach offers an unlimited freedom to exercise human abilities, but fails to suggest any reasoned, specific, and consistent principles to serve as a basis of this law, and sticks to general and abstract formulas. Borovoy was a lawyer; accordingly, he believed that the expansion of human rights and freedoms, “a creative liberation of personality” and the removal of any hindrances thereto were extremely important for the development of each individual.” ref

“At the same time, Borovoy did not share the traditional associations of humanism with anthropocentrism, rationalism, and finalism. His anarcho-humanism refocused the legacy of industrial and progressive ideas of unexorcized Marxism on attaining an opposite goal — the maximum liberation of an individual from any social influence. Speaking of the influence of his compatriots, Borovoy traced his anarchist genealogy mainly to Mikhail Bakunin, “the sublime thinker and leader” whom he saw as “an absolute and indisputable lodestar”. In addition to Bakunin’s rebellious esthetics, Borovoy adopted his dialectical structure, his glorification of life, his worship of the human being and the critique of scientism, and the romanticisation of the world of politics. An individual simply cannot exist outside human society. Relations with others are an inevitable product of a stubborn instinct of self-preservation. An individual has more opportunities for self-realization in a broad social circle. Social relations foster meaningful moral ideals. Even human genius develops through relations with other people. Borovoy believes that this “anarchist law” consists of “the responsibility for both individual freedom and the freedom of others”. This suggests that it will be “unable to ensure “unlimited” freedom to everyone. Borovoy stated that anarchism, is not an imaginary dream, but a reality offering an effective and realistic solution to the revolt of the human spirit against violence, does not have to speak of fictions such as “absolute” freedom “unlimited” by anyone and anything, the negation of duty, a total lack of responsibility, and so on.” ref

Alice Neel, painter and anarcho humanist, 1900-1984 – Anticapitalist Resistance

“Disillusioned with the Stalinist regimes because of their poverty, corruption, and repression. Hence, she eventually defined herself as an Anarcho-humanist.” ref

Intellectual Cousins: Humanism and Anarchism

“When initially compared with humanism, anarchism embodies a dramatically different presentation, with substantively different means and commitments, seeking direct political action—at times violent and revolutionary—to achieve a radical emancipation from all forms of illegitimate authority. While class struggle has been imperative to all anarchist movements, the critique of religion was an indispensable part of anarchism’s philosophical ambition to strip away the authority of oppressive institutions. This radical skepticism of institutional and epistemological authorities, as well as a broad commitment to egalitarian human cooperation is what, Jack Pigram believes, has historically united anarchism with humanism.” ref

Marxist humanism

“Marxist humanism is a philosophical and political movement that interprets Karl Marx‘s works through a humanist lens, focusing on human nature and the social conditions that best support human flourishing. Marxist humanists argue that Marx himself was concerned with investigating similar questions. Contrary to the official dialectical materialism of the Soviet Union and to the structural Marxism of Louis Althusser, Marxist humanists argue that Marx’s work was an extension or transcendence of enlightenment humanism. Where other Marxist philosophies see Marxism as a natural science, Marxist humanism believes that humans are fundamentally distinct from the rest of the natural order, and should be treated so by Marxist theory. Marxist humanism emphasizes human agency, subjectivity and ethics, reaffirming the doctrine of “man is the measure of all things. Jean-Paul Sartre rejected Stalinism’s deterministic and scientistic approach, which they saw as suppressing human creativity and the emancipatory potential of Marxism. Instead, they sought to reinterpret Marxism as a theory rooted in human agency, creativity, and praxis. This independent, humanist Marxism sought to overcome the limitations of both Stalinist orthodoxy and bourgeois liberalism, focusing on the lived experiences of the oppressed.” ref

Counter-humanism

“Counter-humanism; has two foundational historical proponents, Aimé Césaire and Frantz Fanon, as well as that of Sylvia Wynter. Pre-modern societies that would come to birth humanism did not develop an all-inclusive idea of the human. Counter-humanism, exemplified in Sylvia Wynter’s approach, seeks to ground humanness in an abstract universal; to create a complete, alternate, model of humanness – it is as such a normative approach. The non-humanist approach has three kinds of claims constitutive of a nonnormative approach: It is skeptical that any model can ever be adequate to the complexity of reality, demonstrates that what we understand to be humanness today is simply the result of contingent historical processes which have since the beginning been harmful, and claims that one result of this models-based approach is that there is a tendency to police all that which does not fit within the model. Counter-humanist approaches are pervasive in postcolonial and race theory and, although diverse, they generally share the following characteristics, which will be attributed to specific theorists in later sections. They consider the Enlightenment humanism a “pseudo-humanism,” flawed for privileging (among other categories like gender and class) certain racial groups over others, excluding many from the human even when it purportedly includes all.” ref

Antihumanism

“In social theory and philosophy, antihumanism or anti-humanism is a theory that is critical of traditional humanism, traditional ideas about humanity and the human condition. Central to antihumanism is the view that philosophical anthropology and its concepts of “human nature“, “man” or “humanity” should be rejected as historically relative, ideological or metaphysical. In the late 18th and 19th centuries, the philosophy of humanism was a cornerstone of the Enlightenment. Human history was seen as a product of human thought and action, to be understood through the categories of “consciousness“, “agency“, “choice“, “responsibility“, “moral values“. Criticism of humanism as over-idealistic began in the 19th century. For Friedrich Nietzsche, humanism was nothing more than an empty figure of speech – a secular version of theism. Max Stirner expressed a similar position in his book The Ego and Its Own, published several decades before Nietzsche’s work. Nietzsche argues in Genealogy of Morals that human rights exist as a means for the weak to constrain the strong; as such, they do not facilitate the emancipation of life, but instead deny it. The young Karl Marx is sometimes considered a humanist, as he rejected the idea of human rights as a symptom of the very dehumanization they were intended to oppose. Given that capitalism forces individuals to behave in an egoistic manner, they are in constant conflict with one another, and are thus in need of rights to protect themselves. True emancipation, he asserted, could only come through the establishment of communism, which abolishes private property.” ref

“Antihumanism is a philosophical theory that rejects humanism as a pre-scientific ideology. This argument developed during the 19th and 20th centuries in parallel with the advancement of humanism. Prominent thinkers questioned the metaphysics of humanism and the human nature of its concept of freedom. Nietzsche, while departing from a humanistic, pro-Enlightenment viewpoint, criticized humanism for illusions on a number of topics, especially the nature of truth. According to Nietzsche, objective truth is an anthropomorphic illusion and humanism is meaningless, and replacing theism with reason and science simply replaces one religion with another.  According to Karl Marx, humanism is a bourgeois project that inaccurately attempts to present itself as radical. After the atrocities of World War II, questions about human nature and the concept of humanity were renewed. During the Cold War, influential Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser introduced the term “theoretical antihumanism” to attack both humanism and humanist-like socialist currents, eschewing more structural and formal interpretations of Marx. According to Althusser, Marx’s early writings resonate with the humanistic idealism of Hegel, Kant, and Feuerbach, but Marx radically moved toward scientific socialism in 1845, rejecting concepts such as the essence of man.” ref

“Central to antihumanism is the view that traditional philosophical anthropology and its concepts of “human nature”, “human condition”, “man”, “humanity”, “vitality”, and “agency”, etc., should be rejected as historically relative, ideological, or metaphysical. What it means by the statement is that while humanists believe in objective truth about human nature, anti-humanism seeks to deconstruct the meaning behind that “nature”. Anti-humanism is not to be confused with Misanthropy, though they can overlap and can be combined. Anti-humanists reject concepts such as humanism’s presuppositions about the nature of human beings, and reject and criticize socially constructed moral cultures.” ref

The Possibility of an Anti-Humanist Anarchism | The Anarchist Library

“A defense of Enlightenment ideals that is historically situated requires the examination of the concepts of humanism and naturalism, in order to demonstrate that the “gay” abandonment of such principles by “postmodern nihilism” is never fully extricable from the tradition that is rebelled against. The following points hope to illuminate the possibility of a “transhuman(t)” anarchism which is ecologically sensitive, tolerant of diversity, yet which sees the role of stewardship as essential for guiding the planet away from imminent collapse. Deleuze, Guattari, and Foucault are taken as representatives of the canon of PS and Bookchin’s thinking is taken as representative of green (anarchist) political philosophy which roots itself in the humanist and naturalist tradition of the Enlightenment. What is humanism? As a philosophical worldview humanism celebrates what it claims to be the highest and most distinct qualities of the human being.” ref

“Several standard interpretations of humanism argue axiologically that human beings possess superior value over other entities. Humans are seen as dignified creatures worthy of the highest consideration. The rational, autonomous self-free from the dictates of unconscious animality is cherished as the site of humanity’s unique potentiality. Bookchin’s insights into the predicament of modernity are illuminating. If Enlightenment is the bursting asunder of humanity’s “self-imposed tutelage” (Kant) then anti-Enlightenment is the return of the cultural dark ages of superstition, mysticism, and the irrational. Bookchin’s search for a re-enchantment of humanity traces the tendencies which desired the cold and manipulating instrumentalism that led to the gas chambers. What Bookchin’s thesis, in effect, boils down to is a defense of ecological subjectivity and the role it plays in the unfolding of self-consciousness. Malthusianism, sociobiology and deep ecology are chastised for their apparent antihumanism.” ref

“The Enlightenment is read by Bookchin largely in terms of a liberation movement away from superstition and domination. Historically, anarchism is derived from the Enlightenment belief in the powers of reason to rationally re-order society (revolution) and its placing of value in humanity as a unique species with unique capacities. Classical humanism is perceived by Bookchin as a largely regressive movement looking backwards historically towards ancient Greek society and their positive values concerning education and civilisation. Enlightenment humanism, on other hand, moved away from the classical viewpoint towards a more prospective position. It is here that anarchism and the Enlightenment share a common thread. Liberation from superstition also meant the prospective reconstruction of society along communistic lines. Thus spoke Bookchin: “Enlightened humanism is a hopeful message that society can be rendered not only rational but wise and not only ethical but passionately visionary.” ref

Anarcho-Posthumanism

“Anarcho-Posthumanism is an Ideology that takes Anarcho-Transhumanism further, its main characteristic is the rejection of human narratives and the abolition of Hierarchies through technology. However, it doesn’t want to improve the human condition, but rather go past it and sees nothing special to humans or nature. Moreover, it may argue for using Post-artifism/Biomechanicalism to upgrade nature, creating a combination of the natural and artificial. IRL it manifests either as Cyber-Nihilism or as Soulism.” ref

Anarcho-transhumanism

“Transhumanism is the belief or movement in favor of human enhancement, especially beyond current human limitations and with advanced technology such as artificial intelligence, life extension, and nanotechnology.” ref

“Anarcho-Transhumanism is a philosophy concerned with social and material liberty as understood by both transhumanist views on material conditions and anarchist views on power dynamics in society. Central to anarcho-transhumanism is facilitating the equality of opportunity for all individuals to exercise self-determination. Conditions that unnecessarily limit either the viable options or the individuals able to exercise them are typically rejected, including arrangements based on equality of endowment or outcome. This leads to criticism of other groups in both parent philosophies that fail to address or even encourage such conditions. As many misconceptions about both anarchism and transhumanism persist, it is frequently confused with many other viewpoints and movements, such as technolibertarianism, anarcho-capitalism, liberal transhumanism, social futurism, or the Venus Project. Libertarian socialism and communism are commonly supported systems, possibly made more viable by a transition to post-scarcity.” ref

Egoist anarchism

“Egoist anarchism or anarcho-egoism, often shortened as simply egoism, is a school of anarchist thought that originated in the philosophy of Max Stirner, a 19th-century philosopher whose “name appears with familiar regularity in historically orientated surveys of anarchist thought as one of the earliest and best known exponents of individualist anarchism“. Egoist anarchism places the individual at the forefront, crafting ethical standards and actions based on this premise. It advocates personal liberation and rejects subordination, emphasizing the absolute priority of self-interest. Max Stirner‘s philosophy is usually called “egoism”. He says that the egoist rejects pursuit of devotion to “a great idea, a good cause, a doctrine, a system, a lofty calling”, saying that the egoist has no political calling, but rather “lives themselves out” without regard to “how well or ill humanity may fare thereby”. Stirner held that the only limitation on the rights of the individual is one’s power to obtain what they desire. He proposes that most commonly accepted social institutions—including the notion of State, property as a right, natural rights in general and the very notion of society—were mere phantasms or “spooks” in the mind. Stirner wanted to “abolish not only the state but also society as an institution responsible for its members.” ref

Stirnerism (a type of “egoism”)

“Stirnerism or Stirnerite Egoism is the philosophy of Max Stirner, a German post-Hegelian philosopher, dealing mainly with the Hegelian notion of social alienation and self-consciousness. Stirnerism is often seen as one of the forerunners of Existentialism, Psychoanalytic Theory, and Post-Modernism. Stirnerite Egoism rejects the pursuit of devotion to “a great idea, a good cause, a doctrine, a system, a lofty calling.” According to Stirner, the egoist does not have a political calling but instead lives their life without concern for “how well or ill humanity may fare thereby.” He believed that the only limitation on an individual’s rights is their power to obtain what they desire. Stirner’s notion of self-interest is that individuals possess no objective or higher reason beyond their own reason and self-interest to believe or engage with any concept or idea. Stirner asserts that the individual alone determines the degree of interest in societal constructs such as law, property, and government, allowing for indifference to external claims regarding how one ought to think, act, or be.” ref

Communist egoism

“The subject of egoist communism has been a favorite of contemporary egoists, the new readers of Stirner seem to have realized the implications of his findings. These implications, the abolition of the sacredness of all methods that uphold the state, including private property and morality as well as the concept of the state itself; if everyone or at least a majority thought through this psychology, would violate these abstractions to a degree which would most likely lead to the abolition of the state, private property, class, currency, etc. Not only do egoist communists see this as the logical conclusion of egoism on a material basis, but these conditions are in their favor, as they allow for a radical scope of freedom. Our idea has been under fire of course, with most criticisms based on the notion that egoist communism is the replacement of one system by another, that we aim for a goal system. On the contrary, egoist communism is not some sort of ideal for society to achieve, it is a practice. Egoist communism describes a voluntary mutually beneficial relationship between parties or of egoistic interest that utilizes common ownership for that interest and in implication the insurrection against the current state of things. That current state of things being the state and capitalism, as well as its spooky justifications.” ref

Union of Egoists

“Max Stirner‘s idea of the “union of egoists” (German: Verein von Egoisten) was first expounded in The Ego and Its Own. A union of egoists is understood as a voluntary and non-systematic association which Stirner proposed in contradistinction to the state. Each union is understood as a relation between egoists which is continually renewed by all parties’ support through an act of will. The Union requires that all parties participate out of a conscious egoism. Egoistical relationships have to be flexible enough so that it can be ended up at the will of the participant. The Union of egoists ceases to be one under specific conditions, i.e. “the party ceases to be a union at the same moment at which it makes certain principles binding and wants to have them assured against attacks; but this moment is the very birth-act of the party. As party it is already a born society, a dead union, an idea that has become fixed. As party of absolutism it cannot will that its members should doubt the irrefragable truth of this principle; they could cherish this doubt only if they were egoistic enough to want still to be something outside their party, i.e. non-partisans. Non-partisans they cannot be as party-men, but only as egoists. Whereas individuals in communism are obligated to one another in society, in egoism they are obligated only to themselves. Stirner saw this as the opposite of a state, government or society, which could use the individual for its own gain without benefiting the individual or truly being in his interest. Stirner does not develop in any detail the form of social organization that the Union of egoists might take, with some, such as Carlson, arguing that organization itself is anathema to Stirner’s Union.” ref

“Stirner admits that “complete freedom” is not possible, but he sees that the Union of egoists are the most free form of association that can be had: “Limitation of liberty is inevitable everywhere, for one cannot get rid of everything; one cannot fly like a bird merely because one would like to fly so, for one does not get free from his own weight…The union will assuredly offer a greater measure of liberty, as well as (and especially because by it one escapes all the coercion peculiar to State and society life) admit of being considered as “a new liberty”; but nevertheless it will still contain enough of unfreedom and involuntariness. In Stirner’s Critics, Stirner intended to respond to criticisms made to important arguments put forward in The Ego and Its Own. In it, Stirner tends to refer to himself in the third person. He defines the Union of egoists as follows: “Egoism, as Stirner uses it, is not opposed to love nor to thought; it is no enemy of the sweet life of love, nor of devotion and sacrifice; it is no enemy of intimate warmth, but it is also no enemy of critique, nor of socialism, nor, in short, of any actual interest. It doesn’t exclude any interest. It is directed against only disinterestedness and the uninteresting; not against love, but against sacred love, not against thought, but against sacred thought, not against socialists, but against sacred socialists, etc. The “exclusiveness” of the egoist, which some want to pass off as isolation, separation, loneliness, is on the contrary full participation in the interesting by—exclusion of the uninteresting. The writers of An Anarchist FAQ report that “many in the anarchist movement in Glasgow, Scotland, took Stirner’s “Union of egoists” literally as the basis for their anarcho-syndicalist organizing in the 1940s and beyond. ” ref

Amorality

“Amorality (also known as amoralism) is an absence of, indifference towards, disregard for, or incapacity for morality. Some simply refer to it as a case of being neither moral nor immoral. Amoral should not be confused with immoral, which refers to an agent doing or thinking something they know or believe to be wrong. Morality and amorality in humans and other animals is a subject of dispute among scientists and philosophers. If morality is intrinsic to humanity, then amoral human beings either do not exist or are only deficiently human, a condition sometimes described as moral idiocy or anti-social behavior disorder. On the other hand, if morality is extrinsic to humanity, then amoral human beings can both exist and be fully human, and as such be amoral by default. Human capabilities may be thought of as amoral in that they can be used for either constructive or destructive purposes, i.e., for good or for ill.” ref

“Within the wide range of moral traditions, religious value-systems co-exist with contemporary secular frameworks such as consequentialism, freethought, humanism, utilitarianism, and others. Several studies have been conducted on the empirics of morality in various countries, and the overall relationship between faith and crime is unclear. A 2001 review of studies on this topic found “The existing evidence surrounding the effect of religion on crime is varied, contested, and inconclusive, and currently, no persuasive answer exists as to the empirical relationship between religion and crime.” Phil Zuckerman’s 2008 book, Society without God, based on studies conducted during 14 months in Scandinavia in 2005–2006, notes that Denmark and Sweden, “which are probably the least religious countries in the world, and possibly in the history of the world”, enjoy “among the lowest violent crime rates in the world [and] the lowest levels of corruption in the world.” Dozens of studies have been conducted on this topic since the twentieth century.” ref

“Moral intuitions may have genetic bases. A 2022 study conducted by scholars Michael Zakharin and Timothy C. Bates, and published by the European Journal of Personality, found that moral foundations have significant genetic bases. Another study, conducted by Smith and Hatemi, similarly found significant evidence in support of moral heritability by looking at and comparing the answers of moral dilemmas between twins. Genetics play a role in influencing prosocial behaviors and moral decision-making. Genetics contribute to the development and expression of certain traits and behaviors, including those related to morality. However, it is important to note that while genetics play a role in shaping certain aspects of moral behavior, morality itself is a multifaceted concept that encompasses cultural, societal, and personal influences as well.” ref

“The brain areas that are consistently involved when humans reason about moral issues have been investigated by multiple quantitative large-scale meta-analyses of the brain activity changes reported in the moral neuroscience literature. The neural network underlying moral decisions overlaps with the network pertaining to representing others’ intentions (i.e., theory of mind) and the network pertaining to representing others’ (vicariously experienced) emotional states (i.e., empathy). This supports the notion that moral reasoning is related to both seeing things from other persons’ points of view and to grasping others’ feelings. These results provide evidence that the neural network underlying moral decisions is probably domain-global (i.e., there might be no such things as a “moral module” in the human brain) and might be dissociable into cognitive and affective sub-systems. Moral cognition refers to cognitive processes implicated in moral judgment and decision making, and moral action. It consists of several domain-general cognitive processes, ranging from perception of a morally salient stimulus to reasoning when faced with a moral dilemma. While it is important to mention that there is not a single cognitive faculty dedicated exclusively to moral cognition, characterizing the contributions of domain-general processes to moral behavior is a critical scientific endeavor to understand how morality works and how it can be improved.” ref

“A 2005 study by Gregory S. Paul published in the Journal of Religion and Society stated that, “In general, higher rates of belief in and worship of a creator correlate with higher rates of homicide, juvenile and early adult mortality, STD infection rates, teen pregnancy, and abortion in the prosperous democracies,” and “In all secular developing democracies a centuries long-term trend has seen homicide rates drop to historical lows” with the exceptions being the United States (with a high religiosity level) and “theistic” Portugal. In a response, Gary Jensen builds on and refines Paul’s study. he concludes that a “complex relationship” exists between religiosity and homicide “with some dimensions of religiosity encouraging homicide and other dimensions discouraging it”. In April 2012, the results of a study which tested their subjects’ pro-social sentiments were published in the Social Psychological and Personality Science journal in which non-religious people had higher scores showing that they were more motivated by their own compassion to perform pro-social behaviors. Religious people were found to be less motivated by compassion to be charitable than by an inner sense of moral obligation.” ref

Enlightened Self-interest

“Enlightened self-interest is a philosophy in ethics which states that persons who act to further the interests of others (or the interests of the group or groups to which they belong) ultimately serve their own self-interest. It has often been simply expressed by the belief that an individual, group, or even a commercial entity will “do well by doing good”. The term enlightened self-interest has been criticized as a mere ideological or semantic device of neoclassical economic theory to justify this type of behavior. It has been considered at best a variant of self-interest that is unsuitable for the establishment of personal and public relations because – like the definition of self-interest in the standard rational-choice model – it fails to characterize human behavior ethically, psychologically, and cognitively. In contrast to enlightened self-interest is simple greed, or the concept of “unenlightened self-interest”, in which it is argued that when most or all persons act according to their own myopic selfishness, the group suffers loss as a result of conflict, decreased efficiency and productivity because of lack of cooperation, and the increased expense each individual pays for the protection of their own interests. If a typical individual in such a group is selected at random, it is not likely that this person will profit from such a group ethic. Enlightened self-interest is also different from altruism, which calls for people to act in the interest of others often at the expense of their own interests and with no expectation of material benefit for themselves in the future. Some advocates of enlightened self-interest might argue that pure altruism promotes inefficiency as well.” ref

Ethical Egoism

“In ethical philosophy, ethical egoism is the normative position that moral agents ought to act in their own self-interest. It differs from psychological egoism, which claims that people can only act in their self-interest. Ethical egoism also differs from rational egoism, which holds that it is rational to act in one’s self-interest. Ethical egoism holds, therefore, that actions whose consequences will benefit the doer are ethical. Ethical egoism contrasts with ethical altruism, which holds that moral agents have an obligation to help others. Egoism and altruism both contrast with ethical utilitarianism, which holds that a moral agent should treat one’s self (also known as the subject) with no higher regard than one has for others (as egoism does, by elevating self-interests and “the self” to a status not granted to others). But it also holds that one is not obligated to sacrifice one’s own interests (as altruism does) to help others’ interests, so long as one’s own interests (i.e., one’s own desires or well-being) are substantially equivalent to the others’ interests and well-being, but they have the choice to do so. Egoism, utilitarianism, and altruism are all forms of consequentialism, but egoism and altruism contrast with utilitarianism, in that egoism and altruism are both agent-focused forms of consequentialism (i.e., subject-focused or subjective). Ethical egoism is often used as the philosophical basis for support of right-libertarianism and individualist anarchism.” ref

Rational Egoism

“Rational egoism (also called rational selfishness) is the principle that an action is rational if and only if it maximizes one’s self-interest. As such, it is considered a normative form of egoism, though historically has been associated with both positive and normative forms. In its strong form, rational egoism holds that to not pursue one’s own interest is unequivocally irrational. Its weaker form, however, holds that while it is rational to pursue self-interest, failing to pursue self-interest is not always irrational. Originally an element of nihilist philosophy in Russia, it was later popularised in English-speaking countries by Russian-American author Ayn Rand. Rational egoism emerged as the dominant social philosophy of the Russian nihilist movement, having developed in the works of nihilist philosophers Nikolay Chernyshevsky and Dmitry Pisarev.” ref

Russian Nihilist movement

“The Russian nihilist movement was a philosophical, cultural, and revolutionary movement in the Russian Empire during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, from which the broader philosophy of nihilism originated. In Russian, the word nigilizm (‘nihilism’, from Latin nihil ‘nothing’) came to represent the movement’s unremitting attacks on morality, religion, and traditional society. Russian anarchist Peter Kropotkin, as stated in the Encyclopædia Britannica, “defined nihilism as the symbol of struggle against all forms of tyranny, hypocrisy, and artificiality and for individual freedom.” As only an early form of nihilist philosophy, Russian nihilism saw all the morality, philosophy, religion, aesthetics, and social institutions which were in place as worthless and meaningless but did not necessarily see meaninglessness in all ethics, knowledge, and human life. It did however, incorporate theories of hard determinism, atheism, materialism, positivism, and egoism in an aim to assimilate and distinctively recontextualize core elements of the Age of Enlightenment into Russia while dropping the Westernizer approach of the previous generation. Although most commonly associated with revolutionary activism, most nihilists were in fact not political and instead discarded politics as an outdated stage of humanity. They held that until a destructive program had overcome the current conditions no constructive program could be properly formulated, and although some nihilists did begin to develop communal principles their formulations in this regard remained vague.” ref

Nihilism

“In philosophy, nihilism is any viewpoint, or a family of views, that rejects generally accepted or fundamental aspects of human existence, namely knowledge, morality, or meaning. There have been different nihilist positions, including that human values are baseless, that life is meaningless, that knowledge is impossible, or that some other highly regarded concepts are in fact meaningless or pointless. Contemporary understanding of the idea stems largely from the Nietzschean ‘crisis of nihilism’, from which derive the two central concepts: the destruction of higher values and the opposition to the affirmation of life. In popular use, the term commonly refers to forms of existential nihilism, according to which life is without intrinsic value, meaning, or purpose. Other prominent positions within nihilism include the rejection of all normative and ethical views (§ Moral nihilism), the rejection of all social and political institutions (§ Political nihilism), the stance that no knowledge can or does exist (§ Epistemological nihilism), and a number of metaphysical positions, which assert that non-abstract objects do not exist (§ Metaphysical nihilism), that composite objects do not exist (§ Mereological nihilism), or even that life itself does not exist. Nietzsche characterized nihilism as emptying the world and especially human existence of meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. One such reaction to the loss of meaning is what Nietzsche calls passive nihilism, which he recognizes in the pessimistic philosophy of Schopenhauer. Schopenhauer’s doctrine, which Nietzsche also refers to as Western Buddhism, advocates separating oneself from will and desires in order to reduce suffering. Nietzsche characterizes this attitude as a “will to nothingness“, whereby life turns away from itself, as there is nothing of value to be found in the world. This mowing away of all value in the world is characteristic of the nihilist, although in this, the nihilist appears inconsistent: this “will to nothingness” is still a form of valuation or willing.” ref

Anarcho-Nihilism

“The anarcho-nihilist position is essentially that we are done for it. That the current manifestation of human society (civilization, leviathan, industrial society, global capitalism, whatever) is beyond salvation, and so our response to it should be one of unmitigated hostility. There are no demands to be made, no utopic visions to be upheld, no political programs to be followed – the path of resistance is one of pure negation. In short, “that conditions in the social organization are so bad as to make destruction desirable for its own sake inde­pendent of any constructive program or possibility.” Anarcho-Nihilism is a faction founded off the values of the Nihilist Movement. It involves rejection of all government, authority, and morality. The Nihilist movement was a Russian movement in the 1860s which rejected all authorities. It is derived from the Latin nihil, meaning “nothing”. After the assassination of Tsar Alexander II in 1881, the Nihilists were known throughout Europe as proponents of the use of violence in order to bring about political change.” ref

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Damien Marie AtHope’s Art

Left-libertarianism

“Left-libertarianism, also known as left-wing libertarianism, is a political philosophy and type of libertarianism that stresses both individual freedom and social euality. Left-libertarianism represents several related yet distinct approaches to political and social theory. Its classical usage refers to anti-authoritarian varieties of left-wing politics such as anarchism, especially social anarchism. While right-libertarianism is widely seen as synonymous with libertarianism in the United States, left-libertarianism is the predominant form of libertarianism in Europe. In the United States, left-libertarianism is the term used for the left wing of the American libertarian movement, including the political positions associated with academic philosophers Hillel Steiner, Philippe Van Parijs, and Peter Vallentyne that combine self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to natural resources. Although libertarianism in the United States has become associated with classical liberalism and minarchism, with right-libertarianism being more known than left-libertarianism, political usage of the term libertarianism until then was associated exclusively with anti-capitalism, libertarian socialism, and social anarchism; in most parts of the world, such an association still predominates. While all libertarians begin with a conception of personal autonomy from which they argue in favor of civil liberties and a reduction or elimination of the state, left-libertarianism encompasses those libertarian beliefs that claim the Earth’s natural resources belong to everyone in an egalitarian manner, either unowned or owned collectively. Like other forms of libertarianism, left-libertarian views on the state range from minarchism, which argues for a decentralised and limited government, to anarchism, which advocates for the state to be abolished entirely.” ref

“In its oldest form, “left-libertarianism” was used synonymously with social anarchism. Social anarchism, also known as left-wing anarchism or socialist anarchism, is an anarchist tradition that sees individual liberty and social solidarity as mutually compatible and desirable. It advocates for a social revolution to eliminate hierarchical power structures, such as capitalism and the state. In their place, social anarchists encourage social collaboration through mutual aid and envision non-hierarchical forms of social organization, such as voluntary associations. Identified with the socialist tradition of Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, and Peter Kropotkin, social anarchism is often contrasted with individualist anarchism. Although social anarchism and other forms of left-libertarianism share similar roots and concerns, social anarchism has distinguished itself as a distinct ideological tradition, due to its fundamental rejection of the state. In contrast to individualist tendencies, social anarchism rejects private property and market relations, which they believe will be eliminated with the abolition of the state. Social anarchism, originally associated with the libertarianism of Joseph Déjacque, has historically encompassed collectivist anarchism, anarchist communism, and anarcho-syndicalism; each of which became influential tendencies in the Russian and Spanish Revolutions. The contemporary left-libertarian Murray Bookchin advocated for the replacement of the state with a libertarian communist society, which he saw as a decentralized confederation of municipalities, in which decisions would be made by direct democracy. Bookchin was also harshly critical of individualist anarchism, which he held responsible for the failure of left-libertarianism to take a prominent place in public discourse.” ref, ref

Right-libertarianism

“Right-libertarianism, also known as libertarian capitalism, or right-wing libertarianism, is a libertarian political philosophy that supports capitalist property rights and defends market distribution of natural resources and private property. The term right-libertarianism is used to distinguish this class of views on the nature of property and capital from left-libertarianism, a variant of libertarianism that combines self-ownership with an egalitarian approach to property and income. In contrast to socialist libertarianism, right-libertarianism supports free-market capitalism. Like most forms of libertarianism, it supports civil liberties, especially natural law, negative rights, the non-aggression principle, and a significant transformation of the modern welfare state. Right-libertarian political thought is characterized by the strict priority given to liberty, with the need to maximize the realm of individual freedom and minimize the scope of public authority. Right-libertarians typically see the state as the principal threat to liberty. This anti-statism differs from anarchist doctrines in that it is based upon strong individualism that places less emphasis on human sociability or cooperation. Right-libertarian philosophy is also rooted in the ideas of individual rights and laissez-faire economics. The right-libertarian theory of individual rights generally follows the homestead principle and the labor theory of property, stressing self-ownership and that people have an absolute right to the property that their labor produces.” ref

“Economically, right-libertarians make no distinction between capitalism and free markets and view any attempt to dictate the market process as counterproductive, emphasizing the mechanisms and self-regulating nature of the market whilst portraying government intervention and attempts to redistribute wealth as invariably unnecessary and counter-productive. Although all right-libertarians oppose government intervention, there is a division between anarcho-capitalists, who view the state as an unnecessary evil and want property rights protected without statutory law through market-generated tort, contract, and property law; and minarchists, who support the need for a minimal state, often referred to as a night-watchman state, to provide its citizens with courts, military, and police. Like libertarians of all varieties, right-libertarians refer to themselves simply as libertarians. Being the most common type of libertarianism in the United States, right-libertarianism has become the most common referent of libertarianism there since the late 20th century, while historically and elsewhere, it continues to be widely used to refer to anti-state forms of socialism such as anarchism and more generally libertarian communism/libertarian Marxism and libertarian socialism. Around the time of Murray Rothbard, who popularized the term libertarian in the United States during the 1960s, anarcho-capitalist movements started calling themselves libertarian, leading to the rise of the term right-libertarian to distinguish them. Rothbard himself acknowledged the co-opting of the term and boasted of its “capture […] from the enemy”. Anarcho-capitalism (colloquially: ancap or an-cap) is a political philosophy and economic theory that seeks to abolish centralized states in favor of stateless societies with systems of private property enforced by private agencies. According to its proponents, various historical theorists have espoused philosophies similar to anarcho-capitalism. While the earliest extant attestation of “anarchocapitalism” [sic] is in Karl Hess‘s essay “The Death of Politics” published by Playboy in March 1969, American economist Murray Rothbard was credited with coining the terms anarcho-capitalist and anarcho-capitalism in 1971.” ref, ref

Direct Democracy and some of My Anarchist Socialist thinking

Advocating Anarchism: Morality, Non-coercion, Anti-hierarchy, Solidarity, Internationalism (VIDEO)

Navigating Dignity: Well-being, Motivation, Morality, Ethics, Rights, Law, and Politics (VIDEO)

Self-Sovereignty, Self-Efficiency, Self-Mastery, & Solidarity: Relationship & Naturalist Anarchism (VIDEO)

Anarchist Teaching as Free Public Education or Free Education in the Public (VIDEO)

I am not an academic, I am a revolutionary sharing education and reason to inspire more deep thinking.