12-16-2025, 03:08 AM
Consistently, the free thinkers and published writers whose opinions I tend to respect the most seem to be flocking to amoralism. They appear to be promoting that not only is God dead, but also that religion’s ghost, the philosophies of morality, is fading. One of my favorite writers announced in a posthumously published book something along the lines of that morality was responsible for most of human suffering.
They amoralist free thinkers promote that having a heart, and listening to it, is enough.
Are they right?
I suspect that nearly all of human history’s belief systems are B.S., morality no exception. I believe morality evolved from an instinctive social love and primitive contemplation. Take away the erroneous belief systems, and social love remains.
Yet… even if most, even if all, of the history of ethics in philosophy is in error, if one has a social sense of love, thinking about what is logical to do for one’s attachments amounts to ethics, even morality.
Some amoralists promote that nothing can be proven, and I agree. They go further and state that philosophies are so distorted (by emotional bias, finite data out of infinite data to explore, the necessity of randomness) that any lean is irrational and that it isn’t possible to “hedge one’s bets.” Even if they are right, it would seem to me impossible to present evidence for the non existence of evidence.
Selfish advantage:
Pleasure obtainable, free will obtainable, lack of harm obtainable, success probability by these three factors. The absolute highest success probability by all three factors is determined in part by how high you can score concerning fairness (to unify all sentient life as your bodyguard- including unpredictable alien encounters occurring outside one’s sphere of inference: too disconnected and too sudden to be predictable) and loyalty to as many niches as possible, Because that is quantifiable objective motive to provide you with all three to within the highest threshold.
Unobjective people are less a threat than objective people.
There is also a threshold of coincidental environmental inheritance. Some are higher up on nature’s totem pole than others. But pitting one’s self, even if possible to get away with it, against other loyalties is pointless- especially if one is capable of entering nearly any target recognizance state that does not invade one’s niche. Pleasure is subjective enough to be obtainable from many sources.
In the long term, one’s success probability selfishly is as high as the combination of exactly four scores:
-loyalty culpability to one’s self
-loyalty culpability to all sentient life (motive to assist, and to avoid invading you)
-loyalty culp to competing/cooperating/unaligned or neutrally aligned niches (motive to ally with you, because your track record is that you are effective with networking - especially if you never betray your actual loyalties)
-coincidental environmental positioning. The fortunes and misfortunes of chaos, such as unobjective people. Overall "power level" observable.
Since nobody can predict infinity, but the most collaterals are controlled for by the highest possible overall score, it always increases the probability of safety of free will, pleasure, and lack of suffering to have as high as possible a score by all four
Ethics and loyalty are related pragmatically in that fairness unifies a majority military with ethics, loyalty a smaller military. They are also related because the main emotional motivation for both is love.
It is of course possible to have ethics and loyalties, in a state of union or competition. It is also possible to label the ethics of fairness as generalized loyalty. With fairness, everything that can benefit from rights and consideration is a loyalty, and the largest volume of sentient peoples have selfish motivation to help the individual proportional to how fair he she or whatever is.
I calculate fairness as three negative and three positive categories, which can be made into imaginary numbers. Negative: free will inhibited = i, suffering induced = s, pleasure stolen = p. Positive: free will enabled = e, suffering absolved = a, and pleasure provided = f. The individual’s score calculates to i subtracted from e or zero, s subtracted from a or zero, p subtracted from f or zero.
Negligence calculates to only partial culpability for the outcome, so that one’s free will only contributed a % of what happened. That % is plugged into i, s, p & e, a, f.
It is also possible to calculate loyalty culpability with imaginary numbers. The main complication I notice to doing so concerns the amount of territory you want to grant the individual tiers of the loyalty. Since this isn’t fair business per say, it isn’t necessarily possible to calculate fair percentages.
The highest ranking loyalty gets the best share, so that it is most wrong to induce suffering upon most right to provide pleasure to the top. Niche loyalty is calculated the same as fairness except that rank supersedes. Some of the rules are individualized with each niche. One example of a niche loyalty system calls it an offense only for the bottom to invade higher ranking individual(s), and provides rank according to military usefulness of the individual(s). Another system provides rank according to age, or according to the age of the position, or the age of the position’s inheritance.
Without some attachment to fairness or morality or ethic, one’s heart is likely to pick loyalties instinctively. If invaded, generalized loyalty/fairness could “gang up” on the individual… but so too could the most well established niche loyalty, even if invaded by fairness.
They amoralist free thinkers promote that having a heart, and listening to it, is enough.
Are they right?
I suspect that nearly all of human history’s belief systems are B.S., morality no exception. I believe morality evolved from an instinctive social love and primitive contemplation. Take away the erroneous belief systems, and social love remains.
Yet… even if most, even if all, of the history of ethics in philosophy is in error, if one has a social sense of love, thinking about what is logical to do for one’s attachments amounts to ethics, even morality.
Some amoralists promote that nothing can be proven, and I agree. They go further and state that philosophies are so distorted (by emotional bias, finite data out of infinite data to explore, the necessity of randomness) that any lean is irrational and that it isn’t possible to “hedge one’s bets.” Even if they are right, it would seem to me impossible to present evidence for the non existence of evidence.
Selfish advantage:
Pleasure obtainable, free will obtainable, lack of harm obtainable, success probability by these three factors. The absolute highest success probability by all three factors is determined in part by how high you can score concerning fairness (to unify all sentient life as your bodyguard- including unpredictable alien encounters occurring outside one’s sphere of inference: too disconnected and too sudden to be predictable) and loyalty to as many niches as possible, Because that is quantifiable objective motive to provide you with all three to within the highest threshold.
Unobjective people are less a threat than objective people.
There is also a threshold of coincidental environmental inheritance. Some are higher up on nature’s totem pole than others. But pitting one’s self, even if possible to get away with it, against other loyalties is pointless- especially if one is capable of entering nearly any target recognizance state that does not invade one’s niche. Pleasure is subjective enough to be obtainable from many sources.
In the long term, one’s success probability selfishly is as high as the combination of exactly four scores:
-loyalty culpability to one’s self
-loyalty culpability to all sentient life (motive to assist, and to avoid invading you)
-loyalty culp to competing/cooperating/unaligned or neutrally aligned niches (motive to ally with you, because your track record is that you are effective with networking - especially if you never betray your actual loyalties)
-coincidental environmental positioning. The fortunes and misfortunes of chaos, such as unobjective people. Overall "power level" observable.
Since nobody can predict infinity, but the most collaterals are controlled for by the highest possible overall score, it always increases the probability of safety of free will, pleasure, and lack of suffering to have as high as possible a score by all four
Ethics and loyalty are related pragmatically in that fairness unifies a majority military with ethics, loyalty a smaller military. They are also related because the main emotional motivation for both is love.
It is of course possible to have ethics and loyalties, in a state of union or competition. It is also possible to label the ethics of fairness as generalized loyalty. With fairness, everything that can benefit from rights and consideration is a loyalty, and the largest volume of sentient peoples have selfish motivation to help the individual proportional to how fair he she or whatever is.
I calculate fairness as three negative and three positive categories, which can be made into imaginary numbers. Negative: free will inhibited = i, suffering induced = s, pleasure stolen = p. Positive: free will enabled = e, suffering absolved = a, and pleasure provided = f. The individual’s score calculates to i subtracted from e or zero, s subtracted from a or zero, p subtracted from f or zero.
Negligence calculates to only partial culpability for the outcome, so that one’s free will only contributed a % of what happened. That % is plugged into i, s, p & e, a, f.
It is also possible to calculate loyalty culpability with imaginary numbers. The main complication I notice to doing so concerns the amount of territory you want to grant the individual tiers of the loyalty. Since this isn’t fair business per say, it isn’t necessarily possible to calculate fair percentages.
The highest ranking loyalty gets the best share, so that it is most wrong to induce suffering upon most right to provide pleasure to the top. Niche loyalty is calculated the same as fairness except that rank supersedes. Some of the rules are individualized with each niche. One example of a niche loyalty system calls it an offense only for the bottom to invade higher ranking individual(s), and provides rank according to military usefulness of the individual(s). Another system provides rank according to age, or according to the age of the position, or the age of the position’s inheritance.
Without some attachment to fairness or morality or ethic, one’s heart is likely to pick loyalties instinctively. If invaded, generalized loyalty/fairness could “gang up” on the individual… but so too could the most well established niche loyalty, even if invaded by fairness.
