Does incentive pervert morality?

id like to think so... any thoughts?

does INSENSITIVITY*** pervert morality?

Shabazz Freeman wrote:

does INSENSITIVITY*** pervert morality?

no incentive* haha sorry

let me re post that haha

WHo cares about morality?

Watermelon wrote:

WHo cares about morality?

Who's to say what's moral? I hate to revive that dead thread, but as we've discussed before, morals are completely subjective.

If you would Alek, i'd like to hear your take on what is moral before i respond to this thread (which i'd like to do. I think this could be interesting).

Exactly I hate using morality to support communism because its so subjective which is why I prefer economic arguments showing why capitalism inevitably falls.

Quote :

Who's to say what's moral? I hate to revive that dead thread, but as we've discussed before, morals are completely subjective.

I have to disagree, no doubt 'a lot' of morals are subjective or just plain bullshit - but I think many virtues extend beyond subjectivity on the grounds that they are common to all mankind ie love ect

Its usually considered wrong to kill and nice to be in love - regardless of individual preferance or culture.

I think our base values and likes stem from a shared biological and psychological foundation and overide any enviromental factors.

Anarchist.Dagger wrote:

Watermelon wrote:

WHo cares about morality?

Who's to say what's moral? I hate to revive that dead thread, but as we've discussed before, morals are completely subjective.

If you would Alek, i'd like to hear your take on what is moral before i respond to this thread (which i'd like to do. I think this could be interesting).

I apologize for a lack of a better term. when i say morality i am referring to certain concepts that are essential for society (do not kill, do not steal) basics . i believe that as a social species we have developed to have some manner of understanding towards what is "right or wrong" as means of not destroying each other. My question is: if one commits a "good" act out of fear of negative consequences if one does not commit that "good" act, is it still a act of "goodness"?

Morals common to all including dont kill are still subjective and cant be objectively justified. For aleks question, a good act is a good act but theres no such thing as an objectively good act so.

inkus2000 wrote:

I have to disagree, no doubt 'a lot' of morals are subjective or just plain bullshit - but I think many virtues extend beyond subjectivity on the grounds that they are common to all mankind ie love ect

Its usually considered wrong to kill and nice to be in love - regardless of individual preferance or culture.

I think our base values and likes stem from a shared biological and psychological foundation and overide any enviromental factors.

For the sake of this thread staying on track, i'll retract, at least until it comes up again within conversation pertaining to the subject.

Quote :

I apologize for a lack of a better term. when i say morality i am referring to certain concepts that are essential for society (do not kill, do not steal) basics . i believe that as a social species we have developed to have some manner of understanding towards what is "right or wrong" as means of not destroying each other. My question is: if one commits a "good" act out of fear of negative consequences if one does not commit that "good" act, is it still a act of "goodness"?

Good question. I'll try to be as concise as possible, since i do not have the time for a proper response at the moment.

Off the top of my head, without giving this much in depth thought, i'd have to say that fear of consequences is not the negation of the "goodness", per se, but rather the negation of the good intentions, since there may not have been any to begin with. So as i see it, it is more of a question of freedom. If the person was truly free, would his intentions to steal be the same?

If a person doesn't steal solely because he is afraid of consequences, then the deterrence of the theft is good, but the intentions of the person have not changed; he still wants to steal. In a way, though it is good to deter bad things, the deterrence, fear, is a way of corrupting goodness. If the deterrence was instead freedom, the ability of the person to care of himself, then his "bad" intentions no longer need to exist. I suppose this would get a little more blurred with murder.

Well, i'll be back tonight to see how bashed my argument got since it probably wasn't that coherent. My bad. I'll think on for the rest of the day. Good thread, by the way.

thats a valid point. But how about this: incentive, especially religious or financial tends to pit us against each other. if we eliminate incentive perhaps the common goal of the people would be more universal eliminating the need for conflict and violence. the people would function with the desire of bettering they're society rather than personal gain because there is nothing to be gained.

Alek4A wrote:

thats a valid point. But how about this: incentive, especially religious or financial tends to pit us against each other. if we eliminate incentive perhaps the common goal of the people would be more universal eliminating the need for conflict and violence.

This tends to be the theory of anarchists. Take away capitalism and with it the incentive to earn vast amounts of wealth, prove to the people that collective work is better than individual work, through propaganda, deeds, and strike solidarity, and the people will themselves realize that free association and collectivity is feasible and practical. But with this begs the question:

What is the new incentive and will it not corrupt? Will it corrupt in a different way? I would assume this to be the argument the capitalists would give us. I'll wait and see if they wish to elaborate.

As far as religion goes, whether by coincidence or not, it has done a great job of dividing the people. Without it i believe we would be much better off. But rather than pitting us against eachother, i feel in line with Marx as far as it makes the toiling people docile. I like Bakunin's quote of "so long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth", or something to that effect. I believe that if people realized there was nothing awaiting them in the afterlife, they would be more inclined to make better this life.

Quote :

the people would function with the desire of bettering they're society rather than personal gain because there is nothing to be gained.

I'm sure a capitalist on this site would like to take a crack at this, so i'll wait for it.

<333 Bakunin He's by far my favorite thinker.

but yeah i consider Religion to be the most powerful form of incentive... it even trumps financial incentive.

And as far as corruption in an anarchist society i think it'd be very difficult to corrupt the want for a successful society, seeing as that would be the only incentive remaining. And i believe the requirements for corruption include a want for personal gain, people who have been born into an anarchist society would be raised in such a way that the very concept of personal gain is unfathomable because society is the entity and the only way of achieving personal gain is to better those around yous lives as well.

I take morality to be the attempt by an individual or group to influence behavior through proclaiming norms of action, usually with a fictitious surrogate authority (God, reason, human nature) to add persuasive punch. The question then becomes, do people ever have the right to use manipulation and/or coercion to influence behavior. To think otherwise is to impose subjective moralizing on my conduct, because I very much believe in fighting for justice and to protect the people I love. The difference is that I accept that there is no authority beyond me to take responsibility for the coercion I meet out.

davidhume2000 wrote:

I take morality to be the attempt by an individual or group to influence behavior through proclaiming norms of action, usually with a fictitious surrogate authority (God, reason, human nature) to add persuasive punch. The question then becomes, do people ever have the right to use manipulation and/or coercion to influence behavior. To think otherwise is to impose subjective moralizing on my conduct, because I very much believe in fighting for justice and to protect the people I love. The difference is that I accept that there is no authority beyond me to take responsibility for the coercion I meet out.

Well conveniently those "norms of action" are often fairly universal, weather they be justified by religion or otherwise. but its when power hungry people take advantage of the confusion of what is "right" or "wrong", problems develop. murder, rape, theft, even genocide can all be justified by religion or laws which originally were formed in the name of those universal doctrines. And its those exact doctrines which oddly enough are very often contradicted once the religion or law or whatever it may be takes a grip on the people. which is why by my personal estimation those justifications of action need to be eliminated completely because they are inevitably corruptible. true harmony calls for a liquidation of church and state i.e. law. so that the universal and natural doctrines can be un-perverted

murder rape theft etc are all because of the material conditions. The material conditions determine consciousness, that is the basis of marxism. Religion is an effect of the material conditions. Ever wonder why poor people are so religious? The material conditions. Ever wonder why poor people commit more crime? The material conditions. Marxism is based on materialism which says material conditions determine concsciousness, as opposed to idealism, which is the opposite.

Watermelon wrote:

murder rape theft etc are all because of the material conditions. The material conditions determine consciousness, that is the basis of marxism. Religion is an effect of the material conditions. Ever wonder why poor people are so religious? The material conditions. Ever wonder why poor people commit more crime? The material conditions. Marxism is based on materialism which says material conditions determine concsciousness, as opposed to idealism, which is the opposite.

i believe not all are because of material conditions, but a fair amount are. however, i would say random acts of violence commited by members of the middle or upper class make up a higher percentage of crime then premediated murder etc. by that of the lower class.
perfect example, leopold and loeb.

"To the clean are all things clean' — thus say the people. I, however, say unto you: To the swine all things become swinish! Therefore preach the visionaries and bowed-heads (whose hearts are also bowed down): 'The world itself is a filthy monster.' For these are all unclean spirits; especially those, however, who have no peace or rest, unless they see the world FROM THE BACKSIDE — the backworldsmen! TO THOSE do I say it to the face, although it sound unpleasantly: the world resembleth man, in that it hath a backside, — SO MUCH is true! There is in the world much filth: SO MUCH is true! But the world itself is not therefore a filthy monster!"
friedrich nietzsche
-thus spoke zarathustra

all conscioueness is determined by material conditions to say otherwise is idealist. Not saying material conditions is only like how much money you have its also the particles in your brain they are material.

If you want to be incredibly literal then I suppose every human act is material. But I wouldn't consider a want for human safety to be "Materialism" so of the three main big ones (do not steal, do not rape, do not murder) only stealing requires materialism.

Why do people rape I wonder. Because they have had a bad life like usually criminals are poor. The material conditions turn them to rape and mrder.

I'd have to disagree. often times people rape because they suffer mental disabilities or have a psychological disdain for women "often due to a life time of rejection by thew opposite sex". theft on the other hand is absolutely material and there are times when murder can go hand in hand with theft but often times it is spurred from different things i.e. mental disabilities or romantic passion. which i suppose requires possession or want for possession of another person if you consider that materialism.

most murders are done in rage i thinks something like 60% of murders are family related the rest would be druggies and pepole with mental instability only a tiny part is organised crime

mattabesta wrote:

most murders are done in rage i thinks something like 60% of murders are family related the rest would be druggies and pepole with mental instability only a tiny part is organised crime

exactly! i really think theres more to these acts against society than materialism

Alek4A wrote:

I'd have to disagree. often times people rape because they suffer mental disabilities or have a psychological disdain for women "often due to a life time of rejection by thew opposite sex". theft on the other hand is absolutely material and there are times when murder can go hand in hand with theft but often times it is spurred from different things i.e. mental disabilities or romantic passion. which i suppose requires possession or want for possession of another person if you consider that materialism.

and when people are rejected usually its because the other person is too good. this wouldn't happen if we had a classes society