Guilt and Morality

[judas69]

I was having a burger last night, and probably stemming more out of guilt than anything else, I started thinking about the life and the difficult death this poor animal had to endure for 5 minutes of my own personal satisfaction and energy enough for maybe half the day. What, with that little bit of energy could I do, should I do, to morally justify it's pain and death if I ever could in the first place?

Thus the question, do we each in a very general sense and on an individual level, have to justify our own existence in some way if we are to be considered moral people? This question is based again on all the lives we take daily to keep our own, the resources we use daily to sustain our being, and what many of us do or don't do to pay back the favour.

Generally, humans have a sense that we have to give to receive, that there is no free lunch, but morality is not implicit in this process. In otherwords, the guilt I felt when eating that burger is something rare and even hidden, having to do with the human tendency on some level to coverup or shade those harsher aspects of our existence, namely death, suffering and any guilt we may infer, by the hand of man.

To further elaborate, we call the flesh of a dead cow sandwiched between 2 buns, a burger. We call the strips of dead pig next to our eggs ..bacon, ham, pork, depending. I'm not saying this is necessarily intentional, but it does help alleviate any of the guilt we may have by convoluting the assocation entirely and any moral question that might follow.

Perhaps individual guilt and morality on some level should continue to be surpressed in some instances, especially when it works against human progress? Either way, this appears to be what's happening here at least on some level.

 

[Seditious]

"...should I do, to morally justify it's pain and death if I ever could in the first place"

the fact that animals are every day eaten alive and killed less quickly than when slaughtered by man is all the moral justification I need for it.

it's not like if we go vegen all of a sudden the Zebras will be grateful to us.

 

[judas69]

Well, you were still the one to benefit from a loss.

Environmentalists for example, feel we have an obligation to the planet. Whether it's out of guilt, thankfulness, a deeper connection to the world (pantheism) or an unorthodox definition of who they believe themselves to be, I don't know. Either way, this would be an example of giving something back, instead of just taking or wasting ones energy on empty, self-serving pursuits.

To contrast this I ask, does your average lazy fatass ignorant american deserve to eat to sustain his existence?

Relating to world events, is guilt, morality and the likes actually hindering our ability to protect ourselves?

 

[Karasu]

Well, you were still the one to benefit from a loss.

Environmentalists for example, feel we have an obligation to the planet. Whether it's out of guilt, thankfulness, a deeper connection to the world (pantheism) or an unorthodox definition of who they believe themselves to be, I don't know. Either way, this would be an example of giving something back, instead of just taking or wasting ones energy on empty, self-serving pursuits.

To constrast this I ask, does your average lazy fatass american deserve to eat to sustain his existence?

Interesting you only mentioned pantheism; recently, there's been a wave of Christianity advocating environmentalism, based on the command that mankind is supposed to be the earth's steward.

Moving on...

Personally, I don't think your average lazy fatass american deserves to eat to sustain his existence. If you don't work you shouldn't eat, you know.

 

[10293847]

Thus the question, do we each in a very general sense and on an individual level, have to justify our own existence in some way if we are to be considered moral people?

I don't feel that I have to justify myself because I wasn't given the choice of existing. I think the government has already done the second part for us. Laws are in place to control the morality of people, not because it's natural to have these laws, but because humanity has deemed it so.

One's individual morals needn't be justified. Otherwise, what would be the point in having individual morals?

 

[derek]

I don't feel that I have to justify myself because I wasn't given the choice of existing. I think the government has already done the second part for us. Laws are in place to control the morality of people, not because it's natural to have these laws, but because humanity has deemed it so.

One's individual morals needn't be justified. Otherwise, what would be the point in having individual morals?

1 - Although you may not have chosen to exist, it is your responsibility, given that "privilege", to make sure you use it wisely and in a way that causes minimum harm. Even if you disagree with that particular dynamic, the blunt fact that you exist does not excuse you from any responsibility just because you never chose to.

2 - How can you say it is not natural to have these laws, but then qualify that by saying humanity has naturally deemed they must exist. That does not make any sense.

3 - Individual morals should always be justifiable, if only to oneself. They are empty, otherwise. The point of individual morals is to justify ones beliefs to oneself, because one sees them as true and honourable. Even if said belief is entirely personal, it should always have some justification to the person holding it.

 

[10293847]

1 - Although you may not have chosen to exist, it is your responsibility, given that "privilege", to make sure you use it wisely and in a way that causes minimum harm. Even if you disagree with that particular dynamic, the blunt fact that you exist does not excuse you from any responsibility just because you never chose to.

2 - How can you say it is not natural to have these laws, but then qualify that by saying humanity has naturally deemed they must exist. That does not make any sense.

3 - Individual morals should always be justifiable, if only to oneself. They are empty, otherwise. The point of individual morals is to justify ones beliefs to oneself, because one sees them as true and honourable. Even if said belief is entirely personal, it should always have some justification to the person holding it.

1) First off, it's a privilege why? Just because you are scared of the unknown doesn't mean that this applies to everyone. Who is to say that non-existing (or whatever, if anything, happens after we die) isn't as appealing? Pretty hard to say since not existing here and existing again has yet to be seen, and so you are assuming. In other words, stop placing your precious life ahead of things unknown. And now, you will inevitably ask, so then why don't you kill yourself? Because I am not placing this life above the unknown, unlike you, who has placed this existence above everything. And about your second part, I am not excluding myself from anything, I was only answering my physical presence here.

2) It's not natural in the sense that we were not born with the idea that one shouldn't kill or harm eachother. In fact, if you look at nature, you see bloodshed everywhere. We have been killing eachother forever. The government is us governing ourselves, it has nothing to do with nature. We pollute the earth, and we harm the earth, so we are obvoiusly not living by the rules of nature, so we are seperate from nature when making these laws about what is and what isn't justified, thus, we are creating our own rules, seperate from nature.

3) I said the same thing, so I don't if you were echoing my sentiments or what. But I think it's important here to seperate one's own morals and those placed as a whole. To go back to the original topic, eating meat is not illegal (breaking morals we have placed on ourselves), but it's seen as wrong (breaking one's individual morals). In this case, since all have not deemed eating meat wrong, one shouldn't put one down if they choose to eat meat.

 

[derek]

I'm pretty drunk this evening, so expect a rather lengthy reply tomorrow.

Until then, take care!

 

[Seditious]

To contrast this I ask, does your average lazy fatass ignorant american deserve to eat to sustain his existence?

naa you can go kill all the Americans for all I care, but don't bitch about cows existing if you're gunna act like people don't deserve to exist.

 

[Demilich]

For all we know, this entire existence, down to the very fact that we are aware of no other for ourselves preceding or following it, could be an elaborate punishment for an entirely other existence. The bottom line as I see it is that we don't know. No matter your faith, your experience in life, you cannot convince me that I am ignorant of the "privilege" of life. I enjoy my time here and am genuinely fascinated by nature and all that it contains. This is merely a choice I make, and while it is tempting to lash out at those who choose differently, I have the sense to realize that this is not my place.

So, why are we are expected to consider ourselves negligent or ignorant of a "responsibility" if we choose to have a difference of opinion, derek?

 

[OldScratch]

I can surely say I cannot see the day I will ever experience so much as a flicker of guilt while indulging in the feast of flesh...but just the same, in more recent years I have thought much more about the mass-production of meat and the like, and how that is terribly unnatural and has also made us even more lazy and soft - besides stripping man of the age-old satisfaction of the kill and then the repast!
I don't really(cannot - due to a bumb leg) hunt that much anymore, but this is an experience fewer and fewer can relate to today - meat is a consumer good, not the bounty of nature for sustenance. This is progress they tell me:Smug:

 

[Norsemaiden]

Regarding the idea of the privilege of existing and that one should "justify" one's existence in some way. This way of thinking greatly appeals to me. I enjoy wildlife documentaries and reading about evolution - Richard Dawkins' books anyway. And what you can see from this is that the only reason you are here is because millions of ancestors - past cavemen times - far back through many different species that you personally came from - all struggled and made sacrifices reproducing and caring for their offspring. Have you seen the effort that wild animals generally put into protecting and feeding their infants? Can you imagine the struggle that your ancestors went through in the ice ages to ensure that their kids survived and were healthy? They didn't even have the conveniences we have today like washing machines and decent nappies.

Millions of years of struggle went by so that you could be born. It is a bit like a relay race and now the baton has been entrusted to you. During that time, the vast majority of offspring and of species did NOT survive, they died or went extinct. You are at the end of a long line of Nature's winners
so the question is - will you be worthy or not?

 

[judas69]

New Direction ..

Why should I act morally, treat others with respect, not lie, cheat, steal to get ahead, especially when the majority of actors in society would not hesitate for a single moment in pushing me to the curb if it meant advancing their own condition? Am I the fool here or what, especially to even to consider the morality of a situation or the moral justification of my own existence in the first place?

What's amazing to me is how otherwise good, God-fearing religious folk for example, can quickly either (1) knowing throw their treasured beliefs out the window or (2) work towards some obscure way of reconciling these beliefs when it comes to justifying a natural desire that just happens to be in conflict with core teachings in their belief system.

Gambling is a good example, it's forbidden in Christianity as I recall, but it quickly becomes a non-issue because it's acceptable on the level of society, or very simply, it's something they "really want to do" as if that were enough to justify doing it ..however, if you should confront the believer with a reminder, they become angry as if you in the process of bringing this up, were somehow responsible for their wrong doing and subsequent guilt. I guess no one likes a goodie goodie.

With all this hipocrisy, is there anymore room for morality? Perhaps all this spin, on some level, is done to create a society of fools like sheep to shear for the cunning elites. In otherwords, is trust, honesty in a person just a mark of their ignorance, that is of course, if they're not using it as a tool for advancement? Is it not sort of like carrying a gun around with rubber bullets, all the while knowing, everyone else is most likely using real ammo?

 

[Seditious]

Why should I act morally, treat others with respect, not lie, cheat, steal to get ahead,

I'm a moral nihilist, so I'm gunna take a backseat here and watch the thread progress for now.

is there anymore room for morality?

not as we know it.

 

[judas69]

I think it's an important question .. I'm actually pretty curious how people will reply.

Again, it's interesting that when it comes to hunger, morality goes out the window .. when it comes to desire, morality goes out the window .. when it comes to actually having to stand up for what one believes, to not do so ..is easily justified in relation to the level of difficulty one might experience in standing by those beliefs, as if moral belief were not all that serious a consideration in the first place or nature, somehow above it. I mean, what's the point of holding on to a belief in this respect if you don't believe enough in it to stick with it, or to back down when the flames get a little high? Maybe it's only for show, and more of what you expect of others?

And what does this say about humankind in the present day? If you entrust someone with a secret, will they break when they find the least bit of resistence? And what about the value of someones word, and a handshake, especially in the business sense? Does morality even belong in the business world?

More generally, in a world of hipocrisy, how does one justify being moral in the first place, in a world of immorality, and not just be a dummkopf?