Destruction of Morality/ Recreation of Ego

Discussion in 'Philosophy' started by MorningTrip, Jun 9, 2006.

  1. Morality is a vile, incestuous, auto-masticating serpet. Nearly every universal religion has taught us to follow a strict set of morals. That's basically exactly what a religion is; a set of morals, ergo: a safety net vilified by an installment of fears. If you fail to follow the morals, you're reward, or lack of reward is eternal separation from divinity. Morality can be thought of as a synonymous term for power. With morals, mass populations can be decieved and organized into a masquerade of a (falsely) established "good" society. Why are morals wrong if they keep criminals in check, and followers in an equal and opposite check? Simply because morals provoke disassociation of our ego. If morals prevent any one person from experiencing total freedom with regards to others, then why bother living if one cannot control their own thoughts? If you give in to the power of fear, you let others destory your freedom to exist in any form you decide for yourself.

    Morality is sinful to the fundamentals of the human experience.
  2. Since when do you decide what form you exist in? Any "reality" fabricated by the ego is an illusion created by of a deep-seated fear of lacking control. Selfless behavior (moral behavior) is the only way to truely free yourself.
  3. you need to change your vocabulary if you want to be understood. morals are subjective rules by which one decides what is right and wrong.

    an enforced moral system is what you are referring to, such as a religious doctrine or political law. and most religions have some good ideas in them.
  4. is that a quote from the anton lavey book?
    is there a choice between morality and instinct?
    all i know is that its wrong to bogart a joint!
  5. I believe the opposite. Morals are good. While its hard to define good or bad, its easy to define better or worse.

    Morality is the key to living togethor in harmony, religion is not. Religon USED to be a way to teach morals. Now its true purpose is defunct, and it takes away from the goal.
  6. No, that is a complement of natural instinct.

    If you would have read my post, you would have seen that I was referring to those brought up by religious organization.
  7. if a moral code is put onto a social group, by force, at the time when they are establishing what the individual self identifies as; is it no longer thier own established thought? i would have call them(morals) a guide(fears) and a burdon. they stop one from coming to the conclusion of that particular "rule" has meaning behind it. a human's mind is just a clean slate. that person desides (after they come aware of thier own knowledge banks) what gets into thier circles of behaviors. if its already expected of them to live a certain way, they will never become aware of themselves beyond what they must do to follow the "order" layed in front of them.

    on the note of religion:if one fears something, they do everything in thier power to stop that event from happening. thus, if you fear you will be purged from a particular "nirvana" or "heaven" if you dont pray towards a god to reach it. that fear controls the person because they have been taught to do "this" to get "that."

    im going to have to second moring trip's statement, even though ive branched from the originally posted.
  8. that was fucking deep....and im not even high lol..

    i would reply longer but im tired as hell....
  9. ugh.

    i've often been accused of being increadably moral. i never set out to have morals, and have even slgged off such a concept, as with ethics too. to me it was simple logic. that it had a similar outcome to having "morals" was to me, irrelevant.

Share This Page