SUFFERING SUCKS!

greetings, geeks!

well, with no further ado, here it is: my first post. in this instance, the topic is morality; specifically, the "source" of morality, or rather, the basis for what we consider "absolute morality", as far as it's possible to have such a thing. indeed, i do agree that there is such a thing, but my theory is that, as moral issues and ideas become more complicated, individual morality becomes more relativistic, based on each individual's conception of "suffering", and which steps to take regarding the management of suffering. i originally posted this comment on ray comfort's blog, as a response to one of the more closed-minded christian apologists(sye tenb), who seems to be convinced that without a moral "lawgiver"(i assume he means ONLY the judeo-christian "god", "yahweh"), we would all be running wild in the streets, eating all the children, etc. etc. etc., ad nauseam(pun...intended.) :P

now, let me be clear: the purpose of this post was not to insult christians. my main motivation behind this post was to explain to christians(all religious people, in fact) that atheists are not inherently immoral people(it feels weird even having to say that, as if people didn't actually KNOW that already). i have seen so many different apologists use this argument, for many different reasons, usually either trying to convince people that we "need" religion/"god" to be "good", or simply trying to insult atheists. first of all, let me just tell you: when you use such an obviously specious argument, you insult no one but yourself(and incidentally, you demonstrate that even WITH religion, morals can still be sorely lacking, and there's no "no true scotsman" fallacy that can dodge that bullet). whether or not the following post convinces you of that, i hope you'll abandon your petty tactics.

so, on to the post. and one more quick disclaimer: i certainly do not speak for all atheists, and there will probably be some objections to my arguments, but i hope that the main point of my thesis is clear: that human morality is based on an understanding of suffering and a natural, evolved sense of empathy. also, i don't go into the "source" of morals, e.g. parental guidance and upbringing, since this article describes WHY we are moral at ALL. however, i would like to mention that it's an important part of human nature that babies are particularly susceptible to instruction, and are naturally inclined to trust everything they hear and see(at first). then, of course, they begin to enter the "why" phase(i'm sure every parent can relate to that). anyway, it's important, regardless of one's upbringing(especially a lack thereof), that one seriously analyze one's motivations, and contemplate the source of one's own morality, no matter what his/her beliefs(religious or otherwise).

-------------

sye:

i don't even know why i'm bothering to explain this to you, as you seem to be closed to all of the excellent explanations provided by other commenters, such as Jœl and Laura. it seems like you just accuse people of your own faults; for example, YOU are the one "begging the question" by inserting your conclusion into your premises. also, you [seem to] love to *try* to poke holes in evolution, morality, etc., but you don't provide any PROOF of your alternative viewpoint.

anyway, i'll try to make this short and sweet(but still, i don't want to leave any dark, dank, stinky corner for you to wriggle into). here's an absolute basis for a fundamental system of morality. SUFFERING SUCKS. yes, we've all experienced suffering, and we all know it sucks. there are, for example, many responses to pain stimuli, involving the instinctual need to avoid pain at any cost, that have (dare i say) evolved. the reasons for this are obvious(mainly, that the experience of pain is a signal that damage is being done to the organism, thereby threatening its survival). on a larger(societal) scale, these inherent "pain-fearing" traits are projected onto the "community" of a more advanced organism, whereby the organism "senses" that damage done to its fellow organisms represents a "bad" thing. yes, and here's where the word "bad" comes in. originally, and in the simplest terms, "bad" is anything that is detrimental to the survival of a species. of course, individual organisms don't actually go through any mental process of considering what is best for their species(it would be ridiculous to think that). rather, natural selection has favored those species whose members exhibit behavior which is beneficial, not only to themselves, but to their species as a whole.

when i say the organism "senses" its relationship to other members of its species, i am referring to the evolved trait of empathy, which is crucial for certain organisms, but not so crucial for others(for example, those which reproduce en-masse). that should answer your question as to why we don't just go around killing "willy-nilly", as other animals SEEM to do. still, there are organisms that DO produce en-masse, and yet still seem to have VERY stable "moral codes"(such as ants and other colony-type insects), whereby they cooperate VERY well with each other, and have very stable societies. basically, you don't seem to understand how "morality" works in favor of maintaining the health of a species. as for "absolute morality", it's insane to judge animals for killing for food, when if they didn't, they'd starve to death. you seem to think they just kill for the sheer pleasure of it. it seems to me that the only animals who ever kill for the sheer pleasure of it are humans. and yes, i believe, strictly speaking, that such people are maladapted to live in a healthy society.

unlike other animals, which apparently only have a sense of empathy that they seem not to understand, we humans, now that we have developed such advanced brains, CAN consciously think about what is best for our species as a whole(should we so choose), and our evolved sense of empathy(which trait obviously originally served the purpose of maintaining the health of a community of organisms) has extended itself to ANYTHING that we, as individuals, consider to be "suffering". this, of course, includes physical pain, but naturally, it also includes ANYTHING else that we, as individuals, have determined to be "suffering". individuals may not consciously realize it, but such feelings of empathy were obviously just traits that we inherited from our ancestors, which helped us(as a species) to survive. also, it just so happens that, now that we live in a technologically advanced society, we have the luxury to ponder such questions as morality. now, even though we ALL have a solid basis(the knowledge of suffering) for our individual opinions on morality, the application of this knowledge varies from person to person.

now, THIS is where the "relativism" that you fear SO much comes into play. yes, every individual has a different idea of what "suffering" is(and to different degrees than other individuals), and different opinions on how best to alleviate suffering(some, for instance, believe that inflicting suffering on those who cause suffering is "right", whereas others believe that inflicting suffering is ALWAYS "wrong"). there are even some people(psychopaths, sociopaths) who don't even CARE about the suffering of others. this says NOTHING about some theoretical "system of moral relativism", it only speaks to the malformation of the brains of these individuals. by what basis can i(and others) judge that these people's brains are, indeed, malformed? by the realization, as i explained before, that "suffering is bad". any person with a WORKING brain can easily determine that: "if suffering is bad for me, then it must be bad for others." by extension, there is an INBORN, EVOLVED mechanism which compels healthy individuals to shrink away from causing harm to fellow members of their species. in some individuals' cases, this empathy even extends to other animals that they deem to be "sentient"!

as you can see, on a more complex scale, more and more variations occur in individuals' personal moral structures, according to what they deem to be "suffering", and how best to alleviate it. however, in the brain of every NORMAL individual, there is an inborn knowledge that "pain hurts", and "suffering is bad". actually, i'm quite surprised that you don't seem to recognize that complex morals(by and large) ARE relative, and we(as a species) need to DEAL with that fact, instead of ignoring it, and resorting to an ancient(and contradictory) set of beliefs. i won't even get into what various religious texts say about slavery, misogyny, and about various deities committing genocide, and ordering it to be committed by their followers. i think that any moral person would consider these things "wrong", because they cause MUCH more suffering than they alleviate. it's as simple as that. you don't need to be "given" a set of morals to recognize when you see something that causes suffering. on a side note, i DO believe people should seriously contemplate such issues, since it's not all "cut-and-dried", as you seem to think.

as i said, i won't get into the condemnation of any specific religious belief system. what i WILL do is admit one thing. now that i have presented my case for a NATURAL origin of morality, and therefore the basis for a system of ethics(which, as i have admitted, can be difficult to formulate, based on different opinions regarding suffering), i will grant that you can insert any explanation you choose as to WHY this is the case. you can worship any deity you want, and imagine that s/he/it waved a magic wand and created these natural survival instincts in each organism. but i think that you should accept the fact that i have, indeed, presented a SOLID basis for a NATURAL set of morals, not contingent upon any "lawgiver", but contingent merely upon the knowledge that "suffering sucks". i think we can ALL agree on that point(assuming we have working brains), and therefore take steps to alleviate suffering in all its forms.

certainly, there are disagreements as to what FORMS suffering takes, and how best to alleviate it, but why can't we have an intelligent discussion about it? what's so wrong about establishing a SOLID code of morals on our OWN, using the brains that we have? unlike you, i truly do not believe that we HAVE established this "perfect system" yet. fine, if you insist on believing that it already exists, and that it was created by a lawgiver, then i won't quibble with you over minutiae. basically, i think we can all agree that there is SOME possible system of ethics which would be beneficial to the most amount of people, and harmful to the least amount of people(and by "people", i mean sentient people, who have the capacity to experience suffering, not a puddle of semen or a collection of cells in a petri dish). i say this system doesn't exist yet, and we should formulate it. if you say "it already exists", then we can just change the language, and say let's "discover" it! because obviously nobody has "enlightened" us to this "perfect" system yet, so i'm sure you wouldn't object to trying to know the mind of this creator you believe in.

now, speaking of creators: despite the fact that i don't believe in a sentient, intelligent, anthropomorphic creator of the universe, i would still agree that, IF such a being existed, and if such a being were omnibenevolent, and it wanted us to be omnibenevolent too, then we should indeed strive to be omnibenevolent! but let me also ask you this: IF such a being did NOT exist, wouldn't we still have VERY GOOD REASONS to try to be omnibenevolent anyway??????? that is absolutely the MOST shockingly ignorant part of your comments that i've seen. namely, your speculation that if such a being doesn't exist, then we would have NO reason to be good??? it's...ridiculous! outrageous! laughable! as for people with WORKING brains, i think it's obvious why we should try to be good(um, maybe for all the reasons that i've given here regarding suffering sucking?). but even for "average evil joes", there's still a reason to at least TRY not to be bad! uh...can you say "criminal justice system"? by the way, i think it's a lot easier to convince people of the existence of a terrestrial criminal justice system than a celestial one. just FYI.

regardless of the existence of an established system of justice, once again, as any rational mind can discover, those who inflict suffering will MOST LIKELY eventually experience suffering BECAUSE of the suffering that they have inflicted. obviously, this is not always the case, and there is no "natural" system of balance whereby each and every perpetrator gets punished for each and every crime. some people would like to think that this happens in "the next life"(and of course, the types of things that are considered "crimes" vary wildly and often have little to do with ACTUAL human suffering), but this is extremely lazy thinking, and it prevents people from dealing with REAL suffering in THIS life. in fact, that is WHY justice systems have been created: out of the realization that suffering sucks, and is harmful to societies; therefore, systems must be established IN THIS LIFE whereby the inflicting of suffering IN THIS LIFE is discouraged. of course, we are FAR from establishing a perfect justice system, and we won't get anywhere until we start seriously thinking about the REAL foundations of moral principles, and stop shirking responsibility by attributing moral foundations to some creator, basically saying "it's out of my hands, it's already been decided for me".

anyway, i've already gone on far too long. besides, judging by your previous posts, i have the sinking feeling that all of this is going to go in one ear and out the other. i just hope that someday, you can learn to have a civilized, rational dialogue about morals and ethics, and try to consciously use your OWN brain to formulate a system for yourself, whereby the greatest number of people benefit, and the least number of people suffer. does there really need to be an "answer" deeper than this? because suffering sucks, and preventing suffering is the right thing to do!!!!!!!!!!!!!

peace,
-b

Geeky Energy

HigH 8-|

HigH!!!!!!!!!!!!! 8-|

the blog

welcome to geeky energy! i've created this blog to share some of my geeky ideas with my friends around the world, and i also hope to pique the interest of curious(maybe even geeky!) people who happen to stumble across this blog. in this introductory post, i hope to clarify the purpose of this blog, as well as to give you an idea of what type of geeky geekiness to expect from this geeky blog. geeky geeks with geeky energy unite! (flex)8-|

what is geeky?

in my discussions with people around the world, i have, quite understandably, encountered some confusion as to the meaning of "geeky". to be completely honest, i think i might even encounter some resistance from my fellow english speakers on the definition, since(as you will see later) i have expanded it to suit my own purposes. basically, the main two dictionary definition of "geek"(on dictionary.com) is as follows:

1.	a peculiar or otherwise dislikable person, esp. one who is perceived to be overly intellectual.

2.	a computer expert or enthusiast (a term of pride as self-reference, but often considered offensive when used by outsiders.)

it seems to me that some people think of the word "geeky" as specifically pertaining to computer geeks, but as you can see, the main definition is more broadly encompassing. i think it describes me pretty well, as i am certainly "peculiar", and considered by some to be extremely "intellectual", perhaps even "overly" so. here is the main definition from thefreedictionary.com:

1. a. A person regarded as foolish, inept, or clumsy.

b. A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept.

i can't say that i'm accomplished in any scientific or technical pursuits, but i am definitely socially inept in many cases, and have been for most of my life. of course, i'm not as inept as i used to be, because i've learned to subdue my geeky energy sometimes, as the situation requires. still, i'm constantly faced with a need to find outlets for my geeky energy; so, perhaps this blog will help me a little in that respect.

geeky etymology

now, let's talk a little about the origin of the word. if you visited either of those dictionary sites, you might have noticed that i omitted the final definition in each case, as it wasn't germane to my analysis at that time. now, however, we'll discuss the etymology of the word "geek". also, at the end of this introduction, under "taking back geeky", i'll reveal the final definition.

Origin:
1915- 20; prob. var. of geck (mainly Scots) fool < class="ital-inline">gek

[Perhaps alteration of dialectal geck, fool, from Low German gek, from Middle Low German.]

Our Living Language : Our word geek is now chiefly associated with contemporary student and computer slang, as in computer geek. In fact, geek is first attested in 1876 with the meaning "fool," and it later also came to mean "a performer engaging in bizarre acts like biting the head off a live chicken." Perhaps the use of geek to describe a circus sideshow has contributed to its current popularity. The circus was a much more significant source of entertainment in the United States in the 19th and early 20th centuries than it is now, and large numbers of traveling circuses left a cultural legacy in various unexpected ways. Superman and other comic book superheroes owe much of their look to circus acrobats, who were similarly costumed in capes and tights. We also owe the word ballyhoo to the circus; its ultimate origin is unknown, but in the late 1800s it referred to a flamboyant free musical performance conducted outside a circus with the goal of luring customers to buy tickets to the shows inside. Other words and expressions with circus origins include bandwagon (coined by P.T. Barnum in 1855) and Siamese twin.

it's very interesting to consider the word "geeky", in all its grudgingly appreciative and derogatory connotations. it's pretty much an asteism(backhanded compliment); almost like saying "wow, you're pretty smart, but really weird!" well, welcome to my world. 8-|

my geeky interests

i think you'll find that my geeky interests range far and wide, and comprise a variety of different topics. for starters, i love music(history, theory and practice), philosophy(including, but definitely not limited to theology, and especially logic and ethics), science and technology, literature, linguistics, etymology, history, world culture, and SOME aspects of law, politics and economics. pop culture sometimes vaguely amuses me, but rarely does it ever actually capture my active interest, unless, for example, i see or hear some funny story about a man going insane fuh cheezboiguhs. at the moment, those subjects are the only ones that come to mind, but i'm sure i'll find that there's some other subject or range of subjects that i've forgotten to mention, yet would be completely geekily enthralled by.

my geeky style

since i mentioned above that i'm not accomplished in any scientific or technical disciplines, you may be wondering why i don't hesitate to call myself "geeky". well, as i'm sure you've noticed by now, i have a peculiar style of imparting my geeky ideas. i like to use long, geeky sentences which contain as much geeky information as possible, including many subordinate clauses and parenthetical remarks which serve to elucidate my intent, exclude possible unintended corollaries which might be inferred from my chosen constructions, and eliminate any fallacious conclusions or mistaken assumptions regarding my line of reasoning. the extent of my success in these pursuits is left to the reader to evaluate, and i am open to any criticisms, geeky or otherwise, about the content of my writing. however, thinking back on an excruciating conversation i had recently on skype, i should mention that, while criticisms of the underlying content of my words are more than welcome, i should warn you that anyone's attempts to actually change my personal style(e.g. personal choice of words) are likely to be summarily rebuffed, unless you present irrefutable, concrete reasons why such a change would be warranted(i'll give you a hint: accommodating anyone else's personal preference is not a compelling reason for me to change my style). i think i might eventually dedicate a whole blog entry to this someday, as the subject of personal style can be very interesting(e.g. when to curtail one's own natural impulses to conform to certain social situations, or to better facilitate an exchange of ideas, and indeed, when conformity is appropriate at all).

why i made the blog

i should mention that i never thought i would make a blog, mainly because i'm sure i won't bother to update it very much. however, i've recently finished making a comment on another blog regarding my speculations about the natural origins of morality, and when i showed it to my friends, they encouraged me to put it on my own blog. i should also inform you that lately, i have been doing a lot of geeky research into theology, especially as pertains to my own belief system, so that i can more clearly and honestly define it to myself and others(should they ask). i think i'll work on a post about that sometime in the near future, and "lay my cards on the table", as it were. anyway, now that i've actually gotten a solid start on this introduction, i've realized that this will be a great medium through which to freely express my geekiness!

taking back geeky

above, you'll notice that i mentioned the "asteistic" aspect of the word "geeky". well, i think that one of my intentions in using the word as i do is to remove the stigma attached to geekiness. i proudly proclaim my geekiness to the world, and with that in mind, here's the final definition:

tr.v. geeked, geek·ing, geeks
To excite emotionally: I'm geeked about that new video game.

basically, i'm hella geeked to get this geeky blog underway, and i hope i can enlist a throng of geeky followers who also appreciate the geeky things i'm geeked about. i hope you fully understand what i mean when i say "geeky" now, and realize that when i refer to "geeky energy", i'm referring to the unbridled enthusiasm for the passionate, fearless pursuit of knowledge, in all its forms. so, with no further ado, here begins my geeky energy blog! i hope to instill it with more and more geeky energy and fill it with more and more geeky ideas as time geekily marches on into the geeky future! stay geeky!

peace,
-b