this is actually a little something my friend sent....but it made me think and maybe it will do the same for you. oh yeah his name is joe.
moral - of or pertaining to character or disposition; considered as good or bad,
virtuous or vicious; of or pertaining to wrong or good and evil.
1
if morality is honesty and goodness, and this initial morality is based upon
untruths, assumed correctness, and fear of punishment, then this morality quickly
becomes recognized as hypocrisy. unquestioned assumptions, accepted
unconditionally result in a mentally neutral, ignorant person. they are not free;
they have no free will. they have been trained well, for in a 'moral' world, that is
to say hypocritical and in all reality immoral, one must be trained to be immoral to
succeed, and thus be called 'moral.' confused yet? wait there is more.
2
hereis what the academic american encyclopedia has to say about morality.
'the transformation from a solely biological organism to a socially resonsible
individual is the hallmark of the development of personality and is a shared
development necessary for viable human society. the study of moral awareness
belonged exclusively to philosophy until about 1920. in the following four
decades morals, conscience, and values became a concern also of the
behavioral sciences, with little or no synthesis.' this suggests that actions of
'goodness' do not always originate from inner-morality, instead, they they originate
from no less than pavlov.
3
churches and institutions have tried in vain to instill morals in men, beginning
when the man is but a child. mankind seems to have forgotten the reasons
they tried to mold children into what i will refer to as a moral man. initially, i think,
man was on the right track, but was led astry by unforseen difficulties.
these establishments attempt to moralize a human, calling him a free willed
creature (that every action is traceable and intentional) to gain the right to punish.
it is human nature to control and have social classes. control is a major factor
in the corruption of mankind, and society, leading us to commit immoral acts,
including punishment, and causing us to continue the power struggle from day to
day, subconciously in everyday relationships, as well as on a national scale.
4
christchurch school, for example, does not seem to acknowledge the fact that
not every student has willingly accepted all of the rules. teachers claim that
each student has 'agreed' to comply with the rules, without any consideration for
the circumstances. they do this in order to ensure their superiority over the
students. by claiming this, they have the unchecked, unrestrained right to punish
violators of the rules. they have students right where they want them, under
control and silenced. if some of us student had resisted signing the honor book, we
would, no doubt, have been forced to. this immoral agreement undermines all of the
rules and regulations to which we are expected to abide.
5
also, we are expected to sing hymns in chapel each morning. if perchance,
a student is not relligious, or is not christian, he must suffer through the service,
after which a faculty member may stand up and tell everyone to sing the hymns,
whether they like it or not. by definition, this is sacriligious. we are expected to
lie to others and ourselves and betray any god we believe in, other than the
christian god. and even the christian god would frown upon a sacriligious
worship service. surely, authority must blindly consider this to be moralization, or else
they would not be doing it. 'it is for our own good,' they say. in this way,
moralization is immoral.
6
william s. burroughs poses a question in his recorded reading: 'is control
controlled by its need to control?' he then goes on to answer the question
himself, with a simple yet firm, 'yes.' control needs control in order to
insure the right to punish. without punishment, laws will not be enforced,
and criminals will not be corrected. this correction is wrong, it may be
necessary, but for all intents and purposes, it is wrong. this 'correction'
can be likened to the taming of a dog. a dog on a leash, pulling to escape,
choking himself in the process, is by no means a corrected dog. correction
is self taught, self realized, and timed according to the individual.
7
in today's society, children are robbed of their innate freedoms ay an eary age,
so that their impressionable minds can be easily pushed and molded like clay
by adults who have learned things the hard way. their mistake lies in the one
false fact upon which their entire philosophy is based. there is no easy
way. adults, through love, simplicity, and a self defense mechanism called
prejudice, attempt to shelter their children in hopes that they will not have to go
through the hell that has been created on earth. conversely, and morally, to
learn anything base like morality one must remember one phrase: from the
darkness came light. in this way, moralization is ommoral.
8
punishment is a tool used by authority in an attempt to teah morality to one who
has commited an evil act. punishment, as we know it, in and of itself is wrong.
first, this question must be asked: is authority so superior, so morally sound,
that they have the right to punish? and second, this question must be asked:
does punishment actually teach morality or does it simply prove pavlov correct?
you ring the bell, and i will drool.
9
deeper still, we must ask if each act is intentional and thought out. is it traceable
to an evil, such as hate, that lies deeply supressed under the many layers of
pavlovian responses? punishing a wrongdoer does not rid him of the hate. taming
and punishment have the same characteristics. we, as humans, are tamed by
punishment, held down by threat, making fear our only god. fear is our only god.
certainly you would laugh if someone told you they had trained a gorilla to be
like a human. surely you would say,' that gorilla is no human! he only responds morally
because you have trained him to do so!' so what then, is the difference between
training a human and training a gorilla, that makes humans moral and gorillas simply
trained? brian gyson once stated, 'man is a bad animal.' the reason man is a bad animal,
in my interpretation, is because man continues to insist that he is good. like animals,
we rise to our conclusions by physical struggles. armies of men are used like eagle talons;
central governments resemble the brain of a tiger, trying desperately to win the fight,
while protecting its claws, as well as its haunches. call it upscale animalism, or
downscale populism, either way man is a bad animal.
10
in light of all of this, who are we really fooling?
this is still a paper in progress so if you have any thoughts or suggestions please send
them. or if you would just like to say how wrong or right you may think joe is...do that also.
thanks,
tori