Being your own judge

As an atheist, I don't believe in a deity. I don't believe in a final judgement in the afterlife that will determine whether I'll suffer in inferno or live eternally in paradise. As such, my morality comes from my own ideals and thinking of whatever repercussions will happen due to my actions.

Personally, I make my own moral code as consistent as possible. What I hate the most is being branded as a hypocrite, not by others, but by myself. Before I subject myself to the judgment of others, I judge myself. I am my own police, my own judge, my own jury, and my own executioner. Who else can better bear witness to your actions other than yourself?

But even this kind of morality is hard to apply. I criticize myself rather harshly, berating myself for being inconsistent, hating hypocrisy.

For those who subscribe to religion, all they have to do to be forgiven is pray to their deity and poof! The sin goes away just like magic. Wash, rinse, and repeat. No need to be held accountable. You'll be rewarded in heaven as long as you repent, may it be on your deathbed or on the gallows.

There is always room for hypocrisy. Get yourself in a moral predicament? No worries! Just find a passage in the scripture that's contradictory to what you used to believe and stick with that. Anti-gay? The Bible has passages that can be interpreted to be against homosexuality. Pro-gay? Pick passages about indiscriminate love for all. Anti-abortion? Sanctity of life! Pro-abortion? Numbers 5:27.

For someone like me who doesn't believe in this codified hypocrisy, I seek out my own mentally codified set of rules, constantly amending any errors and inconsistencies. Any guilt I feel will be embedded deep into my mind, unwashed and unforgiven. I'm a cripple refusing to lean on the crutch of scripture.

I am incapable of fully forgiving myself. I am a flawed human being and I don't need a deity to tell me that.

Suicide

Like murder, suicide is also taboo. The traditional Catholic way of thinking condemns those who have committed suicide, saying that it will automatically send them to hell without any chance of salvation. However, more recent Catholic ways of thinking state that one shouldn't condemn suicide victims but should be prayed for. Indeed, that is a better thing to do than flat-out damnation but still, I'm not really a fan of prayer.

Most people commit suicide due to mental instability and thus, have lost control of their rational minds. Others who do it with a rational mind, however, have stronger feelings than just being unwanted and unloved. Take for instance the Japanese soldiers who commit the honorable seppuku or the atrocious kamikaze. Muslim terrorists also commit suicide with bombs and take the lives of others with them in the name of their god. That being said, people usually think "Is there really no way for an act of suicide to be moral and just?" In fact, there are.

Picture this scenario: Two hikers were walking on a rope bridge when the bridge suddenly snapped. Hiker A was luckily able to hang on to Hiker B's leg but the latter was not strong enough to pull them both up and both of them will eventually fall. Hiker A decided to let go because he thought that it would be better if at least one of them had lived.

Suicide that leads to a better good is just. Anything that leads to a greater good is always just. The end doesn't always justifty the means, but in cases like heroic suicide, it does.

"Thou shalt not kill" is bullshit

Murder has always been a taboo subject since it is the act of taking the life of another human being. Truly, it is a bad thing, but there are times when the act of murder is the most moral thing to do in certain situations. Humans have realized this and act accordingly but the moral stencil brought by the god of Moses known as the Ten Commandments (ironically) prevents us from making these moral decisions based on our own judgment.

Euthanasia is justifiable. Comfort is always preferrable to pain and for extreme pain and suffering, one will need extreme comfort, even if it means death. The only real decision to make is whether the sufferer is past his/her suffering threshold that euthanasia would be the only escape. Take Terri Schiavo for example. In that situation, the only two choices are more suffering for her and her loved ones... or euthanasia.

Revenge is a bit tricky but it still can be justifiable. Some revenge murderers have been set free while others were punished. It all depends on the gravity of the situation. In revenge, the murderer actually prevents further atrocities by killing the perpetrator.

Survival is justifiable. Self-defense is the most common example of this. But there are also life-or-death choices when limited resources are at stake; the death of some will ensure the survival of the rest and inversely, choosing for everyone to live will make everyone suffer or (ironically) die.

Laws are the foundation of society but there will be situations where one should decide for himself. With a critical and compassionate mind, humans can make the right decision when faced with this predicament.

Why a Massacre is Needed

Children in some countries in Africa are growing malnourished with some even starving to death. Some of the more powerful nations reach out to the impoverished and provide them with their necessities which will only satiate them for a small amount of time. Once their supplies run out, those nations will have to provide for them again.

With the worldwide human population growing along with the scarcity of food, at this rate, everyone will starve to death, not only those in Africa, but the whole world. We will have to pick a post-apocalyptic ending for ourselves, the most likely one being "Soylent Green".

Killing these impoverished people off not only reduces the demand for food, but it will also ease their suffering. So-called "moral" people will think that the act of killing is immoral but why is it immoral? Must we wait for everyone to starve before we take action? Isn't killing off suffering people an act of mercy rather than barbarism?

Talk about morals

Some theists point out how atheists don't have an objective basis of morals. Well, I think that is true. Indeed, atheists mostly have subjective morals instead of a single organized checklist of dos and don'ts. The reason is pretty obvious: atheists don't have a single "atheist leader" who dictates what they're supposed to do, basically because Atheism isn't a religion to begin with.

So what if Atheists don't have objective morals? Would that make them any less moral? Depends on what "moral" is. Trying to define what "moral" is already causing problems.

Is killing another human being downright immoral? Some would definitely say yes to that. How about killing as a result of self-defense? How about killing in the name of religion? Sacrifice? Righteous punishment? From just this, controversy already creates wildfire. All is subjective. It is only objective when talking to someone in the same religion but sometimes, it isn't even the case, hence the formation of divisions and sects.

More likely than anything else, the people who established the religions have made the moral guidelines from their own decisions. Faithfuls would argue that the rules were given to their leader by their gods, but I wouldn't delve deeper into that issue.

Where do atheists get their morals? From thinking, just like the founders of religions. Theists would probably be appalled by the idea but it's just the way humans are. Humans have minds and consciousnesses so they can think and be aware of the universe.

What is moral? What is not? You can ask. You can seek answers from yourself. It's all up to you.

Analysis: A Christmas Carol

In the story "A Christmas Carol" by Charles Dickens, the main character Ebenezer Scrooge had been shown three different scenarios of the past, present, and yet to come. Each scenario was shown with the hope of making Scrooge change from his selfish ways, with the last scenario finally succeeding.

The last scene seemed rather off though. Scrooge only yielded to the possible future that he might be buried in an unattended grave. He then changed after that into a generous person.

Why is this though? From my point of view, he changed only to save his own skin and prevent the possible view from happening. In the end, his acts of selflessness can have a reason other than just "wanting to change". In a way, this is a form of "selfish selflessness" and not "absolute selflessness" at all. In the end, one really can't say that Scrooge has fully converted since he converted only out of convenience rather than realizing any wrong in his actions by himself.

This makes the story a weak basis of morals. Rooting good deeds out of threats is negative reinforcement.

Then again, things like these are unavoidable.

Prayer is Evil

The term "evil" has been redefined over ages past. The very first definition of "evil" we encounter is an action or some sentient entity which inflicts harm on another entity (regardless of sentience) or basically something downright immoral. The concept of morality itself is pretty vague because of the issue of subjectivity, hence "evil" is redefined.

The evil of lying and murder can be justified by the reason they are committed, as the concepts of "white lies" and "eye for an eye" stand. Committing such atrocities for no reason other than promoting the life of others is then considered evil. Hence, evil is defined as an act that benefits the minority while oppressing the majority.

By the definition of Christians themselves, selfishness is evil. *

The act of prayer is rather questionable. It is the act of wishful thinking and meditation. A person would usually pray for others to create a good image for himself, showing others that he is doing something when he is actually doing virtually nothing at all. Instead of acting on the problem as directly as possible, the person merely sits down, puts his hands together, and thinks a lot while muttering, giving himself the impression that he is "helping".

What does one get from prayer? A hollow sense of self-satisfaction. What do others get? Nothing. They don't even receive any telepathic consolations or whatsoever. Moreover, these people suffer while the praying people already feel satisfied. This is better defined by the words "hypocrisy" and "slacktivism". What can we conclude from all this? Read the title.

* Disclaimer: I don't subscribe to this belief. I subscribe to this one.

Self-fulfilling Instinct

By instinct, humans have acted upon selfishness. Man lives to feed himself, satisfy himself, fulfill himself, pleasure himself. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. Every action made would still lead to the fulfillment of oneself.

A person prays to his god for the the betterment of his family, blessings for his children, peace for his world. Even if he wishes for the welfare for people completely unrelated to him, it will still give him a sense of fulfillment and self-satisfaction. There is no denying that.

But selfishness where the only beneficiary is the self is considered evil by human morals. Not wanting to share, ignoring beggars, greed, lust, gluttony... Why? Selfishness just took on a different form.

There is no such thing as absolute selflessness. You desire to do something for others. Selfless selfishness? Selfish selflessness? Humans are built with the instinct to pursue his own happiness. It just so happens that for some people, happiness comes from helping others.

Declaring people that pursue their own happiness without affecting others evil... That concept just tips the scales. The majority had instilled into themselves the idea that nobody has the right to become selfish.

Humans live for themselves. Humans are individuals. Humans are not born to follow a general consensus - they're born to pursue happiness, regardless of whether their pursuit adheres to the consensus or not.

Selfishness isn't evil. It's just human instinct.

Human Nature versus Human Morals

In my two previous rants about the "Duality of Nature" and the story of the rampaging bus conductor, I made another interesting conclusion. I summed up another duality: Human Nature versus Human Morals. Both are attributes of human beings but very much different.

In my philosophy, I have slightly erased the concept of Good and Evil (mainly because that concept is pretty vague and it differs per person). Right and Wrong is also pretty vague as well. But then, I conjured up a very primitive and fundamental concept: Instinct versus Emotion.

Human Nature comes from instinct and it pretty much explains what we do in our everyday life: eating, drinking, sleeping, etc. But it doesn't end just there. Our instinct is what makes us organisms - beings that live, that exist. Human Morals is what separates us from being just an organism. It is responsible for giving worth, value, and different meanings to things which don't originally have before we evolved. It is what arose from the realization of "self".

From human morals, humans have converted many things into those with sentimental value. Courtship and sex turned into romance and love. Territory became property. Competition became fighting for honor. It is human nature to try to explain phenomena through observation and experimentation but human morals try to explain things through spiritual means.
_

I've always heard from cheesy teen romance situations when a girl thinks a guy is but a pervert or a playboy, which is definitely the result when looking at it through morals. Looking at it through nature yields a different outcome. The guy in question ogles at big breasts because it is in his subconscious desire to ensure that his offspring is given high quality breast milk. Big hips = Proper womb for fetus. Thinking about sex = innate desire for procreation. Human morals simply distort this natural instinctual behavior into something "immoral".

An explanation to that would be that cliche saying that guys think more with instinct while girls think more with emotion. For some unexplained reason, guys have more of this "Human Nature" while girls have more "Human Morals". It would be too extreme to say that "guys are animals", though. It is true that guys think more with instinct the same way animals do, but as human beings, guys still have Morals. Girls just have a lot more.
_

As I stated in another previous rant, there is also a struggle between yet another duality: Peace and Existence. Obviously, Human Morals aim for peace and harmony and it is Human Instinct to live, thus it is attributed to Existence. If we eradicate one side, there would be a huge trade off but...


Emotions / Instinct = Humanity


Let's go back to the Book of Genesis. Adam and Eve were living a peaceful life in Eden until they ate the fruit of Knowledge of Good and Evil, which we can call... that's right: Human Morals. Say they never ate it. Lacking Human morals, they can continue to live their peaceful lives with just Human Instinct. There might be havoc due to some occurrences of "immoral behavior" but since Human Morals isn't integrated, they wouldn't know the difference between war and peace. There wouldn't be "war" but there wouldn't be "peace" either. With the equation above, the net Humanity will be zero.

Since we attributed Instinct with "organism" and "body" earlier, it can be inferred that the Moral is what comprises the "soul". According to the many beliefs of the afterlife, our bodies rot as our souls bask in God's presence or be sent to the state of Nirvana for the rest of eternity. Having discarded the body which contains the instinct (as it would be useless otherwise), we, as souls, are left with morals. But with no real "society" to apply the Morals on, they would be just useless widgets. With the equation above, the net Humanity will be infinite... But since Humanity can only amount to 100% since no one can be "too human", the net humanity is undefined.

This is yet again another paradox solvable by the cliche: Balance. When more Instinct is applied in the equation, humanity levels drop, sending us down near the level of animals. When more Emotions are applied, humanity levels rise, sending us near the level of divine beings. The scale can never end up as a vertical line; neither Human Nature nor Human Morals can be completely erased from the reality we know. It can always be horizontal: a "perfect" symmetry called a Human Being.