Sociopath Community

LOL. JUST FUCKING LOL.

In a sense you are equating your personal moral code with your idea of self-interest.

Where I think you fall in your logic is that you fail to find a situation within your logic where someone is not following a certain type of moral code. There is no situation where someone is motivated (which is by your definition inherently tied to their own moral code) to act in their own self-interest without adhering to the same rules of motivation as someone who follows a moral code.

Going back to your definition of what morality is, someone will always choose what is most "right" from that person's standpoint. By tying moral code to motivation you create a chicken and the egg situation where no mater what that person dose he is motivated by the intangibles of that moral code.

Since I've been on this forum I've both seen as well as even received heavy criticism over having a decently structured, moral code. I mean coming from a forum named Sociopath Community, it really comes as no surprise to see skepticism like this on such a large(almost universal)scale. Morality is often seen as not bringing anything to the table in terms of gains and is even seen as limiting at times. The goal of this thread is to illuminate and discuss those hidden benefits, not compare or place it above a open/non moral perspective.

First off, I'll list the denotative meaning of morality for a clear reference.

• Morality: the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper: In other words, it is the disjunction between right and wrong

Decisions, intentions and actions, the big 3. We all have our own motivations for the things we do every day a lot of which are temptations. Indulging in temptations in itself isn't any issue, as long as one can side step the risks that come with it. Once people grasp that concept, they tend to turn a blind eye to morality because of a central misunderstanding that morality is limiting and yielding nothing, serving only as a societal norm or a "play it safe" approach to life(depending on the structure of the moral code). When we take a step back and take a very general, abstract view of decisions and actions we can understand the the two are heavily tied to motivation(they wouldn't exist without it). When you adopt a moral code, neglecting specific temptations and desires,the motivation does not just cease to exist. It's instead funneled, irrigated into the pursuit and desire for other interests. When aimed correctly, a moral code can be a device which serves to propel an individual in a certain direction/interest. You can go a million different ways with this motivation and history has shown countless examples of men accomplishing both incredibly great and horrific acts while adopting a system of self restraint, sometimes in a universal fashion. Religion is thee primary example of how limiting one's self can bring unparalleled motivation to other causes which normally wouldn't have seen such attention. Everything from killing to dying can be and has been severely encouraged by various methods of self restraint. In the most blatant sense when you adopt a moral code, you are limiting behaviors while encouraging others.

The use of this device can lead to infinite potential. Taking the time to structure my own script of self restraint, choosing behaviors that weren't worth the risk or offered a less than appealing reward, all the while pointing this surplus of motivation towards self rewarding, beneficial acts I pursue them with an assuring confidence and even an overwhelming sense of entitlement(a downfall in itself). Either way, this mental/abstract construct has shaped my life and pushed me to places I never could've gone without it. I simply lacked motivation in those areas needed to be successful.  For someone to look at this construct, to see nothing there and proclaim it's useless beyond limiting behaviors is wrong in my eyes. It isn't for everyone, if you feel you have the enough motivation already to pursue your interests unimpeded then so be it. The purpose of this wasn't to prove to having morality is good as opposed to not having any, it's simply to shed light on the benefits that so many overlook.

I enjoyed reading that, and I believe you're correct.

Morality, like many things, works best for forming a reputation around it. Beyond that I see it as crippling towards one's self esteem and freedoms.

That being said, I have a semblance of one, and as I shed more and more aspects of it from myself I've been finding more comfort in my life. If not for the "The goal of this thread is to illuminate and discuss those hidden benefits" portion I'd have much more to say from seeing them more as hindrances than benefits beyond surface level reputation.

Neglecting your own needs makes for repression and a desire for a release that can build into much larger problems. It's better to find safe outlets than put yourself through pointless torment. You mention the whole "funneled" thing, but that's nothing more than a bandage.

Agreed. 

On a balanced scale between immorality and morality, if it slightly leaned to the immoral side, the environment itself gradually becomes more primal, and onward to a point where only the strong survive and even they need to evade other predators who are in the same situation. 

Morality is the consideration of one's own and even neighbours environments, which is heavily reliant on the maintenance of the stable and prosperous reality, that permits the whole to selectively explore parts of their own illusion, and better take advantage of the opportunity to make dreams happen.

The wicked often scoff at the idea of morality, and consider it to be limiting. The idea is, so long as they can get away with it, shattering barriers is good. The only barriers that exist of course are the only ones we acknowledge,  which are other people's barriers. The dog, rat, snake, pig or any animal that violates their own species space,  is an example of what could bring forth extinction. 

To lack guilt and shame is a handy cap, only if it goes without intelligence and the common sense not to be a cancer to all, which of course includes the self.

Your interpretation is flawed as usual and you're suggesting morality means weakness. Turncoat, not saying this out of spite but in this world, you are the weak.

No one said immorality doesn't exist, but rather immorality is a cause of undoing, and on many levels. 

The ones who say what we can and cannot do, merely say what we can or cannot do. The choice is still free so all that exists are suggestions, even if the commander is aggressively bossy. For instance, I assume you're a single bisexual, and I would tell you it's not good to stick your fingers in your anus, because it's foul, but that doesn't prevent you from doing it.

You can argue how those monks have no purpose for what they've done, while it dispels your view on how morality makes us soft, you ought to realize it's not something you're equipped to correctly access. You say they are unnatural with the stroke of your plastic keyboard. Those monks are all mind and body pushing themselves by natural means. They wouldn't seek out to harm you, but if the name of the game were to question one another, in the presence of their ripped and insanely healthy bodies. you'd end up with no answer if they asked you about your purpose and reasoning.

About that Wall E clip. You say you find that far from desirable. I'd argue what that depicts is an "outcome of immorality". Corporate greed, subliminal mind control, unhealthy FDA approved products that make people fat, ignorance, laziness.  The level how advanced they are is not to blame. There are only 2 forces, even if you break it down into many shades, there will be a center dividing the line between positive and negative.

You say the life of the warrior is far more rewarding, well it's fair to have your own opinion, though you're no warrior. You say how those who wish to live that life are suppressed from it. Now you're talking shit. You want to be a knight, join the police force or become a vigilante, or if you want to rob people or assault and loot and scavenge just like the good old days, then nothing is stopping you. Even goes on everyday, and you know it. In a world where the strong survive, there is an inevitability where sooner or later the champion's time is up.

[Turncoat]A lot of why almost no one is special anymore is sheer volume. The more people there are, the less significant each individual tends to be. As is, we don't need this many people.[/Turncoat]

To be honest, and I'm not attempting to look better for the sake of argument, but my answer to that goes beyond your comprehension which would only have you projecting confusion and ridicule, due to you being uninitiated.

For you, If you don't get to be a special snowflake, it's your fault, regardless of how many people there are. We're like fractals, similar, but infinitely different.

Long before our population reached this number, we've been dealing with the same issues. I live in a populated area, and the only complaint about congestion happens twice a day and fizzles out within the hour.

Overpopulation is a myth. and the population growth is slowing down, and eventually will start to reverse, just like it is in Japan. More people are single than are in relationships, less than half of children today are in traditional families. and of course, less people are having children. It's happening.

.

.

.

It's too long Turncoat. If you think the strong surviving is the better struggle, you're looking out for your own predators, cause in that case you'd already be dead. I'll tell you straight up how foolish you are.

I personally think we have it better than the fish, who has to eat smaller fish, before a bigger one takes him. We have more variety of associates, more knowledge, more of everything, including the traditional savage strong survive bullshit on the side. It's just more enriching.

"The wicked often scoff at the idea of morality, and consider it to be limiting."
Mmm, wicked~

It really depends on how far they aim to have their grasp reach. For those who prefer to keep to themselves, morality is a bit more trivial. A leader for instance could have a lack of morality hurt many others, but the typical everyman likely won't be hurting too many people with such a lacking.

"Morality is the consideration of one's own and even neighbours environments, which is heavily reliant on the maintenance of the stable and prosperous reality, that permits the whole to selectively explore parts of their own illusion, and better take advantage of the opportunity to make dreams happen."
What if one dreams of a different reality than that one? What if they'd prefer a more primal "The Strong Survive" sort of existence? Your notion of "prosperity" is based purely on your views of what that constitutes, not what it'd be for everyone. To others, such a life could be seen as making people soft, allowing the human race to stagnate as weaknesses are pushed into future generations. It's the denial of nature's laws that have us where we are now.

"The dog, rat, snake, pig or any animal that violates their own species space,  is an example of what could bring forth extinction."
Is humanity going extinct really the end of the world? It'd also take quite a bit of effort to pull something like that off.

"To lack guilt and shame is a handy cap"
It's a useful hat?

I like all of these responses, but as quoted in my response to cadaver I can't do much.

"Bottom line is I can't prove anything, there's no concrete reasoning behind all of this."

All my counter arguments would be me just restating myself and with a subject so abstract as beliefs and morality it'd descend into arguing over conflicting semantics. That being said, I dont want to discourage any new posts or miss out on any perspective(contradictory or not). 

 I appreciate the responses.