morality and ethics
i reject any and every from of morality and ethics. now some might ask, we need morality, to prevent people from harming each other, to make people care for each other. but that's beside the point. morality and ethics are an abstract, artificial, imposed set of values on humans. and people should treat each other good and care for each other, not because a set of societal values, but because of them themselves, out of compassion, because they want to. would you want to live in a community where the only reason others do not harm you is because a set of moral rules forbids that? isn't it preferable if they don't harm you because they would not want to do that?
this is the problem of morality. compassion, treating others good, with respect, and helping each other, can be useful or good things, depending on the circumstances. but this is not morality, it differs from it. as i said, morality is abstract, detached. it's a set of rules which society usually doesn't allow to be questioned, which *have* to be followed. just look at the morality of the past; in ancient times, it was moral to cut thieves' hands off; in other times, it was moral to sentence the person to death who dared to speak against the king. we think in horror of such things; yet in the future decades, for the people who live then, a lot of the morals that we live under now might appear just as terrible.
so what about the persons who kill or hurt others? don't we need ethics and morality to keep them in check? well this could be subject of a agreement on societal rules that try to protect others from these things. still such a set of "rules", if they could be called so, are still not morals or ethics. morality and ethics always are deemed to be something *higher*. they are (at least to an extend) unquestionable and uncriticisable. one is forced to follow morals, it's not an "agreement" that one could simply quit.
but there is also something else, something more important. morality keeps the single indivual down.
if someone is getting treated bad, treated unfair, should he not treat others in this way too? yet morality would say that one should be nice and well to others, even in the face of injustice and unfairness. how could this be correct? yet this is the core of most moral and ethical teachings. accept everything. let society, the people, the ones above you, treat you bad. but don't get angry, don't resist, don't disagree (or if you do - do it in silence for yourself, don't voice it, don't act according to it).
you can find this "logic" in almost any moral teaching. but is it right? think for yourself.
a post scriptum note: as i said, there are more complicated issues, as when it comes to real violence and such, which might be a whole different matter and and could be beyond the scope of this text. this text is about the more "commonplace", "general" problems of morality.
