marulimarulaki

[marulimarulaki]

@Simon Paynton

Love for someone who deserves it is in my definition of the word not unconditional because deserving is a condition.

“your Epicurean individualism corresponds with my small-group interpersonal morality of egalitarianism, liberty, helping, and fairness.”

That may well be as one of two settings for people who bluntly spoken are by the herd instinct attracted to interact with miscellaneous and random persons. Those are the ones whose identity I call integrative tributary. I welcome suggestions for a better term. Which brings me back to my distinction between an identity as an independent individual in contrast to someone with the identity as a part of something greater, as a part of the herd.

For an individualistic Epicurean, the herd of haphazard people offers no benefits. For me and probably many other individualistic Epicureans cognitive similarity creates attraction, which in turn motivates to apply a beneficial tit-for-tat strategy. I get good feelings from agreement and consent. When people agree with me they may lie, but it really feels good when I hear or read something which I could have said or written. Therefore for me the rational conclusion is to choose carefully with whom to have contact and not waste time and resources with the herd.

Beneficial tit-for-tat strategy means to start initially and proactively any interaction sequence with friendly prosocial behavior and to continue as long as the other reacts in kind. But as soon as the other defects, the reaction is either to get back at them or to end the contact.

BTW. I skimmed over the first 85 pages of your book. Usually I stop reading anything when I encounter bible quotes and reference to a god. But there is nevertheless some food for thought in it so I decided to go through the rest of the book.

• This reply was modified 4 years, 2 months ago by marulimarulaki.

[marulimarulaki]

@Fronkey Farmer:

I agree with your description. My focus is a bit different. I try to figure out the psychological dynamics which cause some people to be religious while others are not. I mean I am looking at identity, motivation, emotions and at Darwinian fitness.

@Simon Paynton

I downloaded your ebook but I have not yet looked at it. I see things differently from how you put it in this thread.

Transactional mindset.

As I have understood, the christian mindset is to give and do and sacrifice for the reward in the afterlife. As this is hard to do with such a long delay until gratification, they become often hypocrites. The marshmallow test is not for Christians. Christian who harm often justify it by rules given by their god.

For Epicurean morals, there is a very rational transactional principle: The exchange between the individual and the social environment has to be balanced and fair. The rule to not harm includes also the rule not to exploit and not to take advantage. The right not to be harmed includes also the right to avoid being exploited and the right not to make one-sided sacrifices. This includes for example women’s absolute right to not have children. An individual has no obligation to the survival of the species.

Unconditional Love:

Unconditional love is an unfair christian concept. Only children need and deserve unconditional love. Unconditional love for a jerk in the false hope of earning a reward after death devastates a woman before death. Grown ups with self-respect, self-esteem and self-worth do not give love when they are not treated correctly. Unconditional love also encourages and reinforces jerks to remain jerks.

Also unconditional love is not something decidable. It is possible to decide to behave as if loving without any conditions. But it is not possible to decide how much or how little love one feels for a partner.

Emotions like love are volatile, they are a reaction to experiencing behavior, and the behavior is to some degree determined by attitude which can change. When a man’s behavior represents his attitude of appreciation and respect, this triggers feelings of emotional closeness. When his attitude is contempt, this triggers feelings of emotional distance and alienation.

Independence and interdependence

Epicurean individualistic identity means cognitive independence. Independent thinking then enables individuals to enter survival interdependence by rational decisions for a fair exchange.

[marulimarulaki]

Thanks for your replies which make me aware that I may have presented my topic in a misleading way.

This is a public forum so this is not meant to deal with my personal situation.  I mentioned my partner only because my experience with him made me aware of some more theoretical considerations concerning different moral paradigms.

What puzzled me was how vehemently he protested when I described him as a christian without a god in comparison with my being an apistevist. After reading stuff about atheism and morals I have got the impression that many atheists have moral attitudes which contain elements of christian values and morals.

This is why I started to wonder and speculate about:

What distinguishes the Epicurean morals of not harming and not be harmed from morals derived from religiously or spiritually derived morals?

There are two possible moral paradigms depending on the choice of premises depending on the subjective identity:

1. Epicurean individualistic morals:

Epicurean morals are logical when two premises are accepted:

• Every human being is an independent individual.
• Every human being has an unconditional right to his personal well-being which is only limited by the right of others to not get harmed.

Choosing Epicurean morals is logical for persons who themselves identify as independent individuals.

2. Integrated tributary morals

For many reasons of which religious upbringing is a possible one, many people including atheists grow up to identify as a part or element of something greater than themselves. This greater entity can be anything between deities, cosmic powers or the eternal genes. The two premises of the Epicurean morals are not applicable. There are alternative premises:

• Every human being is a dependent and interdependent part of the higher level entity.
• Every human being has a purpose to serve towards the higher entity. Rights to individual well-being are subordinated.

Under these premises harming can be condoned and justified in reference to the higher entity.

Sharing the same moral paradigm facilitates harmonious interactions. Adhering to different paradigms can create conflicts.

My question was and is: Has anybody experiences with conflicts between morals following the individualistic and following the tributary paradigm.

[marulimarulaki]

JadeBlackOlive:   Thanks for the information.

[marulimarulaki]

I like to get into contact with Plinius from Atheist Nexus.

Does anybody know, if she has joined this or any other atheist site and under what name?

[Author]

Posts