Submitted by PerfectSociety in Philosophy
Morality seems to be nothing but a trick - a trick that we play on ourselves or that we allow others to play on us. Sometimes others play this trick on us to get us to behave in a way that they prefer based on what they want. Sometimes we play this trick on ourselves in a desperate search for objective answers to difficult questions, or to justify our actions after the fact.
Here is the definition of morality from SEP:
“morality” can be used either
1.) descriptively to refer to certain codes of conduct put forward by a society or a group (such as a religion), or accepted by an individual for her own behavior, or
2.) normatively to refer to a code of conduct that, given specified conditions, would be put forward by all rational persons.
With regard to #2, I don't think it's even feasible to have a code of conduct that would be put forward by all rational persons. There are several problems. First, people aren't rational. We are driven by feelings and tend to justify the rationality of our actions after the fact. Even when we act purposefully as rationally as possible, we invariably compromise in certain contradictions. I don't think it's even possible for a person to be rational or even to act rationally. At some point, they will live with some kind of contradiction. So it's questionable whether the premise of a "rational person" even is meaningful. Furthermore, if people aren't rational how would anyone know what codes would be put forth by a rational person? It's like asking someone to think about what a rational person would believe despite that someone not being a rational person. Is it even possible to think like a rational person if you aren't a rational person?
With regard to #1, I am not sure that anyone can even have a consistent code of conduct like I mentioned above. I suppose even if you have a code of conduct that is inconsistent (which is, in my view, inevitable), we can descriptively call that "morality" but it cannot be moral in the normative sense if it's not consistent with itself.
I do not believe in morality as a normatively viable concept, either in theory or in practice.
Furthermore, I consider morality to be a constraint on my ability to recognize and genuinely understand my own unique desires face to face and honestly. It is a constraint on my development as a unique individual who thinks for myself. Most importantly, it is a constraint on my desire to act as I please to achieve what I want. This is why I reject morality. I refuse to let it bind me, as I refuse to place anything - whether it be a code or otherwise - above my own unique desires and goals.
ziq wrote
I'm amoralist because I don't trust society to dictate coercive ethical standards to me.