Social morality has never had that
much of a grasp on me. I wasn't really raised in society. I was raised by TV,
locked in my house because of my mother’s delusional fantasies about how scary
the world is, up to the age of 13. So yeah, I never really learned a
conventional social morality structure.
I had no way of learning conventional
social consequences. I lived in a world of over dramatization and theatrical
endings.
This perspective has led to
ridiculous turbulence in the stability of my adult relationships and was pretty
much why I had to supplement my social learning with material from other
peoples experience (i.e. the “pick-up” community).
This was initially to give myself a
basis for learning how people work from the ground up because of how completely
clueless I was about the whole subject of “people”. I have had a hard time, in
the past, dealing with people because of how contradictory people’s behaviour was
compared to the people I learned from on TV.
Things are never as clear cut or easy
to resolve or simple or complicated or intriguing as those over dramatized versions
of real people. In real life closure tends to elude people no matter how many
desired outcomes they think they need to achieve it and in the long run
acceptance of what’s “wrong” tends to lead to a greater freedom. Just for
example.
But at the same time this sort of empty
perspective has also been a great help to me in learning, without
preconception, a great deal about the true nature of the human condition and
why people are the way they are.
Interesting side effect is though,
that I have a hard time hearing much of anything at all from this “conscience”
that I hear others speak of. I try my best to live rightly, but as with all
people, at the end of the day it’s all about me.
Being what is basically walking
evidence of moral nihilism kind of makes it easier to adapt to that moral
framework and that understanding has lead me to a great deal of inner calm.
This amoralism has made it very convenient for me to
explore alternatives such as the categorical imperative (a, probably lengthy,
article on that soon to come). For some that kind of thing is how they were
raised to think and then when they see it has a name they simply go “oh, that’s
what I do”.
While I may be a walking definition
of moral nihilism, I don't particularly find the notion that all things are
devoid of inherent traits all that despairing. As is the conventional argument
against it “it doesn’t feel or sound very nice”. As if that opinion had some
bearing on the reality of our plight.
The most disgusting distortion of
moral nihilism is the notion that the only logical thing for a moral nihilist
to do is to kill themselves. This notion always struck me as utterly ridiculous
for that kind of opinion (read moral belief structure) implies that some moral
action. Is this really the only image that can be associated with an acceptance
of all things in the universe being equal?
What’s so wrong with endeavour for
the sake of endeavour, and what’s so wrong with aiming to achieve moral
outcomes without an inherent morality. I mean shit; we're all just trying to
get along right?
