Total Posts:9|Showing Posts:1-9
Jump to topic:

What is Justice? - On Morality

Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2010 9:05:17 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
An article on Egosim by Tak Kak:

It is an idea presupposing a power that lays down a rule or law to which the individual owes respect and obedience. God is presented as the supreme egoist. My wishes must yield to his. This is God's justice or law. Those who believe in God fear and obey, - not I. Then comes society's justice. "Society," the egoist, orders what it wills. I must sacrifice my wishes to the family, to the State, to humanity.

If the power exists and knows how to subject me, I must, - not otherwise. Shall I waste my life in setting up and obeying an idea that I must treat all men alike? They are not alike - not equally able or willing to sustain me in return.

Society is the natural state of men, and holds each individual to "duties" so long as it can, or till he refuses to obey. When he comes to full consciousness, he sets up as his own master, and thereafter, if there is to be any use for the word justice, it must mean the rules of a union of egoists with benefits to at least balance duties; and these duties are simply matter of contract.

The egoists will act as they see fit or prudent toward natural society. Can any infidel say why he directly enslaves horses and not men? Men are indirectly enslaved, and their deference to ideas keep them enslaved. It is useless to urge that slavery is unjust. The chameleon changes color, but remains a chameleon. One form of slavery is abolished to give place to another so long as men consent to be held subject.

The idea that slavery is "unjust" is the idea that there is a rule or law against it. The facts of nature are there. The mere idea that, if rulers would cease to oppress, all would be better, is not effective of improvement to the subject man. When, however, it comes to his consciousness that he is naturally a subject till he refuses, and realizes that power and will are the essential matters, he makes himself free so far as he can.

It is "just" to enslave those willing to be enslaved, - that is, it is according to the rule, or law, or shortest line of nature. Those that believe that man has an immortal soul, and that a horse has not, may act from superstitious fear or reverence.

The intelligent egoist will "respect" the "vicious" horse sooner than the tame, subservient man. Viciousness is the resistance to enslavement. There is more virtue in the criminal classes than in the tame slaves.

Crime and virtue are the same under State tyranny, as sin and virtue are the same under theological tyranny. "Justice," as a generality, with reference to natural society, is a snare, or a transposition of the horse and cart.

I recognize no duty toward the power that controls me instead of bargaining with me. I am indifferent to the annihilation of the serfs whose consent enslaves me along with themselves. I am at war with natural society, and "all's fair" in war, although all is not expedient. All was lawful, but not expedient, with the apostle. So it is with the individual come to self-consciousness, not for the Lord's sake or humanity's sake, but for himself.

The assertion of himself will be as general and various as his faculties. To utterly dismiss the idea that there is any other justice in nature than force seeking the least line of resistance is to dismiss at the same time that there is any injustice. This may save generations of complaining and begging.

In short, we want to perceive the facts and processes of nature without colored glass before our eyes. No justice, no injustice, as between an individual and any other in nature? Why then no wrong in any method of becoming free! Startling thought to the halting slave! Nothing in crime but a fact? Nothing.

See the complaining wife, not loving, but submitting and suffering. Nothing wrong in putting six inches of steel into the bosom of her liege lord? The egoist says, call it what you like, there is no hell. What the woman will do depends upon what are her thoughts.

Therefore, my reader, as the laws of society, and the State, one of its forms, are tyrannies or disagreeable impediments to me (but I need not give any reason except to influence you), and I see no reason in discarding them but your respect for ideas such as "right," "wrong," "justice," etc., I would have you consider that these are merely words with vague, chimerical meanings, as there is no moral government of the world, but merely an evolutionary process, and it depends upon perception of this fact, and self-direction of our individual powers united as we shall agree, how we can succeed in obtaining and enjoying more or less of the things of this world.

Do you feel fully conscious of this? Then you and I can perhaps join our forces, and I begin to have an appreciable interest in you. Nothing that I could do for you (without setting you in power over myself) could fail to be agreeable to me.

I think we will not act very benevolently toward outsiders. They might take all we offered, as the ox takes the grass in the pasture. Disinterestedness is said to feed on unreciprocating(sic) self-indulgence in those upon whom it is spent.

Do you not begin to think that by suiting only myself I am really doing far better than by throwing myself away to serve them? If so, it is a lucky coincidence, for I only serve and amuse myself. And I really do not care if you call that unjust.

I shall begin to work for you when I see you are able to work for me. But if you are afraid to be free, - stay in slavery. I must have the satisfaction of seeing that you do not wholly escape suffering, if you are so unfit to aid me when I would aid you. And if you are thus lacking in stamina or sense, it will be no harm if you do get overworked and your existence is shortened. But I hope better things from you. TAK KAK.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2010 9:34:09 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/13/2010 9:05:17 PM, Reasoning wrote:
An article on Egosim by Tak Kak:

Nothing in crime but a fact? Nothing.

See the complaining wife, not loving, but submitting and suffering. Nothing wrong in putting six inches of steel into the bosom of her liege lord? The egoist says, call it what you like, there is no hell. What the woman will do depends upon what are her thoughts.

Therefore, my reader, as the laws of society, and the State, one of its forms, are tyrannies or disagreeable impediments to me (but I need not give any reason except to influence you), and I see no reason in discarding them but your respect for ideas such as "right," "wrong," "justice," etc., I would have you consider that these are merely words with vague, chimerical meanings, as there is no moral government of the world, but merely an evolutionary process,

I only serve and amuse myself. And I really do not care if you call that unjust.


Wow.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2010 9:50:25 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/13/2010 9:34:09 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 9/13/2010 9:05:17 PM, Reasoning wrote:
An article on Egosim by Tak Kak:

Nothing in crime but a fact? Nothing.

See the complaining wife, not loving, but submitting and suffering. Nothing wrong in putting six inches of steel into the bosom of her liege lord? The egoist says, call it what you like, there is no hell. What the woman will do depends upon what are her thoughts.

Therefore, my reader, as the laws of society, and the State, one of its forms, are tyrannies or disagreeable impediments to me (but I need not give any reason except to influence you), and I see no reason in discarding them but your respect for ideas such as "right," "wrong," "justice," etc., I would have you consider that these are merely words with vague, chimerical meanings, as there is no moral government of the world, but merely an evolutionary process,

I only serve and amuse myself. And I really do not care if you call that unjust.


Wow.

That's nothing compared to the stuff he wrote in "Killing Chinamen".
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2010 10:12:22 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/13/2010 9:50:25 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 9/13/2010 9:34:09 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 9/13/2010 9:05:17 PM, Reasoning wrote:
An article on Egosim by Tak Kak:

Nothing in crime but a fact? Nothing.

See the complaining wife, not loving, but submitting and suffering. Nothing wrong in putting six inches of steel into the bosom of her liege lord? The egoist says, call it what you like, there is no hell. What the woman will do depends upon what are her thoughts.

Therefore, my reader, as the laws of society, and the State, one of its forms, are tyrannies or disagreeable impediments to me (but I need not give any reason except to influence you), and I see no reason in discarding them but your respect for ideas such as "right," "wrong," "justice," etc., I would have you consider that these are merely words with vague, chimerical meanings, as there is no moral government of the world, but merely an evolutionary process,

I only serve and amuse myself. And I really do not care if you call that unjust.


Wow.

That's nothing compared to the stuff he wrote in "Killing Chinamen".

Obviously there are darker parts of Anarchist thought than even I imagined possible. Murder is just a vague, almost meaningless word, something whimsical? Nothing matters but one's self; anyone who restrains one's freedom is worthless and enslaving?

Good luck with life, Mr. Walker.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Reasoning
Posts: 4,456
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2010 10:15:31 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/13/2010 10:12:22 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 9/13/2010 9:50:25 PM, Reasoning wrote:
At 9/13/2010 9:34:09 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 9/13/2010 9:05:17 PM, Reasoning wrote:
An article on Egosim by Tak Kak:

Nothing in crime but a fact? Nothing.

See the complaining wife, not loving, but submitting and suffering. Nothing wrong in putting six inches of steel into the bosom of her liege lord? The egoist says, call it what you like, there is no hell. What the woman will do depends upon what are her thoughts.

Therefore, my reader, as the laws of society, and the State, one of its forms, are tyrannies or disagreeable impediments to me (but I need not give any reason except to influence you), and I see no reason in discarding them but your respect for ideas such as "right," "wrong," "justice," etc., I would have you consider that these are merely words with vague, chimerical meanings, as there is no moral government of the world, but merely an evolutionary process,

I only serve and amuse myself. And I really do not care if you call that unjust.


Wow.

That's nothing compared to the stuff he wrote in "Killing Chinamen".

Obviously there are darker parts of Anarchist thought than even I imagined possible. Murder is just a vague, almost meaningless word, something whimsical? Nothing matters but one's self; anyone who restrains one's freedom is worthless and enslaving?

Good luck with life, Mr. Walker.

His real name is James L. Walker, yes. I'm impressed that you looked that up.
"What we really ought to ask the liberal, before we even begin addressing his agenda, is this: In what kind of society would he be a conservative?" - Joseph Sobran
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2010 10:46:45 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/13/2010 10:15:31 PM, Reasoning wrote:
His real name is James L. Walker, yes. I'm impressed that you looked that up.

You caught my attention with that quote. That, and an obvious anarchist; wanted to know who he was.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
Chrysippus
Posts: 2,173
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2010 10:49:57 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/13/2010 10:19:33 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Lol, I'd love to see him try to live out his moral philosophy...ever read Crime and Punishment?

Murder isn't such an empty word when you live it, eh?

Believe it or not, I read that book for fun. Slow week at the end of the semester. Incredible writer, but it was hard to keep track of which name went with which character.
Cavete mea inexorabilis legiones mimus!
J.Kenyon
Posts: 4,194
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/13/2010 11:09:46 PM
Posted: 6 years ago
At 9/13/2010 10:49:57 PM, Chrysippus wrote:
At 9/13/2010 10:19:33 PM, J.Kenyon wrote:
Lol, I'd love to see him try to live out his moral philosophy...ever read Crime and Punishment?

Murder isn't such an empty word when you live it, eh?

Believe it or not, I read that book for fun. Slow week at the end of the semester. Incredible writer, but it was hard to keep track of which name went with which character.

It was definitely slow, but depending on what sort of mood I was in, I found parts of it exciting. At one point I sat down and read for around 4 hours straight. Funny, I didn't have a problem with the names, although almost everybody else in my class did.