RE: Ethics Are What The Majority Invent in Order to Keep Themselves Enslaved
My theory is that there are several people writing under the "@kyriacos" name as the quality and depth of the posting varies surprisingly. This post is not only shallow but the language used is less sophisticated and includes more errors than other posts signed @kyriacos that I've read.
The @kyriacos I prefer would have probably noted that "morals" have a social function. Yes, in any human society there is a trade-off between individual freedom and the common best interest. "Morals" represent the boundary, the set of rules that are used as "signaling" of your degree of attachment to the society that set out those rules.
In Germany, it might be seen as immoral to cross the street when the traffic light is red even if the street is empty. Not so in other places.
Atheism and anarchism are both feared and loathed because they threaten the social fabric. In truth, both are social ills.
Ascribing to moral laws is giving out to a reasonable fear - an individual has a lot more objective reasons to fear when alone in a hostile world than when protected by a group of kin. Ascribing to moral laws is most of the time simply the smart thing to do: giving up some individual freedom in exchange for predictability.
Because this is what the others in the group are asking of any individual: to behave predictably, at least in certain situations
Is just me pal. Thing is, I don't spend much time editing and my thoughts are on the fly.
I never try to sound sophisticated. Sometimes I am vulgar. I don't have a style.
Morals do have a social function. That doesn't need to be mentioned. It is self evident.
How are atheism and anarchism social ills? They are ills to those who don't embrace the ideas. They are a blessing for those who do (and vice versa).
Ascribing to moral laws when you are in need means that everyone is an opportunist. As simple as that. This is also why politics are all about taking power from one party and giving it to another and religion is all about making heresies of the same idea.
I don't get what your objection is.
My objection is based on identifying two distinct entities: individuals and the social body. The two are linked and interdependent but each has a degree of autonomy. When I say "atheism and anarchism (of the individuals) are social ills" - I mean "they are bad for the social body" - a bit like a viral infection. A cell infected with a virus might think she's doing perfectly fine but she harms the body as a whole.
People are chemical machines programmed to survive and reproduce so of course we are to a large extent opportunists, what would you expect ?
If you accept morals do have a social function then I say "first point: check!" Second point that I propose is: individual freedom and social harmony are balanced against one another: the more of the one, the less of the other. Morals are a tool to shift the balance toward social harmony. And necessarily (if you accept the second point) away from individual freedom. Thus "enslavement" you are lamenting.
Yet if you agree that society has something good going for it when compared with anarchy, then consented enslavement (even when done opportunistically and not out of in-depth reflection and conviction) is good, valuable, desirable.