💾 Archived View for library.inu.red › file › crimethinc-no-gods.gmi captured on 2023-01-29 at 08:42:24. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
➡️ Next capture (2024-07-09)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Title: No Gods Author: CrimethInc. Date: 11th November 2000 Language: en Topics: God, anti-religion, morality Source: Retrieved on 9th September 2020 from https://crimethinc.com/2000/09/11/no-gods
Once, flipping through a book on child psychology, I came across a
chapter about adolescent rebellion. It suggested that in the first phase
of a child’s youthful rebellion against her parents, she may attempt to
distinguish herself from them by accusing them of not living up to their
own values. For example, if they taught her that kindness and
consideration are important, she will accuse them of not being
compassionate enough. In this case the child has not yet defined herself
or her own values; she still accepts the values and ideas that her
parents passed on to her, and she is only able to assert her identity
inside of that framework. It is only later, when she questions the very
beliefs and morals that were presented to her as gospel, that she can
become a free-standing individual.
I often think that we have not gotten beyond that first stage of
rebellion in the hardcore scene. We criticize the actions of those in
the mainstream and the effects of their society upon people and animals,
we attack the ignorance and cruelty of their system, but we rarely stop
to question the nature of what we all accept as “morality.” Could it be
that this “morality,” by which we think we can judge their actions, is
itself something that should be criticized? When we claim that the
exploitation of animals is “morally wrong,” what does that mean? Are we
perhaps just accepting their values and turning these values against
them, rather than creating moral standards of our own?
Maybe right now you’re saying to yourself “what do you mean, create
moral standards of our own? Something is either morally right or it
isn’t—morality isn’t something you can make up, it’s not a matter of
mere opinion.” Right there, you’re accepting one of the most basic
tenets of the society that raised you: that right and wrong are not
individual valuations, but fundamental laws of the world. This idea, a
holdover from a deceased Christianity, is at the center of our
civilization. If you are going to question the establishment, you should
question it first!
There is no such thing as good or evil
There is no universal right or wrong
There is only you…
and the values you choose for yourself.
Once upon a time, almost everyone believed in the existence of God. This
God ruled over the world, He had absolute power over everything in it;
and He had set down laws which all human beings had to obey. If they did
not, they would suffer the most terrible of punishments at His hands.
Naturally, most people obeyed the laws as well as they could, their fear
of eternal suffering being stronger than their desire for anything
forbidden. Because everyone lived according to the same laws, they could
agree upon what “morality” was: it was the set of values decreed by
God’s laws. Thus, good and evil, right and wrong, were decided by the
authority of God, which everyone accepted out of fear.
One day, people began to wake up and realize that there was no such
thing as God after all. There was no scientific evidence to demonstrate
his existence, and few people could see any point in having faith in the
irrational any longer. God pretty much disappeared from the world;
nobody feared him or his punishments anymore.
But a strange thing happened. Though these people had the courage to
question God’s existence, and even deny it to the ones who still
believed in it, they didn’t dare to question the morality that His laws
had mandated. Perhaps it just didn’t occur to them; everyone had been
raised to hold the same beliefs about what was moral, and had come to
speak about right and wrong in the same way, so maybe they just assumed
it was obvious what was good and what was evil whether God was there to
enforce it or not. Or perhaps people had become to used to living under
these laws that they were afraid to even consider the possibility that
the laws didn’t exist any more than God did.
This left humanity in an unusual position: though there was no longer an
authority to decree certain things absolutely right or wrong, they still
accepted the idea that some things were right or wrong by nature. Though
they no longer had faith in a deity, they still had faith in a universal
moral code that everyone had to follow. Though they no longer believed
in God, they were not yet courageous enough to stop obeying His orders;
they had abolished the idea of a divine ruler, but not the divinity of
His code of ethics. This unquestioning submission to the laws of a
long-departed heavenly master has been a long nightmare from which the
human race is only just now beginning to awaken.
Without God, there is no longer any objective standard by which to judge
good and evil. This realization was very troubling to philosophers a few
decades ago, but it hasn’t really had much of an effect in other
circles. Most people still seem to think that a universal morality can
be grounded in something other than God’s laws: in what is good for
people, in what is good for society, in what we feel called upon to do.
But explanations of why these standards necessarily constitute
“universal moral law” are hard to come by. Usually, the arguments for
the existence of moral law are emotional rather than rational: “But
don’t you think rape is wrong?” moralists ask, as if a shared opinion
were a proof of universal truth. “But don’t you think people need to
believe in something greater than themselves?” they appeal, as if
needing to believe in something can make it true. Occasionally, they
even resort to threats: “but what would happen if everyone decided that
there is no good or evil? Wouldn’t we all kill each other?”
The real problem with the idea of universal moral law is that it asserts
the existence of something that we have no way to know anything about.
Believers in good and evil would have us believe that there are “moral
truths”—that is, there are things that are morally true of this world,
in the same way that it is true that the sky is blue. They claim that it
is true of this world that murder is morally wrong just as it is true
that water freezes at thirty two degrees. But we can investigate the
freezing temperature of water scientifically: we can measure it and
agree together that we have arrived at some kind of objective truth
[that is, insofar as it is possible to speak of objective truth, for you
postmodernist motherfuckers!]. On the other hand, what do we observe if
we want to investigate whether it is true that murder is evil? There is
no tablet of moral law on a mountaintop for us to consult, there are no
commandments carved into the sky above us; all we have to go on are our
own instincts and the words of a bunch of priests and other
self-appointed moral experts, many of whom don’t even agree. As for the
words of the priests and moralists, if they can’t offer any hard
evidence from this world, why should we believe their claims? And
regarding our instincts—if we feel that something is right or wrong,
that may make it right or wrong for us, but that’s not proof that it is
universally good or evil. Thus, the idea that there are universal moral
laws is mere superstition: it is a claim that things exist in this world
which we can never actually experience or learn anything about. And we
would do well not to waste our time wondering about things we can never
know anything about. When two people fundamentally disagree over what is
right or wrong, there is no way to resolve the debate. There is nothing
in this world to which they can refer to see which one is
correct—because there really are no universal moral laws, just personal
evaluations. So the only important question is where your values come
from: do you create them yourself, according to your own desires, or do
you accept them from someone else… someone else who has disguised their
opinions as “universal truths”?
Haven’t you always been a little suspicious of the idea of universal
moral truths, anyway? This world is filled with groups and individuals
who want to convert you to their religions, their dogmas, their
political agendas, their opinions. Of course they will tell you that one
set of values is true for everybody, and of course they will tell you
that their values are the correct ones. Once you’re convinced that there
is only one standard of right and wrong, they’re only a step away from
convincing you that their standard is the right one. How carefully we
should approach those who would sell us the idea of “universal moral
law,” then! Their claim that morality is a matter of universal law is
probably just a sneaky way to get us to accept their values rather than
forging our own, which might conflict with theirs.
So, to protect ourselves from the superstitions of the moralists and the
trickery of the evangelists, let us be done with the idea of moral law.
Let us step forward into a new era, in which we will make values of our
own rather than accepting moral laws out of fear and obedience. Let this
be our new creed: There is no universal moral code that should dictate
human behavior. There is no such thing as good or evil, there is no
universal standard of right and wrong. Our values and morals come from
us and belong to us, whether we like it or not; so we should claim them
proudly for ourselves, as our own creations, rather than seeking some
external justification for them.
value, how do we know what to do?
Make your own good and evil. If there is no moral law standing over us,
that means we’re free—free to do whatever we want, free to be whatever
we want, free to pursue our desires without feeling any guilt or shame
about them. Figure out what it is you want in your life, and go for it;
create whatever values are right for you, and live by them. It won’t be
easy, by any means; desires pull in different directions, they come and
go without warning, so keeping up with them and choosing among them is a
difficult task—of course obeying instructions is easier, less
complicated. But if we just live our lives as we have been instructed
to, the chances are very slim that we will get what we want out of life:
each of us is different and has different needs, so how could one set of
“moral truths” work for each of us? If we take responsibility for
ourselves and each carve our own table of values, then we will have a
fighting chance of attaining some measure of happiness. The old moral
laws are left over from days when we lived in fearful submission to a
nonexistent God, anyway; with their departure, we can rid ourselves of
all the cowardice, submission, and superstition that has characterized
our past.
Some misunderstand the claim that we should pursue our own desires to be
mere hedonism. But it is not the fleeting, insubstantial desires of the
typical libertine that we are speaking about here. It is the strongest,
deepest, most lasting desires and inclinations of the individual: it is
her most fundamental loves and hates that should shape her values. And
the fact that there is no God to demand that we love one another or act
virtuously does not mean that we should not do these things for our own
sake, if we find them rewarding, which almost all of us do. But let us
do what we do for our own sake, not out of obedience to some deity or
moral code!
on universal moral truths?
Morality has been something justified externally for so long that today
we hardly know how to conceive of it in any other way. We have always
had to claim that our values proceeded from something external to us,
because basing values on our own desires was (not surprisingly!) branded
evil by the preachers of moral law. Today we still feel instinctively
that our actions must be justified by something outside of ourselves,
something “greater” than ourselves—if not by God, then by moral law,
state law, public opinion, justice, “love of man,” etc. We have been so
conditioned by centuries of asking permission to feel things and do
things, of being forbidden to base any decisions on our own needs, that
we still want to think we are obeying some higher power even when we act
on our own desires and beliefs; somehow, it seems more defensible to act
out of submission to some kind of authority than in the service of our
own inclinations. We feel so ashamed of our own aspirations and desires
that we would rather attribute our actions to something “higher” than
them. But what could be greater than our own desires, what could
possibly provide better justification for our actions? Should we be
serving something external without consulting our desires, perhaps even
against our desires?
This question of justification is where so many hardcore bands have gone
wrong. They attack what they see as injustice not on the grounds that
they don’t want to see such things happen, but on the grounds that it is
“morally wrong.” By doing so, they seek the support of everyone who
still believes in the fable of moral law, and they get to see themselves
as servants of the Truth. These hardcore bands should not be taking
advantage of popular delusions to make their points, but should be
challenging assumptions and questioning traditions in everything they
do. An improvement in, for example, animal rights, which is achieved in
the name of justice and morality, is a step forward at the cost of two
steps back: it solves one problem while reproducing and reinforcing
another. Certainly such improvements could be fought for and attained on
the grounds that they are desirable (nobody who truly considered it
would really want to needlessly slaughter and mistreat animals, would
they?), rather than with tactics leftover from Christian superstition.
Unfortunately, because of centuries of conditioning, it feels so good to
feel justified by some “higher force,” to be obeying “moral law,” to be
enforcing “justice” and fighting “evil” that these bands get caught up
in their role as moral enforcers and forget to question whether the idea
of moral law makes sense in the first place. There is a sensation of
power that comes from believing that one is serving a higher authority,
the same one that attracts people to fascism. It’s always tempting to
paint any struggle as good against evil, right against wrong; but that
is not just an oversimplification, it is a falsification: for no such
things exist. We can act compassionately towards each other because we
want to, not just because “morality dictates,” you know! We don’t need
any justification from above to care about animals and humans, or to act
to protect them. We need only to feel in our hearts that it is right,
that it is right for us, to have all the reason we need. Thus we can
justify acting on our ethics without basing them on moral truths simply
by not being ashamed of our desires: by being proud enough of them to
accept them for what they are, as the forces that drive us as
individuals. And our own values might not be right for everyone, it’s
true; but they are all each of us has to go on, so we should dare to act
on them rather than wishing for some impossible greater justification.
evil? Wouldn’t we all kill each other?
This question presupposes that people refrain from killing each other
only because they have been taught that it is evil to do so. Is humanity
really so absolutely bloodthirsty and vicious that we would all rape and
kill each other if we weren’t restrained by superstition? It seems more
likely to me that we desire to get along with each other at least as
much as we desire to be destructive—don’t you usually enjoy helping
others more than you enjoy hurting them? Today, most people claim to
believe that compassion and fairness are morally right, but this has
done little to make the world into a compassionate and fair place. Might
it not be true that we would act upon our natural inclinations to human
decency more, rather than less, if we did not feel that charity and
justice were obligatory? What would it really be worth, anyway, if we
did all fulfill our “duty” to be good to each other, if it was only
because we were obeying moral imperatives? Wouldn’t it mean a lot more
for us to treat each other with consideration because we want to, rather
than because we feel required to?
And if the abolition of the myth of moral law somehow causes more strife
between human beings, won’t that still be better than living as slaves
to superstitions? If we make our own minds up about what our values are
and how we will live according to them, we at least will have the chance
to pursue our desires and perhaps enjoy life, even if we have to
struggle against each other. But if we choose to live according to rules
set for us by others, we sacrifice the chance to choose our destinies
and pursue our dreams. No matter how smoothly we might get along in the
shackles of moral law, is it worth the abdication of our self
determination? I wouldn’t have the heart to lie to a fellow human being
and tell him he had to conform to some ethical mandate whether it was in
his best interest or not, even if that lie would prevent a conflict
between us. Because I care about human beings, I want them to be free to
do what is right for them. Isn’t that more important than mere peace on
earth? Isn’t freedom, even dangerous freedom, preferable to the safest
slavery, to peace bought with ignorance, cowardice, and submission?
Besides, look back at our history. So much bloodshed, deception, and
oppression has already been perpetrated in the name of right and wrong.
The bloodiest wars have been fought between opponents who each thought
they were fighting on the side of moral truth. The idea of moral law
doesn’t help us get along, it turns us against each other, to contend
over whose moral law is the “true” one. There can be no real progress in
human relations until everyone’s perspectives on ethics and values are
acknowledged; then we can finally begin to work out our differences and
learn to live together, without fighting over the absolutely stupid
question of whose values and desires are “right.” For your own sake, for
the sake of humanity, cast away the antiquated notions of good and evil
and create your values for yourself!