Is it possible to have a political stance without morality?

Question

I haven't read much about post-left, but Wiki says it rejects morality just like Stirner. But in Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's Max Stirner sections, it says that Stirner's conception of morality is narrow, it is obligations to behave in certain fixed ways, and Stirner values certain kinds of actions, and for him ownness is the only good.* So in this case, isn't post left's amoralism is also based on a narrow understanding of morality?

Saul Newman thinks that without any notion of morality and rationality it is impossible to develop a critique of authority.

*http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/max-stirner/   section 2.3

Comments

My guess is that the answer is "no", but since I don't believe in pursuing concepts of politics or morality, I don't know. Of the all the people I know who say they have one, it appears to me they have the other. Could you provide a (brief) definition of each, and perhaps I'll take a swing at it based on that.

---

Dot is just upset that his/her intellectual authority is being challenged (as if another thumbs down means anything to me). I wrote my answer in relation to the question, and the rejection of morality IS an inherent part of post-leftism. I looked it up, it's part of their critique on ideology. I'll save the rest of my criticism for the post-left critique question that I still haven't gotten around to answering.

---

You may also try reading Stirner himself first. Even in translation this is better than relying on secondary sources.

Answer 1

I would argue that, even using Stirner's definition, deliberate amorality and/or the rejection of moral judgement is still a moral system that guides a person's thoughts and behaviors, and so the whole post-left critique of morality is rather a moot point that, I would agree, is based on a narrow understanding of the concept.

I think your link provides the best critique when it says that:

"Stirner is clearly committed to the non-nihilistic view that certain kinds of character and modes of behaviour (namely autonomous individuals and actions) are to be valued above all others. His conception of morality is, in this respect, a narrow one, and his rejection of the legitimacy of moral claims is not to be confused with a denial of the propriety of all normative judgement. There is, as a result, no inconsistency in Stirner's frequent use of an explicitly evaluative vocabulary, as when, for example, he praises the egoist for having the ‘courage’ (265) to lie, or condemns the ‘weakness’ (197) of the individual who succumbs to pressure from his family."

In essence, he rejects all morality except the form of morality that fits his definition (which is still morality, despite his slapping a different title on it) and then he freely uses his own idea of morality to pass judgement on others, the same type of behavior that his "absence of morality" was supposed to get rid of.

Overall, the problem with amorality is that it is, like much of the rest of post-leftist thinking, philosophically sound (And what isn't, if you make up enough definitions and invent your own system of thinking to justify it?) but not realistic. People will never be free of morality, and it is naive to assume that is a possibility. Stirner's own adoption of what is essentially a moral system with a different name immediately after his rejection of moral systems stands testament to that.

 And even if humans could be free of morality, then they would have to face the fact that, as Saul Newman said, the absence of moral judgement makes it impossible to develop of a critique of authority. Why become an anarchist if opression is not morally objectionable to you?

Comments

You're completely missing the point of egoism - the ego - and therefore it's claim to amorality.

I'll explain further when I'm not tired and getting ready for bed.

---

I would argue that ego is an arbitrary concept as well. It has no basis in fact, it is simply an idea, and as such, a system of behavior (egoism) that is geared around the preservation of the ego is every bit as much of a moral/ideological system as any other moral system.

Psychological experiments in game theory have shown that individuals who follow a strictly egoistic strategy are consistently less successful in their interactions than those who cooperate and follow a more complex tit-for-tat strategy, suggesting that even if people are "ego-driven", morality and cooperation are necessary adaptations for community cohesion and group survival (yeah, yeah, if we all lived like hermits we'd be happier... Not even remotely true.).

But, I await your explanation. I just figured I'd get the most basic stuff out of the way first.

---

This is kinda tangential, but, i think the game theory tended toward the most successful being those who only valued self-benefit - but only when all other players always tried to cooperate; in other words - hierarchy.  Then followed obligatory mutual cooperation, then the tit-for-tat, then every synthetic man for himself; (wasn't the mutual cooperation rejected as 'unrealistic'?).  Though trying to reduce complex social interactions amongst f.i.n.e. human beings to a half-dozen iterations of Prisoner's Dillemma (sp?) is pathetic; it was pathetic fifty years ago when they started this shit, it is beyond words now - can noone with a psych degree write code, or would they just have to admit that any interaction above the binary is too complex for them to wrap their pointy little heads around.

As for people who are fucked up and conditioned by millenia of authority and hierarchy, using languages which are fucked up and conditioned by millenia of authority and hierarchy, to try and explain the shit that is in their heads - which is also fucked up and conditioned by millenia of authority and hierarchy, ... i'll pass, thanks.

---

You must be thinking of a very old version of the game theory experiment, most experiments do use code, and more interaction strategies than 6. They have done experiments since then, and the experiments very often favor the cooperator. A "careful" strategy tends to be best, in which the player cooperates the first  time, and then does whatever the other person does for every round after that.

I don't know too much about game theory in psychology. As we've discussed, I'm an anthropology major, but game theory has been used to help explain SOME ASPECTS (human interaction, as you said, is very complex) of altruism in traditional (tribal societies), and so, although tribal societies do tend to have some kind of rough heirarchy, I wouldn't say that game theory, or more accurately the findings of game theory, are synonymous with heirarchy.

I'm not sure what you mean with the last paragraph. Humans haven't evolved into being oppressed, they aren't born conditioned into authority and oppression. Though humans are socialized into the state that we are born under, we are still perfectly capable of critical thought, that is hardly an anarchist invention.

States haven't yet found a way to control our thoughts, and though a few of them have tried to restrict its use or change its meaning, they can't really control the use of language either. Language is the product of thought, and since the state can't control thought, language is not a product of the state. Even if the state imposed a definition of morality on us, we would either ignore that definition and use the word in the context of our own feelings, or we would invent a new word to suit our purposes better.

---

lantz: "States haven't yet found a way to control our thoughts, and though a few of them have tried to restrict its use or change its meaning, they can't really control the use of language either. "

States don't need to control language or thought, only to manipulate it toward certain activities. This is the case particularly in the US where the notions of 'freedom' and 'individuality' still retain some of their power to motivate people. The aim is to manipulate into certain pre-arranged (or ordained?) modes of action. It matters not if every individual consistently moves within one of those domains (work, vacation/tourism, particular products, religious beliefs, political parties, etc) only that they are  malleable enough to move within particular predesignated domains or associations. Thus the illusion of individual freedom is maintained while the parameters of activity are tightened little by little.

In keeping with this particular thread, I tend to think egoism (ex: Stirner/Nietzsche) is actually a crucial, and far more useful, tool than calls to collectivist morality in combating the type of false 'individual freedom' American jingoism  promotes to maintain Power.

Edited for clarity.

---

Alright, I'll give you that one. If you can direct language, then thought generally tends to follow, and the US government has managed to do that pretty well, though it still doesn't control people's thoughts directly. The key to solving that problem is simply to encourage critical thinking, and to give people new definitions to base their thoughts around.

Overall, my point is that freedom of thought will never go away, though freedom of expression is, as you say, being tightened little by little. Although, for most practical matters, the two are the same, because without expression there is no transmission of thought and so each person starts withs a narrower range of expression to critically think about.

To my knowledge however, egoism has actually been used quite often as a justification for false American individualist propaganda. For example, social darwinism, with its rather egoistic ideas, was often used to justify American capitalism and its atrocities. Evolutionary theories of egoist behavior today are occasionally used to do the same thing (though I'm a big fan of the evolutionary approach, that is one of its problems. It's known as the "naturalist fallacy", the idea that what is, is what should be in all cases.) That, frankly, is why I am quick to reject egoism, though in its least politically and philosophically warped form it is supported fairly well by scientific research (though unexplained altruism also exists, and so egoism is very likely not an absolute).

---

lantz: "Alright, I'll give you that one."

No, you won't. I already took it. You definitely have a knack for the anachronistic.

lantz: "To my knowledge however, egoism has actually been used quite often as a justification for false American individualist propaganda."

This objection is such an old yarn. Any set of writings can inform idiotic behavior once it becomes ideology. Stirner and Nietzsche both were, themselves, quite un- and anti-ideological. What may be the best way of approaching their works? Probably with as little ideological fervor than most people can muster these days.

lantz: "That, frankly, is why I am quick to reject egoism, though in its least politically and philosophically warped form it is supported fairly well by scientific research (though unexplained altruism also exists, and so egoism is very likely not an absolute)"

And this pretty much tells me you've read, much less studied, neither Stirner nor Nietzsche, particularly when you mention 'absolute' in reference, even tangentially, to either writer. 'Absolute' is a bullshit word; incoherent theological nonsense.

---

First: What? This bit about me being anachronistic is just stupid.

Second: So you're saying egoism is unideological, but only because its authors themselves were un/anti-ideological, and only if the reader him/herself is almost completely unideoligical? And if any set of writings can inform idiotic behavior once it becomes ideology, then what makes egoism any more relevant than collectivist morality?

Third: I am familiar with Nietzsche (not as much Stirner, though I've read a little bit on him). But I don't take them all that seriously. I'm talking about egoism in respect to evolutionary theory. In essence, egoism would be analogous to the idea of the "selfish gene". By "absolute" in this case, I just mean that it can't be applied to every person, it's a philosophy that is only really true when applied to those people who already fit its description. In essence, like many other philosophies, it is a self-validating one, because it ignores all other data that might contradict it. Just like you can claim that it's unideoligical, because only unideological people should be reading it.

---

lantz: "This bit about me being anachronistic is just stupid."

I was sorta quipping. You telling me you're giving me something I already have and all. But, in another thread you (unwittingly?) told us that Nietzsche made the same argument you made, which is anachronistic. Just sayin'.

Your 2&3, once again, ignored the context (plain for all to read) within which it was stated. That is: " in combating the type of false 'individual freedom' American jingoism  promotes to maintain Power" along with the whole paragraph prior.

---

Oh, ok. "I'll give you that one" is just a way of saying, "I grudgingly accept that you are correct with respect to that topic." I used that argument by Neitzsche to illustrate the fact that Neitzsche's own philosophies aren't entirely consistent, but that's a dead-end conversation.

As for the second and third points, I already stated that, to my knowledge, egoism has really done nothing to combat that kind of American jingoism, and is some cases has even been used (incorrectly, I will admit) to justify those ideas. That may be an old yarn, but it's still valid.

---

lantz: "Neitzsche's own philosophies aren't entirely consistent, but that's a dead-end conversation."

Consistent? Yes, you're right. N did say quite explicitly he wasn't a system-builder. There's plenty of 'consistently' stupid philosophy and philosophers, though.

lantz: "but that's a dead-end conversation."

Yes, you'd be way outside your 'expertise' on that one. Better stick to  nonsense like N arbitrarily separating 'self' from 'not self' and the proverbial finger-wagging accusations of 'arrogance.'

lantz: "and is some cases has even been used (incorrectly, I will admit) to justify those ideas."

So have collective ideologies. "We the people" is an appeal to collectivity. Nationalism is a collective ideology. Patriotism is an appeal to collective emotion. None of them have made Americans particularly egoistic, all egotism aside.

I do find it telling, in light of our previous dialog, that you believe 'validity' is derived within the parameters of *your* knowledge.

Edit: grammar

---

Collectively ideologies have resulted in nationalism and patriotism. Egoism has resulted in unrestrained capitalism. Which is "worse"?

And by valid, I mean that the argument has not been sufficiently refuted, therefore it is still a "valid" point that needs to be dealt with. This is a different context than validity as determined by the scientific process.

---

lantz: "Egoism has resulted in unrestrained capitalism."

Really? How did Stirner/Nietzsche result in 'unrestrained' capitalism? Both of them critique morality, both of them were anti-state, and neither of them seem to interested in shopkeepers, industrialists, and bankers. Even some of the American individualists  they influenced, such as Ben Tucker, were extremely critical of capitalism, even if they did maintain the notion of 'markets' (erroneously so, in my opinion).

Also, It will be fun to see how you link Novatore, Armand, and Palante to that old moralistic prune Ayn Rand and her ilk of paltry 'egoists.' As far as I can tell, the only influence that old goat-scrotum (Rand) ever got from Stirner was from the title of the latter's book, cuz she obvious never read it!

---

Also, despite the rhetoric to the contrary, capitalism is a collective ideology, if for no other reason (and there are plenty of other reasons) than the quantification of people.

---

I wouldn't call Ayn Rand "moralistic", though I suppose her philosophies might kinda-sorta fall in that category. I'm convinced that she was a sociopath.

I would say that Adam Smith had egoistic tendencies, with his idea that a multitude of self-serving "sins" leads to the overall good (capitalism).

My overall point is that both egoism and collective moralism are ideologies, and as such both have caused issues by people looking to manipulate them for their own devices.

Answer 2

If by "political" you mean a way of discovering and extending power over others, and if by "morality" you mean an eternal system of ethical condemnations, then no it's not possible. But I'd rather turn the question around and ask instead: Is it possible to have a moral stance without politics?

Because from what I can tell, morality is a way to justify when people behave unequally with others, just as politics is a way to justify how people behave in hierarchical groups. Neither holds much interest for most post-left @s.

I find oppression objectionable because it is arbitrary and capricious. I object to oppression because I feel (subjective and contingent) compassion for and empathy toward other sentient beings, not because of some abstract (and perhaps arbitrary in turn) philosophical principle.

Comments

I think your first paragraph illustrates one of the primary issues with this argument. The definitions of these words are so loose, that every answer has a different interpretation of them. Personally, I think of "political" simple as a system of organization (for example, I think anarchy is a political system. Though it doesn't rely on a state, it still requires cooperation.)  And I think of morality as an internal set of guidelines, developed through personal experience and feeling (your example of compassion and empathy). To me, though morality is externally influenced, it originates from within.

This is a lot of the problem with philosophy as well. Morality as a philosophical principal and morality as a real thing are disconnected, with nothing to really connect the two aspects. Philosophers simply adopt whichever definition of these kinds of concepts suits their own ideas and work from there, so many different philosophies have absolutely no shared foundation, or any foundation at all, really.

---

lawrence: "I find oppression objectionable because it is arbitrary and capricious. I object to oppression because I feel (subjective and contingent) compassion for and empathy toward other sentient beings, not because of some abstract (and perhaps arbitrary in turn) philosophical principle."

Thanks! That summation is pretty much what I've tried to describe to others why I think and act the way I do.

Morality comes from a root ('mos') meaning 'rule(s)' and once codified is obviously nothing but the rules of the most powerful and leisurely (per leisure, I'm thinking of the philosophers like Aristotle and Cicero who *could* disdain labor).