The biggest controversy with my philosophy often revolves around the fact that as an atheist, I can still have a moral philosophy. So frequently is the opinion voiced that moral law is dictated to us from god above. Western religion holds on to this idea and it trickles down into lifestyle and everyday culture. Islam clashes with western politics not because the values are that different but the origin of the values are critically divergent. Leaders of a society ought to be the most morally minded and therefore must receive their guidance directly from the source of morals. This is to say, there must be a close relationship between our political leaders and our divine creators. America, along with most other Christian or Jewish countries, let their laws rest on human made constitutions and philosophies while Iraq and Iran (Muslim countries) get their guidance directly from the Koran. They must view us like heathens because we form laws based not on the book but instead, upon human thoughts and deductions. How could they possibly trust us? How could they view us with any piety whatsoever if we do not deduce our morality from our religion but instead, from finely tuned convention?
There is a bit of irony here because I've been hearing time and time again from right wing conservatives a similar thread. It is nothing shy of bigotry to suggest that persons of a particular opinion should be silenced. But that is exactly what Brad O'Leary suggests in his book The Audacity Of Deceit. I read it prior to the last elections for a different point of view. And to be honest with you, I agreed with a lot of what he said but like putting just a tablespoon of gasoline in an otherwise delicious bowl of soup, it spoiled the whole book for me. I could no longer respect the author. I didn't let it affect his viewpoints, many of which I appreciate but as a person, he is dead to me.
I was then also recommended the book Liberty and Tyranny: A Conservative Manifesto by Mark R. Levin. He too, by the third chapter, proclaimed that no atheist had the right to take the soap box and say anything because they are essentially moral-less. Again, it destroyed my respect for him in much the same way his respect is lost on me.
This next piece was written in response to all those who feel (1), that atheists are without morals and (2), that anyone who does not believe in a god should not be respected like others.
GOD, GOVERNMENT AND GUNS
This is typically how average people yield to moral imperatives. Good people appeal to God first, then government and finally when forced, act accordingly at gun point. Bad people are coerced to be good by following the opposite path. They are forced by some kind of stranglehold like house arrest or incarceration- both of which is a means to physically control them. General laws of government then attempt to enforce a morality that we all agree upon and finally, the bad person will submit to God- after all, they are bad for a reason!
But these methods are all based on authority. Neither the good person or the bad person needs a brain or rational thought to perform the good deed or moral action. All that is required is submission and the forfeit of your own personal belief. Personal belief alone does not guarantee a moral action. Emmanuel Kant suggested that the "categorical imperative" is a moral obligation based on rational thought. He assumed that one could guarantee that an action be moral if one could absolutely be certain that a statement hold true outside of circumstance. The catch here is that it must be outside of circumstance so that it could become an ideal. The problem is, we are usually never faced with an ideal situation. One might say that one shouldn't steal. However, cases could certainly be made that make stealing ok. Like if I stole a gun from a murderer and then surrendered it to the police. This becomes very muddy territory. Kant gets a couple point for not basing his moral philosophy on God, government or guns but he still fails to supply us with a practical philosophy.
Enter Mike Vincenti. Allow me to fill the void that has swallowed philosophical treatises for hundreds of years. This is the most beautiful part of my "Metaesthetics" theory. Morality is not based on authority or force. It is an expression of the human spirit. It is not that different than our appreciation for a work of art. We may disagree on the value one places on a particular work of art but we all agree that value is placed on different works. Therefore it follows that an appreciation of other's values is necessary. Otherwise, our own values could never be expected to be appreciated either. A certain kind of sympathy and compassion for the artist is necessary if one is to understand the work at all. Timeless pieces hold their value (and perhaps increase) because it has applied itself to many generations and genres of people. We can debate the specifics, but we cannot deny the basis on which we value our own opinion.
Taken further, our own actions are but a stroke of paint on the canvas called life. And since we can only be sure of this one life, so too we shall agree that there is only one canvas that we are given. And with our last breath, so too our last stroke of the paint brush, our canvas is taken away from us to hang on the walls of all those that will remember us. And in the end, we can reminisce and consider what actions were beautiful and which ones were not. Act as if there is a God looking at you, watching over your shoulder. There should be no reason that the ring of invisibility should necessarily lead to evil deeds. Though your actions may go unseen, their internal value is an aesthetic judgement- not the retribution of authority.
I will try to reiterate what I have said here in many other ways to make it more clear. But basically, it comes down to this. Act as if the world is watching and you've got nothing to hide. Appeal to only your own judgements and allow yourself to learn. Only when you die is your fate sealed. Abandon external forces and trust your internal nature as a living breathing human being. Biologically we are animals but we've progressed psychologically. Just as we've matured since childhood, our understanding of the world will continue to mature. We are, each of us, an artist creating one giant work of art to one day evolve in to the memory of what we once were.
This is my theory of good and evil. But as I implied earlier, Metaesthetics, like metaphysics, is an explanation of everything- not just morals! Next, I will describe ontology through metaesthetics and its various implications.