Moral anti-realism, elitism, misunderstandings and Bitcoin

Moral anti-realism also known as moral nihilism is the understanding that morality is psychological and not necessarily rational. It's based on the feelings of other people and those feelings can be controlled or influenced by other people. Traditional morality is set by the moral elite in society who run churches and large institutions. Traditional morality is not however a consequence based moral system and it does not take the latest neuroscience study into account either. In my essay I state the opinion that we must buck moral realism in favor of moral anti-realism as we support the growth of Bitcoin and that moral arguments being made must be of the moral anti-realist perspective.

Consequentialism says that an action is ethical or unethical depending on the consequences that action produces. Since most of what we do we don't have a way of predicting the consequences, we cannot truly judge one another for making errors as we all make them. The position of moral nihilism understands that morality is just based on subjective preferences of the masses which are shaped individuals within the 1%.

A specific moral elitism example

As an example, when the community decided that file sharing was morally a good thing or at least not wrong, the RIAA created a campaign to try to convince us that file sharing aka copyright infringement is stealing. The RIAA tried to appeal to the idea that artists would starve due to file sharing and copyright infringement without any regard for the fact that artists also starve from having bad recording contracts. The RIAA wanted to kill the business model of Napster before Napster could even discover a business model and also wanted to try to tell the community how to feel about it morally. This is an example of the 1% directing the feelings of the 99% to protect the profits of the 1%. This example shows the true purpose of morality in society, it's about control.

That being said there are correct and incorrect decisions, smart and stupid decisions, but whether a decision is smart or stupid depends on the circumstances the individual is facing. If a woman with a child is starving and has been taught that it is wrong to steal, the bible says it's wrong, she would rather starve to death than steal so that she can get into heaven. Who does this benefit? If you're in the 1% then you'll never have to steal, you have anything you need. If you're a have not, then you don't have what you need and you'll eventually face moral dilemmas as to whether it's better to do what you were taught (even if what you were taught goes against your self interest), or do what is in your self interest so that you can survive.

Reject moral elitism

Many in the 99% merely do whatever they can to get whatever they need. Many in the 1% spend their time morally judging the 99% as bad people, as criminals, but in reality I don't believe most people are bad or that bad behavior necessarily has anything to do with if a person is good or bad. Behavior is shaped by environment. In any environment or in any game a player has a certain set of options, and if it were chess then your position on the board determines the set of options and positions you can be in at some point in the future. If you're starting out in a position with limited options then not having a flexible morality can result in an ever weakened position and eventual death.

The 99% must understand that conditions and circumstances determine right and wrong and that right and wrong is really just smart and stupid and in it's most pure form its correct or incorrect. The most correct option is the option which produces the best results for yourself and your group. This means there is no action which is always wrong or always right, just tragic circumstances which are wrong or right. In a tragic set of circumstances, a single mother could become a prostitute, a thief, a welfare queen, a drug dealer, and have very few opportunities to improve on those circumstances. A married mother from a more elite background may never have enough life experience or knowledge to understand the circumstances of this other single mother to know whether it was in the single mothers self interest or not, but instead what tends to happen which adds even more victims to tragedy is the married mother feels she is morally superior to the single mother, typically this person will condemn the single mother to jail or even prison without thinking about what consequences this could have to her or her children. Society chalks this up as justice but in reality it's one person morally judging another without any true understanding of the circumstances of the other. It is of my opinion that these kinds of judgments should no longer take place.

Reject moral judging from positions of ignorance

Instead of judging, we should look at a situation and look at the individual and try to determine whether or not what that individual is doing is in their self interest. Is it their best option? Is it the best they could do? Could you do better in their situation? What is the goal of that particular individual? Preference utilitarianism can be implemented here to determine how to guide individuals, but this guidance must be judgment free.

An example is that most people who condemn drugs, prostitution, stealing and other so called immoral vice activities, aren't coming from the same background, don't have the same life experiences, don't have the same level of knowledge, don't have the same goals or preferences. A former drug dealer who found a new profession is the person who can reach the current drug dealer. The former prostitute who found an easier way to survive can approach the current prostitute. The elitist who has lived the sheltered life cannot make these approaches.

This relates of course to cryptocurrencies and the underground lifestyle which surrounds them as well. There are many media articles which are appealing toward soccer mom types and middle class sheltered mindsets and promoting the idea that Bitcoin is the currency for the immoral people such as the drug dealer, the prostitute, the slacker. At the same time what have the sheltered middle class or the elite done for the so called immoral people or underclass? In this instance if someone is considered immoral then using Bitcoin may be in their self interest because it's a lot safer for whatever they are doing but at the same time it's not going to affect them if these negative articles appear in the media.

On the other hand it's very important for Bitcoin supporters to counter these media articles which appeal to the ignorance of elitism, and which appeal to moral dogma, with articles which introduce the truth, the moral anti-realist reality, the utilitarian or consequentialist perspective to counter the perspective which appeals to deontology. To put it in it's most simple terms, Bitcoin is helping people to survive and because it's helping people to survive it becomes good. If the bible commandments, or any moral system from an authority up above does not help people to survive then in my opinion it is as invalid as Hitler's Nazi ideology which also did not help people to survive but was imposed upon everyone as being morally right.

QR Code
QR Code bitcoin_morals_antirealism (generated for current page)