When I grew up I was taught the Ten Commandments and various extra commandments our church gave. It was pretty cut and dry and simple.

Now as an adult pushing 60 and having lived around the world I would say everything about this world we live on is everything but simple. Everyone has the values they claim or actually believe in but reality is a bit different.

Over time everyone is going to figure out what group they belong in. This probably is where they feel the best loyalty lies, the most protection is given or the best opportunities lay. In short it's SELF-INTEREST.

So everyone is out to protect their own self-interest and their morality is based on this in reality more so than some morals set in a book or a church.

Sometimes in reality being absolutely moral will be a detriment to your survival. It may be completely impractical if not dangerous. So you become amoral. The morality is based on the specific situation you are in.

So I'm a realist. I'm amoral and I'm still here. One older world experience person once told me life is nothing more than love and survival. You love who you love if you are lucky enough to have found that and you survive. I pretty much agree.

I find no fault Ayn Rand's assertion that 'self-interest' is what drives the human condition.

Although I get how it can be in one's self-interest to deny her assertion.

It is in self-interest that people allow their wills and their thoughts to be subsumed into tribal identities which require tribal thinking. In exchange, you get counted as a member of a larger social organism that has your back -- it at least makes you feel that way -- as long as you're doing your part. I think this is a universal part of human nature, and the feelings it creates in my own being are the source of so much of my angst. I did not want to be at war with Mormonism, but it never promoted my own mental health, never really had my back, and isn't remotely defensible in light of the facts either, so I learned to let go.

elderolddog Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I find no fault Ayn Rand's assertion that
> 'self-interest' is what drives the human
> condition.
>
> Although I get how it can be in one's
> self-interest to deny her assertion.

I have several problems with Ayn Rand, the biggest being the implied assumption that I alone matter, and nobody else does. When taken to its inevitable end, that is a very destructive philosophy, though it is very much a part of humanity. Her philosophy also ignores the fact that human beings are social animals who, even if we differ in the amounts needed, do need approval from our social group/peers for our own personal fulfillment.

What complicates matters is that the reverse is also true. We humans can become too attached to a particular group (Mormonism?) and may fail to see the harm that group is doing to us and our environment. We must therefore seek a mix of self-fulfillment through our own devices and from groups of other humans that support us. By the same token, we must learn to support others who are also trying to live their lives as best as they can, whether their behavior is in- or outside of the social groups we have either chosen or that have chosen us.

To be honest (as if I wasn't already), I think a much better philosophy would be the one that Stephen King writes of at the end of his horror book, Cujo; namely: we must learn to help each other to get through life as best as we can.

One other about the Ayn Rand philosophy. I think that a good case could be made that the last POTUS was, in fact, a supporter of the Ayn Rand philosophy. He behaved (and still behaves) as if he believes that the only person who matters is him and that other people he meets must be bent to his will. Such a philosophy will only help those who have gain more at the expense of others who have little or noghing to give.

I hope I'm making sense, because I think the point of this thread, and your point in particular, are worthy of debate.

Two points.


-----------------
> One other about the Ayn Rand philosophy. I think
> that a good case could be made that the last POTUS
> was, in fact, a supporter of the Ayn Rand
> philosophy.

The odds of Trump having read Ayn Rand let alone understanding the term "objectivism" are too small to be measured with Newtonian physics. If his actions coincided with the most brutal interpretation of Rand's thought, that's because her flowery philosophy was an attempt to regularize a sociopathy that came naturally to him.


-------------------
> . . . the point
> of this thread, and your point in particular, are
> worthy of debate.

There can be few compliments greater than "your point is worthy of debate."

+100 on both points

I think Ayn Rand was demonically possessed, but my mom was a big fan. She was also a convert to Mormonism. There could be a correlation there.

I think there's a difference between immoral and amoral. Life is not an all or nothing proposition for most people.

Life is a poker game. Everyone gets dealt a hand. Some are great and some suck but regardless we all play the game. Everyone is just trying to stay in the game, trying to survive playing what cards they got the best they can. Some will end up with a bigger pile of chips and some won't. What can't be tolerated though is a card cheat. If you get caught blatantly cheating well you might get shot or at least have the crap beat out of you.

      In my youth I liked teaming up with female card players dealt good-looking cards.  If they could giggle, bonus!

      I don't know that going back to those hormonal days, with what I know now would result in any different behavior.  Hormones are tricky bastards!

I see morality as a social contract -- treat others as you would wish to be treated. Don't kill, don't physically attack, don't steal. Don't interfere with other's marriages. Do not defraud or cheat others. The major points have been codified into our legal system.

I read Ringer's books about 40 years ago, "Restoring the American Dream" was instrumental in converting me to a libertarian point of view.

I think it's time to read all of them again.

who being unable to control the events of his or her own life sets themself as a standard bearer and life controller for the rest of humanity.
Robert Ringer in his book "Looking Out For Number One" clearly describes and defines this.
I recomend that everyone take the time to read and digest this Book. I do this in my usual humble and modest manner!!

Amorality basically means the situation determines what’s moral. In most cases killing someone is wrong but in certain cases it’s justified therefore moral. Some would view having unmarried sex as immoral but let’s say using sex operatives to gather information that may save thousands of life’s is moral.

In fact the scriptures teach amorality is valid because there’s thou salt not kill but then in certain situation God wants you to kill the Canaanite’s or chop Laban’s head off.

The reality is we will never agree on what morality is. Life is to complicated to have a simple list of morals that apply to every situation.

Also being amoral is not being a sociopath. A sociopath has no conscience or empathy. You can be amoral and have both in fact doing the right thing for the greater good can be used to justify certain amoral behavior.

What you are calling "amoral" is the opposite of the word's actual meaning. In your examples, the actor considers the morality of his actions. She merely applies the same moral principles to different situations, which then yield somewhat different imperatives.

By contrast, "amorality," literally being "without morals," means that moral considerations don't enter into one's thinking at all: self-interest is the sole criterion. That's where the concept approximates sociopathy or at least extreme narcissism, in both of which cases the needs and desires of others--the code of conduct for how people interact in society, however defined--play no role in the actor's calculus.

Exactly. I think amoral is the wrong word for this argument.

Hey Lot's Wife ... I wanted to ask in Tokyo Mission threads what sparked you interest in all the research you have done. Were you a missionary in Japan? I have spent a lot of time on business in Japan and the Japanese always look politely horrified when they find out I was once a mormon missionary (not in Japan though). I had a very close friend who served in Japan at the same time as Groberg and he always told me his mission was a horrible experience that he did not want to talk about. He was out of the Church within a year or two of coming home.

Hi Hedning,

My fascination with the topic stems from three--well, four--factors.

First, when I find a complex topic I often explore it at great length. Sometimes I feel a bit like Juanita Brooks, who was so intrigued by the legacy of MMM she saw and heard around her that she dove in and became an expert.

Second, I've seen the cost in my extended family and among some of our older friends. As I think you know, the type of missionary chosen to serve in places with difficult languages is quite specific, so after returning to the States they tend to clump together at universities and in professions. As a result, I've been around RMs from that era for a very long time.

The trickiest part is getting those RMs to open up since the experiences were so harmful and speaking frankly often perpetuates the estrangement. I've found that if one or two of the RMs vouch for you and you express quiet compassion, a subset of others will also begin to tell their stories. That is clearly the case here on RfM, where people have recalled their experiences to hundreds or thousands more anonymous posters than they have to actual friends and family.

The third factor is my affection for Japan. My work has taken me to many, many countries for short and long periods, fortuitously and fortunately including Japan. All countries are unique, but Japan is unique in unique ways and degrees. The contrast between Japan and the US, between Japan and Mormonism, is a remarkably rich cultural vein to explore. Those differences played a role in the Groberg-Kikuchi debacle since 1980 Japanese were attracted to the myth of America and value/d personal relationships very highly. Those traits opened the door to the TSM experiment, and disillusionment with Mormon perfidy closed it--to the detriment of the LDS church and, to a lesser extent, the United States.

Second Third, learning about TSM helped me disentangle myself from Mormonism. I saw the suffering and realized that the church didn't give a tinker's dam for the missionaries, their childhood families, their marital families, their children. It took me far longer than it should have to realize how cynical and evil the church is, and Groberg/Kikuchi's victims unwittingly helped me in that process.

At this point I just want that episode in Mormon and Japanese history recorded so it will be harder for evil people to do similar things in the future. And I want a record in place as a memorial to the suffering of those thousands of naive, well-meaning young people who were so badly abused.

Having experienced a similar mission president in a much lower profile mission, and a year or so before the drive for baptism numbers became absolutely insane I understand a little bit about the TSM experience. A few from my mission have posted here about what we experienced and I have posted about how I was treated when I got ill and eventually returned early, but we were in a small mission with a president who was very powerful in finance in Salt Lake, so as you say nobody cared. I like visiting Japan, but in honesty it becomes very difficult for long trips with the time change, my minimal language and Kanji skills, grueling domestic travel and meeting schedules for business and sometimes the food can be very problematic with surprise adverse reactions, but I have always found the Japanese people to be welcoming in their own Japanese way. To me it's about as close to visiting another planet as I am likely to experience.

I love the place, love the food, love the culture. You are right about the brutality of travel to and from Japan (or any place 8-14 time zones away from home base). In my experience the worst itinerary is a week in Japan, since you barely get used to the jet lag and then have to go home and do it again. Excruciating.

The easiest schedule, in my experience, is flying in for a single meeting or a day of meetings and then flying back. It's a lot more convenient having a sleepless night than trying to adjust your biological clock.

On a different topic, the country in which you served your mission is pretty cool too. Not as exotic as Japan, perhaps, but it and several of its neighbors are places I've often thought would be nice places to live. I'm sorry such a beautiful place would be the scene of the mission you describe.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2022 07:15PM by Lot's Wife.

We can’t thank Lot’s Wife enough for her amazing efforts. I think she’s helped a lot of people come to terms with what they went through.

I first returned to Japan after graduating from university for what was supposed to be a one year internship. I’ve been here ever since.

You've helped me too. More than you know.