The goal of anarchy is to remove the constraints of imposed ethics and reveal the innate intelligent goodness of the human mind.

If ethics are arbitrarily imposed, how can the human mind (or anything else for that matter) be good?

That sounds contraditary.

I suppose that if you believed that there were two things: 1)Ethics (imposed social construct) and 2) Goodness (innate to man, what ethics is attempting to copy/replace), than stu's comment would make sense.

But then you'd be a weirdo ;)

So if goodness is redefined as the inherent quality of man's mind, that would mean that any action that is done by a human being is inherently good, regardless of how it affects other human beings.

That actually is the basic principle of anarchic philosophy, so I suppose in that sense, Stu's definition would be correct.

If you only do what you want, instead of doing what you should, you will always do the best thing you can do.

An interesting philosophy. Like cyke said, it's got a sort of "back to animalism" element to it. I doubt I could ever successfully live like that. :laugh:

It's sort of the core of some religions ... basically the second that humanity as a species 'developed' the concept of morality ... it also 'developed' the capacity for IMMORALITY.

To devolve back to a state without morality would thus eliminate immorality as well.

Check out Neon Genesis Evangelion [especially The End of Evangelion] for a view of some 'anarchists' trying to put the genie back into the bottle and 'returning to Eden' but in a more sci-fi way ...

See, that's why I prefer American cartoons. I'll take futuristic revamps of the Loony Toons over philosophical science fiction any day.

there is no such thing.
there will always be people that want what others have. and they will do anything they can to get it. kill, maim, steal. people are not inherantly good. just look at the world.

Exactly. And this is always attainable for the individual. And the individual does not need to be concerned with society since society will never attain the "state without morality". And the individual that attains the metamoral state will not do terrible things since terrible things are not what the metamoral human mind truly desires.

Thanks, I knew we would need to address that.

When you acheive the metamoral state of being, you will understand. You are looking at the world through a conditioned moral filter that sees people as bad, so of course you will see people as bad. "The world" will never be free of ethical conditioning, but the individual is always invited to transcend that limited perspective and attain the metamoral state.

Come on up, the view is spectacular.

the concept of good, or evil, is just a point of view, that can always change from one person to the next.

is killing wrong? in the bible, god told the isrealites to kill. is that evil? many people beleive that terrorists are evil, but to them, and their beleifs are doing what they think is right, and they much of the western world as evil. and who is right depends on yiur point of view.

back to the animalistic idea. if i am stronger and CAN take something from you, then i should do it, becuase i deserve it. if you wish to hold onto something, then you will fight for it, and either become stronger or die, there will come a point when everyone is strong enough or equal and there will be no more stealings.

... or be abandoned entirely.

Since I have abandoned the concept of good and evil, I have no desire (right now) to talk about the biggest stick animalistic force arguement. I would rather keep glowing, free from all moral baggage.

However, even some 'animals' don't function that way ... consider a number of insect colonies function.

The 'big stick' concept wouldn't really work for humanity ... as children and pregnant women would hardly be able to defend themselves against the strongest of people ... thus it would definately stunt evolution by deceasing birthrates.

That kind of 'society' would eventually die out. The fact that society has evolved to where the 'weak' are protected, sheltered, etc ... is because ultimately, it's 'more fit' than the animalistic one.