-2

I have been to trying to find a name for my philosophy of life but I wasn’t able to do so because I’m not well-informed when it comes to this topic, so I hope someone can help.

Please don’t beat me up for this as I might seem ruthless and inhumane to some, but this is how I see life in all honesty.

First off, I’m an athiest. I believe that there is no and never was a God and that all religions with no exception are man-made regardless of their creators' will be it to control others or their own delusion. I believe in science and its laws and I believe that these laws are the only governor to our existance. We don't understand everything about the universe, but everyday we are one step ahead.

I believe that life is the universe becoming conscious of itself, that "no one" created anything, and that all this happened because of some improbable events and some chemical complexities that lead to life. I believe in evolution. And I believe that we humans are no different from other living beings except for our intelligence level and our ability to think in a more complicated way.

This is where some of you may disagree with me, but I believe there is no good and evil and everything is permitted and justified. We call the things that please us good and those which don't evil. And this "pleasure effect" is caused by our evolution and it is the reason we survived to this day. So in other words, stealing from someone else is neither right or wrong, it's just an act that we call wrong or evil just because we are displeased when something is stolen from us. I still love others and like feeling this love, but deep inside I believe that I NEED this love to survive, and it's not good or bad, it's just something that my ancestors had to have to survive. Having said that, I still believe that we need laws in our societies. Not because we need to apply the morals and virtues that we believe in, but to keep all or most of us pleased by following our biological imperatives.

I believe that there is no afterlife and no reward or punishment whatsoever. When we are dead, we are gone. Just the same as before our birth.

So, after that being said, is there a certain philosophy that I follow ?

closed as off-topic by user19563, jeroenk, virmaior, Joseph Weissman Jan 26 '17 at 21:02

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "Questions that push a personal philosophy with no question beyond "am I right" or "what do you think" are off-topic here as this is not a blog. It's ok to express unique opinions, but you must have an actual, answerable question to go with them." – Eliran, jeroenk, virmaior, Joseph Weissman
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • it's gonna have a few answers, e.g. atheism, moral skepticism of some sort, and there's probably a term for "same as before our birth" tho i don't know it. and it sounds like you are a political hedonist of some sort. if you wanted a catch all phrase, you could try "nihilist", but it's not clear that would be justice to what you say, or the possible meanings to that term – user6917 Jan 22 '17 at 1:28
  • 1
    Sounds like a straightforward case of atheistic materialism combined with evolutionary ethics. Very common today, Dawkins and Harris are popular advocates, see new atheism. – Conifold Jan 22 '17 at 2:14
  • i guess, but the phrase "noithing is permitted" etc. seems to collapse it into the nihilst camp, right @Conifold now i feel dumb – user6917 Jan 22 '17 at 2:23
  • @MATHEMETICIAN You probably mean "nothing is prohibited", but I read the OP's "neither right or wrong" as "neither right or wrong" in the sense of some objective morality, and plenty of non-nihilists reject moral realism. And he later says that we "need" laws and love, so that's clearly not nihilism. You shouldn't feel bad, your answer explores various connections, I just pointed out the closest one. – Conifold Jan 22 '17 at 2:41
  • @Conifold seemed like that need is said to be a psychological one, but you are right there maybe. cheers. – user6917 Jan 22 '17 at 2:43
4

First off, I’m an athiest. I believe that there is no and never was a God

Yes that's atheism.

and that all religions with no exception are man-made regardless of their creators' will be it to control others or their own delusion.

And you add that you are areligious.

I believe in science and its laws and I believe that these laws are the only governor to our existance. We don't understand everything about the universe, but everyday we are one step ahead.

This is either not sophisticated or nuanced enough to class as a belief I know the name of. Perhapse scientism, but you could also look into what exactly it is about science you believe.

I believe that life is the universe becoming conscious of itself, that "no one" created anything, and that all this happened because of some improbable events and some chemical complexities that lead to life. I believe in evolution.

Emphasis mine. This is unclear, because it could be interpreted as a form of pantheism, but you don't believe in God. I'm guessing, though, that this is a tacit acceptance of a form of realism.

This is where some of you may disagree with me, but I believe there is no good and evil and everything is permitted and justified. We call the things that please us good and those which don't evil. And this "pleasure effect" is caused by our evolution and it is the reason we survived to this day. So in other words, stealing from someone else is neither right or wrong, it's just an act that we call wrong or evil just because we are displeased when something is stolen from us. I still love others and like feeling this love, but deep inside I believe that I NEED this love to survive, and it's not good or bad, it's just something that my ancestors had to have to survive.

This looks like moral nihilism, grounded in moral subjectivism and evolutionary pscyhology.

Having said that, I still believe that we need laws in our societies. Not because we need to apply the morals and virtues that we believe in, but to keep all or most of us pleased by following our biological imperatives.

This is a rejection of the state of nature, grounded in hedonism. In what way it is you actually do reject the state of nature, I'm not sure, because you don't say it's impossible, and don't want to place any ethical value on it. But, seeing as you need a government for laws, maybe I can gloss the belief as statism of some sort.

I believe that there is no afterlife and no reward or punishment whatsoever. When we are dead, we are gone. Just the same as before our birth.

This phrase, emphasis mine, was held both by Epicureans and at least some Stoics, the two main schools of thought after Aristotle, in Greece. I'm sorry, but I know of no word for this, so you can go with Epicurean if you infer that death is nothing for us.

Please don’t beat me up for this as I might seem ruthless and inhumane to some, but this is how I see life in all honesty.

There's nothing particularly ruthless to it, assuming you are not behaving ruthlessly. The only even remotely objectionable, rather than questionable, belief here is on morality. Why not embrace your inhumanity and term yourself

  • antihumanist nihilist

I personally don't find anything in your question which runs against that phrase. Especially the following:

life is the universe becoming conscious of itself... we humans are no different from other living beings except for our intelligence level and our ability to think in a more complicated way... there is no good and evil and everything is permitted and justified

Hope that helps!

2

Your position on the nature of knowledge is called Physicalism, You've already identified your position regarding religion as Atheism. Without further qualification about how you intend to judge actions designed to "keep all or most of us pleased by following our biological imperatives", your position on ethics is unclear. All branches of ethics are ultimately about human happiness otherwise there would be no purpose to pursuing any action they advise if doing so were going to ultimately make you less happy. Take a close look at the "morals and virtues that we believe in", do they appear random? No, they are designed by people who consider that following them will make society happier. Not everyone may believe that the source of this happiness is our biological imperatives, but until we have an absolutely concrete scientific definition of what these are, then this makes little difference as the matter is open to much speculation anyway.

The key question that will distinguish your ethics is not where the feeling of happiness comes from, but what causes it and how to manage situations where your current happiness appears to come at the expense your future happiness or the happiness of another. It is this conflict that ethics really tackles even though many schools do not openly admit as much.

The differences pretty much boil down to;

  • The extent to which you need to maximise other people's happiness in order to be happy yourself (your friends and family, everyone you actually meet, the whole world, all life). Answers range from the extreme Effective Altruism of Peter Singer to more localised versions of, for example, David Brooks.

  • The extent to which you are best asking each person to judge each action separately or developing a set of rules which should bring about happiness most of the time and everyone then follows. On the side of rule are philosophers like Kant (personal rules), Rule Utilitarians who may follow personal or societal rules, to the other end of the scale with act consequentialism.

  • The extent to which you should be expected to forsee the consequences of your action on yours and others happiness. Often this boils down to the same rule vs. act consequentialism insofar as rules can be used not just to guide people in difficult decisions, but to put a cap on how far into the future one needs to consider consequences.

Note that even the choice between these approaches still is a decision about which will make the individual most happy, if it were not then there would be no reason to choose one over the other.

Essentially in order to give a name to your philosophy you need to make a decision, not about what the ultimate goal of any action is (your personal happiness), nor the source of that happiness (as we don't yet have sufficient data for that to make a significant difference), but how to deal with the fact that the consequences of our actions are rarely all one thing or another and are often unknown entirely.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.