home/entries/2024-06-12 "John Locke 02"

2024-06-12 "John Locke 02": "Defining Morality & Autism Rambles" 06:33 UTC

So I got maybe halfway through the Morality-Definition article last night... It had honestly some pretty interesting things to say, and I'm re-reading tonight for the sake of highlighting important stuff with my new-fangled highlighter extension, but also just to review. This is honestly really really fun, and I love thinking through the details like this. It does make me think about "proving" my perspective. Of course the article is just a summary of all the discussion on the subject—ever—I'm wondering, for a philosophy essay, what counts as "proving" it? Ough. I think I'm also worried because, nearly all of my stuff is just amateur conjecture. What if all of this is just bullshit? and I've convinced myself of something ridiculous? It feels like this about anything I believe about autism, too, but there I have a lot more pushback. Several people have told me that what I told them about autism changed their life; Did for them what it did to me: saved them. These people are teenagers, granted. Adults are less impacted by the revelation; They've already taught themselves—in the absence of a high-school, social battle-royale arena—that the way they are is okay. They don't need a reason, community, validation, as much as a teenager does right now. I'm less bothered by that, but adults are also the ones who for the most part look down on me. I sound insane, and out of my depth... Not to mention innappropriate. But what I have to say I think will always be innappropriate since I'll never get that chance with 99% of teachers. I would need to vuild some serious rapport, not gonna happen! I never get the chance to explain myself; When would I? I usually only get 10 minutes during passing period. The worst part is that the invalidation I get isn't ordinary. A rejection of the ideas I present are a rejection of the very personal relationship I have with the folk—but deep—understanding of autism that I have. Yeah I'm not a professional, I'm a kid. But the way in which I am automatically discredited in favor of the popular apperception of autism plays right into the ableist pattern autistic people face everyday. The rapidity with which people are willing to call what I have to say crazy without even giving me a chance is completely in line with the institutionalized patterns of invalidation, dehumanization, and demonization autistic people already face. Psychologists have the power to eradicate our voices and completely discredit us, and it is publically acceptable to talk over and repudiate us. Without giving it a second thought, finding my words dicordant with their shockingly shallow understanding of autism, they call my claims ridiculous, and deny me good-faith. People are so ardently opposed to the truth of the autistic experience. Not only do I have to walk eggshells about my special interest, but I am complete patience in the face of certain invalidation each and every time. I must unyieldingly appeal to people's actively harmful and directly invalidating behavior if I want to get a word in edgewise. I must be prepared for people to laugh in my face and look at me with incredulity every time, or I say nothing. There is no way for me to speak candidly without offending. So I typically don't bother, I let people think of me as ridiculous until I can prove the depth of my words. Nonetheless I am expected to excuse the behavior. People have so much audacity when it comes to something like autism, they think their ableist claims over a disabled class are endless. No no, autism is a severe disability, watch your mouth. Everyone acts like they know more than me, and automaticall disregard what I have to say because it doesn't align with their one-note, severely ableist reductions. And then they act like they want me to be authentic! Let me be offensive or tell me to shut up! But you can't have both! Ah, oops. I've spent so long complaining about people I've barely touched on morality.

Case and point, major takeaways are that my argument relies really heavily on this conception of morality I have that centers an appeal to emotion in order to uphold relevant social constructs. How moral someone is defines how good someone is. How good of a citizen they are, how good of a mother they are, how good of a child they are, how good of a worker they are. If the role is deemed good by the group then it is moral to be good at that. What a group defines as good exclusively serves to perpetuate the group. Morality is usually—descriptively—a manipulation of the normative morality, the "universal" basis for morality. Normative morality of course for the most part relies on the concept of the moral agent, which is usually every "rational-minded person" under the same conditions. The notion of the "rational" mind, however, is typically weaponized and used to oppress, so I reject it. Well so, I suppose I'm rejecting the notion of a normative morality, but I recognize a normative basis for morality: emotion. Which, yes, seems self-evident. But in particular I'm saying morality is not defined by it's content, but rather it's utilization of certain biological-emotional reactions. The one in particular that sticks out to me is disgust. Actions that are immoral are disgusting: abhorrent, contemptable, revolting, repugnant, hideous. These are reactions of fear. To be immoral is to associate oneself with the foul, the fearful, the unnatural. This I think, is where I have to talk about a particular binary that is fundamental to my paradigm of human psychology: The pain/joy duality. Honestly, it has many names in my head. The pursuit of joy versus the avoidance of pain, fear and comfort, happiness and sadness, it is the epitome of good/bad. Positive and negative affirmation. The Do's versus the Do-Not's. Good and Bad are the key concepts in ethics, so evidently morality is a social ethical construction of behavior. Mostly, it's the cultural dissemination of practical behavioral knowledge, meant to aide younger members of a group avoid the same old mistakes. With the construction of things like religion, these should's and should-not's become solidified in cultural values by myth, legend, and folklore, defining the "proper", correct behavior of every human; therefore defining the human condition in a group's eyes, culturally. That's why morality defines how good of a human you are. It begins to define human dynamics and social value. And therefore becomes utilized to uplift certain members of a society culturally, and to denounce others, affirming institutional power structures.

As for intuition, well, I'll talk about that next time. In a nutshell: intuition is just emotional reaction. There are many ways I want to elaborate on this, and many implications I'd like to trace out, but honestly I'm tired as shit and just want to publish this. Woo!!! Hope this entry isn't too intense, I got a little carried away there. It's frustrating.

"A Match Into Water" by Pierce The Veil on Bandcamp