''Not giving a fuck'' as an alternative to morality as we know it
Let's look at the most simple scenario possible: John stole your stuff. Had you lived in 10,000 BC you probably would've set out to strike him back; so civilization, which emerged later, had decided that stealing causes destructive behaviors and is therefore immoral. So since now that you live in 2019, if John stole your stuff you can have him arrested because everyone agrees that stealing is immoral.
But if we put the focus on John, however, we find that he probably wasn't doing this out of free choice, and that he were strongly molded by society. Say, he grew up in a nasty slum and always had to survive by stealing, so he, facing whatever situation, probably thought it was necessary for him to steal your stuff.
From your perspective, to be a thief is to be destructive and therefore immoral, even though society made him so in the first place. But from the John's perspective, it's society that has been destructive by having made who he is, and that his behavior is society taking its well-deserved toll, even though stealing is destructive.
So as we can see, whenever we call something moral or immoral, the underlying assumption is always ''This is (im)moral because blah blah blah, EVEN THOUGH blah blah blah''.
So to recap:
You: John shouldn't have had been a thief because it's destructive to society, even though that's exactly what society have molded him into.
John: I have no reason to NOT be a thief because that's what society molded me into, even though you lost your stuff as a result.
And it's even impossible to remove the ''even though'' because, duh, that'd make morality obsolete. But we can't deny the fact that you can't fundamentally substantiate these ''even-thoughs'' using any empirical falsifiable truth.
My solution to this conundrum is, please don't laugh, to ''not give a fuck''. That is, you don't give a fuck that John stole your stuff--in fact, you don't give fuck about ANYTHING that would be considered transgressions towards you.
Sure, this may sound ludicrous and counterintuitive, but think about this:
The less fucks you give about your property, the less John would want to STEAL your property.
Or similarly, in other situations:
The less fucks you give about your reputation, the less haters would find it valuable to tamper it.
The less fucks you give about your politically enthusiastic colleague Karen, the less she'd find it worthwhile to try to convert you to her political worldview.
The difficult part is that this solution can only work if EVERYONE in a given society sticks to it. But once everyone does, society as we know it would be so much better that the conventional concept of morality becomes obsolete.
If everyone stops giving a fuck about their property, there'd be no thieves--I mean, no nasty slums and street rats like John in the first place.
This may seem as if I'm just peddling communism, but no, hear me: this applies to ANY other situation as well, and solves the problems with maximal efficiency.
If everyone stops giving a fuck about their own reputations, then nobody would get haters since it's now futile to hate someone.
If everyone stops giving a fuck about converting people to their own religions, then their religions wouldn't get attacked and criticized in the first place.
If everyone stops giving a fuck about having enemies, then nobody would be anybody's enemy.
The list goes on and on. But one thing's for sure: the world will be a better place if we all don't give a fuck.
But if we put the focus on John, however, we find that he probably wasn't doing this out of free choice, and that he were strongly molded by society. Say, he grew up in a nasty slum and always had to survive by stealing, so he, facing whatever situation, probably thought it was necessary for him to steal your stuff.
From your perspective, to be a thief is to be destructive and therefore immoral, even though society made him so in the first place. But from the John's perspective, it's society that has been destructive by having made who he is, and that his behavior is society taking its well-deserved toll, even though stealing is destructive.
So as we can see, whenever we call something moral or immoral, the underlying assumption is always ''This is (im)moral because blah blah blah, EVEN THOUGH blah blah blah''.
So to recap:
You: John shouldn't have had been a thief because it's destructive to society, even though that's exactly what society have molded him into.
John: I have no reason to NOT be a thief because that's what society molded me into, even though you lost your stuff as a result.
And it's even impossible to remove the ''even though'' because, duh, that'd make morality obsolete. But we can't deny the fact that you can't fundamentally substantiate these ''even-thoughs'' using any empirical falsifiable truth.
My solution to this conundrum is, please don't laugh, to ''not give a fuck''. That is, you don't give a fuck that John stole your stuff--in fact, you don't give fuck about ANYTHING that would be considered transgressions towards you.
Sure, this may sound ludicrous and counterintuitive, but think about this:
The less fucks you give about your property, the less John would want to STEAL your property.
Or similarly, in other situations:
The less fucks you give about your reputation, the less haters would find it valuable to tamper it.
The less fucks you give about your politically enthusiastic colleague Karen, the less she'd find it worthwhile to try to convert you to her political worldview.
The difficult part is that this solution can only work if EVERYONE in a given society sticks to it. But once everyone does, society as we know it would be so much better that the conventional concept of morality becomes obsolete.
If everyone stops giving a fuck about their property, there'd be no thieves--I mean, no nasty slums and street rats like John in the first place.
This may seem as if I'm just peddling communism, but no, hear me: this applies to ANY other situation as well, and solves the problems with maximal efficiency.
If everyone stops giving a fuck about their own reputations, then nobody would get haters since it's now futile to hate someone.
If everyone stops giving a fuck about converting people to their own religions, then their religions wouldn't get attacked and criticized in the first place.
If everyone stops giving a fuck about having enemies, then nobody would be anybody's enemy.
The list goes on and on. But one thing's for sure: the world will be a better place if we all don't give a fuck.
Comments (55)
But I'd say that the most important one is that morality isn't ultimately socially determined, it's individually determined, hinging on the behavior that people do give a fuck about, and can't help but give a fuck about. Social norms develop out of that, not the other way around.
So, for example, Jane gives a fuck about Joe wanting to have sex with her, where Joe will do so against Jane's consent and resistance if he has to.
Or Joe gives a fuck about having Bob around, so that he can't help but be upset when David murders Bob just because Bob "stole his parking spot at the grocery store" according to David.
People care about stealing, when they do, for the same reason--you're taking stuff of theirs that they care about and can't help but care about. It's stuff they want, maybe that they'd say they need--like the money in their bank account that they need to use to buy food or medicine to stay alive, etc.
I'm sure there are things I could do to you, or people around you, that you'd give a fuck about. Like if I were to torture you in particular ways. It would simply be a natural, instinctual reaction that you'd have.
We'll that's for sure! I am personally trying to pursue this way of life and it's actually working out pretty well.
However, wouldn't you be happier if John didn't steal your stuff because you "didn't give a fuck" but because he respected you as a person and as the owner of the things he initially wanted to steal? I don't know, maybe my world view is excessively romantic and I believe in human morality too much. Also, do you really think everyone is capable of not giving a fuck?
Well, no, because I'm not asking for John's respect in the first place, and I don't feel proud of owning anything because I know I'd lose them anyway in the future.
We put a LOT of resources into teaching kids how to care about things that they don't need to care about...perhaps divert all those resources into training them how not to give a fuck, and my solution would finally work.
I gotta admit, I wouldn't. But again, my solution only works in everyone stops giving a fuck together at once.
According to my understanding of psychology, some fundamental reasons why rapists rape are:
1) they haven't got what they want
2) forbidden things are TEMPTING because if you do them you'd be ''triumphing over the rules of society
And here's how my solution would work. You don't get women if you want them too much because you'd come across as being desperate and needy. And once we stop forbidding anything in the first place, then those wannabe rule-breakers would not be tempted.
OK, let's say you don't care about John's respect. But maybe John doesn't care about you not giving a fuck and he is stealing your stuff because he needs them or because his family needs them. The "not giving a fuck" strategy works when those who are causing you harm do it because they want to upset you (for example, bullies). But if John doesn't care about you being upset or no, would "not giving a fuck" stop him from stealing things from you?
Another reason is "I want to have sex with this person," and in your world, now there are no repercussions for having sex with them even if they're not interested in having sex with me.
"You don't get women if you want them too much" -- in your world, you can just take them, and no one gives a fuck.
Good thing is that we can agree to disagree on this. My proposition is that to not give a fuck is a solution to problems that morality can't solve, and your proposition is that morality is a solution to our inherent incapability of not giving a fuck.
My model still works, though. Jane giving a fuck about John's sexual desires towards her would make John want her even more, yet get equally more frustrated in the process. So if she instead gives no fuck, then John actually would have no reason to make any transgressions as well.
And the reason why David would shoot anyone for such a trivial cause is that he had a bad childhood; and according to what I've seen, the reason why a childhood could be bad is because the adults around you give a negative fuck about you giving a positive fuck.
I understand. However, the tragedy of the commons happens when people living in a communistic society still give a fuck.
In my model, people would not give a fuck about one person acting on his own will, and that person would also not give a fuck about getting more stuff from other people. And in the end, there'd only be rational discussions on whether the actions of said person are substantiated.
You're right; though this is also exactly why my model can only work if everyone in the world stops giving a fuck at the same time together. Highly impractical, but hey, who knows.
It's not circular if I've got a plan in mind for making everyone not giving a fuck.
Look, we waste a lot of resources teaching kids they don't need to know. How about divert all those resources into teaching them how not to give a fuck?
But before that we can try to develop a whole ethical theory based on the principle of not giving a fuck, so that it can have the potential to be systematically implemented.
In the small scale the "not giving a fuck" model works, though. It makes those who apply it happier and less stressed (I speak from experience).
Exactly, works for me too, heck it had been an epiphany for me after spending my teenage years giving a fuck about how people around me should behave lol
?? Morality isn't a solution to anything. It's a reaction that people naturally have, so that they can't help but have that reaction. You're hoping to "weed out" a natural reaction somehow. It's no different than saying that you want to eliminate the natural reaction that someone has when they place their hand on a hot stove. You can't just teach kids to not experience pain, to not recoil when they feel their hand burning. You'd have to change the way persons' brains work to avoid that reaction.
For some odd reason you're seeing moral transgressions solely as perpetrators wanting to rebel against things that people care about--as if moral transgressors are a bunch of high school goths or something. That's not what the majority of moral transgressions are. Most grow out of conflicting desires, in an atmosphere of a relative lack of empathy (so ironically, perps relatively don't give a fuck what victims care/don't care about), and/or they grow out of emotional reactions that perps have but don't control very well--such as murdering someone, or at least taking a tire iron to their car or whatever, because they "stole your parking space at the grocery store."
Actually, you wouldn't give a fuck about forcing anyone to do anything in the first place. Unless you're a sociopath, of course, but I believe a society adopting my model would have specific laws and procedures regarding sociopaths. In this case, if John can be identified as a sociopath, he can be simply taken care of.
Then the society gives a fuck after all. Not giving a fuck means that anyone can do anything to anyone they like, and no one gives a fuck about it.
My model is not remotely as extreme as teaching kids not to feel pain. Instead, my model can work even though everyone still feels emotional pain (and frankly isn't relevant to it). Instead everyone simply makes NO claims on how each other should behave.
And my model can also eliminate the problems caused by conflicting desires and empathy-poor communities. You simply don't give a fuck about ousting those with conflicting desire and you'd discuss with them instead. And people can escape from empathy-poor communities because empathy-rich ones would definitely be welcome, and there'd also be no taboo on whom you should live with.
This can be considered necessary evil to maintain the not-giving-a-fuck-ness of said society. No society can exist without necessary evil.
Yes it is, because all that morality is is a pain-like reaction to interpersonal behavior. Teaching someone to not give a fuck when they're raped, or when their spouse is murdered, is no less extreme than supposing you could teach people to not give a fuck when they put their hand on a hot stove, or cut off their hand with a circular saw or whatever.
Ousting people is NOT not giving a fuck. That's precisely giving a fuck.
You're defining morality as a state of emotion, but I thought morality is a label that's applied to what we think each other ought to behave, so that everyone can be in a maximally good emotional state.
And my model is exactly the thing to make it even better, with the very same premise in hand! The truth, you usually earn stuff when you're not thinking too much about it, and you lose stuff when you think too much about it. I'm just expanding this principle to the realm of morality as we know it.
All your objections seem to be raw emotional responses to counterintuitive thinking.
In my hypothetical society, I'd be surprised if you were to poke a sharp object at me either because you want to do so in the first place or that society hasn't identified you as a psychopath whom must be taken special care of.
But in the end, I have the right to resist you without breaking my principles. My model is aiming to make the world a better place just like any other ethical model, and individuals breaching the model should be taken special care of (in this scenario, resisting you is the special care).
It's a state of emotion about how other people are behaving. So yeah, that is how you think other people should behave, but the reason you think that in the first place is because of the emotional reaction to (the idea of) particular behaviors.
Again, it is NOT a "solution" to anything. It's an unavoidable way that people feel, which would be easy to demonstrate in person as I poke you with sharp objects, as I pull you over to the stove, etc. It's not true that you'd not give a fuck re whatever I'd do to you.
Did you miss the part that you're factually wrong in thinking that all moral transgressors are basically just high school goths?
Let's slow this down so we're not just repeating stuff.
This is dangerously close to an argumentum ad passiones.
After all, the very foundation of society is to NOT be 100% loyal to our emotions! Before civilization, if someone hits you, the only response is to hit him back, and surprise, that's also what your intuitions tell you to do. But you don't need to hit him back in a civilized society because you'd know he'd get arrested.
Both hitting someone back and arresting them are giving a fuck how other people are behaving.
Not giving a fuck is when they hit you and there are zero repercussions.
Straw man fallacy.
All moral transgressors share the mentality of high school goths, but moral transgressors ? high school goths.
That's the straw man you're assuming. I explained this already. Again, slow down so we don't have to keep repeating stuff.
Please be patient. I'm subtly showing the progressiveness of my model, how that's the next step of civilization. Think of it like this:
Pre-civilization: you HAVE to give a fuck.
Civilization as we know it: you don't have to give so much fuck.
Civilization using my model: you don't need to give a fuck.
Repeating again: arresting someone is giving a fuck.
I don't see how I'm not slowing you down already. And I don't need to be Einstein to spot a straw man.
Which is exactly why I'm proposing the model in the first place, a hypothetical society that's more progressive than the current one!
Neither of these resemble understanding what I wrote above. Hence why you should slow down.
That's it, I'm done arguing with you.
You just wrote: "Civilization as we know it: you don't have to give so much fuck." This is not true. Civilization as we know it gives just as much of a fuck.
Quoting Three-Buddy Problem
Which is as it should be, but because you finally realize you were saying something stupid.
Jesus Christ. Even though the argument is over, let me show why it is so:
You deliberately misunderstand my point, presumably because you're emotionally overwhelmed. For example: when I said you ''don't have to give so much fuck'', I meant that you don't need to hit the transgressor by yourself because last time I checked we've got this thing called the LAW. In my model, moral transgressions themselves are prevented by people not giving a fuck altogether; and transgressors that are ''immune'' to this are taken special care of. However, you're somewhat correct about the fact that the existence of civilization itself is a result of ''giving a fuck'', albeit in a simpler way than what I've been talking about; so confusing the two would be an equivocation fallacy.
This is a misunderstanding that my aim is to destroy morality. No, my aim is exactly the same as all ethical systems, albeit the mindset is fundamentally different.
The very fundamental reason behind most murders is murder being considered immoral in the first place. For a transgressor, happiness lies within breaking the most crucial rules of society; so if we have no such ''rules'' in the first place there'd be no transgressors (but that doesn't mean we don't get to have laws; laws are still needed to maintain this ''rulelessness'').
So to answer your question: I would intervene out of empathy, but my grander plan for preventing anyone from attacking children again is to not give a fuck about it, so that child-attackers don't give a fuck about attacking children in return.
A morality grounded in “You shouldn’t give a fuck” is only going to be taken by those without a moral compass as permission to commit any immoral acts they want.
There is a moral ecology to the world so while your view has its place, it would be destructive if it were universally in place by most reasonable people. Moral Apathy is never okay as a universal application.
I thought you were done? lol
Quoting Three-Buddy Problem
"You don't need to hit the transgressor yourself" in no way equates to "don't have to give so much fuck."
Quoting Three-Buddy Problem
That doesn't prevent the actions. It just would imply (if it were possible, of course, which it isn't without significantly changing our brains) that people don't care about the actions.
Quoting Three-Buddy Problem
That's not what I said, though. I said that arresting someone for an action is giving a fuck about that action.
“You deliberately misunderstand my point, presumably because you're emotionally overwhelmed.” I don’t think he’s misunderstanding you, I think he’s just rejecting your conclusion entirely on the grounds that it simply wouldn’t work because it relies on the existence of an ideal world where everyone is rational and well educated. The biological fact of nuerodiversity precludes is from having a universal moral code such as this. How is a psychopath supposed to care about morality if he was born without an amygdala or one of a reduced size? How is our not caring about what he does ever going to deter him from striking out at peoples lives?
You realise that some sociopaths are the way they are because too many people were apathetic to the wrongs being inflicted on them during their formative years in childhood?
If we cared about nothing, why would we even keep ourselves alive?
I mean, you might as well just say “If we were all a different species with different ways of viewing things and a severe level of uniformity, then we could all just not care about morality and everything would be fine.”
The misunderstanding would be on your part. Giving a fuck about interpersonal behavior is what morality is in a nutshell.
Quoting Three-Buddy Problem
I've pointed out a number of times that this is a ridiculous misconception that you have. Most moral transgressions and crimes are not motivated out of someone wanting to be a rebel. What in the world are you basing your belief about this on?
If people really didn't give a fuck about being raped, I'd be raping at least a couple different women per day. I wouldn't be doing this to be a rebel. I'd be doing it because I'm a horny bastard who likes variety and who is attracted to about 90% of the women I encounter. As things are I wouldn't rape anyone because (a) I have empathy and I'm not fond of taking actions against the consent of the person I'm taking the action with, and (b) I'd not risk being incarcerated, but if women were to genuinely not give a fuck if I have sex with them or not, without needing to do anything with/towards them except start to have sex with them, and there were no risk of incarceration (which would have to be the case if people don't give a fuck), then why wouldn't I? It wouldn't be nonconsensual, because withholding consent entails giving a fuck about what is happening to oneself.
So the actions of the people currently considered transgressors wouldn't change--except for that small minority of people who actually are motivated by wanting to rebel. It would just be that people would be getting raped and murdered and maimed and robbed, etc.without anyone caring about it. (And of course we could bring up the point that it's not rape if it's not nonconsensual, it's not murder if it's not illegal, etc.--but the end result would be just the same. The people in question wouldn't either want or not want the actions performed to them. We're stipulating that they literally don't care either way.)
I don't think what he's saying at all resembles an "ideal world," and it doesn't have anything to do with rationality or education.
The rejection is on the grounds of him (a) apparently not even understanding what morality is, (b) having no understanding of emotional reactions about interpersonal behavior being as "core" to our brain function as reactions about pain outside of interpersonal behavior, (c) having ridiculous notions of behavior that one objects to being rooted in people wanting to rebel, and so on.
My suspicion is that he's either another Aspie and/or another person with severe "clinical" depression (I say "another" because we seem to get a lot of both) who is trying to parse things from that perspective. A symptom of severe depression is often an overarching apathy about everything. It wouldn't seem so much of a stretch from that perspective to figure that we could just get everyone to be apathetic about everything. And then based on the misconception of people just wanting to be rebels, you'd figure that that would "solve" all of our moral issues.
"That doesn't prevent the actions. It just would imply (if it were possible, of course, which it isn't without significantly changing our brains) that people don't care about the actions."
"I mean, you might as well just say “If we were all a different species with different ways of viewing things and a severe level of uniformity, then we could all just not care about morality and everything would be fine.”
These are similar arguments to be honest. The point is our brains would need to be significantly different. I also believe that Apathy is in the end a coping mechanism people escape into.
"My suspicion is that he's either another Aspie and/or another person with severe "clinical" depression (I say "another" because we seem to get a lot of both) who is trying to parse things from that perspective. A symptom of severe depression is often an overarching apathy about everything. It wouldn't seem so much of a stretch from that perspective to figure that we could just get everyone to be apathetic about everything. And then based on the misconception of people just wanting to be rebels, you'd figure that that would "solve" all of our moral problems."
I know you understand you are employing a genetic fallacy here, however your reasoning is mostly correct. Part of the process to dealing with getting out of a black and white view of morality is to jump to the grayest gray. At those points you can't see the rainbow for the clouds. However I feel if you are correct about either the Aspie thing or depression thing then our reaction to the apathy should be one of empathy. Apathy has it's place in our moral ecology but not to the extreme the OP thinks.
I myself was diagnosed with Aspergers at 23. It's a trauma of its own kind, similar to how studying philosophy itself can be existentially traumatic. I don't really buy my diagnosis anymore tbh I think i was just being raised in a dysfunctional family which is no longer the case and these diagnoses were never meant to be much more than a concept tool to provide a framework for where you need to grow and develop or what environment you require to thrive or be safe.
If Terrapin station has a point about the psychiatric label thing then read carefully this. "The Rule of the animal kingdom is kill or be killed; The rule for the kingdom of man is Define or be Defined" - Thomas Szasz. Don't get stuck in the rabbit hole of believing you are your diagnosis. Think of it as a framework for how you need to improve yourself. If you have social anxiety, force yourself to be social, if you are depressed, stand up and look straight up and put on the biggest smile you possibly can and stay like that for one minute with your arms outstretched. I dare you to feel depressed while doing this.
I'm not arguing that he's wrong because of these facts. It would only be the genetic fallacy if I were doing that. Why he's taking the track he's taking is what I'm seeking to explain instead. It's a bit of armchair psychology.
One could argue that if EVERYONE didn't give a fuck then the situation may be quite different. Of course it all depends on the possibility of such a thing. Can we really not give a fuck about suffering. Suffering has a way of grabbing your attention especially if experienced in the first person. Could you really not give a fuck about someone beating you with a baseball bat? I don't know. I've heard of mad saints who would fall into that category but notice I said "mad". To not give a fuck about anything is insane.
Perhaps we can reposition ourselves on the not-give-a-fuck-couch by separating things we do give a fuck about from those we don't give a fuck about. I have a feeling, almost a foreboding, that if you really think about it nothing really matters which is basically what you're trying to say here - don't give a fuck about anything.
HOWEVER, not everyone is on the same page and we need to accommodate those who do care, give a fuck in your parlance, about whathaveyou. That's very important or else
I truly doubt that. I don't see the causal chain.
Ah, ok, it isn't a causal chain....
Yes, if no one gave shit about....
Well, wait a minute, how extensive must that category be? How about rape? Child abuse?
Ok, the idea is that we all stop giving a fuck about anything, then we don't have trouble with each other.
But then, we don't have any motivations, because all experiences are the same to us. Nothing is negative, nothing is positive. Eat ice cream or lick an ashtray...I don't give a fuck. So if someone steals my ice cream or forces me to lick an ashtray...it's all good or the same, at least.
So if everyone could no longer give a fuck about what anyone did, they would simply not give a fuck. And this would mean they would have no motivation to go to work, find love, create art, not step in front of a train, eat, breath.
We can elminate all moral conflict by all killing ourselves, but I am not sure if it's a solution either.
I think the problem is even deeper. To not give a shit about what other people do (to you) requires not giving a shit about everything. A person might knock the ice cream out of your hand on the sidewalk. You can't care that you are not eating ice cream. Extend this to the full range of desires, and not getting them. This is stopping a desire. Then you have the giving you unpleasant experiences. Pouring water on you in winter. Taking your car so you have to walk. Extend this to all unpleasant experiences. To maintain not giving a fuck you can no longer dislike unpleasant experiences and prefer ones you want. You can no longer prefer, desire, want to avoid. You would be, basically, a motivationless creature. All states and experiences would be the same to you. Civilization, even continued existence, would collapse. Why work? Live? Eat? make? kiss? Homo sapiens ends on a shrug.
Exactly.
"Society" doesn't make people into thieves -- or saints, either. Unless, of course, you believe in absolute determinism. But, as it happens, you don't believe in absolute determinism, because you are proposing that we voluntarily stop giving a rat's ass about whatever happens to us or anybody (everybody) else. Thieves are made through a combination of social norms and pressures working in contrary directions; parental neglect (failure to instill the sense of right and wrong); personal proclivities, and more.
People don't become thieves merely because other people are possessive. two year olds work on that level (if child A takes a toy that child B isn't playing with, child B will get upset). even older children, never mind adults, display more complex possession-related behavior.
Your proposal that we not give a fuck about anything covers your proposal, unfortunately. According to you, I shouldn't give a fuck about your theory. Because your theory is based on profoundly erroneous assumptions, I am responding. So I give a fuck for the next 5 minutes, after which fuck expires.
"Giving a fuck" or having emotional investment in objects, persons, and places--all things of which we can be deprived--is not a question of morality. It's a question of animal behavior. Animals tend to get attached. Birds care for and defend their nests. Lions don't casually relinquish a kill to somebody else. We protect our stuff because we like, love, and/or are attached to it.
Your proposal to not give a fuck has to overcome morality; more to the point, it also has to overcome animal behavior. Monastics practice detachment from objects, persons, and places, and find it quite difficult -- impossible beyond a certain point -- even though they are in a closed off society which supports abandoning attachment.
Jesus advised us to "turn the other cheek"; if somebody slaps the left side of your face, turn so they can conveniently slap your right side as well. That might sound like not giving a fuck, but there was a give-a-fuck reason for letting people slap you around. In his system, your standing in heaven (about which he thought we should definitely give a fuck) is more important than your standing on earth (which he considered less important).
You are advising us to turn the other cheek for no reason at all. Personally, if I am going to get slapped around, I want there to be some definite and considerable benefit. That's because we are endowed with 'fuck'*** which we can not give up.
*** At the conclusion of Margaret Atwood's terrific science fiction trilogy MaddAddam, the naive "new people" wondered what the old kind of people meant when they used the word "fuck". The old people, soon to die off, told the new children that "Fuck" was a god, and when they said "Fuck" they were invoking the god. Very fanciful.
In one of his novels, Tom Wolfe provides a complete sample of "fuck patois", giving all the possible uses of 'fuck' in a sentence. If I remember correctly, he also provided examples of 'shit patois'.
Thought you would like to know that.