[Avoy]

It seems this is a discussion that needs to be had in a post-religious society, as biblical principles once helped guide modern society. You can argue classical philosophy has also been shown the door.

Quote:

Moral
1. of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical: moral attitudes.
2. expressing or conveying truths or counsel as to right conduct, as a speaker or a literary work.
3. founded on the fundamental principles of right conduct rather than on legalities, enactment, or custom: moral obligations.
4. capable of conforming to the rules of right conduct: a moral being.

Quote:

Any definition of “morality” in the descriptive sense will need to specify which of the codes put forward by a society or group count as moral. Even in small homogeneous societies that have no written language, distinctions are sometimes made between morality, etiquette, law, and religion. And in larger and more complex societies these distinctions are often sharply marked. So “morality” cannot be taken to refer to every code of conduct put forward by a society. -- https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/morality-definition/

So back to the question: Who decides what's right or wrong? Whose opinion holds more weight or is it all relative and ever-changing?

This then easily transition into what is virtuous?

Quote:

Virtue
1. moral excellence; goodness; righteousness.
2. conformity of one's life and conduct to moral and ethical principles; uprightness; rectitude.
3. chastity; virginity: to lose one's virtue.
4. a particular moral excellence. Compare cardinal virtues, natural virtue, theological virtue.
5. a good or admirable quality or property: the virtue of knowing one's weaknesses.
6. effective force; power or potency: a charm with the virtue of removing warts.

It begs the question: Are we a lost society because we lost our way or because we have not taken the time to state what matters and champion it?

[RIslander]

I know the answer to your question but I am not sure how to articulate it. I'll give it my best shot.

As a society, as it always is destined to do, falls into degenercy the most denegerate of said society finds a way to establish victim hood. After establishing themselves and other groups as victims, they can rewrite the society's moral code in their own favor.

Those who are the "white knights" of society are swindled into being the enforcers of the new moral ideolagy due to their natural instincts to conform and protect those perceived as weaker (ie women. And by extension, foreign men whom they label as victims due to their desire to access have foreign cock) then themselves.

[LINUX]

(01-30-2019 10:33 PM)Avoy Wrote:  

It begs the question: Are we a lost society because we lost our way or because we have not taken the time to state what matters and champion it?

Maybe all societies are lost.

Maybe life is about being born in a lost and lonely state and spending our whole lives trying not to be, therefore we look to love, god, or meaning to provide comfort.

Who knows.

I do what I do without hurting anyone else in the process and it works for me.

[RIslander]

Dupe.

[RIslander]

Dupe again. Damn mobile app.

[Avoy]

Clarification: This is meant to be a philosophical post on why and what we accept as right and wrong. How society is changing and who the moral authorities are. We can't make a stand against the "cultural decay" without some foundational references we can agree on -- at least that's my thought. But if this thread goes in a different direction, that's fine, too.

[Avoy]

(01-30-2019 11:10 PM)RIslander Wrote:  

Those who are the "white knights" of society are swindled into being the enforcers of the new moral ideolagy due to their natural instincts to conform and protect those perceived as weaker (ie women. And by extension, foreign men whom they label as victims due to their desire to access have foreign cock) then themselves.

This an interesting point: white knights as the unwitting enforcers of the ruling class' morality.

So the present day enforcers would be:
- The blue check-marks on Twitter
- The mainstream media & entertainment producers
- The teachers/academics in our schools and universities

[Avoy]

(01-30-2019 11:11 PM)LINUX Wrote:  

Maybe all societies are lost.

I agree with PJW, not all cultures are equal. I also think certain societies are positioning themselves better than others in terms of expectations of their citizens and what's acceptable in their communities -- Japan and South Korea come to mind.

[url=https://twitter.com/PinkNews/status/1088519334971011073][/url]

[BlueMark]

(01-30-2019 10:33 PM)Avoy Wrote:  

It begs the question: Are we a lost society because we lost our way or because we have not taken the time to state what matters and champion it?

I would choose the former, simply because the latter is not feasible.

You can make a strong case for traditional, redpill morality based on reason and empirical evidence (as the manosphere) has already done. But few people care to listen.

People for the most part don't care to properly understand how things work, they just want to be told what to do. That's why even among the intelligent SWPL class, you see a lot of conformity and herd behavior. It is rare to find people even among high-IQ populations who can stop and think about what moral codes and ideologies we are actually following in our everyday behavior, and whether those are the ones that we *should* be following. Even the ones who get exposed to this in a philosophy class in university (hah!) don't take it with them once they pass the class.

This has become a problem in the modern era as societies have embraced political equality and universal democracy, where the careful, rational decision maker's vote has the same weight as the vote of the people who are emotionally driven, herd followers, etc.

[ThriceLazarus]

To take a dark view of things, I’m feeling some type of way and a little stoned so this may not make much good sense.

TL;DR: Morality is impossible, shoot for ‘Best-Practices’ instead.

The post-modernists may be technically right - that nothing has meaning. That everything is relative. This may be a consequence of time - everything is in flux, in a very real sense. You can’t pin anything down, nothing is static, and anything which appears to be is a mental construct. An abstraction, right? So you think, maybe you can define an abstract Morality - a perfect social construct. Some Eternal Law. However, perception changes too with the times, in ages at first, generationally, now every day. And the immutable law necessarily mutates.

Hard times forge strong people. Strong people yield soft times. Soft times, soft people. And this is a subtle age, with the thin veneer of progress concealing a harrowing machine. Is it just me or is this an age of ambiguity? Lost my train of thought for a moment there. As such, judgement softens, every exception chips away at any semblance of Order. The slippery slope, snakes and ladders, a race to the bottom.

There’s a passage in the Dao De Jing:

When the Way is lost, there is Virtue
When Virtue is lost, there is Benevolence
When Benevolence is lost, there is Righteousness
When Righteousness is lost, there is Etiquette

Etiquette is the flower of the Way.

Isn’t that where the Globo-Homo World finds itself? In this nightmarish politically-correct climate of egoic hypersensitivity? Etiquette is worthless without Righteousness - and Righteousness has most certainly been lost. It’s hard to imagine anyone who isn’t in some way tangentially related to just one of the horrific crimes of the Modern age. Let alone their own faults and failures. Though I’m not without sin, so who am I to judge.

Regardless, any imagining of a moral code, of an Eternal Law, of the Way, has to yield to what actually Is. That ever-changing present moment. And there are models, and methods, and modes that veer very close to what Is. The problem is how this material reality propagates is nightmarish in it’s complexity. And it only seems to get more complex over time. As such, the models only point to what Is. The methods are unproven in an individual sense - and there is no guarantee in the doing. The modes - as in a mode of being - get closer, a mess of models and methods.

I don’t think society is lost. It’s exactly what it should be, where it should be, all things considered. The modern world is the capstone of thousands of years of cultural evolution: from the brutal Natural Law of anitiquity, the Way of Man; the rise of deism and it’s associated Virtues; the prosperity of civilization and Benevolence extending to tibes of tribes, to nations; the Righteousness of hundreds of years of war, of hundreds of wars ended. Every flower petal falls.

And then it all starts again. Helixical, rhyming with itself.

[Avoy]

(01-31-2019 02:47 AM)ThriceLazarus Wrote:  

I don’t think society is lost. It’s exactly what it should be, where it should be, all things considered.

Ok, so at a high-level it's easy to see that if you leave something alone/unattended it will morph into a state of its own, though chaos may precede it -- and what the final result will be can only be know at the end of the upheaval. However, can't we agree that societies can also aspire to be something greater if a plan or vision is laid out? Seems our founding fathers in the US thought so.

(01-31-2019 02:37 AM)BlueMark Wrote:  

You can make a strong case for traditional, redpill morality based on reason and empirical evidence (as the manosphere) has already done. But few people care to listen.

People for the most part don't care to properly understand how things work, they just want to be told what to do.

I agree most people are group thinkers and follow the crowd, which also means they will easily follow a new path if it's laid out in front of them, most without question, if the right messenger is telling them to "come this way." The Elite know this and take advantage of this fact.

[Avoy]

In a strange way I feel like Morpheus telling Neo: Is that air you think you're breathing?

If morality is no longer bound to biblical principals, we can actually devise our own morality. Set our own standards. The progressive left is already doing this and society is just accepting it with little to no objection. Like the excerpt from Stanford's philosophy of morality webpage states: "Any definition of 'morality' in the descriptive sense will need to specify which of the codes put forward by a society or group count as moral."

In the past, people used to say: "That's unamerican." Today it's: "That's not who we are."

Jump to 5:24 - ADL's Courage Against Hate Award to Tim Cook, Apple CEO - 12/5/18

[CynicalContrarian]

Seems a key to a prosperous society is some level of a homogeneous construct.
Whether that be a central religious dogma or a central cultural tradition.

It helps a great deal when most folk are on the same page.

[Paracelsus]

(01-31-2019 05:33 AM)Avoy Wrote:  

If morality is no longer bound to biblical principals, we can actually devise our own morality. Set our own standards. The progressive left is already doing this and society is just accepting it with little to no objection.

It's pretty easy to set a standard everyone likes when you never have to use the word "No".

For there to be morality, there must first be actions from which we refrain. Without this, we are at best directionless and at worst hypocrites.

The Left wants nothing less than Do what thou wilt, and is prepared to enforce Freedom by jackboots and gulags. This Is America.

[Avoy]

(01-31-2019 09:20 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

It's pretty easy to set a standard everyone likes when you never have to use the word "No".

For there to be morality, there must first be actions from which we refrain. Without this, we are at best directionless and at worst hypocrites.

To which I ask again: Are we a lost society because we lost our way or because we have not taken the time to state what matters and champion it?

(01-31-2019 09:20 AM)Paracelsus Wrote:  

The Left wants nothing less than Do what thou wilt, and is prepared to enforce Freedom by jackboots and gulags. This Is America.

Translation: This is how it is. There's not much we can do about it.

It seems that it's difficult for folks to think outside the current construct to figure out a way to destroy it and reclaim what's right/wrong and dictate what's best for a healthy society. I think this is the biggest problem of the right presently. The leadership is clueless and they are still clinging to a religious/conservative past instead of imagining and promoting what a strong and great society of the future can be.

Meanwhile, the progressive left has no hesitation in telling society what it thinks is right and moral. They just passed a law in NY state where women can abort their babies up to the day of its birthday. And, in Virginia, the Governor has shown interest in letting women kill their babies post-birth.

[ilostabet]

Morality depends on having a definition of good and evil and right and wrong. The reason we have lost morality is because our culture has abandoned these definitions as valid. There is no right or wrong, much less good and evil. There's only true and false: materialism. However, it's now obvious that without any good and evil or right or wrong, even true and false go out the window outside of any technical aspects. Social sciences, for example, because they study man as a social being, cannot be rooted in materialism, so they end up being rooted on absolute relativism (hence, 56 genders and so forth, despite the biological sexual binary). Similarly, psychological treatment becomes another vacuous pursuit, if you cannot identify the good, the ordered, the normal, how can you treat the evil, disordered and abnormal? And so on.

By definition, do as thou wilt cannot be a moral principle, not even an immoral principle, but an amoral principle. This is what our society now embraces as dogma: amorality, anything goes. In other words, there is no God outside ourselves. We are our own gods - and all social forces are pushing in this direction, to confirm this narrative.

Good and evil and right and wrong however cannot be dependent on human inclinations (since they are ever changing, and often towards one's own benefit, or what we perceive as benefit), and they are not self-evident, we cannot discern moral principles from observation or from logic alone. They must be revealed to us.

The biggest problem is that while these concepts can only be revealed from on-high, its implementation depends almost completely on what the common people believe. Even the most tyrannical governments rely to some extent on the consent of the public, if they are to last. So the people must be firm believers in whatever dogma is being enforced, otherwise it doesn't work. So there's no easy solution to 'return to morality'. Honestly, given the cultural forces and technology that aim to convince us that we are our own gods - and therefore we can make our own rules - the only way out I see is Divine Intervention.

[RIslander]

This thread can pretty much be summed up by the Fate of Empires essay.

Age of Pioneers:



Age of Conquests:



Age of Commerce:



Age of Affluence:



Age of Intellect (Now the decline has begun):



And finally, the Age of Decadence. Welcome to the decline:

[Avoy]

(01-31-2019 10:34 AM)ilostabet Wrote:  

Good and evil and right and wrong however cannot be dependent on human inclinations (since they are ever changing, and often towards one's own benefit, or what we perceive as benefit), and they are not self-evident, we cannot discern moral principles from observation or from logic alone. They must be revealed to us.

If we only limit ourselves to what the bible states, we've hit a brick wall because we're relying solely on something that was divinely written by other men in the past. It's also a fact that Greeks and Romans had their own set of morals and virtues that were valued without a Christian/Jewish God. Islam has its own set of morals. FYI - I was raised Catholic (now non-practicing). Personally, I think any political party tying themselves to any specific religion is suicide. Should the right align themselves with Pope Francis and the Vatican? That's a big no from me.

I believe we can dictate what is right/wrong/best for a healthy society without being dependent on any specific religion. We're watching the progressive left do it as we speak. They need to be challenged. I mentioned Japan and South Korea earlier... they're predominately Buddhist, though most don't practice full-time. Somehow they still have their head on straight and know how to protect their people from outside influences. Both countries are also unapologetically nationalist and homogenous.

[ThriceLazarus]

@Avoy

Certainly we can all aspire to be better - how many dream of that great Utopia? The problem with an overarching plan, a Great Vision, is that it must be in line with circumstances of the times. Morality must have some personal use to even be developed - it is a consequence of the pressures put upon us by the gross material strata. The more intense the pressure, the greater the diamond produced, hence the beauty of past moral schemas blossoming from savage and brutal times.

Modern pressures have produced this modern morality. You mention destroying this current construct, it’s only possible if the underlying circumstances change. Everything changes, you would need to lead the river, ride the tiger.

@Paracelsus

Very succinct. The rub therein is that there is very little external pressure to keep one from refraining from what was traditionally considered immoral. Further still, the spectrum of existence has become so broad that the pressures we face in our day to day lives have become uniquely individual in their circumstances.

As such, do what thou wilt becomes the whole of the Law.

@ilostabet

Well put.

Morality is apocalyptic. That’s been a sticky talking point in these circles for years, “Enjoy the decline!” If things go pear-shaped the radical change in external circumstance will produce a new moral mode. Divine Intervention, four horsemen, a rider in white.

Morality is apokalitikos - un-covered. Revealed. Again this calls for Divine Intervention, the hope that the Man comes around.

[Avoy]

In related news: House Democrats vote to strike "So help me God" from the oath

Quote:

"It is incredible, but not surprising, that the Democrats would try to remove God from committee proceedings in one of their first acts in the majority," House Republican Conference Chairwoman Liz Cheney, R-Wyo., told Fox News. "They really have become the party of Karl Marx."

Does it bug me that a historical reference to God is being removed? Yes. Does it also bother me that Republican's moral authority is strictly derived from the bible? Yes. Not because I hate it, but because it's a self-imposed virtue box.

[The Beast1]

Morality can be observed through the golden rule, the one true law of the land.

What is the great commandment ?

Luke 10:26-28
26What is written in the Law?" Jesus replied. "How do you understand it?" 27He answered, " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Love him with all your strength and with all your mind.’(Deuteronomy 6:5) And, ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ " 28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do that, and you will live.".

Anything else is a lie that will lead to suffering and death.

[ilostabet]

(01-31-2019 11:42 AM)Avoy Wrote:  

(01-31-2019 10:34 AM)ilostabet Wrote:  

Good and evil and right and wrong however cannot be dependent on human inclinations (since they are ever changing, and often towards one's own benefit, or what we perceive as benefit), and they are not self-evident, we cannot discern moral principles from observation or from logic alone. They must be revealed to us.

If we only limit ourselves to what the bible states, we've hit a brick wall because we're relying solely on something that was divinely written by other men in the past. It's also a fact that Greeks and Romans had their own set of morals and virtues that were valued without a Christian/Jewish God. Islam has its own set of morals. FYI - I was raised Catholic (now non-practicing). Personally, I think any political party tying themselves to any specific religion is suicide. Should the right align themselves with Pope Francis and the Vatican? That's a big no from me.

I believe we can dictate what is right/wrong/best for a healthy society without being dependent on any specific religion. We're watching the progressive left do it as we speak. They need to be challenged. I mentioned Japan and South Korea earlier... they're predominately Buddhist, though most don't practice full-time. Somehow they still have their head on straight and know how to protect their people from outside influences. Both countries are also unapologetically nationalist and homogenous.

Well I can quote St. Paul and say that those who have not received the law can be the law unto themselves as the basic principles are written in men's hearts. This makes total sense to me as a Christian. But you wouldn't buy that.

But that's just it, I don't think any political movement can revert this trend. It takes a long time to build something good and beautiful, and only a little to destroy it. We are witnessing, not the destruction, but the trampling of the ruins. I don't see any politician, certainly not in democracy, being able to start building when everyone is still enjoying the trampling. It would take, in my opinion, a complete societal collapse and roll back of modern technology to start building something sane again.

As for aligning with the Pope and the Vatican, no. It has been degenerating for a long time - it's debatable since when, but I don't think that concept is coming back, and in my opinion it had the seeds of its own destruction. A relevant quote would be from The Brothers Karamazov: «Understand, the Church is not to be transformed into the State. That is Rome and its dream. That is the third temptation of the devil. On the contrary, the State is transformed into the Church, will ascend and become a Church over the whole world- which is the complete opposite of Ultramontanism and Rome».

And lastly, as I have written in another thread, I don't see how anyone can look at Japan and S. Korea and think "yeah, this is the society I want to have". They know how to keep foreigners out, great, I wish we did too. But other than that, I don't think there's any society more pathologically atomized and desintegrated than Japan and South Korea. Of course, I have never been there, but I can see the cultural artifacts, the societal trends and judge them. Not all, not all, not all. Obviously the rural communities, insofar as they are still far enough away from modern technology, are probably ok. But even then, they had tentacle porn and other disgusting sexual deviancy like that way before the Industrial Revolution. Hell, the Samurai had man-boy love as a rite of passage. Maybe it's the fact that Portugal is the furthest, most western part of the world as compared to Japan, but to me everything about their culture seems completely off and I would not like to emulate them. Perhaps if the US hadn't H-bombed the two major Catholic cities things would have been different, who knows, perhaps not. But when I look at those countries I see, not a proof of moral order without God, but the proof that it doesn't exist.

Cue the Japan fetishists.

[fktax]

Morality is individual.

What is immoral to you is completely fine to someone else.

The mistake most people make is assuming that because their {priest|mother|teacher|boss|president} has a certain morality, that they must act to the same code. You cannot. Every individual is different.

You can hold similar values and work to a similar morality to others, but you'll still have a different morality.

I feel this is what people begin to learn at some stage between 25 and 45. And this is why most 50 year olds have some wisdom on their shoulders.

When you begin to realise that you can control who you are, and you're able to hold differing values, a lot of pressure goes away.

[Waqqle]

God. In order for morality to be objective, there must be an eternal and unchanging standard of good with all things being judged as good based on their proximity to that standard and bad based on their distance from it. Without a universal and eternal constant, morality could never be anything but purely subjective. If it is subjective, then the word "morality" is meaningless because we already have words for etiquette, law, custom, preference and other things which describe things but do not necessarily distinguish them as being closer to or farther away from the origin of either all good or all bad.

If there is more than one god, then the standard could vary depending upon which god it originates from, which god represents the purest fulfillment of that standard, and which god a particular person has chosen to devote themselves to (which standard he has chosen to hold himself to). In this way, it is not subjective but it does vary from deity to deity unless there is some ultimate deity above and beyond them who represents and sets the supreme standard to which even they are ultimately held.

If there are no gods, then asking what/who defines morality is as meaningless as asking which color is the best color.

[Sherman]

In my opinion, the Judeo-Christian morality has been weaponized against us. It would be better to return to the morality of the ancient Romans and Greeks. Could you imagine a group of Roman citizens with signs saying "refugees welcome" after the senate has decided not to allow a group of nomadic Gauls within Roman territory? The underlying morality of the masses conditioned in Judeo-Christian ethics is being cynically manipulated. If this was ancient Rome, it just wouldn't work because the masses haven't been condition to be guilty if they don't believe in pathological altruism. Also, there is a good argument that Marxism comes out of Judaic morality.

As for whether there is one moral truth, the argument goes back to the beginning of philosophy. The sophists, like Protagoras taught relativity, i.e. , "Man is the measure of all things". If you put two men in a room, one will say it is hot and the other it is cold. It depends on the man and there is no ultimate truth. Plato's response was that truth is discoverable, and he demonized the sophists to strengthen his argument. However the two positions are legitimate inquiries. Aristotle defined ethics as practicing proper conduct, and you just had to go out there in real life and practice to acquire virtue.

The SJWs have their version of morality and they are fanatically determined to impose it on every human being in the world. They are intolerant of any other point of view. And their morality is truly bizarre. On one hand, telling someone they are overweight is fat-shaming and immoral, but on the other hand they are getting to the point where they will legalize killing a breathing baby because the woman has the right to choose. And as communists, they will eventually define having property as immoral. And not allowing your son to become a girl is immoral. The SJW version of morality is suicidal and will create a true hell on earth, a cosmic Venezuela.