Those with the power to successfully impose their will are always justified in doing so as they alone will remain alive to define what "just" is.
Those with the power to successfully impose their will are always justified in doing so as they alone will remain alive to define what "just"...
Which is why the weak and moronic exploit psychological weaknesses of the powerful to justify their existence, it being one of the few tools they have.
But if MiR is followed to its logical conclusion, how would one ever enact positive/constructive change from a "proletariat" perspective without being crushed into smithereens? Seems one of the positives of the West is the gradual distribution of power across time (positive for the proles that is) and the valuation of the individual (which includes the proletariat individual).
Maybe, but unfortunately for us the most powerful groups in the Western world are women, israelites, soys/redditors.
Exactly. Ragnar would change his tune if he saw the world today.
Why is every book with this thesis, which seems almost self-evidently true through history, so fricking terrible? This book felt like reading a school shooter's rambling diary found on a laptop he didn't properly wipe
It's not so self-evident, that's why many perceptive men saw history as more or less a string of injustices and errors.
Morality is either metaphysically deontic or populist in origin, if we're using the word 'morality' to refer to a code of use in guiding action
It seems to me the sheer weight of variability in perceived metaphysical origins of morality almost refute the former before it gets off the ground
Sure, there are commonalities between the moral codes of Abrahamic religions, Buddhism, the various Hinduisms, etc., but these are only superficial, so the only way to conclusively claim there IS a metaphysical origin for morality is to claim that either your chosen flavor happens to be right ("no, no, I'm not using a metaphysical lever to justify my preconceptions, I'm just right lol"), or that there is some perennial morality encoded imperfectly in the existing metaphysical codes for morality, which is tendentious and shaky
And all this is to ignore the fact that, if you've CHOSEN to use a specific metaphysical framework to base your morality, by CHOOSING in this way you have articulated your own will as the crux of your moral framework, insofar as you could have chosen another framework just as easily ("I choose this because it 'feels' right")
Perceptive men throughout history have believed themselves to be right, and so believing have also believed those who've disagreed with them to be wrong--injustice is merely the word we use to describe a reality that does not conform to our personal ideal
>Morality is either metaphysically deontic or populist in origin.
That's hilarious because neither of those are the basis of modern Western morality. You just seem uneducated, and probably teenaged.
If you're referring to social contract, that is populist--if you're referring to the Christian morality that's still vaguely encoded in the West, that is metaphysically based--my personal feeling is that Western morality is primarily, at this point, a reflexive conformity to fear of punishment (either formal and carceral, or social), and that these are often justified through reference to Christianity, although Christianity has served more as a scaffold to establish our current system (as a note, much of the modern hand-wringing about the decline of Christianity originates in a recognition that it's not really necessary to maintain our current morality, though that's my opinion based on conversation)
I would be interested to hear what alternative you feel is the case
99% Westerners are ethical utilitarians or consequentialists for the most part, it's funny you don't realize this. If you want to critique something you should at least make an effort to understand it.
I actually largely agree with you, but I'm not referring to the way in which a morality is expressed, but to the basis of that morality
Both a serial killer and a saint can be consequentialists, insofar as both structure their actions in such a way as to maximize particular outcomes--I would disagree that most Westerners are Utilitarians in the classic sense however, as I don't think most Westerners consciously consider maximized human happiness (both their own AND others') as an intended outcome in structuring their actions
But again to your point, consequentialism is a way of expressing a morality (or structuring it into a lifeway), not a morality itself, unless you build in some reference to the 'public good,' which again as a personal value must have an either populist or metaphysical origin external to consequentialism as such
>I don't think most Westerners consciously consider maximized human happiness
Well you'd be wrong. You're too dismissive of normies like every edgelord out there. Most normies are perfectly capable of making moral arguments about the reduction of suffering etc. .
I know most normies are capable of making these arguments, but that's a distinct idea from them actually basing their actions on these arguments--on the rare occasion a person makes an actual ethical argument from greatest-public-good, it likely takes the form of self-justification rather than rational deliberation toward action
There are exceptions to this, of course, and for many people their circle of consequence in making decisions toward action extends outside themselves, maybe to immediate kin and friends, but I would say true Utilitarian ethical consideration is exceedingly rare (to say nothing of the extent to which favor for kin and friends may itself be a form of veiled self-service)
I would also say that our carceral system exists in such a way as to encourage the illusion of Utilitarian decision, as there are many mechanisms in our culture to encourage prosocial (and punish antisocial) behavior, but this is only the populist imitation of a Utilitarian ethic insofar as it only encourages reflexive avoidance of punishment rather than actual preference for disinterested public good
You just decided to ascribe extreme moral hypocrisy to normal people without real evidence. That might actually be a case of projection.
I did not--I don't think most people would describe themselves as Utilitarian--I think most people would not have an interest in describing their morality as such
Most people who overtly describe their own moral frameworks (in normative terms, at least) are likely in an academic space or have been called to the floor socially to explain their reasoning in making some or another moral deliberation
As I said, I think the majority of individual Western morality is reflexive, and most people if asked to describe the actual content of their decisions would naturally refer to their own will rather than their participation in a public morality that removes will--I don't think that's hypocritical, if anything I think it's self-protective
>I did not--I don't think most people would describe themselves as Utilitarian--I think most people would not have an interest in describing their morality as such
Yeah no shit, most people aren't moral philosophers.
As such, I'm not sure if their describing their morality as 'based on public good' when this is the bill they've been sold their whole lives by their culture qualifies as hypocrisy, even if it's ultimately not the case
Very few people are hypocrites, but most people are unreflective
My original point, per your response on utilitarianism, is merely that most people can't be described as utilitarian, even if their actions contribute to the public good, as the actual structure of their decision making is largely the result of reflexive conformity to social force rather than human-good oriented decision making
>good, as the actual structure of their decision making is largely the result of reflexive conformity to social force rather than human-good oriented decision making
It's your opinon based on zero evidence.
There's actually a wealth of research to the effect that most people do not perform a full, rational consideration of action before acting--look up "rational actor theory" and its criticisms--empirical data seems to show that most people act reflexively in discrete decision making contexts, regardless of post-facto reports of their rational processes
This sort of dodges the point, however, as arguably this being the case would mean that NO truly normative ethic is possible, unless we're discussing something like installation of a particular reflexive tendency as a morality, but that doesn't match most people's notion of a moral framework (though it certainly could be, under some interpretation)
But, if we did grant that this is the case, that most decision-making is reflexive and then justified post-facto, but that morality can or does consist of a specific installation of a reflexive tendency, then you would have to agree that most people in Western culture likely receive this reflexive 'package' from the dominant culture rather than careful consideration of personal ethical commitments, regardless of their content
But, after all, what origin could there be for a moral framework outside of 'other people?' I could say to myself, "my moral commitments are my own, self-sourced, without external origin, and so valid" but what evidence could I possibly present to defend that position? Even if I accepted whole-cloth a Utilitarian framework, I would still be accepting an external framework, one which presumably matches my preconceptions of what a moral framework looks like--this is the Euthyphro dilemma all over again--you can claim that I have no evidence that most people get their morality as a reflex from their culture, but ultimately even if they CHOICEFULLY accepted a moral framework from their culture, they would presumably do so because they had a reflexive affinity for this framework, which only delays the problem
It seems very important to you that you're able to think of individuals as masters of their will, deeply capable of making meaningfully moral decisions, but human beings don't spring fully formed from the logos--they are products of their cultures, assimilating or rejecting those cultures' moral commitments, and most generally doing so reflexively and unreflectively--I see no reason evidence need be presented that humans are capable of acquiring the semantic framework of a culture without also acquiring a position qua the moral systems implicit in those frameworks, but evidence there is regardless, in the form of the empirical critiques of rational actor theories
Frankly, you don't seem to have a well-developed position on this topic aside from terse deference to your own preconceptions, which sort of proves my point
You probably haven't read any moral philosophy, which is why you resort to some rather baffling & reductive generalisations. I don't think any moral philosopher would claim for instance that people always carefully consider the moral implications of their daily actions, because that would be unnecessary & most of our daily activities are morally trivial.
It seems like you fundamentally don't understand the utilitarian position or its influence in Western society. You would only have to look at the prevalence of vegetarianism for instance to see that Westerners generally care about the reduction of suffering even when reward & punishment aren't factors at all.
I've read a great deal of moral philosophy, including overtly utilitarian thinkers (among them Singer, who by your reference to vegetarianism you may have in mind), but I doubtless have blind spots--I am interested in thinkers you may be familiar with who are comfortable ceding that "normies" likely don't always carefully consider the moral implications of daily actions, but that there are specialized (and signal) instances where they do--specifically, I would agree with this position, but would likely extend the field of "non-consideration" far further than the thinkers you have in mind
(As an anecdote, non-generalizable, I've known many vegetarians in my life, and the majority of them have been vegetarian when 'culturally in' and then left it behind when it passed out of the zeitgeist--in my interpretation, this would throw into doubt the value of the original moral decision, insofar as it was only, in retrospect, seemingly the product of social current, insofar as if it were a Moral belief in the strong sense I imagine it would be more impervious to trend)
As far as the influence of this philosophy on Western culture, I am aware, but my point is that any currency this philosophy has in the form of 'public morality' actually undercuts its supposed role in individual decision making, as, again, it increases the likelihood that any particular moral decision is the product of social force rather than individual choicefulness (insofar as the latter can exist outside of the former)
Unironically, are you willing to recommend some thinkers who expound on the notion of utilitarianism you're familiar with? Many classical philosophers write as though decisions are made in a vacuum, ignoring the role of cultural influence, but most modern philosophers sound like Foucault--a median is impressively rare
you describe a phenomenon in which men become so domesticated by their surroundings that they are effectively trained to revile their instincts, not on any sincere level but based in delusions of social perception wherein if they do not openly signal their virtuous nature to "the crowd" they will somehow be in immediate mortal danger. you may recognize this more succinctly summarized as being onions.
"Might is Right" guys be like "this is wrong!" when the global elite force them to accept gay rights, feminism and racial tolerance under threat of unemployment
This is the philosophy and worldview of a male personality completely wrecked and defeated by cruel parenting. Cruel parenting is absenteeism in emotional sympathy and overpresence in rules and requirements.
Children who receive this kind of parenting have a hard time recovering from the devastation or properly placing blame back onto the parents.
That's all this is OP. Please be nice to yourself and others.
>this homosexual goes back in time
>meets vlad the impaler
>"you know if your mom loved you then you wouldnt dod this :("
>homosexual gets his head removed and put on a spike
Sic semper homosexuals
Anon we are not in the 17th century, and not likely to return. It is a very bad argument anyways, because mechanical and explosive weapons are now used to drop or flatten a 6'4" 300 lb man as quickly as a 5'7" 135 lb stick. And both can kill as readily too.
Sounds to me like you are upset smart men figured out tools and now dominate brute men.
If you want to be an Ape just go move into a zoocage with a couple of them. They will probably appreciate your animal comprehension of heirarchy, though you may be dissapointed by theirs.
Half of marines are homosexuals. homosexuals often decide to try and be the most macho man around in order to displace their self-shame. Lots of homosexuals love working out, starting fights, joing military/police units so they can yell at people etc.
I wish they wouldn't. There is nothing wrong with being a homosexual and we would all probably like them more if they were not being compensatorily dominant all the time.
Say... you aren't a gay are you?
>hehe well i will just use a gun and
anyone may use a gun
the total sum of applicable force remains in the hands of the 6'3 man
who is also probably some kind of scandinavian so he's likely smarter than you as well
Are you a self-hating racial minority or racial mix or something? I am so lost to your reasoning I cannot even caricature you.
>Cover is a picture of a culture that didn't survive
What did they mean by this?
>glorify strong men who prefer themselves over their culture
>culture collapses
how could this have happened
it was defeated by a stronger militarized culture, confirming the point
not true, there's a key distinction. it does make right yes but it does not equal right.
Morality isn’t real. There’s only life and death.
The real problem with this mode of thinking is identifying with whom real power rests today. It was easy to say who power rests with in the 15th century, but this isn’t the time of armies or churches or even necessarily legislative bodies anymore. It’s not clear who actually power. We behave as if people with money have power, but they don’t necessarily.