Home › Forums › MGTOW Central › Is Moral Relativism the Root of Cultural Collapse?
This topic contains 103 replies, has 20 voices, and was last updated by 
John Doe 4 years ago.
- AuthorPosts
If you can find evidence of objective morality, then by all means, please, post it here.
Morality: 1.principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior. (Oxford Dictionary)
The evidence is in your argument. You claim all morality it relative, yet I (and much of the world) claims it as objective. If all morality is relative (no good/bad) than to claim it as objective (good/bad) would be to lie/commit a falsity/follow abnormal unnatural behavior. And if that is the case claiming an objective morality, would by itself, contradict the natural law of relativity.
Or I can use a simpler example: It is always wrong to kill a baby for no reason. Now one can argue for or against the “reason” (but that is not what you are claiming) It cannot be both right and wrong to kill the child in the same respect. To kill the baby without reason is fundamentally wrong.
It may be, to you. But not necessarily to the majority of the public.
Not if morality is relative. There is a right or wrong and just because someone does not follow it, or chooses to twist the definition does not change it at all.
Let us take someone with extreme mental illnesses, a schizophrenic. They may not have the same morality as the general public. And not see anything wrong with injuring others. We do not regard them as ‘moral’. Instead, the majority make laws based upon what they perceive as moral.
I think you are confusing accountability with right or wrong. It is always wrong to kill a child for no reason. The schizophrenic may not be able to distinguish that, but that is entirely the point. His inability to distinguish already points to a deficiency in his/her nature and determines his accountability. It does not take away or add to the fact that killing a child for no reason is wrong. It is always wrong period, but the level of accountability (which can be relative) can change from person to person.
You are mixing accountability with right or wrong. Someone can commit an “evil” action without knowing it. The bad behavior remains bad regardless, it is the personal accountability that may vary.
If all things are relative then you have to give an example that claims it is alright to kill a child for no reason (This is just an example law) under the same circumstances all the time. And then also prove it is wrong to kill a child for no reason under the exact same circumstances.
In regards to the above challenge, you cannot logically do that. And if no logic can be applied, than you cannot argue moral relatively is logical.
@john Doe
I wouldn’t say that. There’s always a reason to kill something whether it’s for your benefit or someone else’s.
Let’s go with your example. If a society was living in a place with fewer resources, then it would be “moral” to kill an innocent person. Doesn’t matter if it’s a child or not. And, I could argue that it would do that society a great benefit if we killed off the kids/baby. Why? Because kids and babies take too much resources.
They don’t know how to deal with the hardships of life like if you’re in a survival situation and you had to rash-on out food and water. Most kids would say “I want it now!” And have no concept of living in a survival situation. Not to mention it would take more energy just to even look out for them.
Oh, and just because “most people think objective morality is true” doesn’t mean it is. You’re arguing an ad populum fallacy. If most people think it’s ok to own slaves is it? Nope. I can say that because morality is subjective. If it were objective, morality would NEVER change over time or through different cultures.
For objective morality to exist, something always needs to be right or wrong. There can never be any shades of grey.
It also can’t be affected by our emotions or what we value the most.
Examples of ad populum appeals:“TRY NEW, IMPROVED [fill in the blank with the name of any one of innumerable commercial products]. EVERYBODY’s USING IT!
“Gods must exist, since every culture has some sort of belief in a higher being.”
“The Bold and the Listless must be a great book. It’s been on the best seller list for 8 weeks.”
“Arnold Killembetter’s movie “True Garbage” is the greatest movie of all time. No movie has made as much money as it did.”
“The fact that the majority of our citizens support the death penalty proves that it is morally right.”
I wouldn’t say that. There’s always a reason to kill something whether it’s for your benefit or someone else’s.
Okay, tell me how it would be alright if I walked up and killed a child behind me in line at a Mcdonald”s. Show me the scenario where that is “Moral” when I have all my physical/psychological needs met and I don’t need anything more?
It is always wrong to kill a child without a reason.
If a society was living in a place with fewer resources, then it would be “moral” to kill an innocent person.
First of all that is not my example, as I said to kill a child with “no reason” (see Mcdonald’s example above). One can find a “caused” (ie he was shot with a gun, bludgeoned to death) but was there any logic behind it?
Is fear or hatred a logical thing in itself. One can rationalize the behavior, but on their own terms are the rational? They are not, and any behavior motivated by them is deficient in reason (ie no reason/irrational).
Second is it really rational to save your own ass when you are going to die anyhow, and none of it really matters since their is no right or wrong?
Let’s take a real world example. The Japanese invade Pearl Harbor. Is it right for us to roll over and surrender, since making war, will kill many Japanese soldiers and American soldiers and thus injure sentient beings? I suppose you could argue, MORE harm is caused by living under the autocrat emperor Hirohito, so we should fight back despite the lost lives. If so, how do we objectively determine that? We can’t. Morality depends on our values. A pacifist may value life over all else; is he immoral? Someone else may want to fight and in doing so, kill many people on both sides. Which of these, is moral? If the so-called Objective Morality is revealed to us in a holy book, is not the act of deciding which holy book to believe in, subjective?
Or another example, how do you objectively determine whether communism is more or less moral than capitalism?
Let’s take a real world example. The Japanese invade Pearl Harbor. Is it right for us to roll over and surrender, since making war, will kill many Japanese soldiers and American soldiers and thus injure sentient beings? I suppose you could argue, MORE harm is caused by living under the autocrat emperor Hirohito, so we should fight back despite the lost lives. If so, how do we objectively determine that? We can’t. Morality depends on our values. A pacifist may value life over all else; is he immoral? Someone else may want to fight and in doing so, kill many people on both sides. Which of these, is moral? If the so-called Objective Morality is revealed to us in a holy book, is not the act of deciding which holy book to believe in, subjective?
Or another example, how do you objectively determine whether communism is more or less moral than capitalism?I have a better one, how is it alright for a child to go into a school and kill everyone just because we was called a few names?
Because according to the moral relativist is would be alright.
@john Doe
Well, if you’re a hedonist and killing innocent people is what makes you happy, then that would justify “killing someone for no reason”.
Morality is based off of what a person values or dislikes the most. It’s not based on objective facts.
What you’re essentially saying is this:
That’s all I hear when someone is saying “this is bad, mkay?…”
This is bad, mkay?
This is bad, mkay?
They’re using circular reasoning to say why it’s bad.
Well, if you’re a hedonist and killing innocent people is what makes you happy, then that would justify “killing someone for no reason”.
Morality is based off of what a person values or dislikes the most. It’s not based on objective facts.But hedonism is not based on objective facts and you say that can justify behavior.
You’re still not addressing my point.
That’s because you don’t have one. For moral relativists, like you and frankone, it is all about how one “feels” and then you throw large amounts of historical events as evidence, when in reality it only proves how messed up people can act.
Moral relativists, by their very nature, cannot hold any accountability to themselves, so don’t be a hypocrite and expect it from anyone else. Your actions can be justified by anything, according to you. But according to you that also applies to me.
Your philosophy says both of us have to be right, but then you claim I am wrong. Hypocrite.
It must be a very tormenting life, to hold all that knowledge and not know what or how to use it. I can only speak for myself but that would be a living hell.
I think so, and there is no shame in it. We are reactionary, and some people will paint us negatively for that. But taking your hand away from a hot stove is also reactionary, and no one should think ill of you for actually doing the smart thing
Feminism is a movement where opinions are presented as facts and emotions are presented as evidence.
@john Doe
Eh, I know most of us MGTOW come from a tradcon Christian background, but there’s no reason to act like a feminist in reaction to moral relativism. Saying “I have no point” and just dismissing it outright is what a feminist would do in reaction to MGTOW philosophy.
Venom: Drugs are BAAAAAD. And South Park is Good. That is the ONLY moral certitude! And Trey Parker. He’s GOOOOD. What can I say, I’m a South Park fan. mkay? And don’t forget, Mara Joo Wanna is bad, very bad, hahaha. Okay, back to the discussion at hand:
John Doe writes: I have a better one, how is it alright for a child to go into a school and kill everyone just because we was called a few names?
It isn’t, to me. And in a ‘consensus’ morality scenario as exists in much of the world, this would be codified into laws against murder. Why is it bad? Because most people value human lives, and the transgression (calling someone a few names) causes almost no harm, compared to depriving individuals of their very lives. Now, there will be some people that will likely disagree with me, such as the shooter. But in such a consensus morality system, the shooter will be put away in prison at minimum, where he or she can do no more harm, or face corporal or capital punishment depending upon the system of laws in a given society.
Is this system perfect? Helllll no! Adolph Hitler convinced a lot of people that Jews and Eastern European Slavic people were sub-humans, and it was moral to kill them or throw them in concentration camps, and take all their belongings, for instance.
What is and is not moral, will also often vary between sane individuals. For instance, I’ve known pacifists who believe it is immoral to fight back or kill, even when attacked.
Also, I’d argue it’s more about what I value than about what I feel. So getting back to some of the points I posed which were un-answered, and answer my own question: An individual who values equality of outcomes, may find socialism or communism, a more moral system than capitalism, which rewards individuals more.. In my case, I value equality of opportunities, and favor the free market. But is one moral and the other, immoral?
You can certainly have ‘guiding principles’ or morality. For instance, the golden rule. But even in doing this, you are setting up a value hierarchy, using your values, to define the subjective morality. We could even argue this reciprocity principle is part of human nature; it goes back at least as far as ancient Egypt, and is present in nearly every culture and religion…
I picked a poor example for discussion with the schizophrenic, I concede that, an insane individual is not a good example.
One other feature I dislike about dogmatic ‘revealed’ moralities are they don’t allow for changes as society changes over time. Slavery is a good example of that. Sorry if I wasn’t very precise in some of my previous posts on this.
Most Americans do still hold Enlightenment values such as toleration. And in my opinion, there are a fair number of Deists, though 99% of Americans don’t know the term.
Yup. I myself am a Deist and take great pleasure in seeing the expression people give me when they want to have a talk on religion and I respond that I’m a deist. They have a “what… is… that..” look and it tends to knock them of their game.
Morality is subjective. After all, the Nazis thought it moral, to get rid of the Jews. Christian morality is also subjective, and relative to the era under discussion; slavery was fine in Christianity once; but not now. So morality is a moving target, shifting with social norms.
It isn’t morality that has been the moving target; it is the perception by the people of it which has been moved, and usually through deception by a psychotic ruling class. In your specific example for the Nazi’s, it was about depopulation because Jews weren’t the only ones killed. If you’re going to convince the public that genocide is good for them, you have to invent a lie as to why. Just because these people were fooled, doesn’t change the very black and white definition between what is right, and what is wrong. People are programs, and respond to their environments. However, if we’d like to be better than animals, which prioritize survival over all else, we have to decide on how to modify our own behavior in such a way to accomplish that goal. There are other options for survival besides harming people. It’s whether you prioritize those over the harm method that makes you superior to animals, or on the same level with them.
https://scuppernongspringsnaturetrail.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/141.jpg
I understand where you are coming from with the chart, but it doesn’t answer many moral questions. It certainly answers whether I should kill someone for no reason; a clear-cut moral decision. But does it answer whether I should run my business in such a fashion to crush my competitors? Have I helped the overall economy, while harming them with such an act?
In the case of Hitler, there was a latent anti-semitism in the populace; and eugenics was also the rage in the early part of the 20th century. So if I sounded like I blamed it all on Hitler, I did not mean to put it that way.
Homosexuality is another example; it was moral in ancient times (as long as you were on top), verboten under Christianity, and now, acceptable again (at least, there are no laws against it in the much of the West anymore). In the case of such ‘victimless’ acts, morality seems *quite* fluid. In the case of theft and murder, it’s more rigid, but still fluid — it’s okay to kill in war, even firebomb or nuke civilians for the Greater Good — so sez the Allied Powers that won WWII.
Morality is a human construct relating to our actions. I would contend it can, and does, change. Let us take homosexuality. In some parts of the world, such as Saudi Arabia, one may be stoned to death for it. Is this just, for an act between consenting adults? The answer to that, depends upon whether the Koran is true. It is most certainly just if the Koran is true, as it is Allah’s will. Who decides if the Koran is true? We do — it’s a subjective decision. Same for whether we should suffer a witch, or burn them on a pyre.
Is it moral to cheat on your taxes, if you believe your government is unjust?
Is birth control moral? Same line of reasoning.
Objection to ALL violence, even self defense? Same line of reasoning.
Is operating a power plant that spews out pollution, moral? It is harming some, but helping others. How do you determine its ‘net’ harm or help?
Look, I’m actually sympathetic to Natural Law; however, the choice to follow it, vs an alternative, let’s say, the alternative being, the precepts in some book of Revealed Truths, is a *subjective* human decision. Since that decision determines your morality, it is thus a subjective morality.
Personally, I believe the principle of reciprocity is programmed into us as a positive evolutionary trait; it’s genetic (what religionists might call ‘do unto others… as you would have them do unto you’). I certainly can’t prove this, but the behaviors I see around me, lead me to believe it. If it isn’t genetic, it’s damn strong social conditioning. What do I say this? Well, atheists aren’t going around living the Hobbesian dream, raping, stealing, and pillaging, even when they can’t get caught. Reciprocity seems like a recipe for a free and just society.
Moral Relativism
The philosophy that all morality is subjective. Moral Relativists think that “good” and “evil” are societal constructs based on what people like and hate. For example, moral relativists think that something is only right or wrong if you like or dislike that action. To them, saying something is “right” is the same as saying “Hey, I like this flavor of ice cream! But, I know not everyone will like it!”
Moral Realism
The philosophy that all morality is based on facts and is independent of our perception of them or our beliefs, feelings or other attitudes towards them. Moral Realists believe that morality exists or is somehow objectively true. As in 1 + 1 = 2.
Moral Nihilism
Moral Nihilists believe nothing is inherently right or wrong. For example, a moral nihilist would say that killing someone, for whatever reason, is neither inherently right nor inherently wrong.
____________________________________________________________________________________________________
I for one, fall in between moral nihilist and moral relativist. They’re very similar.
(Sorry for the bold fonts f~~~ing up, I can’t fix it for some reason)
I understand where you are coming from with the chart, but it doesn’t answer many moral questions. It certainly answers whether I should kill someone for no reason; a clear-cut moral decision. But does it answer whether I should run my business in such a fashion to crush my competitors? Have I helped the overall economy, while harming them with such an act?
Reciprocity seems like a recipe for a free and just society.
No, it pretty much covers it all. If you have “crushed” your business competitors due to your own excellence and a voluntary choice by your customers to choose your business over someone else’s, then you haven’t actually harmed anyone, and therefore are in the right. However, if you use arson, blackmail, sabotage, deception, etc to destroy your opponent rather than creating a superior product or service, then yes that is clearly wrong. The natural law definition of what is right and wrong are very clear and easy to understand. Reciprocity is exactly what it is based on, since one of the 7 principles *is* cause and effect. The seven principles are as follows:
1.) The Principle of Mentalism– This principle states that the universe and everything around us is a mental construct. We are all co-creating our perceptions of the world and everything around us.
2.) The Principle of Correspondence– This principle informs us that the microcosm is a direct reflection of the macrocosm and vice versa. It is from this principle that we derive the saying “as above, so below.” This can be seen all throughout the universe. Microscopic organisms mimic the same shapes and forms of galaxies.
3.) The Principle of Vibration-This principle shows us that everything in the universe is made up of vibratory energy. We are at our essence, vibratory light energy.
4.) The Principle of Polarity-This principle exemplifies the natural duality that exists within nature. Hot and cold, light and dark, good and evil. Without an opposite, these expressions would lose their identity. All opposites are just varying degrees of the same thing.
5.) The Principle of Rhythm– This principle says that all elements in the natural world move in a rhythm. This can be seen in the animal kingdom as well as the cosmos. Everything fluctuates.
6.) The Principle of Cause and Effect– This principle demonstrates that every action has an equal and opposite reaction. Everything we do has an effect on something. Once this concept is grasped, we see that what we do really does matter.
7.) The Principle of Gender– This last principle states that everything has masculine and feminine characteristics. We all have rationale (attributed to the masculine) and compassion (attributed to the feminine). A balance of these elements is essential to the completion of the individual. This is true in a physical sense as well in that when we are born, our gender is merely determined by a one chromosome differential.
(8) ( yes I know I said seven, this one is hidden.) The Principle of Care. I will let Mark Passio explain this one, because he does it best, and any of you who have not seen his video on Natural Law should watch it. I posted it a while back in the philosophy section.
The ruling class encourages us to behave like animals, because as long as we do, they have the excuse to confiscate our prerogative about things. If people suddenly started obeying the law, police would go bankrupt. They would have no revenue. Neither would the courts. As for sex, Mark Passio covered that also. Ultimately if it does not result in theft (stealing) of life, health, property, etc then it is not wrong. Natural Law is as clear cut as it can get. As for the “morals” of past civilizations, they were always forced upon people by their conquerors. Most of those people didn’t obey because they thought it was the right thing to do. They obeyed out of fear. Fear is the primary manipulation tool of the psychopath. Intimidation. I’ve stated before, and I”ll say again that ideologies are technologies. It’s easier for a psychopath to manipulate his or her subjects if that same psychopath created their belief systems. It doesn’t matter what the religion is, you can call it whatever you like: Christianity, Islam, Judaism, Statism, Communism, etc they all serve the same function: to inspire obedience in people to the authorities so that the ruling class can obtain what they desire. Morals that were forced upon people by the sword weren’t really morals.. and it’s moral relativism created and perpetuated by the ruling class that keeps people divided and fighting one another.
So, is moral relativism the root of cultural collapse, or is there another aspect I am not considering in my thought process?
The alignment between the rights of men and the strength of society. When the best interests of men and society are aligned cultural and societal success is fostered.
Seems that as the rights of an ever increasingly authoritative bureaucracy erode the rights of the men that serve to uphold it, the path to collapse is locked in.
When the war cemeteries are half full of the corpses of dead conscripted women, only then will women have earned the right to speak of equality. Sidecar “A man is a success if he gets up in the morning and goes to bed at night and in between does what he wants to do.” - Bob Dylan
- AuthorPosts
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
921526
921524
919244
916783
915526
915524
915354
915129
914037
909862
908811
908810
908500
908465
908464
908300
907963
907895
907477
902002
901301
901106
901105
901104
901024
901017
900393
900392
900391
900390
899038
898980
896844
896798
896797
895983
895850
895848
893740
893036
891671
891670
891336
891017
890865
889894
889741
889058
888157
887960
887768
886321
886306
885519
884948
883951
881340
881339
880491
878671
878351
877678
