Why are rightoids so obsessed with muh objective morality?
It was a major talking point of the 2000s culture wars between the Religious Right vs. liberals, namely the belief that the right-wing upheld the notion that there is an objective truth and an objective morality that stems from it, while liberals (and genuine leftists for that matter) were portrayed as staunch believers in moral relativism which they acquired through "worshipping" science and history in lieu of religion.
So how does this belief in objective moral truth fit in with the greater right-wing agenda? How does the exploiter class benefit from proles believing in objective morality?
Right-wing ≠ capitalist
>>2916538Because "objective" is dogwhistle.
Objective is here equated with absolute truth. So anyone challenging said objective morality can labelled absolutely evil and wrong and can therefore persecuted with extreme prejudice.
Because they are retarded and their beliefs about the world are wrong on a fundamental level
>>2916538>Why are rightoids so obsessed with muh objective morality?because god. like literally once you decide god is real, all you have to do is design your god so that he agrees with everything you say and think and then everything you say and think becomes the truth, and everyone who disagrees with you disagrees with god. its saves you the work of having to justify anything by appealing to the shared interests of several groups.
>>2916736Zizek is lowkey a hack but his quote of "if god exists everything is permissible" aged like fine wine. If you can alr rationalize to yourself that an omnipotent superbeing is granting you eternal paradise for being a good boy than you can basically rationalize anything to yourself at that point to justify whatever the fuck you were alr gonna do in the first place.
>>2916538it's a civilisational divide, might as well ask why dogs bark.
in the western world right wing is deeply rooted in western culture where objectivism and universalism have been pilars of though since ancient greeks
left wing is rooted in eastern culture where subjectivism is key.
Marxists believe in objective morality.
>>2916772This. Too many leftists reject morality in favor of degenerate amoralism.
>>2916538>"i wrote a dialogue about ted bundy and a young woman he's about to rape and murder, on the subject. and she pleads for her life and asks him doesn't he believe there is such a thing as morality, some things are right and wrong. and ted bundy says, 'i did believe all those things until i took my first college course in philosophy and learned that all such judgements are value judgements, and value judgements are subjective, and there's no objective way to say that one value judgement was better than another'."Gotta love that snarky Jew humour.
>Why are rightoids so obsessed with muh objective morality?
because of idealism
Morality was created in order to make society more orderly and safe, its an idea created to solve the material problem of peope killing raping and robbing each other and whatnot. Idealists can't accept this reality so its easier to believe it was created by god or some shit.
The reality is we are all afraid to die or of being hurt or the people we love being hurt. Deep inside we know once we die that's it and all we want is to have as much time as possible to be with the people that make life worth living to us, the people we love. We invented morality to create safety and we want safety just to feel the joy of being alive and the warmth of the people that make us happy for as long as possible. Morality is not real, but love is.
>>2916920> Morality is not real, but love is.what is love?
>The reality is we are all afraid to die or of being hurt or the people we love being hurtbaby don't hurt me, don't hurt me, no more
ITT: immoral cunts
Is to call the mass bloodshed in Gaza the incarnation of evil subjective? We witnessed a genocide being live-streamed for over two years. How can anyone see that and still claim morality is subjective and all judgements are value-judgements.
>>2916772Please show me the scientific dialectics of proletariat morality
>>2916538Psychological insecurity. They are fundamentally cowards - they do not have the mental fortitude to say "This is good/bad because I say so". They have to believe the universe is on their side or they can't justify believing in anything.
>>2917855I never thought about it like that but it makes a great deal of sense. I've joked on Nietzsche fan boys for the fact that I say "This is good/bad because I say so" more than all the so-called Ubermensch and Aristocrats of the Soul ever do.
>>2917846We don't oppose the Gaza genocide because it's "immoral". We oppose it because Israel existing is an affront to our goals of anti-imperialism.
>>2916538The fundamental divide that has emerged today is between those who believe in individual autonomy and self-authorship, and those who think you have to conform to a given and arbitrarily assigned social standard. Morality is just a microcosm of this.
The reason it has given way to trans derangement syndrome is because this gets at something more fundamental and practical: if you can change sex, change from conforming to social standards as fundamental as gender roles, you can change anything. Cutting a lot of over-explanation, this means you have nowhere to hide if you're a mediocre loser, and the right are unsurprisingly all mediocre losers.
Peter Thiel reads Girard (and LARPs as having read him a thousand times more) for a reason. People are very sensitive to social differentiation and it helps to contain their jealousy. You do not hate a king for being richer than you, because you know him to be in a different category where it is unfair to make comparisons. You hate your neighbour, however, because his wealth really does make you feel poor. In a right-wing world there is always cope, even-and-especially for the loser: yes, but he's a man and I'm just a woman*, he's white and I'm not*, his parents were rich and he never had to work for it*, and so on.
In the left/liberal world none of this is true because your inherent characteristics should not matter to your sense of self-worth. You can be a poor ethnic minority woman and still feel a sense of high social status because you're pretty high ranking in your chosen social group of furry speedrunners. It's true that society is sexist, racist, and economically unequal, but none of that is an excuse for being miserable. And if that's not an excuse for being miserable, it quickly becomes the case that you are in some small measure responsible for your misery, and the right actually hate that. (Well, they want
you to be responsible for
your misery if they think you're asking for help, obviously, unless you share one of their collective grievances.) This is why Trump is popular with rubes: he is differentiated, like a king, so he does not attract jealousy, and he tells losers that they are not to blame and that by worshipping him they can find an in-group.
This is all obscured because superficially, "idpol" is about these identity groups, but it isn't actually. idpol is a universal moral system where you judge people by how well they play the game. A perfectly ordinary and frankly pretty ordinary
if secular civic religion. A woke white guy outranks an anti-woke black woman through piety and good works, he's just not allowed to say it. Such a system leaves you nowhere to hide if you're a repellent resentful little loser.
Anyway, being humans, a chunk of the bourgeoisie are upset that they aren't considered to have objectively won at life anymore. That I can know Elon Musk is a fucking loser and that transgender furries are cooler than him because he tweets like a loser and isn't funny, and that's true even if he's richer than god. Thiel, on the other hand, is split between knowing you can use Girard's theory to sell products (we desire, after all, what other comparable people desire…) and paranoid that since we're all undifferentiated now, all jealous of one another and our competition for the same things, that we're going to need to string up a scapegoat for turning us against one another, and he's got such main character syndrome he thinks that cancel culture is this process and one day the scapegoat will be him and his bourgeois mates.
I think that he's basically wrong. We do not all want the same things, we create new differentiations which are freely chosen. You and I may both want an iPhone, but we probably don't want a fursuit at the same rate, and if we do want a fursuit there's no guarantee it's of the same style, by the same creator, of the same animal, and so on…On a less high-theory level:
>>2916551 also applies. Political rightism is an identity-product just like all political identities nowadays, and such products are chosen by people with a given disposition. Rightoids like an excuse to be nasty and cruel while being told they're good people for it. Leftists, even revolutionaries, do not have this disposition: they are despite everything generally agreeable and open-minded individuals. (This of course dovetails with my explanation: the open-minded know they can now judge themselves by their own standards and so know on some level they need never truly find themselves wanting, while the closed-minded cannot accept that the old system is dead.)
>>2916772HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA is this a joke?
>>2917951>Morality should solely be measured by how much compassion you give to the oppressedChristian nonsense.
>>2917937>We don't oppose the Gaza genocide because it's "immoral"Liar
In all this, no one has defined what would make morality "objective". Even if God exists, the moral law is just his subjective preference, not a law unconditionally inscribed into nature. This is why you have the competing idea of karma; karma is concerned with causation - if you act in one way, it returns to you in another way. The issue is that in all times and places, liars and cheats defeat the honest and fair. The evil always rule and the good always serve. So, if there is a natural morality, it rewards evil and punishes good, like Schopenhauer's Will.
>>2917855To be fair, this
is them asserting themselves as the authority. Liberals have always been more open-minded and more tolerant of deviancy.
>>2917882>I've joked on Nietzsche fan boys for the fact that I say "This is good/bad because I say so" more than all the so-called Ubermensch and Aristocrats of the Soul ever do.I think Nietzsche would have despised rightoids. He'd say that they're driven by
ressentiment and thus subscribe to a slave morality.
>>2918012Nietzsche was critical of the anti-semites of his time for being driven by these inferiority complexes. But he also saw socialists as his main enemy, since they were slave moralists.
>>2917846Gaza wasn’t a genocide. It was a democide. Not even the ICC will call it a “genocide”.
>>2917846Your mistake is confusing "subjective" with "not real"
>>2918347Why ought one oppose imperialism, if not for moral reasons?
>>2918350bruh, I don't even. Imperialism is not a moral category, it's a thing that capitalist have to do to ensure their continued grip on the world. It's not something "bad"/"good", it's internatonalisation of capital to ensure that the rate of profit slows it's downfall. From here oposition to it is quite simple.
Communists oppose imperialism, because the rate of profit shits itself and the class struggle intensifies. Not cause it's le bad.
>>2918005Morality cannot be objective, that's not how it works. People who insist otherwise just can't handle reality.
>>2918359Why are you a Communist if not for moral reasons?
>>2918384self interest. Under Capitalism humanity inevitably behave like a locust swarm, dooming itself sooner rather than later from ressources depletion and pollution. Under communism, we have a chance not to do that.
>>2918390>self-interestIf you were given a billion dollars, would you still be a Communist?
>>2918391Yes. Me being rich won't magically make global existential threats go away.
>>2918391yes only now I have a billion dollars to spread communism, thanks wish granter
>>2918397>global threatsWhy eould you care if you could be protected from them?
You are obviously motivated by more than self-interest
>>2918404>Why would you care if you could be protected from them?There is no spare earth available, no matter what Silicon Valley Porky says.
>inB4 bunkersAnother scam. Cope closets won't protect you from a planet who can no longer support human life.
>>2918412>earthWhy would you care?
>human lifeWhy would you care about human life and not just yourself?
>>2918350Morality is a spook and not real.
>>2918436Why would anyone oppose the suffering of strangers?
>>2918438Because it fits with our communist political program.
>>2918444So what?
Why be a Communist?
Isn't politics a "spook"?
>>2918438>>2918424I don't need a reason for why I care about this or that.
I oppose the suffering of strangers because I don't like it and don't want it to happen. Simple as.
>>2918454>I don't need a reason>I am driven by emotionsWhat has been revealed thus far is that you are evidently not driven by rational self-interest, but thoughtless passion by a bleeding heart.
>>2918424Why would I care about… the planet I live in? Do you think I can survive in the void of space feeding of stellar radiations?
>Why would you care about human life and not just yourself?Perhaps because I enter under the category of human life and if such life is no longer possible, then that doesn't bode well for my own?
Are you a autistic? Genuine question?
>>2918459Correct.
Morality is not an issue of rational self interest either.
Self interest only ever boils down to mindless emotional and instinctual drives.
>>2918449Communism is a material goal we’re working towards. Morality is all idealist voodoo.
>>2918384I am not really a Communist. I know Marx and I shitpost on italian basketweaving forum.
If you know your Hegel, then you know that to name something is to examine it's past. Hence, one can be called "a communist" only retroactively. If you attach that label to yourself, then it's just identity. Something subjective.
>>2918391>milion dollarsI will cease to be a communist, because it won't align with my class interests. At best I might end up sympathetic to communism, maybe even a class traitor, if conditions are right.
>>2916551Is that not different from what the left does?
“Anyone labeled as a Zionist deserves to be killed.”
>>2918521I cannot speak for "the left" but I have no need to hide myself behind a so called will of the universe when I say a Zionist skull's ought to get acquainted with the pavement.
>>2918523Evolution isn't a moral thing either jfc
Why does a statistic electrochemical process give legitimacy to morality
>>2918523Okay, and explain how evolution by itself determines moral truths or a moral theory of Justice the way philosophy does.
>>2918518This is an honest position to take, and the one I hold to as well. One might have ideological sympathies but otherwise its for the historical movement to decide if we lived up to the label, and only retroactively.
>>2918523This is a kind of naturalistic fallacy. That people might have evolved a moral sense does not make any given morality neither objectively nor subjectively true or false.
Besides, Marx himself observed that morality of societies changes over the course of history, depending material conditions & social relations.
>>2918523Anarcho-brainlet strikes again.
>>2917951How does this guy define “nature” exactly?
>>2918523"We got a predisposition to morality from our evolutive history" doesn't tell us whether a particular sets of moral is more or less valid than another.
>>2918523we had this discussion b4 anon, this is the same kind of idealism shilled by "capitalism is le human nature" libs
>>2918629Correct, because how does the notion that “we naturally evolved to be good little compassionate communists” explain the fact that the vast majority of humans today are not communists nor do they function on the basis of communist social relations day-to-day?
>>2918527Is this a value judgement you’re making?
>>2918523>very nature as humanskek
I still have yet to see proletarian ethics based on material.
>>2918668“Treat the marginalized with kindness and compassion” isn’t proletarian ethics rooted in materialism?
>>2917951The idea of trans kids being “against nature” can be easily debunked through anthropology. It’s just the West that has a rigid gender binary when nearly every other culture saw gender as fluid and non-binary.
Moral relativism is a pathological vice of modernity, especially under capitalism which has broken down all social bonds and undermined all natural values and institutions. Nihilist leftists are maggots crawling around in necrotizing flesh. Everything from Aristotlian common good to theological good vs evil is entirely compatible with socialist liberation, only if you get out of your own way and deworm yourself of the mind viruses installed into you by the materially driven paradigm of global imperial domination.
>>2918722What is kindness and compassion?
How do yoy define marginalized?
>>2918725Against nature is juat a bad argument.
Kids born with a hole in their heart shouldn't get surgery because it is unnatural
>>2918725The contemporary transgender craze is entirely driven by western capitalist institutions whipping it up to both commodify sexual identity and body parts and generate medical industry profits, along with drive social media engagement and profits, and to throw a social wedge into an already neurotic and divided society. You don't see this shit anywhere from sub Sahara Africa to Arab nations to Central Asia to East Asia. Its entirely artificial and manufactured just like everything with our disgusting society.
>>2918742Ripe coming from a board crawling with Stalinists. Sorry you got filtered by the maymay flag.
>>2918752Take it up with the stalinists, then.
>>2918752Inb4 a mod who got tricked into sterilizing themselves by big pharma gives me the easiest to evade 3 day ban.
>>2918752I agree with you but I still standby my point thag the appeal to nature is a poor standard to judge the ethics of gender fluidity.
If I had a kid I would have no problems with them if they wanted to dress up like the other gender but they aint getting no pills, no hormones no Adderall.
>>2918758I can meet you there.
For a place that pretends to be smarter and more well read than your ex /pol/tadd brethren its clear none of you have read any virtue ethics, and are completely insane as a result.
>>2918763We just understand that ethics are part of the ruling class superstructure.
>>2918523>Morality is ingrained in our very nature as humansThe problem with the "human nature" argument is and has always really been that its an argument from mechanical materialism, a type of materialism that has been dead since the 18th century.
Now with the tool that is dialectical materialism we understand that everything is a never-ending process, meaning that whether selfishness or morality is human nature this does not matter, because human nature is subject to change as are all things.
Daily reminder the Gaza genocide, Epstein, and the social murder (eugenics) caused by people allowing covid to kill off hundreds of thousands of disabled folks is all the evidence we need that objective morality is NECESSARY.
>>2918743>how do we define who is marginalized and oppressed?Why are you even a leftist?
>>2918523>Morality is ingrained in our very nature as humans.Fuck off Rousseau.
morality is nothing more than an arbitrary a set of rules and standards determined by the people for the times and conditions in which they live. morality emerges because any society where humans have to coexist together tends to learn pretty quickly that things work better for everyone when people apply some kind of restraint, some set of rules to live by, even if those rules happen to be contrary to human nature. morality is not innate to human biology and it doesn't come from some deity or higher cosmic order, because it constantly changes, morality changes with the times and with the people. no one determines morality and everyone determines morality, all of the things that everyone does in a society and how everyone reacts to those things are what determines morality and the written law is merely a formalization of the existing moral architecture.
>>2916538Re: this video.
I get why moralfags hate Machiavelli and Nietzsche, but what beef do they have with Max Weber?
>>2918752Transitioning is objectively moral because to suffer is bad. Christ teaches us to do unto others as we do unto ourselves and vice-versa. It is better to transition and be happy than to spend your life repressing, miserable, and spread one's anger at everyone else. Commodification is a non-argument because every need is commodified under capitalism.
>>2918937Christ never advocated mindless pleasures. The Church actually teaches the opposite: the greatest happiness in life is sacrifice.
>>2918940Sacrifice is for your fellow man. Suffering in itself is not sacrifice and indeed what makes us capable of sacrifice is care for oneself.
>>2918941>Suffering in itself is not sacrifice and indeed what makes us capable of sacrifice is care for oneself.This is not true in the slightest. All sacrifice entails some degree of suffering. And the Church has repeatedly come out against transgender ideology.
>>2918942Are you being obtuse or do you struggle with reading comprehension?
>>2918942This is an interpretation as bad as saying Islam is about being submissive because submit to god
>>2917962Good post but you're wasting your time making it here.
>>2918850>all the evidence we need that objective morality is NECESSARY.This statement is an absurdity. If objective morality were true, then you could simply demonstrate it. If your argument is "these things happen so we need it" then you're actually exhibiting evidence that it is
not true.
>>2918850 The idea that your moral framework must be based somehow in "objective reality" betrays a lack of confidence in it at its core. I believe in my moral compass because my axioms are that human misery is usually bad and human happiness is usually good. I adopt these axioms arbitrarily, because I, fundementally at my core, feel that they are true in a very irrational "human-meat-computer-neurotransmitters" sort of way. I am part of a species that generally evolved to feel this way to increase the liklihood of survival, and that's fine by me.
>>2918984 This is correct. The person being replied to really needs to read some basic moral philosophy. I would reccomend that they start by reading "Beyond Good and Evil" by Nietchze as a start, if they're still here and reading this.
>>2916538Cons are unfamiliar with arguments for moral realism that don't rely on God (ditto much of the online left), despite this being a standard metaethical position among philosophers. What I never got is, even if God were real, why would that make his moral claims objective? Why isn't he just another asshole with an opinion? But I also never got the part about how you need God to explain the universe, but apparently need no argument to explain God, even though God would be more more complicated than the universe. Oh well.
>>2919052'God' is just humans ego reflected back at them
Im not opposed to some higher entity that kickstarted this whole 'reality' thing but to claim that its in humans image, when there are like 10 different homo-adjacent species of like humans that died out (neanderthal ect) is just silly given the overwhelming evidence points to us just being another type of animal on this rock, we are only special in our own perceived self-importance I think.
>>2917951>fascism is "nature" or that nature somehow promotes fascismDidn't watch the vid but this is correct. If you followed evolution teachings and natural human lifeways you'd be slaughtering your neighboring tribe, collecting concubines and slaves, exposing mishapen kids in the woods, etc. The point of communism is to control, transcend, and destroy nature, as far as possible.
>>2919060 This is the Catholic mindset. Humans have a nature that is generally pro-social (we are a social species that relies on groups for survival and thus are programmed to try to socialize), but also partly survivalist and individualistic. Palingenetic Ultranationalism, given form in Fascism, is a myth that appeals to the weakest and most core parts of human nature. It plays perfectly to every flaw and some of the pro-social drives that we have. In that way, fascism is a very human invention. But so is communism, which plays to the best, most pro-social impulses that we all have, and even some of the individualistic impulses as well. I believe that in this way, anarchist-communism is the most human system, however I myself am not an ancom in practice, as I do not believe strategies associated with ancom action are effective in our current state here in the USA. Idk, maybe in Peru or Kenya where there's a much weaker State and more communal culture it would work, but not in America or the EU.
>>2919060>If you followed evolution teachings and natural human lifeways you'd be slaughtering your neighboring tribe, collecting concubines and slaves, exposing mishapen kids in the woods, etc. The point of communism is to control, transcend, and destroy nature, as far as possible.wow, literally none of that is true.
Out of the roughly 100k'ish years that humanity has existed, we only broadly engaged in most of that for the last 5-10%, at most. Communism is about overcoming the brutality of the relatively recent past, not all nature, that's stupid.
>>2919060>muh cuz god said so Nature™see
>>2918775 >>2916771You always hear rightoids talk about Marxism as the enemy of western civilization or whatever, but there is no reasonable definition of western civilization that does not place Marx, Engels, and Lenin squarely in the western tradition.
>>2916834 This is the exact problem with strict adherence to Historical Materialism. It deifies history as a force above humanity whose amoral dictation must be followed along the path to communism, making all actions beforehand justified. This essentially removes all guardrails and gives total moral leeway to the most horrific state terrorism imaginable. History has proved this to be the result of what happens when morality does not constrain the course of revolution.
>>2919144Good luck with that
>>2919100 Precisely. The idea that the Theory of Evolution is somehow a moral and objective process in which survival is the highest moral good gives rise to social darwinism and eugenics. Furthermore, this idea of "survival of the fittest means destroying all competition in a blind plunge into individualist insanity" is laughable when one considers that the human genome is hardwired to instill with us a strong (but not insurmountable) drive to act in a pro-social manner, because anti-social ancient humans died off for either threatening or abandoning the tribe that protected them, which is partly why anti-social disorders are so rare today.
>>2919148 So, then, the only option is Stalinism when its expedient and pacifism if its convenient? If you want an example of a revolution controlled *mostly* (but not fully because people are people) by moral principles, take a look at the Spanish Revolution of 1936. And still, if the only option in the course of revolution is to kill massive amounts of people when necessary for a future that may never come, then I reject it. I'm here to build a better society, not blindly leap into the abyss of murderous Nihlism.
>>2919154The Spanish revolution did famously fail, after all. You won't be given moral consideration by the bourgeoisie, and if you can't win, everything else is irrelevant.
>>2916538Its a rhetorical shell game.
>My enemies cannot be trusted because they do not subscribe to an objective moral system.>I can be trusted because I do>I represent an objectively moral system>Every action I take is moral >>2919157 Name on revolution that has successfully created communism in the long term. Every socialist revolution has eventually failed so far, except the Zapatistas, but they could very easily fail as well. But the Spanish Revolution, although it lasted only three years, did by all accounts achieve communism. The borgeoisie won't give us moral consideration, and we must win, but in order to avoid causing excessive suffering and voilating our own principles (such as that all human beings should be given equal rights, which is violated by the buorgeoisie, causing us to rebel and demand respect in the first place). I'm not saying that revolutions aren't messy, I'm saying that we must acknowledge when we transgress our own principles and not justify it as morally necessary, or say that one day it will have been morally necessary (if that day ever comes, which even in The State and Revolution, Lenin says is not entirely certain).
>>2919149>>2919144i don't really ascribe to morality as much as i take from aristotlen sense of arete, tbh
>>2919211 This is an axiomatic difference between the two of us that cannot be resolved, really. I believe in the subjective moral framework that I have created of my own free will, and I believe that the best way of creating a better society (judging by those axioms) is a social revolution guided by morals that ensure that it actually brings about the outcome intended and not a robespierrist psychotic frenzy of violence and terror.
>>2919204Conquest and holding of power is a prerequisite. It is step one. If you cannot pass it, no other aspects of the political project are relevant.
>>2918871I am not.
I am a Marxist.
>>2919060Okay so where does Marx specifically say the goal of communism is to destroy nature?
>>2919217 I never said that conquest and holding of power was immoral, I'm condemning excessive exercise of power, those are two different things.
>>2919247 Nowhere, but most Marxists have never read a line of Marx beyond the Communist Manifesto, and thus are prone to saying the most absurd shit online.
>>2919247Who cares? Ask yourself is nature compassionate? Why do you never see hunter-gatherers with disabilities? Because they die. The only reason so many disabled people are alive today is because we’ve overcome nature.
>>2919251 Excessive exercise of power *in a way that harms innocents* I mean. But that's inevitable. The problem is when we justify those instances of our own violations of our principles (such as murder) by saying that it will one day be fine because communism will be worth it, that can lead to the justification of tens of thousands of murdered innocents because "it is just what history necessitates as the natural course of society's development towards communism." I am criticizing this idea that everything that happened was necessary, and that we shouldn't be guided by moral principles in our attempt to create a morally just world.
>>2919256 Actually inane trite. There is plenty of evidence of people with disabilities in prehistory, just look it up in a basic internet search and you will see that people took care of the disabled in the past too. Nature is neithe compassiomate nor cruel, and in an attempt to seem objective, you're assignming a sort of human aspect to nature as "cruel and brutish" as Hobbes would say. Human nature, humans in the state of pure nature, take care of each other and cooperate while also sometimes fighting each other. Human nature is not this state of violent individualistic saveregy that you're making it out to be. This is cringe, edgy, anti-human, and overly pessimistic.
>>2919258 Excuse the spelling errors, I'm typing quickly on an unstable surface.
>>2919256>Why do you never see hunter-gatherers with disabilities? Because they die.There are remains of paleolithic and neolithic people with disabilities, that lived for decades, with cavities on their teeth (rare in pre-history) cause they were pampered with sweets lmao
>>2919262 Exactly, anon is still a victim of this puritanical social darwinist mindset that permiates our culture.
>>2919256This is wrong lmao. We have plenty of skeletal evidence of early hominids surviving to old age with severe disabilities/injuries that were clearly long before their death, presumably because of the support of the rest of their band.
Just a reminder to every comrade ITT that the so-called “village” that zoomers ramble about wanting can’t exist without every “villager” adhering to a shared strong moral code. There’s a logical reason why the only communities you see in the modern West which exemplify the idea of “the village” are insular religious communities like Hasidic Jews and the Amish. Why? Because they all share a strong code of morality of which to live by. Their interests don’t compete with each others’. They take care of each other and care for each others’ disabled, children, and elderly without issue for this exact reason.
If you want a “village” to give you daily support for your AuDHD you will embrace objective morality and demand others do as well.
>>2919258You sound identical to:
>>2918523 >>2919258Yeah if humans “take care of each other” in a @state of pure nature” why do we see barely any empathy or compassion in the world today, mongoloid?
>>2919256You are a very ignorant person, and we will correct this.
Your understanding of reality does not even extend to patches of humanity under relatively recent history. Christopher Columbus' letters about the Tanio people describe them as being "virtually child-like gentleness" and naivete, who were more than willing to share and show compassion, and took care of their elders and disabled (and basically knew no sickness).
Brutality and cruelty developed at about the same time as the development of religion and agriculture which together marked the beginning of the neolithic period.
>>2919284Climate change and population growth over time along with unintnetional and intentional horticulture ended up making sedentary life and agriculture a necessity, which drove down average nutrition and created inequality of resources which drove strife because it became viable to take large amounts of things at once from other people than from the land.
Again this is all within the last 10% of human history.
>>2919291HGs only cared for each other because they had a strong understanding of who constituted their moral community. In the modern world, “community” doesn’t exist outside of insular religious groups, because everyone has a competing set of values and morals.
>>2916538>objective moralityActually exists because humans have not changed for a really long time, and bar some crazy ass genetic engineering that might not even work, will also stay this way because evolution is not the panacea modernists think it is. Whether you are a rightoid or leftoid, you have some sort of objective morality, whereby even change and relativism are objective because they are objective facts desu. The left also used to have a similar outlook on morality where it held certain truths self-evident. Many AES countries also did. Then the CIA started promoting fake leftists who polluted the discourse with their muh relativism. The good thing about objective morality is it is falsifiable and therefore can be updated. Relativistic morality tries to overstay its welcome by always trying to stay in vogue and in the end kills the civilization, usually by yielding to a more comprehensive i.e. "catholic" morality of heightened potency. Kinda how Islam spread in the MENA.
>>2916551>So anyone challenging said objective morality can labelled absolutely evil and wrong and can therefore persecuted with extreme prejudice.And this is a good thing leftists should take advantage of. I was advocating this with my "partisans" post for a couple months now.
>>2916736>>2916743Also true. Objective morality is always constructed.
>>2916772>>2916834Based.
>>2918490Communism needs morality to function. Nihilism kills communism on an individual level.
>>2918523>>2918532>>2918534>>2918583It doesn't because "evolution" is not a real thing. The only evolution that is real is "devolution" because traits don't linearly accumulate and we have so much unnatural selection you cannot accurately rate for fitness, it all becomes domain-dependent.
>also scientism>ngmi>>2918738>>2918752>>2918755Kek + based
>>2918984>Necessary>TrueThose two things are not the same.
>>2919303Also so many people who think they are part of a "community" are just individualist nomads uprooted by globalist capitalism.
>>2919256the pop culture ideal you have of hunter gatherer societies doesn't exist anon
>>2919309>Whether you are a rightoid or leftoid, you have some sort of objective morality, whereby even change and relativism are objective because they are objective facts desu>The good thing about objective morality is it is falsifiable and therefore can be updatedThat's not how objective morality works. Objective morality imply universality, principles always true no matter how you look at it. If you aknowledge differences and change between and within moral systems, then they weren't objective to begin with.
That doesn't work the same with objectivity in the building of knowledge, where theories need to be falsifiable because you need to test whether you current model is closer to the unknown truth than the previous one.
>>2919319Au contraire. When an objective moral system fails, it necessitates a new one. One closer to the "primordial truths" out there claimed to have shaped the objective moral system before it became corrupted. I completely agree what you are saying, but without a dialectical understanding of this you won't get anywhere. It doesn't matter if the system itself is merely what *we* think is objective, what matters is everyone interalizing it.
>>2919326>When an objective moral system fails, it necessitates a new one.actually fucking braindead sentence.
An "objective moral system" can not fail because it would be a property of the universe independent of humans or their actions, I actually don't think you understand the words you are typing.
>>2919329No, objectivity means basically the same thing as empiric, and thus can be considered false when new observations get made about it.
>>2919332No it isnt', and relative to the original post, the reason that the right wing uses it so much and why they invoke God to do so is that claiming the existence of objective morality allows them to deny human agency, obscure power structures, and hide the social origin of our beliefs. It is
specifically designed in such a way as to say "it's how we are doing things now, and it's how we should always do it, because objective morality doesn't change".
The entire claim made by the right wing is that the universe
is made with these moral codes as a set of properties about the universe, it is a metaphysical claim against the argument that humans are capable of changing our own societies.
I mean shit, the people in this very thread who are arguing "for" objective morality aren't even arguing that there is some unchanging moral code for all time, they're just describing how they want to use opportunist demagoguery to manipulate and control people
>>2919342 The average internet leftist is unfortunately familiar with Soviet Union TikTok edits and debates over if authoritarianism exists or if we should abolish time, not ethical philosophy, which they should be, seeing as that's kind of our whole reason for opposing capitalism.
>>2919326 Absolutely horrific misuse of "dialectic," istfg you people just like sprinkling that word into your conjecture and philosophyslop to make it sound better. The idea that you're describing isn't the concept of objective morality, or at least not in the way that everyone else here is using it (the correct way).
>>2919310 Essato, more Hobbesian metaphysical self-flagellation from nihilistic losers.
>>2919380Evolution says nothing about human morality, especially when you consider contemporary society is vastly different from HG society.
>>2919387 It literally does. Humans evolved a sense of basic morality to motivate us towards pro-social behavior that increases the odds of individual survival by increasing the odds of your group/tribe's survival (hence why the only common moral principles seen in almost all societies revolve around not killing, stealing, and harming group members). This is a scientifically observable phenomenon. And the traits of modern society at their core have their roots in HG societies, because there are certain unchanging universal contracts required to maintain any group's cohesion.
You're taking the amoral nature of the physical process of natural selection as proof against the idea that said natural selection selected for the neurological traits in homo sapiens that allow for the formation of complex moral systems.
>>2919393Group cohesion isn't necessarily the same thing as being moral, though. There are plenty of cases of instances of "moral" behavior coming at odds of group cohesion, eg, the Noble Lies of the world.
>>2919393100% naturalistic falacy
>>2919393this immediatly come in conflict with another scientific fact : you can't know personally more than 150 at a time,that's your maximum capacity for group cohesion (including beating up the ones that may put it in danger by not respecting muh traditions)
that has nothing to do with altruism at even a village level (already 10x more people than can be considered by one human)
>>2916538The old man is so far up his ass he's in his intestines.
>>2916908What's wrong with Jews?
>>2919393So what ethical and moral system did our genes program us with? Utilitarianism? Kantian? Virtue ethics?
>>2919599 None, those are human constructions that exist to debate and explain both these basic moral impulses and the higher, socially constructed ones that societies create on top of them.
>>2919601Okay, so what moral system did our genes program us with then? "Be nice to people and take care of weak people"?
>>2919513 I'm not saying that it's objectively moral because it comes from nature, I'm saying that it ARISES FROM nature as a natural consequence. I am begging you to read any scientific theory on this, ether this or stop acting in bad faith.
>>2919602 Yes, more or less. We have other impulses that conflict with them sometimes, but generally humans feel a natural drive towards these behaviors because they encourage humans to stay in a group, which increases our odds of survival, seeing as humans alone can easily get killed by just about any other large animal.
>>2919525 This is programmed as an impulse towards humans in general, not specifically towards a neat number of people who we can remember in detail. Human groups initially didn't get much larger than a few dozen or maybe a hundred, we're not talking about a modern "village" definition.
>>2919409 Yes, because these drives *generally* help with it, humans are not perfectly evolved to address all situations. This is like saying that we didn't evolve stomachs to eat food because we can't digest raw animal bones.
Evolution isn't a refuge for moral realism, quite the opposite, see e.g. Sharon Street's evolutionary debunking arguments, which basically says it would be a strange coincidence if our unique evolutionary history somehow aligned with discovering universal moral truths. Our sense of mathematical truths is probably right for good reasons (e.g. knowing there's 2 tigers chasing you) but why would it work for moral truths when moral decisions often depend on sacrifice which would go against survival. There's been many responses to that over the years, whether they're convincing if up to you.
>>2919754 I'm not arguing moral realism, I'm literally just arguing that these morals arise, not that evolution "discovered" some sort of objective moral principles. Morals are a human psyhcic phenomenon which are shared to an extent by other social animals for the same exact reason. Oftentimes, the drive towards group survival is so strong that it overcomes the drive towards personal survival, and ultimately whether that happens or not is up to chemical balances/imbalances and circumstances. Furthermore, if someone has a set of constructed morals which they prioritize and involve in their process of logical thinking, sometimes their free will is able to overcome their basic biological programming in the moment as a rational decision which they make in order to satisfy these higher, societally constructed moral values.
>>2919607>>2919763What I object to is in fact quite specific to the use of the word "morals" because I find "morals" to be a hideously imprecise and ill-defined word. Language is a technology, words are tools, and "moral" is an extremely wonky one that has far more use in attempting to drive people in praxis than it is useful as a term of precise understanding. So I don't really understand what you're trying to convey here.
Do we want to posit morals as emotionally influenced reasoning? I find it very difficult to see the use of a term when different groups of people can describe the same thing as being moral, immoral, or amoral.
>>2919783 Yes, morals are principes that we reason ourselves into creating and declaring, based off of the emotions that animate us and influence our reasoning. Those emotions arise from how we are generally psychologically programmed as human beings at a basic, purely biological level.
>>2916538>>2916551>objective morality?If you don't have objective morality, why even bother?
>>2919786 Thus, humans are driven by these basic primal urges programmed into us by evolution to forming social contracts for mutual ensurance of survival with terms sometimes called "moral principles" as a result.
>>2919788Take responsability for your own judgment and stop asking validation from the universe you limp-dicked faggot.
>>2916538What the Right mean by morality is rather different, and is more easily seen in ‘outliers’ e.g. right wing intellectuals like Evelyn Waugh and T.S. Eliot rather than politicians. Intellectuals can be rather more open about their true beliefs.
The first key point is to understand the hostility towards ‘abstraction’: and what purposes this serves. Nothing is more alien to right wing thought that the idea of an Abstract Man: right wing thought is situational, contextual (one might even call it relativistic) to the core. de Maistre states this most clearly: ‘The (French) constitution of 1795, like its predecessors, has been drawn up for Man. Now, there is no such thing in the world as Man. In the course of my life, I have seen Frenchmen, Italians, Russians, etc.; I am even aware, thanks to Montesquieu, that one can be a Persian. But, as for Man, I declare that I have never met him in my life.’
This sounds postmodern to us, even Leftist (and of course Marx might have given highly provisional approval to this statement). But the question is not: is this statement true? It’s: ‘what do the right do with this statement?’
Again to quote another reactionary thinker Jose Ortega y Gasseett: ‘I am myself plus my circumstances’. Again this is simply a definition of contextualism. So what are your circumstances? They are, amongst other things, your social circumstances: i.e. your social class.
Since, according to this argument, you are amongst other things, your social class, I cannot judge your moral actions unless I understand your social circumstances. But morality is a form of judgement, or to put it another way a ranking. Morality is means nothing unless I can say: ‘you are more moral than him, she is more moral than you’ and so on. (Nietzsche: ‘Man is Man the esteemer’ i.e. someone who ranks his or her fellow human beings: human beings cannot be morally equal or the phrase has no meaning).
But I can’t hermeneutically see what moral role you must play in life, I cannot judge you, unless I have some criteria for this judgement, and for this I must know what your circumstances are.
Therefore, unless people have a role in life (i.e. butcher, baker, candlestick maker) then morality collapses (this is the weak point in the argument and if you wanted to tear the whole edifice down you would start here). Because unless we know what one’s social role is then we can’t assess whether or not people are living ‘up to’ that role. And of course this social order must be hierarchical, or else anyone can be anything one wants to be, and in that case, who will sweep the streets?
And if anyone has any smart arse points to raise about that idea, God usually gets roped in to function, literally, as a Deux ex Machina.
‘The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at his gate,
He made them, high or lowly,
And ordered their estate.’
Clive James put it best when discussing Waugh: ‘With no social order, there could be no moral order. People had to know their place before they knew their duty…he (and, more importantly society) needed a coherent social system (i.e. an ordered social system, a hierarchical social system)’
In other words Conservatives believe that without hierarchy, without ranking and without a stratified (and therefore meaningful) social order, morality actually disintegrates. You simply cannot have a morality without these things: everything retreats into the realm of the subjective. Conservatives don’t believe that things like the Khmer Rouge’s Killing Fields, the Great Terror, the Cultural Revolution are bad things that happened to happen: they believe that they are the necessary and inevitable end result of atheistical, relativistic, egalitarian politics. Social ‘levelling’, destroying meaningful (i.e. hierarchical (‘organic’ is the euphemism usually used)) societies will usually, not always but usually, lead to genocide and/or civil war. Hence the hysteria that seizes most Conservatives when the word relativism is used. And their deep fear of postmodernism, a small scale, now deeply unfashionable art movement with a few (very few) philosophical adherents: as it destroys hierarchy and undermines one’s capacity to judge and therefore order one’s fellow human beings, it will tend to lead to the legalisation of pedophilia, the legalisation of rape, the legalisation of murder, war, genocide etc, because, to repeat, morality depends on order. No social order = no morality.
Hence the Right’s deep suspicion of the left’s morality. To the Right, the Left has no morality, as they understand the term, and cannot in fact do so. Leftist morality is a contradiction in terms, in this worldview.
—
Also being moral is hard work (remember that Conservatives tend to see morality as the expression of Duty, your Responsibilities to your society (which generally means to your social class)). But it’s also an expression of the Will: how badly you want it. This was first stated in Schopenhauer, then passed onto Nietzsche and then via the Austrians to the American Right more generally. The attraction of course is that it is a way of expressing hierarchy without having to rope God into it. Indeed, Ayn Rand and Mises etc. were openly hostile to Christianity because they thought certain phrases in it (e.g. ‘Love thy neighbour as yourself’ and the insistence that ‘God loves everyone’ might start giving the masses ideas: Ayn Rand openly believed that the broad mass of humanity were simply worthless and were simply incapable of rising to the moral/physical/financial heights achieved by Entrepeneurs (who function as a secularised form of Plato’s Philosopher Kings in Rand’s Weltanschauung)).
[copy/pasted from my old files]
>>2919788Why do leftists need objective morality?
>>2916538why do rightoids think they are objectively right about everything? no one can answer this question.
>>2919786If you're going to posit this as morals then fine, I suppose, but I broadly don't think it's a useful term for what's being described.
>>2916538>"your argument for morality is essentially a natural rights or natural law argument"QRD on natural right/natural law?
>>2920058good post which i can't help feel aligns well with the one about girard above. (and, oddly, Confucianism)
though i'm curious how you'd explain more casual right-wingers, e.g. the archetypal Trump voter or /pol/ type, who seems to be seeking moral licence for immorality far more than they're seeking moral order.
>>2916538>How does the exploiter class benefit from proles believing in objective morality?By keeping them subservient so they don't revolt.
Okay, so let's break this down:
>different civilizations have different moral codes
>those codes change over time
>perhaps there is no universal standard of right and wrong
>what we call "justice" may simply be what a particular society happens to regard as justice
The left needs rejects the inference. The fact that human beings disagree about justice does not prove that there is no truth about justice nor does it mean we can't determine what justice or morality are.
Capitalism and liberalism function epistemological relativism: if you can control what someone experiences, remembers, and believes, you can effectively control his world.
>>2920207No it isn't, the moralfag left is one of the most do-something bits of it out there. Protesting for Palestine or meddling with an immigration raid may not be storming the Bastille, but it's a hell of a lot more than posting on leftypol, selling newspapers, babbling about the reactionary nightmare of gender fluidity, or sitting around in some lib-aligned trade union arguing against cuts to spending on nukes.
>>2920124 It is the correct term though, the term that you and some others are looking for is "ethics."
>>2918532why does a statistic electrochemical process give legitimacy to your life or rights
>>2920031>Take responsabilityesl evades his responsibility from object morality, but it's ok cause he's not validation seeking
>>2920210objective morality as a concept is what revolutions are founded upon even if it gets rug pulled later
>>2916538there is no deeper meaning to be gleamed from rightist ideology. it is all flailing at imagined premises in fantastical worlds, apart from puppet masters like goebbels, steve bannon; stephen miller.
>>2920249Yeah it really doesn't.
Kinda my point.
The entire world is perfectly explained by intent (ie what models people use to operate, and what they desire) and the capacity to carry out their intent, ie, power. I don't see a need for legitimacy or morals or what have you.
These are just tools (ie a form of power) to try to get other people to align with your intent. I haven't yet seen an argument for why we need these complications that isn't just saying that they're useful for controlling other people.
>>2920230>No it isn't, the moralfag left is one of the most do-something bits of it out there. which one was the achieve-something bits?
>>2916538>Why are rightoids so obsessed with muh objective morality?You assume that rightoids actually even take things like Christianity seriously to begin with. It's just posturing because Christianity is part of the platform of the Republican party and conventional for rightwing politics and nothing more.
Just look at /pol/.
Behind closed doors, these people don't care.
>>2920566 They're calling it the best post of the day /gen
>Why are rightoids so obsessed with muh objective morality?
It is cathartic to believe morality can be solved, or that one can just take a pre-packaged, unquestionable morality without having to develop a foundational understanding of ethics to then (optionally) build morality on top of.
Ethics is boring and anti-cathartic, and objective morality suggests one can skip it for something that is pro-cathartic.
>>2919060>>2919393>"nature is fascist">"nature is inclusive/moral"I hate this fucking duality of man shit.
The right can no longer hide behind the façade of morality now that it’s become to domain of Trump and Trumpers.
>>2920721nature is proletarian. the earth is class struggle between nature and co2 emitters (bourgeoisie). by causing storms floods earthquakes heat waves hurricanes and other elements, nature is destroying the exploiter class (humanity) that is raping her for resources.
>>2920721Nature is whatever you project into it. It's a justification to enforce social rules.
>>2920721Really shows the difference between Marxists — who want to use dialectics to dominate and overcome nature — and anarchists — who insist “nature” is innately on their side.
>>2920991And the left has largely embraced a (highly justified IMO) demand for objective morality, largely as a response to the eugenics and social murder caused by covid and the eugenics of the Big Tech billionaires who seek to use technology to eradicate disabled and neurodivergent identities. At least the neocons/Straussbros and Evangelicals function on a moral theory of Justice and would never allow the tech oligarchs to use genetic engineering to reshape society into their apocalyptic accelerationist eugenicist utopia.
>>2921058jessie what the fuck are you talking about
everyone in this thread needs to read politzer's "elementary principles of philosophy"
to be a communist and think of "object morality" only speaks of a very poor dialectical materialism no jutsu
>>2921133cockshott was right about dialectics being bullshit though
>>2921058Can we fucking kill this retarded meme? NO ONE is killing off disabled people.
>>2921195dialectical materialism is the philosophical backbone of marxism, at this point you are anti-marxist
>>2921033Anarchists love copium because they have no record of success anywhere.
>>2921058>neocons would never get in bed with silicon valley tech oligarchsdid you just get thawed out from a glacier?
>>2921201>NO ONE is killing off disabled peoplehi i'm disabled and i can no longer afford health insurance and i've been denied medicaid and i have spent the last 2 years applying and getting denied for SSI and i now have to wait at least another year before i will even get a hearing with a judge and i also have asthma and can't even get inhaler drugs anymore and i'm coughing and struggling to breathe and tired and lightheaded all the time but i guess it's my own doing for having inferior genes what a great leftist you are
>>2921248>and i can no longer afford health insurance and i've been denied medicaid That's just the fuckery of American "healthcare", not a full-blown eugenics program aimed at killing disabled people. Don't be a fucking mongoloid.
>>2921292There isn't some grand conspiracy to killoff disabled people. American "healthcare" is purposely designed to be a nightmare and deny people shit based on ridiculous reasons.
Also, if a conspiracy against the disabled exists, how come you don't see disabled people being denied healthcare in countries that, you know, have universal healthcare?
>>2921297Are you not familiar with the concept of social murder?
There are no innocent bourgeoise
>>2921300You aren’t innocent either retard
>>2921298That's the result of a fucked up system, not something the people on top do consciously.
And again: countries with universal healthcare don't deny lifesaving medicine to the disabled, so no there is no grand conspiracy.
>inb4 MAiDMAiD is highly regulated and most of the "questionable" cases you hear about in the media are very, very rare. No one is being approved for MAiD because they have ADHD or some shit.
>>2921297>There isn't some grand conspiracy to killoff disabled peoplenow now, you're moving the goalposts, first you said "NO ONE is killing off disabled people", now you're saying "ok maybe they are killing off disabled people but it's not like it's a grand conspiracy." and even then you're wrong because people like donald trump and rfk jr and others are literally sitting in rooms together discussing and planning how to kill off disabled people, people in the top echelons of power in the us government are actively working towards eliminating all social programs that disabled people depend on to live and forcing them into homelessness or imprisoning them in institutions where they will die of neglect, and donald trump and rfk jr and elon musk and the other most influential powerful people in the world are all huge proponents of eugenics and they all speak very candidly about the importance of "good genes" and how much of a burden disabled people are on society etc. it is a conspiracy, a very poorly concealed and blatantly obvious conspiracy, but a conspiracy nonetheless.
>>2921306The British NHS is almost completely uninterested in providing treatment and austerity can only provide a limited explanation for why. A lot of its structure and costs comes from gatekeeping access to cheap generic drugs at great expense, and it would be trivial to loosen this to reduce waiting times and provide more treatment but that would reduce their institutional power so they let the waiting lists and the expenses pile up.
while i think morality is subjective in terms of the social contracts that groups of people come up with which vary depending on the time and the place and the people, there are a few common threads between all of these different moral frameworks that are always the same regardless of the time or the place or the people, and one could call them moral absolutes but i would prefer to think of them as just simple logic. for example, the need for consistency - no system of morality can function if people think that there are certain situations where the ends justify the means and that it is okay to override the rules or that they can simply advocate morality with their words without actually demonstrating morality through their actions. either all of the rules are valid or no rules are valid, and that's not some absolute cosmic truth but just a logical conclusion that we arrive at by thinking about how the system actually works and considering what happens when people, particularly the so-called "good" people who are the backbone of civilized society, think that they can be immoral. no matter what rules a society lives by, that society will break down if the people who normally follow the rules start breaking or bending the rules and influencing others to break or bend the rules, just as a monetary system breaks down when people forge currency and thereby erode the common social trust in that currency. so one rule that can be thought of as is an objective moral truth, or at least the closest thing to it, is that the rules must always be followed, whatever they may be.
>>2920566>authoritarian people only favor objective moralityWhile I admit the major strident of conservative thought is
>We need Christianity or Islam because society will collapse without itSort of knee-jerk thinking…
…A lot of authoritarian people have the more cynical grindset and outlook… but without objective morality.
It might be hard to notice because esotericism and traditionalism are so hip with /pol/fags these days, but buried beneath the Evolians are a subcategory of rightwingers who are for Fascism, Machiavellianism, Might is Right etc.
A good number of conservatives who favor religion favor religion purely for social utility and nothing else; to be frank, I'd say a large number of conservative people are like that.
Before Duginism took the 3rd worldist scene, a lot of the sentiments behind authoritarian 3rd world dictatorship apologia were Machiavellian in character.
There is a huge division in the rightwing right now between Christian Right versus Nietzschean Right that centered on BAP.
Also with Christian vs Neopagan, but that's beside the point.
>>2916538>Why are rightoids so obsessed with muh objective morality?>So how does this belief in objective moral truth fit in with the greater right-wing agendaOnly to the point when the
objective morality is their own morality to the letter and no other. Any ruling class ever has seen itself and sold to the people the idea that their way is the will of god / common sense / least worst option / the only way. In DotP it would be pretty much the same.
I guess for the 2000s righwinger there was also the certainty that anything objective morality system brings. You don't have to doubt, think, or question, nor struggle with anything, just let go and follow. Really appealing to 9/11 era "scared shitless of muslims by fox news" cattle conservatives. Today US is fucking over and belief that there is anything rock solid or objective in west or the US is also gone. They try to still larp it, but it's all gone by now, everybody basically knows American-mythos is all more or less bs.
>>2921364>He likes a declawed and marginal Christianity–he wouldn't actually ensure that society actually transforms into the words they bark.This. Any kind of "new morality" that genuinely goes beyond securing property relations and enforces social stability in modern America doesn't get a pass from capital. 21st century Muttland is the culmination of protestant reformation and ethics and any change to it would be a regression for capital, it would get less efficient for making profits or it could get too overtly oppressive to pacify the prole. They have their heaven on earth, all of their politics is just about distracting the cattle with myriad of reasons why it sucks so much for them, with idpol sissues and red-blue puppetshow.
>>2921359>might makes rightThat one always devolve into self-agrandizing double standards, if I win, then it was because of how mighty and strong I was so it's cool, and if "the ennemy" wins, it's because they're cowardly schemers that are also weak and stupid so it doesn't count and they don't deserve it
>>2921400ok but this is objectively how the world works so
kvetching about it doesn't solve anything
>>2921400Leftists make this point that
>well, Nazis are all might is right, but they lost!That's exactly the point, lmao.
>it's because they're cowardly schemers that are also weak and stupid so it doesn't count and they don't deserve itThat's not actually might is right terms of thinking though. This is just another appeal to honor/virtue, but the schemer who does whatever he might and gathers a mightier storm doesn't debunk that idea.
>>2921401>>2921403In that specific sense, it's just recognizing that those who are victorious are the ones who decides what is moral at best, it's not a moral axiom in itself, or something you can "be for" just like you can't be for or against gravity
That is might makes right on paper, but everyone claiming to be for it uses it as a natural fallacy and to self fellate
>>2921203The philosophical backbone of marxism is
historical materialism. Cockshott is wrong in arguing that M&E don't use dialectics, they do. but it's not the cornerstone of their works, and you don't need to use it to get scientific results.
>>2921368Seems like objective morality bends with their feelings.
>>2921359>A good number of conservatives who favor religion favor religion purely for social utility and nothing elsethat's not the only thing they favor it for and probably not even the main thing, in my opinion what really draws them to religion is the convenient moral absolution it provides. unless a person is a genuine psychopath, which is extraordinarily rare and possibly not even a real thing at all, immoral behavior carries with it a tremendous burden of guilt and shame and remorse and social alienation. and religion, and ideology in general, provide a means to pass that burden off onto some external higher power and escape from personal accountability. it's in god's hands, i did it for the party or for the good of the country, etc. it's sort of like installing a convenient flip-flop switch in your brain that just cuts off your introspection and sense of self-awareness whenever you do something or want to do something that you know deep down to be wrong and would otherwise feel terrible about. religion doesn't necessarily have to be this way and it is possible for people to use religion as it was probably originally intended to be used, as a tool for navigating and understanding reality and holding oneself to account and being a better person, but a lot of people simply use religion as an excuse, as a soft option, as a means of evading reality; they don't see it as something where they have to put in the work and have self-discipline to participate in it, they see it as a get out of jail free card.
“Objective morality” is worthless. You don’t implement or build socialism on the basis of muh morality. Plus, moral fanaticism is where you get religious right fundamentalism.
i think the real problem isn't so much whether morality is objective or subjective, i think it's pretty plainly obvious that morality is relative like everything else in the world is and anyone can figure that out for themselves if they actually thought about it for a moment. i think the bigger problem is how people seem to think of morality as if it were just a performance, like something you wear and display like an article of clothing or perform in front of judges who hold up score cards, or they think of it as just a simplistic arbitrary ledger like in an rpg game where you have a morality meter that goes up or down every time you do an immoral or moral thing. they don't think of it as something real and pervasive and relational, like a causal force that effects things and changes them permanently, which is really what it is in my opinion. you're driving in your car and someone cuts you off at a red light and you get angry and call them a dumb fucking uyghur and your windows are up and nobody hears you say it, but it still has an effect. it's easier for you to say it now than it was before, you've crossed that line once so you know you can cross it again, you're a different person now. if you feel ashamed or surprised at yourself for saying it you might hold court with yourself and decide that it wasn't fair of you to disparage an entire group of people because of one shitty driver or do some introspection and try to figure out why you said it and maybe realize something about yourself that you weren't quite conscious of before, and then you'll be a different person again. or you might just chalk it up to a temporary moment of anger and put it out of your mind and move on, and now it's easier for you to think up excuses to absolve yourself of your behavior and you're a different person again. everything that happens in the universe alters the universe forever, that's just fundamental physics - why would the human brain be exempt from this? like, if we are going to stay firmly rooted in science and understand the human mind as a purely physical structure, a wrinkled blob of meat full of billions of neurons continously forming and reforming electrical pathways in a dynamic complex network full of thoughts and feelings and memories and habits and impulses, why would what happens inside that structure obey different laws than anything else does? why would there be creations and deletions and undos and dry runs and shortcuts in this wrinkled blob of meat when they are strictly forbidden in absolutely every other part of the universe?
People who believe in objective morality are more likely to take the status quo as a given and far less likely to revolt.
>>2925104Compared to his millennials loved The Grapes of Wrath, which is about the fuckery of capitalism.
>>2925104Where are you getting east of eden’s popularity numbers from?
>>2925505It’s fairly obvious if you look at social media trends.
>>2921058Zoomers would love Strauss’ moralism.
How much longer before Natural Right and History becomes the next “hot book” on TikTok?
Unique IPs: 82