Moral Philosophy

Moral philosophy is one of the branches of philosophy; the others being Metaphysics and Natural philosophy or science. It concerns itself with proper conduct and with the reasons - see Morals. Religion also takes positions on conduct, as do legal systems. The latter are an expression of the power of governments and open to influence of special interest groups. Philosophy should be immune to that kind of effect. Here is a view.

Moral conduct is about survival; not just personal survival, but family, tribal and national survival. It means looking after one's children and theirs. Helping other relatives matters too. That is where it becomes a tribal or national issue. Countries do have armies. They do give men medals for risking their lives in the greater interest. This contrasts with Multiculturalism, a Subversive movement, one which incites the importation of outsiders to break the cohesion of a nation. In fact multiculturalism is heavily promoted by Jews as a weapon to attack European civilization. It contrasts with their own enthusiastic Racism and their law of Mesirah which forbids them telling the civil authorities about crime committed by their own.

Putting an idea on the Internet exposes it to criticism which can be savage and to indifference. It might even get some kind remarks.
PS People tend to think that the Ten Commandments are the basis of morals. They are a substandard version of the much older commandments from Solon of Athens which are explained in Solon's Ten Commandments.

Altruism's Bloody Roots, Cultural & Genetic Selection For Altruism In Humans
Professor MacDonald, an important psychologist explains.

 

Moral Capital
We acquire virtue or not by our behaviour. Jews attack using our moral standards while murdering, raping et cetera. Professor MacDonald explains again.

 

Morality ex Wiki
QUOTE
Morality (from the Latin moralitas "manner, character, proper behavior") is a sense of behavioral conduct that differentiates intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are good (or right) and bad (or wrong). A moral code is a system of morality (for example, according to a particular philosophy, religion, culture, etc.) and a moral is any one practice or teaching within a moral code.
UNQUOTE
The Wiki is prone to waffle which obscures anything worthwhile it may have. This is an example.

 

Moral Pressures
QUOTE
There is no single or simple answer, says security technologist Bruce Schneier in his enlightening new book, Liars & Outliers: Enabling the Trust that Society Needs to Thrive.  Schneier argues that it is the combination of four types of “societal pressures” that help create and preserve trust within any society:

  1. Moral pressure: Long-standing values and norms that govern appropriate social behavior. Moral pressure is most effective in smaller groups, Schneier says.

  2. Reputational pressure: In essence, peer pressure that keeps our behavior in check. It works best in small and mid-sized groups.

  3. Institutional pressure: The organizational rules, laws, and norms that guide our actions relative to the various groups to which we belong. Usually works best in large-sized groups.

  4. Security systems: “Mechanisms designed to induce cooperation, prevent defection, induce trust, and compel compliance,” Schneier explains. Security systems can work at a variety of levels.

These societal pressures answer the Hobbesian mystery of why most societies don’t go off the rails and end in anarchic violence. By “dialing in” these societal pressures in varying degrees, trust is generated over time within groups.
UNQUOTE
Morals are about how we all hang together or hang separately so Mr. Schneier has something important to tell us.

 

Moral Relativism ex Wiki
QUOTE
Moral relativism may be any of several descriptive, meta-ethical, or normative positions regarding the differences in moral or ethical judgments between different people and cultures:

UNQUOTE
More waffle from the Wiki. It writes at length but does not find it necessary to link to its article on Morality, an interesting omission.

 

Nihilism
Nihilism or nothing-ism is the idea that nothing matters; that there is no point in being here. It is a powerful proposition, one that shares something with Utopianism. Professor Congdon tells us that utopianism & nihilism come from a passion for negation. It implies that Moral standards are pointless.

Nihilism ex Wiki
Nihilism
( from the Latin nihil, nothing ) is a philosophical doctrine that suggests the negation of one or more reputedly meaningful aspects of life. Most commonly, nihilism is presented in the form of existential nihilism, which argues that life is without objective meaning, purpose, or intrinsic value.[1] Moral nihilists assert that morality does not inherently exist, and that any established moral values are abstractly contrived. Nihilism can also take epistemological or ontological/metaphysical forms, meaning respectively that, in some aspect, knowledge is not possible, or that reality does not actually exist.

The term is sometimes used in association with anomie to explain the general mood of despair at a perceived pointlessness of existence that one may develop upon realising there are no necessary norms, rules, or laws.[2] Movements such as Futurism and deconstruction, [3] among others, have been identified by commentators as "nihilistic" at various times in various contexts.

Nihilism is also a characteristic that has been ascribed to time periods: for example, Jean Baudrillard and others have called postmodernity a nihilistic epoch,[4] and some Christian theologians and figures of religious authority have asserted that postmodernity[5] and many aspects of modernity[3] represent a rejection of theism, and that such rejection of their theistic doctrine entails nihilism.

 

 



























 

 

 

Ethics
We have two basic drives; the wish to survive and the desire for happiness. Survival means living in person. It also means passing on your genes to your children and theirs which means doing what it takes to help them survive. This is where moral issues come to the fore.

Caring for children means long term commitment. It can mean putting their survival ahead of your own. Greater love hath no man than this; that he lay down his life for his friend. That is what it means to be a father; being willing to do whatever it takes.

There are corollaries to this point. First it is necessary to have children; the more the better. Otherwise your genes die with you. Women are failing on this point due to various pressures. Secondly our own children matter more to us than other people's. In fact it is a little more complicated than that. Your brothers and sisters carry fifty percent of your genes so they can carry your heritage forward. The same idea applies to the issue from grandparents and so on. This means that you can survive through your extended family or tribe. Thus your tribe matters. Ultimately this means your nation or your race. Caring for England does not mean hating foreigners without reason. It does mean not betraying Queen and Country.

It is a reality that Europeans have achieved the highest form of civilization to date. This is a truth which various fools and rogues dislike and which they try to suppress. They have had huge success because they have infiltrated education, law, business, politics and above all, the media. See  Culture Wars for something on this.

They have decided that  England should be infiltrated by foreigners for various reasons. This has the effect of weakening our unity. In practice it means reducing our intelligence. Politicians and others would deny it this. It is true none the less.

This amounts to an argument for stopping immigration into England and into civilization generally. It also means that we should repatriate virtually all foreigners. This contrasts with the policies of Her Majesty's Government, which is to pander to illegal immigrants and pay them money to stay here. But this is turning into a political essay rather than philosophy.

Mike - 29 September 2005

PS John Bryant aka The Birdman is a philosopher and has some thoughts on the same lines. His essay follows.

 

Birdman's Weekly Letter # 345:
Morality and Others

By John "Birdman" Bryant

 

Date: October 04, 2005
To: The usual suspects
From: John Bryant (john@thebirdman.org)
Re: Birdman's Weekly Letter #345: Morality and Others
Contents: Opinion (as always)

 

Morality and Others

In the present day there is much heaving, breast-beating and hyperventilation among liberals over the fact that European white men 'stole' the lands of native Americans. I think this is an interesting accusation for several reasons, not the least of which is the Marquis de Sade's correct observation that all real property ownership is a result of theft, because all such ownership, with the possible exception of a few remote troglyditic enclaves, has come into being as a result of conquest. The logical implication of this, of course, is that the ultimate basis of property ownership is simply the law of the jungle, and that those who are strong enuf to take something have a 'right' to own it. Might makes right, as the old saying goes.

De Sade's observation is interesting because it constitutes what could be called an act of philosophical sadism that makes the professors of morality squirm in their seats: It rips asunder the veil of self-satisfied pseudo-morality that gets preached from the pulpits every Sunday and from the academic lecterns Monday thru Friday, and makes us realize that 'God is on our side' only as long as we have the biggest guns. Even more interesting, however, is the fact that De Sade's observation makes us ask where power ends and morality begins, or whether morality is just a treacle-word for what can only be described as naked power that has simply put on a negligee.

In thinking the matter over, I have concluded that the only reasonable way to characterize morality is that it is the set of rules we use in dealing with our own group -- the 'in-group', 'Us' or 'Ourselves' -- whereas naked power is what we use in dealing with outsiders to our group -- the 'out-groups', 'Them' or 'Others'. This, then, explains why murder is a capital crime among our own, but killing 'Injuns' or 'natives' or whoever has rarely if ever posed a serious moral problem. But if we have resolved the question of distinguishing the laws of morality from the law of the jungle, this forces us to confront an even more difficult problem, and one which has become particularly acute in the present day: Who is Us, and who is Them? This was once a simple problem -- Us was the tribe or village we belonged to, and Them was everybody else. But as the world has gradually gotten smaller, the size of tribes has increased to the point that we now sometimes speak of the Global Village. Certainly this is nowhere more evident than on the Internet, where a webmaster such as myself may receive messages from persons in a dozen different countries overnight.

The liberal breast-beating over the conquest of America which we mentioned earlier is an example of the present divergence of opinion over the Us-Them question. For liberals, the difference between Us and Them is broad and indefinite, and embraces not only all races, ethnicities. ages and sexualities, but also children (treating them as adults), the mentally and physically handicapped (treating them as normals), criminals (except those guilty of 'hate crimes'), and often animals ("Save the whales") and plants (the Monkey-Wrench-Gang environmentalists). These are the folks who are hungering after World Government and the New World Order, and will have little trouble embracing as 'Us' the aliens from Alpha Centauri. The only question is, Will they embrace Donovan's Brain when it tries to direct their lives from its electrode-studded jar?

While it would be wrong to say that all White Liberationists -- aka 'white nationalists', or just 'nationalists' -- have uniform opinions on the Us-Them question, all of them agree that the white race should be preserved because it is a unique reservoir of genes which have enabled mankind to reach its highest form of development so far. Likewise, many if not most White Liberationists would agree that the national characteristics of various white groups -- particularly language and culture -- should also be preserved as much as possible. Beyond this, many White Liberationists would also agree that other races have a moral right to their own preservation -- an interesting departure from applying morality strictly to one's own group, or rather an interesting development in defining the Us-Them relationship. But the point here is that White Liberationists see the white race as Us, and hence the proper place for the application of moral rules, but do not necessarily embrace blacks, browns, Judah or Islam as being part of the Us category.

While I do not consider it my role to try to determine for other whites how the Us-Them divide should be made, there are certain relevant facts that need to be kept in mind. The main one is that the blacks, browns, Jews and Islamics are all waging racial warfare against whites -- in the case of Jews and Islamics, for centuries. By saying this I do not intend to impute blame to any group; for racial warfare is a natural component of the struggle for survival, and if whites wish to survive, they must recognize this warfare and engage the enemy. Liberals, of course, are blind to this warfare, because they are so busy having warm fuzzy relationships with all the nice foreigners and racial auslanders that they cannot see the forest fire for the trees.

Another fact relevant to considering the Us-Them divide is that the Jews in Israel are seeking Lebensraum for their people in the same way that Hitler was seeking it for HIS people; so that those who have no moral objection to Hitler's view of the Jewish Bolsheviks as Others become hypocrites when they wring their hands over Jews treating the Palestinians as Others, particularly since the Pals are merely another group of Others as far as most White Liberationists are concerned. The important point here, however, is not about hypocrisy, but rather morality: Because morality does not extend to Others, neither the Nazis nor the Israelis violated morality by taking land from Others, at least by their own lights. Furthermore, it is inconsistent of White Liberationists to extend the status of Us to the Pals vis-ŕ-vis the Israelis, but not to extend the same status to them vis-ŕ-vis whites.

A third point relevant to the Us-Them divide is that it may close rather rapidly if we happen to be invaded by ETs; for then most people will be willing to join with the rest of the world in an effort to repel the invaders no matter what low opinion they may hold of other races, creeds or cultures. In fact, it has recently been suggested that such an 'invasion' has already been planned by the New World Orderlies in an effort to institute a world government -- an event which is to be created by holograms of 'invaders' projected into the sky that are supposed to make the people think the invasion is real. Whether this is the latest invention sprung from the brow of the Iron Mountain Boys, or just an inventive Internet update of Orson Welles' War of the Worlds, I do not know; but having already seen proof that most wars and war-like conflicts have been staged by politicians with ulterior motives, usually financial, including 9/11 and the present unpleasantness in Iraq, and knowing from the exposure of Operation Northwoods the depths to which men will go in the service of personal aggrandizement, there is little at this point in time which will leave me much surprised.

I think it is useful to realize that, as a society grows richer, there is a certain inclination toward tolerance of Others, and thus a certain tendency toward what we might call 'creeping Us-ism', i.e., a movement toward embracing more and more Others as part of Us. In the leanest times, we can take care of only ourselves or our families; when we are less poor, we can give alms to those who are poorer; when we are wealthy we can give liturgies -- i.e., fund public works -- as well-off citizens did in ancient Greece; when society is wealthy it can afford to provide bread and circuses for the masses, or welfare and 'uplifting' for negroes; and when we are the wealthiest society in the world, we can expend our national treasure on saving spotted owls and 'spreading democracy' to the far corners of the earth. In all these cases we see an expansion of the boundaries of 'Us', where they are made to include an increasing number of people or other objects. And while this may appeal to the liberal tendency to 'love everyone', it places an increasing burden on the remainder of Us to tolerate the differences we see in the 'old Others'. There is, of course, no formula for deciding how much is too much, and thus no clear rule to decide where the line between Us and Them should be drawn; for even the closest people on the planet -- married couples -- can have violent disagreements. However, history has shown that the happiest assemblages of people are those which are racially homogeneous, so that the tendency to expand the Us line beyond the race is at least a dangerous one.

In closing, we should note that a liberal society with an ever-expanding definition of Us is a society with a dangerous weakness that invites exploitation by Others, and particularly by Others who are well-organized and who have had themselves accepted as Us. Certainly this has happened with Jews, whose exploitation of the bounteous richness of America has reached legendary proportions -- and billions upon billions of dollars. But there is another weakness of a liberal society besides the possibility of exploitation, which is that without enemies, a society lets down its guard and becomes vulnerable to attack. Von Moltke had this idea in mind when he praised warfare as both a noble practice and one necessary for defense of country: One cannot have good skill in warfare unless one actually engages in it. While I am not one to think that every man needs a dueling scar to prove his manhood, as was the belief in 19th century Germany of which Von Moltke was a product, I think we must at least find ways of teaching men how to become warriors, and of imbuing them with a sense of who constitutes Us and the realization that they may be required to do battle with Others.

Oh -- and one other thing: Would the liberals really have preferred that Europeans should never have come to America? Indeed, do they think that survival of the fittest is immoral? Perhaps we can be forgiven if we consider it a pity that liberals somehow managed to survive.

John Bryant

 

Errors & omissions, broken links, cock ups, over-emphasis, malice [ real or imaginary ] or whatever; if you find any I am open to comment.

Email me at Mike Emery. All financial contributions are cheerfully accepted. If you want to keep it private, use my PGP KeyHome Page

Updated on Monday, 17 October 2016 09:59:49