Sunday, April 2, 2017

The object and the source: on the impossibility of objective abstract morals, and the hallucinations of philosophers of moral reason



Whenever I challenge any liberal or conservative about the notion of equality they pull a series of goal post movings. "Moving the goal post" is a logical fallacy where the individual simply adjusts their standard as more and more evidence is presented to refute their assertion. For example;

Me: "communism has killed 94 million people."
Commie: "that is not the true communism. Real communism has never been tried."
Me: "they just tried real communism in Venezuela and it failed."
Commie: "it failed so that was also not the true communism."

It goes on and on like this.

In an argument about whether equality is real, the person who asserts that equality is true will make a series of retreats. First I will point out that humans are not equal: that humans are not the same. Remarkably, they will argue that indeed they are the same. After this retarded argument is put down with logic and simple observation of reality, they will insist that humans have equal worth!

They will insist that the equal worth argument was the one they were making all along. They will then retroactively change their own memory of the conversation and conclude that they never believed in equality as sameness, oh no, clearly people are not the same, but they must have equal worth! Oh yes, "that was the argument I was making all along!", they say.

They will simply change the argument a dozen ways and then insist that you must present a counter argument to each and every version of their delusional belief in human equality: equality as sameness, equal opportunity, equal worth, equal justice, and equal rights. They make you argue against each and every one, as they lodge personal attacks against you, call you names, engage in logical fallacies, rewrite their own memories of the conversation, and engage in a level of total mendacity that crosses into schizophrenic delusion and self-deception. This is motivated cognition par excellence. I have had entire conversations with Progressives that they have then later "forgotten" ever occurred because the red pills they were exposed to would have lowered their social standing if they accepted them.

So I am just going to cut to the chase and go straight for the jugular. Rather than the tedious task of refuting all forms of equality, I will simply attack the most important one, the one that is the Bailey of the Motte and Bailey argument: equal worth. I am going to make a simple assertion;
"innocent children do not have equal worth."
Here is the proof. Let us say that you are standing on a beach. On your left is your child swimming in the water about 200 yards away. On the right is some strangers child of the same age also about 200 yards away. They are both drowning. Because of the laws of physics, you only have enough time to save one. There is no one else on the beach to help you, and no one nearby. What do you do?
(a) save your own child because you are racist.
(b) save the strangers child because you are a guilty self-hating White liberal.
(c) practice equality by flipping a coin to decide who to save, thus, potentially allowing your own child to drown. (the coin flip adds a negligible amount of time to the equation).
So who do you save, huh? You can only save one because of time constraints. By the time you get to the other it will be too late. Pick. Your own child or the strangers?

If you flip a coin then you are a monster. If you save the strangers child, instead of your own, you are also a monster. Saving your own child is the correct thing to do in this situation. You should be prejudiced. You should be nepotistic. You should protect your own. That is what morality is all about: inclusive fitness. Your genes are the start of moral reasoning. That which is closest to you is the most important. The closer someone is to you genetically the more value they should have. This is why, contra Peter Singer, if you are White you should NOT give money to starving African children, but should spend that additional money on your own. If you have extra money beyond that then you should spend it on your extended family. If you still have extra, you should spend it on your distant family. You should NOT give your money to strangers and you should NOT set up foundations to help people you don't know. Your extended family clan is more important. Even your race is more important.

Of course, you can save the strangers child if there is time to. But this is a no time scenario. In a scenario where you have time to save both you should save your child first and the strangers child second, because of the different probabilities of death involved as a result of time constraints. If saving the strangers child would harm your own family, or your extended family, or even your race or nation, let them drown.

There are three political orientations that correspond to these three attitudes.

(a) corresponds to racism/nationalism
(b) corresponds to progressivism and "Israel first" type conservatism.
(c) corresponds to libertarianism, communism, and anarcho capitalism.

That's right. Libertarianism is a "flip a coin over your own child". . . "morality." That's why it's soul is closer to communism. Equality is just a plea for coin flipping.

I fail to see why either coin flipping or cuckoldry are superior alternatives to racism. The soul of heartlessness lies in equality while the soul of cuckoldry lies in self-sacrifice for strangers. Deep down all morality is sexual because all morality has its origins in genetics. It is very real to equate sacrifice for strangers with cuckoldry because subconsciously it is. Equality is an inversion of genetic inclination, and western culture has a shame word for everything noble: nepotism, racism, national chauvinism. You should be discriminatory. You should protect your own. You should be nepotistic. That is just helping your kid get into Harvard. Morality is like a Russian nesting doll: it comes in layers of loyalty: family first, community and then race, biosphere last, and in that order. I don't see "capitalism," or "equality" on that genetic list of things to be loyal to.

The problem is people. There is always a person. These people want to reduce morality to an abstract formula like "the greatest good," or the "kingdom of ends," This is a corruption of natural morality — which can never be divorced from the subject. Morality is always moral obligation towards someone just like power is always power over someone. There is always a recipient, always a person it is "being done to." There can be no such thing as legitimate moral math formulas that fail to take into account who it is being done to.

Just like morality is always done to an object, and thus, relative to the object, it is always done by a source, and thus, relative to the source. This is why there can be no moral "objectivity."

Objectivity does not exist. To state it ironically, objectively there can be no objectivity, since there is no objective viewpoint: only a series of subjective viewpoints. There is no objective morality, just billions of subjective moralit(ies), (plural). And there are as many subjective moralities as there are sentient beings in the universe, and possibly more than that.

Every person has a subjective morality. The will to make subjective morality real is the root of mass murder. The desire to make the subjective objective has killed millions.

There can never be an objective morality because morality has a source: the person "doing" morality. Morality will thus be practiced according to that person's subjective viewpoint, and this is the only morality that ever actually exists. Thus, to Hitler, Hitler was a moral man. And to Mao Zedong, Mao was doing what was necessary. And to X, Y moral atrocity is justified. And this is the only way it can be. Since there is no truly "objective" standard in physical reality, and since the attempt to impose an objective standards on physical reality only results in more bloodshed, no objective morality can ever exist. So the problem then becomes one of conflict management. All attempts to define objective morality are evasions of the far more important work of designing systems of conflict reduction.

In a nutshell;
Worth is defined by the subjective viewpoint of a person. Worth is always worth to someone. People cannot have equal worth because of inclusive fitness, and because worth is relative to the values of the person who values them.
Morality is always defined in the mind of a person. It is relative to a subjective viewpoint. The attempt to make it solid always ends in disaster.
Children do not have equal worth. They only have worth relative to the people who care about them. If a parent abandons their child then the parent has committed a crime against the worth of that child. Same with all family members.
Since worth is established by others placing a value on people, worth is established by the action of care. To perform caring actions is to establish worth. To refuse to perform those actions is to degrade the worth of others and betray them. Since there is no objective worth, failure to perform actions that prove the worth of another is a betrayal and a refusal to establish their worth. To allow injustice is to establish the worthlessness of the victim. To perform justice is to establish their worth. Caring is taking responsibility.
Notions of moral objectivity invariably lead to moral betrayal and even mass killings.
Morality is an action, a verb, and not a noun. It is a thing done to or for someone, either as a moral judgement against them, to protect them, or as an act of care. It is an action.
Moral sentiments towards strangers are a lie, equality is a coin toss, and real moral obligation is nested in concentric circles.
Last but not least. Both deontology and utilitarianism are reifications. They are the undead ideas of zombie philosophy that just refuse to die. They aren't real. There can never be an objective morality nor moral formulae, and thus, there can be no deontological ethics or utilitarianism. Consider that when you judge one of these two artificial abominations of natural morality, you always get the sense that something is not quite right. You feel there is something queasy about utilitarianism, or posturing and fanatical about deontology. You know that natural sense that you use to judge these other moral codes? That natural sense is your natural morals. It is the subjective morals that we just described: the morals of inclusive fitness. Your natural morals tell you instinctively that these moral codes worked out by philosophers are all either abominations or incomplete. Listen to your instincts. They are right. Nothing that is judged can ever be superior to the thing that does the judging — not where morality is concerned. That your instinctive morals judge both deontology and utilitarianism prove that natural morality is superior to either. That these two moralities are simply poor attempts to approximate natural morality is proof of the legitimacy of inclusive fitness. Mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery, and both of these artificial systems are just grasping at the thing they cannot quite put their finger on: the morals of inclusive fitness, the morals of nested tribalism, subjective worth, and demonstrated value.


2 comments:

  1. I'm not so sure. What you are endorsing is moral intuitions. So, the issue then is can moral intuition lead one to make mistakes - even mistakes not in one's best interest? Surely it is easy to come up with counter examples of someone acting in accord with their intuitions which harms their interest?

    Dark Reformation.

    Natural morality? Is this concept coherent?

    Natural emotions, or moral emotions, is coherent. But natural morality?

    Are humans fully natural, as opposed to both natural and partly social?

    Then, there is the concept of first and second natures.

    We have our "first nature" which is indeed "natural"; however, second nature is what humans are after they have been trained, disciplined, educated and socialised into a moral practice.

    As Kathryn Hepburn said in the African Queen: "human nature is something we are here to rise above."

    I hold no brief for deontology. However, one must distinguish in utilitarianism between U as a criterion of value, and as a decision theory.

    For example, there can be a moral code, which requires people to behave, value and think in ways that are not utilitarian. However, that code can be justified by reference to a utilitarian criterion of value.

    Finally, I don't think you have refuted the need for prudence or judgement in morality. Lastly, if you consider morality as a social technology, whose aim is to minimise or constrain "limited human sympathy", then the "natural morality" of apes is something you want to constrain and not endorse.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "I'm not so sure. What you are endorsing is moral intuitions. So, the issue then is can moral intuition lead one to make mistakes - even mistakes not in one's best interest? Surely it is easy to come up with counter examples of someone acting in accord with their intuitions which harms their interest?"

    For example: it may harm the interests of the father to protect his child. But this is not a violation of inclusive fitness since the child shares the genetic interests of the father and protecting the child also protects the fathers own genes.

    "Dark Reformation.

    Natural morality? Is this concept coherent?"

    Natural morality is inclusive fitness: meaning, fitness of everyone that shares your genes, not just yourself. Your genes can propagate through other bodies: namely, the bodies of your children. Natural morality is gene maximization through everyone that your are related to, and the emotional sentiments those genes have programmed in to you.

    "Natural emotions, or moral emotions, is coherent. But natural morality?

    Are humans fully natural, as opposed to both natural and partly social?"

    The social is the outcome of the natural, but it can turn against itself and become unnatural.

    "Then, there is the concept of first and second natures.

    We have our "first nature" which is indeed "natural"; however, second nature is what humans are after they have been trained, disciplined, educated and socialized into a moral practice."

    Equality is an abomination because it turns natural morality against itself.

    "As Kathryn Hepburn said in the African Queen: "human nature is something we are here to rise above.""

    I disagree. Nothing rises above itself.

    "I hold no brief for deontology. However, one must distinguish in utilitarianism between U as a criterion of value, and as a decision theory."

    "For example, there can be a moral code, which requires people to behave, value and think in ways that are not utilitarian. However, that code can be justified by reference to a utilitarian criterion of value."

    "Finally, I don't think you have refuted the need for prudence or judgement in morality. Lastly, if you consider morality as a social technology, whose aim is to minimize or constrain "limited human sympathy", then the "natural morality" of apes is something you want to constrain and not endorse."

    Moral formulas are a problem. It is better to eliminate these things and work on conflict management and conflict reduction systems. Human nature cannot, and should not, be suppressed. It should either be genetically modified, or the environment should be modified to accommodate it, or both. In my opinion.

    ReplyDelete