# How can the concept of universal human rights exist within a framework of moral-ethical relativism and/or moral isolationism?



## Iwasamwillbe (Jan 23, 2020)

If "*moral* judgments are true or false only relative to some particular standpoint (for instance, that of a culture or a historical period) and that no standpoint is uniquely privileged over all others" and/or "we can never understand any culture except our own, so we cannot make *moral* judgments about other cultures", then how can anyone meaningfully speak of human rights as a universal concept?

The notion of universal human rights necessarily assumes the existence of a universal code of ethics, of certain universal moral and/or ethical truths or standards that must be followed at all times. Therefore, those guilty of violating them would be considered morally and/or ethically wrong.

So, how does this square up with the moral relativism and isolationism that _many_ (including many so-called "academics" and "intellectuals") subscribe to in the first world?


----------



## Foxxo (Jan 23, 2020)

Uh... No shit. That's why the God-Emperor of Mankind started with the rest of Earth, and the amoral cults on Mars & the Moon.


----------



## JustFuckinaDude (Jan 23, 2020)

I’d like to think “treat people the way you’d like to be treated” is pretty universally accepted as reasonable.

I’m not sure where you got the idea that people live in “moral isolationism” when most people don’t live in a vacuum. Maybe a bit optimistic of me, but outside of the fringe groups, I’d like to believe most people don’t surround themselves with sycophants.


----------



## Iwasamwillbe (Jan 23, 2020)

JustFuckinaDude said:


> I’m not sure where you got the idea that people live in “moral isolationism” when most people don’t live in a vacuum. Maybe a bit optimistic of me, but outside of the fringe groups, I’d like to believe most people don’t surround themselves with sycophants.


When I speak of "moral isolationism", I speak of of the kind people who unironically go "it's just their culture" when a Muslim goes on a terrorism spree. I'm talking about people who say that people in the West have absolutely no right to morally criticize other cultures.


----------



## Y2K Baby (Jan 23, 2020)

Iwasamwillbe said:


> it's just their culture" when a Muslim goes on a terrorism spree


Of course this is what this is about.


----------



## Sexy Senior Citizen (Jan 23, 2020)

Let's start with the fact that moral relativism is itself a contradiction. Its premise is "An absolute moral truth is that there are no absolute moral truths." Moral relativism (i.e., "That's just YOUR truth") is what's flung around when the debater has no logical response to a given argument, and just want the other side to shut up and go away.
The people who claim to hold views of moral relativism/isolationism in actuality have a certain set of moral absolute truths that they can only defend through moral relativism/isolation (such as "All white people are evil, and you're white so you can't say otherwise you evil person.") Their idea of "basic human rights" encompasses luxuries (such as cell phones) that humans have survived without for centuries alongside necessities (such as housing and food), all paid for by the government and the redistributing of wealth.


----------



## Daughter of Cernunnos (Jan 23, 2020)

Yes there is a conflict between these two ideas but unprincipled and ignorant modern progressives are really too stupid to see it.


----------



## Iwasamwillbe (Jan 23, 2020)

Y2K Baby said:


> Of course this is what this is about.


That's just the first thing that came to my mind as I was typing this out. Don't be more autistic than usual now.


----------



## Y2K Baby (Jan 23, 2020)

Daughter of Cernunnos said:


> Yes there is a conflict between these two ideas but unprincipled and ignorant modern progressives are really too stupid to see it.


Epic indeed!



Iwasamwillbe said:


> Don't be more autistic than usual now.


Butthurt /pol/ kiddy libtard


----------



## inexplicable ethos (Jan 23, 2020)

Sexy Senior Citizen said:


> Let's start with the fact that moral relativism is itself a contradiction. Its premise is "An absolute moral truth is that there are no absolute moral truths." Moral relativism (i.e., "That's just YOUR truth") is what's flung around when the debater has no logical response to a given argument, and just want the other side to shut up and go away.
> The people who claim to hold views of moral relativism/isolationism in actuality have a certain set of moral absolute truths that they can only defend through moral relativism/isolation (such as "All white people are evil, and you're white so you can't say otherwise you evil person.") Their idea of "basic human rights" encompasses luxuries (such as cell phones) that humans have survived without for centuries alongside necessities (such as housing and food), all paid for by the government and the redistributing of wealth.



Moral relativism doesn't preclude someone from holding their own moral beliefs, nor does it require someone to believe that other people's moral beliefs aren't inferior. Belief in moral relativism only really requires that someone acknowledge that there is no fundamental objective morality; you can still think your own personal moral system is superior to others. I can say that everyone has their own moral beliefs and that no one person is _more_ objectively correct than any other (they're all equally incorrect and non-objective), and at the same time still think the world would be a better place if everyone conformed to my own moral beliefs.


----------



## Exigent Circumcisions (Jan 24, 2020)

JustFuckinaDude said:


> I’d like to think “treat people the way you’d like to be treated” is pretty universally accepted as reasonable.


I think you're forgetting about ABDL aficionados and similar degenerate scum. Some people enjoy being degraded; that's where that line of reasoning breaks down.


----------



## Emperor Julian (Jan 24, 2020)

I don't really see why not, you may be aware that morality is just a human construct but so is civilisation. Just because sky dad doesnt demand a universal principle doesnt mean it isnt a useful benificial idea.


----------



## Bioniclelover (Jan 24, 2020)

Emperor Julian said:


> I don't really see why not, you may be aware that morality is just a human construct but so is civilisation. Just because sky dad doesnt demand a universal principle doesnt mean it isnt a useful benificial idea.


The question is not whether something is useful but whether there is any actual reason why one would follow said principles.


----------



## Emperor Julian (Jan 24, 2020)

Bioniclelover said:


> The question is not whether something is useful but whether there is any actual reason why one would follow said principles.



Well on a practical level ensuring universal rights has a lot of practical advantages for you specifically even before you consider if you're emotionally invested in the wellfare of other people.  Although personally I feel emotional links with humanity as a whole is rationale enough.


----------



## Bioniclelover (Jan 24, 2020)

Emperor Julian said:


> Well on a practical level ensuring universal rights has a lot of practical advantages for you specifically even before you consider if you're emotionally invested in the wellfare of other people.  Although personally I feel emotional links with humanity as a whole is rationale enough.


On practical level one cannot expect that majority of people will agree with you if the principles are subjective. People always foremost act in their own interest.


----------



## Tour of Italy (Jan 24, 2020)

Emperor Julian said:


> I don't really see why not, you may be aware that morality is just a human construct but so is civilisation. Just because sky dad doesnt demand a universal principle doesnt mean it isnt a useful benificial idea.





Bioniclelover said:


> The question is not whether something is useful but whether there is any actual reason why one would follow said principles.



“Universally beneficial” is a loaded term whose definition varies across cultures and time. It’s already packed with moral assumptions to the point where it’s in and of itself a conclusion based on moral relativism.

If there’s an objective, universal morality then it is beyond human capacity to measure and apply it to our vastly complex societies. Hence the need for God.

If there is no such moral standard independent of human thought, then appealing to morality is just an attempt to manipulate people using their feelings and the values they’ve been socialized to have. Similarly, morality would be used to soothe our own emotional dissonance by justifying our actions with an arbitrary moral framework.

The world exists in one state or the other in this binary and anyone who says otherwise is selling you something.

You’re either Team God or Team Pointless Bullshit Until the Sun Goes Out.


----------



## wtfNeedSignUp (Jan 24, 2020)

You can probably twist it around that some concepts are relative (animal rights) and others are constant (human rights). This is of course if you are speaking with a person that tries to have consistent opinions about morality rather than flip flopping based on politics.


----------



## Emperor Julian (Jan 24, 2020)

Bioniclelover said:


> On practical level one cannot expect that majority of people will agree with you if the principles are subjective. People always foremost act in their own interest.


I've never really expected people to agree with me but most people tend to defer to what they perceive as good and overall consencus on some idea's are plausable. For example pretty much every society accepts that it's genrally wrong to kill other people without a really good reason.



Tour of Italy said:


> “Universally beneficial” is a loaded term whose definition varies across cultures and time. It’s already packed with moral assumptions to the point where it’s in and of itself a conclusion based on moral relativism.
> 
> If there’s an objective, universal morality then it is beyond human capacity to measure and apply it to our vastly complex societies. Hence the need for God.
> 
> ...



That just defines God as a noble lie or shunts responsability for morality upstairs to an Cryptic entity which is at best alien to us, which also makes human morality meaningless.
There are universal trends in moralty which imply either a universal underlying principles or more likely that our societies rely on a rational consensus we can all genrally agree on. For example pretty much every succesful society says it's wrong to steal from your fellow citizens.  While it isnt perfect it is plausable to build a general concensus on what it good or what is evil.


----------



## Bioniclelover (Jan 24, 2020)

Emperor Julian said:


> I've never really expected people to agree with me but most people tend to defer to what they perceive as good and overall consencus on some idea's are plausable. For example pretty much every society accepts that it's genrally wrong to kill other people without a really good reason.


Just look at China, USSR, India, Arabia, Africa or any non-western country and you'll see that you cannot expect people to view things the same way as you. No offense, but you sound really naive. To be honest I don't really care what one person believes but you cannot make a good argument that majority of people will came to same consensus as you in regards to principles without anything that would justify that they are innate. Just look at chinese people driving over people to avoid paying people they accidently struck with their car for their rest of their lives, cooking bats, dogs, rats, bird fetuses and eating them, living like drones since immemorial.


> That just defines God as a noble lie or shunts responsability for morality upstairs to an Cryptic entity which is at best alien to us, which also makes human morality meaningless.
> There are universal trends in moralty which imply either a universal underlying principles or more likely that our societies rely on a rational consensus we can all genrally agree on. For example pretty much every succesful society says it's wrong to steal from your fellow citizens.  While it isnt perfect it is plausable to build a general concensus on what it good or what is evil.


No, rational consensus is meaningless and it's completely arbitrary. People with time can vote differently and thus completely rewrite the moral code and same if another culture would take reins of power. Do you think that if for example muslims seized power and western people died out, that with time they would just came to same conclusion as you? All is even needed is one person in power to change everything and as long as they would be able to enforce their will, things will be exactly as they want, just look at aforementioned China, which in no way is even getting closer to our western values. All it is is just word of one person versus word of another person and since both are subjective they hold the same value. And as soon as the number of dumber people overwhelm smarter people, values smarter people invented will become null.


----------



## Tour of Italy (Jan 24, 2020)

Emperor Julian said:


> That just defines God as a noble lie or shunts responsability for morality upstairs to an entity which is at best alien to us, which also makes human morality meaningless.
> There are universal trends in moralty which imply either a universal underlying principles or more likely that our societies rely on a rational consensus we can all genrally agree on. For example pretty much every succesful society says it's wrong to steal from your fellow citizens. While it isnt perfect it is plausable to build a general concensus on what it good or what is evil.


My point is without God or objective ethical standards, there _is _no responsibility for  morality and our flawed human version of it is even more meaningless.
Societies rely on consensus, but there’s no evidence that it’s universal or even rational, much less “moral” as traditionally defined. It just becomes an arbitrary state of being, and a complex and in-flux state of being at that.

I believe in God, so I’m absolutely biased, but I try to come at it from the perspective of a moral binary. After all, I don’t _know _God exists with evidence to the level of any other empirical standard, so it’s helpful to me to explore both options. The reality is without objective standards of morality, all morality is subject to the whims of the human condition, at whatever state of social and technological development they find themselves in.

You can’t rely on the assumption that our current state of morality is the product of years of forward progress toward this point. The idea is tautological and self-fulfilling. “We reached this standard of universal moral truths because the universal moral truths helped us reach this standard”. It relies on the assumption that we’re at a superior state without explaining why it’s superior to any satisfactory level other than individual gratification.

Am I happier than my ancestors because of our current system? In many ways yes, but in many others, no. Am I more moral? That’s almost impossible to untangle given the complexities of our interconnected globalized society.

Without an eternal standard to measure against, there’s nothing about modern morality that is truly quantitative, and all we get is a qualitative description rather than a judgement. A judgement that in a mere consensus model is itself an arbitrary amalgamation of relative morality.


----------



## The best and greatest (Jan 24, 2020)

Tour of Italy said:


> My point is without God or objective ethical standards, there _is _no responsibility for  morality and our flawed human version of it is even more meaningless.
> Societies rely on consensus, but there’s no evidence that it’s universal or even rational, much less “moral” as traditionally defined. It just becomes an arbitrary state of being, and a complex and in-flux state of being at that.
> 
> I believe in God, so I’m absolutely biased, but I try to come at it from the perspective of a moral binary. After all, I don’t _know _God exists with evidence to the level of any other empirical standard, so it’s helpful to me to explore both options. The reality is without objective standards of morality, all morality is subject to the whims of the human condition, at whatever state of social and technological development they find themselves in.
> ...


The problem with god of course is that god cannot speak for itself so when declaring an entity that cannot speak for itself the sole final arbiter on human morality all you've really done is just kick the can down the road. Also there is an inherent weakness to declaring an eternal standard to human morality anyway since it precludes the need or desire for growth or change. Why grow or change if you presume to be perfect?


----------



## Iwasamwillbe (Jan 24, 2020)

Emperor Julian said:


> I don't really see why not, you may be aware that morality is just a human construct but so is civilisation. Just because sky dad doesnt demand a universal principle doesnt mean it isnt a useful benificial idea.


If we can speak meaningfully of universal human rights, then morality is ultimately as much a "human construct" as causality or the fact that 2 + 2 = 4.

To say that a concept like a "universal principle" is merely a "human construct", but we should use it anyway merely because, in some vague and poorly-defined sense, it is a "useful and beneficial idea", is pure sophistry.


----------



## Emperor Julian (Jan 24, 2020)

Bioniclelover said:


> Just look at China, USSR, India, Arabia, Africa or any non-western country and you'll see that you cannot expect people to view things the same way as you. No offense, but you sound really naive. To be honest I don't really care what one person believes but you cannot make a good argument that majority of people will came to same consensus as you in regards to principles without anything that would justify that they are innate. Just look at chinese people driving over people to avoid paying people they accidently struck with their car for their rest of their lives, cooking bats, dogs, rats, bird fetuses and eating them, living like drones since immemorial.



Well Arabia and africa is a geographical features rather than cultures but those are all pretty bad examples anyway since they all ascribe to core values found through all society's, simular virtues, simular vices and simular rules. The differances emerge in how we're going to achieve those goods and their failure to achieve them. I can't really say if I'm naive but I consider "it's wrong to steal." a pretty universal belief-can you give me an example where "I will take this thing which is yours off you even though I have no right to it and you don't want me to too."  is considered not 'evil'.?



> No, rational consensus is meaningless and it's completely arbitrary. People with time can vote differently and thus completely rewrite the moral code and same if another culture would take reins of power. Do you think that if for example muslims seized power and western people died out, that with time they would just came to same conclusion as you? All is even needed is one person in power to change everything and as long as they would be able to enforce their will, things will be exactly as they want, just look at aforementioned China, which in no way is even getting closer to our western values.



It can be Abritrary but more genrally it's built on logic, emotion and neccisity on a day to day level, re-writting a moral code is incredably difficult and typically takes centuries for even superificial shifts.  . To explore your example do you think that the hypothetical Islamic calaphate would permit theft? Murder or say applaud lying to your peers?




> All it is is just word of one person versus word of another person and since both are subjective they hold the same value. And as soon as the number of dumber people overwhelm smarter people, values smarter people invented will become null.



Well to start with morality doesnt automatically equate to intelligence (despite Bob chipsmans delusions)  but to refine your point if say the 'evil' or 'dumb' people where to outnumber the good/smart  people would they openly say evil actions like rape, murder and theft are good? Has that ever happened? Or do they have to rationalize an evil act?



Tour of Italy said:


> My point is without God or objective ethical standards, there _is _no responsibility for  morality and our flawed human version of it is even more meaningless.
> Societies rely on consensus, but there’s no evidence that it’s universal or even rational, much less “moral” as traditionally defined. It just becomes an arbitrary state of being, and a complex and in-flux state of being at that.
> 
> I believe in God, so I’m absolutely biased, but I try to come at it from the perspective of a moral binary. After all, I don’t _know _God exists with evidence to the level of any other empirical standard, so it’s helpful to me to explore both options. The reality is without objective standards of morality, all morality is subject to the whims of the human condition, at whatever state of social and technological development they find themselves in.
> ...




I'd actually argue it becomes more meaningless since you've conceeded that it's impossible to discern whats good or evil anyway and punted the question upstairs.  I've given a couple of good examples here or principles which are found across the board.
I also believe in god (well a more a prime mover really) so I propose the question-if God dictates what is it good, Is it good because God dictated it or does god stating it affirm it's goodness? Because the former indicates their is no real good and the later indicates morality exists seperate from god.
  I disagree with your assement since it relies on morality as a ladder in I propose "we have always aspired to this standard of universal moral truths."  As I have no idea if we're more or less succesful than people in the past, especially considering how cushy we have it.

I disagree we can certainly measure morality through fairly simple means of observation and conclusion. for example we can easily argue their's been a massive improvement in reduction of violent deaths.



Iwasamwillbe said:


> To say that a concept like a "universal principle" is merely a "human construct", but we should use it anyway merely because, in some vague and poorly-defined sense, it is a "useful and beneficial idea", is pure sophistry.



How so?


----------



## TerribleIdeas™ (Jan 24, 2020)

On one hand, I'm glad I'm not the most autistic philosotard around. On the other hand, there are universal moral constants, like "The Golden Rule - Do unto others as you would have done unto you", and the Sociopath's Corollary to it - "I'm gonna do first, and most, so I can avoid being done."


----------



## Iwasamwillbe (Jan 24, 2020)

Emperor Julian said:


> How so?


Explain why the notion of a "universal ethical principle" is "a beneficial and useful idea", despite merely being a "human construct", in a clear, non-relative, and objective rationale for its usefulness and benefits. 

I say "non-relative" because, coming from your argument, what may be "useful and beneficial" to a representative democracy may not be "useful and beneficial" to a theocracy run by terrorists, who may have a completely different notion of "universal ethical principle" in turn.

If an idea and it's applications is relative, then it's benefits and usefulness should also be relative.


----------



## Bioniclelover (Jan 24, 2020)

The best and greatest said:


> The problem with god of course is that god cannot speak for itself so when declaring an entity that cannot speak for itself the sole final arbiter on human morality all you've really done is just kick the can down the road. Also there is an inherent weakness to declaring an eternal standard to human morality anyway since it precludes the need or desire for growth or change. Why grow or change if you presume to be perfect?


You do not seem to have a very good grasp on the christian morality, where did you even get the idea that humanity is perfect, all humans sin and thus there is always a path to self-improvement. And if morality can "change" or "grow" then it isn't universal since it can be changed by having just a bunch of people decide differently than before.


Emperor Julian said:


> Well Arabia and africa is a geographical features rather than cultures but those are all pretty bad examples anyway since they all ascribe to core values found through all society's, simular virtues, simular vices and simular rules. The differances emerge in how we're going to achieve those goods and their failure to achieve them. I can't really say if I'm naive but I consider "it's wrong to steal." a pretty universal belief-can you give me an example where "I will take this thing which is yours off you even though I have no right to it and you don't want me to too."  is considered not 'evil'.?


Just look at fucking communism.


> It can be Abritrary but more genrally it's built on logic, emotion and neccisity on a day to day level, re-writting a moral code is incredably difficult and typically takes centuries for even superificial shifts.  . To explore your example do you think that the hypothetical Islamic calaphate would permit theft? Murder or say applaud lying to your peers?


So you mean it's based on chemicals in your brain telling you that chemicals in brain of someone else are more right.
And yes, Quran allows both theft and lying, if it helps spreading Islam. Allah himself is called the "best of deceivers" in Quran 3:54 and 8:30.


> Well to start with morality doesnt automatically equate to intelligence (despite Bob chipsmans delusions)  but to refine your point if say the 'evil' or 'dumb' people where to outnumber the good/smart  people would they openly say evil actions like rape, murder and theft are good? Has that ever happened? Or do they have to rationalize an evil act?


I don't see what rationalization has to do with the argument, if I rationalize murder does it make it any less murder?In many islamic countries rape is acceptable under certain circumstances and laws are structured in such way that even if proven rapists are not always punished, look at the case of rape in Pakistan where the raped girl's brother raped rapist's sister as a punishment or case where raped woman was stoned to death because she couldn't find more witnesses(woman's word is that of a half of a man in Quran) and was acclaimed to be guilty of sex outside marriage.


----------



## Tour of Italy (Jan 24, 2020)

The best and greatest said:


> The problem with god of course is that god cannot speak for itself so when declaring an entity that cannot speak for itself the sole final arbiter on human morality all you've really done is just kick the can down the road. Also there is an inherent weakness to declaring an eternal standard to human morality anyway since it precludes the need or desire for growth or change. Why grow or change if you presume to be perfect?



I’ll leave aside the theological arguments for God speaking for himself for a moment. I will also admit that I’m not a philosopher and my own conceptions on the subject don’t address every issue. Although I personally find it more compelling than the alternative.

My point is, absent a foundational objective standard, morality as a term becomes utterly meaningless without it being fully defined, and those definitions themselves vary wildly to the point where I find it difficult to accept claims of universal natural moral law without a God to apply it.

“Good” and “Evil” just become pithy shorthand for a combination of vague standards; a mix of values that have seismically shifted over time. Is “good” always happiness? Freedom? Survival? Truth? Beauty? The need for humanity’s enduring legacy? And that’s even setting aside the fact that each of those concepts have disputed and widely varied interpretations.

How much of our own interpretation of these qualities is defined by culture or biology? What is the general priority they should take when they’re in conflict? What timeline for each should be considered? For example is temporary unhappiness always “immoral” or is it moral when it serves lasting happiness? What happens when individual access to these components of “good” conflict? Who takes priority? Do intentions matter, or just outcomes?

Compound this discussion with the fact that it’s applied constantly to every decision of every sentient being on the planet and we approach a dizzying level of complexity. And with no consistent standard to judge the outcome, morality reverts to a made-up term to describe a configuration of matter.

I’m saying that standards defined by consensus are not morality, and they shouldn’t be treated and discussed as such. They are arbitrary. A snapshot in time of how an evolved animal’s brain chemistry reacts to the stimuli provided by its surroundings and its previous conditioning. If you deny a metaphysical component, you deny the concept all together. A man being tortured is no longer evil, just an act detrimental to his happiness and detrimental to a society full of apes that would rather not also experience that pain. The mass that makes up the victim’s body is indifferent to it, and will be forever no matter what the eternal destination of his remains may be.

I’m not opposed to this thinking, even if I don’t agree with it (the no actual morality thing, not the torturing thing). I just wish people would be more up front about it. I wish arbitrary proposed changes to policy and cultural values weren’t hailed as unequivocally moral without us really taking the time to define the term in secular language. It almost always ends up being presented dogmatically, even if it’s dressed up otherwise. I’m aware this is a folly done by both the religious and irreligious, and often such definition isn’t practical given the limits of human communication, but it’s so rarely discussed that those impracticalities almost never matter. We just rely on assumed shared cultural values to make our way, even when we’re inconsistent in their application and never take the time to attempt to quantify them. And often when they’re not even shared!

This moral shorthand is not entirely useless, in fact it’s often the reason we can coexist at all. But the reality is that for a society supposedly progressing ever onward along the path of universal natural morality, it’s obvious we lack the tools and will to explore exactly what that means.

“This is just.” “It’s the right thing to do”. Okay, how? Does it maximize happiness? How is happiness defined? The release of dopamine? A complex interaction of biological and physiological systems? The feeling itself, or the capacity to achieve it consistently? How is it measured? Is happiness all that matters? More questions, fewer answers, and no practical way to even measure these things effectively in a form that can’t be abused or used to manipulate.

In short, how can you claim a consensus model of morality where there’s no consensus?

Terms like “Justice” are “the right side of history” are pushed so fucking hard without stopping to examine what that even means. The idea of a constant metaphysical morality is invoked by people who would admit they don’t consciously believe in it, even though they act as they do. Part of the reason for the cultural gulf we’re experiencing is that we’re so stunted in our definitions of morality that we can’t even communicate with each other anymore. And disturbingly often are those definitions tied to specific forms of short-sighted popular policy.

If there’s one thing I’ll actually give credit to the modern left for it’s the willingness to explore moral implications of previously unchallenged social structures. It’s just so often done without similar scrutiny to the standards of morality on which they base their analysis.

In general though, more thinking about the morality of a connected world is a step forward. The step backwards comes from the embracing a both a moral framework that has the potential to justify atrocities and a structure of government that is remarkably efficient at perpetrating them.

I do believe we _should _work together to build a well-defined consensus on morality as a society, and attempt to preserve those values. I just also believe personally that it’s not a natural process and my own contributions are based on my best interpretations of what I consider to be eternal principles. And I think using that consensus itself to define morality is dumb. No matter where society ends up, it’s going to look back smugly and say “well gang, we made it!” even if by every metric of general human welfare the Brave New World is a hellish nightmare made up of clueless, unfulfilled drones.

I’m gonna try to wrap this up with a few more points that have been on my mind.

First, if you do believe in consensus as a basis for morality, you have to be willing to actively build that consensus, including being willing to change your own mind and compromise. That said, I’m sick of the attitude of people who think that behaving “morally” despite not believing God somehow makes them more moral. Because, like I just spent over a dozen paragraphs ranting about, an absence of objective morality means that what your doing is not moral at all, it’s organizing matter in response to stimuli, and being an asshole while you do it.

Second, a belief in God as a moral arbiter does not kick the can down the road. Acknowledging our flawed, limited capacity to act morally does not preclude us from the responsibility to act anyway, according to that limited capacity. That includes our own personal actions and our attempts to contribute to a more moral society. As a personal religious philosophy, I believe it is moral to act in an attempt to do right as opposed to passively standing by. I have not said that it’s impossible to discern good from evil. Again, I personally believe that there _is _in fact an ability to do so inherent to all humans, tied to the existence of the divine. I’m only stating that our ability to do so is imperfect, as our knowledge is imperfect and our ability to grasp how actions impact a complex and interconnected world is limited. That does _not_ mean that is pointless to try. Most religions would consider that the whole purpose of existence.

Lastly, addressing your second point (finally), I hope I’ve demonstrated how a perfect standard of morality does not mean we have no need to progress towards it. The opposite is true: an objective standard of morality is so overwhelmingly complex and out of reach that the only possible outcome is for us to fall short. The fact that perfection exists does not mean we have no reason to improve in pursuit of it. Think of your most deeply held convictions about what you perceive as “moral”. For argument’s sake, let’s pretend you’re the one that’s 100% right about it. Now think about your actions and how often they don’t conform to those ideals. There is always a need to do better, and failing to do so is itself an immoral act.

Anyway I wasted way too much of my life writing that but there you go.


----------



## The best and greatest (Jan 24, 2020)

Bioniclelover said:


> You do not seem to have a very good grasp on the christian morality, where did you even get the idea that humanity is perfect, all humans sin and thus there is always a path to self-improvement.


I didnt say humanity is perfect or anything like that. More that the moral system you operate under is perfect and if you do presume that to be true there isn't any reason to change. If you can't grow or change then how do you ever adapt to changing circumstances?



> And if morality can "change" or "grow" then it isn't universal since it can be changed by having just a bunch of people decide differently than before.


But its already like that and always had been. If it weren't then that guy Jesus would have never even gotten off the ground in the first place, he would have just faded into obscurity.


----------



## Bioniclelover (Jan 24, 2020)

The best and greatest said:


> I didnt say humanity is perfect or anything like that. More that the moral system you operate under is perfect and if you do presume that to be true there isn't any reason to change. If you can't grow or change then how do you ever adapt to changing circumstances?


What the fuck, I already said that there is always a path to self-improvement, just because rules don't change it doesn't mean that you can't grow. What even changing circumstances have to do with anything? That it's ok to murder someone under certain circumstances? That in the future the circumstances will allow us murder?


> But its already like that and always had been. If it weren't then that guy Jesus would have never even gotten off the ground in the first place, he would have just faded into obscurity.


What? You sound like you are conflicting how people are acting with how people should act, the universal principles were always the same, people just followed them more or less in different places and different times.

Either way I don't think I have anything much else to say on the subject besides what was already posted here.


----------



## The best and greatest (Jan 24, 2020)

Tour of Italy said:


> I’ll leave aside the theological arguments for God speaking for himself for a moment. I will also admit that I’m not a philosopher and my own conceptions on the subject don’t address every issue. Although I personally find it more compelling than the alternative.
> 
> My point is, absent a foundational objective standard, morality as a term becomes utterly meaningless without it being fully defined, and those definitions themselves vary wildly to the point where I find it difficult to accept claims of universal natural moral law without a God to apply it.
> 
> ...


I don't really disagree with any of this.



> Second, a belief in God as a moral arbiter does not kick the can down the road. Acknowledging our flawed, limited capacity to act morally does not preclude us from the responsibility to act anyway, according to that limited capacity. That includes our own personal actions and our attempts to contribute to a more moral society. As a personal religious philosophy, *I believe it is moral to act in an attempt to do right as opposed to passively standing by.* I have not said that it’s impossible to discern good from evil. Again, I personally believe that there _is _in fact an ability to do so inherent to all humans, tied to the existence of the divine.* I’m only stating that our ability to do so is imperfect, as our knowledge is imperfect and our ability to grasp how actions impact a complex and interconnected world is limited. That does not mean that is pointless to try.* Most religions would consider that the whole purpose of existence.


 So how do you square this? How do you aim to do good knowing full well your actions could unforeseeably result in evil? One could say that's irresponsible.



> Lastly, addressing your second point (finally), I hope I’ve demonstrated how a perfect standard of morality does not mean we have no need to progress towards it. The opposite is true: an objective standard of morality is so overwhelmingly complex and out of reach that the only possible outcome is for us to fall short. The fact that perfection exists does not mean we have no reason to improve in pursuit of it. Think of your most deeply held convictions about what you perceive as “moral”. For argument’s sake, let’s pretend you’re the one that’s 100% right about it. Now think about your actions and how often they don’t conform to those ideals. There is always a need to do better, and failing to do so is itself an immoral act.
> 
> Anyway I wasted way too much of my life writing that but there you go.


Time wasn't wasted your thoughts make for a good read! I will say though that I think I failed in making myself clear. Its not that I think people are/aren't perfect but rather you can't have an eternal standard of morality without presuming that standard to be perfect. If it ever changes then it isn't/wasn't ever eternal (Which is a problem when your moral authority comes from your ability to withstand the test of time)

Like you I find value in striving for perfection believe it or not. Though I would add that I have no real expectations that I will actually achieve it nor should I because there is no lasting standard. What we perceive as perfection today is sub-par tomorrow.




Bioniclelover said:


> What the fuck, I already said that there is always a path to self-improvement, just because rules don't change it doesn't mean that you can't grow. What even changing circumstances have to do with anything? That it's ok to murder someone under certain circumstances? That in the future the circumstances will allow us murder?
> 
> What? You sound like you are conflicting how people are acting with how people should act, the universal principles were always the same, people just followed them more or less in different places and different times.
> 
> Either way I don't think I have anything much else to say on the subject besides what was already posted here.


The entire thrust of my position is that rules DO change. They change all the time! You can't claim an eternal standard when your standard itself has probably undergone some revisions within your own lifetime.


----------



## Bioniclelover (Jan 24, 2020)

The best and greatest said:


> The entire thrust of my position is that rules DO change. They change all the time! You can't claim an eternal standard when your standard itself has probably undergone some revisions within your own lifetime.


Rules are not universal if they can change, they are social constructs. There is no fucking reason to follow subjective morality. If laws of physics can change they aren't really laws.
And my standard has nothing to do with universal principles, what the fuck - I am seriously thinking that you cannot grasp that personal views have nothing to do with universal principles, I haven't even said examples of such principles.
Rules that change are just an agreement between a group of people and it works only as long as it is beneficiable to them.


----------



## Emperor Julian (Jan 24, 2020)

Iwasamwillbe said:


> Explain why the notion of a "universal ethical principle" is "a beneficial and useful idea", despite merely being a "human construct", in a clear, non-relative, and objective rationale for its usefulness and benefits.



Wel I was asking how is it sophist not why I'm wrong I have idea's why I'm wrong since I'm not really convinced of my own arguement.  But to answer your question, pretty much every society has we've built has worked on the assumption their's a universal code of morality to justify both justice and leadership. It's hard to gauge how effective this genrally is because we've never tried it the other way. Maybe it wouldnt be a total shit show but it seems unlikely.

So how am I a sophist because I argued even the idea of universal ethics is useful? Unless you're just using like Sargon does?



Bioniclelover said:


> Just look at fucking communism.



Or you could explain what you're getting at? But I'm *guessing* you mean that communism has weird fucked up perspectives on economics and social theory. However as we've already been through the core idea's of good and evil are still the same

-it's wrong to steal
-it's wrong to murder
-being nice to people is good.
The Soviets, the weird theocracies, even the horrible feudal societies all believe this.  Find me me a culture which doesnt think that way.




> So you mean it's based on chemicals in your brain telling you that chemicals in brain of someone else are more right.



Yes, and a wonderful singing voice is just you vibrating air with your meat flaps  , I have no idea why describing the bland  mechanics of being human undermines it.



> And yes, Quran allows both theft and lying, if it helps spreading Islam. Allah himself is called the "best of deceivers" in Quran 3:54 and 8:30.


Well there is no Quran 3:54 or 8:30, it like saying Bible 1:32.  Again I think you mean Chapter (3) sūrat āl ʿim'rān (The Family of Imrān and Chapter ( sūrat l-anfāl (The Spoils of War). Both of which are genrally translated as Allah is the best of _planners_ in the 3d chess sense. one of the translations calls him a better schemer but that's the overall translations seem to be trying to convey gods a better strategist than some heathen.  For example quran 3:54 is about his plan to save jesus.
This if coarse is a complete tangent anyway.




> I don't see what rationalization has to do with the argument, if I rationalize murder does it make it any less murder?In many islamic countries rape is acceptable under certain circumstances and laws are structured in such way that even if proven rapists are not always punished, look at the case of rape in Pakistan where the raped girl's brother raped rapist's sister as a punishment or case where raped woman was stoned to death because she couldn't find more witnesses(woman's word is that of a half of a man in Quran) and was acclaimed to be guilty of sex outside marriage.



Well this is a total tangent but expecting modern moral codes from ancient religious books is a waste of time, pretty much all the holy books are filled with weird psychotic rambling. This does not disprove my observation that pretty much all cultures have common root moral codes, even if there attempt to apply them is a total disaster area.

So out of curiousity did you read some half-baked diatribe about Islam? before this because we really went of tangent a lot here. But you seem to be mistaking humanities tendancy to be fucking awful with a lack of universal morality.


----------



## Iwasamwillbe (Jan 24, 2020)

Emperor Julian said:


> Wel I was asking how is it sophist not why I'm wrong I have idea's why I'm wrong since I'm not really convinced of my own arguement. But to answer your question, pretty much every society has we've built has worked on the assumption their's a universal code of morality to justify both justice and leadership. It's hard to gauge how effective this genrally is because we've never tried it the other way. Maybe it wouldnt be a total shit show but it seems unlikely.
> 
> So how am I a sophist because I argued even the idea of universal ethics is useful? Unless you're just using like Sargon does?


If every society somehow managed to work on universal ethical codes, despite morality being a mere human construct, then either societies work on falsehoods or arbitrarities, or there is something more to morality than just opinions and whims.

Universal ethical codes have no real meaning in relativist morality, and to rely upon what is meaningless because they are "useful" is disingenuous.


----------



## Emperor Julian (Jan 24, 2020)

Iwasamwillbe said:


> If every society somehow managed to work on universal ethical codes, despite morality being a mere human construct, then either societies work on falsehoods or arbitrarities, or there is something more to morality than just opinions and whims.
> 
> Universal ethical codes have no real meaning in relativist morality, and to rely upon what is meaningless because they are "useful" is disingenuous.



We rely on multiple concepts which have no inherant meaning or value to keep this clown car on the road, for example money or the social contract. Why would ethics be any differant?


----------



## Non-Expert! (Jan 24, 2020)

They are declared through international organizations and conventions and written into treaties and other binding agreements. Then they are signed. 

There simply are some universal human rights. Whether they are "natural" and not constructs of the modern world is irrelevant to the way they are supposed to be respected. 

Nations that are not signatories, or rebel groups who violate the human rights of others, are considered pariahs. Many human rights violations, like genocide, are war crimes. 

Even if there are double standards as to who is held to them, nevertheless, they are in place. 









						Human rights - Wikipedia
					






					en.m.wikipedia.org


----------



## Y2K Baby (Jan 24, 2020)

Bioniclelover said:


> Just look at USSR,


How
Where is it now


----------



## Stoneheart (Jan 24, 2020)

there is no Moral Justification for Human rights. Its Pure Pragmatism and not even needed to make a society run. You can have a perfectly functional democracy without any right for subhumans and just basic rights for woman. that society would work alot better than what we have today.


----------



## Non-Expert! (Jan 24, 2020)

How can the concept of universal human rights exist within a framework of moral-ethical relativism and/or moral isolationism? -

Maybe it's the way the question is worded,  but the answer is, the concept of universal human rights exists within a framework of mutual consensus between nations. 

Whether universal human rights are useful, viable, sustainable or practical in an era of moral relativism, was not part of the original question. Neither was the issue of different cultures being bound to the same ethos, and whether God is the ultimate arbiter, or not. So you asked two questions here. 

But with that. being said, many universal human rights are entirely based on a common-sense notion of justice. For example, no you can not bring masked thugs to somebody's door, kidnap the brother on a Thursday evening, take him out to an alley, and shoot him. Sure, you can. Try it some time, see where that gets you ...

No you can not beat children within an inch of their life if they forgot to their homework. 

No, you can't walk into a village in Viet Nam or the Congo and fill its inhabitants with bullet holes, then toss the dying people into a barn and burn it. 

What is the complexity here? Even if you ignore the human suffering it imposes, even a sociopath can see that these acts lead to an unstable and unsecure society. 

It doesn't matter what the Bible or the Bhagava Gita, the Koran and by extension, Gurus, priests and Rabbis prattle on about. It also is largely intellectual frappery to discuss these things in terms of moral relativity because a common-sense, pragmatic view of all of this dictates that there is a massive cost, to human suffering, disease, destruction and death. 

Therefore different nations agree on some basic human rights. Whether or not they uphold their commitments is a different question all together. This basic understanding of what constitutes the humane treatment of others, is a bar, at least, that nations and organizations can be held to.


----------



## DDBCAE CBAADCBE (Jan 24, 2020)

You're going about this all the wrong way. See, if we just exterminate everyone regardless of race, religion, gender, or whatever and then kill ourselves the problem will have solved itself. Easy peasy.


----------



## ??? (Jan 24, 2020)

I see what you're doing here, but it won't work and it's pointless - even harmful - to try.

Contradictions are inherent to the liberal order because forcing someone to admit that a lie is true makes that person complicit in their own subjugation. Arguing with a liberal that the basis of their worldview is inherently contradictory assumes that their worldview has a rational, generative purpose. The liberal doesn't actually care that his beliefs make no sense because his beliefs are simply a tool which he can use to humiliate you, which is his real goal.

Liberalism is totalitarian in the sense that it can't allow non-liberals to exist. The purpose of the liberal worldview is to atomize groups of people from their identities - based on productive roles in a society whose purpose is to survive and thrive - and assign them new identities based on the only legitimate role is a liberal society, that of the consumer.

Your identity as a father and husband is difficult, harsh, unforgiving, and painful; but if you embrace liberalism you can choose your own identity based on what you consume. Your options are troon, porn addict, drug addict, gamer, cuck-dad, wignat, or federal asset. None of these are productive, and that's the point: liberalism is a weapon used to destroy first a society and then it's people.

Every society which embraced liberalism is dying, while those that reject it are at least surviving. The only exceptions are those run by bandits larping as Marxists as in Venezuela... but even then, no one is chopping the dicks off little boys or letting hordes of Pakistani's gang rape their preteen daughters, so it's debatable if they really are inferior to liberal Britain. 

Back on topic, when designing and evaluating a moral or ethical philosophy, you should concern yourself with responsibilities.

Rights assume that the building block of society is the individual, which is obviously false. A single man in the wilderness may build a hovel if given enough time and natural talent, but this assumes experience gained prior to his isolation that can only be found in relationships with other people. Besides that, a group of people find trivial the trials of the individual.

Building a belief system around responsibilities sidesteps the issue of universal vs particular morality because it assumes that those with whom you share deeper and stronger ties are owed and owe you more particularities. When you love thy neighbor, it's assumed you see him IRL once in a while.

Furthermore, with a belief system built on relationships as the basis of legitimate authority you can freely dismiss the legitimacy of your social betters if they fail to keep up their side of the bargain. The implications of this are obvious considering the political realignment we are currently living through.

A moral and ethical system built on responsibilities necessarily must adopt a decentralized, distributed, and highly local form of government to be seen as legitimate. This matters because it is much riskier to oppress a man who lives close enough to shoot you one fine morning on your way to the mailbox than it is to oppress a man who can never find your address.

Building a moral or ethical system on rights is unwise also because clever subversives can undermine your society by expanding the list of things which are rights, and altering the reasoning for why you are owed them. A right to privacy becomes a right to autonomy becomes a right to murder the unborn. A right to freedom of expression becomes a right to distribute pornography. I don't know what the legal basis is for the civil rights act, but it's being culturally if not quite legally being expanded from sex as gender to sex as sexual expression and orientation.

edit

This effort poast by a certain Persian-Scottsman offers critiques of liberalism using Foucault's concept of biopower.









						Right Wing Foucault
					

“By this I mean a number of phenomena that seem to me to be quite significant, namely, the set of mechanisms through which the basic biological features of the human species became the object of a …




					theamericansun.com


----------



## Stoneheart (Jan 24, 2020)

Non-Expert! said:


> No, you can't walk into a village in Viet Nam or the Congo and fill its inhabitants with bullet holes, then toss the dying people into a barn and burn it.


That depends on how you look at the base of modern Ethics, should you use the categorical imperative from your or their point of view?
Is it right to use a lower standard for non whites?


----------



## Non-Expert! (Jan 24, 2020)

Stoneheart said:


> That depends on how you look at the base of modern Ethics, should you use the categorical imperative from your or their point of view?
> Is it right to use a lower standard for non whites?



What does this have to do with whites?  

In order to keep brown, yellow and black people in a subjugated state, we would need to gain their permission to do so. The colonial era is behind us.


----------



## Stoneheart (Jan 24, 2020)

Non-Expert! said:


> In order to keep brown, yellow and black people in a subjugated state, we would need to gain their permission to do so. The colonial era is behind us.


but or moral code is still from that era and it didnt include nonwhites or woman. 
Also the coloial era was the time most of Asia and Africa developed the most. they regressed from the level they were given by the white man, Indians cant use toilets anymore and Africans have very little useable infrastructure that wasnt build by colonial powers.


----------



## Non-Expert! (Jan 24, 2020)

Stoneheart said:


> but or moral code is still from that era and it didnt include nonwhites or woman.
> Also the coloial era was the time most of Asia and Africa developed the most. they regressed from the level they were given by the white man, Indians cant use toilets anymore and Africans have very little useable infrastructure that wasnt build by colonial powers.


Well then we don't have to worry about subjugating them, they do it to themselves.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jan 26, 2020)

Tour of Italy said:


> I’ll leave aside the theological arguments for God speaking for himself for a moment. I will also admit that I’m not a philosopher and my own conceptions on the subject don’t address every issue. Although I personally find it more compelling than the alternative.
> 
> My point is, absent a foundational objective standard, morality as a term becomes utterly meaningless without it being fully defined, and those definitions themselves vary wildly to the point where I find it difficult to accept claims of universal natural moral law without a God to apply it.
> 
> ...


Very apt post.

The point of the fact that even when morality is defined simply, upholding it isn't necessarily so. In fact almost certainly isn't. 

I experienced this in various sports. Take for example shooting. What you need to do to shoot accurately is very simple. Learn to pull the trigger without moving the pistol. Learn to adjust the sights accurately. Aim. Shoot. It's simple. But it isn't easy. It  takes years to get things right.


----------



## Urist Steelthrone (Jan 26, 2020)

Lemmingwise said:


> Very apt post.
> 
> The point of the fact that even when morality is defined simply, upholding it isn't necessarily so. In fact almost certainly isn't.



Shouldn't we aim for perfection? Just because you can't reach it doesn't mean you can't get close.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jan 26, 2020)

Urist Steelthrone said:


> Shouldn't we aim for perfection? Just because you can't reach it doesn't mean you can't get close.


What else are you going to do with your time here if it isn't to learn?


----------



## Urist Steelthrone (Jan 26, 2020)

Lemmingwise said:


> What else are you going to do with your time here if it isn't to learn?



Do you want to end up like China?


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jan 26, 2020)

Urist Steelthrone said:


> Do you want to end up like China?


I would not call China close to perfection.


----------



## Urist Steelthrone (Jan 26, 2020)

Lemmingwise said:


> I would not call China close to perfection.



I obviously didn't say that. That was a rhetorical question. China is a society without morals.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jan 26, 2020)

Urist Steelthrone said:


> I obviously didn't say that. That was a rhetorical question. China is a society without morals.


1. I don't fully agree that it is. (Partially, yes)
2. My question of what else to do wirth your time was a rhetorical question that mostly agreed with your question (though I wouldn't call it aiming for perfection, but aiming for improvement. I am perhaps either more modest or more cynical)
3. I do believe that it is more sensible to have non-relativistic morals, that there are intangible morals and that it is worth persuing virtues and good morals.


----------



## Urist Steelthrone (Jan 26, 2020)

Lemmingwise said:


> 1. I don't fully agree that it is. (Partially, yes)
> 2. My question of what else to do wirth your time was a rhetorical question that mostly agreed with your question (though I wouldn't call it aiming for perfection, but aiming for improvement. I am perhaps either more modest or more cynical)
> 3. I do believe that it is more sensible to have non-relativistic morals, that there are intangible morals and that it is worth persuing virtues and good morals.



UBI cannot exist because if you are in prison, you get most of your rights taken away.

In plus, if you using your rights and freedom to fuck with people and you are not willing to reform then you deserve to have your rights taken away.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jan 26, 2020)

Urist Steelthrone said:


> UBI cannot exist because if you are in prison, you get most of your rights taken away.
> 
> In plus, if you using your rights and freedom to fuck with people and you are not willing to reform then you deserve to have your rights taken away.



Not sure what basic income has to do with this discussion. Do you mean stefan's UPB?

If that last bit is about China, I'd say that you're in for a rude awakening in the next three decades as we'll move towards being treated like insects or replacable cogs as they are.


----------



## Urist Steelthrone (Jan 26, 2020)

Lemmingwise said:


> Not sure what basic income has to do with this discussion. Do you mean stefan's UPB?
> 
> If that last bit is about China, I'd say that you're in for a rude awakening in the next three decades as we'll move towards being treated like insects or replacable cogs as they are.



I meant universal human rights.


----------



## Lemmingwise (Jan 26, 2020)

Urist Steelthrone said:


> I meant universal human rights.


What a globalist phrase.

-- 

To address that point then: I don't think the concept of prison negates the idea of universal human rights. It isn't sensible to have rights without them being counterbalanced by responsibilities and people in prison (at least in theory) have waived those responsibilities by breaking laws/infringing on other people's rights.

How could you safeguard rights if not for force/prison or something similar to deal with (repeat) offenders?


----------



## Urist Steelthrone (Jan 26, 2020)

Lemmingwise said:


> It isn't sensible to have rights without them being counterbalanced by responsibilities and people in prison (at least in theory) have waived those responsibilities by breaking laws/infringing on other people's rights.



They won't be counterbalanced anyway because:

Most prisoners are dumb (that's how they got caught in the first place) so they wouldn't be able to do most tasks anyway (even if they were forced.) You also have to account for aggression which makes it even harder.
Automation would take most of their jobs away.
Prisoners only serve as a source of revenue.
----

I guess my point is that universal human rights cannot exist with morals because someone will always use their rights to infringe on somebody else's rights. They would need to be taken away to protect society although not all.

I'm sorry for wasting your time.


----------



## Emperor Julian (Jan 29, 2020)

Stoneheart said:


> but or moral code is still from that era and it didnt include nonwhites or woman.
> Also the coloial era was the time most of Asia and Africa developed the most. they regressed from the level they were given by the white man, Indians cant use toilets anymore and Africans have very little useable infrastructure that wasnt build by colonial powers.



The colonial era's moral codes where clumsy self-rationalizations built to prevent the whole system crashing down under the weight of it's own hypocrisy and was still a pretty shitty place to live for most people.


----------



## Stoneheart (Jan 29, 2020)

Emperor Julian said:


> The colonial era's moral codes where clumsy self-rationalizations built to prevent the whole system crashing down under the weight of it's own hypocrisy and was still a pretty shitty place to live for most people.


So is it better now? Africans have it worse now than 200 years ago, South america is slowly drifting into the 3rd world and Asia is full of realy ugly forms of wage slavery without any hope of reforms.

we also dont realy have a moral system now. just liberals crying about stuff.

maybe you can answer my question from before...

"That depends on how you look at the base of modern Ethics, should you use the categorical imperative from your or their point of view?
Is it right to use a lower standard for non whites? "

Thats alot more important for this topic as a bit more baseless crying about muh colonialism.


----------



## Emperor Julian (Jan 29, 2020)

Stoneheart said:


> So is it better now? Africans have it worse now than 200 years ago, South america is slowly drifting into the 3rd world and Asia is full of realy ugly forms of wage slavery without any hope of reforms.
> 
> we also dont realy have a moral system now. just liberals crying about stuff.
> 
> ...


Overall yes, as bad as today is the period was marked by far worse, furthermore our total removal or destabalization of existing power structures is often the cause of these problems.

Contextually yes considering economics, history and circustance. Not to mention the flawed nature of IQ as a measurement of intelligence anyway (or even personal merit). To explore your question would you consider an comparison of IQ in an aristocratic Kenyan Family vs an appalatian poverty striken area a valid comparison?

I hardly cry myself to sleep over the issue anymore than I loose sleep over the Cathar purges or such. Mistakes are only relavent when someone digs up a bad idea from the past. Not in the least because you didnt rebuke my point the beliefs  were constructed to prevent the entire system from collapsing under it's own hypocrisy, cynicism and greed which relates back to the thread.


----------



## jorgoth (Jan 29, 2020)

Human rights can't exist in such a framework, anyone saying otherwise is the moral-political-philosophical equivalent of somebody looting a house that they set on fire. They're promoting a relativistic/atomistic philosophy that's bound to inspire chaos, and yet they want all the benefits that living in a rule-of-law society would theoretically grant them.


----------



## Stoneheart (Jan 29, 2020)

Emperor Julian said:


> Overall yes, as bad as today is the period was marked by far worse, furthermore our total removal or destabalization of existing power structures is often the cause of these problems.


The old governments were alot worse than even belgian colonial rule.



Emperor Julian said:


> Contextually yes considering economics, history and circustance. Not to mention the flawed nature of IQ as a measurement of intelligence anyway (or even personal merit). To explore your question would you consider an comparison of IQ in an aristocratic Kenyan Family vs an appalatian poverty striken area a valid comparison?


I dont why you are talking about IQ now.  The comparison isnt realy needed, the worst president in US history had kenyan genes and a afluent western upbringing and he almost turned the US into an african country.




Emperor Julian said:


> Mistakes are only relavent when someone digs up a bad idea from the past. Not in the least because you didnt rebuke my point the beliefs were constructed to prevent the entire system from collapsing under it's own hypocrisy, cynicism and greed which relates back to the thread.


those beliefs werent constructed from thin air, they were constructed based on observation. Is the belief to be superior not natural if half naked people with spear charge into your maxim gun whenever you met them on the battlefield?


----------



## Zarael (Jan 30, 2020)

jorgoth said:


> Human rights can't exist in such a framework, anyone saying otherwise is the moral-political-philosophical equivalent of somebody looting a house that they set on fire. They're promoting a relativistic/atomistic philosophy that's bound to inspire chaos, and yet they want all the benefits that living in a rule-of-law society would theoretically grant them.



More or less. It's just another case of materialists wanting their cake and eating it too. That said I think "human rights" has become a problematic concept in itself, with the idea that there are are rights the state owes us rather than duties we owe to each other. I think "human rights" are much better framed as universal obligations for each member of society to attain and exhibit a level of virtue that drives them to make decisions which create the "rights" we enjoy today. Trying to force everyone to recognize artificial rights enforced by the state is a losing game. Rights only exist in so far as the citizenry is virtuous enough to allow them.


----------



## Emperor Julian (Jan 30, 2020)

Stoneheart said:


> The old governments were alot worse than even belgian colonial rule.



No they wernt. Personally I'd have gone for the Aztecs and the spanish if I'd have tried that one because Belgiums managed to create hell on earth.



> I dont why you are talking about IQ now.  The comparison isnt realy needed, the worst president in US history had kenyan genes and a afluent western upbringing and he almost turned the US into an african country.



Because you brought it up, I don't even like Obama and have a limited interest in presidential leaders and am aware how wrong you are on that one. He typically doesnt even make top 20 lists and considering the relatively short history of the Us that's quite a stretch




> those beliefs werent constructed from thin air, they were constructed based on observation. Is the belief to be superior not natural if half naked people with spear charge into your maxim gun whenever you met them on the battlefield?



They were organically developed over time to rationalize breaching every moral code combined with various forms of quackery, it's simular to the Romans delusions on how their slaves arnt people or are somehow morally impure despite being patently absurd. Perhaps but isnt really how it genrally played out unless you've never read a history book in your entire life.  Complex political struggles with multiple cultures over a 200 year period with multiple nation states with varying levels of technological sophistication gradually being eaten due to greed or realpolitik, plenty of historical cultures have stomped another one into the dirt, I doubt anyone is going to say the Mongols where the master race.

Then again the imperial societies wernt exactly the enlightended gentlesirs once you begin examing what they actually believe.

I got to know do you really envision the past as a  Aryan ubermench bringing order and sanity to a load of guys in grass skirts who eat dung? All the little slaves happily toiling in masa's field? How do you actually envision the world out side of Europe before the modern world? How do you envision Europe prior to the 20th century?


----------



## Urist Steelthrone (Jan 30, 2020)

Stoneheart said:


> That depends on how you look at the base of modern Ethics, should you use the categorical imperative from your or their point of view?



From a white point of view.



Stoneheart said:


> Is it right to use a lower standard for non whites?



No because everyone suffers.


----------



## Stoneheart (Jan 30, 2020)

Emperor Julian said:


> He typically doesnt even make top 20 lists and considering the relatively short history of the Us that's quite a stretch


Lincoln was maybe worse, but he is always reduced to one big mistake and nobody realy cares what he did most of the time.



Emperor Julian said:


> it's simular to the Romans delusions on how their slaves arnt people or are somehow morally impure despite being patently absurd.


The Romans had a very complex slavery system. some slaves were seen as people, but were just to valuable to be let go. 



Emperor Julian said:


> Complex political struggles with multiple cultures over a 200 year period with multiple nation states with varying levels of technological sophistication gradually being eaten due to greed or realpolitik, plenty of historical cultures have stomped another one into the dirt, I doubt anyone is going to say the Mongols where the master race.


400 years and every non european culture was stomped in that periode.




Urist Steelthrone said:


> From a white point of view.


But  thats evil Racism. 



Urist Steelthrone said:


> No because everyone suffers.


yes, but is it right to dictate your point of view?  what should we do against the arabs who dont want to give rights to woman? or the chinese who dont belief in human rights?  your idea is very much like the idea behind napoleons conquests, bring enlightenment to the unenligthened, with very force necessary.


----------



## Urist Steelthrone (Jan 30, 2020)

Stoneheart said:


> But thats evil Racism.



Fuck people's feelings. They might be upset at first but they will happy in the long term. Non-whites will also stay in their countries and brain drain will plummet.



Stoneheart said:


> yes, but is it right to dictate your point of view? what should we do against the arabs who dont want to give rights to woman? or the chinese who dont belief in human rights? your idea is very much like the idea behind napoleons conquests, bring enlightenment to the unenligthened, with very force necessary.



We know that white's ethics are right because it's in the results. Arabic countries suffer from incest and lack of technological progress. The only thing that's keeping them afloat is the oil and nuclear power plants will ruin that. China has pollution, HIV, the coronavirus, and outdated medicine. White countries don't have any of these problems or they are minimal.

I prefer diplomacy but sometimes you need to do things with force. If you keep people in the dark, eventually they will hurt themselves.


----------



## Emperor Julian (Jan 30, 2020)

Stoneheart said:


> Lincoln was maybe worse, but he is always reduced to one big mistake and nobody realy cares what he did most of the time.



Ah so we're just going of black people treatment now,  as opposed to any actual meaningful assement of leadership. You know I'm begining to think your beliefs are just a pile of hockey bullshit about not liking black people




> The Romans had a very complex slavery system. some slaves were seen as people, but were just to valuable to be let go.



okay...And?



> 400 years and every non european culture was stomped in that periode.



Well yes and it was an disaster were still reaping the fallout from.

I notice your getting really reductive in your replies-is it because your belief in morality based on a racial obligarchic border is undefendable?


----------



## Stoneheart (Jan 30, 2020)

Urist Steelthrone said:


> Fuck people's feelings. They might be upset at first but they will happy in the long term. Non-whites will also stay in their countries and brain drain will plummet.


Thats also Racist.



Urist Steelthrone said:


> I prefer diplomacy but sometimes you need to do things with force. If you keep people in the dark, eventually they will hurt themselves.


but that evil colonialism... 



Emperor Julian said:


> Ah so we're just going of black people treatment now, as opposed to any actual meaningful assement of leadership. You know I'm begining to think your beliefs are just a pile of hockey bullshit about not liking black people


Lincoln went to war because some states wanted to leave the union. Thats the worst the US ever did...

also who talked about not liking black people? I like my dog, but i dont let him take part in the decision making.




Emperor Julian said:


> I notice your getting really reductive in your replies-is it because your belief in morality based on a racial obligarchic border is undefendable?


You are the one who doesnt want to talk about the Topic at hand.
Is it right to force people from lesser cultures to accept human rights? how should we bring the human rights we developed in the west to region that dont want them? should or moral superiority override some of the rights of people who dont wanna adhere to human rights? Is it right to use force to bring human rights to democratic states that dont want them`?


----------



## Urist Steelthrone (Jan 30, 2020)

Stoneheart said:


> but that evil colonialism...



Colonialism isn't really racist. Going to other people's lands and giving them technology is the opposite of racism. The gentler models are better because the people that you conquer won't use your past actions as an excuse for harming you. I don't think the majority of whites have ever been racist. They judge people by their actions. That's why they keep improving.

---

Every race needs eugenics because it's moral and natural. It improves the gene pool over time so less babies are born tards and have tard parents/families. When women select handsome men, they are guaranteed to have smarter and healthier babies.


----------



## Emperor Julian (Jan 30, 2020)

Stoneheart said:


> You are the one who doesnt want to talk about the Topic at hand.
> Is it right to force people from lesser cultures to accept human rights? how should we bring the human rights we developed in the west to region that dont want them? should or moral superiority override some of the rights of people who dont wanna adhere to human rights? Is it right to use force to bring human rights to democratic states that dont want them`?



others explored the question I was more interested in the fact we both know it's a rationale for a system which is morally inferior to either ours or the 'lesser' cultures but you answer your question-too simplistic and reliant on a false dichotomy nothing vs violence is a sloppy and lazy position, especially as you refered to catagorical imperative which would state both would be a moral failure .  their are multiple options based on a case by case basis.


----------

