To what extent should morality be enforced, if at all? How?

[Trad Cunt]

Regardless of whether morality is objective or subjective, there seems to exist (or have existed) a social contract that requires people to engage in the moral precepts which are either discovered or determined and widely agreed upon.

However with the prevalence of consent-based morality, our social contract has eroded to create a completely degenerate Western society where actions/people/things previously considered anathema are celebrated. Ex. trannies, fags, coal-burners, sex work, voluntary invalids, anti-patriotism, etc...

Obviously some of our morality is codified into law, but this is reserved for more extreme examples of moral wrongdoing, like murder or theft. In the recent past lesser wrongdoings were enforced by social isolation, and in the more distant past enforced through corporal punishment/torture. Paradoxically, this seems to still exist to some extent through Twitter wokeism, but only to enforce the one moral axiom present in consent-based morality: self determination (unless that means saying the n-word). However, as you know, the people are retards and cannot handle this extreme level of self determination without cutting off their dick and balls.

So, kiwis, what do you think? Is the government too ignant and pozzed to enforce morality at all? Should we take up guns and Ayn Rand ideology or ought we go full fascism? Is social moral governance always pointless feminine cancel culture or is it a tool that can be used for divinity and depravity?

 

[Otoya Yamaguchi]

Any deviation from Christianity or a Christian nationalist society and standard should be met with punishment. Either deportation, execution, imprisonment depending on the severity

 

[Brightstar777]

the government will always fail to enforce morality, they are not God

 

[Trad Cunt]

the government will always fail to enforce morality, they are not God

Surely it can enforce at least some aspect of morality, especially if the government is religious.

It will be imperfect, of course, although possibly better than not trying at all and letting fags adopt babies, etc?

 

[mindlessobserver]

Morality is always enforced socially. The problem is a sick society enforces sick morality. Which is why were are all being brow beaten into loving girl cock and wat not.
There really is no easy solution for fixing a society that has deviated too far from functional in favor of self destructive tendencies. This is unfortunately the one thing pretty much ALL Science Fiction authors agree on btw, even Roddenberry with his Utopian Star Trek, where before the glorious post scarcity utopia humanity went through the third world war and the eugenics wars before it was finally saved by Romulan first contact.

Herbert's Dune and Heinlein's "Starship Troopers" are even more bleak in the assessment, in that they conclude endless progress is impossible and a return to tradition is inevitable (after sufficiently unimaginable suffering). Even the Japanese with "Legend of the Galactic Heroes" and "Banner of the Stars" conclude the same thing.

Your viewing assignments then.

First, a meditation on your belief in Christianity being a forceful agent with government power, via Tolkiens philosophy of religion and the degeneration of history.

The Politics of Starship Troopers, or, how Liberal Democracy can still prevail

The Downfall of Earth and the Birth of the Galactic Reich, from Legend of the Galactic Heroes

Dune vs. Star Trek

 

[gang weeder]

Paradoxically, this seems to still exist to some extent through Twitter wokeism, but only to enforce the one moral axiom present in consent-based morality: self determination (unless that means saying the n-word).

Modern libshits don't really even care for self determination though, as there are plenty of things you could try to self determine which they will castigate you for. You can't self determine that you are a white nationalist, for instance, or that you are a trans-racial black person like Rachel Dolezal. At the end of the day the only consistent thread is that everything deemed conservative/traditional is bad, and its opposite is good.

The problem of enforcing morals is more an issue of who the enforcers are. That's my first thought. Like people have already said a government staffed by degenerates can't enforce proper morality, by definition. It's like trying to figure out how to make a dog do calculus. It just doesn't work.

I could write a big schizo rant about this but to keep it short, I would like to try a middle ground between mass democracy where everyone votes and monarchy where one guy has total power. Monarchy/dictatorship simply has way too much moral hazard involved without any good countervailing measures. Mass democracy on the other hand, gives a political voice to large swathes of people who quite frankly shouldn't have it, and is clearly degenerating over time.

So you'd probably want to figure out some basic voting qualifications that rule out lots of retards/degenerates, or people with ulterior motives such as dual loyalists, from political participation.

 

[Pignat]

Throughout most of history and many different cultures, morality was enforced by the entire populace through shame. Western media did its best to get rid of shame, it still exists on local levels with functional communities, but once you're in a city or even a modestly large town where you are effectively anonymous you have little to no societal pressure to behave morally.

 

[Saint Agustin]

Don't be a faggot or a nigger.

 

[SSj_Ness (Yiffed)]

"If at all", meaning none, would allow even for murder. You can't have a decent society without a moral framework. No, you can't circumvent this based on group interest instead of morality because not everyone is going to agree, you need something greater than the group, a strong foundation.

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people" wasn't an empty platitude, it's a statement of fact. Otherwise you get different people playing tug-of-war and an inharmonious society which leads to many problems. That's one reason that it used to be expected of immigrants to integrate into society, but now there's little shared national identity for them to even integrate into, leading to a low trust society.

 

[HyperboreanRightsActivist]

I like the mafia's approach to law. If you wanna be family, I'll treat you like family. But don't fuck with my family.

 

[Ass to Ass]

Law and order must be maintained in order to ensure a functional society where man has respect for the rights of others. To that end, things like wanton violence, theft, victimization, all those sorts of things must be punished with either righteous and furious anger or some other form of punishment. For example, there was that thug who tried to rape a woman at knifepoint in Baltimore MD not too long ago and got magdumped by a police officer. That's a great example of righteous and furious anger. He'll not be raping anyone anytime soon.

The proper functioning of society also demands that a few constraints must be placed on one's liberties. For example, you can't drink and drive, you can't fire guns off at random, you can't go in the wrong bathroom. While freedom is a great attribute and we need to respect the freedom of others, we cannot have absolute freedom because the extreme end of freedom entails being able to live by the law of the jungle. The law of the jungle isn't the law of the land. We don't live like troglodytes who are willing to kill over petty ideals like "respect" or "turf." We are humans, endowed with rights and abilities that no animal possesses.

So, to answer your question, yes, we should enforce morality and we should enforce it to the extent that is necessary to protect society and its constituents. At the same time, we can't go overboard with it.

"If at all", meaning none, would allow even for murder. You can't have a decent society without a moral framework. No, you can't circumvent this based on group interest instead of morality because not everyone is going to agree, you need something greater than the group, a strong foundation.

"Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people" wasn't an empty platitude, it's a statement of fact. Otherwise you get different people playing tug-of-war and an inharmonious society which leads to many problems. That's one reason that it used to be expected of immigrants to integrate into society, but now there's little shared national identity for them to even integrate into, leading to a low trust society.

This man is on point. He's absolutely right.

 

[soyjersh]

Morality and law have been conflated by those in power at the behest of people who own them. It is indeed the case that the US Constitution was founded on the basis of their unity, but at the end of the day these things are separable in all their forms. Law dictates actions, morality dictates intent. Imagine two different pictures: one is a picture of a marriage, the other is a picture replicating the poses, people and circumstances of the prior image but taken from a movie about the same marriage. the law is this vernier, the appearance of equality between these two pictures. The law is meant to be "blind", incapable of distinguishing those that it is applied to. Morality is the understanding that comes from knowing the circumstances by which both images were taken. With such knowledge no one in good faith could attest that the images are equal, not in all aspects at least. Most crucially what counts is lacking, the most desirous purpose for the picture being taken gone from one of them. Why bother taking a picture of a wedding if it's just a screenshot from a movie? No one's going to hang that on their wall. So while both law and morality guide behavior, morality enters the home, enters the mind, enters the soul. Without the atomic unit of society, family, regulated, all other regulations are sure to be lost as well. Morality must be enforced with violent expulsion of violators from any just society which seeks to remain as such.Morality and law have been conflated by those in power at the behest of people who own them. It is indeed the case that the US Constitution was founded on the basis of their unity, but at the end of the day these things are separable in all their forms. Law dictates actions, morality dictates intent. Imagine two different pictures: one is a picture of a marriage, the other is a picture replicating the poses, people and circumstances of the prior image but taken from a movie about the same marriage. the law is this vernier, the appearance of equality between these two pictures. The law is meant to be "blind", incapable of distinguishing those that it is applied to. Morality is the understanding that comes from knowing the circumstances by which both images were taken. With such knowledge no one in good faith could attest that the images are equal, not in all aspects at least. Most crucially what counts is lacking, the most desirous purpose for the picture being taken gone from one of them. Why bother taking a picture of a wedding if it's just a screenshot from a movie? No one's going to hang that on their wall. So while both law and morality guide behavior, morality enters the home, enters the mind, enters the soul. Without the atomic unit of society, family, regulated, all other regulations are sure to be lost as well. Morality must be enforced with violent expulsion of violators from any just society which seeks to remain as such.

As for enforcement... without delving too deeply into my personal projects: it should be ingrained in a programmatic currency. Yes, the dreaded CBDC is my vouch for a solution. the difference being in my world that I think an economy should be no bigger than 110 people. Furthermore the B is replaced with another C, standing for committee. this currency would have hard backing like gold or sliver... I have a different idea, but it would be material backed. however the distinction from general currency is that each transaction in this economy of no more than 110 is made peer by peer, with capital accrual isolated to trade balances between two people as part of a mutual credit accounting system. Successive transactions with the same people, rather than increasing a deficit, decrease the purchasing power of said capital. it will be up to a committee elected via automated algorithm using something like the Von Neumann-Morgenstern Utility function to establish who is most altruistic in this system with their transactions to determine equitable capital distribution. This is a basic description of a much more complex system I am designing, one I hope will skip the encoding of morality into law and get right to the heart of the matter.

 

[Zbk3VmLfujjzjxBd43tL]

Yes. Confucius (and every scholar who followed in his footsteps) was correct when he emphasized the importance of morality to society. When a society has loose morals, society crumbles. Obviously Confucian societies did get fucked up, but that's because people forgot proper morals or enforced them in a hypocritical manner, which is always going to be a threat when enforcing morality.

Although I'd say that even a society of hypocrites enforcing morality is better than the society we have today. I'd rather have Bubba "Brittini Blaire" Copeland or that disgusting Lieutenant Governor in Tennessee who simps for naked teenage boys on Instagram leading the community than your average blue city mayor. While both are terrible and immoral, the former two know how sick they are and hides it while espousing policies to better society's morals while the latter openly hates any sort of morality that isn't the twisted postmodern morality of the left. The Bubba Copeland and other hypocrites of the world are not publically celebrating perversion and degeneracy. Ultimately you're always going to run into the problem that a society of moralists is a society full of hypocrites, but it's a stable one. There might be cocksucking troon pastors and politicians fucking little boys and while that's obviously a bad thing and their actions damage the fabric of society, it's a different sort of damage than actively encouraging the mutilations of transgenderism or NAMBLA advocacy like under postmodernism.

I think society's morals can easily be enforced via social engineering. The Edward Bernays method pioneered a century ago works--for instance, Bernays made the idea of women smoking that of glamor and freedom instead of a disgusting habit for loose women (as it had long been considered) and also convinced us that dumping recycled waste products from Alcoa and nuclear power plants (fluoride) into our water was a good thing and you had to be crazy to think otherwise. And Bernays worked his magic in the 20s-50s--today we have social media and AI which is far more powerful than anything these old social engineers could do. Imagine how society would change if influencers celebrated modesty, family, hard work, and taking pride in who you actually are and not fake identities like "transgender" or the white people who pretend to be Indians. And while I find "internet of bodies" and the pseudo mind control of terahertz radiation, nanoantennae, and BCIs like the WEF wants a perversion of perversions, theoretically it too could be used to engineer things in a good direction.

Government has a role to play. Obviously a sick society like ours can only have its government enforce its own sick morality like racial self-hatred and glorifying degeneracy. But a slightly less sick society like a Bubba Copeland hypocrite society can enforce morality, let alone a healthy society with strong morals. Shove the sickness in the background where it belongs (like gay bars and porn) and absolutely forbid the worst of it (like gay pride parades and racial self-hatred books aimed at kids). That requires money, which a government has since it taxes you--the US government for instance spends billions promoting anti-morality around the world like where we spent a million dollars for transgender Peruvians to have a ballroom dance program. While I don't think we should be spending a million dollars on the opposite of that like a program encouraging Peruvians to reject immorality and form strong families, the government clearly has a strong role to play. Again, it goes back to Confucius--you want moral men in the government.

Most people are ultimately sheep and follow those with power and prestige--this goes back to the Paleolithic and was necessary for social cohesion. Therefore, if morality is prestigious and powerful (as it was in the past), people will be drawn to it.

 

[Father Fornicatio]

Therefore, if morality is prestigious and powerful (as it was in the past), people will be drawn to it.

I think this is the crux of it all, look for example at the Christian Church as a whole. Moronic preachers, corrupt popes have driven away many believers for their lack of morals and a goal to aspire to. Hell Islam is getting more popularity because desert people seem more pure and a protective community than Christianity now a days. People are lost without clear moral borders and when virtues are looked down upon as something grand daddy use to do.

I believe that's why Nazism gain so much traction with younger people, for they see a community with clear morals and prestige.

 

[kim foxx]

I like the mafia's approach to law. If you wanna be family, I'll treat you like family. But don't fuck with my family.

this works until your family whacks you, then it's just business.

state enforcement of morality always has blind spots where the rich and powerful lurk. enforcing public morality on the poors becomes less and less tenable as the wealthy degenerate (going from JFK sneaking women and prostitutes into the WH in the 60s, to Reagan's pedophile rings, and finally the free market of epstein islands today).

the libright takes a look at this contradiction and says the strong are strong and the weak will suffer what they must. the libleft just gives up on enforcing morality on anyone in a grand display of consistency.

Hell Islam is getting more popularity because desert people seem more pure and a protective community than Christianity now a days.

islamic headchoppers still rule by fear and force like anyone else. and like a certain other insular desert religion there's a million loopholes and carveouts for shit people want to do like prostitution (temporary marriage contracts for a fee)

 

[SpergioLeonne]

Surely it can enforce at least some aspect of morality, especially if the government is religious.

It will be imperfect, of course, although possibly better than not trying at all and letting fags adopt babies, etc?

There are places where morality and the law overlap, but the law is not morality.

The law should just do what it’s supposed to do, which is protect the rights of individuals enumerated in the constitution and their property.

Morality is voluntary, and when it isn’t voluntary it isn’t morality anymore

 

[Fek]

The short answer that skips a few steps: standing in judgement of another only creates further misery, strife, and divisiveness where none need exist.

Beyond that: one of the purest forms of learning is experiential learning. Shame and guilt are false teachers. If one cannot understand or be granted the space to learn why treating others with a lack of consideration ("do unto others..") is a poor choice, then the choice will be repeated in so many ways regardless of any sort of top-down authority decreeing from on high that the behavior is abhorrent. I dunno if anyone's noticed, but many people aren't fond of being told what thou shall or shall not do without any context or space to arrive at their own conclusions (no matter the wisdom hiding in the original message, mind you).

Think back on any instance where your parents may have used the old classic "because I said so" and how that made you feel if you require any further proof.

In fact, I'd argue the very presence of such "because I said so" bodies of societal authority simply perpetuates and even encourages the very "amoral" behavior they claim to be/fight against. One cannot possibly hope to curb a "lack of morality" via escalation. It only creates bigger, albeit state-sanctioned "it's okay when we do it" authoritarian monsters. New sects of Pharisees spring up each time an attempt is made at stifling communication/autonomy/growth of others via force. Those of you old enough to recall airports before the proverbial walmart employees of public safety being installed to ensure you perform your humiliation rituals prior to the terminal know exactly what I mean.

Some of you may argue that's law enforcement and not morality, but I fail to see how one separates from the other. Law is downstream of the morality of the culture enforcing it, and has never once been a perfect system. Far...far from it, in fact.

Ultimately, there is no system of morality which comes from man that can be imposed locally, nationally, or universally without creating an environment for the corrupt to eventually thrive. Man's law places tiny tyrants on thrones of which they are unworthy, yet decree they know better than you. After all, they require your submissive shameful guilt-ridden fearful repressed self to continue wearing your proverbial yolk so that they might benefit.

For the sort of morality where all can be looked after and suffering passes into the annals of history, man must relinquish the throne and (finally) grow the fuck up.

 

[Trad Cunt]

There are places where morality and the law overlap, but the law is not morality.

The law should just do what it’s supposed to do, which is protect the rights of individuals enumerated in the constitution and their property.

Morality is voluntary, and when it isn’t voluntary it isn’t morality anymore

Hold on, is valuing individual and property rights not a moral value itself which the laws are responding to? The way I see it, all laws have some sort of moral underpinning or metaethical philosophy. Can you think of even one law that wouldn't relate back to morality in some way?

 

[SpergioLeonne]

Hold on, is valuing individual and property rights not a moral value itself which the laws are responding to? The way I see it, all laws have some sort of moral underpinning or metaethical philosophy. Can you think of even one law that wouldn't relate back to morality in some way?

I don’t disagree that laws are rooted in morality, and like I said there’s a lot of overlap between things that are laws and things that are moral.

What I meant by things not being morals anymore after they become laws is that you lose the virtue of having chosen a particular behavior, and it no longer provides differentiation.

Like, what if it became a law that you must attend university? This is a shitty example, but it’s something where we’re already seeing the result.. a university degree doesn’t get you ahead anymore.

In a sense, I’m trying to say that some times people need to be allowed to fail. If you force everyone into a cookie cutter life, you stop the process of evolution. You impose non-selection over natural selection.

 

[HyperboreanRightsActivist]

this works until your family whacks you

Nothing wrong with instilling the fear of God into the hearts of uppity caporegimi with fire