Captain's Blog

12.04.2021., ponedjeljak

The Fundamental Objective Basis of Morality and why it Implies Patriarchy

My post on Stormfront, that triggered this article:

If there is no death penalty, there is no reciprocity in value between the crime and the punishment at the worst level of crime.
It creates a disbalance in society's values, and undermines the only real sense of morality which is reciprocity.

Morality is exchange. It started with the exchange of goods and services, but also the exchange of rights and obligations.
It is a moral contract.

Rights do not exist in nature, and there is no natural right to live, as some philosophers imagine. Rights exist only as a systemic function of that system of exchanges we call society.

Morality is a systemic function of the system of exchanges called society.

If that system is disrupted at its highest level of exchange of rights: the exchange of the mutual recognition of the right to live for the members of a society, then the sense of morality at its most essential level of reciprocal valorization of life itself is deeply compromised.
And if the moral system of exchanges is compromised on that level, then all kinds of other deformations and degradations of the system ensue.

If one considers culture as software, and values as software instructions, then one could say that a bug is introduced at the highest level of that software, making the idea of a software full of bugs acceptable - a system where the basic moral principle of reciprocity of exchange would be relativized and ultimately completely diluted.

This is what is happening in modern societies right now. The basis for good and bad became totally arbitrary, as it is believed that there is no fundamental basis for morality. That it is just some kind of emotional thing that can change as emotional whims through time.
But there is a fundamental principle: reciprocity of exchange.

To digress a little, I will just add that this exchange has two dimensions: the horizontal one, which includes exchanges between discrete elements of a society (mostly individuals, but also groups of various kinds), and the vertical one, which is the exchange between the discrete elements and the whole of society itself.
This vertical dimension is the most compromised in modern society, as one can hear that if some action doesn't affect directly some other person (horizontal interaction), then it is nobody else's business. But that logic is fallacious, because some action and behavior can affect the quality of the whole itself, improve it or degrade it, and therefore moral responsibility extends beyond mere direct effects on other individuals.

Because of that vertical dimension of exchanges, one could theoretically envision the question if it would not be better to drop the death sentence for reasons concerning the quality of the whole: make it more "human".
But humanity is not weak sentimentality, and the fundamental sense of the reciprocity of value of life must be maintained at that core level, no matter how unpleasant the death penalty might seem, particularly in a more and more infantile civilization.

Civilization and humanity are not synonyms of infantilization, and a civilization which keeps preciously its core exchange moral sense of value is not "barbaric", as it is claimed, but is keeping the core of morality intact.

Life is not a game for children. Morality is therefore not a game for children. It is extremely serious. It is about life itself inside a common system of life.

Having said that, if the legal system of a country is a joke, then many punishments become problematic, not only the capital one.


(The following article was the object of a Stormfront topic. Alas it was deleted because some religious fanatics and one troll sabotaged it, leading to an exchange of "compliments" between a religious fanatic and some materialists. Eventually, a senior moderator deemed the topic too divisive and deleted it.)


Now, it is not my purpose here to talk again about capital punishment but about the objective theory of morality I sketched there.

The idea being that the real objective nature of morality derives from the fundamental nature of human society, and which makes it human and different from animal societies: I am talking about reciprocal exchange.

Human society, or the "Human system" as I call it, is specifically human in being based on the principle of reciprocity of exchange, which I call the "Human principle".

Human societies also incorporate previous animal principles, like the predatory principle, as people still predate on people in various ways, mostly economic, and also elements of prehuman cooperation of implicit, non-reciprocal exchange, like in a pack of wolves who cooperate to hunt a deer, but where every wolf doesn't get a part of the meat in reciprocity to his role in the hunt.

Still, despite animal principles being present, what makes human societies human, and what is new about them, is the specific "Human principle" of reciprocity of exchange.

And this is, I posit, the real, objective basis for morality.
It is the basis for our sense of justice, for our sense of rights and having or not having a right, but also for the other side of the coin, which is moral duty and obligations.

To put it in simple terms, morality is basically a social contract based on the principle of reciprocity of exchange.
(Interestingly, the God of the Bible seems to understand this principle, because his "testaments" are in fact moral contracts, "covenants" or agreements)

Morality is a systemic function of the system of exchanges called society.

That principle of reciprocity has more than probably been integrated in our biological being as a biological potential and impulse, although probably to various degrees in the genetic structure of various individuals.
And I would argue, that having it in our genetic structure is what makes us human - more or less human, depending on how completely that moral tendency has been embedded in the genes of each individual (or race).

But as for every biologic potential, humans need culture to really actualize that potential, similarly to the fact that we have to learn to walk and talk, despite being biologically predetermined for those abilities.

And this is the reason why the correct cultural articulation of morality is essential. Biology and culture walk hand in hand, as far as human beings are concerned.
Each one relies on the other, and they develop together in a feedback relationship.

Errors in the cultural articulation of morality can therefore be catastrophic for the healthy and correct development of human society (and this is what is going on these days in the Western civilization).

So far morality (the Human principle) has not been fundamentally and objectively articulated in human societies.
Existing definitions, either abstractly philosophical (and there are almost thirty in ethics), or those practically applied in real life by various societies, are non-fundamental, non-objective and non-scientific.
All are very partial, incomplete, and those in application are very idiosyncratic, mostly based on idiosyncratic and often mixed human-animal principles articulated through religious idiosyncrasies dating back to the bronze and iron ages.

Without a real, objective and complete articulation of morality, we will continue to sink, because we lack the conceptual infrastructure to stop that sinking, as the existing idiosyncratic articulations from a distant past, do not respond efficiently anymore to the new challenges of modern society.


So the real, objective foundation of morality is reciprocity of exchange.

Exchange of what, you might ask.

There is of course the exchange of goods and services: I give you a stone axe I made, and you give me a clay pot that you made. We spit on our palms, shake hands, and the deal is sealed.
But we also live in a society, and have duties towards our tribe and some reciprocal rights coming from that membership, that cooperation where we put certain things and functions in common, in order to more easily fulfill our needs, than just as isolated individuals.

One of the basic things we exchange is the mutual recognition of the right to live.
It doesn't exist in nature, and every lion, tiger, wolf, bear or leopard can kill us, without it being a crime, because there is no contract, implicit or explicit, of mutual recognition between us.

Now, these moral contracts existing in society about rights and obligations are mostly implicit, but become explicit when articulated in laws.
Obviously a new member of society, a child, doesn't sign an explicit contract with society, but if a human continues to live in a society, and uses its common infrastructure, it can be implicitly considered that he accepts the contract.
(There are obviously problems here, because if society too imperfectly respects its side of the deal, then the implicit belonging to that deal becomes questionable).

So, what we exchange are goods and work, but also rights and obligations.
But how does that exchange take place?

There are two essential dimensions of that exchange.

One that I call horizontal, which contains all the exchanges between the discrete elements of a society, meaning individuals and various groups of individuals, biologic or economic or whatever, between each other.

The other is the vertical dimension of exchange, the one where the various discrete elements of a society exchange with the whole of that society.
It is the holistic dimension of exchange.

The reciprocity in the first dimension is relatively easier to understand, but the second one is more tricky, particularly because its historical articulations were strongly idiosyncratic in the way they defined the relationship between the individuals and society as a whole.

This is the reason why everything tends to be reduced to individuals these days. Society is conceived as a bunch of individuals, having individual rights, but the relationship to the whole barely exists as the whole is not understood as a side in the deal and as an entity transcending its individual components and being a reality in itself having specific needs related to its level of existence above its individual components. Similarly to the way an organism is not just the sum of its cells, and the needs of an organism cannot just be reduced to the needs of the cells, but represent another level of existence, with its specific functions and demands, in order to function correctly.

The whole, the collectivity is an entity in itself.

For example the whole must adapt or respond to new situations as a whole, not on the level of individual components of that whole.

Also, as a whole, it has functions specific to that whole, and performed by the whole, not by the individual components at their individual levels.
For example external functions of survival and protection of the whole, but also internal functions of interaction of the whole with its components or groups of components, assigning them duties and obligations vis a vis that whole, and giving them rights derived from their exchanges with the hole, not just between themselves at their individual levels.

One essential basic function, is the self reproduction of the whole, at the biological and cultural levels, and the assignment of rights to promote that function.

I will repeat the simple example I gave in the quote in the first post.

These days it is popular to consider that if some activity or behavior doesn't directly affect other individuals, then that behavior is nobody else's business other than the one individual acting that way, or those who mutually consent to those behaviors.
But this is a fallacy, because a behavior can degrade the properties of society as a whole. make it less able to fulfill its systemic functions in relation to the challenges it faces as a hole, or its duties towards individuals.
It can degrade (or improve) the quality of the whole, and make a society worse or better, for the functions of the whole or for its individuals indirectly.
Pornography or the promotion of promiscuous behaviors are such an example, degrading the substrate of society for its healthy reproduction of quality humans in a quality society. It degrades the "human" at all of its holistic and evolutionary levels, individual and social, taking it back to the animal level.

(The issue of "quality humans" can be precisely discussed, both from a moral point of view concerning their moral interactions between each other and also interactions with the whole, but also on the level of an even higher holism in relation to how society develops higher human forms, pushing the human far beyond the animal level - but this will be a special subject, if time permits.)
(PS: it has to do with what is the best quality human for human society, and developing that human. Is it a social insect, a sheep, or a fully individualized individual, taking full holistic responsibility for himself and society, on all levels, and where developing such a totally individualized holistic human actually leads.)

As said, one of the essential aspects of these functions of the whole is the self reproduction of society, which cannot be reduced to the mere biological reproduction of individuals as the responsibility of individuals, but, particularly modern society must insure certain conditions so that such reproduction can take place at a statistically satisfactory rate, and take measures for that.

Society must also care for its cultural reproduction and transformation as it changes.This is the reproduction and transformation of cultural "software instructions" in order to create a healthy functional society.

And in that sense the exchanges between society and the individuals must be defined correctly.
For example the question of what is marriage as recognized by society; is it an union of a man and a woman, or can it be something else.

It can be determined with precision that from the point of view of exchanges between society and a couple, the union of a man and a woman represents a distinct fundamental value for society, for its biological and cultural reproduction, and therefore nothing else other than a community of a man and a woman can have that same status for society and cannot be recognized of having the same (enormous) value for society. And therefore society must grant to that special community of a man and a woman a special and unique status, and special care, because its exchange with that particular form of union is unique.

As I said in my quote above, if fundamental errors (bugs) are introduced in the cultural software concerning the morality of the exchange between the individuals and the whole, what follows is a complete degradation of the whole, where the reciprocity of exchange between those two levels is increasingly disrupted, and self-destruction ensues.


Attempts have been made in the past to define the correct relationship between the individuals and society. The pendulum has shifted from the collective principle to the individual principle and back and forth, again and again, and the failure to understand the true relationship between the individual and collective levels is what ultimately leads to the demise of civilizations.

However, the situation we are facing is unique, because the movements of the pendulum in the past were not made in the context of a society more and more based on science.
They existed in a context of beliefs and philosophical subjectivism, but that will not do anymore.

One must go beyond beliefs and philosophy, and try to articulate that relationship scientifically.

What is that science that can go beyond beliefs and beyond philosophical subjectivism?

It is Systemics - the science of systems.

Only by studying the human phenomenon from the perspective of systems, can we understand what it is in nature and what it should be in form, as systems always contain a system specific purpose in their systemic nature, derived from that nature.

Religions are the idiosyncratic repositories of systemic thought, trying to define a healthy relationship between the individual and collective levels.
They were intuitive articulations, attempts to shape an intuitive feeling of unity between the individual and the collective principle.

Philosophies are more a feeble attempt to define things intellectually, but generally lack the intuitive core of religions about the need for a deep holistic systemic health of a human system.

I am generalizing too much, but it will have to do for now, in this context.

What is important is that this intuitive sense of unity has been lost and modern society is now completely turned towards its reduction to the individual principle.
The pendulum cannot really go back on its own, because the whole context has changed through the development of science, and one cannot rely on systems of beliefs anymore.

The pendulum will go back however, in the sense that a civilization relying on the individual principle alone, destroys itself, and this is what is happening.
That civilization is then replaced by more primitive ones, relying on the collective principle.

The solution is not just to find the "right balance", it is beyond "balance".
The solution is to understand (not just to feel) the holistic interpenetrating nature of the individual and collective principles inside the human system, and realize that union in practice as an implementation in social structures and culture.

The understanding of society (human system) as a system of exchanges, horizontal and vertical, gives the correct frame, from which practical issues can be resolved.

How does that holism work in practice?

A hologram is a picture where all points of that picture contain the whole image, from the point of view of that point (more or less).

Where is the collective principle situated in practice? It is situated in the individuals, and for the holistic system to function the collective principle must be completely embodied in its individuals.

Does it mean that I advocate a society of ants, of robots submitted to the collective principle, or of sheep, following "enlightened leaders", and remaining themselves sheep?

No, precisely because the individual and the collective principles are not contradictory, and the full individualization of individuals also represents the full embodiment of the collective principle in individuals.

It is about taking full responsibility for oneself and for the society, as one is an individual living in a society.

What is the best human form for society, and for the individuals themselves?
It is the one that is fully individualized, and takes responsibility for itself and the collectivity. That responsibility itself is exchange in nature.

The human principle of morality implies a development in that direction, because reciprocity of exchange implies both the affirmation of the individual principle, individuals who exchange, and implies the collective principle through the vertical exchange humans are participating in and must take responsibility for as individuals.

Morality, the human principle, therefore develops the individual, his individuality and responsibility, leading to the evolution of higher forms of humans, capable of full individualization inside a collective context.
Not individual predators lurking in the dark, but full responsible individuals living in the light of the sun.

The more an individual is really individualized, the more he takes responsibility in a holistic way.

The implications of this holistic individualization go far beyond the frame of this subforum, and this topic could best be continued in the theology subforum,

I'm joking, best not go that far, at least for now, but the implicit antique ideals of the God-man, the development of the truly human archetype (which is in danger of destruction, right now) are to be reached through complete human individualization, the holistic interpenetration of the individual and collective principle.

So, where is the place of race in all this?

The white race is the highest and most complete form of development and advancement of the human archetype, the principle of full individualization and holistic responsibility, and it is not just a question of degree, but also of direction.
The White race is the one best aligned with the direction towards the realization of that archetype.
Some other races even seem to go backwards and always pull things down, wherever they appear in larger numbers.

Holistic responsibility implies the care for our race, and a fully individualized White is one who acts to preserve and improve the human holism his race represents.



The subject of morality would not be complete without explaining the implication of a correctly understood morality, for the order a society (and a race) must adopt in order to survive, and that order is Patriarchy, or the Patriarchal moral order.

The Patriarchal moral order is the only order which will allow the White race to survive, because societies that have abandoned the Patriarchal moral order, fall into decadence, degenerate and are replaced by other groups based on patriarchy.

What is the Patriarchal moral order?

It is not about the enslavement of women, as feminists believe, it is about the creation of a society where men and women take their natural places inside the holism of a group, a society and collectivity, and only in this way can be the life, survival and advancement of that group be assured.

In a previous post, I talked about individualization as the complete taking of responsibility for himself and for society, by the individual -complete interpenetration of the individual and collective levels.

But that understanding would be very incomplete, and basically useless if it didn't take into account a reality of human life, and that is that the human species is not composed of abstract individuals but of two kinds of individuals: men and women.
Those real individuals, men and women, are the ones having the relationship with the whole, not some abstract imaginary individuals.

In the holism linking individuals with the collectivity, men and women have different roles, and disregarding that natural functional dichotomy, which is not a division, but a complementarity, leads to the demise and the disintegration of the whole.

More than two years ago, I was watching the cultural show "Interdit, d'interdire" (Forbidden to Forbid) on the French channel of RT, and there was this woman, Bénédicte Martin, of French Asian mix, who wrote a book about masculinity: "l'homme necessaire"" (The necessary man), as it was called, and was about how men today are less masculine.
The female author was complaining how men today are less inclined to die for their country, or for a woman.
In the discussion that ensued, it became apparent though that the woman was a slut, who had numerous sexual partners and didn't see any problems with that.

Perhaps not so unsurprisingly, despite having written a book about how it is necessary for men to be men and take responsibility as men and warriors, she failed to see the connection between that decline of masculinity, and the behavior of women like herself.
She failed to see that for men to be ready to die for "a woman and a country", women must be worth it.

If women are sluts, men don't see a value in them to protect, and fight for, nor do they see the value in fighting for their collectivity, building it and protecting it, because for them, the fundamental unit of stable social life, the couple, loses its sense, as women, the other part of that unit of life lose their value for them, and therefore, the construction and protection of the social whole loses sense too. And if women engage in sex and mixing with other races, then the value to protect of women or of the tribe becomes even lower.

Men then revert to more primitive biological programs, and metaphorically become "pillagers", individually or in small groups, and one of the paradoxical results of an anti-Patriarchal, feminism infected society, it the progressive loss of interest of men for a holistic life, where they defend women and society as a whole (both have lost their value). The more a society becomes anti-patriarchal, the more men, and particularly warrior men (the others whine), revert to be "pillagers", for whom women are just to be used sexually, and not a value to protect inside a social whole to build and protect.

But this is not what warrior men should do, as it is their individual and collective failure to do so...


One could think that in my previous post, I blame women or feminism for the deliquescence and demise of the White race.

I don't, because in the sexual dichotomy of the human species, it is the role of men to build and protect, and create a moral and social infrastructure and order, conductive to the holistic, healthy life and survival of the collectivity.

Men are the leaders, and if they relinquish that role, everything goes to hell eventually.
Women can be excellent in nurturing that order, but if men fail in their role as leaders, then women tend to cease to play their part and revert to more primitive biological animal programs.

Many men tend to put women on a pedestal. Why?

Because women are the goal of their protection, and of the protection of a collective social order.
Women must be perceived as high value, in order to be worthy of protection.

This is a spiritual thing for men, in the sense I defined spirituality previously, as aware holistic life, and the advancement and integration of life, both at an individual and collective level - the full integration of these levels of life in the individual.

When that spiritual, holistic perception of women disappears in men, then women are seen as low value sluts, not worth building a life with or building a society with.
But they, men are responsible for women to be that way. Women cannot do it by themselves, and the women who are that way, are the ones who were strongly shaped and framed by patriarchal holism in their childhood, probably through the example of their benevolent and enlightened patriarch father.

Women, without the living example of the correct holism of the patriarchal order, cannot take their role fully, because their role is in relation to men as leaders in the couple and in life.
Women on their own, therefore do not perceive men at the same spiritual level (of holistic life), like most men perceive and desire women, because they need men to lead in the creation of that moral order. Women cannot create the correct patriarchal order on their own, precisely because it IS patriarchal.

Some women, even here on Stormfront, will say that women don't need men, just for sex, etc. But for the construction, maintenance, advancement and protection of a society, the leading role of men is essential, or they stop to care, and when they stop to care, society degenerates and crumbles as it loses its holistic life structure and reverts to gangs of pillagers.

Again, who cares what these women say. It is the role of men to take charge and impose a patriarchal moral order, and not listen to these women to tell them what to do, because these women are just the mere female-reversion-to-animality result of men relinquishing their role as leaders in a human society.

Women can perceive men spiritually only if men are "worth it", if they lead.

This is the other side of the coin. Men perceive women spiritually, because they intuitively understand the importance of women's value for them to be motivated to create higher forms of life in personal life, society, civilization etc.

Women, on the other side perceive men spiritually (holistically) only if they lead and impose the correct moral order for themselves first (!), and then for women to fit in and play their role in the creation of a higher holistic life.
Without the leading role of men, women cannot lead in that direction.

Otherwise women tend to become party girls, just searching for studs for sex and power, etc. The spiritual model of the male patriarch is erased from their minds, or never existed as they have not seen it.

There are exceptions of course. but they are just that, exceptions. And those women are precisely those who understand the absolute necessity of a patriarchal moral order.

Without patriarchy and male leadership, men revert to pillagers and women to egotistic sluts, and if they happen to realize their error, it is often too late to create a harmonious life together, have children etc. and the whole of society is also damaged because it is composed of dysfunctional individuals (often trying to compensate for their life-spiritual vacuity with hate filled "Social Justice Warrior" leftist engagement, as an expression of their personal dissatisfaction and emptiness of their own lives).

(As a small digression, it is interesting to note how younger women can quickly adopt correct patterns if given the right male patriarchal leadership example.
Some years ago, I took a teaching position for a few months, replacing a professor who was on sick leave. It was interesting to notice how quickly girls who were smoking for example, stopped smoking and how the bad girls sought redemption in my approval, and started to be receptive to higher meanings.

These days when I meet these girls on the street, now women with children, they always have big smiles... wave to me, and are happy when I recognize them.
One recently told me that even though I was her professor for only a relatively short time, I was the only professor she thinks of, now and then, and another even thanked me profusely... I was a bit taken by surprise, and it took me some time to figure out why she thanked me. I finally realized that it was because of the model I was giving, which perhaps helped her to find the right man, and adopt a correct meaningful way of life.)

Now, some people might say that I am babbling, because there were "successful" matriarchal societies in the past. Actually there weren't, and the myth of matriarchy has been debunked by science.

But the truth is that it doesn't even matter, because in a context of competition between various groups. The group that loses the patriarchal order, strong morality for men and women alike, where men are motivated to build an ever better and stronger society, and do not fall into egotistic decadence, gets eventually overrun by patriarchy based groups.
Some anomalous little groups can exist here and there, but none of them has the potential of creation of an ever growing holistic human life, a civilization. And the White race, because of it's, let's say... "Aryan" originated, warrior patriarchal morality, is the best archetype for the building of an integrated holistic life of ever-increasing level, unless there is a historical "bug" in the software, that destroys that patriarchal model, like there is now...

I already hear those who will say that everything was not great in the past, etc... Of course not, and by the way, there were "bugs" in the past too, for various socio-economic reasons, but however imperfect the articulation of patriarchy was in any given period, this is not a reason for abandoning patriarchy, because it leads to a complete catastrophe, but to reestablish it in full force, but at an enlightened, fundamental level, where both men and women understand their respective holistic roles at their core levels, not on the level of enslavement of women, and similar.
Then they become the "two sides of God in action", like I metaphorically said in my blog, as two sides of the holistic human life in action and ever higher progression.

So... for those who say that anything goes, when survival is concerned: NO anything goes not!
Only a strong, self perfecting patriarchy goes, where men and women take their respective places and responsibilities in the building of an ever increasing and improving individual, marital and collective holistic life.

And for this to happen, men must retake their leading role and reestablish a patriarchy at a new, enlightened, aware and holistic level.

For WNs, it is absolutely imperative to understand that patriarchy is essential for the survival of the White race.

All levels of life are imbricated one in the other, and for that holism to exist and to function correctly, patriarchy is the only viable model.

Patriarchal morality is also a warrior morality, meaning that it approaches life the way life really is: something serious, something adult, where one has to fight for life and in that fight, nothing is arbitrary - it is not a game, it is a life or death battle.

The relativist concept of "morality" promoted these days is not a warrior morality, it is a weaklings' morality, an infantile morality, a morality for little children, incapable of creating, sustaining and protecting life, because it pushes under the carpet the reality of life and replaces it with child play, with arbitrary fantasies not connected to real life.

An adult male morality, a man's morality looks at the reality of life in the eyes and takes responsibility for it and demands responsibility from others, as this is also an exchange of responsibility, demanded from all members of society, while the weaklings', childish morality relativizes everything, as if life was something arbitrary, completely diluting the responsibility for life that is morality. And when the life software becomes arbitrary and alienated from life, it doesn't serve life, it serves its destruction.

The "wokes" are so afraid of reality that they call "barbarism" any social order asking for true objective responsibility for life, while they proclaim that their infantile, relativist, weaklings' model IS what civilization is.

It is not, it is the degeneracy and the destruction of civilization.



- 15:17 - Comments (0) - Print - #

Replies to questions by forum members and ex-forum members

You don't have any a priori "legitimate" right to live, outside of an agreement inside society representing the exchange of that right (mutual recognition) between the members of society.

Legitimacy doesn't simply float in the air. It is a question of mutual recognition of a right inside the system of exchanges we call society.

And for the exchange with the whole, the implicit moral exchange is that an individual has no right to do what harms the whole.

Can the whole always a priori recognize or not if something is harmful to it, is a different question. This thing is done a posteriori, by analyzing the consequences for the whole, but in the context of a preexisting moral frame of exchanges between the individuals and the whole.
And it is the whole that decides (by whatever social mechanism it establishes), not just individuals directly affected, like you claim.

Btw. the issue of practical decisions has to be partially discriminated from essential moral issues.

For example, even if it is established that a behavior is harmful for the whole, a society might not have the resources to weed it out efficiently, and then must, at least temporarily, weight if its forceful efforts to do so are productive or counterproductive in the sense that they can do even more harm, and adopt other ways to progressively curb such behavior.

But such activity by the whole is also the consequence of an agreement or lack of agreement about giving the right to the whole to decide if some behaviors are acceptable for the whole or not. This is a practical issue concerning the question of members of a society giving or not giving that right to society for everything/something, or not, and can they collectively live with the consequences of that decision.
(If they decide wrong, that can even lead to the destruction of society.)

All those things are implicit and often poorly defined, but a correct theory of morality should precisely make it all explicit, or more exactly, give a correct frame for the moral explicitness in any kind of situation, so that things can be weighted correctly inside a frame defining the relations of exchange involved.

The reason why it is important to understand morality as exchange based, is precisely in areas concerning the exchange with the whole, where some ideologies claim that some rights exist by themselves, and that the "natural" rights of some people are infringed if one does not allow them to do something.

Without the correct frame of understanding, it is sometimes hard to find the right fundamental arguments why it is not so.

A correct theory of morality allows moving from ideological arbitrariness and subjectivism, to an objective analysis of moral situations.

It doesn't mean that in some cases even such analysis cannot result in a dilemma, it can, but there are other cases that are far more clear cut morally, but are muddied by purely ideological false beliefs and choices.

- 15:16 - Comments (0) - Print - #

Survival is not moral or immoral per se, since the motivation for life doesn't come from morality, but from life itself.

And life per se is not determined by any kind of right or lack of right. The right to live comes into play, as I explained, only vis a vis other members of a system of exchanges.
So for you, another person has the right to live, if you are part of a social contract recognizing the life of others, and for them it is the same: you have the right to live from their perspective.

But for life in itself, outside the context of a social contract, there is no right or not-right to live. It is something outside the domain of definition of rights and morality, as it is not defined by any exchange or contract.

(I know that this may be difficult to intuitively understand, because of the interpersonal nature of our identities and the way we are aware of ourselves as selves. We project the "others" from our interpersonal identity, and the reciprocity of exchange with them, into the non-human and even into the non-living universe, as some kind of absolute, but this is a psychological illusion coming from the structure of the interpersonal self.)

What is moral or immoral is our relationship as individual lives with the life goal of survival of our collectivity. And in that relationship of vertical exchange of contributions to life, individuals have with the collective, one of the moral duties they get in that exchange is to preserve and advance the life of that collectivity, in this case, their race.

It is also connected to the holistic interpenetration of the collective and individual levels I talked about, as the collective is actually manifested in the individual.

And since the biological collective, its life, evolution and evolutionary "archetype", is also manifested in the individual, the individual has a duty towards his biological collective.
Those who negate that biologically founded duty are indeed traitors.

- 15:15 - Comments (0) - Print - #


I realized that in my posts I seem to claim that being human is reduced to morality and the holistic interaction between the individual and the collectivity and that individualization is reduced to responsibility.
I don't, and in some of my other posts I talked about individualization as the activation of the inner causality of life within. Individualized life, not as reactivity, but as causality and creation.

The full individual cannot be reduced to its relationship with the social whole and morality, he is causal life. But life also existing in the context of social life, and the full individual becomes causal also in that dimension of life, taking full responsibility for it from his inner causality.

A property of holism is that if one does live correctly in one dimension of life, it tends to spread in the other dimensions, as life is a whole, and a well understood and integrated morality also develops the individual in his other dimensions of (individual) life, and vice versa.

I also want to clarify that even though the theory of morality above seems materialist, I am not a materialist, far from it, and this theory of morality is inscribed into a much larger spiritual concept, which would alas be too problematic to elaborate here.

- 15:14 - Comments (0) - Print - #

<< Prethodni mjesec | Sljedeći mjesec >>

< travanj, 2021 >
      1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8 9 10 11
12 13 14 15 16 17 18
19 20 21 22 23 24 25
26 27 28 29 30