Welcome • User Guide
ToS • Privacy • Canary
Donate • Bugs • License

©2025 Poal.co

129

Between Ethics and Intent

We can think of morality, and principles as systems that suggest universal values. But as we can see with our own eyes, values have not been universal in human history, but have changed greatly over ten thousand years, some for the better and some for the worse.

Modernity suggests that morality is collective and more, that it is imposed externally. That the individual is mere substrate for the collective body, like a cell.

But I propose that the great basis of ethics is NOT universal law, in the degree it is an abstraction. Rather that the foundation of a truly human ethics is one of intent, arising from our observations of nature. We see the lack of this all around us today: the ability to defend ones community, as in numerous towns and cities last year, destroyed by riots, stripped by external authorities, the subversion of courts, the destruction of family and traditions, all reinforced by law, by the modern collective idea of "morality".

And observing these things, regardless of the propaganda, we can see the intent and outcomes of tradition, family, community, self defense, are all GOOD forces. This holds true across a great multitude of cultures going back thousands of years even. We can see these things are good without any grasp of a greater or universal morality.

It is to say intent, and the free movement of the individual to express their liberties, be it physical movement, or association, or community defense, or expression, or the exercise of religion, all these things are birth rights, that intent supersedes the rule of might and collective will, ethically speaking, so that it, as a form of psychological force in humanity, reasserts itself continually throughout history, simply by virtue of the truth of our nature contained in it.

It can only be concluded that if all systems of rules devolve to anarchy or debauched oligarchy, then the only truly moral act according to the conscience and then conscience alone, and not according to others rules or the moors of the time, is to act according to ones conscience and outside any rules contrary to it. And that the cost of not doing this has throughout history asserted itself as none other than slavery and tyranny sooner or later.

To act therefore is not merely a challenge to the current beliefs of a nation, but by the very intent contained in said acts, propose a future set of beliefs.

To act outside any rules, is to live by a future morality: a set of rules that don't yet exist, but that one day might, by virtue of living them.

This comports with the idea that if nature imposes no greater moral obligation upon us than the success of future generations, it therefore follows that 'right by conquest' is no great evil, nor ultima ratio regum a crime. In fact if we look closer, we see that ultima ratio regum is actually a short hand for "the last resort of kings and common men."

This is not to suggest or support violence, rather that we should look at the social mores of our time (if not laws) and say "how were they made and how should we go about making our own and replacing the existing ones?" Because it is not the rules in particular that matter, once you look closely at the difference between morality and intent, but rather the beliefs of the whole of society.

And a truly free people, we must and can only conclude, ought to want and believe utterly and completely that they should live by as few laws and rules as may be possible within a well ordered society.

Between Ethics and Intent We can think of morality, and principles as systems that suggest universal values. But as we can see with our own eyes, values have not been universal in human history, but have changed greatly over ten thousand years, some for the better and some for the worse. Modernity suggests that morality is collective and more, that it is imposed externally. That the individual is mere substrate for the collective body, like a cell. But I propose that the great basis of ethics is NOT universal law, in the degree it is an abstraction. Rather that the foundation of a truly human ethics is one of *intent*, arising from our observations of nature. We see the lack of this all around us today: the ability to defend ones community, as in numerous towns and cities last year, destroyed by riots, stripped by external authorities, the subversion of courts, the destruction of family and traditions, all reinforced by law, by the modern collective idea of "morality". And observing these things, regardless of the propaganda, we can see the *intent* and *outcomes* of tradition, family, community, self defense, are all GOOD forces. This holds true across a great *multitude* of cultures going back thousands of years even. We can see these things are good without any grasp of a greater or universal morality. It is to say *intent*, and the free movement of the individual to express their liberties, be it physical movement, or association, or community defense, or expression, or the exercise of religion, all these things are birth rights, that intent *supersedes* the rule of might and collective will, ethically speaking, so that it, as a form of psychological force in humanity, reasserts itself continually throughout history, simply by virtue of the truth of our nature contained in it. It can only be concluded that if all systems of rules devolve to anarchy or debauched oligarchy, then the only truly moral act according to the conscience and then conscience alone, and not according to others rules or the moors of the time, is to act *according* to ones conscience and outside any rules contrary to it. And that the cost of not doing this has throughout history asserted itself as none other than slavery and tyranny sooner or later. To act therefore is not merely a challenge to the current beliefs of a nation, but by the very *intent* contained in said acts, *propose* a future set of beliefs. To act outside any rules, is to live by a future morality: a set of rules that don't yet exist, but that one day might, by virtue of living them. This comports with the idea that if nature imposes no greater moral obligation upon us than the success of future generations, it therefore follows that 'right by conquest' is no great evil, nor ultima ratio regum a crime. In fact if we look closer, we see that ultima ratio regum is actually a short hand for "the last resort of kings *and common men*." This is not to suggest or support violence, rather that we should look at the social mores of our time (if not laws) and say "how were they made and how should we go about making our own and replacing the existing ones?" Because it is not the rules in particular that matter, once you look closely at the difference between morality and intent, but rather the beliefs of the whole of society. And a truly free people, we must and can *only* conclude, *ought* to *want* and *believe utterly and completely* that they should live by as few laws and rules as may be possible within a well ordered society.

(post is archived)

You are currently inside a comment thread.
Click here to see all the comments (20).
[–] • 0 pt (edited )

I am not sure what this means. I'm not being argumentative, it just doesn't seem correct to say that you are a 'right' to decide things your self.

But theres the rub, isn't it? For the entire premise to be true, it has to be axiomatic. I make the assertion that it is correct to decide things for myself, and more, to decide for others because no choice, no act, no decision making, comes without external costs. Why should it be different? Why does it make any more sense that others should decide for me? And if we run with the idea that each should decide for themselves, we are back to my first assertion: making decisions for yourself, because they will always have an external cost (or can be interpreted as such by an existing society), is never wrong.

Decisions are a feature of the universe, you DON'T HAVE A CHOICE BUT TO DECIDE THINGS FOR YOUR SELF. I don't see why this statement is necessary.

It is necessary to say it, because people have forgotten it.

You seem to be referring to a power structure juding and reacting to your decisions? Why? Where are you going with this?

I'm examining morality and ethics in the framework of the individual versus a society or civilization. Welcome to america 2021. Its just rome all over again.

Doesn't everyone know that there are no such things as rules?

This seems trivial to you and I, but its not to others. Knowing and believing are two different things. There are plenty of people who know it, and very few believe it. The very statement of the thing is itself an understatement because the implications typically go unspoken.

it's like telling a kid they can have "anything for dinner." And instead of saying "really?" wide eyed, they look in the frigerator at the options already available, without a greater thought of the options truly available.

or example, there is a law that says you stop at a stop sign. But, there is nothing in the physical universe that can make you stop at the stop sign.

This is correct but oversimplified to the point of being a tautology.

Almost everyone, except the very stupid, stop for stop signs, because we all know from long lives, and experience, that those who dont, based on nature, and how nature works, tend to die when hit by five tons of cross traffic.

A better example is "would you stop for stop signs late at night, when not a soul is around and you may run out of gas in a dangerous area? Or skip em so you don't?"

Thats worthy of discussion because it has some modifying factors and constraints. And then for good measure, "50% of the time a police car sits near one of the intersections, hidden behind a corner."

And now "would you stop if in addition to all this, the police had a habit of impounding cars because the locals are corrupt?"

How about if your wife is in the back pregnant?

These are not elaborate intentionally convoluted examples, but rather questions that arise continuously in every society man has ever built: the consequences of taking exception to rules and authority where exception seems appropriate but where authorities are unbending. Where societies fail to do so, fail to maintain that right, to make exception, those societies are eventually smothered and stifled, as was russia under the soviets, and citizens under other regimes.

Okay, so again, there is no right to decide for your self. You have no choice, it is a property of the universe.

I'm not arguing free will vs determinism at this time, it's too broad a subject thats tangent to what we're already discussing.

[–] • 0 pt

Ah. I think I see what you are getting at.

Would it be easier to just write:

Hard times create strong men, Strong men create good times, Good times create weak men, Weak men create hard times.

And then just say something like: if we keep on repeating the same mistakes over and over again, how can we understand the human animal in a way that would allow us to permanently keep our men trained and focused properly to maintain strong civilizations?

Or something like that.

I keep reading people use words like morality and ethics but I don't think I have ever heard a good description of what ethics and morality are. I have started to apply the idea of 'legacy software' used in our industry and just start to drop using terms like those two that cannot be defined. Instead of worrying about morality or ethics I have started to really only do the following:

1) At the individual level, catalogue the games humans play. Once you start to see them repeat, you learn the logic of the software running the game and you learn to avoid garbage decisions.

2) At the macro level I can only find one value that governs EVERYTHING: what set of rules will allow my genetic kin group survive, thrive and take over the world.

I'm not sure thinking about morality and ethics are useful outside of just saying something like "whites are a separate human species, our unique genetics have embedded rules that define our morality and ethics for us" and just going from there. I am sure you have noticed that blacks, asians, indians, semites and other species of human DO NOT define morality and ethics in the same way as the white species.