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

©2025 Poal.co

413

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).
[–] • 1 pt (edited )

That is, treating the corrupt humans as just part of the natural world, with inherent danger, to be navigated around to minimize damage.

That is a fair way to put it.

If you think about it, what this does is puts people on a dichtonomy:

Corrupt and uncorrupt.

Where the corrupt are those who make their own rules and decide internally which external rules are worth following and which are worth breaking

And the uncorrupt are those who simply follow rules imposed on them.

I don't distinguish between "bad corrupt" and "good corrupt" because again, every action is an assertion. If an action is outside rules, or laws even, then it imposes a cost on those who act within said rules, and those who act within the rules impose a cost on those who dont (taxes, fines, fees, criminal penalities, shunning if you're amish, lol). There is only the imposition, the externalization of some of the cost of any assertion. "good" and "bad" are interpreted, though, by whoever is in power. Of course we can say generally from our traditions, developed through thousands of years of fighting (also a form of assertion, or one type of act), that unjustified homicide, theft, and so forth are wrong. You go back 100k years though, you don't see that.

That also allows us to explain the ethical history of humanity as an arc of greater rational understanding of "wrong and right", a greater-than-the-sum-of-its-parts understanding by the species, its own sort of tradition, of ethics, as a form of natural inheritance from previous generations: we have order because we fought for order, because some men acted to create it. We have peace because we struggled for peace. We have tradition because we established and maintained it. And so on. And this harkens back to one of our core and only true obligations: to make the future better for the generations to come.