Against Universal Morality - Between Ethics and Intent and The Last Argument of Kings.

882

• (edited )

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.

[–] • 1 pt

(edited )

I hope I've broken this down a little better.

You have a fundamental right, from birth, to decide things for yourself. This does not exempt you from being tortured, or punished for making a decision that upsets some ruling power or officials. However, upsetting them is different from (and not the same thing as) "being bad", "a criminal" or "sin" as it were, despite all labels they may apply to their enemies and opposition.

Your obligation boils down to this: if the rules dont make sense, is it worth defying them? If it is, and it is worth it, then you ought to. This is not merely a discussion of strictly 'law', but social mores (like challenging "hatespeech") or refusing to entertain the right-left dogma in pursuit of coalitions that destabilize a governments ability to divide and control its populace.

Furthermore, this right to 'decide-for-yourself', has always existed because otherwise universal law doesnt make sense. Modern morality says things like "dont defend yourself" (as in kenosha and last years riots), because "killing is wrong." It ignores the intents of both those being attacked and those defending. Without intent, theres no meaningful distinction between self defense and violence is there? Likewise is it wrong to lie to save a life? Of course not. But modern morality labels it a 'lie' anyway.

And that gets into discussions about "the greater good" and we see the propaganda then for what it is: in books, movies, television, everywhere the mantra "the greater good is just the lesser of two evils! Its still evil!"

Sure, but supposing that were true, why? Who benefits from this notion? Any government that wants to maintain power is going to maximize 1. the rules it citizens have to follow (for control), 2. minimize its oversight, responsibilities, and the rules it can be held responsible for. A double standard. And what message are they going to spread?

"two wrongs dont make a right", "the lesser of two evils, and the greater good, are still evil" etc.

Because who makes the rules and who defines evil?

The same people writing the propaganda and telling you not to challenge them.

I hope I've broken this down a little better. You have a fundamental right, *from birth*, to decide things for yourself. This does not exempt you from being tortured, or punished for making a decision that upsets some ruling power or officials. However, upsetting them is *different* from (and not the same thing as) "being bad", "a criminal" or "sin" as it were, despite all labels they may apply to their enemies and opposition. Your obligation boils down to this: if the rules dont make sense, is it worth defying them? If it is, and it is worth it, then you ought to. This is not merely a discussion of strictly 'law', but social mores (like challenging "hatespeech") or refusing to entertain the right-left dogma in pursuit of coalitions that destabilize a governments ability to divide and control its populace. Furthermore, this right to 'decide-for-yourself', has always existed because otherwise universal law doesnt make sense. Modern morality says things like "dont defend yourself" (as in kenosha and last years riots), because "killing is wrong." It ignores the intents of *both* those being attacked and those defending. Without intent, theres no meaningful distinction between self defense and violence is there? Likewise is it wrong to lie to save a life? Of course not. But modern morality labels it a 'lie' anyway. And that gets into discussions about "the greater good" and we see the propaganda then for what it is: in books, movies, television, everywhere the mantra "the greater good is just the lesser of two evils! Its still evil!" *Sure*, but supposing that were true, why? Who benefits from this notion? Any government that wants to maintain power is going to maximize 1. the rules it citizens have to follow (for control), 2. minimize its oversight, responsibilities, and the rules it can be held responsible for. A double standard. And what message are they going to spread? "two wrongs dont make a right", "the lesser of two evils, and the greater good, are still evil" etc. Because who makes the rules and who defines evil? The same people writing the propaganda and telling you not to challenge them.

parent
link

[–] • 2 pts

(edited )

> You have a fundamental right, from birth, to decide things for yourself.

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. 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.

I am disregarding the problem of free will vs determinism and assuming free will.

> This does not exempt you from being tortured, or punished for making a decision that upsets some ruling power or officials. However, upsetting them is different from (and not the same thing as) "being bad", "a criminal" or "sin" as it were, despite all labels they may apply to their enemies and opposition.

I don't see how this follows from the first statement. You are born, you have no choice but to make choices to the extent your neural networks are capable of. Lot's of things will happen to you, good or bad. You seem to be referring to a power structure juding and reacting to your decisions? Why? Where are you going with this?

> Your obligation boils down to this: if the rules dont make sense, is it worth defying them? If it is, and it is worth it, then you ought to. This is not merely a discussion of strictly 'law', but social mores (like challenging "hatespeech") or refusing to entertain the right-left dogma in pursuit of coalitions that destabilize a governments ability to divide and control its populace.

Okay, so I guess you are talking about our relationship to the matrix of rules imposed upon us by the power structure we are surrounded by? I mean, I don't see the point of this statement. Doesn't everyone know that there are no such things as rules? Laws and rules are make believe in an elaborate set of games we all decide to play. For 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. You simply decide if you want to obey that rule or not. The rule is imaginary, it might cause other people to act and enact consequences on you, but at the end of the day, a dog or a cat doesn't obey the stop sign because the law / rule that says you must stop is just made up. It is a game will all agree to play. Sometimes we agree to blow through the stop sign and nothing happens. Sometimes, in a black part of town it is ADVISABLE to blow through the stop sign to not get killed. It's all a game. And these aren't social mores. They are just rules in a game. Civilization is software, you memorize a few rules and you decide if you want to follow them or not. Morality, mores, right, left, are just labels for arbitrary groupings of laws and rules. I'm not really sure what you are saying here.

> Furthermore, this right to 'decide-for-yourself', has always existed because otherwise universal law doesnt make sense. Modern morality says things like "dont defend yourself" (as in kenosha and last years riots), because "killing is wrong." It ignores the intents of both those being attacked and those defending. Without intent, theres no meaningful distinction between self defense and violence is there? Likewise is it wrong to lie to save a life? Of course not. But modern morality labels it a 'lie' anyway.

Okay, so again, there is no right to decide for your self. You have no choice, it is a property of the universe. Also, there are no such things as universal laws. The universe only has the laws of physics and for the purpose of this conversation we have to assume that free will exists so we can actually talk about choices that we are forced to make by the universe. Next, I don't see what is this thing you call "modern morality". How is it defined? How is it different from "non-modern morality"? And I don't see why you are jumping to intent. Intent is just a calculation of a situation -- your intent is to cross the road, you evaluate the situation by looking left an right, you cross when it is safe, when you reach the other side you have achieved your intent. There is NO POSSIBLE decision that can be made without intent. It is literally a calculation. And at the end you are discussing the morality of self defense / violence, saving life and then again you mention "modern morality" and say that modern morality labels all of that as a lie? What?

> And that gets into discussions about "the greater good" and we see the propagana then for what it is: in books, movies, television, everywhere the mantra "the greater good is just the lesser of two evils! Its still evil!" Sure, but supposing that were true, why? Who benefits from this notion? Any government that wants to maintain power is going to maximize 1. the rules it citizens have to follow (for control), 2. minimize its oversight, responsibilities, and the rules it can be held responsible for. A double standard. And what message are they going to spread?

What? What gets into the discussion about the greater good? You claim that propaganda claims the mantra as being "the greater good is lesser of two eveils but it's still evil" ... what? If it is the lesser of two evils, what is the other evil?

> "two wrongs dont make a right", "the lesser of two evils, and the greater good, are still evil" etc. / Because who makes the rules and who defines evil? / The same people writing the propaganda and telling you not to challenge them.

I appreciate what you wrote and I kind of like this challenge sometimes so I'm just having a bit of fun here. You proposed something that has no meaning in your first statement, tried to talk about whether or not it makes sense to follow rules, something about morality, greater good and propaganda, ending with questions that are not related to anything.

I am curious, what is the very first statement actually supposed to be? What question are you interested in asking and exploring? Can I get just a single question that you are trying to answer and we can work through it backwards from there?

>> You have a fundamental right, from birth, to decide things for yourself. 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. 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. I am disregarding the problem of free will vs determinism and assuming free will. >> This does not exempt you from being tortured, or punished for making a decision that upsets some ruling power or officials. However, upsetting them is different from (and not the same thing as) "being bad", "a criminal" or "sin" as it were, despite all labels they may apply to their enemies and opposition. I don't see how this follows from the first statement. You are born, you have no choice but to make choices to the extent your neural networks are capable of. Lot's of things will happen to you, good or bad. You seem to be referring to a power structure juding and reacting to your decisions? Why? Where are you going with this? >> Your obligation boils down to this: if the rules dont make sense, is it worth defying them? If it is, and it is worth it, then you ought to. This is not merely a discussion of strictly 'law', but social mores (like challenging "hatespeech") or refusing to entertain the right-left dogma in pursuit of coalitions that destabilize a governments ability to divide and control its populace. Okay, so I guess you are talking about our relationship to the matrix of rules imposed upon us by the power structure we are surrounded by? I mean, I don't see the point of this statement. Doesn't everyone know that there are no such things as rules? Laws and rules are make believe in an elaborate set of games we all decide to play. For 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. You simply decide if you want to obey that rule or not. The rule is imaginary, it might cause other people to act and enact consequences on you, but at the end of the day, a dog or a cat doesn't obey the stop sign because the law / rule that says you must stop is just made up. It is a game will all agree to play. Sometimes we agree to blow through the stop sign and nothing happens. Sometimes, in a black part of town it is ADVISABLE to blow through the stop sign to not get killed. It's all a game. And these aren't social mores. They are just rules in a game. Civilization is software, you memorize a few rules and you decide if you want to follow them or not. Morality, mores, right, left, are just labels for arbitrary groupings of laws and rules. I'm not really sure what you are saying here. >> Furthermore, this right to 'decide-for-yourself', has always existed because otherwise universal law doesnt make sense. Modern morality says things like "dont defend yourself" (as in kenosha and last years riots), because "killing is wrong." It ignores the intents of both those being attacked and those defending. Without intent, theres no meaningful distinction between self defense and violence is there? Likewise is it wrong to lie to save a life? Of course not. But modern morality labels it a 'lie' anyway. Okay, so again, there is no right to decide for your self. You have no choice, it is a property of the universe. Also, there are no such things as universal laws. The universe only has the laws of physics and for the purpose of this conversation we have to assume that free will exists so we can actually talk about choices that we are forced to make by the universe. Next, I don't see what is this thing you call "modern morality". How is it defined? How is it different from "non-modern morality"? And I don't see why you are jumping to intent. Intent is just a calculation of a situation -- your intent is to cross the road, you evaluate the situation by looking left an right, you cross when it is safe, when you reach the other side you have achieved your intent. There is NO POSSIBLE decision that can be made without intent. It is literally a calculation. And at the end you are discussing the morality of self defense / violence, saving life and then again you mention "modern morality" and say that modern morality labels all of that as a lie? What? >> And that gets into discussions about "the greater good" and we see the propagana then for what it is: in books, movies, television, everywhere the mantra "the greater good is just the lesser of two evils! Its still evil!" Sure, but supposing that were true, why? Who benefits from this notion? Any government that wants to maintain power is going to maximize 1. the rules it citizens have to follow (for control), 2. minimize its oversight, responsibilities, and the rules it can be held responsible for. A double standard. And what message are they going to spread? What? What gets into the discussion about the greater good? You claim that propaganda claims the mantra as being "the greater good is lesser of two eveils but it's still evil" ... what? If it is the lesser of two evils, what is the other evil? >> "two wrongs dont make a right", "the lesser of two evils, and the greater good, are still evil" etc. / Because who makes the rules and who defines evil? / The same people writing the propaganda and telling you not to challenge them. I appreciate what you wrote and I kind of like this challenge sometimes so I'm just having a bit of fun here. You proposed something that has no meaning in your first statement, tried to talk about whether or not it makes sense to follow rules, something about morality, greater good and propaganda, ending with questions that are not related to anything. I am curious, what is the very first statement actually supposed to be? What question are you interested in asking and exploring? Can I get just a single question that you are trying to answer and we can work through it backwards from there?

parent
link

[–] • 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.

> 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.

parent
link

[–] • 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.

parent
link

[–] • 1 pt

Your obligation boils down to this: if the rules dont make sense, is it worth defying them? If it is, and it is worth it, then you ought to.

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

The challenge is to properly identify such people and treat them as dangerous objects, but still respect genuine people.

parent
link

[–] • 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.

parent
link

(post is archived)

You can claim this sub in /s/subrequest