Social Construction of Morality

[Fred O'Malley]

Social Construction of Morality

The emergent message of 'Communitarianism' is challenging the tradition of liberal rationalism that has sustained much recent research in moral development. This is much more than a matter of values; behind these two positions are very different ways of thinking about psychological and social processes. Liberal rationalists come out of a strongly cognitive, individualistic psychological tradition, while communitarians speak in the language of hermeneutics and social constructionism. This distinction underpins the values that each position espouses, for values arise, I argue, directly from psychological assumptions. This has profound implications for moral education. The communitarian worldview prescribes rather different approaches from that of liberal rationalism. If moral education is to succeed, we have to understand the developmental processes in which we are intervening, and if we wish to challenge alternative positions we must appreciate how their infrastructure sustains their rhetoric, and how this differs from where we stand. In this paper I discuss these issues, I offer a speculative blueprint for communitarian educational principles, and I consider its strengths and weaknesses.

Morality is the art of living by someone else's code of ethics.

http://tigger.uic.edu/~lnucci/MoralE...les/haste.html

[Fred O'Malley]

Morality is a WHITE social construct, it is racial in nature and without whites there would be little if any morality as we understand it today.

Ethics & Morality: Philosophy of Behavior, Choice, and Character

Atheists and theists frequently debate morality on several levels: what is the origin of morality, what are proper moral behaviors, how should morality be taught, what is the nature of morality, etc. The terms ethics and morality are often used interchangeably and can mean the same in casual conversation, but morality refers to moral standards or conduct while ethics refers to the formal study of such standards and conduct. For theists, morality typically comes from gods and ethics is a function of theology; for atheists, morality is a natural feature of reality or human society and ethics is a part of philosophy.

http://atheism.about.com/od/philosop...s/p/Ethics.htm

[Rae Kiley]

Atheists and theists frequently debate morality on several levels: what is the origin of morality, what are proper moral behaviors, how should morality be taught, what is the nature of morality, etc. The terms ethics and morality are often used interchangeably and can mean the same in casual conversation, but morality refers to moral standards or conduct while ethics refers to the formal study of such standards and conduct. For theists, morality typically comes from gods and ethics is a function of theology; for atheists, morality is a natural feature of reality or human society and ethics is a part of philosophy.

Morality should be taught at home..it's the parents responsibility to instill "morality" in their children. Period. That's all I have to say.

[Blanche de Glace]

Originally Posted by Rae Kiley

Morality should be taught at home..it's the parents responsibility to instill "morality" in their children. Period. That's all I have to say.

They should also set a good example for their children and not behave like scumbags.

[John Q. Ferguson]

Originally Posted by Fred O'Malley

Morality is a WHITE social construct, it is racial in nature and without whites there would be little if any morality as we understand it today.

Are you saying none of these specimens have any morality?










All social groups have morality. These "gentlemen" above are all the equal of the white man in having one.

The real point is that white morality has been proven by history to be superior.

[P.E.]

Am I wrong in my belief that when I see another fat Amerikwan feeding their kid processed food, cheetos, pizza rolls, etc, that they are immoral?

Am I wrong in my belief that being fat and ugly and lazy, is visually offensive and violent to your fellow group mates, and thus immoral?

Is there anything more emotionally violent and draining than when you see a 500lb negress waddling at 0.005 mph through the checkout line at the store, saying "I'm goin' I'm goin!", completely ruining your fucking day?

Of course, to the retarded kwa, it is the moral position to say "they can't help it".

How weak and backwards. To encourage and validate weakness is 'moral'. What a huge conundrum!

Well, that is how I feel. And it is my moral position to say fuck people who choose to be so weak, let the eugenics of 'God' (which is really man) take it's course, when they don't have sex and fail to reproduce.

And I should say, is there anything MORE MORAL, than to add to the worlds aesthetic value? I get a certain 'boost' (for lack of a better word), when I see someone who has their shit together so very well. Someone that has 'willing to struggle' written all over them, be it a man or a woman, who makes the effort to make the world look better (and not JUST in their physical avatar).

I think at the end of the day, the final question, and the final 'Moral Judgement', when it comes down to all of it, is what is more aesthetically pleasing? Like Schopenhauer would say, a generalization is worth it's weight in gold. I think this one is. You can take this one and answer your choice for how you want to forward construction and building in your world, rather than saying "this period or that period architecture".

You can even use this generalization for choosing which people you wish to live among, and on what land, and how they should act. And equally, which people are the most worthy of being conquered because they are the immoral who make the world ugly.

[Fred O'Malley]

I believe morality is the effort to rise above the immoral plain. The question is, who's the judge?

From my perspective (as I have been taught from birth) overt sexuality is wrong. For the record, I believe I have been taught a premise which is at odds with nature, making it a flawed concept. I now believe overt sexuality is a mating ritual and is natural.

Is it really immoral to shoot a bastard who richly deserves it?

WTF is morality, anyway, except someone else's idea of that which is proper and what is not.

Morality is therefore a general set of values which the majority agree are acceptable.

Conversely, immorality seems to be the blatent assault on that which others find to be moral. e.g. flamming faggots flaunting their repulsive natures.

(No need to point it out, I can see the conflict in my rant. The difference is that fags are unnatural)

[l1235]

Perhaps "morality" should be imposed by the Ubermencshen on the untermenschen....certainly not universal application, as in a democracy.

Nietzsche's moral philosophy is primarily critical in orientation: he attacks morality both for its commitment to untenable descriptive (metaphysical and empirical) claims about human agency, as well as for the deleterious impact of its distinctive norms and values on the flourishing of the highest types of human beings (Nietzsche's “higher men”). His positive ethical views are best understood as combining a kind of consequentialist perfectionism as Nietzsche's implicit theory of the good, with a conception of human perfection involving both formal and substantive elements. Because Nietzsche, however, is an anti-realist about morality, he takes neither his positive vision, nor those aspects of his critique that depend upon it, to have any special epistemic status, a fact which helps explain his rhetoric and the circumspect character of his “esoteric” moralizing. Although Nietzsche's illiberal attitudes (for example, about human equality) are apparent, there are no grounds for ascribing to him a political philosophy, since he has no systematic (or even partly systematic) views about the nature of state and society. As an esoteric moralist, Nietzsche aims at freeing higher human beings from their false consciousness about morality (their false belief that this morality is good for them), not at a transformation of society at large.

The most base form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal. - Aristotle 370BC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4RqARFz01g&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m4RqARFz01g&feature=related

[Alex Linder]

Morality itself is a tad optimistic. Most people can barely figure out how to put their pants on, let alone worry about figuring out some code they're supposed to comply with and then actually doing it.

[Moose]

I wonder if Nietzsche was ever in a fistfight.

Morality to me seems to be, at it's base, the avoidance of animal behavior. What is good and evil but the battle between the rational brain and the animal brain, both on the individual level and the collective?

All the world's civilized religions, and the Zeus-insane Greeks, seem to focus on two things. Asceticism as a method, with the understanding that base desires and vices lead to suffering for the individual. I think E. Michael Jones put it well by mapping out the evolution of Christian morality (more accurately Western morality, as there is nothing entirely foreign in Christian moral principles to the Greek view) into the Enlightenment idea that man was just energy, and thus able to be swayed into constant motion, constant searching for pleasure rather than a sovereign, autonomous ie moral individual.

"The good man, though a slave, is free; the wicked, though he reigns, is a slave, and not the slave of a single man, but what is worse, the slave of as many masters as he has vices."

Buddhist Enlightenment, Hindu Nirvana, Taoist "emptiness" I think they call it. They are all the same concept. I've seen it as a recurring theme in Greek thought, and it seemed to find it's culmination in Stoicism. The monotheistic religions call it "sin," sin being the lack of God, or another way to look at it, the suffering the rational brain or spirit feels at the expense of the animal brain. The ancients just observed cause and effect and drew conclusions. Seeing as how all these fellas came to roughly the same conclusions, there must be something to this.

The second focus was the idea of altruism. Immoral behavior towards others is a violation of the social contract. We can't get shit done if you're gonna go around fucking up the program. "Ya know we're livin' in a society here!" as George Costanza would say.

The oft criticized Christian meekness, was an insurgency tactic to co-opt the Roman empire with love and friendship. Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's, and render unto God what is God's. If a man asks you to go a mile, go two (referring to the Roman law that a Roman soldier could make an occupied jew carry his equipment for up to one mile). Don't piss off the Romans or they'll kill you. While they're not killing you, recruit the disenfranchised as the hardcore base (particularly women living under the Roman pater familias) and let the faith grow from there. It worked. An interesting little take on things here... http://www.tdaxp.com/archive/2006/03...istianity.html

Asceticism and altruism as methods form the base of all morality in my estimation. Right and wrong had it's birth as a matter of what was practical for the individual and the collective.

[Fred O'Malley]

Good post Moose, you connected the dots nicely. You demonstrate continuity across social boundries and show similarities shared by isolated cultures. Nice work.

[Fred Streed]

Originally Posted by Moose

...the Zeus-insane Greeks...

That's good. I like it.

The problem with asceticism is that the base desires (for food, sex, stuff like that) are necessary for the maintenance of life. They do lead to suffering, but suffering is also an inescapable part of life.

There was an article in some science magazine recently where they interviewed E.O. Wilson, the sociobiology guy. The problem of altruism came up. Wilson said his work on altruism had basically been misrepresented, with the emphasis on kin selection. He said that while kin selection does enter into it, it mainly gives a GROUP evolutionary advantage to those groups that bear the genes for it. They will have an advantage over other groups that don't practice altruism. Of course this has been downplayed or outright ignored by the usual suspects.

Good post, as always, Moose.

[Fred O'Malley]

What does Altruism really mean?

There are two forms of Altruism, psychological and biological. This describes the bioplogical form.

Altruistic behaviour is common throughout the animal kingdom, particularly in species with complex social structures. For example, vampire bats regularly regurgitate blood and donate it to other members of their group who have failed to feed that night, ensuring they do not starve. In numerous bird species, a breeding pair receives help in raising its young from other ‘helper’ birds, who protect the nest from predators and help to feed the fledglings. Vervet monkeys give alarm calls to warn fellow monkeys of the presence of predators, even though in doing so they attract attention to themselves, increasing their personal chance of being attacked. In social insect colonies (ants, wasps, bees and termites), sterile workers devote their whole lives to caring for the queen, constructing and protecting the nest, foraging for food, and tending the larvae. Such behaviour is maximally altruistic: sterile workers obviously do not leave any offspring of their own — so have personal fitness of zero — but their actions greatly assist the reproductive efforts of the queen.

MORE: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/altruism-biological/

[Alex Linder]

Originally Posted by Fred Streed

That's good. I like it.

I like that at least he's trying to fight fire with fire, but I ask, where is the insanity? I can point to a thousand example of christ lunatics acting in anti-white ways most would agree merit the description "insane," and I can trace the insanity directly to christian religious doctrine. Can Moose do that with jews? What did Greeks do that merits the adjective "insane" out of their belief in Zeus? I doubt he can point to a single thing.

[Alex Linder]

Again, it is the christ cult that asserts morality is universal. The world is in standing opposition to this theory, but that bothers the anti-intellectual christ-lunatic masses not the least. They see the street niggers cheering the OJ verdict, cheering the dog torturer Vick, and they blip right over it. Or they do the tut-tut-tut Nancy Grace thing. Niggers are immoral because they don't accept and measure up to the standards of middle-class whites, which are held, unthinkingly, to be universal.

Why should african jungle animals be expected to share morality with Europeans? Are these two races equal or even similar in any other way?

Hell no.

Why is christ-lunacy continually at war with common sense, and why are we "immoral" if we side with common sense over christian doctrine?

[Fred O'Malley]

This discusses the psychological nature of Altruism.

One of the main problems of capitalism is that it assumes that people behave utterly selfishly, which is demonstrably untrue for societies in which almost everyone's physical needs are met. To ignore the social element and disregard issues such as purpose, relationships and self-esteem is to deny something essential to human psychology. Mechanistic production and rapacious consumption do not contribute to a fulfilling life, far less substitute for one. Treating people as "human resources" - i.e. as tools for making money - is resulting in widespread stress, depression and meaninglessness amongst both rich and poor in the so-called 'developed' countries.

In many richer countries this new mentality is visible through the products on offer. They are proud to be ‘kinder to the environment’ or 'fairly traded', appealing to altruistically-minded customers who like the idea that in buying them they are helping and not hurting others, even others who are far away and live different lives in different countries.

People are generally keen to promote well-being of others, and a new generation is working as volunteers far more than their parents ever did. Their mentality has shifted from scarcity to abundance in accordance with changing circumstances; feeding themselves and their families is not such a struggle for them as it was for their parents. Young people have higher aims than just maximizing their income; the world is full of needs unmet by 'market forces' - for example, the needs of the financially poor. A new generation is discovering the tremendous value of making a real contribution to the lives of others.

LINKS: http://www.altruists.org/ideas/psychology/

[Leonard Rouse]

Originally Posted by Alex Linder

Again, it is the christ cult that asserts morality is universal. The world is in standing opposition to this theory, but that bothers the anti-intellectual christ-lunatic masses not the least. They see the street niggers cheering the OJ verdict, cheering the dog torturer Vick, and they blip right over it. Or they do the tut-tut-tut Nancy Grace thing. Niggers are immoral because they don't accept and measure up to the standards of middle-class whites, which are held, unthinkingly, to be universal.

Why should african jungle animals be expected to share morality with Europeans? Are these two races equal or even similar in any other way?

Hell no.

Why is christ-lunacy continually at war with common sense, and why are we "immoral" if we side with common sense over christian doctrine?

Christians can't define what sin is, specifically, but it's central to their cult doctrine and to be avoided/rectified at all cost.

So, lacking any substantive base, sin becomes equivalent with the likes/dislikes of the adherent, which are imagined to be universal, since lowlifes really do think that everyone thinks just like them. Any alternative is, literally for them, unthinkable, to the point of experiencing mental anguish at the mere suggestion.

[Fred O'Malley]

While I believe Christanity is submersed in altruism/morality, I think it is through a commonly accepted, yet unwritten, law of human nature, not necessarily through doctrine.

In most human groups, significantly missing in jews, there is the theme of morality and altruism. Why should Christianity be different in that regard?

The point being, the higher the value of the human subspecies, the higher their regard for the wellbeing of others. Therefore, the white race is 'the cream of the crop' among humans. We have an evoloutionary advantage due largely to our human nature.

[Rick Ronsavelle]

"Sin, in religion, is an act that violates a known moral rule. The term sin may also refer to the state of having committed such a violation. Commonly, the moral code of conduct is decreed by a divine entity, i.e. divine law. Sin may also refer to refraining from action or simply desiring to act in violation of a moral norm. Fundamentally, sin is rebellion against, or resistance to, the direction of supreme authority, and enmity toward, avoidance of, or hatred of the good."

There, that clears it right up.

>>>Liberals hate common sense as much as anyone else. Where does this originate?

[Fred O'Malley]

There is a vast gulf between Christians and Christian leaders.

While I agree that people don't usually question axioms instilled from birth, I don't agree that Christians, as a rule, are stupid. Their leaders are corrupt, as are almost all leaders of the masses, but following the teachings of parents is intrinsic in humans.

The leaders always have an agenda, the rank & file usually do not. So, I don't think you can paint them with the same broad brush.

The followers are being faithful to their teachings, and I don't think you can blame them for that, for failing to actually dig into the foundations of those beliefs. I do see more and more doing so, but the remainder aren't corrupt or stupid for failing to do so.

I believe they are trying to do what they think is right, and that can never be wrong.