(revised 03/08/2019)

(edited 03/14/2019)

Moral Relativity: 

The view that what is morally right or wrong depends on what someone thinks. 

"Normal is an illusion. What is normal to the spider is chaos to the fly."

 

Moral Objectivity:

The idea that right and wrong can be common and universal, such as it is good to eat and stay healthy.  Both the spider and the fly are united in a common goal here.

 

Quote Citation: Character 'Morticia' from The Addams Family

 

Just who decides on what is ideal? Who decides on what is normal? Who decides what is not to be continued? It always seems to change with who is in charge.  It is relative to the current leadership, and the environment.  Natural law for people is the human regional variable which defines our innate behaviors, and it is dependent upon nature and our environments. Positive law is the government variable which defines what we are legally permitted to do, and it is dependent upon the relative whims of who is in power.  Purism, or conventionalism, is the vehicle of moral relativism, is inseparable from positive law, and positive law always functions in spite of natural law.

This I will use to highlight the problem with unchecked moral relativity.  Unchecked moral relativity means there is little in common between leaders and/or the people, and this could encourage chaos without a moderator.  That moderator is moral objectivity via utilitarianism, and the concept there is under heavy attack by parasitic forces within academia.

Moral objectivity is the idea morals can be common and universal.  Moral relativity is required first though as a reference, so at least two opposing ideas can be compared and combined into a better idea which resolves potential conflict.  Utilitarianism is the vehicle for this process, where merit is valued more than some sort of model stereotype.  Without this concept, humans would not have been able to evolve out of a primitive tribal state socially.  Without utilitarianism coming from leadership, governments tend to create an increasingly elusive model based upon purism or conventionalism, and enforce it quite strictly through the justice system.  We would also not have been able to build nations like Canada or the US, where people of many overlapping ethinic and cultural backgrounds go to live and work without skirmishes or warfare.

We have a rich history of of ethnocide, slavery, fallen empires, and dead faiths. Why did these bloody events happen? Why did all of these empires have to fail?  They fell because there was no will to socially evolve past a certain point, or they were unable to secure peace and were annihilated.  This happened because the state in question abandoned the utilitarianism which saw it form, and spiraled out into unsustainable weakness and incohesion.

These empires all fell either from a foreign entity, such as a rival, hostile state, or they collapsed within themselves under their own weight of corruption, infighting, and social stagnance.  The causes of this are actually rooted in the same cause of the leadership losing touch and turning totalitarian and draconian.  This happened because the pure, ideal image of the empire had become too muddied and distant from human nature.  This will cause the empire to fall one way by conquest or the other by revolt, depending on who has had enough first; The population, or the empire's neighbouring rivals.

 

"Just who decides on what is pure? Who decides on what is normal? Who decides what is not to be continued? It always seems to change with who is in charge."

 

When the idea of moral objectivity is under attack as it is by academia, it slowly begins to change the culture of a nation away from cooperation and compromise, and the government will begin to favour moral relativism over moral objectivity. This will begin the slide towards totalitarianism or collapse.  This isn't enabled to happen because things aren't comfortable or not ideal necessarily, but because things are too comfortable.  The ball is dropped when people begin to forget the importance of community, merit, and disturbingly assume all cultures and peoples are equal at the same time.  They are not.  I am not even equal to myself last year. 

People as individuals are innately unique, and in different regions of the world, they will socially evolve in both accordance to their differing environments, and social interactions within and without the nations they are from.  In the West, where we have many landed peoples of overlapping ethnic backgrounds mixed with aboriginal peoples, it is actually both quite ignorant, and unfair to assume people are the same from an egalitarian perspective.  I believe this is one of our largest philosophical mistakes we have made rooted in good intentions.  I think the key is respect and dignity, and the best way to preserve that is to properly respect our innate differences, and restore cooperation towards a common goal.

Merit is one of these elusive objective virtures which can only be appreciated through cooperation, if not conflict.  Efficiency at skills of any sort are universally valued everywhere.  Without this preservation of merit, people will not face the necessary adversity needed to build their character and spirit.  No stress means no growth.  It is as if a body builder stops going to the gym.  They will physically atrophy due to inactivity.  The same things happen to people mentally when they face no real challenges or stresses in life.  Without the will to cooperate objectively, merit will lose value without conflict, and people will stagnate developmentally until there is conflict.

 

"Without this preservation of merit, people will not face the necessary adversity needed to build their character and spirit.  No stress means no growth."

 

I say this because I believe we are currently in the phase between merit losing its value, and the inevitable conflict which will be coming involving the increasingly uncooperative populace in the West.  For now, I think non-appreciation of merit leads to people expecting, and at the leadership level, enforcing the 'equality of outcome' commonly associated with criticisms of the neo-Marxist Left.  I believe we need to preserve the necessity of merit within Western society by only providing equality of opportunity.  Here, merit should find value again with natural competitiveness being more universally restored.  In order to build the will for this back up, a sense of utilitarianism needs to be restored through moral objectivity.  Burden for this lies with the education systems within the West. 

This should ensure our most able have a fair shot at success beginning right in school, and ensure people remain out of critical positions of trust they are ill-suited for at the same time later.  Left unchecked, this leads to a cultural downwards spiraling effect.

Ity may sound cold to claim it, but in the end, we as human beings are our own most valuable resource.  We need to both respect our own dignity, but also always remember to utilise ourselves efficiently.  We have had success with this in the past, and I believe we will have success with it again in the future.

Not everyone will be highly intelligent in order to be our best educators, doctors, and leaders, and not everyone will have the courage and integrity to be in the military.  This is why we have to reverse course now on this 'unconditional reward culture', alongside this 'you can do anything, regardless of innate merits' we are fomenting in the education systems all over the West.  It is wreaking havoc on our culture with people in critical positions they are not suited for.

 

"In the West, where we have many landed peoples of overlapping ethnic backgrounds mixed with aboriginal peoples, it is actually both quite ignorant, and unfair to assume people are the same from an egalitarian perspective."

 

When things become too comfortable, There would be no more need to rely on neighbours.  There would be no more need to rely solely on family; No real need for friends going to great lengths for one another.  Without being taught the importance of moral objectivity in school, People begin to take each other for granted, unity erodes, cooperation erodes, and the nation becomes vulnerable to subversion, internally or externally.

Moral objectivity is required to a degree to even make friends at all, because two people have to set aside differences and closely co-exist, heading towards a common agenda.  This can be vocational, or for hobbies like hunting, video games, movies, etc...  I expect most to already know that one, but many are losing grasp of how important moral objectivity is in any diverse culture.  Without it, relativism is absolute. 

There would be no reason to get along with anyone outside of necessity.  The culture will become nihilistic and apathetic, where no one would even lift a finger to help a stranger hit by a car in the street.  The governments would not be able to support such a culture, and either need to enforce balkanisation and draconian laws to keep the peace, or face collapse entirely.  China is an excellent example of such an absolutist, morally relativist state.

 

"Without being taught the importance of moral objectivity in school, People begin to take each other for granted, unity erodes, cooperation erodes, and the nation becomes vulnerable to subversion, internally or externally."

 

The biggest vulnerability which leads to this absolute, morally relativistic culture is the centralisation of power.  In almost every case, control is usually centralised on an imperial figure or a council of select individuals. As nations grow, this centralisation begins to slowly erode the utilitarianism which gave birth to the nation.  It will erode efficiency, and subsequently it will create waste, conflict, and internal strife.  This will either require totalitarianism, or lead to collapse.

Rome as one example suffered from the muddying of its intended existence, inefficiency, and internal strife.  All was brought on by the degredation of cooperation within the government over time.  As Rome conquered more parts of the West, the empire started to lose cohesion. Attempts were made to maintain power; Everything from abolishing the senate to canonising another state religion, Christianity, to appease its growing population of slaves and new lands were tried, which inevitably failed. Rome could not keep up with human nature and maintain itself at the same time. The empire was split with one half, Western Rome collapsing almost immediately, and the other half, Byzantium, falling to Islamists in the mid 15'th century.  This was brought on by the lack of moral objectivity necessary to keep people united in and out of government, and the military.

Another, more sudden and spectacular example would be Nazi Germany. This brief empire grew out of a terrible punitive treaty, and nearly had all of Western Europe under its control after less than 10 years of conquest. It had a very strong vision of purism, was able to easily overwhelm its neighbours, and even outmatch the British Empire which was suffering under atrophy. It all began to come crashing down in 1941 when Nazi Germany fully embraced supremacism, ethnocide, invaded the Soviet Union, and overextended itself. As far as empires go, this was a quick turning point, and after ~4 years, Nazi Germany was no more. Too many enemies too fast.

No matter what you call it; Communism, fascism, absolute monarchy, despotism, etc; Totalitarianism, by another name still smells like shit. They always collapse in the same few ways in the end, and they are rooted in absolute moral relativism and the absense of moral objectivity.

The point is, it is not always prudent to leave human nature only to the ideology of one or a select few individuals.  Without moral objectivity, The few can never speak for the many, and be truly fair to human nature.  Leaders need to be able to understand and respect the needs and perspectives of those they lead, and those of other leaders as well.  Without moral objectivity, there can only be tyranny and anarchy; There can be no balance, because there would be no scope for compromise.

 

"The point is, it is not always prudent to leave human nature only to the ideology of one or a select few individuals. Without moral objectivity, the few can never speak for the many, and be truly fair to human nature."

 

Debate specifically in this area is deliberately being sabotaged by radical leftists at almost every turn, and academia is seemingly being forced to promote mediocre economic and social doctrine which excludes moral objectivity. This needs to stop, or else the damage could potentially become irreversible. Increasingly, colleges and universities are becoming one-sided indoctrination centres, and this will work to destroy any true diversity within a society under the guise of that very same 'diversity'. No one seems to properly understand that the more a government bureaucracy becomes large, biased, and authoritarian, the more of a totalitarian tool it becomes in the hands of the wrong party or special interest group. This is a dangerous trend among some special interest groups in Western academia.

In many regions in the West, Specifically North America, we are seeing increasing tendencies of public sector bureaucracies stifling free speech, reprimanding individuals for 'wrongthink', and even encouraging racial, religious, and cultural bigotry in some cases.  The true roots of innate and cultural bigotry are not properly being explored in academia anymore, and even I as a blogger have constructed my own creed of non-egalitarian secularism in the mean time.  The West is approaching absolute moral relativism, and we are getting dangerously close to that threshold for collapse.

This is playing out for gender and transgender issues as well. Radical gender division is being encouraged, and transgenderism is being pushed onto children before they are properly prepared to tackle the adult complexities and potential for serious abuse. These problems are as well rooted in a select few individuals forcing a 'normal' on the many without properly accounting for needs and necessity. We are witnessing the damage firsthand.

This in academia is very disturbing, because it shows there are forces within some faculties actually trying to destroy the West by deliberately eroding the morally objective virtues of cooperation and compromise.

 

"The true roots of innate and cultural prejudice and racism are not properly being explored in academia anymore, and even I as a blogger have constructed my own creed of non-egalitarian secualrism in the mean time."

 

Moral objectivity means respecting our own nature, understanding people are innately individuals with unique needs and desires, and promoting peace and cooperation despite.  Absolute moral relativity with the absense of moral objectivity robs humanity of the tool we need to maintain the lifestyle of peace and trade we enjoy throughout the West.  This balance needs to be restored, or we are headed for tyranny or collapse.