Comments on: Morality

By: This Week in Reaction | The Reactivity Place

This Week in Reaction | The Reactivity Place — Sat, 15 Nov 2014 04:19:14 +0000

[…] decided to take a shot across the bow of his co-belligerents on the “Outer Right” with Morality. Or at least I think that’s what (and whom) it was. It deserves an answer I think. One from […]

By: Alrenous

Alrenous — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:22:05 +0000

It bothers me a lot that by changing input style, an apparently different person can emerge. (E.g. writing longhand versus dictation.)
Obviously there is a best person to choose. In my case it is the most accurate. But since the apparent person is a function of the input style yet all measurements must use some input style, I know of no way to check which is most accurate.

By: Alrenous

Alrenous — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:11:18 +0000

A vicious cycle here.
The Sophist develops rhetoric to evade or vitiate a moral system, for their personal gain. In this case Catholicism.
However, Sophists mainly live among each other, and the evasion system can be generalized. As a result, the Sophists develop more ‘morality’ in an attempt to control each other. In response, they develop more sophisticated ways of evading responsibility. In response, they develop more controls…

The religious trad stopped being competent some time ago. The world was theirs to lose, and they lost it.

By: Alrenous

Alrenous — Fri, 14 Nov 2014 11:03:22 +0000

Much as ‘social’ justice means not-justice, ‘pathological’ altruism means not-altruism. If altruism itself were truly bad, it wouldn’t need the modifier. (Generalize point to taste.)

By: forkinhell

forkinhell — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 23:46:50 +0000

@ Nick B. Steves

Are you using the judgement “sufficiently sophisticated” in a moral sense? If not you’re obviously demurring to a higher system (in which case morality is weakened); if so, how do appeal to the progressives’ ‘highest” morality (which views your own as retrograde)? If the ratchet always moves left a sufficiently sophisticated morality can never hope to win out.

By: scientism

scientism — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 19:37:04 +0000

@ Nick B. Steves

I think you’ve hit the nail on the head. It’s quantity vs. quality. Progressives are prolific in their denouncements, even if they’re morally shallow.

By: Nick B. Steves

Nick B. Steves — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 18:33:31 +0000

Sufficiently sophisticated moral reasoning has an end: stable, well-understood rules.

Insufficiently sophisticated moral reasoning simply leads to more and more moral reasoning, which is a feature not a bug to those who wish to be seen as more moral.

By: Chris B

Chris B — Thu, 13 Nov 2014 00:13:37 +0000

@scientism This needs further discussion. Seems to me that you are correct in that progs avoid and act in opposition to morals and moralising, but only in the context of recognised religious moral systems (as I think soapjackel was pointing out) Maybe this is anouther aspect of their success at sliping under the radar and forcing their religion on the west, whilst getting away with claiming it is not. I think it’s still moralising, but you have a point regarding the way they present it. Really needs further analysis. Suprised the religious trad are not all over this.

By: scientism

scientism — Wed, 12 Nov 2014 17:24:17 +0000

When does morality become so unsophisticated that it stops being morality? For example, the reason progressives say racism is bad and stop at that, I’d argue, is because they see it entirely in terms of harm. When you make racist remarks, they claim, you’re either hurting someone or could potentially hurt someone. Sometimes they’ll argue that “harmless” racism (jokes or satire) is actually harmful because it encourages others or creates an environment in which others are more likely to engage in harmful racism. The whole outlook is quasi-causal. It’s like they’re telling you to stop punching someone or stop waving a gun around (their arguments against racist humour are similar to their arguments against toy guns). They have to establish a harm because in the context in which they justify their actions, you’re only allowed to intervene to stop one person from harming or coercing another. So they have to establish some kind of psychological or economic harm or “disenfranchisement.”

It just seems odd to say that a group that’s characterised by such an epic lack of sophistication in moral thought has moralising as a defining feature.

By: Peter A. Taylor

Peter A. Taylor — Wed, 12 Nov 2014 14:06:27 +0000

"combination of imperative tone with epistemological vacuity" This sounds like a definition of "sanctimony", as you were using it here.