Posted by Jeremy on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:13 | #

There are no ‘duties’. Duties can be used to justify anything, such as ‘duty’ to your government. When duties conflict, what happens? Huh?

There is no ethical basis for white nationalism. Those who think so are fools.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:39 | #

“There is no ethical basis for white nationalism.”  (—Jeremy)

What that means, Jeremy, is it’s unethical.  What’s unethical about it?
______

Moratorium-plus-Repatriation!

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 14:47 | #

Jeremy,

If one does not have a duty to one’s forebears and one’s children, and if that duty is not ethical as well as genetic in character, one is, frankly, a lost, socialist soul.

Ethics treats of one’s moral duty to the community, does it not?  You seem to be saying that ethics can only be ethics if it is restricted to altruism to out-group members - aliens.  But that is racial socialism and, like all socialism, a dead-end, against Nature and a lie.

You’ve got to work much harder to substantiate your case.  Be my guest.

Posted by Jeremy on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:02 | #

To Fred Scrooby:

Not everything is black-and-white. Not everything is either ‘ethical’ or ‘unethical’.

To Guessedworker:

I’m not sure what you mean by socialist, which is an economic theory. My point was this: if obligation to ancestors exist, how does this extend to race? Technically, all humans are related to each other to some extent. Now, if you want to go back further, you can argue that we share an evolutionary history with other animals, and thus have a ‘duty’ to other animals.

The problem with thinking in terms of ‘duty to the community’ is that there are multiple communities which sometimes conflict with each other. Which ‘duty’ is most important is a subjective arbitrary judgement. For patriots, the nation is most important. For racial nationalists, the race is most important.

Posted by Johannes Climacus on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:50 | #

“There are no ‘duties’...There is no ethical basis for white nationalism.”

If there are no duties, then there is no ethical basis for anything, and nothing is justified. Jeremy knows this, Guessedworker. His post expresses moral nihilism, which is a position as compatible with WN as with anything else. We do not need to ground our judgements in first principles.

Posted by AD on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 17:51 | #

There is no ethical basis for white nationalism. -Jeremy

If we look at interracial crime statistics, and show that whites are by far the most vulnerable in multiracial societies, is it not a matter of ethics to advocate for one’s child a safe racial environment(ie a white nation)?  The notion that all humans are related to each other, therefore we have no special ‘duties’ to what we perceive as whites over non-whites, is meaningless in light of this.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:14 | #

Jeremy,

Racial socialism is my own phrase, I’m afraid, but is meant to describe the modern politics of absolute racial equality under which we labour so heavily.  Another such expression is cultural Marxism - which, similarly, does not fail in linguistic terms because classical Marxism is an economic doctrine.

Race is lineage, that’s all.  It is real - even, one can now say, genetically proven if you happen to believe that is important.  It is central to our being, our identity, our character, our human appetites and capacities.  It is extemely important to us all.  It is certainly NOT an idea like Constitutional Patriotism (civic values, if you happen to be a Blairite Englishman).

It is also certainly not the preserve of “racial nationalists”, by which I presume you mean people you have been taught to dislike.  Everyone who knows that he or she belongs to a distinct human population can speak of that distinctiveness with confidence - pride, should they so wish.  That’s healthy and natural, and all native peoples throughout the non-Western world do so rightly and unashamedly.

Only our peoples have been bullied out of that, and then only in the last five decades - by those racial socialists I was speaking about.

As to duty, you are surely aware that peoples defend their own interests, and also endeavour to advance them.  This is ethnic genetic competition ... human nature. (Talk of “racial nationalists” in this regard is childish or dishonest, depending on whether or not you are aware of the extent to which your thinking has been engendered from without.)

As regards your advancement of patriotism as “duty to nation”, I think you must mean duty to country.  Nation is a fuzzy term and we do not need it.  Love of country arises through the agency of ethnic genetic interests.  Try asking the North Africans and SSA’s rioting in France if they love the country in a patriotic sense.

Jeremy, MR exists to be clear and open on issues about which we in the West have been deceived for a very long time.  If you are of European descent read us, open your mind and give yourself a chance to blow the cobwebs away.

Posted by Jeremy on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:43 | #

You should know that since I reject duties, I reject rights as well. My ‘ethics’, therefore, is utilitarian. Whether the interests of an ethnic group are ‘prior’ to national or other interests depend on whether it has pleasurable consequences for humanity. To say that ethnicities have their own interests is true, I think. But whether these interests are *justified* is another question. If it is in the interest of ‘north africans’ to kill other ethnicies, is it ‘justified’? To say so would entail that their interests are prior to the interests of others. Which you can’t prove by a vague reference to ‘duty’, since this works both ways.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 18:57 | #

Taylor’s position falters a little here,

...if the newcomers were white, but doing exactly what current immigrants do, we would shut them out without a fuss. Were it not for cries of “racism,” the borders would close tomorrow.

It doesn’t hold up in the historical wash. When in fact, diverse white ethnic groups were pouring into America, displacing native Americans, bringing higher levels of crime and disease, forming in indigestable clumps, they were not shut out. Undoubtedly cries of racism are problematic, and used as a propaganda hammer to nail down dissent, however the real issue is money.

Edwin S. Rubenstein writes,

Hispanic employment rose by a whopping 212,000 positions in October (2005)while only 2,000 new jobs were created for non-Hispanics. In percentage terms the Hispanic job count rose by 1.137 percent, or 569-times the miniscule 0.002 percent growth in non-Hispanic jobs.

http://www.vdare.com/rubenstein/051107_nd.htm

As Sam Francis has written, transnational corporations have no loyalty to country or people. And it’s transis that are running the show.

“Corporations’ profits depend on expanding their market shares, which means expanding exports, and on driving down their costs, which means using cheaper imported inputs, low-wage immigrant labor, and transferring production overseas.

The benefit accrues even to middle class America. If you pay a cleaning service, using immigrant labour to clean your house $90 instead of $150, it puts $60 directly into your pocket. Even if the rascist taboo were eliminated, unfettered immigration will not cease.

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:05 | #

Desmond,

This is a conversation we had at Airstrip One, I think.  Yes, the ground-rules would have to change to the extent that there is something worth more than money to the employer-class.  This is where we part company, me to my child-like idealism and completely unfounded belief in human nature and you to your world-weary cynicism!

Posted by Guessedworker on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:15 | #

Jeremy,

Ethnic interests don’t wait around to be justified.  They exist, like everything in nature, because they are evolutionarily fit.  I am concerned with what “is”, not with what is justified.  It just so happens that what “is” has, with regard to race in the Western world, been the subject of much deception.

You can cleave to your belief in utilitarianism - which sounds like individualism (yes?) - as much as you wish, but you can’t alter what “is”.  Human reason is not powerful enough.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 19:37 | #

“The benefit accrues even to middle class America. If you pay a cleaning service, using immigrant labour to clean your house $90 instead of $150, it puts $60 directly into your pocket.”  (—Desmond)

And simultaneously takes the $60 right back out again in myriad indirect costs actually totalling much more—(not to mention the loss of national identity, a disaster of such incalculable magnitude as to be untranslatable into dollars-and-cents terms). 

“Even if the rascist taboo were eliminated, unfettered immigration will not cease.” 

We don’t know yet exactly what it will be that will make it cease—that remains to be seen (cease it will, though—make no mistake).  But elimination of the “racist” taboo would open the floodgates to vastly greater, bolder criticism of all the actors pushing this stuff including the Tranzi profiteers you mention, who see everything solely in terms of huge, brightly-colored, fluorescent-lit flashing dollar-signs and nothing else. This is the same bunch that made it need a Civil War to dismantle slavery in this country—the exact same bunch.  They see nothing but glittering lucre and hear nothing but the jingle of coins in their pocket.

Posted by stari_momak on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:18 | #

they were not shut out

In fact they were shut out once immigration from non-traditional sources got large enough. Italians, Poles, Jews, etc etc. The 1924 immigration act shut them all out.

Posted by Tom Peters on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:38 | #

“To say that ethnicities have their own interests is true, I think. But whether these interests are *justified* is another question. If it is in the interest of ‘north africans’ to kill other ethnicies, is it ‘justified’? To say so would entail that their interests are prior to the interests of others.”

I often hear this argument, but not expressed as well as this.  You are essentially arguing that a subset (nation, ethnic group, race) cannot assert its interests because these interests may harm other subsets and therefore the set (humanity).  The implicit assumption is that it is a zero sum game in which the interests of one group must automatically harm another group, therefore harming the set (humanity) overall - therefore making the pursuit of group self-interest unjustified.

The problem is that all human actions have the potential to be good or bad for the set (humanity) - individual or or group.  What makes this argument wrong is that it assumes that self-interest group actions automatically lead to negative outcomes for the set (humanity).  Everyone understands that individuals can take positive or negative actions towards humanity and we have self-correcting mechanisms (criminal justice) to ensure net positive outcomes for the set (region, nation, or humanity).  Why does the same not apply for groups?

You state that it would be wrong for North Africans to pursue their group interests by attacking other groups.  Yes that would be wrong and we have self-correcting mechanisms in place (armies) to make sure they do not take that path, and thus protect the other subsets (nations) and sets (region, humanity).  However, just because one action is wrong does not make all other actions wrong.  For example, restricting immigration is a whole other argument with different set of rules to determine if it is good or not.  Every action needs to be treated separately. They cannot all be dismissed as negative just beause they are group actions.

That’s one fault with the argument.  The other and more subtle fault with this argument is that it can only work if the person passing the judgment knows what’s good for the set (humanity).  I strongly question anyone’s ability to know what’s good for humanity, especially if it comes at the expense of a subgroup (nation, ethnic group, region, town, etc.).  The West has been saturated by idealogues of every stripe in the past 100 years who all seem to think they have the answers because they represent humanity. The ‘common’ people’s attitudes and beliefs in the West are then dismissed as outdated because they do not try to optimize the set (humanity), but only the subset (nation, ethnic group).  The humanitarians then proceed to make demands on our subsets (nations, ethnic groups) in order to optimize the set(humanity).

Let me ask this now:
Does anyone here REALLY think that they know what they are talking about?  I don’t.  Do you really think they have what it takes to optimize outcomes for all of humanity? Do you think that they have a god-like handle on humanitarian justice in their back pocket?  Do you not find it strange that all their set (humanity) optimization strategies involve sacrificing the interests of Western groups?  Do you not find it strange that other subsets (nations, ethnic groups) benefit in this?  Do you not find it strange that their own ethnic group startegies are declared a net positive for humanity, while western group strategies are declared a net negative for humanity?  But hey, ONLY they know what’s good for humanity - right?

That’s the game they play.

Posted by Mark Richardson on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 21:53 | #

Jeremy, no-one yet has managed to confidently advance a logically consistent utilitarian ethics.

Professor Peter Singer has tried the hardest. It was his belief that you could not justify spending a large sum of money on health care for a single Western individual if you could use that money to benefit several people in the third world.

But then his mother got sick and he spent a vast sum providing her with nursing care. In interviews he admitted the contradiction between theory and practice but could not justify it.

And what happens when you give up particular duties to family, country and race? Do you get a stable commitment to humanity as a whole?

In Singer’s case, the answer is no, for the simple reason that Singer can’t find any reason, in his ethical system, to prefer humans over other creatures.

In fact, the last thing I heard of Singer was that he was advocating the rights of animals to enjoy sex with humans.

Jeremy, abstract reasoning is important to ensure that our moral beliefs are consistent. But don’t rely on it to actually generate your sense of what is ethical. Trust to your own better moral instincts and to your experiences and observations about what is good and worth defending. Build from there.

Posted by Desmond Jones on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 22:15 | #

More sceptic than cynic, GW. It’s not criticism of the motive, it’s doubt of the accepted beliefs.

The greater, bolder criticism was there. How much further can you go, than Madison Grant? Yet if not for WWI it is doubtful the 1924 restriction is legislated. Thus America’s (or Canada’s) movement away from an ethnic nationalism, to a civic nationalism, or constitutional patriotism or Anglo conformity, despite the limited genetic distance between various white ethnic groups, sounded Anglo America’s death knell. Thus like the Simpson trial, Katrina, 9/11, or 7/7, the riots in France will slowly but surely slip down the memory hole and the white world will return to it’s normally scheduled programming.

Posted by Kubilai on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 22:38 | #

Listen up. Jeremy, though articulate, is just another nut job or an extremely befuddled university student that has swallowed the mantra whole.  I’m ecstatic to hear that they have given themselves an official sounding name like “Utilitarian”, though in practice no one is an utilitarian.  Tom Peters and Mark Richardson above have given excellent arguments as to the absurdity and contradiction of the belief.  These ideas, when taken to an even higher level of absurdity are in line with these folks, The Voluntary Human Extinction Movement.  Really, why stop if something is “pleasurable for humanity” and go that next step and worry if it is pleasurable for planet earth?  There is no end to where the human mind can take something and twist it into absolute ridiculousness.  There apparently is no end to the number of eager minds that just lap up someone’s drug-addled concoctions either.

Posted by Luke the drifter on Thu, 10 Nov 2005 23:56 | #

Ya’ll are amazingly patient and accomodating in your replies to Jeremy. 

I think he’s either being intentionally intransigent, or he’s so completely brainwashed as to have been rendered a moron. 

He rejects both duties and rights, yet promotes the idea of ethics.  Equally as strange, he claims to value utilitarianism, but condems us for acting in a utilitarian manner. 

Upon what basis does he assert the existence of ethical standards in the absence of positive or negative rights or duties?

I think he’s taken a couple of philosophy classes at a community college and is practicing the use of some vocabulary words he’s in the process of learning.  It’s all semantic bullshit. 

I found Taylor’s replies to Sailor to be among the most cogent arguments on this subject I’ve ever read.

Posted by Fred Scrooby on Fri, 11 Nov 2005 01:09 | #

I agree with every word Luke the Drifter and Kubilai wrote just above (and with what our guys wrote above that as well, in response to Jeremy).  I view Jeremy as a sort of Birch Barlow.  There is not going to be any getting through to him.  Furthermore, he’s going to be smug and self-satisfied.  I’m not going to spend time on his ilk.  I do admire the patience of those who take the trouble, however.

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 11 Nov 2005 01:24 | #

if obligation to ancestors exist, how does this extend to race?

Lol.  Race is ancestry, writ large.  Do we need to buy you a copy of hooked on phonics or something?

Technically, all humans are related to each other to some extent.

That’s true, espectially that last bit, “to some extent.”  That extent is measurable and not consistent at all.

Now, if you want to go back further, you can argue that we share an evolutionary history with other animals, and thus have a ‘duty’ to other animals.

Well, I think we do.  For one thing without the rest of nature we’d die quickly, but this is beside the point.

The problem with thinking in terms of ‘duty to the community’ is that there are multiple communities which sometimes conflict with each other.

Oh no, not complexity!  It’s a good thing humans evolved domain-general cognitive abilities then, isn’t it?

Which ‘duty’ is most important is a subjective arbitrary judgement.

Relatively speaking, no, it isn’t.

For patriots, the nation is most important. For racial nationalists, the race is most important.

I say race and nation are and should be the same thing.

You should know that since I reject duties, I reject rights as well. My ‘ethics’, therefore, is utilitarian.

Then you go on to blather about a bunch of stuff that refutes your claim to utilitarianism (stuff like ethics):

Whether the interests of an ethnic group are ‘prior’ to national or other interests depend on whether it has pleasurable consequences for humanity.

Sounds as if you’re suggesting a universalist criterion.  That doesn’t sound very “utilitarian” to me.  Where’s the utility in worrying about the other guy?

To say that ethnicities have their own interests is true, I think. But whether these interests are *justified* is another question.

That’s irrelevant to utility.  The concept of justification is irrelevant to utility.

If it is in the interest of ‘north africans’ to kill other ethnicies, is it ‘justified’? To say so would entail that their interests are prior to the interests of others. Which you can’t prove by a vague reference to ‘duty’, since this works both ways.<i>

<i>You can cleave to your belief in utilitarianism - which sounds like individualism (yes?)

I don’t see how that’s possible, given all the glaring contradictions that suggests.

I think he’s either being intentionally intransigent

Yes or wilfully ignorant or maybe he’s just here to masturbate mentally.

Posted by Anonymous Coward (from Ask Guan) on Fri, 11 Nov 2005 04:13 | #

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA this thread is hilarious. It’s obvious this ‘Jeremy’ (Bentham?) guy is just a liberal freshman baiting you with his newly aquired bullshit. I guess when he gets to Philosophy 112 he’ll learn that race is socially constructed, and all his utilitarian/consequentialist arguments against deontological (duty) ethics were shot to hell before Sidgwick. Right, Jeremy?

Posted by ben tillman on Fri, 11 Nov 2005 06:33 | #

It’s obvious this ‘Jeremy’ (Bentham?) guy is just a liberal freshman baiting you with his newly aquired bullshit.

Yes, I thought of Bentham as well. 

The problem with thinking in terms of ‘duty to the community’ is that there are multiple communities which sometimes conflict with each other.

It is not complicated.  A community consists of people who are subject to the same moral code, with reciprocal rights and duties.

Posted by Jeremy on Fri, 11 Nov 2005 15:02 | #

“I think he’s either being intentionally intransigent, or he’s so completely brainwashed as to have been rendered a moron.”

“maybe he’s just here to masturbate mentally.”

The sophomoric *ad hominem* invective (to say nothing of accusations that I’m ‘not worth dealing with’ instead of simply not dealing with me) are irrelevant to the points at issue. But I probably shouldn’t be surprised; if one is devoted to an ideology, one will naturally regard all opposing arguments as barbarians at the gates. These arguments must, therefore, be ‘rebutted’ at any cost, including that of misrepresentation and intimidation. In this case, understanding your critic is simply not a priority.

My mistake.

Posted by Luke the Drifter on Fri, 11 Nov 2005 16:39 | #

if one is devoted to an ideology, one will naturally regard all opposing arguments as barbarians at the gates

The pot calling the kettle black.  Safe to say that you’re far more close-minded and inflexible than most participants here. Personally, I’d really like to understand your “arguments”, but am having trouble with the lack of consistency and rationality.  I can learn more from my dog.

Posted by Kubilai on Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:08 | #

The sophomoric *ad hominem* invective - Jeremy

There is no ethical basis for white nationalism. Those who think so are fools. - Jeremy in comment #1

Oops!  Another contradiction from Jeremy.  Not to mention he is one big contradiction from top to bottom.  He also glossed over ALL valid refutations of HIS ideology.  Get to class, Jeremy.  Leave the grown-up talk to actual grown ups.  Next time you want to come back, do so with a sliver of an open mind.

Posted by Svigor on Fri, 11 Nov 2005 17:55 | #

The sophomoric *ad hominem* invective (to say nothing of accusations that I’m ‘not worth dealing with’ instead of simply not dealing with me) are irrelevant to the points at issue.

[...]</i>

I dealt with your stupidities, as did others.  Whining about the ad hominem comments (the icing, not the cake) doesn’t change that.

That was a nice try at a dodge though.

Of course you engage in yet another fallacy when you pretend that the ad hominem comments were meant to deal with your arguments, which they weren’t.

Posted by Anonymous Coward (from Ask Guan) on Fri, 11 Nov 2005 19:13 | #

Don’t bother with this idiotic troll. He’s just here to provoke, provoke, provoke. Notice how he hypocritically accuses others of ad hominem while psychologizing his opponents? Typical liberal whining. Suggestion to Jeremy: say something intelligent or shut your chimp mouth.

Posted by DissidentMan on Fri, 11 Nov 2005 21:26 | #

I’ve always believed that moral relativism is properly a part of conservatism, as is science. These things belong to the right; they are our values.

When I talk about moral relativism I mean that people want different things. People want other people to do (or not do) certain things and just about every moral edict stems proximally (but not ultimately) from this near-inviolable fact. This is not to deny that there could be a universal moral order (like karma or what have you), but that is left for each of us determine subjectively since it could never be demonstrated scientifically. The self-proclaimed moral relativists of the left are fraudulent, since they are always quick to condemn the right in umistakably absolutist terms. Their moral relativism is, therefore, competely inauthentic, unlike ours which is genuine. Moral relativism was and will always be a part of genuine rightwing thinking, although we never had a name for it because it was always assumed.

About science, again that belongs to us. Philippe Rushton was threatened with fines or a jail term for publishing a book. Chris Brand was fired, ostensibly for a politically incorrect opinion in an e-mail, but his scientific conclusions were the real reason. Likewise the Kenniwick man saga has ended with natives being able to lay claim to any human remains in the USA based on their “oral traditions” (i.e. whatever they happen to believe now trumps scientific validation). The left, basically, only sees science as a) a sexy characterisation of their own opinions and b) an impediment to their real goals.

ABout utilitarianism, whatever it may have originally meant, nowadays its just another word for universalism. Logically those who treat everyone else as a some sort of close relative will be supplanted by those who don’t. THeir memes will be replaced along with their genes. I think this is a contradiction in utilitarianist thinking because utilitarianists usually talk as though their values will outlast them. Even when they’re not saying, if you read between the lines, they imply it.

Posted by Mark Richardson on Sat, 12 Nov 2005 00:02 | #

DissidentMan, I disagree.

Any community to survive needs to arrive at a common moral understanding. Yes, it’s difficult to arrive at such an understanding scientifically. And yes, not everyone in the community will agree.

But the alternative doesn’t work. Say if 90% of the community believe that their ethnic tradition is a good which ought to be preserved, but 10% disagree and think they should invite large numbers of foreigners into their towns.

If you declare that everyone should work out subjectively what to do because it’s too hard to know what the real good is, then the 10% will have their view imposed on the 90%.

After all, if the 10% are allowed to invite in whoever they want, then the 90% won’t be able to retain the ethnic tradition which they believed was a good to be defended.

Posted by Mark Richardson on Sat, 12 Nov 2005 00:11 | #

DissidentMan, one further point.

In my opinion the worst thing is to live in a society which refuses to assert any positive moral standards (only negative ones of non-interference).

This forces us to be constantly at odds with our moral nature, which wants to live in a realm which recognises a concept of the good.

Posted by DissidentMan on Sat, 12 Nov 2005 01:43 | #

After all, if the 10% are allowed to invite in whoever they want, then the 90% won’t be able to retain the ethnic tradition which they believed was a good to be defended.<i>
I didn’t say anything about whose values should (or would) ultimately triumph. All i meant to say is that I would like it if people everywhere would agree that their morality does stem from someone’s ideals. Someone somewhere conceived of an ideal and good and bad was then introduced in order to steer the world toward the ideal. That is the origin of morality. The ideal could be the liberation of sentient beings from the wheel of life. It could be heavenly reward. It could be a world of happy Marxist workers. Science can’t tell us if heavenly reward or nirvana is possile but it (particularly evolutionary psychology) can probably tell us that a Marxist utopia <i>isn’t possible. Since things like nirvana, heaven, and karma are outside the scope of scientific validation, we have only arguments by authority from religious figures such as Buddha, Jesus etc. and the prospect of our own subjective validation of such ideas. Since this is so, I would like it if the subject of a cosmic moral order were left out of arguments about how morality should influence the forumlation of laws and government policies. Instead those taking positions on such matters should simply put their values on the table (wherever they came from) and proceed from there.

Posted by dissidentman on Sat, 12 Nov 2005 01:48 | #

One other point is that the fact that the existance of a cosmic moral order cannot be objectively demonstrated, is consistent with the conservative tragic view of humanity. Again moral relativism is something that we should not shy away from. It is really ours and we should prodly reclaim it, like I say, and the loud self-proclaimed moral relativists now found in universities are actually jonny-come lately’s and frauds (since they are extremely absolutist) to boot.

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 12 Nov 2005 02:29 | #

The idea of moral relativism interests me, and I don’t much care about its position vis-a-vis left-right.  As a particularist it makes sense to me; different natures give rise to different moralities. 

The (more?) universalist metric of science tells another story; given a standard, say, adaptiveness, moral relativism can’t stand scrutiny.  On the other hand, each of us is born an individual and a member of various groups, and individuals and groups are not best served by staying with “absolutism.”

I guess another way of saying it is that as individuals moral relativism makes sense for us, but as cognitive beings we are capable of stepping outside of that selfishness and seeing things universally.

I’m sure someone here can put this better than I have.

Posted by Mark Richardson on Sat, 12 Nov 2005 04:38 | #

I think the terms of debate need to be stated more clearly.

DissidentMan, moral relativism is often understood to be the idea that there is nothing which is inherently “good” as such, but that something may be good or bad according to the circumstances.

I don’t think this view sits well with traditionalist conservatism at all - it’s much too sceptical and unengaged.

Traditionalists nearly always posit a “good” which corresponds to a transcendental good and is to be followed as such.

For instance, a relativist might look upon traditional standards of male heroism as a “cultural practice” tied to the temporary material circumstances of a particular society.

A traditionalist is more likely to see the male heroic as representing a real and enduring good as embedded in the higher nature of men.

Relativism puts us in the position of detached outside observers of moral codes and customs. Such codes become dead artefacts rather than a live tradition which speaks directly to us.

Posted by Svigor on Sat, 12 Nov 2005 17:50 | #

For instance, a relativist might look upon traditional standards of male heroism as a “cultural practice” tied to the temporary material circumstances of a particular society.

A traditionalist is more likely to see the male heroic as representing a real and enduring good as embedded in the higher nature of men.

Then what does one call my third position, one that sees the male heroic as representing a real and enduring good as embedded in the higher nature of some men?

Relativism puts us in the position of detached outside observers of moral codes and customs. Such codes become dead artefacts rather than a live tradition which speaks directly to us.

I don’t see things that way, yet I’ve a strong sense of relativism; what do you call my third position, which holds a strong attachment to us and ours, yet doesn’t pretend it applies to them and theirs?

Posted by dissidentman on Sat, 12 Nov 2005 22:00 | #

DissidentMan, moral relativism is often understood to be the idea that there is nothing which is inherently “good” as such, but that something may be good or bad according to the circumstances.

Good and bad have always been defined situationally. Supposed good and bad are designed for the furtherance the preservation of some civilisation or other, then the situation is the character of that civilisation. Supposing good and bad are designed for the generation of good karma (let’s suppose it exsits hypothetically), then the situation is whatever happens to be the case right now. Some deeds would fit the occasion and some would not. Therefore, again moral relativism is nothing new. Leftist absolutists have merely appropriated the outward trappings and invented new words to emphasise things that were understood long ago, as if they had come accross a new understanding. Alas for them, they will never rise above crude apery of real moral relativism.

I don’t think this view sits well with traditionalist conservatism at all - it’s much too sceptical and unengaged.
If someone called me skeptical and unengaged i might take it as a compliment. Fiery passion actually underlies the cool exteriors of todays postmodern intellectuals. They get very hot under the collar whenever dissent is expressed.

Posted by Mark Richardson on Sat, 12 Nov 2005 23:11 | #

Svigor, think of it this way. If I assert that the male heroic is a transcendental good (i.e. a good existing independently of me and my wishes - i.e. it is a good not just because I value it as such) I am not committing myself to any question of who is able to successfully recognise and follow such a good.

Obviously, not all men have a heroic soul (though many at some level do); nor will each race of men express the heroic in the same way; nor will each race express the heroic to the same extent.

But these admissions are different from saying that the male heroic is a good only to a particular ethny (that it exists as a good because it is produced as a good by a particular ethny). If you assert that then it becomes a lesser kind of a good. Nor, to be honest, do I think a male heroic could survive if it was thought about in this limited way.

Posted by Mark Richardson on Sat, 12 Nov 2005 23:31 | #

DissidentMan,

Lawrence Auster has explained better than I can why it is fundamental to right-wing/conservative politics to be an inside participant in institutions and values rather than a detached outside observer.

His short article can be found here:

http://www.amnation.com/vfr/archives/004328.html

Posted by DissidentMan on Sun, 13 Nov 2005 22:30 | #

OK, i skimmed the stuff L.A. had to say about transcendence. I think its likely memetically weak, and will serve as useful fodder for leftist intellectuals seeking opportunities for self-aggrandisement. Much of the rhetoric of the mainstream (though misnamed) right already servers this function.

Now changing the topic away from L.A., a lot of what the mainstream right now does is engage in loud moral posturing on politically *safe* issues. Examples are abortion, gay marriage (you can oppose that without getting killed today), creationism, and some of the arguments are of the “the bible says” variety. Politically, that’s like leading with your chin, and furthermore since the positions are always politically safe ones to take, one might even question the sincerity of those taking them. They just want the approval of their fellow so-called conservatives, and they are otherwise flim-flam men, and if these rediculous freeper/bible-belt types didn’t exist the current Marxist absolutist political establishment would have to invent them, as they help keep conservatism perpetually gelded.

Posted by Svigor on Mon, 14 Nov 2005 00:15 | #

Mark, I do agree that there are universal human characteristics.  My relativism mostly stems from my belief in self-determination, I suppose (ironically something I support as a universal).

For example, I don’t see how what is good for whites is good for blacks.  Obviously blacks will fail in societies in which whites set the standard for good, and vice-versa.

Then of course there’s the self-evident truth of moral relativism DM is talking about - obviously morality is circumstantial.

The left’s primary error here seems to be in mistaking complexity as obviating morality; they take advantage by pressing their deconstructionism.  I don’t claim to understand their motives well, but the effect is clear - moral collapse.

The parallels with race-denial seem obvious.