No Lives Matter 3: Birds and Bees
@IlMentore , a friend (as much as one can be with he whom one has never met) and a rival has offered his rebuttal to my argument against universal moral principles being nothing but idle fancy.
I must first correct a mistake you made, monsieur. John Stuart Mill was not some White Knight. It was he who first defended Capitalism from the early Socialists of England. It was he who exposed that Socialism was little more than politicized greed masquerading as moral economics (and I hope this reinforces my previous point that morals are only adopted to justify one’s own behavior).
At the risk of sounding nitpicky, or even disingenuous, I must say the following: I think the good Monsieur is making an unrelated case. I shall demonstrate here, and why I think even he secretly agrees with me.
I must first address some points Monsieur made. He asks a series of questions regarding my accusation that human beings act upon impulse, and here I intend to answer them before going into the full brunt of what makes human suffering so sweet.
“I mean yes gratification explains a lot of human behavior but why do some people abstain from drugs? Why do ALL children cry when one of them is given a bigger slice of pie? (You would think the lucky one would smile?) Why are patreon and subscribestar a thing? Why do some people return a found wallet without taking the money? Why do some societies have higher trust than others?”
Why do some people abstain from drugs? Why, you ask? And included in drugs I shall place alcohol and cigarettes. I feel it would be proper to include anything that should produce a gratifying, yet detaching, effect on the mind. I can think of two reasons, none of which are particularly moral. The first being an aversion to intoxicated feelings. This one is simple enough to understand without my explanation. The other being an understanding of the ramifications of heavy drug use. Some may understand that an addiction will reek havoc on their life, destroying everything they have worked for up until this point. This is not a moral decision, but one of intelligence. They are investing those utils, or “units” of pleasure, into the future. They are not doing so to overcome human nature (as you state the point of morality is), but to apply their intellect to furthering it.
You also ask why all children cry when one gets a bigger slice of pie, including the lucky one. Well, that answer is too easy. One cries, makes a loud noise, and the others, offended by this noise, answer with crying of their own.
You ask why are patreon and subscribestar a thing. This one is also simple. People want to support what they like. They do not give to creators they dislike, and some even cancel on creators for producing too little or unpreferred content. It is no different than when people in the 1930s wrote letters to the radio following the cancellation of Guiding Light: their love for the pleasure the content brings them moves them to action, not innate morals.
You ask why do people return a wallet without removing money. This one seems like a stumper, but it is in fact rooted in Rousseauean philosophy. It is the same reason we do not immediately go kill our neighbors for loud music or scratch cars with bumper stickers of which we disapprove. We wish not for the same actions to be taken against us. But what’s more, sometimes people do not return wallets at all – sometimes people are robbed of their wallets. Some are murdered for far less than disturbing the sleep of their neighbor. And even as we speak, Antifa in America are destroying the property of people for disagreeing with their maniacal ideology. Your question regards more the individual than the whole.
Finally, you ask why do some societies have higher trust than others. This could have some deeper sociological reasons, but I am an economist, not a sociologist. My reasoning for this is simple: some societies have higher consequences for abusing trust than others do. This isn’t a moral principle, but a desire for self-preservation. The Mafia does not maintain honor among its legion of drug dealers, hit men, and racketeers because of some universal moral principle. They maintain this ‘honor among thieves’ because the consequence of dishonorable behavior is death. It has been rightfully observed that that those societies with greater communal bonds are also often crueller in their judicial punishments. (An anecdote: An acquaintance of mine, who was in Iraq, witnessed the punishment of a rapist following a guilty verdict. It was not that they killed him, it was how they killed him. They nailed both his balls and his cock to a board. Then two men held the convicted while two others pulled the board away from his body. According to this witness, the guilty party was dead before he was fully castrated).
But I wish to revisit one of your questions. Why is it that children cry when one is given a bigger piece of the cake than the others? I answered above, but allow me to ask another question. Why is it that nobody cries when the most beautiful women do not fuck every man? Is this any different than a bigger piece of cake? Or why don’t people cry when the most desirable of men ignore the landwhales in favor of those images of Venus we see on the streets from time to time? The answer is simple: beautiful people prefer beautiful people to fuck. They take pleasure in each other, though one could call it charity if Justin Bieber were to deflower the unlovable landwhales and if Brie Larson were to sleep with the unfortunate boys called incels.
But why this example?
The incels constantly complain about “Chad” and “Stacy”. These two are, according to these unlovable males, everything that is bad except ugly. Chad is stupid. Stacy is a slut. Their only redeeming traits are good looks, the power of which is enough for Chad and Stacy to oppress and control and dominate the incels. And they are not alone in this complaint that only Chad gets laid.
Many MGTOWs have the same complaint. Despite their claims to be drowning in female attention, they always seem to have time to research, record, edit, and publish a twenty to thirty minute video on the wrongs of woman. It makes one wonder where they make time to get laid. The Pick-Up Artists are not so much better, though smarter. They advertise some secret method of game by which they get laid. They sell books and tickets to distribute this secret. (What is the secret? I’ll tell you. Ask a bunch of women to fuck. You’ll find one that says yes).
But why don’t we ever hear from Chad on this subject? Is he too stupid to utilize the internet? Or could it be that while the incel goes to a part time job that everybody knows is really just charity on the part of his employer, Chad goes into an Engineering position which he is apparently too stupid to have, where he has to apply calculus day after day. After he gets off, he can’t be bothered to go hear the incels whine about him because he has to go lift weights at the gym, but only after he runs two miles. And after this break, he goes to night classes. It’s only on weekends he relaxes, with Stacy.
And let’s not forget Stacy, who hasn’t had a bite of cake since she was twelve years old. She counts every calorie she intakes. Her runs are twice the length of Chad’s, though she does crossfit instead of bodybuilding afterwards.
While Stacy busies herself with her dayjob, something slutty like social work or teaching, the landwhales are glorified on the television. If Stacy gets herself on a billboard, advertising a gym or some diet plan, it is deemed sexist and immoral by the public. Chad can still get on the billboard, provided he doesn’t express any opinions that aren’t Socialistic in nature, revealing an IQ above the 42 that the incels ascribed to him.
Why am I saying this lengthy screed? Because Chad and Stacy are examples of industriousness and self-reliance. Every one wants to fuck the brunette with big tits and a smackable ass. Nobody wants work to get the muscles she likes, or to put off the beer and snacks to be as healthy as she is.
Yet, in the West we do not really learn about the virtues of such industriousness. For women it’s health at any size and she’s already an engineer (even though she can’t do long division). For men, who admittedly have it much harder than the fairer sex, they go to complain on forums. So we hear about body positivity and unrealistic proportions and how life is so unfair. Essentially, we hear about sexual socialism from people who, on the sexual market, are no different from former frat-boys and sorostitutes on the labor market. Why is this? Why has body positivity become such a universal moral? Why is it that saying one should pay back one’s debts or that women are just as not entitled to sex with Chad as men aren’t with Stacy suddenly an offense so grave it can cost one employment?
The answer is because these are the universal moral principles of the West now. Charity, empathy, kindness, and agape love are things which are bombarded onto the population from mainstream media, influencers, businesses, and society at large. These are put forward by planet-shaped feminists and parroted by incels. These people are idle, in their lives and with their bodies. And because they are idle, they create a morality. Because they are idle, they broadcast their morality onto the public. Since Chad and Stacy are not idle, they cannot be moral. Even if they are, assuming they do what they do for reasons other than high pay and personal gain, they could not broadcast it.
Thus, I think I can say with full certainty that all universal moral principles are just idle fancy.