Supporting the First Sadean Principle

“There is no god, or at least not one who regulates and intervenes in human affairs. This being the case, all morality is invented.”

The justification of this principle must be derived from separating it into its parts. It is composed of two sentences, the first dealing with the concept of god and the second dealing with the concept of morality. It is necessary to inspect each sentence by itself before coming to the conclusion.

Let us begin with the first sentence, which can also be broken down into two parts. The first clause, which bluntly states that there is no god, is the sole tenant of Atheism. The second clause, that there is not a god who regulates and intervenes in human affairs, is based in Spinozism. These must also be inspected as singular pieces and then rectified, since a detractor can easily point out that this sentence is, on its face value, conciliatory, and can be taken the imply a contradiction of itself.

Nearly every Atheist readily admits that they will accept the existence of god once they are presented with evidence of god's existence. Those who do not admit this are proud idiots who are no different than the Christians and Muslims they mock. They reject reason and evidence, and thus their opinions are to be discounted.

It is not because of personal wants or desires that one becomes an Atheist, because it would be much better if some paternal being which accepted appeals was watching over things. This is the most common refutation the religious present against the non-religious; they are Atheists because it makes them feel good, peer pressure, and the earthly temptations. These tend to be appeals to narcissism that anyone remotely familiar with basic sales tricks should be, to some degree, resistant to.

The second most popular refutation of Atheism is related to the first. Many in the religious community feel that Atheists are merely trying to avenge themselves against a god that wronged them. This was presented most famously in the movie God's Not Dead in which an Atheist philosophy professor, upon losing a debate with a Freshman student, reveals that he is an Atheist because god did not answer his prayers and let his mother die. The logic behind this claim exists, but it is the logic of fools. The professor exercised empiricism, but rashly. God did not act, and has not acted in other cases, therefore, god must not exist. On its face, the logical high ground in this fictitious tale belongs to the Christians.

But there is a flaw in taking one's philosophy from fictional stories. The author controls the tale, the characters are puppets, and the symbols are carefully selected. This is as true for God's Not Dead as it is for Justine. If one examines the religion of Christianity, one concludes that the revenge some one wronged by god, such as the professor character, that the ultimate revenge is not to swear off god but to become in league with his adversary. A Christian who feels scorned by the Trinity and wants revenge is best off praying to Satan. The same goes for a Muslim. A Jew who feels scorned can worship one of the many other gods that Yahweh condemns in the Pentateuch. A Zoroastrian could appeal to Angra Mainyu. The many polytheistic religions had entire pantheons to choose from; being ignored by one god meant they should pray to another. Since, in the monotheistic religions, the punishment for Atheism is the same as Satanism and Yazidism, it would make logical sense for some one trying to avenge themselves upon god to ally themselves with an adversary and not merely claim to disbelieve when, in the fictional professor's case, they clearly still do.

However, this only covers refutations of ad hominem arguments and backhanded appeals. It is the religious who are required to provide proof, since they are making the claim that there exists something. If I proclaim that the government is run by Chthulhu, I must provide evidence of Chthulhu's existence and that he is connection with the government. Otherwise, I am a crazy man. This is something the religious repeatedly fail to do, and so they fall instead upon appeals to narcissism, essentially begging non-believers to accept their religion.

There are some who use the more philosophical argument of a. priori. They say that there has to have been a First Mover, a first conscious and intelligent entity that made things begin. However, they have no reasons as to why the physical world itself, the Big Bang, could have been that First Mover. Who was god's first mover? Well, he doesn't need one. Then why does the universe need one? It just does. Their argument from a. priori becomes little more than “it must be this way because that's the way I say it is.” It is a paternalistic argument that is founded on logic so flawed because it readily admits that if it is applied to anything else, it is wrong. They claim victory in the sentence they admit defeat.

The second clause is of the First Sadean Statement is that of the Spinozist idea of god. This concept of god holds that any possible deity is responsible for the creation of the universe and the laws of physics and chemistry which govern it, but does nothing beyond that. It had no hand in evolution or human laws or politics.

This take on god is named for its proposer, Benedict Spinoza. Spinoza proposed the concept of Secularism; his reasoning being that since god does not interact with humanity, there is no reason to invoke it within our affairs. So there should be no mention of Scripture in politics, no morality derived from tradition in social interactions.

This may seem to be a contradiction to Atheism, since Spinozism claims there is a god and Atheism by its very definition denies that possibility. Existentially, this is true. These two takes on the divine are at odds with one another. But this is a case of when philosophy defeats its own purpose. Practical philosophy, such as politics, sociology, economics, and the sciences are the children of philosophy which have enhance humanity so far. And practically speaking, these Spinozism and Atheism are not in contradiction with one another at all.

My reasoning for this claim is simple. Spinozism claims that god does not intervene in human affairs. There are no calls for worship and the the laws mandated by the divine are the laws of nature. Since Atheism denies that there can be a god, it also denies the divine intervention in human affairs. It also denies the calls to worship and that there is any divinely mandated law. Thus the actual existence of god is not really a point of contention between these two camps. Since they both deny the direct imposition of the divine, they essentially agree to disagree on what is ultimately reduced to a minor question.

Religion itself is rooted in tradition, filial instincts, and the desire for Utopia. Religion does not change because tradition does not change, hence the prayers and incantations remain the same across the centuries. This gives practitioners the sense of belonging. The religious sense of belonging comes at the low price of acceptance of dogma and tithes. There is no real intellectual effort required. The filial instinct, by which I mean the subtle desire for there to be some omnipotent and omniscient benefactor who rights all wrongs, who punishes the wicked and rewards the good, who guides the good, and who can be appealed to. This makes the acceptance of dogma not only easier, but a welcomed burden. A casually adopted sense of right and wrong may not only make one feel justified when they are wronged (for the evil-doer will certainly burn in hell, as the phrase goes), but it may even make them feel superior. After all, some one who cannot compete on the sexual economy may feel vindicated that by not having sex they are pleasing the great daddy in the sky. They are better in the eyes of whatever god they pray to than all those around them. Essentially, religion is how the meek make themselves proud. And to top it all off, they believe that when they die they will be rewarded. They look not to correct the evils of the world because they know that by remaining obedient to those restrictive laws, they will be in a world of good after death. The only difference between a Marxist and a believer is that the Marxist believes millions of others must dies to create heaven. The believer believes that only his death is necessary to reach heaven. In fact, the Roman Catholic Church had to declare suicide a sin because so many of its adherents were committing suicide to reach Utopia! But enough on religion, because a refutation of it in general could fill a book and a refutation of each one would require hundreds upon hundreds of volumes.

Now we come to discuss the final sentence. It states that since there is no god interested in humans, that all morality is invented. This is clear with regards to those morals which are derived from recent legislation and have no root in tradition. For example, the concept of Liberty is a moral we understand to be invented. There is no Scriptural basis, not even in Zoroastrianism (which was the least overbearing of the ancient religions), for Liberty. In fact, there is quite the opposite. Many have justified tyranny with Scriptural passages, both Abrahamic and not. However, starting with Spinoza and Hobbes, continuing with Locke, leading up to Rousseau, and culminating with Washington and Robespierre, the moral standard we call Liberty was an invention of the Enlightenment.

Although we can understand Liberty, the Right to Vote, and other products of the Enlightenment are invented morals, what about those morals we draw from Scriptures and traditions?

Let us examine the most fundamental moral of all. In the Catholic tradition, that is the Fifth Commandment: Thou Shalt Not Kill. The question is thus: from where is the prohibition on murder derived?

As already stated, it was not handed down by some interfering god. If it had been, this god would have logically interfered in the great genocides of the Twentieth Century. It would make some gargantuan display of power in order to further enforce this prohibition. Yet, nothing happens. Killings happen every day and Spinoza's god remains silent, because he does not care.

Also, it could not have come from prophets. For reasons described just above, it is evident that the prophets of the past and present, famous, infamous and irrelevant, have absolutely no rapport with the divine. Rather, as Spinoza suggests, they are all just making shit up as they go along. Thus their prohibition on murder (and let us not forget that some did not prohibit it, but actively encourage it) comes from tradition.

This tradition is rooted not in the thunderous voice of some deity or the inspired proclamation of some mad prophet. Rather, it comes from the first real shift in human social dynamics. The prohibition on murder is a product of the end of the hunter-gatherer and the dawn of agriculture. And this goes for almost every moral that has been handed down from the ancient world. Some others will give attention to after following how the prohibition on murder came to be, but let us examine one in depth.

It is reasonable that murder would have been an advantageous action in a society of hunter-gatherers. Naysayers should consider the following. If I am a hunter-gatherer, my social worth is calculated solely by how much I contribute. Women produce offspring, and are thus considered the most important. There is a great deal of evidence to suggest that these primitive societies were matriarchal.

So, let us consider four of the kinds of individuals who most certainly would have existed in these societies: a poor hunter, an average hunter, a superior hunter, and a woman. Let us also not forget that these societies were so primitive that humans living in them really only had two drives - don't die and get laid.

Now the first one. The poor hunter is on the very bottom of the totem pole. He produces far less than he consumes, which is to say he is a parasite on the tribe. Assuming for some reason he is not killed or abandoned by the tribe, how can he benefit from murder? It is simple. Because he is a parasite, no female would want him. Thus killing one of the more competent males, either through open combat or clever scheming, gives him some proof of power, and thus increases his value on the sexual market.

The second, the average hunter, is not a parasite. But neither is he an asset. He, for our purposes, contributes just as much as he takes, sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less. What can this man benefit from committing murder? This time it is only a little more complex. He has two competitors on the sexual market, the more valuable man and the less valuable man. By killing he more valuable man, he automatically increases his worth on the social hierarchy. If he kills some one beneath him on the social hierarchy, he demonstrates his prowess still. Although he has not increased his standing at all in the sexual market (which, especially in these primitive societies, was the same as the social hierarchy), he has demonstrated some of the brutality and strength that even women today find irresistible in a man.

The third, the superior hunter, is an asset to his tribe. He contributes more than he takes, tends to be a leader on hunts, even if he is not a leader in the tribe. There may be some who are above him on the social hierarchy, but they are also superior hunters and respect his contribution as much he does theirs. What can this man benefit from murder? He can crush insubordination and eliminate potential challengers. By murdering he keeps his position secure.

The final is the case of the woman. Anthropologists believe that in these primitive societies, women were in control due to their monopoly of reproduction; and it is sad to say that not much has changed. However, these women would most certainly be offended with men below their status approaching them, just as women do today. However, in primitive times, being raped and possibly impregnated by the inferior members of the tribe meant that her sexual market value has decreased dramatically.

So we see how murder can benefit individual members of a hunter-gatherer society. However, I have not yet demonstrated why a society, even one so primitive, would condone murder. Let us not forget that these were migrant tribes. Even the word 'nomadic' sounds too civilized to describe them. They had no real roles beyond hunters and gatherers. There were no doctors, no nurses, maybe one or two of the more clever ones doubled as tool-makers; the position becoming vacant again after the tools are made. In these societies, a broken ankle or a serious enough wound became death sentences. The tribe could not call off the hunt because some one was injured. They could not stop following the herds because of one unfortunate step. This goes even more so for diseases, especially once their contagiousness became known.

A society which was so quick to abandon their own (as was necessary) surely could not have placed a high value on human life. So disputes were often settled with a fight, and that fight had to, in some cases, result in a death. These killings would certainly not be seen as crime but rather as cutting the fat. The weak and useless must be eliminated.

This logic, which I hope I have demonstrated with at least some soundness, can be applied to all other ancient morals we have today. Rape was merely a way of getting laid in a sexual economy in which sex was truly scarce. Theft could be the daily difference between life and death. The primitive human had no room for the philosophical theories of right and wrong. His life was a struggle, and when he could alleviate his suffering with what is now called crime, none of his comrades would hold him accountable for it.

So why did the shift to agrarian societies constitute the need for morality?

In the primitive hunter-gatherer societies there were but two jobs: hunters and gatherers. Men might double as defenders and women might double as birthgivers, but never were these considered daily duties. Rather, the daily struggle to survive relied upon hunting and gathering. One less member may mean a smaller hunting band, but a small team of skilled hunters may accomplish a great deal more than a large team of buffoons. One less member also meant one less belly to fill.

In the agrarian societies which ultimately led to the establishment of civilization, there were a multitude of jobs. Real jobs such as ruler, farmer, tool-maker, baker, trader, and soldier all became necessary for the survival of the society. Whereas such jobs, such as leader and toolmaker, might have existed previous to the shift to farming, these became permanent roles in agrarian societies. Let us consider them in brief.

A leader in a hunter-gatherer society needed only be concerned with survival of that day. So long as everyone ate and every one ate a portion that seemed equal to his or her contribution, the leader's position was secured barring challengers. And challengers needed only be murdered. However, in the agrarian civilizations that followed, a leader had to be concerned with the long term. Preparations for droughts, proper storage, ensuring everyone contributed, and the proper distribution of justice (which will be covered shortly).

Soldiers, which had previously been a post held by every man in the hunter-gatherer tribe, became a specialized role meant for the strongest men in society. They could learn to fight together, work on tactics, and those who excelled at tactics became generals. The purpose of the militant role was to protect the society, either from raiders who were fighting to prevent starvation or from starvation by raiding nearby societies.

Tool-makers was a role previously mentioned, and they did certainly exist in hunter-gather societies. Then, however, they were only tasked with making a hand-ax or primitive hunting spear before having rejoin their regular role as a hunter-gatherer. The agrarian tool maker must have known how to make weapons for soldiers, which has to withstand combat and thus must be more sophisticated that the earlier spear of the hunter-gatherer. He must make shields and armor for the soldiers, too. The farmer must have a plow, an ax, a shovel, and all the gardening tools we tend to stock our sheds with today. As society grew, the number of tool-makers grew, and each one worked on a more narrow market. This made him hone his specialty to improved weapons, plows, and other tools of everyday life.

Other jobs began to appear. From farmers and herdsmen who gradually came to replace hunters to merchants who acted as intermediaries between producers and consumers. There also came doctors, philosophers, builders, actors, so on and so forth.

However the exit from the State of Nature required something more than just a plethora of roles. It required rules and regulations by which members of Society were to act with regards to one another. This of course included the prohibitions on violating rights (such as murder or theft). These morals were codified in laws and violating them constituted some state-sanctioned punishment. However, other morals came into existence which were not made law, but became socially enforced rather than legally. Perhaps the best example is monogamy. By the principle of monogamy two things are accomplished which directly benefit Society. The first being that children are reared by two individuals who are directly invested in its well-being. The second being that each individual is given some sense of belonging. In the State of Nature, the likelihood of getting laid is a function of one's contribution and position on the social hierarchy. With monogamy, getting laid is a guarantee once one has a mate. This means that rather than constantly competing on the sexual economy, one needs only compete once. After that, one can devote one's self entirely to contribution. A basic need is met.

To guarantee that one devoted one's self to contribution, concepts of Rights, particularly property rights, were developed. This was not so much a complex product of philosophers who emerged with humanity from the State of Nature; rather, it was an agreement, a social contract, the First Social Contract. This agreement stated that an individual was guaranteed one certain thing, than in exchange for contribution (that is, labor) is guaranteed some compensation and can trade that compensation with other members of Society. This is the foundation of trade and the origins of money. This is the fundamental reason why primitive agricultural societies flourished when compared to the hunter-gather alternative. In a nutshell (since I do not want to delve into Voluntary Economics here), one could gain more than what one contributed by working and trading the fruits of that work.

This is perhaps why Marxism fails. It is an attack not on the foundations of Western Civilization, but Civilization itself. Marxism, as Nietzsche observes in Antichrist, is much like Christianity. It is a product of the pathetic and the feeble-minded which appeals to one's own selfishness while trying appear grand and lofty. Ultimately, it is greed pretending to be altruism, it is impulse dressed as reason, and both appeal to the stupidest and laziest members of Society.

Both Marxism and Christianity make no attempts at Moral Ontology. To do so would be to undermine themselves, not to mention challenge their adherents too much. Rather, Morality is treated as an absolute and Society as a product of it, rather than the opposite. Christianity tries to impose this Objective Morality by giving power to a god who will punish the wicked after death and Marxists do so by giving the power of the Christian god to the State. To quote Nietzsche, “The State is the coldest of all cold monsters and coldly it lies. And this lie slips from its lips, 'I, the State, am the People'”.

These pseudo-philosophies and religions are born out of jealousy. And this jealousy places blame on the contributors and laborers for the shortcomings and dismal situations of the lazy and indolent. Is it any surprise that the modern Marxist is often from the Upper Class, having never worked a menial job and still has the gall to consider herself the Proletariat? To bridge the mental gaps that are necessary to reach these conclusions, it becomes necessary to believe that morality precedes Society. Thus the Marxist makes compassion and empathy sacred in the same way her Christian predecessor did with chastity and humility. And to solidify this, god is made. The Christian has Jesus and the modern Marxist has the Cunt.

But it has been demonstrated in short here, and in long form by far better minds, that morality is invented. This is not to construct some argument that allows me to disregard it; quite the contrary, in fact, as that it is the mortar which holds the bricks of Society together. Without the guarantee that the benefits of Society would be had by me, what reason do I have to subject myself to its demands? Why should I not live on the outskirts, as a Sadistic Libertine, if I am to have no share in the benefits of Society? Morality, an invention indeed, is Society's guarantee that I will share in those benefits.

So it is true as the Marquis de Sade observed. “All universal principles are but idle fancies” indeed. But it is also true, as Xunzi observed, that the ancient sages were wise to have invented morality and rituals so as to guide the people.

Let this brief Moral Ontology be a founding document in Sadeanism.