explicitClick to confirm you are 18+

What Are The Consequences of Moral Relativism?

ParaMagicJun 27, 2022, 4:31:03 PM
thumb_up96thumb_down2more_vert

"Action springs not from thought, but from a readiness for responsibility." -- Dietrich Bonhoeffer

By stupid Bonhoeffer (quote below) did not mean that such people lacked intellectual ability, for they were often very smart, but that they had fallen under the spell of public power and lost all independence of mind.

When he was in prison in Germany after returning in 1939 from Union Theological Seminary in NYC to oppose Hitler, the German theologian Dietrich Bonhoeffer wrote the following from his prison cell before he was executed:

"Against stupidity we have no defense. Neither protests nor force can touch it. Reasoning is of no use. Facts that contradict personal prejudices can simply be disbelieved — indeed, the fool can counter by criticizing them, and if they are undeniable, they can just be pushed aside as trivial exceptions. So the fool, as distinct from the scoundrel, is completely self-satisfied. In fact, they can easily become dangerous, as it does not take much to make them aggressive. For that reason, greater caution is called for than with a malicious one. Never again will we try to persuade the stupid person with reasons, for it is senseless and dangerous." -- Dietrich Bonhoeffer German Theologian

What is Moral Relativism?

Moral Relativism is the belief that there is no objective right or wrong. It's all subjective; from moment to moment, situation to situation, right and wrong is subjectively whatever you say it is. It's all in the eye of the beholder, there are no fundamental objective truths that are universally applicable. The truth, right and wrong are whatever I say they are.

Moral relativism is the belief that sends the message, “that which is true for me may not be true for you.” If moral relativism is how we should live, and there is no fundamental, objective, right and wrong, then by extension, humans do not have rights either, because there are no wrongs that can be done against them. You cannot believe that we all have basic human rights while also believing that there is no right or wrong, for beliefs about morality are the foundation of our experience within any particular societal structure.

Do you remember signing a "Social Contract?"

Believing in moral relativism is an unconscious agreement that you have no rights, for it grants your individual consent to living in a society that lacks basic rights for people, and to a police state which enforces this lack of basic rights. Once the agreement has been made, via your belief that there is no right or wrong, then you have added your consent to the collective unconscious, and by extension to your government, to remove your rights as an individual within the country in which you are dwelling. The government does not give you rights, nor should it take them away. In other words, we give authority, based in our inherent rights, to the government, not the other way around.

“Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one's mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.”
George Orwell, 1984

An excerpt from the book 1984:
Erich Fromm wrote the "Afterword" for George Orwell's book 1984. Fromm, in this excerpt, is pointing out the "Moral Relativism" that Orwell included in his future 1984 dystopian society.

"The basic question which Orwell raises is whether there is any such thing as 'truth.' 'Reality,' so the ruling party holds, 'is not external. Reality exists in the human mind and nowhere else... whatever the Party holds to be truth is truth.' If this is so, then by controlling men's minds, the Party controls truth. In a dramatic conversation between the protagonist of the Party and the beaten rebel, a conversation which is a worthy analogy to Dostoyevsky's conversation between the Inquisitor and Jesus, the basic principles of the Party are explained. In contrast to the Inquisitor, however, the leaders of the Party do not even pretend that their system is intended to make man happier, because men, being frail and cowardly creatures, want to escape freedom and are unable to face the truth. The leaders are aware of, the fact that they themselves have only one aim, and that is power. To them 'power is not a means; it is an end. And power means the capacity to inflict unlimited pain and suffering to another human being.' Power, then, for them creates reality, it creates truth. The position which Orwell attributes here to the power elite can be said to be an extreme form of philosophical idealism, but it is more to the point to recognize that the concept of truth and reality which exists in 1984 is an extreme form of pragmatism in which truth becomes subordinated to the Party. An American writer, Alan Harrington, who in Life in the Crystal Palace gives a subtle and penetrating picture of life in a big American corporation, has coined an excellent expression for the contemporary concept of truth: 'mobile truth.' If I work for a big corporation which claims that its product is better than that of all. competitors, the question whether this claim is justified or not in terms of ascertainable reality becomes irrelevant. What matters is that as long as I serve this particular corporation, this claim becomes 'my' truth, and I decline to examine whether it is an objectively valid truth. In fact, if I change my job and move over to the corporation which was until now "my" competitor, I shall accept the new truth, that its product is the best, and subjectively speaking, this new truth will be as true as the old one. It is one of the most characteristic and destructive developments of our own society that man, becoming more and more of an instrument, transforms reality more and more into something relative to his own interests and functions. Truth is proven by the consensus of millions; to the slogan 'how can millions be wrong' is added 'and how can a minority of one be right.' Orwell shows quite clearly that in a system in which the concept of truth as an objective judgment concerning reality is abolished, anyone who is a minority of one must be convinced that he is insane."

The Dark Occult:

There is in fact an ancient Occult Religion, comprised of diverse, interconnected, networks of world-wide adherents... a spider's web of sorts. At the ideological core of this religion it posits, it postulates that knowledge of the human psyche and knowledge of the laws of the universe (natural law) should be occulted, hidden, held and wielded, by only a few select human beings. These Dark Occultists should, more accurately, be perceived as Satanists, that is, a version of Satanism, but not your perceived Hollywood indoctrinated version of Satanism. Practically, in practice, they are best understood as an ancient blood line of psychologists who hold, wield and pass on hidden information, thus power, in ways which exploit and manipulate those of us who remain ignorant of this power and them.

If you want to understand the evil that rules the world, what religions call Satan, the Deceiver... I recommend @markpassio 's work. 

Demystifying the Occult:

In his lecture, "Demystifying The Occult, De-Occultist, Mark Passio identifies what he calls the 4 main tenets of modern Satanists (Dark Occultists).

1. Selfishness as the highest goal, and no bones are made about this, by their ranks and file members. The survival and comfort of the physical self is always more important than doing what is morally right. Live for yourself only and care only about you and yours. If you must step on others to get it, so be it because this is a dog eat dog world (social darwinism). Me, me, me thinking.

2. Moral Relativism – there is no objective difference between right and wrong behavior, so human beings may arbitrarily “create” or “decide” right and wrong for themselves, based upon their own whims and preferences. You see... rights are not something that exists in nature (sarcasm). The moral relativist says, there is no inherent right or wrong in nature, we’ll decide what is right and wrong. That which we consider right for ourselves…. Since according to the inherent and objective laws of morality (natural law) the aggregate amount of morality present in the society is directly proportional to the amount of freedom in a society. thus true freedom can never exist in a society that accepts moral relativism. impossible, according to the laws of nature. And yet how many people in our society subscribe to moral relativism? That there is no objective right or wrong in nature, we get to make it up, and then grant that right to other people, and then the next day say no, that is no longer a right, and we’ll jail you for exhibiting that behavior. Our entire society is built upon moral relativism, it’s called the “laws of man”, and the vast majority of zombie walkers are adherents to it, they believe in the religion of satanism without even understanding what it is, or understanding that they are a member, by their beliefs.

3. Social Darwinism – the extension of Darwinian macro-biological “evolution”, into human society. the proponents postulate the notion of the “survival of the fittest,”  where the most dominant will rule their social strata. Applied to the human domain it is the “natural order” and even desirable for human society to be ruled by the most dominating and vicious human beings. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve been told that with a straight serious look on people’s faces, saying, “hey its just the natural order of things.” There is nothing natural about that folks, and there is no order in it. you’ll always end up in chaos. The second postulation of this theory is that it is such human’s genes which are the reason they acquired their positions of power, and maintained that position of power. Oh sure, it has nothing to do with the situation, societally, that they were perhaps born into, or the bloodlines they come from because they come from super rich ruling families, no its their “genes” that got them there. It has nothing to do with people’s belief in money, and that they will do any wretched behavior if given enough money, from their enslavers. no its their genes that got them there, you can see how much sense that makes. and yet, most people subscribe to this ideology in society as well...

4. Eugenics - 

“Power is in tearing human minds to pieces and putting them together again in new shapes of your own choosing.”
George Orwell, 1984