Morality

Consequences and how an individual reacts to them exposes the quality of their judgements.
Seeking aid in others indicates a misjudgment of the consequences.  
Even if an individual included the help of others into his judgements this further exposes the negative aspects of his choices and behaviours based on his/her judgments.
Most often begging or expecting help from others is an indication that choices based on poor judgments are the cause.
The expectation of external help - external intervention to protect them from the negative consequences of their choices, actions - has now become ingrained into the psyche of desperate degenerates - to the point where they consider it an injustice or immoral when it is not forthcoming; as if external aid is not only guaranteed but deserving, i.e., psychology of entitlement.

When morality is equated to social civility, the floodgates are opened for the tolerance of any form of humanity to be accepted in the ideological context of "natural rights".

Properly defining and understanding morality is "bringing it down to earth," giving it an empirical foundation that applies to all experienced events, under all circumstances, i.e. presenting a connection of the abstraction with a multiplicity of behaviours actions, proposing a rule that is applicable and holds true in all circumstances.

That is not what a modern nihilists want.
Their goal is to maintain subjectivity, where no general rule can be applied so nobody can ever make any error, or be held accountable, to even suffer the consequences of his choices - even here subjectivity, the illusion of everyone living in their own private universe, depends on collectivization of consequences - Marxist redistribution of negative consequences and positive ones, as a logical continuance of the same post-modern emotional "reasoning".

The idea that what we call morality evolves as an adaptation of cooperative survival strategies - requiring no coercion from a authority, nor a god - is intolerable to such decrepit hypocrites.
For example, that some species would develop a instinctive repulsion towards incestual procreation because of the genetic side-effects, is disregarded by such simpletons because they need the illusion of some power imposing these rules upon humanity to feel victimized and to preserve their faith in their preferred nihilistic ideals.

In closing, a desperate degenerate is not offended by idealistic, metaphysical, abstractions of morality. What he is threatened by is what all nihilists are threatened by: BEING SEEN and KNOWN by others more than they are able to Know, and accept, Themselves....given that they are trapped within their won Gordian self-deceptinos, encompassing them like a noetic protective womb.
They are "offended" by generalizations that expose human nature, discrediting the subjectivation of everything, including morality.
The only generalities they begrudgingly accept, are those that do not threaten, or remain neutral to the goal of evading detection, and never being judged; they desperately want to remain "immune" to all potential negative consequences of their poor judgments - product of a inferior mind - and poor choices. They want the collective to come to their rescue, either due to some other-worldy universal moral standard, i.e., divine decree, or due to a shared vulnerability o amoral standards establishing a collective, herd morality imposing tis "quantitative might" as a "humanitarian right".
Generalities, for such hypocrites, are challenges to their social right to remain concealed and to live by his own, private, moral standards.
Reducing all - sex, race, morality - to a social construct justifies their demand that they be given equal treatment, forcing all to compromise for their sake if they wish to expect him/her to make similar concessions towards them.

A thorough understanding of morality, beginning with natural selection, discerns a division between later to develop socioeconomic ethical codes - a division between genetically evolving moral behaviours and socially impose ethical codes, i.e., memetic - with Moses and his Ten Commandment representing a seminal historical point of their emergence.

Source of Morality in the Hive Mind
Shared knowledge, along with the interpretation of this knowledge, is part of the hive’s internal restructuring. Through the dissemination of data, its permeations and interpretations, the world is assimilated into a shared world-view – communal ideology. This shared attitude towards life and reality is then part of how each member independently reacts to any data it may come across. The individual feels free to think and do as he/she wills but an underlying indoctrination ensures that it remains within collectivized standards. Thinking, judging, and choosing in conflict with this sub-conscious, seemingly innate, conventional standard is rare, if not impossible, accompanied by a sense of wrongdoing, guilt and anxiety, i.e., conscience – the idea of god emerges as the sensation of the collective showing dissatisfaction with an individual’s actions – on this level sin is felt as a conflict with conventional judgments and behaviours.
Punishment for such indiscretions is exorcizing the “evil” component form the collective body – one-god’s will casting the individual “out of the collective” is gradually narrated as a loss of paradise/utopia – the individual cast out of god’s body, i.e., the collective.

The threat of ostracising, or being excluded from the hive is considered a death-wish, and only something a fool or a madman would risk. This is how dissenting world-views are excluded from the sphere of applicability without having to deal with their reasoning or evidence. Whatever threatens the individual’s participation within a collective is deemed “evil,” so unthinkable that the individual cannot even consider the possibility.
God’s wrath is really a by-product of socializations, corresponding to the wrath of the collective against an individual – a certain death and suffering outside the protective embrace of a collective will have been established, in social species, as an innate fear of being ostracized or excluded. Here we also see the anxiety concerning sexual exclusion from the group’s future always going through the judgment and filtering agency of females.

Being excluded from a group is the worse fate a member of a social species can suffer. A fact that could only have been converted to a spiritual narrative where the collective is idealized and personified as a deity that doles out punishments and rewards to its flock.

Le Bon, Gustave wrote:

As soon as a certain number of living beings are gathered together, whether they be animals or men, they place themselves instinctively under the authority of a chief. In the case of human crowds the chief is often nothing more than a ringleader or agitator, but as such he plays a considerable part. His will is the nucleus around which the opinions of the crowd are grouped and attain to identity. He constitutes the first element towards the organisation of heterogeneous crowds, and paves the way for their organisation in sects; in the meantime he directs them.
A crowd is a servile flock that is incapable of ever doing without a master. The leader has most often started as one of the led. He has himself been hypnotised by the idea, whose apostle he has since become. It has taken possession of him to such a degree that everything outside it vanishes, and that every contrary opinion appears to him an error or a superstition. An example in point is Robespierre, hypnotised by the philosophical ideas of Rousseau, and employing the methods of the Inquisition to propagate them.

Every hive – social cooperative – has its own method of exchanging data, reinforcing internal uniformity. In the human varieties language constitutes such a method. To know the “word,” referring to a concept, is to also know the appropriate reaction to it. This may be emotional, intuitive, and automatic – all reactions trained into the minds of the members from birth, and subsequently through the education systems.

The creation of automated responses to external threats to the hive mind’s comfort levels is of the highest importance for each and every member. It is one of that many benefits of surrendering to the hive mind and forsaking individuality: a sacrifice to the divine for an expected higher return.
For the hive mind creativity is judged by how it contributes to this shared defensiveness. Training the membership in the expected defensive responses to reality’s challenges is considered a sacred duty – a ritualized subjugation to a “divine collective”.
Religion, and institutionalized education, is therefore greatly appreciated by the members of the hive mind – in hindsight, and once the appropriate sacrificial rites have been performed. Learning the appropriate reactions to particular threats, coming from ideas & ideals that contradict the hive mind’s premises, and/or that challenge its internal harmony, is the highest priority.
The severity of the necessary sacrifices is determined by the degree of ego and identity, i.e., sense of self, already emerging and the degree to which it has managed to be independently cultivated in each individual before the process of indoctrination has begun to manipulate its innate socializing impulses ingrained in its genetic codes. For simpletons the sacrifice is small and easily made; for more sophisticated individuals the sacrifice is high and can only be made if a high return is expected, or when cowardice, or some other form of trauma reduces resistance.

A man remains moral in as much as he remains dependent on others.
A philosopher becomes amoral in as much as he becomes objective.

Mill, John wrote:

There is, I am aware, a disposition to believe that a person who sees in moral obligation a transcendental fact, an objective reality belonging to the province of ‘Things in themselves,’ is likely to be more obedient to it than one who believes it to be entirely subjective, having its seat in human consciousness only.

Declining towards depravity is accompanied by an increase in subjective standards. Although ethics is about the study of moral behaviours given manmade codes, the behaviour itself is not subjectively determined, nor a result of an external agency imposing itself upon individual impulses, but the result of evolutionary processes facilitating cooperative reproductive and survival strategies.
Mosaic Law proposed addendums to be added to moral codes of human conduct so as to impose additional restrictions upon natural impulses, producing confusions between gene-based and meme-based rules of conduct; confusions exploited by nihilists to justify amorality as their negation of all rules which did not have divine origins. An overcompensating ego cannot accept any authority which is present, and perceptible, equating it with power imposing itself upon weakness, i.e., authoritarianism – code of victimhood – so it incorporated natural rode into its power mythologies, accusing an anthropomorphic deity, or man himself, as the originator of all behavioural norms and rules. The only authority it can tolerate – other than the dead idol – is a faceless, ego-less, abstraction that will not threaten its fragile sense of self.

For an emasculated spirit all must be reduced down to morality – implying that even in the absence of an absolutist one-god the universe is still governed by universal laws of justice. Such spirits cannot accept the possibility of an objective reality without moral underpinnings, or even dare to consider the possibility of morality with an evolved utility. Either the universe is morally governed – with or without god – or there can be no acceptable world beyond human subjectivity – where there is no objective world there can be no external moral, or other, standard, viz., if there is no benevolent, authoritarian, intentional, one-god then man ought to replace him; multifarious – triadastic – divine oneness must be substituted by the multiplicity of a singular human race; divinity replaced by humanity; evolved moral behaviours sublimated through adaptive human ethical codes; god’s omnipotence and authority usurped by a collective power and authority, incorporating subjectivity into inter-subjectivity; as such, where there is no inherent human nature then it is man who must cultivate it, out of nowhere and nothing, as it were. We’re talking about an insidious conception of social engineering that begins by undermining all forms of precedent and worldly authority – the world, i.e., reality, as an authoritative standard, personified as an “evil human agency” attempting to trick us, or impose its will upon us, feeding into the postmodern – Marxist – narratives.

Schopenhauer, Arthur wrote:

As regards morality, example, like doctrine, may, it is true, promote civil or legal amelioration, but not that inward amendment which is, strictly speaking, the only kind of moral amelioration. For example always works as a personal motive alone, and assumes, therefore, that a man is susceptible to this sort of motive. But it is just the predominating sensitiveness of character to this or that sort of motive that determines whatever its morality is true and real; though, of whatever kind it is, it is always innate. In general  it may be said that example operates as a means of promoting the good and the bad qualities of a character, but it does create them; and so it is that Seneca’s maxim, velle nondiscitur – will cannot be learned – also holds good here. But the innateness of all truly moral qualities, of the good as of the bad, is a doctrine that consorts better with the metempsychosis of the Brahmins and Buddhists, according to which man’s good and bad deeds follow him from one existence to another like his shadow, than with Judaism. For Judaism requires a man to come into the world as a moral blank, so that, in virtue of an inconceivable free will, directed to objects, which are neither to be sought nor avoided – liberum arbitrium indifferentiae – and consequently as the result of reasoned consideration, he may choose whatever he is to be an angel or a devil, or anything else that may lie between the two. Though I am well aware what the Jewish scheme is, I pay no attention to it; for my standard is truth. I am no professor of philosophy, and therefore I do not find my vocation in establishing the fundamental ideas of Judaism at any cost, even though they for ever bar the way to all and every kind of physical knowledge. Liberum arbitrium indefferentiae under the name of moral freedom is a charming doll for professors of philosophy to dandle; and we must leave it to those intelligent, honourable and upright gentlemen.

Good & Evil is a human adaptation of nature's good & bad, just as “gender” is the application of heterosexual reproductive specialization within socioeconomic systems, relative to their ideals, i.e., objectives and/or conceptions of the superior. Ideas/ideals act as guiding ambitions shaping collective identities; distinguishing them in relation to others.
Memetic incorporations of genetics can take the form of sublimation, and/or inconsistency. The Abrahamic Ten Commandments are examples of memes attempting to sublimate genetic impulses, through a specific motive. They brought about the first Theocracy. The fact that Mosaic Laws were supposed to curb human nature justifies the utility of a totalitarian, unyielding, one-god, coercing, bribing and seducing myriads of mediocre mases to his rule.
The absence of absolutes, e.g., absolute good/bad, created a vacuum the absolutism of an absolute one-god could fulfill with his good/evil decrees; categories referring to group welfare as this is determined by collective ideals, i.e., standards for evaluating and discriminating.

Survival and reproductive strategies evolve into innate cooperative behaviours expressed as altruism, tolerance, and sympathy.
Such behaviours become innate and are converted into ethical codes of conduct – a transfiguration that exposes them to corruptive motives. Nevertheless, ethical codes can be institutionally enforced, but moral impulses are either innate, or must be stringently and consistently imposed through group dynamics, i.e., peer pressure, social ostracizing, females sexual filtering etc.

Ethical standards are susceptible to changing group dynamics, but moral standards are more rigid, since they evolved over time in relation to fluctuating environmental circumstances, spanning hundreds of generations – corresponding to gene/meme dynamics.

The method of validating any theory about moral behaviour, or its authenticity is the same as with any other word, referring to a concept, or a theory founded on a concept: you begin with the act.
In free-will the act is that of choice, based no judgment. Afro-asiatic deniers can claim an external agency, and can use any word to represent it, e.g., god, absolute, fate, determinism, order, causality, etc. It doesn't matter, the word refers to the same underlying concept, i.e., the absolute - immutable, indivisible, complete, whole, singular, total, one, etc. It doesn't matter because it refers to nothing outside brains, sharing concepts; it has no external, independent, referent - it is idea/ideal.
The only way to negate an absolutist idea/ideal is with an equal, in its absolutism, idea/ideal - this is how nihilism pulls all discourse into its paradigm, viz., to deal with tis unsubstantiated absurdities one must use an equal to it unsubstantiated absurdity - linguistic paradoxes ensue as a consequence of taking the original claim for granted.
It begins with a concept that only exists in the brain - in a vague, obscure, mystical, often undefined, indeterminate form - as theory taken on faith.
It is when it becomes popular that one is forced to lower oneself to its level.

In the case of morality the concept must begin with the act - not the word - as in Abrahamic nihilism, but the act, viz., existence, the dynamic, the interactive.
Semiotics evolve later to refer to these acts, as an act itself.
one is subjective in relation to an objective/object, not in relation to oneself or to nothing; one is subjective in relation to world, or existence, i.e., the present/presence, perceived - interpretation, perspective - as apparent.
The apparent in no way means "certain" or any word sued to describe an absolute state of being, but expressed a probability, relative to possibility - the superior, relative to the inferior; the more probable in relation to the improbable or the finite in relation to infinity.
Skepticism is implied by the very idea of an absence of an absolute state: an absence of omnipotence, omniscience, or absolute certainty, absolute freedom/unfreedom, absolute order/chaos, absolute being/non-being, absolute good/evil, good/bad and so on.

From the act we discern a pattern. Moral behaviour is evident in specific kinds of interactivities, and specific types of life, and absent in al others.
So, here we find a clue concerning its utility, and why it propagates and does not vanish over time.

From there we can advance to naturally emerging moral behaviours and those imposed by humans, as addendums, to facilitate more than the original. we can sue a different term to clarify, so I use "morality/ethics" corresponding to gene/meme, or to that which evolves physically and that which evolved mentally, as an extension (advancement) of the previous; ideal from real - actions (interactions, behaviour) <> words (representations, semiotics).

It is evident that words need not correspond or refer to external referents, and man routinely creates concepts that have no references in reality - or may even contradict, nullify, the experienced world.
This linguistic contradiction is how nihilistic spiritual dogmas and secular, political, ideologies are built.

Jaynes, Julius wrote:

But there is another and even more important use of phrenes, this word that originally referred to the lungs and then to the complex sensations in breathing. And this is in the first beginnings of morality.
No one is moral among the god-controlled puppets of the Iliad. Good and evil do not exist. But in the Odyssey, Clytaemenestra is able to resist Aegisthus because her phrenes are agathai, which may have been derived from roots that would make it mean ‘very like a god’.

In accordance with natural order corresponds to the harmony {αρμονία} of man with existence, promoting survival and reproduction. Morality emerges among social organisms, and life that must cooperate to pass on its genes, as a sense of agreement with divinity: man adhering to divine law.

From the social instinct – survival through synergistic multipliers – emerges the moral instinct of reciprocity: invested interests expecting a higher return.

For the sake of clarity, the terms “morality and ethics” will be used to differentiate evolved behaviours, facilitating cooperative reproductive and survival strategies, from manmade behavioural norms, imposing additional restrictions to these innate behaviours to accord with more fluid cultural ideals.
In effect: Morals = genetic, of the body – moral behaviours evolved to facilitate specific kinds of reproductive and survival strategies; Ethics = memetic, of the mind – ethics developed – semiotically – as additional rules of conduct to facilitate the stability of human interventions, producing excess resources, including human; they developed to manage a superfluity human interventions upon the natural environment produced.
An example would be the Ten Commandments – creating Theocratic rule – which were addendums to pre-existing group restrictions to social and, more importantly, sexual options; adding another layer of negation of free-will.

McEvilley, Thomas wrote:

Some ethical systems have regarded certain acts as good or evil in themselves; others have held that the nature of the act has to be complemented by a certain state of mind in order to have ethical significance; still others have regarded states of mind themselves as the ethical material, regardless of the acts that may be performed.
An example of the first type is Jainism. To a Jain, to kill is ethically negative (which is to say, karmically disadvantageous) regardless of whether the act is or is not voluntary. Along with its other archaic features, Jainism in this respect resembles so-called ‘primitive’ systems based on ideas of taboo and pollution.
An example of the second type is Buddhism. To a Buddhist, to kill is karmically disadvantageous only if it is voluntary. Both the nature of the act and the voluntary state of mind are relevant to the ethical value. The ethical systems of monotheistic religions – Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam – are generally of this type. In the western tradition the third approach is least familiar: The same act performed with one’s mind in one posture may be good, and with one’s mind in another posture, evil. The ethical systems enunciated by philosophers in both ancient Greece and ancient India were mostly of this type.
The agreement of the Greek and Indian traditions on this point has been obscured by the fact that the Greek tradition was largely clouded over by the Judeo-Christian; it has been convenient for western cultures to forget the fact that the ethical attitude espoused by most of the Greek philosophers of whom we have knowledge was inimical to the Judeo-Christian type of ethics.

Ethos becomes a method of assimilation/indoctrination, and identification.  
What cannot be rehabilitated, retrained, remade to accord with social norms is expelled, quarantined, and/or ostracised.
The effect is one of externalized divergence and internalized normalisation: god as the esoteric private Self theoretically – idealistically – unifying all multiplicity of divergent appearances – multiplicity – into a symbolic singularity i.e., one nation, one humanity, void of all sexual connotations and divisive natural identifiers, through the all-levelling power of abstraction; in effect replacing an anthropomorphic one-god with a secular version of an externalized theoretical authoritative totalitarian absolute agency.
Personality – private self – is theoretically consumed by the communal Self, expressing this consummation as its adopted public character (performative caricature); an idealized citizen and normalized member of society.
If personæ has its own innate moral codes, determining physical actions, i.e., judgements, choices then ethics represent the social character, imposed upon by group dynamics, i.e., socioeconomic, cultural hierarchies, forcing it to adjust to their behavioural norms – often in opposition to individual innate moral impulses.


Ethics are formalized, codified, and, then, institutionalized morality.

Ethics are connective codes linking morality – evolved within a natural environment – and collective ideals – projections of socioeconomic, cultural, goals, i.e., ambitions – establishing uniform behavioural norms.
If this mediating connective is severed from a shared past, it is converted to nihilistic amorality, signaling the beginning of the end of civilization.

The Theocratic Ten Commandments are examples of ethical codes acting as addendums – upgrades – to moral dispositions, imposing additional restrictions to human behaviour.
Ethical laws, delivered from a presumed divine authority, are precursors to judicial laws and socioeconomic rules.
Before literacy became common, and institutions became sophisticated, state authority had to take the form of divine authority.

Morality is made fluid through the technique/technology of ethics; an additional human innovation imposing itself upon existing natural processes.
A majority decides what ought to be considered moral (thou shall…) at any given period in time, and in any given space, as the circumstances demand.
Ethics become expressions of cultural norms, adjusting moral dispositions to manmade environments, viz., moral behaviours are to genes what ethical codes of conduct are to memes. [ MANifesto: Word Wars – Gene & Meme Dynamics]

Levin, Michael wrote:

Moral philosophy also rests on accepted norms. Whatever the classical thinkers may have thought they were doing, they were in fact seeking to codify what Rawls calls ‘fixed points’ of moral intuition. Extending the metaphor, moral philosophy is a curve fitting exercise, with ordinary reflective judgments the data points and ethical principles the curves fitted to them. A moral theory is typically considered plausible when it coheres with ordinary judgments, implausible when it violates them. Aristotle’s doctrine of the mean reads like a generalization of a pattern of thinking he detected in the actual deliberations of his fellow Greeks. (Aristotle seems more interested in habituation to virtue than in the identity of virtuous acts, which he evidently finds obvious.) Kant stresses the congruence of the categorical imperative with ‘ordinary rational knowledge of morality.’ Mill frankly admits that the only proof he can offer of utilitarianism, the doctrine that pleasure alone is desirable, is that (so he thinks) pleasure alone is actually desired. The standard criticisms of utilitarianism and Kantianism is that they flout common sense. Thus, utilitarianism is accused of demanding, contrary to ‘moral intuition,’ that a woman forced to choose between saving her baby and saving ten strangers from a fire should save the strangers. ‘Active’ utilitarians who accept this counterintuitive conclusion and call their critics sentimentalists convince no one. More sophisticated utilitarians disown the conclusion, explaining that they favor rules—like putting one’s own children first—which maximize happiness in the long run when generally followed. The lesson to draw from these exchanges is not who gets the better of them, but what is counted as getting the better, namely consistency with common sense.
[Why Race Matters – Race Differences and What They Mean]

Leo Strauss tries to define the two competing moral attitudes in western civilization:

Strauss, Leo wrote:

Now, in the course of these extremely summary remarks, I have tacitly replaced morality by justice, understanding by justice obedience to the divine law. This notion, the divine law, it seems to me is the common ground between the Bible and Greek philosophy. And here I use a term which is certainly easily translatable into Greek as well as into biblical Hebrew. But I must be more precise. The common ground between the bible and Greek philosophy is the problem of divine law. They solve that problem in a diametrically opposed manner.
Before I speak of the root of their difference, I would like to illustrate the fundamental antagonism between the bible and philosophy by enumerating some of its consequences. I have indicated the place of justice in both Bible and Greek philosophy. We may take Aristotle’s Ethics as the most perfect or certainly accessible presentation of philosophic ethics. Now, Aristotle’s Ethics has two foci, not one: one is justice, the other, however, is magnanimity.
…The Bible and Greek philosophy agree, indeed, as regards the importance of morality or justice, and as to the insufficiency of morality, but they disagree as to what completes morality.
According to the Greek philosophers, as already noted, it is understanding, or contemplation.
Now, this necessarily tends to weaken the majesty of the moral demands, whereas humility, a sense of guilt, repentance, and faith in divine mercy, which complete morality according to the Bible, necessarily strengthen the majesty of the moral demands.
[The Culture of Jewish Modernity]

The Greek term for this “magnanimity” is “philotimo” {φιλοτιμο}, i.e., love of glory, love of justice. It is a word no other language has, and it is the defining attitude separating Christian and Greek ethics.

Guilt and shame have been weaponized by Abrahamic ethical codes, just as they’ve god has been converted to a tool of authoritarian totalitarian control.
To contradict one absurdity an equal to it absurdity must be brought to bear; as such atheism, or the negation of an absolute with another absolute, immerses itself in the prevailing paradigm, and the only negation of the shaming, guilt ridden Abrahamic system is shameless amorality. All is reduced down to the absolutists abstractions represented by these codes, but are taken literally.
So, to reject the unsubstantiated belief in an absolute one is with an equally absurd unsubstantiated absolute nil, and to negate the shame/guilt of Abrahamic codes is with shamelessness claims of innocence.
Victim psychology is the product of overcoming obsolete nihilistic methods with upgraded, more sophisticated, methods.

Abrahamism did not invent morality, nor altruism, nor compassion.
It simply encoded it, added to it, and weaponized it.

It then proposed world-views that denied all other cultures their world-views, presenting themselves as the alpha & omega of altruism, and presenting their humble arrogance as worthy of imitation or being submitted to.
The arrogance that you've been "chosen" or that you deserve "eternal life", or the attentions of a divine entity, you've pulled out of your arse, and linguistically encoded, as a meme with no external referents, is what leads to its end of the world scenarios or its "join or die" psychosis.
Whatever the faults of the Greeks, or the pagans for that matter, they never imposed their gods, or convictions, or anyone - their ideas spread from the force of their reasoning, or their seductive appeal.
Messianism is an Abrahamics psychosis, which, when secularized, manifests neurosis and all kinds of psychosis and sexually expressed dysphoria.

Man and Orangutan demonstrate the CORRECT life [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Classic Age Vitalist (@CVitalist) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Morality does not require a god, and is not socially determined. 
It evolves naturally, contributing to cooperative survival and reproductive strategies.

Ethical codes, on the other hand, are culturally determined.
Mosaic law is the first example of encoded ethics. 

When we learn to use words to differentiate morals from ethics, and ego from self, we will understand the gene/meme relationship - body/mind, reality/ideology...natural/artificial....phenomenon/noumenon.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And Fear/Anxiety is the mother of all emotions.

Way before there was any socioeconomic, manmade, system to blame, or a god, for that matter to lay down, before his feet, the burden of responsibility.

Ethical codes of conduct - moral rules - were the formalization of behaviours that emerged to facilitate cooperative survival and reproductive strategies...just as gender is the idealization, socialization, of sex, i.e., of specialized reproductive roles.

The compulsion underneath mind-body division, Disassociation, is wrought from shame, a mistake of rationality, social embarrassment, by which the person wishes to forget the source of the Body, lose thyself, responsible for that mistake... Lethe, willful ignorance, Self-Deception.

The body distances itself (Mind) from its own Cause.

Compound this across a lifetime, and then compound this across dozens of generations, and this will expose the undercurrent of Humanity for Centuries...

It has been attempted throughout human history, to 'educate' the masses of children and teenagers, young adults and the like, to become "morally responsible agents". This has failed countless times. The realization came early on in Catholic-Christian institutions, and Græco-Roman elitists, that the masses cannot be "educated" to moral understanding and accountability.

You cannot simply make a slave into a master. The will to take responsibility for oneself is quite rare and remarkable. It is a phenomenon of genus and genius. And it is the source of any and all Aristocracy, Aryanism, Nobility.

Some rare individuals simply have capability for Morality that others do not.

Some humans have Agency, while most do not.


Thus the masses, the average, the lower, cling to Authority and Dictation for direction.

The will of the regular man, is indeed External and not "his own". He has no significant will, of his/her own.

Satyr wrote:

To contradict one absurdity an equal to it absurdity must be brought to bear; as such atheism, or the negation of an absolute with another absolute, immerses itself in the prevailing paradigm, and the only negation of the shaming, guilt ridden Abrahamic system is shameless amorality. All is reduced down to the absolutists abstractions represented by these codes, but are taken literally.
So, to reject the unsubstantiated belief in an absolute one is with an equally absurd unsubstantiated absolute nil, and to negate the shame/guilt of Abrahamic codes is with shamelessness claims of innocence.
Victim psychology is the product of overcoming obsolete nihilistic methods with upgraded, more sophisticated, methods.

Moral systems have evolved. Western Civilization, Americanism, manipulated the Christian Ethos and gutted it. Protestants have always been the weakest link of Christianity, which is also why Westerners (Protestants) are also so easily manipulated by Judaism, Israel, Zionism, Etc.

The forceful conversion of American Protestants into Secular Humanism (through liberal-leftism), Atheism, was intentional. The tradeoff was to make American people primed for use by Corporations and Commercialism, which succeeded. USA is corporatized and "Post-Modern", Post-Christian. The Protestant holdouts: Mormons, Baptists, Evangelicals, have been forced politically into subversion and submission. Compared the morality and ethics of Americans in the 1990s under Bush and Clinton, to now. Christians are politically weak and inept, exponentially being phased-out by new and virulent waves of Liberal-Left Secularists: Antifa, BLM, Marxists, Communists, etc.

Atheism, Agnosticism, Secularism, have all attacked and won their assaults against the American Christian. Morality and Ethics have devolved in the traditional sense, but in exchange for systemic benefits. The result is a more forceful and powerful social cohesion, a slave-mentality, slave-dialectic, and slave-ethos. American politics is consolidating under these forces as the military and economic power is set to collapse on itself, just as it did the Twin Towers on 9-11.

The weakening moral character of America is being detected around the world, and in the US, as people rapidly awake from the "American Dream" and find their new American Reality a nightmare.

No more social mobility. No more class fluidity. No more economic opportunity or prosperity.

No more freedom to be had.

America traded Something for Nothing.

It's "in the past" now, a sin forgiven and forgotten, washed-away.

If nobody remembers, did it really happen?

Linear-Time is offered as a salve, Salvation, that the mistakes of the past, or the shame of dynasties do not apply to you.  The failures of your ancestors, are not your own.  You only inherit "the good", not the bad, selectively.  This one-sided, skewed and slanted picking & choosing, is the Abrahamic and Christian "morality".

"The Future" is pure, pristine, full of endless possibilities cleansed of mistakes.



Cyclical-Time, however, is different.  If time is not linear, then mistakes are often repeated.  How many times must the same mistake be repeated before a person learns?  1, 100, 1000?  Infinity?  Maybe some animals, some people, will never learn?

After all, fish in the seas and streams still take the bait.  When will they learn?

How rare is learning?

(edit)

Nature has no morality.
Morality emerges within nature - as does consciousness, awareness, minds - as a product of interactions reactions to nature's patterned and non-patterned - ordered and random/chaotic - energies.
Morality evolves in some life forms as a method of coping with nature.

All decisions, choices face nature's indifferent flux. If the choices contradict natural order they face the consequences.
There is no moral or ethical motive. There is only natural order an d natural chaos.
Since life is ordering, and dependent on order, it is with natural order which it must align itself with; it can do nothing about chaos but endure and adapt as much as possible.

Nature has no morality because....nature has no intent - no will.
Nature is not a thing nor a life, but a state of being.

Morality only refers to that which has intent, qualifying the intent in relation to an objective.
Morality emerged in nature, among many social organisms, as a behaviour that facilitated survival and reproduction - that was its intent.
It developed, in human societies, as a ethical behavioural code that facilitates harmony and promotes objectives particular to the civilization.


Morality = genetic - cooperative, tolerant, compassionate: reciprocity, i.e., cultivating in-group efficiency, multiplying in-group effectiveness .
Ethics = memetic - addendums to evolved genetic behaviours in accordance with cultural ideals.
This confuses simpler minds. They assume that evolved moral behaviours are like ethical codes, a product of a willful mind imposing itself upon other minds.

Example, specialized reproductive roles is integrated into society as gender - genes to memes - as are all human sexual impulses sublimated by cultural ideals and integrated into civilization - institutionalized, e.g., monogamy - ethical code -sublimates human sexuality via the insinuation of marriage prohibiting adultery so as to facilitate in-group integration, participation, investment and harmony.
Example, violence is institutionalized, criminalized if practiced without institutional sanction.
Killing is made into a crime and is ethically coded as immoral so as to promote in-group stability.
There is no such universal natural rule.

Whether or not humans justify their options and their own judgments of them and the subsequent choices they make based on them, has no effect on the consequences.
Nature is indifferent to justifications and ethical claims.

The justification only affects humans.

Nature simply reacts to the actions - as it is interactive.
I act, my actions create an effect on others and the world and this has consequences.
The consequences are not good/bad but only in relation to an objective, which only life can have.

Depending on the objective, the ideal, the human suffers the consequences as good/bad.
If the objective is surreal, unreal, unattainable, the bad consequences are inevitably more than the good ones - depending no how unattainable, idealistic, an objective is determines the degree of negative feedback, based consequences.
If, on the other hand, the objectives are attainable - realistic - then the bad consequences can force an individual to adjust - adapt - itself in order to increase the good ones....progressively closing the gap between the subject and its objective.

This willful adjustment is natural selection necessitating some degree of free-will.

I was surprised to find out that Harris is a moral absolutist.
I've never read anything he's written, nor have any interest in doing so. My contact with Harris was through his polemics against religion and the idea of god.
If this professor is correct then it would explain Harris' stance against freed-will.
I once watched an interview where his argument was that belief in free-will would increase regret, as if this was a sufficient argument to dismiss it.
This particular "argument" posits a pleasure criteria.
His other arguments against free-will are shallow and focus on lucid consciousness, entirely dismissing how life - starting from plants and amoebas - judge and choose without requiring anything approaching the levels of human lucidity.
According to Harris if you are not aware that you are judging and choosing then you are not to be held responsible for what you do subconsciously.

Harris is a Jew - his mother was a non-religious Jew - so we can trace these convictions to his ethnicity.
His absolution inclinations may be rooted in genetics or a subconscious inheritance of a world-view and a moral disposition.

As he makes clear, morality is a way of relating with others and existence.
There is no universal, absolute, morality.
Morality evolved as a way of cultivating the dispositions necessary for cooperative group strategies to become efficient and effective. Individuals with a particular dispositions passed on their genes, whereas those that did not were filtered out of the gene pool.

Abrahamics - both fanatics and secular, i.e., recovering - are trapped in Abrahamics absolutism.
We see this clearly in the imbecile on ILP who must fabricate moral absolutism to fights against - like a modern Don Quixote - because his immoral nihilism is validated only by negating moral absolutism.
He has no response to the natural and relative conceptions of morality.
I've repeated that a goal, a motive, is deemed good or bad - not moral and immoral - but probably successful or failing, in relation to an ideal, an objective, but this doesn't mean that every objective is realistic, realizable, or equal to every other.

Example:
Killing is neither moral nor immoral in nature. The act is judged in relation to an objective, not to some vague ideological construct.
The objective makes the act, the choice, good or bad in an amoral sense.
Morality, and then ethics, have to do with collective motives and ideals.
So an individual wanting to belong to a group must adapt to group ideals, which determine what the group has judged to be good or bad for its weerll-being.
This group belief is not automatically true, because it is only true in relation to the environment it is applied within.
Group = social environment - memetics.
World = natural environments, cosmos, world, that which existed before man and will continue after man; that which exists independently from man and his convictions.

So why is pædophilia or incest bad?>
Because of morality, because of god, because of politics?
No....because of the biological consequences of such activities.
Consequences often shared - evenly distributed within the group - so as to make them bearable. This is sheltering.
A collectivization of negative consequences cannot endure for long, as there is nothing forcing individuals to change their behaviours so these negative consequences accumulate until their even distribution no longer suffices to make them tolerable, or bearable.
Same goes for any behaviour with negative consequences exceeding the positive benefits.
All choices leading to actions have both negative and positive consequences.
Natural selection means those with negative consequences reduce survival and reproductive probabilities, gradually being weeded out of the gene-pool, but with human interventions and collectivization, they never are, so they accumulate and compound until insanity, like what is presently occurring in the States, or the "west" as it is wrongly identified.

But morons don't want to understand this...or simply don't have the brains to even begin to understand, so they return to their Abrahamic absolutes, like Harris's' universal morality.

Imbeciles are so thick...
Let's say there is a culture that emerges and believed sex with animals is moral and that sex with humans is immoral.
Such a culture could never evolve because it would end as fast as it started.
But, for the sake of the argument, let's imagine one did emerge...what would be the consequence.
Would these degenerates suffer because of god's wrath, because of some moral law, no....they would suffer the consequences of their own beliefs relative to natural laws.

Let's say someone likes taking it up the ass...and develops a culture where heterosexual sex is immoral and gay sex is the epitome of morality. Vaginal sex is considered immoral, and anal sex the height of virtue.
Would this group, this cult, be punished by god, or by some divine or political power....no.
Their convictions would be punishment enough if they remained true to them and were not, like most nihilistic convictions, self-contradicting and duplicitous.
In other words, if they did not contradict their own moral principles and secretly  indulge in heterosexual sex they would become extinct within a lifetime.

This negative consequence is what evolves innate moral judgements.  

This is the source of moral behaviour.
Activities that produce more negative consequences than positive benefits eventually become immoral, or innately disgusting...we evolve an antipathy towards them.

Let's set aside human adjustments to moral behaviours - ethical laws, Mosaic laws - and focus on how a moral sense evolves and why it evolved.
Why was killing one of your group considered bad while killing others was good?
Why did altruism and compassion become a sign of social health and normalcy and being sociopathic and uncooperative and murderous towards your own group become a sure way to not pass on your genes?

The goal, the objective of social behaviour is to increase survival and reproductive potentials, and these behaviours contradicted these objectives, so such behaviours were gradually naturally selected out of populations.

Therefore  the objective is what determines the morality of a activity - genetic - or its ethical value - memetics.
So, why did adultery become a manmade ethical rule? We must know what the objective was for such a restriction on human sexual, behaviour.
The objective was twofold: -1- to reduce in-group sexual competition, and conflicts -2- to integrate and invest as many individuals in the welfare of the group.
Now adultery became unethical.

So, the intent is what makes an action, a choice, ethical or unethical, moral or immoral...not god, not conventional beliefs...these develop as methods of enforcement - reward and punishment.
Monogamy first emerged when populations moved into inhospitable environments and groups had to rely on the efforts of as many participants as possible.
The Ten Commandments were such manmade ethical socioeconomic rules.....but morality evolved to facilitate survival and reproductive strategies.
Ethics and morals are group relationships referring to memes and genes.

Morality evolves naturally, multiplying survival and reproductive potentials, so they were naturally selected because they offered an advantage; ethics develop additions adjustments, enhancements to moral norms in order to further enhance survival and reproductive probabilities by increasing the size of groups.
Morals are neither god-made nor man-made. Not even ethics can contradict evolved moral behaviours without risking extinction.

In brief:

Morals (genetic) = naturally selected behaviours which offer an advantage for a specific type of survival and reproductive strategy.
Ethics = (memetics) = manmade additions, adjustments, that accentuate and enhance morally selected behaviours to multiply this survival and reproductive advantage, e.g., Mosaic Laws, monogamy, expansion of identity etc.

Both have an objective, and it is only in relation to this objective that contrary behaviours are deemed immoral or unethical.
This does not mean that any ethical system can enhance and successfully adjust moral behaviour. The success or failure of an ethical system is in regards to nature, the consequences and how they relate to the world outside group dynamics.
The objective is what determines what kind of individual is being cultivated - what physical and mental qualities he will have.
Each culture has its own ideal type of man.
This is what will determine how fit, effective, successful, such an ideal type is relative to the world, i.e., nature; cultures, like individuals, compete for dominance - organisms (manifestation of genetic memories) super-organisms (manifestation of memories).