Morality

The best way to understand genetically inherited morality is to study insects.

They do not "teach" their offspring. There is no "education" or nurturing.

So how have insects evolved? How do offspring know what to do?



Was the immorality, corruption, hedonism, and decadence of the Roman elite class during the height of the Roman Empire any different than today? Did they not preach the same homosexuality and transexuality, then, as they do now? What has really changed in 2000 years? 2000 years of "human evolution" yet (im)morality is literally the exact same? Has nothing been learned?

Can nothing be learned?

It appears to me that 'Education' or 'Nurturing' can only exist to enhance or restrict preexisting Morality.

Education cannot "change" Morality.


The best attempts in human history to "change" Human Nature have been made by Catholic, Buddhist, and Hindu monks who poured enormous devotion and effort in manipulating human instincts. In the case of Eastern civilization and spiritualism, they discovered that the human body is capable of amazing physical feats and pain tolerance. In Western civilization, they discovered "Enlightenment" and technological creativity, Philosophical advancement.

These are the most pressing cases for 'advancement' of human nature through "education" or nurturing. Ironically, the liberal-left worldview inverts this understanding. They do not respect nor understand the attempts at advancement from the oldest spiritual institutions in history. Instead their attempts to "change" nature are entirely political and economical. Western Anglo "Protestantism", in the form of Secularism is extremely shallow, barely a puddle in comparison.

The Anglo establishment has no soul, by comparison, to other European peoples or others around the world.

Yes, the best way to understand man, the animal, before culture complicates thin gs so that imbeciles are confused and charlatans use it to conceal their motives, is to study animals.

So, anytime man imposes an alternative objective he is idealizing that objective, and risking extinction.
But man lies to himself, so he may idealize, he may think he remains true to his objective, but when it comes time to face the consequences he reverts back to his primary impulses.

For example, an imaginary culture idealizing paedophilia, or bestiality, or hedonism - pleasure fore its own sake - would go extinct.
A culture idealizing homosexuality would disappear, because all contradict the primary objective of sex.

Nihilists must deceive, first themselves and then the world, hoping that this will change the world - the insanity of postmodernism.
For example, denying race exists will not make race disappear. The culture - see modern America - convinced that race and gender are social constructs will suffer the consequences but it will always blame some nefarious agency so it will never recognize the source of its decline and so will never change it and this will make its destruction inevitable.
Just as an individual who always blames others for the negative things he or she suffers will never find the cause, the responsibility in himself and so he will never adjust/adapt, and so he will never learn and so he will repeat the same mistakes making his suffering inevitable.....if not worse.

Nihilism, and nihilistic morality, must be self-deceiving - self-contradicting - or it must become parasitical.
For example, homosexuality vanishes if there is no heterosexuality to propagate the mutations that manifest it; a monk living in strict adherence to Christian dogma would not survive for long, unless there was an infrastructure of individuals not living in strict accordance with Christian moral codes; a hedonist would need a system of individuals that do not place pleasure as their primary ideal....same goes for Marxism, or any nihilistic doctrine and its moral principles.
In order to survive in reality the ideology must adapt, or deceive, or self-contradict, in proportion to the degree that it denies the existence of reality, or that proposes an alternate reality.
So, a subjectivity that denies the existence of an objective world would require a protective agency if it hoped to survive a world that remains indifferent to all subjective interpretations of it.

So, Mary, a promiscuous imbecile, naive or of poor judgement, needs a system of law & order, of medical support, of institutions and technologies, to watch over her so that she can remain as obtuse and carefree and experimental and dumb as possible...otherwise she would suffer the consequences, forcing her to adapt and change her ways - if she survived them - or meet a certain end.
Idiocy requires an intelligent infrastructure to remain stupid or to survive, at all, in an unforgiving and indifferent world.

The objective - ideal - justifies the motives and shapes the morals and principles governing human behaviours, producing a particular kind of man.
A kind of man who must then enjoy the benefits but also suffer the costs - as this is determined by how he relates to an indifferent world, i.e., natural order, environment.

Culture is the manifestation of this relationship.
Therefore, gender is how reproductive, specialized roles are integrated into a socioeconomic system with an underlying culture.
Cultures, like individuals, do not exist in a bubble. Cultures, like individuals, compete and come in conflict with other cultures...with their own ideals and morals.
Here survival of the fittest still applies - forcing the nihilistic dogmas to self-deceive and contradict their own values and morals or die remaining true to them, i.e., martyr, sacred victims.

The in-group is the foundation of morality, out of which ethical rules emerge.
There are multiple models of in-group dynamics in nature, e.g., the beehive, the wolf pack, the primate troop, the lion pride....
I'm not going to give my position on all of them, but focus on a few:
Generally in these models mature males are either expelled or integrated, for instance in lion prides there is usually one - sometimes two - dominant males and when male cubs reach a certain age they are driven away.
When young males begin to challenge the dominant male they are driven off.
In another model let's say the wolf-pack, males are integrated into a dominant reproductive pair and help in protecting and providing for the pair's cubs. Here shared genes make the sacrifices of these males worth making - selfish genes. These beta/omega males serve their own shared genes, through the cubs.
In beehives this identification with shared genes reaches an extreme. The entire hive of females - males being killed in seasonal cycles of reproduction - sacrifice their own reproduction to the propagation of their shared genes by the queen and the drones.
Chimpanzees are a variant of this. The dominant male tolerates males - sometimes not of its own genetic line - if and when they remain disciplined to his authority.
Here identity is expanded to include a demeanour of inclusivity if the individual remains tolerant and reciprocal.  


The primary goal is survival, and a secondary objective - which is an extension of the primary - is reproduction.
There are many ways the primary objective is usurped by the secondary, such as hormones placing the individual into a seasonal or ephemeral state of sexual frenzy.
Here we see the mind/body dichotomy, where the body's genes and their innate motives may usurp the mind's primary motive to preserve the individual.
Imprinting is an example of how such an in-group can cross species lines.
For example, a dog, born and raised by humans, will fight and die to protect the human and his family, because it has imprinted and considers them part of his pack.
Duckling, emerging from their eggs, attach to the first creature they see. That creature,m even if of another species, becomes their parent.  

In humans this expansion of identity can be achieved ideologically, dogmatically - memetically.
For example, an individual may be indoctrinated into a belief system of universal love or humanism, where all are part of the in-group, ideologically contradicting genetic inclinations - exceeding Dunbar's numerical limit - by abstracting the "whole" into a vague uniformity consisting of divergent multiplicities that, in theory, share a ideology/dogma - see the US and its unifying "liberty" or Abrahamism and its unifying one-god.
Minds indoctrinated into this nihilistic dogmatism/ideology will tend towards universalism, Messianic mission, all-inclusivity, essentially a beehive mentality where the procreative biological queen is replaced by a procreative meme.
Now the shared genes are usurped by shared memes. in fact genes challenge its uniformity so are denied relevance - see postmodernism, see Abrahamism, see Marxism.
Any ideology with a global agenda - globalism - must become abstract, i.e., pure ideology, and it must denounce or reject all biological identifiers that will inhibit integration and collective assimilation.
Only then will the individual be able and willing to sacrifice his genetic well-being for the preservation of the meme's well-being.
In/out becomes ideological rather than biological. If you share the same convictions, myths, beliefs, then you are part of the in-group, even though you may not share the same genes, traditions, historical references etc.
This is why postmoderns must assimilate, convert, proselytize ideologically - they must reduce it all to an abstraction, disconnected from anything experienced, perceived, tangible...all must become an idea.

Morals, preserving in-group relationships, reflect the in-groups adopted method of survival and reproduction.

Of course, only humans can place survival and reproduction below an ideology, or a concept such as freedom, or dignity - although some species, such as song birds have been known to die when caged.
Nevertheless, may choose to die rather than live undignified or enslaved (nobility of spirit); or may choose to sacrifice themselves for the theoretical in-group or an ideal, since their identity is weaved into its principles and ethics (memes usurping genes).
Humans can project in space/time, so they can imagine, predict, a future that has yet to be - not animals. So, humans can imagine their lives from birth to death, and so evaluate their present in relation to a theoretical, probable, future, as they've evaluated and projected it - right or wrong. This is why humans can suffer in the present what has yet to be, as a future possibility/probability, and take their own lives based on this projection - the projection being unbearable and inevitable to them.

The previous also explains how a parasitical-meme can corrupt the values and morals of an in-group - host - it infests, with no organized, conscious plan being necessary, and without the awareness of both carriers and host.
The meme, i.e., ideology/dogma, has its self-perpetuating mechanisms urging those infected by them to spread their "salvation message", to, in fact, give their very lives in order for this message to survive.
Selfish-memes.
A nihilistic dogma/ideology only survives in minds, as semiotics, so followers are the only way it can remain in existence, whereas a realist fears not for the survival of his ideas concerning a world that existed before his, and mankind's, birth and will continue after their death; what the realist struggles to preserve is the acumen, the motive, the demeanour, knowing that if these are present the real world will be found again and again, across cultures and ages.

The 'Narrative' is worth dying for, for Abrahamism, "of the book, by the book, for the book".

Roman slaves for over 2000 years, serving two separate gods, Cæsar (The State) and Christ (The Church).

The core is how we define and experience self.
This determines if we can appreciate how selflessness is a human ideal concealing an expanded identification of self.
All acts are of self, even self-sacrifice, and all have a selfish reward, a selfish objective. This doesn't diminish self-sacrifice but makes it all the more profound.

Expanded identity of self is what makes the beta male/female wolf sacrifice his own reproductive potentials to the survival of the pack's cubs, and what makes the parent sacrifice himself for his children, and what makes a bee dedicate its small existence to the hive's well being, and what makes a dog sacrifice itself to protect its human master.
In humans this identified selfness, this sense of self, can become entirely abstract. Only a human can identify with an idea, a concept, an idol/ideal....or a fantasy and imagined creatures, imagined futures.

Æon wrote:

The 'Narrative' is worth dying for, for Abrahamism, "of the book, by the book, for the book".

Roman slaves for over 2000 years, serving two separate gods, Cæsar (The State) and Christ (The Church).

Before its decline and end Rome was a representation of the Italics.
Its Caesars were all of the same blood, until Odoacer, I believe.
Many nation states remain ethnic states....yours was never an ethnic state so your mistrust for the state has another reason.

Christianity was an Afro-Asiatic spiritual infection that propagated among the slaves leading to Rome's decline, corruption, and then its end.
As Doolittle correctly states, it introduced a feminine warfare into a state that had only known and practised masculine warfare, and its insidiousness undermined its core principles and so corrupted its spirit.
Holy Roman Empire and Byzantium - less so, had little to do with the Roman spirit.
Byzantines still called themselves Roman, and Hellenism remained strong, but it was a matter of time....
The Crusades were essential in Constantinople's final end.

The state was not the enemy of the Romans it was the Romans.

Why is it that selfishness is a terrifying concept for nihilists and desperate degenerates?
Because of it implies uncertainty, and they desire certainty.
The certainty of reciprocity, to be more precise. the idea that they will be helped, no matter what, because the authority lies outside, in some divine realm, imposing its laws, rules on all.
Most don't know themselves so how can they know others, so they need this abstraction of an external agency imposing its rules on all wills, guaranteeing that they will be helped, they will be included, they will be accepted...no matter what.
This is the seductive power of the one-god - it is this external agency that imposes - via reward/punishment - an ethical rule upon everything and everyone - there's no need to know and understand anything as long as you know and understand these simple commandments, these social ruled imposed by a divine power.
Of course Moses would claim the Commandment were the words of the one-god. This was the only way to impose an additional set of rules upon illiterate superstitious dolts who were not innately moral, or thoughtful, or compassionate.
The most selfish need this ideal of selflessness to discipline their natural urges from overwhelming them. They assume - because they can never know another - that all are similarly impulsive and dominated by their base instincts.
Christians do not trust atheists for this reason.
They project, imagining themselves as a non-believer in the authoritarian one-god. They intuitively know that without this reward/punishment, this divine overarching power, they would have no reason to be kind, or just...because it isn't in their nature and because they cannot know another they assume all are just like them - which is mostly correct; the mediocre masses are almost all exactly like them.
They cannot differentiate, so they place all into absolute wholes - absolute unities with no nuance.
Either/Or.

In other words, people act morally out of self interest. We train people to develop moral intuitions. And humans naturally evolve moral intuitions with experience. But it's simply true that moral action is in one's self interest until it's not. We specialize in limiting 'nots'. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Curt Doolittle (@curtdoolittle) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In all things, including morality, nature/nurture determines the outcome – adjusted throughout a lifetime.
Through nature – past nurturing, natural selection, evolution – an individual inherits a genetically encoded potential, a disposition, and nurture cultivates it to its full or inhibits it, allowing it to atrophy and subside to a level where it no longer has any power. [ MANifesto: Word Wars – Gene & Meme Dynamics]
No man can be trained to be cruel. He has his disposition towards cruelty cultivated or inhibited. This is what culture does, it cultivates and inhibits genetic depositions, in accordance with a memetic idea/ideal.

Fundamentally all morality does is offer an individual a way into an in-group - a method to be included.
Anything that increases the odds - probability - of being excluded is perceived as a threat- anger is a reaction to threat.

There's a difference between criminalizing aberrant behaviour and promoting it to the youth, via popular culture and the media, as a healthy alternative and as a method of being noticed.

Naturally evolved moral behaviour would be understood by a mind born and raised within Abrahamism or any form of dogmatic ideological ethics, as being "evil", judging its lax moral codes as being insufficient when compared with the man-made Mosaic social codes.
Nature is frugal.
What is permitted faces the test of survival and reproduction.
More stringent rules of personal conduct - necessitating some degree of self-repressive self-control - evolved to facilitate in-group cohesion.

They assume that morality is a human construct because of what was made necessary by mankind's dominance and population explosions, pushing evolved moral behaviours beyond their original function, similar to how Dundar's number had to be exceeded with the development of human social systems.

Once Dunbar relationship limits were surpassed morals had to adapt by converting everyone beyond this numerical limit in the form of a uniform idea.
This idea could then be expanded until it includes everything and everyone, reduced to an abstraction.

Morals adapt by adding and expanding ethical socioeconomic rules - as addendums to already existent moral behavioural impulses that facilitated in-group cohesion and stability.
These ethical rules were meant to expand the in-group - multiply its power - by imposing limitations on sexual behaviour so as to integrate as many males as possible and ensure their loyalty as investor's in the group's welfare.

-Utopias are a fundamental part of nihilistic psychosis/neurosis.
In more current forms it takes becomes a worship of the nil - the solution being not a paradise in some future or beyond space/time but an end of existence of consciousness of existing - immersed in a cosmic mind, or a uniform oneness, or nil.

-Nihilistic dogmas/ideologies are a reaction to emerging self-cosnciuosness, seeking a solution, a shelter, in linguistic constructs and finally in linguistic nullification, denying, rejecting, negating the very source of their discomfort.

-Since memes are extensions of genes, ethics are extensions of the moral impulse emerging in social species that develop larger brains which then evolve self-awarness.
Self-awarness becomes a new source of need/suffering as the organism becomes aware of how it compares - relates - to others, within a world it is already aware is the source of its need/suffering, its uncertainty, its stress.

-Need/Suffering is the experience of existing - existing being continuous interaction - flux, continuous strife - agon, struggle, war - therefore the opposite - inertia, absoluteness, certainty, finality, one/nil - would be a comforting idea/ideal. The Abrahamics one-god becomes a representation of this idea/ideal.
It would be logical that nihilism would first take the form of a spiritual dogma, institutionalized into a religion, before it shed its infantile superstitions and anthropomorphism to evolve into a secular ideology, e.g., Nationalism, Marxism, Modernism/Postmodernism.

-Nihilistic defensiveness - semiotics - would evolve from the concept of an absolute oneness - maintaining its tribal divisiveness - into more sophisticated ideological forms that eliminate these divisive ideological and biological concepts to find its final solution in the absolute nil.

-The snake - Satan - is the equivalent of Prometheus, representing this emergence of self-awarness, or the part of consciousness that distances itself from consciousness becoming a source of man's developing objectivity - wisdom - as well as the source of increased subjective suffering - every benefit has a cost.
The "loss of innocence" means a loss of animal lack of conscious intentionality. Animals and children, are innocent of the suffering their own actions cause, because they are pure action - their actions still remain pure expressions of their nature. No sense of guilt, or shame.
Man's self-awarness exposes him to what no animal can ever feel. This is the meaning of "primordial sin".

-It is interesting that two secular Jews and a Christian would be interested in morality on an ideological level, because for Indo-European pagans morality is based on natural selection and is not a human construct that tries to integrate biological identities into a cohesive, harmonious, all inclusive whole - a oneness. Not even nothingness manages complete integration science it cannot adequately justify transcending biological identities, forever making past present, as appearance. Dismissing the apparent as being superficial or illusory cannot deal with the psychosomatic component which remains inconspicuously persistent.  

-Messianism is, indeed, an adolescent stage in human development, on a civilizational/cultural scale.
The romantic idealism of an immature spirit dreaming of "changing the world" to accord with its secret - occult - desires and not so secret needs.
Adolescent is the period of erotic fervour, the mind swimming in its own hormonal intoxications, dreaming of magical worlds full of infinite possibilities - romanticism.
Adolescence is, also, the period of greatest danger. A period of vulnerability and hyperbole.
Humanity is entering into its teenage years of spiritual development. A period for women and immature males, desperately trying to cling to their infancy and parental sheltering, while viciously rebelling against it.
A period when language is used to claim distinction and rebelliousness against society and the world.

-Violence shifts from masculine - physical - to feminine - mental, psychological.
Damage done from the body to the mind, is now done form mind to the body.

-"Liberal Democracy" code for a multicultural, multiracial, Americanized individualism, where identity is determined by popularity, supply/demand, and biology becomes another product one could wear, or conceal with something novel.  
Culture of no Culture. Secular. Elimination of all divisive concepts.

-Dawkin's "selfish gene" fails to predict the emergence of the "selfish meme" which may evolve to sacrifice the gene for the preservation of the meme.
Basically nihilistic dogmas are selfish memes, attempting to protect the organism from the genetic implications of its self-awarness.
Identity is transferred to an idea/ideal, i.,e., concept, abstraction, which must survive and propagate linguistically even if it means negating genetic memories - DNA.
The collective becomes the carrier of shared memories, in the form of oral or written narratives defining and describing their common meme, shared ideas/ideals.
This is described in Scripture as the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ, the saviour, the idea/ideal.
In Judaism this same concept is represented by the divine, representing the chosen tribes who consciously accepted nihilism when all other tribes had rejected it, to establish a covenant, a symbiotic arrangement.
Islam calls its worship of themselves as a collective of carriers of a shared idea/ideal Allah.
Martyrdom is essential, because genealogy does not matter. All is sacrificed for "god" or the collective abstraction of their idea/ideal, representing their idealized identity - their idealization, abstraction, of their collective.
These three religions preserve god by believing in him, or by speaking its name or writing the name down.
People of the Book, by the Book, for the Book. their representational divinity dies if the last believer dies or is assimilated into another belief system, because it has no external referent but, in fact, it contradicts the external, experienced world.
Their convictions are inter-subjectively codependent; they are not independent from their minds. Their shared "reality" vanishes if they lose their convictions.
So, all must be, like their own beliefs, a social construct - a collective power arrangement.

-Western obsession with power - intrinsic in Marxism - is partially why Nietzsche is so popular among its young males.
The issue is control over out fate, which goes through other. So power is power of other, trying to establish certainty of outcomes.
We live in a fluctuating existence full of uncertainty. absolutism is an attempt to cope by claiming omniscience or the certainty of an underlying absolute. In all the cosmic uncertainty there is, at least, one absolute certainty; one complete, whole, indivisible, immutable, thing or nothing.
Even the claim of absolute powerlessness - hard determinism - is an indirect attempt op rescue certainty in an uncertain existence - an attempt to order all and eliminate chaos.

If I may :
Morality is based in complex pattern recognition,
then translated into a set of concepts,
which are then weighed, and categorized into themes.

I know it is not perfect.
I know it has flaws.
But this is the best that I've got right now.

My morality favors growth and existing.
We've got a lot of growth to do.
And ignoring the process of progress,
is a dangerous idea.

Morals, Ethics, Values, and Meanings, are the cream of the crop.
They are the best things we can come up with as humans.

Morality is the pattern of behavior which is otherwise hidden deeply in genetic codes, as instincts and reflexes. Those who intuit the nature of Morality, of animals and mankind, can observe and understand behaviors which otherwise "mystify" and confuse the common sense of people. Average people "cannot understand why" 'Evil' occurs, or why some people do horrendous deeds. Furthermore, average people cannot understand why there is so little 'Good' or selflessness in the world.

Meanwhile they blind themselves to Lifetimes of Hypocrisy, as the primary means of their own enrichment. Ignorance is bliss.

Self-consciousness is the first ingredient to Morality. If a person/animal cannot understand its own motives, in relation to its own actions, in relation to the "norm" of social behavior, then it is Amoral and has no morality. It has no Objectivity. It has no standard by which to judge thyself. There is no "better or worse", "good or evil", without divergent sets of consequences, spawning from choices, which indicates the premise of Free-Will.

Dan~~ wrote:

If I may :
Morality is based in complex pattern recognition,
then translated into a set of concepts,
which are then weighed, and categorized into themes.

I know it is not perfect.
I know it has flaws.
But this is the best that I've got right now.

My morality favors growth and existing.
We've got a lot of growth to do.
And ignoring the process of progress,
is a dangerous idea.

This is a definition of consciousness.

Plants have a rudimentary form of pattern recognition, but have no moral codes...or do they?
I've seen documentaries on how a tree protects its own seedlings from the encroachment of other plants.

Morals, in my view, are behaviours - actions, judgements, choices - governed by an I/Other, then an Us/They, as life advances in complexity.
Without this I/Other there is no life - no organism; with I/other there is no consciousness.
Without this Us/They there is no society, no in-group, no SuperOrganic no culture, no civilization.
Moral behaviour facilitates in-group cohesion and establishes its internal dynamics by imposing restrictions to already evolved organisms with already established impulses.
Morality evolves to overcome already evolved survival and reproductive strategies.
Ethics is the manmade extensions - addendums - of these moral behaviours attempting to promote larger more complex in-groupings.  

Nihilism wants to break this apart because it secretly worships the void, but it tells itself that it wants to expand the "I" to include everything - the universe, i.e., god.
This worship of the absolute nothing is another form of worshiping an omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent one-god.
They want to return to the flux, the void, as a way of returning to the divine - becoming one with it instead of separated from it with this pesky body and tis boundaries.
It's a death wish, only they imagine it as a higher form of consciousness.
The physical, the identity with the body, is a prison they want to break out of - so they deny free-will and identity as illusory.
It is Magian thinking.
In Abrahamic traditions there's always a Messianic telos - a corruption that must be healed, an evil to be returned to its original goodness.

This denial of self is the liberation of divine sparks - see Cabbalism - or of the spirit - see Christianity and Islam - from its mortal coils and its return to divinity.
The world, as we experience it, is their "Hell", where the spirit suffers and experiences it as a state of constant need, imprisoned by a body that is in constant struggle - agon.
So, death is salvation, from this illusory life and a return, rebirth, to the real reality, the nil or the one.

Morality imposes rules of conduct to increase the survivability of a collective.
These collective behavioural rules are then called "good" and what contradicts them is called "bad" or "evil".


So Christianity imposes a standard - deferring it to some external divine agency it names "god" - and all who wish to be included must abide by these rules - including thoughts, judgements, choices - if they wish to be included in its definition of "goodness" and not be excluded by being placed in the category of "evil".
In Christianity "good" is the all-encomassing- All are created to be good and only become evil by being tricked or corrupted by an evil agency.
So love - universal goodness - is all-incusive and a man must deserve to be called "evil".
In Islam all is "evil" and must earn its place in the "good".
In Judaism all men are "evil" - goy - having rejected god, the good, and only a few chosen are "good", who are fated to bring justice upon those who rejected goodness, i.e., Judaism.

All of it has been preordained. Determined.
You are either already part of the saved - and can only fall out of favour - or you were given a second chance, with the the Christ's crucifix, through which the determined is negated by sacrificing the physical, the body, so as for an individual to be reborn as pure mind - liberated from the sins of Adam & Eve, or what has been divinely determined.
Jews don't like this because it exposes their "choseness" and their "occult" privileges as discriminatory - racist, tribal, in fact, because as Semites not all Semites are part of the "chosen".
God vengefulness will fall upon those who rejected his salvation, and there's no changing this fact - this day of reckoning.
Abraham's god is authoritarian - see how he made Abraham prove his subjugation, forcing him to do anything to prove his submission, and envious, tolerating no other gods.  

In Islam and Christianity all can become "good" by showing the proper reverence and submissiveness of the in-group, but in Judaism there is no way into the determined in-group, but only ways out of it inclusion.
Islam and Christianity is Judaism made more cosmopolitan, more inclusive.
Their morals reflect this.
Morals are but collective norms - converted to scripture, to logos, to laws - imposing themselves upon individuals so that even an individual who isn't innately just and fair and compassionate is forced - under the risk of eternal punishment - to at least pretend to be so.
It is why Christianity fails to produce its ideal world. Its' imposed moral rules of goodness - inclusion - are not innate to all humans, but mostly faked, and a product of great self-repression. Ergo they invent traditions that will cleanse individuals form their weekly, daily, sins against these moral norms - confession, thanksgiving, church attendance, are all ways of dealing with the fact that its standards are contrary to human nature - to nature itself.
Nature in fact is what salvation liberates the individual from.

Among non-social species the consequences of its judgements, choices, actions, of an individual organism affect the individual and minimally those it interacts with.
In social species - species adopting a cooperative survival and reproductive strategy - the consequences of an individual's judgements, choices, actions, has a greater affect on others - primarily those belonging to its group, and secondarily those this group interacts with.
Morality cultivates this codependence, the consequences being collectively absorbed by the group, at the expense of the individual's independence - freedom.
This sharing of positive, and mostly negative, consequences of individual members cultivates interdependence and the individual's expectation that all consequences of its judgements, actions, choices, will be collectivized - distributed within the group.
A collectivization of consequences that reaches an apex in human collective ideologies, e.g., Marxism, which proposes an distribution of negative and positive consequences according to the individuals particular needs and strength, even if the negative consequence of its judgements, choices and actions, far exceed the positive ones.

It becomes problematic when the collective - group - must compete with other groups within the same environment - world, reality.
The utopian idealistic solution is to incorporate all groups into one so that the consequences on the group do not result in its extinction.
When group competition is eradicated - in a utopian world - an individuals participation in its own group's negative, versus positive, consequences become irrelevant since there is no alternative. The individual's culpability must be made nil, or invisible.
In practical terms the stronger more rational individual must take on the responsibility of another individual's irrational, careless, poor judgments, and not complain nor draw attention to them.

Therefore, in ideologies and spiritual dogmas founded on nihilistic principles the elimination of all divisive identities, creating alternate groups, are considered "evil" or undesirable.

To go further from that point,

A systemic downward societal pressure occurs and accumulates when participants begin 'playing' the system, through simple subversion and lies. Pretend to be a victim, pretend to be oppressed, and you will be rewarded. Welfare becomes exponentially allocated to those who first 'cannot' work, and then those who simply choose not to work. This systemic spiral quickly overloads with anybody and everybody who abuses the coveted 'victim' status. It becomes far worse when "outside" sources (foreign countries) realize that they too can exploit these mechanics.

In the United States, collapse is all but imminent. Trumpism is only the first occurrence of "seeing the writing on the wall".

Globalism cannot complete itself in only the confines of USA's national borders. The whole world is beckoned into the First World, from the Third World. Globalism quickly evaporates when crossing through the "Iron Curtain", into Siberia, where Russian Slavs and Chinese Han citizens herald their "Racism". They are not Westerners, nor do they want to be. Meanwhile China continues to enrich themselves on America's decaying, elderly corpse.

Thank you for your response. [ @ Satyr ]

We don't need to defer to some supernatural agency to explain morality.
Going outside nature is going outside existence.
"Outside" existence is non-existent, and only exist as a vague, meaningless abstraction in the human mind - idea - with no external referent, but that contradicts external referents - negates them.

We don't need to go outside existence to explain existence, nor life.
Though we may not know how life emerged we cannot evoke some hypothetical idea that contradicts experienced existence to explain why life exists.
Ignorance is not an argument, nor does it imply equality, or uniform ignorance.

Truth is not an absolute.
We call "true" what is most probably likely, not what is certainly so.
Probabilities not absolutes.

Is it possible that the earth is flat or some shape other than oval?
Yes.
Is it most probably unlikely it is so fi we understand what shapes are and why imperfect circles and ovals are ubiquitous in space?
Yes.
This is not an argument that the earth doesn't exist, or that it is a triangle.

Possibility is not a counter-argument to probability.

Moral behaviours evolve not because of some universal or divine law, or because it is socially constructed, but because the behaviour either increases or decreases survival probability.
If it increases it, it become an innate behaviour of a species, and if it decreases it, it is rejected when it emerges as a mutation.

Human interventions adjust these survival probabilities by first imposing ethical addendums to morals behavioural codes of conduct.
Like all human interventions they produce unforeseen collateral effects necessitating additional interventions.

*Word definitions are crucial.
A concept can be "discredited" by simply defining it "out of existence", i.e., absolutist, or in a way that diminishes it or implies an ideological motive.
Nihilism is entirely word-based, and it is impotent outside minds that share a common language and a shared definition of words - conceptualization - for this reason all nihilistic dogmas, secular and spiritual, require a following to remain potent, quantifiably evaluating their potency, e.g., popularity, populism.
The "truth" of as concept is evaluated by its popularity or effect on a majority; money, for example, is a way of evaluating an ideology's value, quantifying its value by how well it sells.

*The desire to eliminate morality is based on a desire to not be judged by another - founded no emerging self-cosnciuosness and perceiving how one is perceived by another.
To not know thyself, as a defensive attitude, must be accompanied by the enforced idea that nobody can ever know us; nobody must be permitted to see us more clearly than how we see ourselves - contradicting our own perspective of ourselves.
As I've said, nihilism is a defensive reaction to emerging self-cosnciuosness - or the subject gaining the ability for objectivity.
Biblical "shame" of Adam & Eve" after they tasted the fruit of wisdom - to suddenly see themselves as god and the other saw them, as sexual organisms motivated by animalistic needs/desires.

*Absolutism underlies all Abrahamic and recovering Abrahamic minds.
All concepts are absolutes, concealing absolute meaning, or absolutely relative, and therefore meaningless.
Therefore, morality must be universal, i.e., totalitarian, authoritarian, imposed by god or state/institution, or it must be completely void of substance, referring only to god or state/institutional rules of conduct.
There is no middle ground. If not absolutely this then absolutely that - no gradations. So, man is either absolutely free or he must be absolutely unfree, and man is either absolutely moral or absolutely immoral.
The utility of moral behaviour and how it evolved, never comes into their minds....it must not be permitted to do so. If morality is not sublime - divine in origin - then it must be completely absent or void of meaning.
Here man's unfreedom must be blamed on god or universal order so as to conceal the fact that mutations emerge and are naturally selected out of the gene-pool - the injustices and indifference of nature is intolerable, mainly because it validates inequalities and human suffering.
If nihilists dare to consider why and how moral behaviour emerged and how it into ethical laws, then they would also have to consider why races are essential to natural selection and speciation, and then how sexual specializations become gender roles.
Their entire defensive ideological structures would collapse or be weakened exposing them to a world they dare not expose themselves to - the revelation would expose them not only to their own eyes but, far worse it would expose them to the eyes of others - they would be knowable and no longer mysterious, i.e., complex, magical, incomprehensible, divine.