Morality

Nihilism seeks to find the absolute, and when it fails it declares this absence an absolute.
This is true from spiritual nihilism, e.g., Abrahamism, and secular or ideological nihilism, e.g., Marxism, Postmodernism.
All uncertainty terminated in a universal law, a universal authority.
The feminine spirit seeking the dominant masculine entity; a child seeking a parent.

Again...all vlaue-judgements are a product of triangulation and can be nothing else:


The objective determines the effectiveness, precision, accuracy of the subjective.
When, and if, the objective is non-existent, supernatural, not real, the subjective must justify its continuous failures if and when it wishes to preserve the objective.
Redefining the objective so as to place it beyond all attempts to attain it serves multiple motives that have nothing to do with its attainment. The true objective is not attaining but never attaining it as a universal rule.
Power of Nil.
Here we see how much more easier it is to attain a negative rather than a positive - negative outcomes are more certain than positive ones.
Pure nihilists feel superior to positive nihilists and so must make all positive nihilists to maintain this feeling of superiority because failure is certain.  

In regards to morality it is only when morality is defined in absolutist, Abrahamic ways that the nihilist can maintain his moral superiority as the amoral one, as one of the few who has realized that morality, as it is defined by positive nihilism, i.e., Abrahamism, is void of meaning....since the one-god is debunked, is transcended as nonsensical superstition.
Pure nihilists rebel against positive nihilism, so it is always in relation to absolutist, universal morality that they feel vindicate to claim amorality as a universal truth - like 0 only makes sense in relation to 1 because both exist only in the mind.

The idea that morality evolves to facilitate particular reproductive and survival necessitates must be made into universal laws to feel superior to.
They need an totalitarian law to rebel against and establish their own totalitarianism as its antithesis.
The possibility that value, like morality, only makes sense relative to an objective and that this objective is not equal to all objectives when placed within real-world circumstances, each objective producing its own consequences, is beyond their ability to comprehend having been born and raised within the totalitarianism of Abrahamic and later Marxist paradigms.

Mencius wrote:

This is why I say that all men have a sense of commiseration: here is a man who suddenly notices a child about to fall into a well. Invariably he will feel a sense of alarm and compassion. And this is not for the purpose of gaining the favor of the child's parents or of seeking the approbation of his neighbors and friends, or for fear of blame should he fail to rescue it. Thus we see that no man is without a sense of compassion or a sense of shame or a sense of courtesy or a sense of right and wrong. The sense of compassion is the beginning of humanity, the sense of shame is the beginning of righteousness, and sense of courtesy is the beginning of decorum, the sense of right and wrong is the beginning of wisdom.
Every man has within himself these four beginnings, just as he has four limbs. Since everyone has these four beginnings within him, the man who considers himself incapable of exercising them is destroying himself.

Where the sense of right and wrong is missing, so is wisdom.

*Morality establishes intergroup dynamics but within an indifferent existence.
So, if these intergroup dynamics cannot adapt/adjust, survive, within existence they perish, even if their inter-group dynamics may be, in theory, harmonious.

*Inter-Group supply/demand dynamics are determined by external supply/demand dynamics.

*Morality can never be universal nor objective since it is how an organism reacts and adapts to an indifferent world.
Morality, as it evolves, is based on how these subjective needs/desires facilitate inter-gropu harmony in relation to natural order, i.e., existence.
These subjective needs/desires are what necessitate moral behaviours only for organism's that adopt a cooperative reproductive - heterosexuality - and survival - cooperative, collective - strategies.
The effectiveness of the adopted strategy is determined by objective reality.

*Ethics begin from genetically evolved moral rules of behaviour and selectively extend them further to facilitate the development of a specific kind of man, i.e., ideal man.
Genes to Memes

*Within these evolved moral behaviours mutations emerge and individuals seek an advantage in breaking inter-gropu rules.

*Morality/Ethics refer to a set of evolved or enforced behavioural norms that facilitate cooperative survival and reproductive strategies.
No god necessary. the concept of a divine authority is used to impose these inter-gropu behavioural norms.
These behavioural norms, whether evolved or imposed (genetic/memetic) are not infinite nor arbitrary since the survival and reproduction of the individual and the group he belongs to, is the environment degerming which behavioural norms will offer an advantage and which will offer a disadvantage - or will be entirely neutral.
So, which behavioural norms facilitate cooperative strategies is not dependent no a god, not imposed arbitrarily by individuals in power since the environment will weed out those which contradict survival and reproductive probabilities.

*In the case of nihilism, which strives to contradict evolved survival and reproductive strategies, if they are applied religiously they lead to extinction. In most cases nihilistic ideologies tend to self-decieve or apply the rule of arbitrariness to justify their self-contradictory manifestations.
Nihilistic dogmas must self-contradict if they are to survive, and then conceal or justify this self-contradiciton using a variety of methods, one of which is self-deception.
So, a moral nihilist must deceive the group and/or himself if he is to take advantage of the group's cooperative advantages.

*"Universal preferable behaviour" is to be understood as a set of behaviours that are necessary for any cooperative group to remain stable, within an indifferently objective world. Therefore, all social systems have specific behavioural norms that are common, otherwise they do not survive long enough to be studied, experienced, known.
Murder and Rape are examples of shared norms across all ethical systems and the reasons are obvious.

*True/False, right/wrong, evaluates the degree to which the abstractions in our brains - ideas/ideals - refer to phenomena, to presences, outside our brains - noumena/phenomena - and to which degree our abstractions refer to other abstractions in other minds - collective ideology/dogma - or to symbols representing these abstractions - written script, semiotics.
The fact that a written language can externalize mental abstractions does not make them external referents of that which they represent.

*Square/Circles only exist in the mind as abstractions, i.e., noumena...and like all abstractions they are simplifications/generalizations, i.e., interpretations of reality.
The interpretations are a priori evolved methods are automatic and so cannot contradict themselves other than in theory.

Why does morality inevitably become binary, black or white?
It has to do with choice, the expression of will, and options, a manifestation of power, i.e., independence, freedom.
The moment the mind perceives the choice it has already made, as a consequence of a conscious and subconscious process of evaluation, it has already exposed it’s either/or judgement – choice being the positive expression of judgement and the rest being the negated, rejected options that were considered and discarded.
This signifies a conscious or unconscious acceptance of every consequence that follows from this choice. The final choice participating in what will be determined – part of causality – and the consequences, i.e., effect being the multiplicities of unknown, reduced to a singular concept, evaluated as a range of foreseen and unforeseen probabilities.
The factor of negations central to choice. When an organism evaluates available options it evaluates them in relation to its needs, viz., the sensation of an absence in itself, eventually evolving the ability to evaluate its available and attainable options in relation to how they may impact it negatively.
Choice itself is a negation of its negation – negative plus negative being a positive, an affirmation.
This stems from the very nature of life as an awakening to its dynamic circumstances – what Heidegger calls "throwness". As life awakens to its condition – circumstances which it has not chosen but were the consequence of previous choices made by others – it is forced to make judgements, expressed via choices, driven by its own nature, experienced as the impulse to survive, i.e., preserve itself within the continuous interactive multiplicity (flux). It has no choice but to make choices, for even to not make a choice is one. Life is constant struggle, agon, meaning it is constant evaluation and choosing – not having a choice is non-life, i.e., the non-living can only and forever flow along paths-of-least-resistance, requiring no judgment and no choices. As such we can see in the denial of choice, as an expression of will, and options as a manifestation of freedom/power, a choice to return to the state of non-living, i.e., nihilism.
Some more spirited minds, affected by Nietzsche, may claim that the primary impulse is to increase itself – Will to Power – while those closer to Schopenhauer's perspective may place lack, experienced as need/desire, as the primary impulse - what the pre-Socratic Greeks anthropomorphized as the goddess Ananke – necessity – later replaced by the representation of excess, Eros.
A shift with cultural and historical roots, when a culture reaches an apex and then begins to suffer the consequences as decadence and degeneracy, repeating the process.
We may split the difference and consider how a broken bone heals by becoming bigger, stronger, and larger in the location of its fracture.
Need, as I've said, leads to excess – body manifests mind encompassed and provided for by the body.
Mind knows only abundance whereas body only knows lack, i.e., need/suffering.
Since life evolves from entirely physical towards the metaphysical we can say that consistent successful self-preservation, i.e., dealing with need/suffering, eventually produces enough excess which then necessitates a constant expunging through expansion, i.e., procreation (self-replication) and then creation (self-projection).

Therefore, doing nothing, choosing to do nothing, has moral connotations as these relate to a collective, since morality evolves only among social organisms, and/or organisms that have adopted cooperative survival and reproductive strategies, to facilitate their group dynamics.
Amorality is itself a moral stance, just as denying oneself a choice is itself a choice based on judgement.
To be alive is having been given a choice - a choice made for you - forcing you to a state of constant judgment and choices, each participating in the determination of all subsequent options.

Genes to Memes, body to mind, physical to metaphysical = Morality to Ethics.
Morality/Ethics is always relative to collective:
Morality relative to a species; ethics relative to a collective ideology/dogma.

Satyr wrote:

Being institutionalized is to be regimented and collectivized,, i.e., indoctrinated.
The mind can no longer evaluate itself or the world without referencing a collective, either for approval or disapproval, psychologically positioning oneself within the collective or standing apart on the periphery, feigning detachment from it.
Such a mind would find it next to impossible to pass any kind of judgement, or make any kind of choice, without sampling and/or juxtaposing it to a perceived collective median. As such free-will, for it, would always refer and defer to an external agency, such as a conceptualization of the collective as a abstract other, i.e., god - remaining obscure and mysterious as it is a multiplicity reduced to a singularity, i.e., group, herd, society, tribe; such a mind would become obsessed, entirely absorbed and committed to trying to prove itself worthy of belonging to the collective, i.e., in-group, or distinguishing itself as separate or unique, but always in reference to it.

God is dead...
Humanity is now god - the collective of individuals.
Within the collective any alternate reality can be realized if it doesn't contradict its coherence. Individuals can coexist, each with their own private reality, or in a shared reality, if they support all others in this endeavour.
Every individual is a validation of another's "reality", or a shared alternate reality, and is in turn supported.
If the shared reality is an absence of an objective world, i.e., nihilism, then this "truth" is collectivized, each individual expected to validate this underlying "truth" so as to allow others to fabricate their own private reality, as long as this personal reality never contradicts or challenges this underlying collective "truth".
Government becomes a representation of this collective agreement and the elected leader its highest authority. Even those participating within the collective claiming to be anarchists orient themselves in relation to this collective representation, expressing their distinction and separation while at the same time validating the underlying collective "truth" - tolerated within the collective as long as this shared "truth" is never contradicted nor challenged.
Institutions, such as media, entertainment, corporations, become expressions of this collective "truth" lending semiotic expression to the collectivized "truth", manifesting as multiple variants, since there is no objective reality.
Popularity is now what repalces objective reality. Every opinion, judgment, choice, validated quantitatively, viz., if more support an individual's choices and judgments, he/she is in "truth", i.e., speaks truth, knows truth, understands truth, which is a way of saying they speak on behalf of the collective or clarify what this underlying collective "truth" is - they speak on behalf of the divine, which is the collective.

Here we se the issues that arise from having our language hijacked by nihilism, just as our money - another form of exchange - has been detached from resources, from the tangible, the perceived, and rendered meaningless, with o external referents, completely abstract and reliant on trust, and nothing more that a collective agreement, so too we witness that our language has been similarly corrupted by a nihilistic disease which detaches the language we use from the world we experience.
This is clear in the concept of "morality", so if the concept is not referring to some obscure, abstraction, or a collective agreement based no trust, them it is completely dismissed as nonsensical or as a social construct founded on social power.

But if we manage to liberate our language form a disease that has plagued western man for two thousand years and is now coming to a nihilistic apex, with the decline of Americanism.
If we define morality by referring it to a behaviour with specific actions, then we can demystify it, rescuing it from the talons of nihilists who either want to maintain it as a universal ideological mysterious force or in order to negate it altogether.
By doing so we can then see how many other concepts have been similarly corrupted and rendered mystical or meaningless.

In the case of morality we can admit that it exists - not as a idea but as an act, a group of behaviours given a name.
Now we can describe the behaviours we consider moral and notice that they are witnessed among specific species and that these behaviours increase survival and reproductive potentials/probabilities, otherwise they would not have persisted and established as norms.
As I've suggested morality, or behaviours we describe as moral, evolved to facilitate reproductive and survival cooperative strategies.
So, morality has meaning in reference to group - species, herd, tribe - well being, i.e., fitness.
Behaviours that increased fitness became ingrained and then described and codified as "good", and behaviours that did the opposite became "bad" or "evil".
Morality, therefore, requires no god, but only a group that replies on cooperation to reproduce or to survive, nd this cooperation necessitates a certain level of self-control or self-represion.

Therefore, the environment - nature - is the standard within which these evolved behaviours are tested as to their advantages and disadvantages.
Now, many different kinds of species, or tribes, practice different kinds of cooperative strategies which adjust morality to their specific brand of cooperation, yet they share common ground in that all necessitate tolerance, self-repression, closeness/proximity, etc.
The differences may be subtle but they are dramatic given enough time.
Every difference, great or small, producing a certain kind of behaviour, a certain kind of ideal individual, a certain behavioural ideal, which, over time, manifests physically and psychologically - psychosomatically.

Morality need not be universal not divine to be real, since it does not refer to an abstraction but to a behaviour, a set of actions.
True, morality can be given addendums which are entirely manmade and abstract....such as the Ten Commandments.
I've differentiated the two as corresponding to body/mind, as morality/ethics.

Hypocrites or imbeciles intentionally or not, cannot understand the difference, either because they want morality to be god's will, or because they want to dismiss morality completely so as to not feel ashamed of their own personal errors in judgement, so as to not feel regret or guilt.
They've abandoned Abrahamism - which weaponized shame/guilt - but offered salvation as recompense, so now thye have no way to find the same salvation so they find it in nihilism - feigned rational skepticism practiced selectively.
They hide their superstitious irrationality behind selectively applied skeptical stringency.

It's telling - if not predictable - that those that deny morality's objectivity associate it with those who claim a universal morality - within this binary either/or simplicity of cognition - become obsessed with the concept, wanting to distance themselves from the absurdity of a universal, divine ethical code - as it was given by Moses.
They believe this constitutes evidence of their "mental advancement" and yet they remain trapped within the binary their opponents have set-up to entrap minds.
What is more fascinating is that they then try to justify the same moral behaviour, the same ethical principles, alluding to an absence of absolute divine authority, by evoking some universal stadards of propriety or goodness or justice or rights.
They haven't advanced at all, they remain entrapped in their earlier simplicity but have only advanced towards more sophisticated methods of justifying them and concealing motives - progress in tactics.
Some do it to escape the oppositions already established moral authority restricting such behaviours as adultery, and denying such choices as abortion or sexual degeneracy.
They deny the texts of divine authority so as to then claim the arbitrarily selected texts of human authority, implying some universal humanitarian stadards they oftentimes refer to as "love" or "justice" or "fairness" or "rights".
When they feel wronged they appeal to some universal rule concerning the moral concept of fairness, while claiming to be amoral.

Nature's only moral code is in relation to the outcome - which is the objective, the ideal, in human contexts - is if a behaviour offers an advantage or if it produces a disadvantage within a given environment.
With humans it becomes more complex because man is the only organism that intervenes upon tis environment to the degree that this intervention begins to affect man more than the original environment he intervened upon - this is the definition of artificial, or manmade, in relation to natural.
This ability to shelter man from the consequences of his own contradictions of natural order is what makes ethical amendments possible - ethics are revisions of evolved moral behaviours - and alike all such interventions upon natural processes every such ethical revision - guided by an ideal, an objective - has collateral, mostly unforeseen, consequences in addition to the positive intended ones.
In the end no matter what man does, how creative and "perfect" his sheltering artifices become they are still encompassed within an indifferent, natural world order/chaos determining the degree of their success and/or failure.
Man can choose to contradict and ignore nature but this will not render him immune to the negative consequences of his arrogant meddling.
Man can create a sealed and safe enclosure for herbivores, without any predation and no struggle to find nourishment, but he cannot protect such a herd from the long term consequences of such an ideal world.

In nature there is no god and no conscious agency necessary to promote certain behaviours which man calls good and loving, and compassionate, but this is only because these behaviours offer some kind of survival and reproductive advantage and not because there is some universal law concerning good and evil deeds.
Now, if man wants to tweek such behaviours to make them more potent, more certain, more reliable, more complete, more inclusive, under the guise of humane ideals - which are based on an idealization of preference - then such further interventions are possible, although never perfect if they challenge natural order, but not without a severe cost which may not be immediately perceived - especially not by the most feeble of mind/body - who may dismiss such negative costs so as to enjoy the immediate benefits.

*Morality, as an act, and not a theory, may take on many forms, determined by differing ideologies (cultures) but all of them have some basic common foundations, across all cultures.
All of them propose rules of conduct - limits to choices, actions - that promote group cohesion and growth.
Doesn't matter what symbolism and what words are being sued, or what form these rules take within each group.

*They all set limits to individual behaviours - choices, actions and sometimes judgements.

*They all set limits to sexual behaviour.

*They all promote group well-being, in accordance with a collective ideal, promoting a type of man/women, a kind of individual.
This collective ideal is then tested an adjusted to real world (natural) circumstances.

*This is why nihilistic ideologies and spiritualities always self-contradict and necessitate self-deception as part of their survival.
They say one thing, think a second and do a third. The "do" is more crucial then the previous two.
Doesn't matter what you think or believe, if what you do adheres to natural requirements you survive, if not you perish believing in anything you desire.
Abrahamic religions have evolved a multiplicity or linguistic tricks to break their own rules, otherwise they would have never survived. the ideology/dogma "evolved", pressured by natural forces forcing the ideology/dogma into a do or die situation.
so they can all propose anti-nature, anti-life dogmas, comforting and seducing its membership, but they all practice not what they preach.
Many ways they accomplish this, one of which is semantics - manipulating and corrupting language.
Obscurantism and mysticism allows contradictions to merge into shadowy cohesive whole.
Another method is compartmentalization: simultaneously holding two contrary beliefs in your mind without one challenging or disturbing the other. Two convictions governed by two separate stadards of evaluating their validity.
Here mind/body dissonance is crucial and necessary, especially if we know that the body can never lie.
Only the mind can lie - deceive.
Self-Deception is rooted in compartmentalization.

*Morality as act not words, is proven to be natural by the fact that moral behaviours are witnessed in many species and not only man.
morality = evolved behaviours that facilitate survival and reproductive objectives.
We find them in all species that use some form of cooperative survival and/or reproductive method.
Sympathy, tolerance, cooperation, love, altruism....all words referring to actions, to behaviours we can see in many species.
In homo sapiens they are complicated by addendums - ethics - and by man's ability to abstract and to represent abstractions using symbols.
Just as I've defined 'artificial/natural' I can define 'moral/ethical' to differentiate what develops naturally, via selection, and what is created intentionally by man.

*Morality requires no divinity, no god as the Abrahamics define the concept, but only necessity, Ananke, primordial goddess, describing need/suffering, i.e., the expriences of existing making hedonism its highest goal symbolizing its power.
Will to Power refers to this ascent above basic need/suffering.
Ironically, this ascent comes at a cost. As one transcends one source of need/suffering one becomes engulfed by another.
Schopenhauer described it as stress/ennui. As stress/suffering (physical) is overcome boredom/ennui existential suffering, mental increases.
Transsexuality is a symptom of this. Man no longer expriences physical discomfort and so is immersed in ennui, seeking relief in absurdity or drugs or any form of escapism. As physical need/suffering becomes irrelevant the mind begins to question its very existence, having been released form tis primary utility.
When physical needs are easily met the mind's superfluity becomes expected, guaranteed, over time the mind believes it is entitled to this abundance and so begins to seek a reason for its existence, having lost its primary, original, natural, utility.
With so much easy energy what is left but to find something to expunge them upon or towards; having lost contact with reality it seeks alternatives in absurdity, in language, in its own deification; with so much easy energy it feels it is a god, creator of reality, creator of worlds.
In its desperation it seeks relief in degeneracy, reinventing itself, as if from nothing and nowhere.
Even social conventions are too much to bear - too restrictive to tis creative impulses to relieve itself from all this untapped energy.

In times of penury men sought relief in god...in modern times of superfluity men seek relief in being gods.
That experiment failed so now the collective is their alternative.
If they cannot become god, living in their own reality, then they may find relief in a shared world, constructed by like minded individuals looking for the same relief from their boredom and meaninglessness.

Modern morons fail to understand – or intentionally disregard – a basic fact about morality. Like nutrition, it may change from culture to culture in preparation, ritual, combinations, kind, and presentation but the nutritional value remains the same across cultures, because humans – the species – require the same nutrients – natural in origin – and culture only evolves to alter the preparation, presentation and combinations. Similarly, morality remains the same across all cultures, even across species, and what is altered is manmade ethical addendums, viz., how these moral behavioural stadards are combined, presented and prepared for consumption/training.
How can morality be a human creation when we see it in dolphins, in chimpanzees, in canines, in a variety of organisms that have evolved cooperation as a survival and reproductive strategy? They may not be able to codify and artistically represent their behaviours but they display them in acts of compassion, cooperation, sympathy, sacrifice, and even cross species empathy.
Has man indoctrinated canines into his culture for them to display deep compassion, love, loyalty, and self-sacrifice towards him?
Has man trained turtles to come to the aid of another turtle that has been upturned, or dolphins, or whales, to help other species when in life or death situations?
They, these modern/postmodern hypocrites, become trapped in human contrivances, like colours, garments, rituals, dances, sexual practices to recognize the common themes connecting them all. These people, who believe morality is a human creation, are either obtuse morons, or shameless hypocrites.
How can you make your self-deception a universal truth?
Only linguistically; only by using shame to silence the valid so as to equate it with the ridiculous.

Morality = abiding by a collective will ingrained in you as a species that must belong to a pack, a herd, a flock, a school.
Be immoral if you can survive outside the group, and if you can endure your conscience that will torment you as a whispering echo of your primordial drives.
God's wrath expressed through a collective will we all innately belong to and try to challenge - species inheritance or "collective unconscious".
In dreams we hear our ancestors warning us, reprimanding us, guiding us back it the paths they laid down.

Free-Will has a price, and those impoverished who cannot pay the price or are afraid of risking it all, make excuses, denying its possibility; those that dared and lost also find comfort in its denial, justifying their loss of self-respect so as to explain why they will never dare again.
Institutionalization is about the broken, the domesticated.
They need a reason to not break free and run outside the walls of their containment.

Like all value-judgements morality is meaningless when disconnected from existence.
It becomes an empty husk with no content - and this is what most like for it to remain so as to escape the implications of their own judgments.

What gives value to a judgement - when and if it becomes action - is the objective.
The objective is the standard that exposes the actor and his performance, not only to himself but to all conscious minds.
The objective gives purpose and establishes meaning as necessary for its attainment.
Therefore, value - like will - is a quality of the living and not the non-living.

Morality's emergence has primal objectives and these objectives are what expose it.
They are common across all cultures and ideologies as underlying what ids often buried under language and linguistic addendums, such as ethical systems.
We can witness the moral code governing social species, not requiring any tablet of divine laws or tombs defining ethical virtues.
There are moral rules that are common across all species and cultures, and these are established naturally - via natural selection, and its costly trial & error methods - do or die.
It's primary - primal - motives are to multiply individual survivability, necessitating self-restraint, cooperation, tolerance which, at first, need not be conscious but experienced as a sensation, an impulse, a feeling....later called emotions = automated biological reactions to stimuli facilitating particular survival and reproductive strategies.

Even a self-identifying "a moralist" is motivated by the same primal motives that drive a fanatic moralist.

So desperate they ae to evade culpability, that they convince themselves that morality, as an act, emerges from nothing, and nowhere, which can be taken as stating the obvious - since existence is not a thing but process - or a hypocritical attempt to imply that existence emerges from non-existence - literally, that first there was no existence and then there was existence.
Here Abrahamism is still in play - binary thinking and the superstitions that develop as paradoxical self-cotnradictions.
Non-existence literally describes the non-existent. There is always, and can only ever be existence, requiring no beginning and no end, only phases in its cycles.

Usually chaos is used as the non-existent where no-thing can ever exist - since 'thing' is how consciousness interprets patterns.
Chaos would be a state where both consciousness would be impossible and, consequently, all interpretations of patterns that are not.
Chaos is misunderstood as non-existence.

Man does not create reality he interacts with reality; he participates - is thrown into existence, not from nothing and nowhere; man awakens to existence, finding himself a willful participant.

Abrahamic ethical standards - theology - is at work here.
Messianism implying that 'our values" are universal values ; what is useful to us, good, is universally good, because we are on the good side, chosen by fate, god, divinity, to represents and promote and defend goodness; what is of no value to us is universally valueless.
Subjective moral standards.
Objectivity is not even attempted.
The only alternative is to declare all morality null and void of meaning, as a way of overcoming our inability to escape Abrahamic ethics.
This one/nil binary usually displays an inability or refusal to abandon subjective standards.
If our ethical values are debunked then all ethical values are void of meaning.
Or...
If race and gender are not social constructs then all is rendered meaningless - no alternative is considered, including the possibility that race and gender are no social constructs but natural. This is so threatening that we cannot deal with it, so we destroy all so as to not abandon our convictions.
We cannot abandon our adopted world-view so we eliminate all world-views as being equally erroneous.

Trapped for millennia within Abrahamic ethical standards - Americanism is founded on them as being self-evident - makes it highly problematic to think outside these indoctrinated principles.
Anyone who manages it, almost always, adopts negation as the only alternative.
So, the concept of 'god' - one, absolute, good, whole, positive - can only be escaped by a total negation of its traits.
Recovering Abrahamics, turn to atheism and nihilism rather than redefining and understanding what 'god' means.
Same applies to the concept of 'ethics' and 'morality'.
The only alternative is amorality. An atheist associates morality with an absolute one-god so when he overcomes the Abrahamic theistic superstition he inevitably adopts nihilism as its antithesis.
Binary.
He wrongly concludes that existence with no Abrahamic god is an amoral existence, since god, is an authoritarian, absolute who creates morality and imposes it on its creation.
His atheism, and amorality remains relative to Abrahamic ethics and theism....and he hasn't really escaped the shadow of his indoctrination.

To emphasize my point:
If we abandon our Abrahamic indoctrination and begin with the act, not the word; not logos, but ενεργώ = act, we may begin with the moral act.
Let's consider Boman's words as factual...

Boman, Thorleif wrote:

…for the Hebrew the most important of his senses for the experience of truth was his hearing (as well as various kinds of feeling), but for the Greek it had to be his sight; or perhaps inversely, because Greeks were organized in a predominately visual way and the Hebrew in a predominately auditory way, each people’s conception of truth was formed in increasingly different ways.
[Hebrew Thought Compared with Greek]

...and begin with what we perceive rather than what we've heard recited or orally transmitted ...and let us abandon the Old & New Testaments begin with Goethe...

Goethe wrote:

First was the act.

i.e., En-ergy {Ενεργεια}.

So, morality as a behaviour, an action - interaction - is encoded by humans - when they developed oral and written language - into moral codes, and then added to them addendums - which I refer to as ethics - to adjust these codes to evolving socioeconomic, cultural circumstances.

Morality is an action, not a word commanding us to behave.
An act the spontaneously emerges, through natural selection, because it facilitates particular survival and reproductive strategies.
No god necessary.
We consider it 'bad' to rape children, or to mate with first-degree relatives, not because a god told as 'no', 'bad', but because such behaviours had negative genetic consequences, and so such impulses were gradually selected out of our species.
Yet, like homosexuality, some regression is experienced when natural selection is intervened upon by social selection.

My differentiation of morality and ethics is not arbitrary, not a persona whim.
It uses "ethics" to clarify the mind/body Cartesian split - which refers to an organic synthesis with two sources of memory: 1, inherited, DNA (genetic) and the other personal, experienced (memetic).

Genes = morality
Memes = ethics
These two categories correspond to nature versus nurture argument.

Abrahamism is the exaltation and idealization of self, or the collective.
Where Hellenism (Indo-European spirituality, a.k.a. paganism, heathenism), worships nature and its multiple forces, giving each an anthropomorphic representation; Abrahamism (Afro-Asiatic appropriation of Zoroastrianism and Ancient-Egyptian occultism) worships the human mind, or the collective hive-mind.
It follows that subjectivity would be the outcome, since secular versions of this worship the individuals' mind as a divine world-creating entity, liberated from physical, tangible restrictions, limitations.
Morality is dismissed so as to adopt ethics.
This corresponds to nihilism's denouncement, rejection, of the body (physis, physical, tangible) and its complete faith on the mind's ability o create reality, from nowhere and nothing.

Morals are codification of naturally evolved behaviours facilitating reproductive and survive cooperation; ethics are manmade addendums, guided by socioeconomic necessity, corresponding to ideologies promoting particular world-views and subsequently particular behaviours.
So, when Abrahamic monotheists believe morals are divine laws they are placing the source outside human contrivances, and when nihilists morons consider the elimination of this divine source as an indication that morals are no longer independent form human contrivances, but entirely so, we are dealing with a mindset that remains within a particular Abrahamic world-view - one positioned in the affirmative and the other in the dissenting, but both relative to the same superstitious dogma.

What we are dealing here is the classic nurture vs nature.
Nature = past
Nurture = present
Liberal a-moralists, Marxists, reject nature and embrace nurture as the essential factor for their Utopian ideologies; they dismiss the body, as superficial, as irrelevant, so as to make the mind - collective hive-mind - the world-creating entity.
This is the only way their naïve, romantic ideologies have any hope of becoming real.
Their a-moralism is nothing more than a rejection of the body and its inherited impulses, limiting the mind's ability to imagine anything into existence - contrive and create its own reality.
They hope morality requires an external conscious agency because this validates their convictions that their collective hive-mind can replace moral laws with their own preferences.

Unfortunately, for them, morality does not require a conscious agency, a god, no more than 'love' or 'hate' require a god and a demon to exist.
Morality refers to a behaviour which can be witnessed in many species: altruism, compassion, sympathy, tolerance, love, self-sacrifice etc.....all these behaviours are not exclusively human.
But there is a common link between all - a pattern.
They are perceived among species that practice cooperative survival and reproductive strategies.

Hebrews were the first to encode ethical addendums to natural moral behaviours.
Why was this necessary and so powerful?
Because of the speed of adaptation differences between body and mind
Mind adapts - reacts - faster to external environmental shifts, than the body can - free-will is associated with this.
Given the mind's ability to accelerate adaptation and to intervene upon natural processes, it had to also adjust morals to adjust them to the changes it created.
Ethical addendums to 'bring up to speed' human behaviours with manmade environments.

Postmodern degenerate desperately want to associate morality with ethics - making all rules manmade...or a product of an intentional consciousness.
If not god - of Abraham - then man as god.
They attempt o change the rules because they cannot adapt to them.
Change the world when you cannot adapt to it.

The first step is destruction, before construction can commence, ergo, nihilism annihilates everything that stands in their way towards the ideal world.
Few dare to practice nihilism properly (pure nihilism) but most practice it selectively (positive nihilism).
Their "rational skepticism" is adjusted to achieve a specific "positive goal".
It is used to deconstruct, obliterate, (undermine with doubt) specific concepts...not all concepts; they refuse to define specific words, not all words.
Study the words, representing the concepts they refuse to acknowledge and define and you can trace the line back to the need/desire motivating them.
There you will find the wound, the weakness they are compensating for.

Decline of morality in the American dominated west:

*Secularization has diminished religiosity, exposing the average man's inability to abide by shared rules of conduct without a reward/threat.

*Demise of Abraham's one-god reveals the nature of the Abrahamic ethos, proposing ideals no man can abide by, normalizing contradictory behaviour, without any shame or fear of collective retribution.

*The anti-nature ethical codes are exposed as not arising spontaneously in all men who call themselves Christian, or Muslim, or Jewish, but that they require constant social pressure to be imposed.

*What is exposed is that Christians - Muslims and Jews - are unable to abide by their own ethical codes, but must break them to survive in a world they deny.
The meme provided excuses and methods of contrition to make the breaking of these rules normal - all are sinners and weak, after all.
All week they break their own ethics and then Sunday they repent, confess, and ask for forgiveness.
Nihilism must self-contradict otherwise it cannot survive.

*Fear is the mother of emotions and of respect.
Decline of fear in divine punishment, and divine rewards, unleashed man's primal nature. Barely contained by the fear of collective punishment, enforcing Law & Order.

*Pretending that moral behaviours require a god to exist, liberates the desperate degenerate, who seeks comfort in the denial of fre-will - liberating him form responsibility.

When the "creator" of moral codes is dismissed then the collective must take its place, otherwise the only other alternative - for recovering Abrahamics/Marxists - is the imposition of ethical rules by a powerful non-collective agency.
They recognize no other source for the evolution of moral behaviour, ignoring it in other species so as not to be challenged.
The secret is 'logos'....they only recognize rules of conduct that can be put down in words or communicated orally.
"Thou shall not..."

How and why moral behaviour emerges and evolves does not interest them if it does not begin with "nothingness", defined as "non-existence".
They need a clean slate.
Nothingness is, in their mind, free from somethingness.
They need it because they need to selectively erase what does not fit into their world-view or that contradicts it....they start with the objective and emote backwards.
They need ethics to be the creation of a rational agency, with a motive, because then they can dismiss arbitrarily what they don't like.

So, from non-existence existence arises and then morality is created from nowhere and nothing - just magically - and then it is imposed upon the masses.
We can see why they ignore moral behaviour in other species, using language as an excuse.
It would force them to consider an alternative that would contradict their world-view.

The idea is we come from different cultures and so our ethics are different....but they aren't.
There are moral behaviours - set as ethical rules - that are common in all cultures and even in other social species, pointing to a reason why they emerge and evolve.
But to understand this you would have to possess some intellectual integrity, intelligence and objectivity.

Beginning with an understanding of genes/memes, corresponding to moral and ethics.

Owner pretends to be drowning to see if his dog would save him [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Interesting As Fuck (@InterestingsAsF) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The genetic foundations of morality.
No culture necessary.
Instinct....

What remains to be determined is the probability ranges of nature versus nurture.
My position begins with a 70%/30% split, which changes over time. Logically, as experience increases, an individual learns who he is and how to control his impulses, and as hormones levels decline with age, the percentages may vary from person to person, starting from a baseline range of 90/10 at birth.... settling at 70/30, at maturity - my estimation of a general average.
Race is also a factor, as is sex.
So factoring in sex, race, and genetic mutations particular to an individual, we may give a range of 60-70 nature vs. 30-40 nurture, the shift moving towards nurture.

As I put it, mind/body refers to two different yet combining in the brain, sources of memories.
DNA (nature) vs. Experiential (nurture) - both are passed on to eh next generation either genetically or memetically - via sexual and/or linguistic intercourse.
We refer to them as body/mind - the nervous system - including the brain s its central processing hub - is where they synthesize often in strange and unforeseeable combinations.

Nihilism wants this to become 10/90 in favour of nurturing, or 0/100 for the fanatics.

The question arises:
How much imbalance - in favour of human cultivation (nurturing) can an individual endure before they become schozoid, or entirely insane?
From the looks of things...not much.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is the KTS depository of mental instability - a world made insane by denying the physical, the tangible, or attempting to forget nature - their own.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is KTS depository of a way of managing this insanity - a medication/intoxication relieving the side-effects of this denial.
Granted, there are many positive consequences, just as there are for all forms of chemical or ideological self-numbing - like reduced stress that may prolong lifespans.
any time the mind/body is relieved from the experience of existing - need/suffering - it experiences it as pleasure, or as invigorating, enlightening....comforting, as its energies are no longer squandered by stress.

There are studies on the side-effects of reduced stress on animals, or domestication.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], comes to mind.

In the Seoul zoo, two elephants rescued baby elephant drowned in the pool…

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

— Tansu YEĞEN (@TansuYegen) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Morality requires no culture to evolve, it requires culture to be given a code, and from there to be amended.

Whatever the cultural addendums, such as rituals, garments, diet, and their stringency, there is a thread running through all moral systems.
A thread that is traced back to primal needs/desires.
These shares organic needs/desires make all moral systems similar.

The Americanized "west" will soon find out why every culture known to man has had strict ethical rules against sexualizing prepubescent children and liberating human sexuality.
Unfortunately, most of the morons that advocate and promote it will die before they realize anything.
But, it's always been the case that stupidity has its own in-built defence.

Everyone knows you can't be moral without Yahweh the God of Israel to tell you right from wrong! Owned! [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Adam Green - Know More News ️ (@Know_More_News) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

According to recovering Abrahamics, i.e., secular nihilists, a.k.a. genitally and mentally self-mutilated ones, morality comes from nothing, if it doesn't come from Abraham's totalitarian one-god.
There's no other alternative.
Either Moses got them from his totalitarian divinity, or morality is manmade and therefore subjective.

I can't think of an alternative, can you?