Morality

Effective utilitarianism ;

All value judgements, including moral ones, require an objective.
There is no good/bad, superior/inferior, beautiful/ugly, strong/weak, without an objective.

The objective gives judgements meaning.

Triangulation
Subject (willful agency) - objective (goal, standard), and what connects them - distance, effort, movement...

They need to believe that morality was created by man, now that the god of Abraham has been exposed.
They need to believe this because it is in accordance with Abrahamic superstition.
They must make 'good' an intentional creation so as to preserve 'evil' as being a human creation.

What is intentionally created can be uncreated.

They cannot accept that what we call 'moral' is the result of natural selection, subsequently encoded by man, and amended to facilitate his ends.
This denies them the comforting delusion that evil can be 'rehabilitated,' through 'proper education,' and 'love.'

And what is evil?
Anything that contradicts their comforting absolutist superstitions.

Universal ethical systems want to expand the group to include all humans, so they balk at the suggestion that morals evolve to facilitate discriminating group identities, with morals that are based no cooperative survival and reproductive strategies. Having been disillusioned with the Abrahamic version of universal ethics, they declare all ethics and morals void of meaning, so as to replace religious ethical universalism, reliant on superstitions, with their own secular ideological universal idealism, reliant on pseudo-scientism. In fact, it is crypto-Marxism.
Denial of free-will aligns with the secularization of religious slave ethics.
They substitute divine will with cosmic will, which they disassociate from intentionality – from the act of willing/choosing – implying that sinfulness, or contradicting this universal divine will is not even possible.
Salvation is not necessary when nobody can ever do wrong, nor behave in a manner that challenges divine authority, or any authority.
Innocence is part of their postmodern dogma, so no saviour is necessary to absolve mankind of its sins. All are inexorably enslaved, so nobody needs to be liberated (saved).
Accepting Marxism’s universalisations becomes inevitable, i.e., fated, not divinely willed; it’s only a matter of accepting your fate, which is also determined by agencies other than yourself. This is Jewish self-fulfilling prophesy, using different machinations.

But how could we "choose" to change, if we have no free-will?
A Jew and a good goy, exploring morality/ethics, beginning with the shared premise that morality is subjective, and a product of upbringing that has no connections to any behaviours that can be witnessed across species and cultural divides.
By blinding ourselves to the fac that our 'moral behaviours' are not exclusive to humans, we can then proceed to deny morality an objective standard.
Where man differs from animals is in his ability to abstract and represents his abstractions using symbols - language.
So, man has encoded these behaviours into moral laws, as if they were divine in origin and were not naturally selected.
We must now differentiate a crucial part of what distinguishes man from other species, other than the previously mentioned ability to abstract and to semiotically represent his abstractions, and that is to use this ability to synthesize and to amend.
Now we can recognize, by differentiating morality from ethics, how man can encode naturally selected behaviours from manmade amendments, facilitating complex group dynamics, such as human societies.

What is this commonality of behaviours we share with many other species, and we call moral?
A shared cooperative survival and reproductive strategy, necessitating self-control; self-denial, self-abnegation, in extreme cases.
We see a hint of this in wolf packs where beta males and females supress and sacrifice their desires and participate in the upbringing of the alpha-pairs cubs. What we could call a selfless act - altruistic.
Therefore, we can say that moral behaviours - actions - do not require a divine source, but can be naturally selected, because they offer an advantage; and we can further our reasoning and say that ethical amendments, invented by men, can use the divine (god) as a means of imposing behavioural rules on a species that has not transcended its evolutionary impulses.
No god is required but neither is it all subjectively determined.

Plato defined the 'good man' as a 'just man' - meaning a man who had managed to harmonize his tripart psyche (reason, will - passions), and 'just' because he has managed to harmonize his subjective judgements to that of the polis - intersubjective collective - which he remains dependent, returning us to the beta wolf that sacrifices its 'persona' interest to those of the pack.
Alluding to Americanism's liberalism and its focus on individuals, essentially undermining social cohesion and shared interests.
This is why Americanism must substitute biological, innate, identifiers with ideological abstractions, such as 'liberty,' or 'money,' and deny objectivity and 'free-will' whilst promoting, pragmatism, claiming to be for diversity when it is promoting a 'melting pot' of biological uniformity, and superficial, ideological diversity, reduced to dualities: Democrats/Republicans, good/evil, pleasure/pain.

1-Morals are the encoding of evolved behaviours - including thinking - that supports cooperative survival and reproductive strategies.

2-There are moral rules of behaviour that hold true across species, and therefore across all cultures, because they are fundamental to maintaining cooperation.

3- Moral codes are amended by humans - ethics can be sued to differentiate behaviours that are naturally selected and behaviours that are enforced by human rules.

4-Ethical amendments of moral codes of conduct vary to the degree that they attempt to control natural human impulses.

5-Every culture has its own worldview, and its own objectives, therefore each culture has its own version of the ideal man.

6-Every culture has its own variation of ethical amendments of moral behaviours creating specific types of men, characterized by their thinking, and acting, and judging.

7-Success is determined by dynamic natural factors, therefore every human ideal is constantly being challenged by existence beyond manmade environments, i.e. societies.

8-The relationship between human ideals and nature determines the probability of success, relative to other ideals - ideological competition.

9-An ideal is like a method for climbing a mountain. Many options, with varying degrees of difficulty, and probabilities of success/failure.

10-Every ethical amendment collectively approves or disapproves of specific individual options - restrictions to individual free-will.

11-The consequences of these ethical amendments contribute to the competitive qualities of a society, relative to other societies. Natural selection determines which will survive.

Not even these religious right-wing minds, that have become internet celebrities can fully defend their ideals.
Must be their religious hang-ups.

Morality evolved to integrate individuals into cooperative groups, and ethics adapted these morals impulses to facilitate the emergence of larger societies.
Walsh sort of touches upon it.
Marriage, is a monogamous institution, integrating males, predominately, into societies, making them investors in tis welfare.... and marriage is a means of reproducing a societies most precious resource, human beings, otherwise a society cannot coopete with other societies.
Sexual deviations - caused by unfit mutations that are sheltered from natural culling - gradually erode a society's competitive edge, relative to other societies.

Even Kirk cannot adequately define what gender is.
He simply dismisses it as a social construct, which is true, but not disconnected from sex.
Gender is how a culture integrates sexual reproductive roles into its organizing tropes.
Gender is not independent from sex, and sex is foundational to a society's survival, due to the reasons mentioned.

No god required.
Nothing is arbitrarily fabricated.
Specialized reproductive roles are naturally selected... marriage and gender are how these roles are integrated into sophisticated human societies.
God, in the Abrahamic paradigm, is how the collective enforced its will.
It is a representation of a collective, of the group, abstracted into an idea.

Because moral behaviours did not evolve to accommodate humans and their rapid advancement, humans had to make amendments and enforce them using law and order, traditions, and god.
God was meant to control impulses that have not been selected out of the species.
Morality is an encoding of behaviours that have been naturally selected and have become innate.
The issue with that is that evolution doesn't stop.
Mutations still arise and must be naturally selected out of the gene pool, but human interventions do not do this to happen.
They shelter mutations that would otherwise have met a predictable end, because man has attempted to convert natural selection to social selection.
Genes to Memes.
An ambitious enterprise with risks and costs.
Every culture is in a state of disharmony with nature, because every culture is based on human ideals that contradict natural order.
But not all do so to the same degree.
Those that tend, over time, to veer towards the nihilistic, viz, severe contradictions of natural order, attempting to fabricate an ideal world, according to a culture's ideals, will produce the highest degrees of mind/body dissonance - gene/meme conflicts.
Usually, civilizational end phases reach such extreme levels of gene/meme conflicts.
Civilizations being the application of cultural ideals.
So, if such an application proves effective then its longevity immerses individuals in its cultural ideals, for such a long time that these individuals begin to lose contact with nature - especially if this culture is nihilistic, in its origins or develops into nihilistic expressions over time.
Nihilism, as I've said, are defensive reactions to natural processes, attempting to protect egos from their implications.

There are moral rules that hold true across cultures.
God of Abraham is but a means of enforcing them, because law & order cannot be completely aware of everything men and women do.
God is a self-regulating mechanism.

But why do we find the same ethical rules across all cultures, and the behaviours they attempt to prevent, to be common across many species?
Why is in-group violence a violation of group rules, and why is promiscuity prevented, using many different methods, across many species and, most evidently across all cultures?
I've given my explanations.
These same explanations also apply to the rules against sexual deviants, such as paedophiles and homosexuals, and transexuals, etc.


Without behavioural rules there is no group.

It’s ingrained in life that it constructs subjective value judgements relative to its objectives. So, how could it be different for the value-judgements inherent in morality? Here the objective is group survival, to which all individuals must adhere to if they wish to partake in the participatory advantages.
A group's survival is determined by environmental circumstances which remain independent from the participants objectives and ideals; therefore, it is not the group that decides what is advantageous but that which remains forever indifferent towards its objectives, including its survival.

This brave woman in Florida is defying the morality police.

This is what Florida was like before the Islamic revolution, this is what they took from you. [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

— Syrian Girl (@Partisangirl) [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]