Morality

A regional herd appears to be distressed with the topic of "morality", and how to cope with being "thrown into the world" without consent.
A very distressing, non-politically-correct circumstance, making them all "victims" of injustice.
Distressed by its victim-status it projects victims of violence, of immoral acts, all around it, in a typical nihilistic psychotic practice.
With its projections it exposes its self, its individual sources and reasons why it identifies as "victim", and prefers to associate with "victims", converting the abuser, the victimizer into another "victim" - one suffering from a higher grade of victimization.
Herd asks "What is wrong with him? What happened to him, to make him this way?" already presuming a pure, "healthy" idea(l) state being diverted from - usually associated with socioeconomic, cultural norms.
The noble savage corrupted away from his authentic benevolence, by an evil world, represented by a "fallen angle" a human, usually white and male.

In between the simpler ones, where binary/dualism, the lighthouses of the Nihilistic paradigm, boxes them into a dilemma of God, as absolute moral authority, and no-God, as the absolute absence of moral authority, and the more disillusioned "complex" ones of no moral standards outside their subjective desperate mind - "I am creator of my own identity!!! I am God reborn!!"....is where I slither in.

Along with my earlier positions on morality, returned to the Agora, I've posted recent clarifications: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

My positions do not propose a universal morality, like Judeo-Christians/Muslims do, nor do they propose the absolute absence of morality, as an important, necessary, aspect of survival and the human condition...of social behaviour in all species, in fact.
Survival forces compromises which then develop into innate instinctive behaviours, becoming part of the nature of a species, and every organism belonging to this reproduction category.
The necessity for nutrition, for example, develops into specialized forms of hunting manifesting as appearance.

Morality is a necessary part of the cooperative survival strategy, and heterosexual reproduction where solitary species must congregate in ephemeral social unities once a year to allow the process to finalize in a birth.

Love, hate, all emotions are automatic (re)actions, evolved over hundreds of thousands of years of natural selection.
Love, a sophistication of lust, is, no less, an innate automated (re)action, resulting in particular behaviours that facilitate social survival strategies and pair bonding that facilitates heterosexual reproduction.
Morality, like love, is innate.
Why it is so, is where I offer my theories trying to nu-cover, reveal, follow the string of knowledge out of the labyrinth of time.

My positions on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] have also been made available for scrutiny.

Morality only has meaning in relation to a goal, just as an idea(l) has meaning, as a concept represented by a word, in relation to a projected outcome, considered desirable based on the individuals assessment of the world, as he's lived it, sampling first and second hand experiences.

Ethics is the study of common rules governing all moral standards.

The value of a moral standard is not because of conviction but application: how well it fulfills the projected outcome, in relation to world.
In the case of morality as an innate, evolved behavioural standard, with the goal of harmonious cooperative coexistence - the outcome, or how one defines and imagines morality, is validated by the outcome.
If the behavioural norms, called moral, fulfill the goal of harmonious cooperative coexistence, then they are deemed "good", and are ascribed value, if not then they are the fantasies of imbeciles.
In nature behavioural standards are not theorized beforehand, they are selected, gradually, through trial and error - the individual behaving in accordance with them will pass on its gens, the one who does not will not pass on its genes, in time developing a type of behaviour = a social behaviour particular to the species, and which humans call moral thinking of their own species behavioural standards as universal "truths".
Having said that I must admit that because the species human does not emerge out of nothing but out of a continuum of becoming, related to other species, that some of these behavioural standards are shared by other social species, or species with heterosexual reproductive strategies, necessitating a period of cohabitation and tolerance.
This fact is what Modern Nihilists use to justify the universality of their human, morals, when at other times they ignore other species when ti suits their social engineering idea(l)s.
Ethics being the exploration of human morals to find patterns of behaviours that relate to universal patterns of (inter)activity.

Living the "good" life is not the same as living the moral life, unless you are hedonist confusing your self-interests for cosmic truisms, and your pleasures for a universal motive, directed by some universal will.
we are now aware of the fact that human social behaviours involves a degree of self-denial, rejection of personal interests - it is a compromise, explored by Nietzsche, Freud, Schopenhauer, and many others.
A self-denial some sell as mystical, supernatural, to make the compromise more justifiably severe.
Judeo-Christian/Islamist, had to invent a more "real" reality to achieve this goal of self-negation, and this self-negation is still with us in the form of other ideals.
With the death of god and disillusionment with this promised "eternal life", the (re)action that followed among those who would have succumbed to heard psychology is nihilistic despair, resulting in immorality, hedonism, modernity.
Those who could not deal with the loss, had to inebriate themselves to cope
One method of inebriation is self-denial through other: the identification of self as something bigger, better, immortal.
Humanity is such a identifier. Cleansed of its reproductive meaning, it becomes another word with no references, but only in the minds of the membership.
This is what I've called pure noumenon - or noumenon referring to other noumena.
Ethics falls into this trap.
With no God to impose a cosmic, absolute, morality, the feeble-minded cow looks for another solidifying meaning, wanting to evade the natural unity that would expose it to all sorts of other distressing possibilities.
Morality becomes another word for fashion. What humanity says it is, at any given time, is what it is.
Morality malleable, governed by the shifting social dynamics of modern idiocy.
Homosexuality 50 years ago, is immoral, and today it becomes moral - the truth before is different from the current, Modern, truth, and the truth a few years will be something else.
The universe adapts to human social trends and whimsy.
God is reintroduced as a universe that changes to fit human needs - benevolent Deity that with a parental loving tolerance, shapes itself, to fit into its child's requirements.

Modern Ethos.



Abrahamic Religiuos Ethos, splintering into its many secular forms.




Pagan ethos, when coupled with Utilitarianism.
Aristotle's teleology aside...
The Idea(l) directs the mind towards its demands.
It forces the mind to discipline itself to its calling.
The individual is inspired by a real representation of the idea(l) (phenomenon), or is inspired by a theoretical, projected, imagined conception of it (noetic).
The outcome of his actions (choices, intentions) are juxtaposed against his idea(l), theoretical or actual, establishing a good/bad evaluation.

To make the idea(l) objective it must be measured against world, and not individual tasted, ambitions, preferences.
The standards of evaluation must be extricated from personal factors, such as emotions, needs, (genes), and from upbringing, culture (meme), as much as this is possible.  
Its constitution, longevity, within a world in Flux, is one part of the evaluating standard, and this can be determined using precedent and from its ongoing performance; the second is how realistic, how realizable this idea(l) is, and this can, also, be determined using precedent, which immediately decreases the value of a theoretical idea(l) compared to an actual, pragmatic one; the third part of evaluating the objectivity of an idea(l) is by how aligned the projected idea(l), the intended objective, is with past/nature, determined by how much it harmonizes and/or contradicts genetic dispositions and observed natural processes, and their evolved functions.

The outcome of an action is what is measured against the intend, determined by personal judgment of the previous three factors of evaluating good/bad.

It's not enough to want to be good, and do good, no matter how you define the word, but it is by the outcome that the value of your intention can be evaluated.
An act is neither good or evil, but it is the consequence that makes it so, when measured against an indifferent world - and when I use "world" i mean more than just humanity.
It is in this world, with no intervening wills and sheltering powers, that a judgment measures itself, deciding what is objectively good and bad, despite personal tastes, preferences, and upbringing.

Nietzsche wrote:

It is obvious that everywhere the designations of moral value were at first applied to men; and were only derivatively and at a later period applied to actions

Combine this with the knowledge that morality is an evaluation, that good/evil is relative to a goal.

Then, the person becomes as the person does. Blood may be noble in this sense, that a person may be virtuous only in the ways which they manifest their judgments. A person's very becoming, being, may be a virtue in this way. Then,  people see the virtuous man as an actor and not as only actions. Likewise, a man then, may derive honor by his serving as virtue to others.

I think this disconnection of virtue from people but to actions involves the monotheist-absolutist-religious conversion of the noble classes in Europe, in which Germanic shame became Christian guilt. ( [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] )

The disconnection of world from action came with God(desse)s. The disconnection of man from virtue came with the concentration of those attributions being those of one God only and not a person.

What is it. though, that explains the apotheosis of men into divine beings if the first God conception was one of a man humbling himself to a great victory?

I don't think the base metaphysics of Gods came from such an event, but instead from the concept of object permanence and ownership. When a family member dies, their items are still laying around and one may remember their habits by the objects. A coat hung up would mean they are home, for example. A coat being absent meant they were gone. If the coat is not there, one can still have a habitual reaction to thinking about them as if they were alive. There came the invention of ghosts and spirits. From there, Gods. Old Pagan Gods were distinct beings and powerful, but numerous and with their own virtues. A real and live man, then, could have virtues like those of the Gods, as attributions. One may say they are blessed in the same way one is trained with habit and practice. Skill took time to learn, and ability,  naturally given or inherited, was considered a Godly gift. What better way to smooth over cultural relations than to say a King was chosen not for any worldly superiority or even deception, but for a blessing by a God?  This is why religious belief is useful for stability. But, also, Gods were a kind of ancestor in the spiritual sense mentioned. Then, leaders were manifestations of a peoples' history, something to identify with. This also explains why it usually was only after death that men were deified.

The reification of one spirit, then, was a useful political tool/discovery. Gods were a shared value, if one could be the prophet of one of the Gods, then there's political value in that. By controlling and praising the spirit, by interpreting it or speaking for it, one could pretend to be speaking for the ancestors, the brothers and sisters, of the people. Turning religion into a political tool could be a great offense in this way and partly why there is a separation of church and state. To use Gods as political tools was insulting to the memory of ancestors itself.

While an emperor might be named a new God or attributed with Godly blessings, this was not politicizing Gods in the same way as a prophet would. This was saying "I have divine right to be here, look in the past and at me." Meaning noble blood was important. A prophet, though, may be a mongrel Jew which speaks for God. A prophet doesn't need to command any human virtue himself, only speak it.


Here, though, with the disconnection of virtue from humans and into actions, we find something like an explanation for the accusations of "racism" today. It is the act or behavior of discriminating between races that is evil, not the person. The person is then guilty-by-association. Or, guilty-by-performance. Here is where virtue might conflate with law.


--
To create a communist revolution, there is always an appeal to novelty. That is, they try to point out how "dull" and "boring" their culture is. Introduce a little exoticness and ask them why their leaders don't have something "cool" like what's introduced, no matter how frivolous or pointless it is.

Burgher Ethics

Another strain of [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. The burgher has an ethic which is naive of geopolitical cost. As the ethics revolve solely around vanity and wealth, it is either blind to or must somehow overcome the framework which protects it - violence. The USA and its modern corporate "left" is an example of the attempted preservation of burgher ethics at any cost. To preserve the ongoing feminization and infantilizing of discourse, it will sell the idea of a peaceful world without any costs - except those costs which are deemed "evil" to not pay.

Previously, where a burgher must pay the costs of violent conflict and great battle performance in order to acquire some semblance of honor, now they can achieve it with vanity. When the burghers, in their hubris, think they may pretend they have ridden themselves of the need for a violent enforcement structure and a strong protector, then they may excuse the wisdom of addressing the dangers of foreign invasion and the feminization of their populace. The result is a progressively desperate attempt to maintain their ethics against a regressing populace. Somehow they must sell that [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] is only good when it reflects infantile and feminine natures but not masculine, aggressive, thymotic ones.

The origin of this memetic disease is the hubris of the burgher and the complacency of the aristocracy. An aristocracy which attempts to direct attention away from itself, empowering the voices of the burgher class which entertains the populace. To maintain a civic appreciation for the aristocracy and maintain a strong state against the disease of burgher ethics, propaganda is necessary - see North Korea. This comes with its own risks of degeneracy of the aristocracy, of course - which would result in a a totalitarian repression of the people. A weaker people may be a weaker state. Political solutions are a different topic.

Rooted in the (inter)active processes of attraction/repulsion morality expresses this organic relationship with a world it gradually emerges within and becomes aware of.

Moving through the development of multi-cellular organisms towards necessary rules of conduct between them, naturally selecting behaviors that facilitate them, they then acquire an ethical code to manage complex, heterogeneous populations, contrary to genetically established dispositions.
If the development necessitates a behavior that contradicts naturally evolved behaviors, it constructs an external icon, an abstraction, to help in their repression and control.
At this point morality becomes authoritarian, domineering, attempting to strip away centuries of evolved behavior so as to assimilate the "individual" organism into a super-organic structure, just as the less sophisticated cell has been assimilated into more sophisticated organisms.

Sam Harris perfectly displays the danger of taking metaphors to their extreme.
This is where I've placed the noumenon/phenomenon divide.
The only place where mind/body can attach to world, or detach from it on its weakest point.
Where Nihilism insets itself in the only way it can, as symbol/word, and inverts the process in a relieving way, seductive and attractive to all those that cannot cope with the world.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], as representation of noumenon, is the product of the nervous system - the connector of mind/body.
It either connects the mind to the physical, the body, the apparent, or it detaches, returning back to what it has already accumulated and stored as memory, manipulating it to construct fantastic abstractions.
Memory, like genes, are noetic codified experiences.
And like genes they can lie dormant as latent potentials, not necessarily to benefit the organism.
Environment can trigger latent genetic disposition, as it can trigger a memories, into cascades of sensations, or like DNA memories can accumulate, remaining dormant until a triggering memory makes them active.
The metaphor can either be a mechanism of connecting with world, or of projecting into world accumulated memories, triggered by an event, or spilling forth as relieving by unburdening the mind; covering world with a convenient and comforting shell of abstractions.
nervous system, and its extension symbol/word acts as a conduit from world and towards it.
Herein lies the danger of confusing your own abstractions, coming from your pool of accumulated memories, projected outwards as a form of defiance, for the world itself, triggering the creation of abstractions founded on accumulated memories.

Peterson, perfectly displays the value of metaphor as a way of simplifying memories, the past, to a form the mind can process and use....and the common man can comprehend without any deeper understanding of world and his place in it.
This is, also, where the danger lies. The common man, lacking an understanding of self and world, confuses the metaphor for the real, or takes the word literally.
What is a tool for exploiting simplicity, and controlling the masses, making complex civilization possible, is also the point of weakness, where exploitation of this same simplicity can lead to disaster.
Harris approaches the subject from a scientific vantage point, of reason (Apollonian), and Peterson form a more artistic organic perspective (Dionysian), so their convergence on the topic of truth as it relates to religion and spirituality, is one of chaos in relation to order, one placing more emphasis on lucidity, trusting reason, and the other on intuition, trusting instinct.
Where one compensates for the absence of depth with clarity, the other compensates for the absence of clarity with depth, where depth remains defined in terms of possibility, so depth indicates a larger pool of memories, genetic and/or memetic, which remain vague, and reason indicates their illumination, their exposure to the present, in the form of understanding, or perceiving patterns that bring it forth as distinct.
Peterson takes past, and compares it to present, seeking patterns that connects them into a single motif, whereas Harris takes the present and seeking in past a precedent, and both are trying to find underlying patterns to bind all patterns into a single construct, a continuum connecting all experiences/memories.

Memes finding in genes primordial experiences.
Peterson understanding the memetic present from the perspective of a canon of genetics, delivered in the form of metaphors, and Harris understanding the genetic present from the perspective of a memetic past.

This dual possibility of toward mind, from world, and towards world, from mind, is where the [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  divide can be found, and where [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] process can be inverted to meme<>gene, which is also where I place my definition of 'artificial' in relation to 'natural'.

I remember hearing about a conflict in morality about whether or not a person having the capacity for violence over another constituted intimidation. That is, just being stronger means you have an extra obligation to appear unthreatening or to not be so strong.

One side says that capacity does not mean "responsibility". Just because you have the capacity for force, it doesn't mean you'll act on it. The other says it is problematic.

Does anyone know the technical term for this or whom had a discussion like this?

I think you mentioned having such a discussion with your professor some months ago, if I'm not mistaken. I don't recall the term (if there is one), you might want to search your posts.

It appears to be the classic case of projecting intention on the other and thus shifting responsibility for their own emotional state on them. "You made me feel X, so you must have meant to made me feel X".

I wonder if morality is necessarily quantitative/utilitarian because there are two aspects involved:

The "immoral" person whom is greedy, does "bad" through stealing or other things.
However, the same person does "good" by seeking to preserve themselves (at least Christian wise "God's Temple").

The latter can even be argued as a humanist egalitarian modern position. Deceitfuls would behave this way by saying they are good for the latter when they do the former.

To combine, one would think a liberal egalitarian utilitarian perspective is an answer.

Morality refers to how organism's relate to one another.
Morality beyond this is meaningless.

What universal morality refers to is how social organism's evolved behavioral dispositions facilitating group cohesion.
Proto-morality begins in heterosexual cooperation, where one specialized form (gender) needs the other to carry out its function.
Heterosexuality had to evolve specific sexual traits to facilitate this dependence on another specialized form.
It later evolved into a behavior that made cooperative unities possible.
Morality as man understands it, refers to organisms that evolved codependent methods of survival, requiring specific attitudes, behaviors, actions.
Ethos refers to the encoding of these social relationships, or method of inter-relating. Morality is a particular's memes bonding (assimilating, absorbing, integrating) mechanism.  

Beyond this, the concept of 'morality' is nonsensical, and a form of anthropomorphic projection.
How patterned and non-pattered energies interact, relate, is not based on morality, but their very essence, and how it relates, compares to that of another patterned (order), or non-patterned (chaos, random) energy.
A morality can come bring into conflict the genetic code with a memetic, to the degree that the latter is nihilistic, or contradicts an evolved behavioral predisposition...or to the degree that the ethical code contradicts the natural (past, precedent), or experienced world.
Morality, like 'love', like 'human' is not a magical, mystical concept. These words refer to evolved behavior, and therefore only have meaning in relation to living organisms using cooperative methods of reproduction and survival.

Any other application of these words, or many others hijacked by nihilistic ideologies, is motivated by the desire to detach them from their references to observable, phenomenal, apparent, activities, and to convert them into mystical, noetic, abstractions.
This has been done to words like, 'love', 'human', 'one', 'sex', 'race'....and, of course 'morality'.
The desire to detach and to invert, is part of nihilism's and how it attempts to cope with a world it detests and is afraid of.

If we study morality from the bottom<>up, from its grounding on the earth, in reality, in genes, and then advance upwards towards abstractions, the memetic, we associate the concept with a kind of behaviour having to do with organized life.

We start from the first unity, or organization, the organism and realize that it is a cooperative of cells.
in this case morality finds its grounding in organic processes, referring to good/bad, or valuable and worthless to the organism....or similar to one or more patterns participating in the unity we call self.
In this cooperate congruence of patterns good/bad means useful, useless - edible/inedible.


From this grounding we can proceed upwards towards the gradual evolution of social behavior, which proceeds after an individual organism has already evolved.
This survival strategy will now impose a restriction to already evolved behaviors.
We see this emergence of morality in social organisms who must tolerate, cooperate, with one another - coexist, using one another for support - synergy.
Before social behavior we have heterosexual reproduction, which also imposes a tolerance of otherness to facilitate the process.
Social behavior builds upon this to maintain harmonious coexistence between similar types.
Good/Bad now refers to behaviors that promote or inhibit efficiency or harmonious coexistence - increasing or decreasing the individuals survival and reproductive potential.


Man takes this and codifies it by making it a law that is imposed upon the group, from elsewhere - above, beyond.
Once this is achieved the moral laws can be detached from organic processes and may even contradict them...such as monogamy moral laws inhibiting naturally evolved human promiscuity.
We call the encoding of naturally evolving behaviors that promote coexistence, ethical rules to differentiate them from naturally evolved behaviors created through natural selection - trial and error.


Without this process of connecting the word 'morality' to a observable, pre-societal, behavior, we permit the maintenance of the concept as a abstraction that can mean anything, to anyone, for any reason.
The world now imposes a limit on how we are to understand the concept morality, starting with how it emerges, naturally, before man emerges, or creates modern social systems.
We recognize moral behavior as a social behavior that many species exhibit.
The connection of human behavior with other species behavior helps us discern what elements are added onto it by man, but more importantly it creates a foundation from which we can build our understanding of human ethical codes - genes to memes.
Using the genetic foundation, across species lines, we can discern how man enhances, or corrupts moral behavior using memes.

The word 'morality' cannot mean anything, nor can it mean anything the individual wants it to mean...because phenomena, in the form of cross species behavior, activity, imposes a restriction on human noetic constructs, if the human mind is honest in his intent and not a degenerate using words to comfort and delude himself.

We can accomplish the same with many other words being hijacked and corrupted by degenerates.

The connection of the word, referring to the concept, is now not up to human whims, but must adhere top behavior outside the control of human will.
Morality is connected to its foundations, found in species independent from human contrivances, and then we gradually and carefully build up towards modern applications of ethical standards, exposing the corrupting effect nihilistic psychosis in the process.

Roots of morality in social species.



Morality could only have evolved as a behaviour that enabled such cooperative social structures to emerge and to be effective.
In social species survival is externalized, gradually developing in the human who can completely overcome his primal drive to survive.
Good/Bad are the product of this externalization, and have no meaning outside life or living organisms relating to existence.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].
This externalization of self, is how mother bonds with offspring, and individuals bond into a cohesive group.
Eventually it leads to the creation of God, as the epitome of externalized self.

Self = sum total of past, connected by memory.
Memory is what unifies past into a one, a single continuum.
Without memory, such as DNA, there is no self.
Any disruption of the continuum is an end of self - death.

Bonding associates self with other - imprinting.
This association is founded on perceived similarities of other with self (know thyself).
Simpler, less sophisticated, awareness leads to broader associations; more sophisticated awareness leads to more restrictive, discriminating associations.      


Moral behavior evolved because it offers a genetic advantage to those individuals that participate in cooperative survival strategies.
The reaction is instinctive and requires no mental processing, other than what is required in the application, or the act.
Humans, having evolved the mental trait of long-term memory and projecting past into future, can contemplate the behavior, or act, after-the-fact.

Memory also allows for a larger pool of experiences to produce reciprocity.
Positive/Negative experiences accumulating and held in memory, either consciously or sub-consciously, resulting in a automatic positive, or negative, reaction to other.

Morality as an evolved quality of social, cooperative, survival strategies.
Heterosexual reproduction is a prerequisite.

The individual is willing to risk intimate self, for self perceived as similarity in other, as otherness.
That which exceeds is outside self - transedent.
Without this the mother/child bond is impossible, and cooperative survival strategies cannot evolve.
This is how 'love' becomes associated with transcending body, or the physical, and becomes a spiritual idea(l).

Man, of course, goes a step further seeing self in an abstraction an idea(l), where other is not necessary.
Association of self with this idea(l).
Only man can risk, or sacrifice self for other, and for an idea(l) - the idea(l) associated with the divine, the godly, the higher: transcending corporeality, and genetics.
At this point a total breach is possible - the detachment of self from past/nature, and the identification of self as idea(l).

justice is the vision of the passionate being made crystal clear

from latin "justitia" and old english "rehtwisnesse", or right witness

There is no uni-versal Morality.

The only reason our socially evolved behavioral norms have become divine dictum is because cooperation makes specialization possible, and is more efficient and effective when it comes to survival.
It is because brains are energy consuming organs, and larger brains require huge amounts of daily energy sources to keep them working effectively and growing.
Larger brains could only have evolved in cooperative, social species, at least on this planet with these particular energy reserves, due to its distance form the sun, its atmosphere and its size.
There is a specific brain to body mass ratio that is considered optimal, because larger brains would need more effective bodies to feed them....until technologies can be invented to tilt this ratio.

But then, technologies may liberate the brain from the body's effectiveness, but it also reduces stress as a requirement for development and maintenance.
Environment establishes a fine line of relationships between body mas, brain size, and stress, for the continuous increase in brain power.
We already know what happens when huge brains are sheltered....we see it in all Modern environments, and in post-modern infections.
Christianity would be impossible to sustain itself, at leas tin the numbers that it has, without sheltering necessitated by the systemic requirement for more and more slaves, or docile, easily manipulated and impressionable dim-witted workers: specialists, service staff, maintenance engineers and so on.
But even in this case there's a fine line between numbers of dullard, degree of sheltering, and the production of free-radicals, or throw-aways the system cannot integrate, by putting them to 'good use', or rehabilitate, or quarantine/eliminate.

The illusion of freedom is a finely tunes mechanism.
How much stupidity can a system absorb and endure before it collapses...or what degree of idiocy differentiates uselessness and usefulness is a continuously shifting balance point?
Market Dynamics provides this constant re-balancing.
Too much state welfare, and the system tilts towards self-destruction.

Market replaces natural selection as a culling mechanism.
Entertainment, narcotics, all forms of distractions are a form of trauma, similar to what a gazelle experiences when being eaten alive by a pride of lions.

Spengler, Otto wrote:

Hitherto the pretension of each and every morale to universal validity has obscured the fact that every Culture, as a homogeneous being of higher order, possesses a moral constitution proper to itself. There are as many morales as there are Cultures. Nietzsche was the first to have an inkling of this; but he never came anywhere near to a really objective morphology of morale “beyond good” (all good) “and evil” (all evil). He evaluated Classical, Indian, Christian and Renaissance morale by his own criteria instead of understanding the style of them as a symbol. And yet if anything could detect the prime phenomenon of Morale as such, it should have been the historical insight of a Westerner. However, it appears that we are only
now ripe enough for such a study. The conception of mankind as an active, fighting, progressing whole is (and has been since Joachim of Floris and the Crusades) so necessary an idea for us that we find it hard indeed to realize that it is an exclusively Western hypothesis, living and valid only for a season. To the Classical spirit mankind appears as a stationary mass, and correspondingly there is that quite dissimilar morale that we can trace from the Homeric dawn to the time of the Roman Empire. And, more generally, we shall find that the immense activity of the Faustian life feeling is most nearly matched in the Chinese and the Egyptian, and the rigorous passivity of the Classical in the Indian.

Decline of the West

Nietzsche criticized Christian morality, prejudiced against Darwinism, he failed to advance towards precision, leaving the cocnept of 'morality' free to be abused and corrupted by later generations of needy, men-children, desperate to excuse themselves from the judgement of others and their personal responsibilities towards the groups they found sheltering, and an identity, within.
To stop at the Abrahamic corruption of words referring to emotions, is to stop at the symptom, the effect without following it in the hope of finding the cause, the underlying disease.

Morality was not invented by man, but only as a description of a survival strategy with particular behavioural characteristics, dealing with cooperative and reciprocal necessities.
If we stop with man's application and interpretation of words such as 'love', 'shame', 'guilt', and 'morality' itself, then we remain safely within the social constructs many insist on remaining trapped within - blind to the fact that the very same behaviours associated with these words can be witnessed outside human societies and cultures, indicating that they are not man-made, but only humanly appropriated and warped to facilitate a particular type of social behaviour.
The inter-activities the words refer to are not arbitrary not restricted to one species, but if studied and defined properly, a pattern unfolds, revealing a evolved functionality common across multiple species, sharing the same reproductive strategies and/or the same cooperative tactics.
Within this evolved context can we seek clarity, free from cultural and socio-economic indoctrinations.
'Love' is liberated from human idealism and an occult motivation, and is exposed as functional and obvious, as are the concepts of 'morality', 'good/bad', exposing in the process the corruptive essence of 'good/evil'.

There is no one-god that invented morality, nor is there a faceless absolute order out of which morality emerges representing its 'occult' essence.
Man did not invent morality, as a reflection of the divine, conjuring it from 'nothingness' as if man is god.

Morality refers to an evolved behaviour that is then corrupted by men, or converted to a social standard, a cultural icon/idol, represented by words and symbols.

Many men-children do not merely deny the natural foundations of identity morality, emotions, to pretend they are 'free-thinkers' or 'unique', or that they do not care for the judgements of others - indifferent to what others think of them - but it goes deeper, for they seek an escape from a cosmic decree, exposing them as what they are, to themselves. The harsher the decree the more desperate they become to dismiss it, or to make it a universal 'truth' that incorporates all into the same.

Morality is not a universal 'absolute truth' binding all, it is an organic mechanism binding the individual organism to a species, or to the group it identifies with, being one member in reproductive survival cooperative.

Most Modern degenerates align themselves - ally themselves - along the dualistic lines of absolute-one, and absolute-nil, represented, in secular ideology, as absolute-order, and absolute-chaos - here I must repeat how for degenerates 'chaos' simply means an occult, mystical, underlying order, which is nothing more than how Christians describe their one-gods authoritarianism, as an all-present totalitarianism, i.e., omnipresent, omnipotent, omniscient - and in abrahamic context as absolute-good versus absolute-evil.
On the one side align degenerates who identify with the 'divine and/or satanic' dualities of the one-god - Satan, bealzebub according to the Jews, the trickster, the rebel against god's absolute authority, but himself a slave to it, so a representation of hypocrisy, attracting cynics and liars, which amounts to the same; on the other side align degenerates who identify with the absolute nil where all language, all concepts are meaningless human fabrications, and all amounts to naught.  

Positive and/or pure Nihilists....the lines blur when both are two sides of the same Nihilistic coin.
nihilism properly defined, as that which proposes noetic constructs that come in direct conflict with experienced reality - annulling the [perceptible, the experienced, the lived.  
Whether it is heads or tails, the value fo the coin is carried by the symbols. A worthless coin is worthless on matter what side you flip it on.

Ironically, Nihilists have an affinity for each other, because one distinguishes the other, and both despise life, reality, the world as it is, one finding it 'too much' to handle, and the other 'too little' to gratify.
This is expressed in their respective ideologies and philosophies.
Both easily obsessing, becoming addicted, to an icon/idol...given that the only way to engage reality is through a proxy; both with the effete, infantile, spirit of the impressionable child.
One wanting to become the idol/icon of admiration - the absolute authority - the other wanting to reject all icons and idols, to remain comfortably numb, among equally confused infantile emasculated spirits.
One wanting to make everything occult and mystical, so as to make their absurdities justifiable, and the other wanting to makes all occult and mystical to dismiss it.

They attract one another...and both hate realists or honesty, or any philosophy that describes the world and their own culpability, as it is.

Another thing both, sometimes, have in-common is an affinity towards drug-use, alcoholism, any kind of self-inebriation, not considering it a vice but a virtue all ought to emulate.
This mirrors their overall incapacity to endure the world lucidly, openly, in the light.

Both are desperate to make a mockery of existence, each for his/her own reasons.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]...the tragic made comic, and the comic moving towards tragedy.

Given the essence of morality, and what behaviour it evolved to promote, it isn't hard to understand why desperate degenerates convert all philosophical discourse to a morality topic - women and children are most dependent on the group, and care not for what leis beyond its premises.
So, everything has to be reduced to a morality test.

Herd psychology means that the individual cannot consider the objective, because in moralistic contexts all is subjective - not even the concept of morality, as a behaviour that evolved with specific functions, cannot be permitted to escape the moralistic whirlpool, i.e., you cannot define nor discuss morality in a-moral ways. Amorality is non-existent. The only alternative is 'immorality'.
All concepts can only be 'moral' or 'immoral'.

For an emasculated spirit all must be reduced down to a question of morality - implying that even if there is no god the universe is governed by a law of justice and goodness in relation to human interests.
Such a spirit cannot accept the concept of an objective reality, without a moral underpinning. Either the universe is morally governed - with or without god, or there is no world beyond human subjectivity.

Such a spirit trembles at the idea of a world void of compulsion and humanism. If there is no conscious one-God then man replaces him.
The triadastic oneness of 'god' is replaced by the multiplicity of oneness called 'humanity'.

Height of human stupidity and degeneration - in the coming Dark Age

Because morality has been convoluted by centuries of adapting natural behaviours - facilitating cooperative survival strategies - to social necessities the Modern chooses to avoid the intellectual work and settle for the more easier assumption that morality is a social construct.

We can witness moral behaviour is most, if not all, social organisms - particularly large-brained ones - so we can discern what has naturally evolved from what has been adjusted by man to his own social needs, but the modern degenerate is comforted by the idea that everything is a social construct, and part of a universal plan.

Gene<>Meme
Man did not invent morality. He adapted it to his needs; he sublimated it; he standardized it and added a few rules of his own - see Ten Commandments, most are human fabrications that contradict natural behaviour.
Man made moral behaviour into an ethical code - linguistically formulating natural behaviours and then adding his won addendum creating a set of rules that could not be differentiated - what was man's contribution and what was pre-existent?

The Modern degenerate has a blanket statement, always on the side of the subjective - the divine - of the mind.
it's all a human fabrication, or none of it is.
Either/Or
It's all the product of a cosnciuos mind - god - or man's mind - or all of it is meaningless.

As always, there's no middle ground, no balance.
It's all absolute positive or an absolute negative.

"Immoral" behaviour was distinguished, in the wild, either through the outcome - incest, for example producing unfit offspring - or through group dynamics that ostracised certain destabilizing behaviours - such as infanticide, or inter-group violence etc.
These gradually evolved into social conventions governing all cooperative survival strategies.

Man took these, gave them wording - encoded them - and gave them a rule to be abided by - and then he added his own, such as

Quote :

   You shall have no other Gods but me.
   You shall not make for yourself any idol, nor bow down to it or worship it.
   You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God.
   You shall remember and keep the Sabbath day holy.
   Respect your father and mother.
   You must not commit murder.
   You must not commit adultery.

This was the revolutionary step towards Theocracy.
Rules that facilitated the stable cooperation of huge populations of varying heritage - heterogeneous.
Rules that contradicted natural behaviours.
Monogamy is another example of a man-made rule that is moralized and established as an ethical law.
'Love thy neighbour as yourself,' is another.

But this synthesis of naturally evolved rules with man-made rules confuses Modern morons.
A few prefer confusion, because then they can fabricate their own bullshit based on obscurantism.
In their absolutism either/or 'mind' it's all either all divine, in origin, all is man-made, all comes from a mind, or all is bullshit.
In their desperation they intentionally convolute, refusing to discriminate and to illuminate.
It's either all a universal truth or its all arbitrary.

There's no subtly in their thinking.
They are terrified by what they might see....how they will be revealed to themselves.