Welcome to Incels.is - Involuntary Celibate Forum

Welcome! This is a forum for involuntary celibates: people who lack a significant other. Are you lonely and wish you had someone in your life? You're not alone! Join our forum and talk to people just like you.

Serious Morality is Dumb. All Moralfaggots aren’t Blackpilled. The Concept of Law is More Logical than Concepts of Morality

ResidentHell

ResidentHell

Officer
★★★★★
Joined
Jul 30, 2022
Posts
902
Moralfaggots are egoists who project their just world fantasies onto everyone else. If they perceive something to be “unfair”, they will come up with bluepilled shit like “karma”, “you will reap what you sow”, or “my kike god will seek retribution against sinners”

In a practical sense, morality is dumb and there are three simple reasons for this

1) Morality appeals to egotism. Laws appeal to civility and politeness. There is a “humble essence” about Law that cannot be found in Morality

The key purpose of morals is to attribute the idea of “virtue” and “righteousness” to desirable behavior, and attribute ideas of "vice" or "wickedness" to undesirable behavior. Otherwise, morality wouldn’t exist, and you would only have laws
. Laws are primarily designed to protect the interests of the people who are subjected to the authority who created those laws.

To have a notion of “virtue” is like thinking “I’m a spiritually and psychologically better person than you because there are morals that I abide by and you don’t”. It’s egoistic bullshit. So what if you are spiritual? You’re still going to die one day

Plus why should I aspire to have a more similar mentality to someone else? If I don’t like their mindset, then whether they are “spiritually or psychologically better” than me, is based on their own pathetic criteria of morals that I don’t agree with

Laws on the other hand, are based on a notion of civility, like “I’m a more polite and civilized person than you cause there are laws that I abide by and you don’t”. As long as you don’t attribute ideas of “virtue” to being polite and civilized, it’s much less egoistic than thinking you are “spiritually or psychologically better person” than someone else


2) Morality strongly appeals to the notion of “free will” and essentially ignores or rejects the harsh reality of “determinism”


A moralfaggot won’t only tell you that some sort of morality exists. Do you know what they will also tell you?

That you have "agency", that you have the power to make a choice, and whatever happens to you is a direct consequence of your actions. But as any blackpiller would know, this is basically a mixture of bluepilled and redpilled shit. Determinism contradicts morality, because it removes accountability from the one who moralfaggots project their fantasy of morality on

By the standard of some moralfaggots, your “evil nature” can be a consequence of a mere accident. Is it the Elephant Man’s fault that he was born a subhuman? I’m confident there were pathetic normies in his era who judged his existence as a manifestation of “evil” and therefore he must be either purged or removed from society. Your mere involuntary existence can be deemed "evil" in the eyes of some moralfaggots depending on how you exist, cause their fantasy of morality doesn’t make adjustments for involuntary circumstances. You are evil because you are subhuman, but how can you be blamed for being subhuman if you didn’t choose to be born in the first place?

If I chose not to believe that a pathetic kike was nailed to a plank of wood in order to save the souls of a bunch of pathetic goys - That makes me evil and therefore I must be purged. What kind of a pathetic criteria of morality is that? That’s right – It is a pathetic code that’s only accepted by a bunch of kike worshippers. Is it my fault that I was born? No. Did I choose to be born? No. So why am I being held to a kike worshipper’s standard of morality that states I will suffer for eternity, just because I decided not to think that some kike is the divine savior of all humanity, even though it is not even my fault for simply being born in the first place?


3) Laws are adjustable, not set in stone. But Morals are meant to be set in stone, despite how outdated or impractical the Moral code might be

The standard for “justice” in law, is based on the consensus about how to offset or counterbalance the socio-economic upset that is caused to a member of society. For example, if someone is victim of theft, the economic situation of that person could be hurt as a result; that hurt can be offset via a corresponding punishment of the thief, i.e., imprisonment, economic reparation for what was stolen.

The standard for “justice” in morality, is based on mere ego projection, which is prone to arbitrariness and favoritism / bias. For example, “X is righteous”, therefore anyone who opposes X is evil and will be punished for their immoral ways. The authority has declared “X is righteous”, therefore “X is righteous”. Morality is just a religious appropriation of Law that has extra superstitious appeal, to make “spiritual people” (who are mostly :bluepill:) feel “warm and fuzzy” inside

The only problem with laws is that sometimes they can eventually prove to be impractical or extreme, depending on the state of affairs in the society or economy. So sometimes laws may have to be scrapped or amended in order to adjust to the conditions that society or the economy might find itself in.
For example, the AOC may be 18 and it may be illegal for adult males to sexually interact with females under 18. But suppose a rare phenomenon occurred in the future, where a large proportion of the male population were slaughtered / exterminated. Lawmakers may recognize the infrastructure of the country is at risk of falling apart due to the male population deficit, and if they aren’t able to import immigrant workers to make up for the male population deficit, they might ultimately have to resort to radical measures in order to save the country’s infrastructure, i.e., lowering the AOC to encourage more reproduction, increasing minimum workers wage, reducing or scrapping neetbux allowance for unemployed men

Both Morality and Law are focused on the regulation of behavior, but the difference is:

“Morality” claims there is a guaranteed reward for people who follow “morals”, and a guaranteed punishment for people who fail to follow “morals”. The adherence of “morals” is rewarded in some way, and the reward is normally anticipated as a “divine reward” like eternal paradise, or gaining superpowers, or pussy. The breaking of “morals” is punished in some way, and the reward is normally anticipated as “divine punishment”, like prolonged misery, spiritual isolation, eternal torture, spiritual death

“Laws” do not guarantee a reward for people who follow “laws”, and do not guarantee punishment for people who break them: The adherence of law is not always rewarded, as civilians sometimes live a life of misery and torment even while being law-abiding citizens. The breaking of law is not always punished, as criminals sometimes do avoid punishment after breaking the law. Moralfaggots are aware of this, which is why sometimes they’ll say bluepilled shit like “If he didn’t receive his due justice for the offence that he committed in this life, then my kike god will punish him for it in the afterlife”. It also advocates slave morality - By suggesting punishment extends to the afterlife for people who managed to live their best life and avoid punishment for crimes they committed in this life

“Laws” are generally more adjustable or adaptable than “morals”. Unlike “morals”, all “Laws” aren’t meant to be set in stone, and depending on the situation that society is in, “laws” may be scrapped or amended to adapt to the societal situation

TLDR: All moralfaggots are to some degree :bluepill: / :redpill: in character, even if they understand the :blackpill:. The concept of LAW makes more sense than MORALITY. Law is made to promote civility and to ensure the safety and welfare of society. Morality is made to stroke individual’s ego. Morality also do not allow adjustments for involuntary circumstances, whereas Law can allow adjustments for involuntary circumstances
 
Last edited:
All the different colors make this post difficult to read
 
All the different colors make this post difficult to read
I agree the colours are messy, I should have organized it better. And I could have explained it in fewer lines

TLDR: Morality is more illogical than Law, because:

1) Morality mainly appeals to ego. Law mainly appeals to the safety and welfare of society

2) Morality overlooks the significance of determinism / involuntary circumstances. Laws don’t​

3) Laws are adjustable / scrappable. But it's unclear if codes of Morality are adjustable / scrappable

4) Morality rejects rationalism. It rejects the idea that organized behavior can derive from the processes of a secular / material entity (e.g., reason, critical thought)​

IMO Morality is a non-secular appropriation of Law, purposed to have extra appeal to the egos of superstitious people. Bluepillers say Law derives from a divine standard of Morality that was constituted by some deity. They reject rationalism, and deny that humans are capable of deriving their own system of order through pure reason & critical thought
 
Morals tell you that you shouldn't cheat on your partner or be a whore. Laws tell you that you can divorce rape your husband and make bank on his hard earned income. Choose one
 
Morals tell you that you shouldn't cheat on your partner or be a whore. Laws tell you that you can divorce rape your husband and make bank on his hard earned income. Choose one
 
Moralfaggots are egoists who project their just world fantasies onto everyone else. If they perceive something to be “unfair”, they will come up with bluepilled shit like “karma”, “you will reap what you sow”, or “my kike god will seek retribution against sinners”

In a practical sense, morality is dumb and there are three simple reasons for this

1) Morality appeals to egotism. Laws appeal to civility and politeness. There is a “humble essence” about Law that cannot be found in Morality
morality appeals to egotism? plenty of morality throughout history has been connected to 'civility and politeness.' christianity has had a notable influence on morality, and takes a sour view of egotism

but idek what this is supposed to prove, law is often based on egotism (eg. rulers censoring dissent), or on egoistic class interests (aristocracy, bourgeoisie, etc.) many laws nowadays have very little to do with civility or politeness, and laws based on 'civility and politeness' are commonly just dumb excuses for censorship

it took a retarded foid like rand to actually try making a morality based on 'egotism' lmao
Otherwise, morality wouldn’t exist, and you would only have laws.
This is just being obtuse.

You wouldn't have laws without morality. People would still have a tribalistic morality, where people who break the 'laws' are considered bad and excluded. it would just be a pseudo-confucian morality which is based on social conformity rather than respecting individuals, something that is only suitable for chinks bc they are disgusting slavish abominations
2) Morality strongly appeals to the notion of “free will” and essentially ignores or rejects the harsh reality of “determinism”
and laws don't appeal to notions bc it's a product of politicians, not of people who can think
3) Laws are adjustable, not set in stone. But Morals are meant to be set in stone, despite how outdated or impractical the Moral code might be
laws are also adjustable in order to suit the biases and prejudices of magistrates and the government, or due to corruption. a capitalist society is by necessity corrupt, so actually expecting the laws to have any consistency is itself a type of morality

laws are often just ways for authorities to quash dissent, and through history they have often been highly capricious

if anything, law is 'set in stone' in principle, but inconsistent in application
 
Laws are not everything. You can have all kind of laws and still it won't stop people from doing their shit. Also, you would have to specify what kind of morality you are referring to. You can have a lot of moralities. For example a nigger brought up in a hood where he is teached criminal activity. He also has a morality that tells him if he has an occasion to break into a house, steal shit, rape and murder the owners, despite the laws, just do it. Isn't that in some sense a morality? It is. Laws are not everything. Morality is also needed.

But only a CONSTRAINING morality has sense if you want to make the society work properly and to build anything meaningful. Such morality restricts natural instincts of humans, it stops them like breaks in a car, for example from stealing from others. Abolishing such constraining morality is literally what the marxist/communist, anticultural kikes are trying to do since at least 100 years, who want humanity to move back to the pre-cultural, barbaric era. That's what modern american liberalism is about. They think such morality is something that restricts humans, puts a muzzle on their mouths (which is true). BUT it simply makes the society work and not turn into a liberal-barbaric fuckshow.
 
What is a "moralfaggot?"
A "moralfaggot" is an ad-hominem term that describes someone who believes that "morals" or "natural laws" exist, such that:

(1) Morality / Natural law is of greater significance than all other laws, including laws of science & mathematics​

(2) For all "beings who have free will", there is inevitably, a reward for doing the equivalent of "good deeds", and a corresponding punishment for doing the equivalent of "bad deeds"​

plenty of morality throughout history has been connected to 'civility and politeness.' christianity has had a notable influence on morality, and takes a sour view of egotism
The premise of "law" in Judaic doctrine is the Law of Moses, also known as the "Mosaic Law", or the first five books of the Old Testament for Christians: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy. The Ten Commandments is an integral part of the Law of Moses. The only difference is this original "law" is claimed to have originated directly from the revelation of the Abrahamic God to Moses. Even so, the "law of divine origin" was conveyed to the rest of society through men who wrote the Mosaic Law

"Morality" is a kike worshipper's appropriation of the Mosaic Law. The Jews followed the Mosaic Law because they believe it is the Law of God, and that God is the creator and divine master of Jews. Therefore Jews believe the Mosaic Law applies only to Jews, not to Gentiles

Kike worshippers aka Christians, appropriated the Mosaic Law by moralizing it. Christians call Mosaic Law, the "Old Covenant", and they also believe there's a "New Covenant" that has more significance than the "Old Covenant" - So much that the "New Covenant" is now the fundamental "moral" (not law)

For Christians, the "Old Covenant" (aka the original law) is now supported by the "New Covenant" (aka the morality).
The "New Covenant" is summarized like this:

(1) Love one another. Treat others as how you would treat yourself (John 13: 34 - 35)​

(2) The multi-generational "curse of sin" via Adam is broken, and one will be "saved", as long as they believe a specific kike is the one and only deity of the universe who was sacrificed as a mortal human being​

(3) All promises made by God to Israelites, also apply to kike worshippers who aren't Jews​
In Judaic doctrine, doing something is "right" only if it adheres to the Mosaic Law. For Jews, the Mosaic Law is "right" because it is the command of God - There is no "inherent virtue" in Mosaic Law beyond it's connection to the commandment of God

But for kike worshippers, something is "right" because of the "inherent goodness" in it, e.g., there is "inherent goodness" in loving one another and treating thy neighbor as one would treat thyself - It just so happens this "inherent goodness" in certain behaviors was taught to non-Jews by the legendary kike himself
 
Last edited:
laws don't appeal to notions bc it's a product of politicians, not of people who can think
Laws appeal to the safety and welfare of society. In modern society, politicians may be incompetent, corrupted or/and emotionally disconnected to the struggle & suffering of the common population

But it does not mean all politicians are idiots. Maybe there are some politicians who are fairly intelligent and in-touch with the problems that concern the welfare / safety of the nation. Also some politicians were the founding fathers or revolutionaries of their country. The men who wrote the Constitution of the United States were probably not incompetent or disconnected

laws are also adjustable in order to suit the biases and prejudices of magistrates and the government, or due to corruption. a capitalist society is by necessity corrupt, so actually expecting the laws to have any consistency is itself a type of morality
I do not agree that laws are consistent. The abuse / misuse of law by a select few people in power does not necessarily moralize it. The consensus might not even approve of the law. Depending on which "theory of law" that you lean towards, the fundamental application of law is to serve the interest of the consensus

A law that serves the interests of the consensus (aka Democratic Law), is more neutral than a law that only serves a certain demographic of human society (aka Authoritarian Law). I agree that laws can be whimsical and made to crush political opponents. I also think it's possible for Authoritarian Law to be exercised under the disguise of a Democratic political system

For example a nigger brought up in a hood where he is teached criminal activity. He also has a morality that tells him if he has an occasion to break into a house, steal shit, rape and murder the owners, despite the laws, just do it. Isn't that in some sense a morality? It is. Laws are not everything. Morality is also needed.
So morality is needed as a kind of "underlayer" to reinforce law?

You mean to define or amend the law, so that it aligns with a certain standard of morality, with the intended effect to put the "fear of God in man" - So that if a man thinks he can avoid punishment for violation of the law, he won't escape punishment for violation of "morality", because if law enforcers do not catch him dead or alive, then the "divine forces" / "cosmic forces" that oversee "morality" eventually will. TBH I agree with this, albeit reluctantly
 
A "moralfaggot" is an ad-hominem term that describes someone who believes that "morals" or "natural laws" exist, such that:

(1) Morality / Natural law is of greater significance than all other laws, including laws of science & mathematics​

(2) For all "beings who have free will", there is inevitably, a reward for doing the equivalent of "good deeds", and a corresponding punishment for doing the equivalent of "bad deeds"​
Morals are not like natural laws (I'm going to assume you mean laws of nature, like physics), and laws are derived from existing moral systems (usually theological) and applied to state control to maintain societal order. They exist conceptually and abstractly - the same as laws. Laws written on paper, backed with the force of the state does not make them any more real than thinking them up and writing them in any other book that nobody enforces. Nobody has an army that enforces the moral systems of Jeremy Bentham or Immanuel Kant, but if there did exist such a world, it would functionally be the same as state laws backed by the police and the army. If I hold a gun to you and say that moral system A is real and I will arrest you if you break rules x, y and z, the only difference between that and a police officer arresting you for whatever law being broken is that society acknowledges the second case.

(1) Morality is the theory of actions by free acting agents as they interact and relate with the world through their action, including with other free acting agents. Whether or not "free will" as a mechanism exists here is irrelevant, since morality is about choices. The discussion of the metaphysics of free will is a separate issue and, though related, is not the central focus of ethics and not dependent on it. This means that the moral value of some action by some agent is not dependent upon whether or not the universe somehow deigned that action to be or not to be. In this respect morals are, in fact, more important than law of nature. If the behavior of an individual wrt to their environment needs to be evaluated, the laws of nature are not the correct tool with which to conduct that evaluation.

(2) Ethical systems do not prescribe punitive measures and, as such, are wholly independent from them. They only say, "you should/shouldn't do that." They don't say, "if you do/don't that, then the reward/punishment is _____." Some religious moral systems do have entire fields of jurisprudence that deal with punishment as directed by religious decrees and mandates with supporting exegetical evidence, but not rewards (the rewards are claimed to be redeemed in the afterlife). However, generally speaking, the theory of morals and moral systems do not inherently contain within them assignments of rewards and punishments. That is the domain of law.

Every time I've seen the term "moralfaggot" used it's almost always exclusively coming from some variant of a moral relativist or moral nihilist.
 
Last edited:
Laws appeal to the safety and welfare of society.
On an ideological level, perhaps, but in practice law is typically a reinforcement of hierarchical class systems and particular interests.

And often just BS, like modern SA laws.

The law is only the law because it is enforced, by people, who often have other interests in mind. Often, it changes due to alterations in popular morality, religion, etc.. Talking about 'society' is painting with an incredibly broad brush, as well, society involves conflicts and exploitation which can mean that serving one facet of society is done at the expense of others. The law does not invent society ab initio, it has to adapt to the various conflicts and divisions of a 'society,' and generally finds its place as an enforcer of existent hierarchies against large segments of society
A law that serves the interests of the consensus (aka Democratic Law)
There is no consensus. The social system is divided into various subdivisions, which often come into conflict.

Plus modern 'democracy' is a sham, it is typically a choice between members of a self-serving elite
So morality is needed as a kind of "underlayer" to reinforce law?
I personally don't care for the law or morality, so idc

I don't think that a mass society where the law had no moral authority would be practical, certainly not if it's 'democratic' as you claim. If most people don't think that the punished did anything wrong, then they would relax the laws.

Recall that law has often been religious in nature too, not only morality.
You mean to define or amend the law, so that it aligns with a certain standard of morality
The law typically does exist in connection with morality, and it's not really clear why this thread presents them as a sharp dichotomy. Most codes of law are influenced by morality at the time, and indeed by religion. Often, morality is influenced by law, and in cases like Confucianism or Stalinism it often walks in lockstep.

Realistically your collectivist beliefs are just a different form of morality, but there are different moral frameworks than just ethical altruism or ethical egoism, both of which are highly simplified.

If anything, law has corrupted morality more often than the converse, with people choosing conformity and obedience to the state or to modern feminist society and conflating social conformity with moral virtue
 
"Morality" is a kike worshipper's appropriation of the Mosaic Law.
the mosaic law is a kike law, and Jesus was a kike, it's hardly 'appropriation'

Jesus did famously transcend the mosaic law by treating it in terms of the spirit rather than the word, but that's the price of giving up on superstitious religious reverence for the words of a law 'passed down by god' jfl

not entirely sure how believing in the law bc 'god said so' is supposed to have anything to do with your argument
 
What is a "moralfaggot?"
IMG 3293
 
laws are derived from existing moral systems (usually theological) and applied to state control to maintain societal order
The origin of civil law can be found in Roman jurisprudence, which was heavily influenced by Mosaic Law - A creed of the Abrahamic God’s commandment to Israelites through Moses. You could say Mosaic Law derived from a theological system of morality. But to me it looks like the Law came first, and the “moral system” was a direct consequence of the Law. Hence its name, the Mosaic LAW or the LAW of Moses
This means that the moral value of some action by some agent is not dependent upon whether or not the universe somehow deigned that action to be or not to be. In this respect morals are, in fact, more important than law of nature. If the behavior of an individual wrt to their environment needs to be evaluated, the laws of nature are not the correct tool with which to conduct that evaluation.
“Moral value” is a prognosis of self-image onto things of the exterior world. You quote “the behaviour of an individual wrt to their environment needs to be evaluated”. But by what standard does an individual “need”, beyond what the individual wants or prefers? There is a non-moralist approach to evaluate the behavior of an individual … in their environment. This approach isn’t based on a “need”, but a “desire” / “preference”. If someone considered two options, A or B, and they preferred B over A - How can it be said that this person needs to have A, in spite of them preferring B over A?

Let’s say you had a 10-year old son, and one day this son comes to you and tells you that he wants to commit suicide. If your son would prefer to commit suicide than stay alive - How can you tell your son that he needs to stay alive, when this is what your son does not prefer? Ultimately you'd be projecting your self-image on your son by telling him what he needs, even when it opposes what he wants / prefers. How can you tell an individual that they need to have something if they prefer not to have it?

It may be reasonable to assume someone’s behavior needs to be evaluated if the person is not enlightened enough to responsibly make certain decisions. Thus you could say, your son is currently not well-informed enough to make such a decision. But it’s also possible that you could underestimate your son’s intelligence and rational thinking ability - Your son might be smarter and more rational than you would have thought he was. Thus it’s possible you could be coming from a place of lesser intellect / lesser rational thought, to try and tell your son that he needs something that he doesn’t want

(Related thread)
theory of morals and moral systems do not inherently contain within them assignments of rewards and punishments. That is the domain of law.
I entirely disagree with this statement. If moral systems exist, why would someone allow their behavior to be directed by a moral system in the first place? It’s about self-worth. If you didn’t believe there was “inherent virtue” or “inherent immorality” in doing a specific behavior, you wouldn’t hold that specific behavior to a moral standard in the first place. In other words there are assignments of reward and punishments in moral systems - Except that it’s all internalized

The central reward for doing “good” is having the knowledge that you did “good” so you can feel satisfied with yourself for doing “good” things. The central punishment for doing “bad” is having the knowledge that you did “bad” so you can feel self-disappointment for doing “bad” things. It’s all to do with ego stimulation. T
here usually are assignments of punishment in law, but there isn’t necessarily an assignment of reward in law. AFAIK, people aren’t usually rewarded for following the law, but are more likely to be punished for breaking it
Every time I've seen the term "moralfaggot" used it's almost always exclusively coming from some variant of a moral relativist or moral nihilist.
I am not a moral nihilist; I wouldn’t’ say that morality doesn’t exist. But I would say it is impossible to prove that objective morality exists. This doesn't mean I'm "anti-realist". It just means I don't think there are "objective moral facts" that are provably true, supposing "objective moral facts" even exist. I think comparative ethics is the most coherent, neutral standard of ethics. It is definitely more logical and more neutral than normative ethics
 
Last edited:
The law does not invent society ab initio, it has to adapt to the various conflicts and divisions of a 'society,' and generally finds its place as an enforcer of existent hierarchies against large segments of society
This is a limited outlook on jurisprudence. Law doesn’t have to “find its place as an enforcer of existent hierarchies”. A socialist state, if operated effectively, would not have discriminatory laws that favor one demographic of citizens over another. Laws only become “enforcers of existent hierarchies” in societies where there is some kind of social stratification. But this is probably impossible, cause there probably will always be social divisions of some sort (e.g., racial identity, biological sex, occupation, height & face)
certainly not if it's 'democratic' as you claim
^
I also think it's possible for Authoritarian Law to be exercised under the disguise of a Democratic political system

The law typically does exist in connection with morality, and it's not really clear why this thread presents them as a sharp dichotomy. Most codes of law are influenced by morality at the time, and indeed by religion. Often, morality is influenced by law, and in cases like Confucianism or Stalinism it often walks in lockstep
For European & American countries, the Law came before Morality. The origin of civil law can be found in Roman jurispudence, Corpus Juris Civilis, which is heavily influenced by Mosaic Law (law of persons, property law etc.). The Mosaic Law, aka the Law of Moses, is called a Law. It’s not called the “Mosaic Morality” or the “Morality of Moses”. Most countries in Europe & America are administered under civil law. Morality is merely an extension of Law that appeals to self-esteem / self-image
 
So morality is needed as a kind of "underlayer" to reinforce law?

You mean to define or amend the law, so that it aligns with a certain standard of morality, with the intended effect to put the "fear of God in man" - So that if a man thinks he can avoid punishment for violation of the law, he won't escape punishment for violation of "morality", because if law enforcers do not catch him dead or alive, then the "divine forces" / "cosmic forces" that oversee "morality" eventually will.
Basically this. Even if there is no God/Supernatural Creator, there needs to be a God. There must be something human beings answer to, to protect us from ourselves. But one can wonder what is the source of morality, is it simply religion? Maybe it's genetic or a product of a long process of evolution of civilization, or even before civilization. You know, there needed to be a moment where our ancestor decided that "wow wait, I can't do this, that's bad", which put restraints on natural human behavior, so he doesn't act as an animal (e.g. a nigger), but a civilized human. What was it?
 
Moralfaggots are egoists who project their just world fantasies onto everyone else. If they perceive something to be “unfair”, they will come up with bluepilled shit like “karma”, “you will reap what you sow”, or “my kike god will seek retribution against sinners”

In a practical sense, morality is dumb and there are three simple reasons for this

1) Morality appeals to egotism. Laws appeal to civility and politeness. There is a “humble essence” about Law that cannot be found in Morality

The key purpose of morals is to attribute the idea of “virtue” and “righteousness” to desirable behavior, and attribute ideas of "vice" or "wickedness" to undesirable behavior. Otherwise, morality wouldn’t exist, and you would only have laws
. Laws are primarily designed to protect the interests of the people who are subjected to the authority who created those laws.

To have a notion of “virtue” is like thinking “I’m a spiritually and psychologically better person than you because there are morals that I abide by and you don’t”. It’s egoistic bullshit. So what if you are spiritual? You’re still going to die one day

Plus why should I aspire to have a more similar mentality to someone else? If I don’t like their mindset, then whether they are “spiritually or psychologically better” than me, is based on their own pathetic criteria of morals that I don’t agree with

Laws on the other hand, are based on a notion of civility, like “I’m a more polite and civilized person than you cause there are laws that I abide by and you don’t”. As long as you don’t attribute ideas of “virtue” to being polite and civilized, it’s much less egoistic than thinking you are “spiritually or psychologically better person” than someone else


2) Morality strongly appeals to the notion of “free will” and essentially ignores or rejects the harsh reality of “determinism”


A moralfaggot won’t only tell you that some sort of morality exists. Do you know what they will also tell you?

That you have "agency", that you have the power to make a choice, and whatever happens to you is a direct consequence of your actions. But as any blackpiller would know, this is basically a mixture of bluepilled and redpilled shit. Determinism contradicts morality, because it removes accountability from the one who moralfaggots project their fantasy of morality on

By the standard of some moralfaggots, your “evil nature” can be a consequence of a mere accident. Is it the Elephant Man’s fault that he was born a subhuman? I’m confident there were pathetic normies in his era who judged his existence as a manifestation of “evil” and therefore he must be either purged or removed from society. Your mere involuntary existence can be deemed "evil" in the eyes of some moralfaggots depending on how you exist, cause their fantasy of morality doesn’t make adjustments for involuntary circumstances. You are evil because you are subhuman, but how can you be blamed for being subhuman if you didn’t choose to be born in the first place?

If I chose not to believe that a pathetic kike was nailed to a plank of wood in order to save the souls of a bunch of pathetic goys - That makes me evil and therefore I must be purged. What kind of a pathetic criteria of morality is that? That’s right – It is a pathetic code that’s only accepted by a bunch of kike worshippers. Is it my fault that I was born? No. Did I choose to be born? No. So why am I being held to a kike worshipper’s standard of morality that states I will suffer for eternity, just because I decided not to think that some kike is the divine savior of all humanity, even though it is not even my fault for simply being born in the first place?


3) Laws are adjustable, not set in stone. But Morals are meant to be set in stone, despite how outdated or impractical the Moral code might be

The standard for “justice” in law, is based on the consensus about how to offset or counterbalance the socio-economic upset that is caused to a member of society. For example, if someone is victim of theft, the economic situation of that person could be hurt as a result; that hurt can be offset via a corresponding punishment of the thief, i.e., imprisonment, economic reparation for what was stolen.

The standard for “justice” in morality, is based on mere ego projection, which is prone to arbitrariness and favoritism / bias. For example, “X is righteous”, therefore anyone who opposes X is evil and will be punished for their immoral ways. The authority has declared “X is righteous”, therefore “X is righteous”. Morality is just a religious appropriation of Law that has extra superstitious appeal, to make “spiritual people” (who are mostly :bluepill:) feel “warm and fuzzy” inside

The only problem with laws is that sometimes they can eventually prove to be impractical or extreme, depending on the state of affairs in the society or economy. So sometimes laws may have to be scrapped or amended in order to adjust to the conditions that society or the economy might find itself in.
For example, the AOC may be 18 and it may be illegal for adult males to sexually interact with females under 18. But suppose a rare phenomenon occurred in the future, where a large proportion of the male population were slaughtered / exterminated. Lawmakers may recognize the infrastructure of the country is at risk of falling apart due to the male population deficit, and if they aren’t able to import immigrant workers to make up for the male population deficit, they might ultimately have to resort to radical measures in order to save the country’s infrastructure, i.e., lowering the AOC to encourage more reproduction, increasing minimum workers wage, reducing or scrapping neetbux allowance for unemployed men

Both Morality and Law are focused on the regulation of behavior, but the difference is:

“Morality” claims there is a guaranteed reward for people who follow “morals”, and a guaranteed punishment for people who fail to follow “morals”. The adherence of “morals” is rewarded in some way, and the reward is normally anticipated as a “divine reward” like eternal paradise, or gaining superpowers, or pussy. The breaking of “morals” is punished in some way, and the reward is normally anticipated as “divine punishment”, like prolonged misery, spiritual isolation, eternal torture, spiritual death

“Laws” do not guarantee a reward for people who follow “laws”, and do not guarantee punishment for people who break them: The adherence of law is not always rewarded, as civilians sometimes live a life of misery and torment even while being law-abiding citizens. The breaking of law is not always punished, as criminals sometimes do avoid punishment after breaking the law. Moralfaggots are aware of this, which is why sometimes they’ll say bluepilled shit like “If he didn’t receive his due justice for the offence that he committed in this life, then my kike god will punish him for it in the afterlife”. It also advocates slave morality - By suggesting punishment extends to the afterlife for people who managed to live their best life and avoid punishment for crimes they committed in this life

“Laws” are generally more adjustable or adaptable than “morals”. Unlike “morals”, all “Laws” aren’t meant to be set in stone, and depending on the situation that society is in, “laws” may be scrapped or amended to adapt to the societal situation

TLDR: All moralfaggots are to some degree :bluepill: / :redpill: in character, even if they understand the :blackpill:. The concept of LAW makes more sense than MORALITY. Law is made to promote civility and to ensure the safety and welfare of society. Morality is made to stroke individual’s ego. Morality also do not allow adjustments for involuntary circumstances, whereas Law can allow adjustments for involuntary circumstances
Morality is simple

-if it hurts someone else, it's immoral

It's literally that simple
 
Basically this. Even if there is no God/Supernatural Creator, there needs to be a God. There must be something human beings answer to, to protect us from ourselves. But one can wonder what is the source of morality, is it simply religion? Maybe it's genetic or a product of a long process of evolution of civilization, or even before civilization. You know, there needed to be a moment where our ancestor decided that "wow wait, I can't do this, that's bad", which put restraints on natural human behavior, so he doesn't act as an animal (e.g. a nigger), but a civilized human. What was it?
It would have been a phase of enlightenment that enabled man to transcend the primitive / uncultured nature of some human activities like eating, fucking, killing, recreational drug use. There probably is a point of enlightenment that motivates a man to regulate his behavior. Like when a man enters a school of discipline that involves abstinence from “worldly things”, e.g Shaolin Monastery, or when a man becomes a miser or a hermit, But there are various potential explanations for this

One of them is Terror Management Theory – The theory that people appeal to values that offer “life after death” in order to manage the terror that is caused by the psychological conflict between the will to self-preserve and the awareness of the inevitability of death. Christianity for example, is a sort of mortuary cult that is concentrated on the fate of every human "after death / end of world", and purports values that align with the “New Covenant” (basically the Christian standard of morality) for people who want to avoid this fate of suffering for eternity "after death / end of world"
 

Similar threads

ResidentHell
Replies
3
Views
253
ResidentHell
ResidentHell
ResidentHell
Replies
9
Views
522
lifesucksandyoudie
lifesucksandyoudie
B
Replies
8
Views
216
Ahnfeltia
Ahnfeltia
D
Replies
13
Views
600
Rhinitis-cel
R

Users who are viewing this thread

shape1
shape2
shape3
shape4
shape5
shape6
Back
Top