- 2016-01-15 at 8:25 PM#177413+7
Sometimes I cannot help but feel as though my path to MGTOW was less an action and more a reaction to what seems like the increasingly dilapidated state of Western culture. It is as if there is no sense of morality anymore: no one is right or wrong and everyone gets a safe space to be coddled when even the slightest indication arises of a contrary reality.
If one were to see this modern society in all of its corruption and depravity, where would they look for a root to the issues? I think the answer is moral relativism. While there are many outward signs of cultural collapse such as legalized financial crime, despotic erosion of power balances in government, glorified perversions in the media, and so on, perhaps all of these problems start with the inward motivations of our hearts being blinded by moral relativism.
I look in the mirror and see my own complacency to moral injustices I commit to my fellow humans, animals, and Earth. I want to change though and am repentant. It seems the culture at large is indifferent though, willfully embracing hollow hedonism at the sacrifice of healthy gender relations, family, community, and nation.
So, is moral relativism the root of cultural collapse, or is there another aspect I am not considering in my thought process?2016-01-15 at 10:18 PM#177466+4
Moral relativism and cultural collapse, they do go hand in hand, don’t they? A study of the rise and fall of cultures reveals this intriguing juxtaposition across all the historical accounts available to me.
Cultures on the rise adhere to strict moral and ethical codes. The opposite is true when they decline. Is moral relativism a cause or a symptom? I dunno, but it is fascinating to watch from the sidelines.
The nice thing about moral relativism is that it was easy to get laid in my early days. A century ago, I would have to get married to get laid, or consort with ladies of the night. Now days, the give it away for the price of a few dinners.
Society asks MGTOWs: Why are you not making more tax-slaves?2016-01-15 at 10:50 PM#177474+3
I suspect that a lot of moral relativism stems from our own rampant narcissism. Nobody wants to be in the wrong, so we pretend that nothing is really wrong after all. That means we still get to do all the nasty s~~~ we want, but don’t have to feel guilty. We kind of forget the old adage about two wrongs not making a right.
(Of course, by ‘our’ and ‘we’ I really man all those other people, not ‘us’)
My moral code is pretty strict, but not very detailed.
Rule 1: If some one is being victimized, even if they don’t think so, it’s wrong.
Rule 2: If it feels like what I’m doing is wrong, it probably is. Check rule 1.
Rule 3: I can’t think of another, so I’ll quote Master Kan: “Avoid rather than check. Check rather than hurt. Hurt rather than maim. Maim rather than kill.”
"I am is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that I do is the longest sentence?" - George Carlin2016-01-15 at 11:51 PM#177494+6
I would subscribe to the bread and circus theory. As a society falls apart, the social engineers push more and more insane stuff to keep the masses entertained/distracted/divided. To me it is a symptom of a collapse, not a cause of it.2016-01-15 at 11:58 PM#177496+2
Social engineering certainly enables it, and makes it profitable.
"I am is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that I do is the longest sentence?" - George Carlin2016-01-16 at 12:28 AM#177499+2
Is the culture really collapsing, or just evolving into something we don’t recognize? Perhaps we are building towards a quantum leap in culture, when the full effects of the technological revolution set in. All people connected at all times. All knowledge available to anyone. Real-time video with instant feedback from any country on the planet. There has never in history been as much pressure on cultures to adapt to sudden change. Perhaps things like moral relativism, misandry, and militant fanaticism are symptoms of inevitable mutations in the culture, and will eventually move towards an equilibrium state different from the one with which we might be more comfortable. There is moral relativism, but there are also people who speak against it. There is terrorism, but there is a turning away from fanaticism as well. There is misandry and misogyny, yet there is MGTOW.
Wow… That’s some boot-top deep stuff there!
"I am is reportedly the shortest sentence in the English language. Could it be that I do is the longest sentence?" - George Carlin2016-01-16 at 2:45 AM#177528+3
Technology and individualism are major factors in cultural collapse.
I’ll throw it back at you. Is cultural collapse always a bad thing? The American Indians and many other populations, faced cultural collapse when they were conquered. Maybe bad for some, good for others? Now, cultural collapse might be a bad thing if our total fertility rate drops even further, and in a few decades or centuries, we’re replaced by religious fanatics. That is, IF you value our freedoms. In some ways, moral *neutrality* or relativism is a good thing. We’re no longer executing homosexuals. We’re tolerant of different beliefs. We don’t have a one-size-fits all vision of relations between men and women.
Bear in mind, when any one group dominates in society, it often spells fewer freedoms — whether it be Roman Catholics or Shia Muslims.
Why it it only moral relativism when different moralities exist in one society? We also have moral relativism between nations — morality in the West is different than Morality in, say, Saudi Arabia or Iran. I’ll take the West any day over that moral certitude!
Let’s say, in 200 years, Islam dominates in Europe and has no reformation. You won’t have moral relativism; you’ll have moral certitude; but is that a world you want to live in? Is humanism and tolerance preferred?
In a permissive modern Western culture, we have a great deal of personal freedom; choose to stay single, marry, have relations with the same or opposite sex, have sex outside marriage, live together, go to whatever Church you want or no Church, etc. In my view what’s gone downhill most is economic freedom, as the size of the Leviathan State increases.
The only changes in morality, have been relative to ‘victimless’ crimes; in contrast, I am not seeing anyone viewing theft, or murder, differently than when I was a child decades ago — leaving out the contentious issue of abortion.
Is culture collapsing, or just fragmenting? Youth culture has some positives vs octogenarian culture. I don’t know so many racists in their 2o’s and I do in their 8o’s.
We can go out to, say, the gym, and most people don headsets, in their own world exposed to their own individual tastes as far as music, news, and politics, for instance. In some ways that changing culture is a negative.
I think there are some threats to values I hold dear — campus speech codes, ‘safe spaces’, and the like. But in general, we’re enjoying more civil liberties than ever before, largely due to technology. Think of the internet and my ability to ‘publish’ this post to an audience without restrictions.
I think it’s good we’re less nationalistic (my perception), but bad we’re less pro-FREEDOM.2016-01-16 at 3:05 AM#177529+6
“Moral Relativism”… that is a nice way to say Satanism. As far as I can see and understand this hell-hole of a world, the majority of its 7.5bn inhabitants are too busy amassing riches for themselves and stomping on the next person’s neck while the others are fooling their selves into a state of numb apathy, too blind and deaf to notice the broad ties between the rising chaos within this train wreck of a society and its participants’ daily narcissistic activities.
legalized financial crime, despotic erosion of power balances in government, glorified perversions in the media, and so on
and the casual slaughter of countless lives… The Apocalypse of St.John was written for such times as these where morality, charity and goodness are given lip service only to serve as a punchline for some corrupt detective, prosecutor or judge’s decision to put blame on some poor sap whose neck was already stepped on and is merely holding on to the pale resemblance of a normal life before being thrown into a lifetime of State servitude under the label Dead Beat Dad.
Those social zombies have for decades insisted that everything is relative to refute away the existence of a divine being and His infinitely wise instructions for a perfect society to the point of dismantling the very foundations of what made this world progress into a semblance of law and order that we could call civilized. They have been claiming the planet for themselves and declaring themselves Masters of this Earth and over all its inhabitants to the point of assigning a number for each human being to be inserted into the skin like some brain-dead cattle and then they’re surprised when the whole of creation goes into fits of catastrophes and cataclysmic environmental events they cannot predict, save themselves from or stop.
Are those increasing catastrophes relative as well? Ha!
Don't let them Blame, Shame or Tame you!
Give 'em NOTHING, not even an answer!
#GenderSegragationNow!2016-01-16 at 4:23 AM#177554+4
“Moral Relativism”… that is a nice way to say Satanism. As far as I can see and understand this hell-hole of a world, the majority of its 7.5bn inhabitants are too busy amassing riches for themselves and stomping on the next person’s neck
Not really, if you were to venture outside the cosy sphere of the west you would pretty soon realise that the majority of the Earth’s population are fully occupied with the business of survival rather than amassing wealth.
Its an interesting topic though, the notion that moral relativism is the the root of cultural collapse. Are we talking here about the collapse of our own western culture? Or has moral relativism been the cause of collapse of other cultures in the past?
Is western culture collapsing? I would say not, in fact I would say it has never been stronger. That is not to say that there are not pressing issues which need to be addressed like a root and branch reform of the financial system.
I’m familiar with the work of Carrol Quigley and of Sir John Glubb and it is easy to look at western civilization and postulate that it is in collapse comparing it to their models.. However I think there are key differences between western civilization and all which have gone before. Primarily among these is the fact that people are not compelled to conform to western cultural values but rather that they aspire towards them. Even in the muslim world the people want what western civilization has.
Another key difference is that all previous civilisations had a centralised power structure, they spread by military conquest from a city or nation state and all the power remained within that state. Western civilisation is not structured that way, there is no centralised power structure to fail.
Mass media, mass communication and the internet play an important role. People the world over can see what the west has in a way they could never hope to do at the time of previous civilisations and they want what they see. They want hospitals, schools, freedom from poverty and hunger, democracy, a safe and ordered society and liberty to live their lives with a degree of autonomy not seen in other cultures.
Then we come to shear size, western civilisation is by far the dominant cultural influence the world has ever known. Sure, the British empire was the largest empire ever and that collapsed eventually but western civilisation is not an empire and should not be confused with one. It is simply too big collapse completely. That is not to say it cannot and should not evolve, clearly it should and will change. I would imagine that in 100 years time western civilisation will be as different to the present day as the present day is different from 1916.
Now on to moral relativism. The question posed, in my eyes at least, seems to imply that moral relativism is new and probably linked to the permissive society which has evolved since WW2. Nothing could be further from the truth. Moral relativism has a very long history dating back to 600 BC. Similarly the idea that moral turpitude began after WW2 is similarly flawed. Sex did not start in 1963, as Larkin said it did. People, corporations and governments have always behaved immorally. The worlds first corporation, the British East India Company was in large part built on selling opium to the Chinese for example. In fact I would go as far as to say that civilisations cannot form and grow without immorality at it’s core. They say that behind all great wealth is a great crime, and if that is true then behind all great civilisations there are hundreds.
“Long is the way and hard, that out of Hell leads up to light.”2016-01-16 at 7:48 AM#177618+1
Moral relativism is a symptom of cultural collapse. Is it the sole cause? I would say it is more of a factor that has a large snowball effect.
One could also say that there is no moral relativism at all and that the morals changed to a “me only” society where to break this moral code means being shunned economically, physically, etc. So in some respects there is a moral code, one that favors the rich and wealthy in some form.
But to better understand morality one might want to understand what morality is to begin with:
Morality is: 1.principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
In this respect there can be no moral relativism at all because if anyone followed a moral code that was not-relative then by default they:
– would have to be right, since moral relativism can deem all behavior correct, causing a contradiction in the philosophy of moral relativism.
-would be breaking the code of moral relativism and therefore immoral. However no one can be immoral under moral relativism, yet by following a non relative code they are being immoral. None of this makes sense.
Moral relativism is moronic, and if one takes the philosophical starting point of “Moral Relativism is the Root of Cultural Collapse” then they might want to point out the population is blinded by narcissism and personal passion (as one member mentioned above) and this was the starting point leading to this “morality” or lack of. Moral Relativism is irrational and illogical and can only be followed by an irrational and illogical population.2016-01-16 at 8:22 AM#177638
well i dont like to beat a dead horse but dont you think moral relativism is mostly predominant in the female mind?
When empires and civilizatons are expanding its because men join together for a cause under a code of moral and ethics.
When you see bullies bullying or a boss mistreating his employes, he knows what he is doing is wrong but he just doesnt care.
Its women who do s~~~y things and try to rationalize it later.
I thing moral relativism is a byproduct of the feminine mind.
Moral relativism is much more suited to the female mind:
im always right even when wrong.
you are hurting my feelings.
i need a safe space…
I think the root of cultural colapse is female empowerement.
first they scream to be equal to men.
then they take there freedom and use it to enslave men.2016-01-16 at 5:38 PM#177845+1
IGMOW (I Go My Own Way)Participant2572
My take is that once you realize the world will do damn well whatever it wants, and you can’t change it, and it goes off in ways you find horrible, the only choice left is to go your own want and only maintain whatever morals you want, as far as you have in a sphere of influence. Anything beyond this is folly that activists get into. What I say here is a part of what I see is in MGTOW.
"I am my own thang. Any questions?" - Davis S Pumpkins.2016-01-16 at 6:50 PM#177890+1
Morality is subjective. After all, the Nazis thought it moral, to get rid of the Jews. Christian morality is also subjective, and relative to the era under discussion; slavery was fine in Christianity once; but not now. So morality is a moving target, shifting with social norms.
During the Crusades, the sack of the Cathar stronghold of Bezier, Amalric, an abbott, said, ‘Kill them, for the lord knows those that are his own’. Today, we term it ‘Kill them all and lot God sort them out’. This was certainly very Christian; the Cathars were heretics; and heretics must die, it’s right in the Bible in Deuteronomy. Now I guess you can argue that God changed his mind, and killing heretics was only for Old Testament times; then the Goddess is also moral relativist.
Christian morality is also subjective; God changed her mind with the New Covenant. I say ‘Her’, because God seems awfully fickle, must be a woman.
Hellraider: I’d say many times, when civilizations expand, it’s because they have better technology and firepower. Were we morally superior to the Indians and Mexicans we conquered? Or did we just want their land and game?
John Doe: I don’t think you quite get moral relativism. If we followed the Old School moral certitude, the [Roman] Catholics in my community, would organize a Crusade, march over to the Greek Orthodox Church, and burn everyone in it alive. They might then proceed to the Lutherans to properly ‘manage’ that heresy in a Biblical fashion. Then they’d go kill all the Wiccans — you know, don’t suffer a witch. And they were GOOD CHRISTIANS in the middle ages, and burned those damn witches alive. That is a great example of good Moral Certitude.
Instead, they’re moral compass has shifted to the post-enlightenment era. In not following Biblical guidelines and historic Church teachings, and preaching some kind of anti-Biblical tolerance, are they moral relativists? Is not killing these heretics in the fashion so morally conducted against the Cathars 800 years ago, immoral?
Spacemonkey: You get it. We’re exporting our Western culture — historically, dress, fashion, entertainment, branded products like Coca Cola, iPhones, etc. But mostly individualism. Ironic that often that individualism is for base consumption of consumer goods and following celebrities like a lemming.
And of course, moral relativism is not new at all; people used to believe it moral to hold slaves. And the Bible obviously isn’t the answer for moral certitude; it’s open to interpretation like any other religious text. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have 101 Christian denominations. Extreme personal autonomy and individualism are INTEGRAL to Western culture. Solipsism, narcissism, whatever you want to call it, is a nasty byproduct.
Untamed: Getting rich doesn’t necessarily step on others. Quite the opposite. The more I produce, the more I consume; consumption creates jobs for others; prosperity rises. So, rather than ‘stepping on people’s necks’, we’re (working people) helping them up the ladder! The evidence for this is the massive decline in world poverty.2016-01-16 at 6:51 PM#177891
As far as morality is concerned, not everything is “black and white”. There are a whole lot of “shades of grey” as well. That’s the only thing moral relativism teaches.
I’d like to believe objective morality exists, but it doesn’t. Morality is based on what a person values or hates the most.
For instance, most of us in this society would agree “theft is bad” and then it becomes bad by societal standards.
But, there are a whole lot of “shades of grey” when it comes to theft. For example, if you had to steal food or water.
Thinking in terms of “this is always bad” or “this is always good” is a sure fire way of setting yourself up for trouble.2016-01-16 at 6:55 PM#177895
Well if all morality is relative, than that means what I am saying and doing is correct, so thanks for agreeing with me.2016-01-16 at 7:08 PM#177900
If you can find evidence of objective morality, then by all means, please, post it here.2016-01-16 at 7:50 PM#177922
John Doe writes: Well if all morality is relative, than that means what I am saying and doing is correct, so thanks for agreeing with me.
It may be, to you. But not necessarily to the majority of the public.
Let us take someone with extreme mental illnesses, a schizophrenic. They may not have the same morality as the general public. And not see anything wrong with injuring others. We do not regard them as ‘moral’. Instead, the majority make laws based upon what they perceive as moral.
What this majority perceives as morally acceptable, can and does, change with time, region, etc. So in some parts of Africa and the Middle East, two wives is fine; in the US, it’s regarded as immoral. Homosexuality may be regarded as immoral in one era, or even illegal, but not in another. Holding slaves based upon the color of their skin, same deal. During one era, Christians thought it moral to kill heretics; this is no longer moral despite clear Biblical instructions to do so. Remember, the Bible does not admonish slave holders to release their slaves; rather it gives instructions not to punish slaveholders who beat a slave with a rod, so long as the slave does not die for at least two days.2016-01-16 at 9:59 PM#177959
Sometimes I cannot help but feel as though my path to MGTOW was less an action and more a reaction to what seems like the increasingly dilapidated state of Western culture.
Well I can’t comment on “western culture” but I can comment on American cultural unraveling. Bit of info, I love and am an aficionado of American Revolutionary history. It is one of my guilty pleasures. Even though I am what the left would consider a “minority” or some other classification from “white privileged”. (But personally in my view if you asked me, euRape was undone with the double whammy of World Wars and progressivism with “marxism” and “socialism”. )
“American culture” on the other hand was eroded by influx of immigration without making sure those immigrants properly integrated in American society, and learned the principles of enlightenment from the minds of Fredric Bastiat, John Locke, and learning the observations of Alexis de Tocqueville. France gifted us the statue of Liberty, but we were never supposed to be the place where immigrants came to be dumped in masse and to bring their own cultures and ideologies and override ideas of the Enlightenment period.
If you have people that aren’t willing to violently if needed to defend ALL of their rights and not just the politically approved ones by the media, unwillingness to fight for a republic form of government, and demand the government abide by the contract it is obliged to honor (the US Constitution) in its daily business, then obviously you are going to have this social, economic, and political decline.
We are still dealing with the effects of not listening to “No entangling alliances” through cultural marxist trying to rob Americans into poverty, and financial ruin by not forcing politicians to obey the Constitution. Soon we are going to be saying that our own Federal Reserve is “Not worth a Continental Dollar”.2016-01-17 at 4:11 AM#178069
Big Boss: Absolutely — especially ‘no entangling alliances’. Foreign aid and intervention have cost us dearly; Iraq, Afghanistan, and 9/11. Not to mention the enormous cost of the large standing army. Obviously, far more and very different from, what the Constitution authorizes for a national defense. Unfortunately, our major political parties, are not making the case for Isolationism.
Most Americans do still hold Enlightenment values such as toleration. And in my opinion, there are a fair number of Deists, though 99% of Americans don’t know the term.
However, the Power and Authority of government, is widely regarded as a source of protection nowadays, as opposed to being viewed as a threat to personal liberties. So that’s a major break with Enlightenment thinking.
We have a very high degree of civil liberties (engage in whatever religion you want, do whatever you want, with some notable exceptions like drug laws, prostitution, zoning, etc).
However, economic freedom has been eroded significantly with the growth of the State and with it, confiscatory taxation.2016-01-17 at 4:40 AM#178084+3
Yes. The answer is simply, yes. Moral relativism is used to influence people to justify committing evil actions. Morality is *not* subjective. You can deceive someone into believing that it is, in order to influence them to commit atrocities for you. The method for doing this is moral relativism. The difference between right and wrong is as plain as day, and I’ve never seen anyone explain it quite as well as Mark Passio, during his Natural Law seminar. Morality is most certainly objective, and after watching this video, I hope any of you who thinks otherwise will correct yourselves.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.