You can have what looks like top-level moral imperatives (i.e., the examples you named) but then you start running into problems with more nuanced issues, at which point "common sense" varies to the wisdom applied by the participants involved, and that wisdom will be based on their limited knowledge (or lack thereof).
For instance, you can argue that murder, thievery, and fraud are bad, but then you have things like monopolies, murder in self-defence, or people who steal to survive. Those are also all bad, but the punishments per each one will vary per person's definition of "common sense".
Same thing with the degrees of incest. Sure, between immediate family members it's bad, but then it was not uncommon that throughout recent human history marrying cousins of degrees was not considered as bad. So how far out do you go?
We can also see that promiscuity is bad, but then even here in this sub people will argue about the consequences of promiscuity or safeguards resulting from it, such as abortion. Some believe that it's good because it has helped keep the black population in check in first-world nations, while others argue that it is inherently bad. But as you said, if the morals are based on "common sense" and not something timeless or intangible, then what does "inherently bad" even mean in this context since keeping the black population low is inherently and objectively GOOD for the native population?
That's the problem every materialist and utiliarian runs into when you start picking apart the minutiae of self-imposed morals based on "common sense".
You are absolutely correct. And Christianity or any other religion hasn't changed that fact of life in the slightest.
You can have what looks like top-level moral imperatives (i.e., the examples you named) but then you start running into problems with more nuanced issues, at which point "common sense" varies to the wisdom applied by the participants involved, and that wisdom will be based on their limited knowledge (or lack thereof).
Yes and religious morality is the same. But it's not a problem as long as the people in charge aren't idiots.
For instance, you can argue that murder, thievery, and fraud are bad, but then you have things like monopolies, murder in self-defence, or people who steal to survive. Those are also all bad, but the punishments per each one will vary per person's definition of "common sense".
Killing in self defense isn't murder. Stealing for surival is a sign for greater societal issues that need to be fixed. A monopoly isn't inherently bad.
Same thing with the degrees of incest. Sure, between immediate family members it's bad, but then it was not uncommon that throughout recent human history marrying cousins of degrees was not considered as bad. So how far out do you go?
Yes and in parts of the world cousin marriage is still common. Doesn't change the fact that incest is bad. Not because of morality but because it creates fucked up offspring. So how far do I go? Don't allow it. It's simple.
We can also see that promiscuity is bad, but then even here in this sub people will argue about the consequences of promiscuity or safeguards resulting from it, such as abortion. Some believe that it's good because it has helped keep the black population in check in first-world nations, while others argue that it is inherently bad. But as you said, if the morals are based on "common sense" and not something timeless or intangible, then what does "inherently bad" even mean in this context since keeping the black population low is inherently and objectively GOOD for the native population?
Abortion isn't inherently bad just as amputation isn't inherently bad. It's something that should be avoided but sometimes it is a necessary procedure for various reasons. But using abortion as a contraceptive method is inherently bad for various reasons.
The argument you're making with the black population doesn't work. Because you're conflating two seperate issues. Ethnic diversity is bad and needs to be fixed and you're not going to fix that problem with abortions.
That's the problem every materialist and utiliarian runs into when you start picking apart the minutiae of self-imposed morals based on "common sense".
Common sense isn't a form of morality. Common sense is pattern recognition.
It's something that should be avoided but sometimes it is a necessary procedure for various reasons.
Avoided why?
The argument you're making with the black population doesn't work. Because you're conflating two seperate issues. Ethnic diversity is bad and needs to be fixed and you're not going to fix that problem with abortions.
Sure, but now you've moved into another gray area -- you say common sense is pattern recognition, and pattern recognition would dictate that ethnic diversity is bad, but how do you permanently prevent people from becoming diverse? Outlaw it like the Jim Crow era?
What about the passport bros with yellow fever? Ban them from marrying outside of their ethnic nationality?
Because it causes physical and psychological harm.
but how do you permanently prevent people from becoming diverse?
You don't have to. Modern day 'diversity' did not occur naturally. Let me remind you that desegregation happened at gunpoint. Flooding white countries with non-white immigrants and propagating race mixing is also being done deliberately by hostile actors.
Diversity is enforced by government at gunpoint. So I don't see how this is a grey area.
In one way I agree that morality is intrinsic and does not need to be dictated to the spiritually superior. However, 'common sense' is a misnomer because a majority of people are not equipped to recognise the common sense they are born with - yes, even white people and I'll refer to the example of the past few years again. It is 'commonly' 'sensed' but the term does not sum up what exactly it is that you're sensing - one can sense things which come from beyond the remit of immediate (or even long term) materialistic concerns, because morality comes with humanity as part of the package, but the manner we become alienated from proper moral behaviour is due to an alienation from this sense, a situation which a religious person might call 'falling from grace'. Once you boil it down to a simple calculation to reach an obvious outcome then once again you're in the materialistic mire.
Peace is not inherently good. There is peace arrived at through immoral means, such as mass killing - ever hear Tacitus', 'the Romans create a desert and call it peace'? - and peace which is fundamentally immoral, such as peace created through the suppression of action and thought, as in N. Korea.
Promiscuity is psychologically damaging because it impairs people's self-esteem, their ability to pair bond and their likelihood to be fruitful members of society, but to those for whom none of these things is considered inherently bad, then none of this even registers as damage. Nor is society itself even necessarily good. Some societies may need to crumble. The only unassailable thing you can say about promiscuity is that it is graceless.
If, for you, peaceful white societies are a moral priority which transcends mere preference then you have all sorts of troubling implications for your preferences. Modern society itself may have to go, in order to foster the peace which technology disrupts - we may have to go back to pre-industrial lifestyles enforced by the authoritarian suppression of a lot of white people. If fighting white erasure is an absolute, then incest is back on the table - whites can outbreed non-whites from within our own families. Who cares about genetic mutations? They will be the minority and we can abort or kill them, since neither of those things are inherently wrong either. And what about culling minorities? That could get started right now.
Fundamentally we know those things are wrong and any white society produced by these things will be a fruit of the poisoned tree. It would be lacking in things which are difficult to find in simple calculation, like beauty, justice, mercy, grace, nobility, courage and other essential parts of the human soul. Morality is part of the package of humanity and transcends calculation. Nihilists call this 'our fundamental irrationalism'. Religious people make sense of it through concepts of god and their spiritual canon, which they use to rehabilitate their communities to 'common sense'. The religious are more correct because it makes no sense to rebel against one's fundamental nature and larp as inanimate meat, sparked to life by neurochemistry.
For the materialist, if morality is built into the material - but not accounted for by genes and evolution, which it is not, but I didn't really get into that here - it is a losing argument to argue against god. To the religious, God is an inexplicable presence, intrinsic to our creation, which wants us to do good - to the non-religious who recognises their innate moral sense, it is the same thing. You can arrive at this interpretation either through enlightened self-reflection or through brute-forced spiritual didacticism (exotericism) - the latter being admittedly what much of religion appears to be in its social function, and it may need to be that in order to steer those who would act immorally without it.
Common sense is pattern recognition. It's not a form of morality. So what you call morality that comes with humanity as a package is what I call the ability to recognize patterns. And that ability differs vastly between different human populations.
You arguing from a morality standpoint. I'm not. The issues I've adressed aren't moral issues in my opinion. They're simply facts of every day life. That's the point I'm making. Remove God from the equation and nothing changes. A religious person one might take that as proof for the existence of God. As a non-religious I will say that God is a man-made fiction to personify and explain natural phenomena.
Just to make one thing clear. I'm neither an atheist nor a materialist. I'm non-religious and very much anti-organized religions as I see them as dangerous tools to manipulate and control populations that have been and are still regularly abused for nefarious means.
Religion provides a sense of consequences, even to things that the actor expects they won't be caught doing, to the kind of creature that isn't capable of reasoning out why moral behavior is preferable to immediate gratification / selfish behavior.
Yes, you are correct. For children and animals who are incapable of rational thought it is quite useful. But it doesn't change their nature. Which is why ethnic homogeneity is of vital importance. And it also shows that 'Christian' values are actually European values which is why they don't translate well to the rest of the world as one can see especially well in Africa and South America.
Have you looked at Europe lately, or ever read a history book? Christianity was brought to most European nations by the Romans. Weimar Germany didn't come from nothing. Communism didn't come from nothing. Centuries of degeneracy from every corner of the world disprove what you just said.
Have you? Should I dig up all the degeneracy and evil that the Church committed in the name of moral superiority?
Weimar Germany didn't come from nothing. Communism didn't come from nothing.
Yeah. A certain ethnic minority that is intrinsically tied to Christanity has been involved in both.
Centuries of degeneracy from every corner of the world disprove what you just said.
I'd say it proves what I say. Look at Christian South America and Africa. Strangely enough 'Christian' values there look very different from 'Christian' values in Europe and always have.
I'd argue that something is common sense and not religion. In the end religion is just seasoning for societal rules that are based in reality.
Why is murder, thievery, fraud etc bad? Because it threatens societal life/peace.
Why is incest bad? Cause it produces genetically fucked up offsprings.
Why is promiscuity bad? Because it is psychologically damaging and because of that threatens societal life/peace.
Common sense varies per culture and time frame.
You can have what looks like top-level moral imperatives (i.e., the examples you named) but then you start running into problems with more nuanced issues, at which point "common sense" varies to the wisdom applied by the participants involved, and that wisdom will be based on their limited knowledge (or lack thereof).
For instance, you can argue that murder, thievery, and fraud are bad, but then you have things like monopolies, murder in self-defence, or people who steal to survive. Those are also all bad, but the punishments per each one will vary per person's definition of "common sense".
Same thing with the degrees of incest. Sure, between immediate family members it's bad, but then it was not uncommon that throughout recent human history marrying cousins of degrees was not considered as bad. So how far out do you go?
We can also see that promiscuity is bad, but then even here in this sub people will argue about the consequences of promiscuity or safeguards resulting from it, such as abortion. Some believe that it's good because it has helped keep the black population in check in first-world nations, while others argue that it is inherently bad. But as you said, if the morals are based on "common sense" and not something timeless or intangible, then what does "inherently bad" even mean in this context since keeping the black population low is inherently and objectively GOOD for the native population?
That's the problem every materialist and utiliarian runs into when you start picking apart the minutiae of self-imposed morals based on "common sense".
You are absolutely correct. And Christianity or any other religion hasn't changed that fact of life in the slightest.
Yes and religious morality is the same. But it's not a problem as long as the people in charge aren't idiots.
Killing in self defense isn't murder. Stealing for surival is a sign for greater societal issues that need to be fixed. A monopoly isn't inherently bad.
Yes and in parts of the world cousin marriage is still common. Doesn't change the fact that incest is bad. Not because of morality but because it creates fucked up offspring. So how far do I go? Don't allow it. It's simple.
Abortion isn't inherently bad just as amputation isn't inherently bad. It's something that should be avoided but sometimes it is a necessary procedure for various reasons. But using abortion as a contraceptive method is inherently bad for various reasons.
The argument you're making with the black population doesn't work. Because you're conflating two seperate issues. Ethnic diversity is bad and needs to be fixed and you're not going to fix that problem with abortions.
Common sense isn't a form of morality. Common sense is pattern recognition.
Avoided why?
Sure, but now you've moved into another gray area -- you say common sense is pattern recognition, and pattern recognition would dictate that ethnic diversity is bad, but how do you permanently prevent people from becoming diverse? Outlaw it like the Jim Crow era?
What about the passport bros with yellow fever? Ban them from marrying outside of their ethnic nationality?
Because it causes physical and psychological harm.
You don't have to. Modern day 'diversity' did not occur naturally. Let me remind you that desegregation happened at gunpoint. Flooding white countries with non-white immigrants and propagating race mixing is also being done deliberately by hostile actors.
Diversity is enforced by government at gunpoint. So I don't see how this is a grey area.
In one way I agree that morality is intrinsic and does not need to be dictated to the spiritually superior. However, 'common sense' is a misnomer because a majority of people are not equipped to recognise the common sense they are born with - yes, even white people and I'll refer to the example of the past few years again. It is 'commonly' 'sensed' but the term does not sum up what exactly it is that you're sensing - one can sense things which come from beyond the remit of immediate (or even long term) materialistic concerns, because morality comes with humanity as part of the package, but the manner we become alienated from proper moral behaviour is due to an alienation from this sense, a situation which a religious person might call 'falling from grace'. Once you boil it down to a simple calculation to reach an obvious outcome then once again you're in the materialistic mire.
Peace is not inherently good. There is peace arrived at through immoral means, such as mass killing - ever hear Tacitus', 'the Romans create a desert and call it peace'? - and peace which is fundamentally immoral, such as peace created through the suppression of action and thought, as in N. Korea.
Promiscuity is psychologically damaging because it impairs people's self-esteem, their ability to pair bond and their likelihood to be fruitful members of society, but to those for whom none of these things is considered inherently bad, then none of this even registers as damage. Nor is society itself even necessarily good. Some societies may need to crumble. The only unassailable thing you can say about promiscuity is that it is graceless.
If, for you, peaceful white societies are a moral priority which transcends mere preference then you have all sorts of troubling implications for your preferences. Modern society itself may have to go, in order to foster the peace which technology disrupts - we may have to go back to pre-industrial lifestyles enforced by the authoritarian suppression of a lot of white people. If fighting white erasure is an absolute, then incest is back on the table - whites can outbreed non-whites from within our own families. Who cares about genetic mutations? They will be the minority and we can abort or kill them, since neither of those things are inherently wrong either. And what about culling minorities? That could get started right now.
Fundamentally we know those things are wrong and any white society produced by these things will be a fruit of the poisoned tree. It would be lacking in things which are difficult to find in simple calculation, like beauty, justice, mercy, grace, nobility, courage and other essential parts of the human soul. Morality is part of the package of humanity and transcends calculation. Nihilists call this 'our fundamental irrationalism'. Religious people make sense of it through concepts of god and their spiritual canon, which they use to rehabilitate their communities to 'common sense'. The religious are more correct because it makes no sense to rebel against one's fundamental nature and larp as inanimate meat, sparked to life by neurochemistry.
For the materialist, if morality is built into the material - but not accounted for by genes and evolution, which it is not, but I didn't really get into that here - it is a losing argument to argue against god. To the religious, God is an inexplicable presence, intrinsic to our creation, which wants us to do good - to the non-religious who recognises their innate moral sense, it is the same thing. You can arrive at this interpretation either through enlightened self-reflection or through brute-forced spiritual didacticism (exotericism) - the latter being admittedly what much of religion appears to be in its social function, and it may need to be that in order to steer those who would act immorally without it.
Common sense is pattern recognition. It's not a form of morality. So what you call morality that comes with humanity as a package is what I call the ability to recognize patterns. And that ability differs vastly between different human populations.
You arguing from a morality standpoint. I'm not. The issues I've adressed aren't moral issues in my opinion. They're simply facts of every day life. That's the point I'm making. Remove God from the equation and nothing changes. A religious person one might take that as proof for the existence of God. As a non-religious I will say that God is a man-made fiction to personify and explain natural phenomena.
Just to make one thing clear. I'm neither an atheist nor a materialist. I'm non-religious and very much anti-organized religions as I see them as dangerous tools to manipulate and control populations that have been and are still regularly abused for nefarious means.
Religion provides a sense of consequences, even to things that the actor expects they won't be caught doing, to the kind of creature that isn't capable of reasoning out why moral behavior is preferable to immediate gratification / selfish behavior.
Yes, you are correct. For children and animals who are incapable of rational thought it is quite useful. But it doesn't change their nature. Which is why ethnic homogeneity is of vital importance. And it also shows that 'Christian' values are actually European values which is why they don't translate well to the rest of the world as one can see especially well in Africa and South America.
Have you looked at Europe lately, or ever read a history book? Christianity was brought to most European nations by the Romans. Weimar Germany didn't come from nothing. Communism didn't come from nothing. Centuries of degeneracy from every corner of the world disprove what you just said.
Christian morals are learned, not inherent.
Have you? Should I dig up all the degeneracy and evil that the Church committed in the name of moral superiority?
Yeah. A certain ethnic minority that is intrinsically tied to Christanity has been involved in both.
I'd say it proves what I say. Look at Christian South America and Africa. Strangely enough 'Christian' values there look very different from 'Christian' values in Europe and always have.