Proving Morality: Morality by Reality

This is part 6, “Morality by Reality,” of the essay “Proving Morality.” It’s an unavoidably long installment, 3300-odd words. Herein, I summarily build upon the conceptual foundation presented in part 5. I repeat the previous bottom line for your convenience:

Thus, I seminally assume:

  1. A perfectly self-consistent natural law exists as the behavioral code for the evolution of our perfectly self-consistent natural reality,
  2. Our behavioral code choices are constrained within that code of natural law and its reigning state of evolutionary process, and
  3. Morality is an existentially valid behavioral code adopted with individual volition as a superlative existential individual choice and shared socially with an understanding of reciprocity.

At this point, I will just lay out my philosophy as it elucidates and defines my grasp of morality. I will spare you the astute reader the boilerplate for this contingency and that, or rather this cowardly feeling or that, because I am writing for clarity and for those mentally able and sincerely willing to grasp my reasoning in the first place. Intellectual honesty cares nothing for satisfied feelings, to wit intellectual honesty is objective:

Might makes right.

It’s a good thing—and a bad thing. The law of conservation creates right and wrong. Right is rewarded with adequate means; wrong is not. That is how natural selection works. Goodness is synonymous with fitness and living; badness, with lack and dying. Sometimes badness is absolute: a thing or process can be antithetical to the laws of nature, the code. Other times badness is relative: a thing or process is viable per the code but not competitive for the necessary limited resources per the state. The evolutionary bias is toward higher ‘virtue’ at the top end of the range of sophistication: viral simplicity never goes out of style. As the reigning competition goes, so goes the threshold dividing good from bad. With upward progress or circumambulation the old virtues become new vices, as a matter of evolving reality and reigning state. Principles of abstract sanction directly from the code are timeless.

Questioning social convention is a natural virtue and a prescriptive vice. Inferiority is by definition a fact of life, or change would lack the motive bias necessary to happen. Reliance upon stagnation in the quest for order is toxic folly. Reliance upon timely change for deliverance from reigning state is folly too. The quandary of timely choice is tied up in the accurate appraisal of the stability of the reigning state’s order. Rebel or loyalist? Essentially, that is the question, oversimplified. Within an establishment and without are various cliques animated by extraordinary cohesiveness ranging from coincidental circumstance to congenital congruity. The natural state is ecology.

Morality is bound up in ecology. We are contestants in the race condition called mortal life. Jeopardy creates distinction between virtue and vice but with consistency only in the long run over numerous individual trials with regard to individual features but not the individuals themselves. We are unique little snowflakes only because we are throwaway prototypes of sexual reproduction. I wrote in part 3, “Mother nature has suitors like an eternally nubile and virgin ten, and the mandatory fickleness.” We can never eliminate our need for luck in this life. Save lying to ourselves and each other about impossible guarantees, we can only minimize our risks by optimizing our coping strategy.

Strategy is a formulation of exactly three abstract ingredients or ingredient types: self-reliance, cooperation, and competition. There is strength (read virtue) in numbers, with the right people. Enters morality. The existence of morality is a consequence of mortality, jeopardy, change, inferiority, the inescapable fact might makes right. In a static order, in a supernatural constancy, morality is impossible. The moral authority of Abrahamic religions is predicated on omnipotence, the complete absence of jeopardy. Take an adolescent with a silver spoon in his mouth, Chappaquiddick bulletproof, and multiply that insulated privilege by infinity. That is the fount of religion’s moral authority. Theological authority pretends to trump natural morality or to fill a morality void, but insofar as theological authority exists in the mortal world it must embody natural morality once cast into natural existence for its own pleasure. What morality exists in the natural world is natural morality, and if a default morality is miraculously superseded, then a new natural morality is in effect for supernatural reasons as before.

The Moral Truth of The Code is written in blood:

Might makes right.

It will disturb deniers to cognize amoral empiricism is an effective path to moral rectitude. Science works exactly because empirical validation is the exact process and is the resulting state of reality. Natural rectitude does not treat people separately from things. Moral rectitude is that part of natural rectitude suitable to individual mortal consciousness. Morality is relational reciprocity of conscious mortal individuals, social reciprocity (cooperative strategy), but morality emanates from individual congruence (self-actualization) and is a specialty of environmental stewardship (self-preservation). Natural rights issue from the moral power and obligation one has with one’s own vitality, though political guilt peddlers will require that two or three be gathered together in altruistic denial of the self. Abdicators of the self are easy pickings.

Empiricism applied to non-societal phenomena by the natural sciences leads to the invariants of existence, the natural law. Empiricism applied to human behavior alone has few if any invariants to find because critical white-box data complicated by state (recorded experience) is missing. The workings of mammalian psychology are in a native tongue humans have not been able to decipher. We are left with tendencies, probabilities, and biased interpretations. Interpretations are theories. Empiricism applied to the navigation of human behavior does not suffer from bad assumptions or turns of theory. Empiricism can get a person morally rectified in the truth without knowing what the truth is. Evolutionary design works that way. The computational brilliance is not in the individual but in the ecology. The essence of existential state is omnipresent context: maximal synergy, maximal connectivity. An ecology is a democracy prorated by vitality. Empiricism and natural democracy have standing in reality, or revolution would be impossible.

Revolution is a rapid change of order in state, but it is slow evolution nonetheless. Revolution is a transition from one evolutionarily stable state order to the next, but I contend most of the change occurs largely unnoticed before and after the period of rapid systemic rearrangement of readied modular parts commonly regarded as revolution. Corruption and consolidation are outside the scope of narrowly defined revolution. With a power structure is in place, state evolves in a constrained, orderly fashion until the constraints are corrupted enough for the whole power structure to collapse.

It is important to realize life is dynamic, more like a verb than a noun. The power structure of an ecological state, matched predators and prey for example, is abstracted function conveyed by the roles performed by replaceable individuals. The dynamically persistent and flexibly stable complex of roles or niches define evolutionarily stable strategies, until they become outdated. The welfare of individuals themselves is not the power structure. Aggregation of the roles reveals the contextual wholeness of the existential truth. Socialism has no viable basis in natural reality, thus accounting for the disconnect between theory and execution, but in psychological reality pigs can fly.

A political order lasts only as long as it is not corrupted into catastrophic failure. Whether and how to support a particular political order reigning over oneself is an open-end choice for those with self-actualized natural rights. Patriotism is moral consent of the governed, enough of them. The others are locked in by context. Evolution is always tinkering with new formulations of cooperation and conflict. Universal non-aggression is neither mortally nor morally permissible. Aggression can be abstracted with naive expectations into civilized forms like free market competition and litigation or supposedly dissociated altogether, but the hallmarks of inferiority such as poverty and dispossession just won’t abstract away. We are stuck with the burden and privilege of choosing our partnerships.

The result is that morality is a win-win objective by voluntary association. With natural morality, honor is advantageous: reputation is livelihood and lifestyle among a civilized people. The choices of reciprocity across functional scope and persons are fluid and practically endless. There are degrees and there are priorities. Moral potency is reduced to the lowest common denominator of participants, which is why morality is limited. A trade-off occurs between membership admissibility and workable functionality. Standards matter. Overindividualism is impossible per the modern state, and universalism is impossible per the natural code.

The optimization of one’s moral code is a conundrum of freedom, and the self-actualized individual can only make his superlative guesses. Use the triplet triage, Luke; use the triplet triage. Not incidentally, the maxim ‘bros before hoes’ shall be shewn overwhelming sagacious in good time. There is no nuclear family without bros enforcing a moral code. The family made isolated priority is actually a mistake, a safe harbor from noticing or playing to win against the 90-lb gorilla called the system. In a democracy or some situation of popular sovereignty and shared necessity, men are co-captains that must protect the ship to protect anyone. We have been divorced from our political authority and privileges in and out of the family, and most men welcome the lightened load of responsibility, then get that and more up the ass and think what good manners they have. Sad.

We have been conditioned to segregate our lives into personal and business, as if there is some virtue in being a personal friend to everyone without profitable contribution. Shouldn’t a personal friend improve your living standard? It is no accident close friends have similar incomes, but shouldn’t they have financial synergy? We have been conditioned to rely upon the state for a job rather than to demand our freedom to utilize and share our innate labor capacities as we each individually see fit. Organized, impersonal charity is a natural vice for similar reasons. Resources are limited. Why use them to bastardize and pervert natural selection and natural accountability? Society is worse off on the whole for the sentimental and politically manipulative redirection of resources to unprofitable activities. Nothing is more charitable than win-win profit because the means and character to satisfy societal needs has been improved.

Non-profits provide executive social engineers six-figure salaries to exacerbate our social ills and our cultivate our subjugation. Charity begins and ends at home because family and friends have the personal information and financial limits necessary to adhere to a naturally moral evaluation of costs and benefits. Charity is existentially beneficial to society, to the ship, only with reciprocity making the group stronger, unlike government unemployment compensation.

Fiat (government-controlled or -endorsed) banking is especially corrupt. Few understand why. I will give the philosophical starting points, the seminal propositions to the correct analysis: (1) depositors are irresponsible investors in loans to parties they know not, (2) taxpayers are involuntary guarantors of such ‘investments’, and (3) fiat credit is theft of sovereignty by seignoriage. Is it not ridiculous that the public should loan itself its own money at profitable interest rather than freely earn it and invest in themselves according to an entrepreneurial spirit? Banks are said to serve the public interest in the economy by hoarding purchasing power. If you aren’t there at the banks, your interests are not being addressed. It is equally preposterous to think equity ownership of companies issued by a stock market casinos would mean ownership in the antecedent company without having any meaningful executive responsibility or privilege. It is the same way with voters have a stake in Western democracies governed via IMF-member central banks, think tanks, non-profits, technocrats of government-funded academia, etc. No frigging chance! If you don’t know that, you are domesticated. They control the aggregate boundary conditions, and you aspire to be the elite exception to the average in the matrix rat race. You ain’t elite. You must fail within the system, or it wouldn’t be The System. Is it your moral code to stay there dutifully?

More railroads by government force meant less personal necessities like food and clothing during the Panics of 1873 and 1893 (economic depressions). More cars, radios, and refrigerators by banking credit meant less necessities during the Great Depression. More housing for subprime (inferior) borrowers means less of everything else now except vice during this Affirmative Action Housing Depression. I know what a depression is, and this is one, government metrics be damned!

On the dark side, monogamy works like charity for the less mating marketable. Because women are more selective, monogamy is charitable for more men than women, until you look past the sex and consider the ability to raise living standards above the (acultural) animals. The Manosphere has treated emphatically the importance of monogamy to the societal utilization of male sexuality (beta males) if not likewise of female sexuality (subordinate wives), which is equally true. Traditional woman’s work is maintaining the nest for a reason. The participant-maximized mating success of institutionalized monogamy comes with a cost of neutralized natural selection. The vitality and, dare I say, the morality of the population suffers, though subsidized single motherhood is far more virulent than forced dual parenthood. The latter toxicity could be substantially neutralized by letting parents and their children fail without a social safety net.

If political privileges were not extreme on the strength of fiat money and fiat credit, or on sheer cultural primitiveness as it is elsewhere, the ability of men to have multiple wives would be based on a merit accurately scored by means that would pay forward at the expense of lesser men. I am assuming patriarchy and a free market culture that would deal life and death with civilized integrity according to nature. It will happen if mankind progresses culturally just a bit beyond the zenith. It is critical that sometimes people, adults and children alike, are regularly left behind in life. The necessity is ubiquitous. The educational policy endorsed by George W. Bush of No Child Left Behind restrains able children and teachers from moving forward, and nature abhors stagnation for as much as it is a vacuum in ecological competitiveness. Jail and welfare payment services should not be big business, etc.,etc.

For political reasons driven by selfishness and fear, the true nature of rights are misrepresented, characterized by an assortment of suggestive terms: human rights, civil rights, social justice, etc.—everything but what they precisely are. Rights are natural moral privileges of mutually desirable and viable cooperation. Viability amounts to occupying a niche that can be successfully defended only with superlative force. Civilization requires conquest without end. That is the morality of reality. Rights are reciprocal political benefits acquired and maintained by force against outsiders, by consent of insiders, and by the distribution of political benefits required to secure consent as superlative existential individual choice. Virtue is tied up in the correlation between vitality’s abilities to supply force against outsiders and to accurately weigh the political distribution of benefits and costs vis-à-vis naturally moral distribution. Bear in mind I am using the term ‘political’ in reference to the distribution of group privileges of sovereignty not only such privileges granted by institutional government.

Human virtue and vitality are trapped in a race condition. Two cruel but illustrative examples were the supplying of guns by Europeans in exchange with natives for slaves on the east coast of Africa and for skins in North America. Modernity was built in part on natives conquering natives so utterly they ultimately conquered themselves as degenerative pawns, yet that was the correct choice. Evolution creates progress because it is compelling. Individuals must live their individual lives in their time and in their race to the finish line of their evolutionarily stable state as evolution dictates or suffer the curative consequences.

Thus, given the assumptions:

  1. A perfectly self-consistent natural law exists as the behavioral code for the evolution of our perfectly self-consistent natural reality,
  2. Our behavioral code choices are constrained within that code of natural law and its reigning state of evolutionary process, and
  3. Morality is an existentially valid behavioral code adopted with individual volition as a superlative existential individual choice and shared socially with an understanding of reciprocity,

I have derived about the essence of morality:

  1. The behavioral code of contextual reality defines in the abstract timeless right and wrong, timeless virtue and vice as the righteousness of existential power: might makes right,
  2. The behavioral code of contextual state implements in the concrete temporal right and wrong, temporal virtue and vice as the distributed endowment of locally superlative existential power subject to ecological competition,
  3. Natural morality, meaning any actually existent morality, is a behavorial code of social state that implements in the personal cooperative right and wrong, cooperative virtue and vice as the distributed endowment of collectively superlative existential power subject to ecological competition internally and externally termed politics,
  4. Morality exploits, temporally depends upon, and is fluid with ecological state defined by evolutionarily conducive causality regulated by the invariant code of natural law founded on the deterministic principle might makes right,
  5. Morality, being the cooperative utilization of natural rights in the jeopardy of ecological state, is reciprocal and mutual and is not self-immolating, universal, or pacifistic,
  6. Morality like freedom requires perennial cultivation and conquest,
  7. A morality’s functional potency correlates positively with the minimum virtue common among its practitioners (quality) and the total virtue effectively aggregated (quantity),
  8. Moral refinement and sophistication is an actionable competitive advantage only within the implemented context of a social state having sufficient reciprocity of virtue, and the evolutionary bias is toward natural democracy continuously expressed by the ecology of free markets,
  9. Empirically validated social behavior is moral or amoral but never immoral because behavior and behavioral consequences are personal and because immoral behavior must be socially self-destructive consistent with the reality of natural rights and natural morality,
  10. Social order is moral or immoral or both within the in-group and is amoral with respect to out-groups: not all conflict is immoral,
  11. Social order requires perennial cultivation and conquest, or they are replaced,
  12. Social cooperation with moral inferiors above their ability level is ruinous, reputation is livelihood, patriotism is consent, and evolution does not rest on definitions of right and wrong: such is the conundrum of citizenship, freedom, life,
  13. Charity far from home is impersonal, impersonal redistribution of wealth is destructive, corrupt, and immoral; investment of full volition for all risk takers is amoral to the out-group and moral to the in-group,
  14. Monogamous marriage is great for including people in the franchise of civilization, but the franchise standards might suffer, and
  15. Without the premature death of natural selection, the franchise standards cease to be viable, which is why government welfare support is immoral.

A caveat to social concerns being characterized within the purview of moral and immoral is the requisite moral aptitude of the target associate. A person too stupid or willfully ignorant to perceive his or her exploitation is not a victim of immoral treatment. I enjoy a good steak. Virtue can be wronged, vice cannot. This has important consequences on the morality of parental autonomy, and the domestication and enslavement of homo sapiens. Not all homo sapiens deserve basic human rights, as the practice of regarding all homo sapiens as fully ‘human’ with some noble basic worth presumes with malicious affect. In this world, everything special has to be earned and then earned again.

The bottom line: Morality is reciprocal, cooperative consent given from the moral power of individual independence bound up in natural rights and individual sovereignty.

Citizens need morality to be citizens; domesticated livestock need amorality to be domesticated livestock. Slave livestock has natural rights, meaning capacity for independent choice, blocking a total stripping away of sovereignty. Slaves are in an unstable ecological state riding the edge between revolt and domestication. Masters dependent on slaves are in a deteriorating evolutionarily stable state. As inferred by the Georgia Guidestones, our masters are pursuing an exit strategy to conquer rival civilized men with lesser emotive homo sapiens and purge their dependency on our checked volition by culling us to a manageable, domesticated workforce:

Maintain humanity under 500,000,000 in perpetual balance with nature.

Choose your morality wisely, grasshopper. Give your morality selfishly in reciprocity. Nothing else is love delivered. Only civilized men can love, or compete for sovereignty.

—‘Reality’ Doug, 27 May 2013


About ‘Reality’ Doug

I'm feed up with herd people, so civil and uncivilized, these feckless barbarians with manicures. Where is Galt's Gulch? and where are the people to go there? Who am I? Who is John Galt?
Gallery | This entry was posted in Philosophy and tagged , , , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

What do you think?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s