The Actual Source of Morality

Why YOU have to be a good person

So I was thinking about economic externalities and what a stupid idea they are (externality basically being a synonym for "not my problem"), and how governments should force companies to take responsibility for their products' side effects (e.g, smog from cars, cancer from polluted food, property damage from drunks etc), otherwise the cost will be borne by the taxpayer or private individuals who had nothing to do with creating the problem.

Then I thought, why should the government have to force them? Why don't they take responsibility? Well of course all major corporations these days are run by a bunch of selfish cunts who only care about coke and their profit margin (Inb4 Zig Forums, just saying neoclassical corporate capitalism is the equally bad other side of the shekel).

Then it occurred to me. The very reason these businessmen need regulation is because they're bad people. There's only one way to live long term on this planet, and that's to look after it so it remains a comfy home for us. And there's only 2 long term ways to achieve that;

1) People take responsibility for their own actions and do things that are net positive for our ongoing symbiosis with the world ecosystem, allowing us to keep developing as a civilisation without destroying our own life support and without the need for much authority to keep us in line because we do it ourselves (ironically releasing CO2 is actually good for the biosphere).

2) People say fuck it, not my problem, let someone else deal with it, I want to get ahead by any means necessary. They then need a world government to regulate everything they can and can't do, because they're incapable of controlling themselves. When people are bad people, they NEED a totalitarian government to stop them fucking things up for themselves and everyone else.

So what I'm saying is that the reason we have to be good, responsible people that means you, user is because that's literally the only way to have a free society. Bad people must be controlled for the good of everyone, so the more bad people there are, the more a tyrannical world government is warranted, even wanted, by the masses. Perhaps the state of the young left nowadays is less of a result of an attempt to brainwash. Perhaps it's much more simple than that- there is an effort to make people simply worse, so more control is justified.

Communists are bad people is an under used meme, I think. It's literally their core defining characteristic. Same with mindless consumers.

Attached: Webp.net-compress-image-9.jpg (564x487, 19.77K)

Nah, you’re done.
For once, it’s better to say “globalists” here. Because that word encompasses corporatism and international multicorps.

It's good in theory, but I think this would be abused. A better alternative would be to create a federal division that tests for those risks before they enter the market.

However, your overall point is right. The issues with the world now is owed to the fact that people don't hold themselves responsible for their own actions. Blacks commmit armed robbery, later blaming private prisons. Women take useless majors that don't provide a useful skillset, later blaming capitalism. Several examples out there.

Because the alternative is not being one which is reprehensible.

Anybody with a psychopathy score higher than about 15 or so needs to be weeded out from the gene pool

HOW TO SPOT A SHILL
They don't contribute anything. He leaves a short comment that isn't immediately recognized kikery, and yet it's all to slide the important threads—the Book thread, the Hebrew thread, and the Sabbatean-Frankist thread.

Guns are objectively a good tool. Guns are not in the same category as cars or polluted food, because they don't have negative side effects on the world. Cars are a good tool with a widespread bad side effect. That side effect should be reduced for the sake of my children's lungs, either by the company taking responsibility and figuring out a way to make a non-cancerous vehicle at their own cost, or through the government forcing them to. The point of my post is that if we all took responsibility, there would be no space for a tyrannical government to get a foothold on regulating our lives.

Argue the opposite. Go ahead, try. The argument for morality is that immorality is unacceptable. If you don't like that get fucked and live in a cave.

If you're so interested in philosophy, why don't you bump that Book thread? Why are you pushing such a low effort thread?

So you're saying the solution is more government. Which is quite right in a world full of bad people, bigger government is necessary. An even better solution would be if we were all good enough people to not bring destructive products to the market in the first place.


I think there's a high probability this is taught in schools/deliberately encouraged through victim culture. The less responsible people are for themselves, the happier they are when the ZOG takes over their thinking for them.

...

Fixed that for you.

OP is a little long winded, but good intentions. So only 50% gay.

There is what is called pathological altruism, so if someone takes your advice and is a "good person" then they start sending aid and food to Africa, give Bantus leadership roles in South Africa, and forgive their communist enemies. The definition "good" can mean the wrong thing to many people.

I'd say most anons care deeply, and are good people. Imageboards are a refuge from social media and news. Imageboards may be covered in nigger jokes and edgy 14 year olds, but sometimes a little truth shines through, and that is the good.

I remember thinking this.
Then I saw the real cause of environmental damage. Third world overpopulation and chinks.
Throw your smartphone away, right into a landfill. Stop using that shit. Then murder all the chinks and Indians. Maybe we'll inch closer to the wild beauty of Earth.
Until you support that, don't come to me with your bitching about turning my lights off or using single ply.

Attached: 11. Komm, süsser Tod (M-10 Director's Edit Version).webm (595x600, 14.54M)

You keep moving the goalpoast.

I believe there are plenty of functional sociopaths. They are the sheep dogs and wolves, while everyone else is just sheep.

Sometimes you need a good sociopath.

The award for the emptiest argument I've ever seen on Zig Forums goes to you, Mr Shill. You did make me chuckle, which is why you can have a (you).


Thanks, no free speech and all that.

Sociopath. Psychopaths are mostly harmless.

Seriously OP, if everyone on Zig Forums started recycling today and went full vegan, we wouldn't put a dent in the yearly pollution output of China.

If you're trying to make a grander point I commend it, but even morality is useless if a huge horde of outsiders refuse to follow it. You can't turn the other cheek and be tolerant as muslims are raping and pillaging your land. What is your ultimate point here?

now that would be a good movie or video game

a bad guy , that works for the good guys for purely selfish reasons

Nope. If there are no wolves, you don't need sub-wolves for protection, and even so, without the wolves, the sub-wolves would just fill in as the bad guys (albeit less so).
Anyway, we're talking about psychopaths.


Where are people getting these retarded meme definitions?
Psychopaths are the true monsters, sociopaths are just damaged normies.

Those aren’t sociopaths. Those are psychopaths. Sociopaths only seek self aggrandizement and power. Psychopathy is merely a condition that creates a fight or flight mechanism that is abnormal. You’re probably friends with a psychopath and don’t even know it. They are generally the most civil people you can meet.

Who's bitching? Use as much electricity as you want, I said in the OP CO2 is good for the biosphere. There's a difference between falling for the anti-human climate change guilt propaganda and not wanting your local river filled with radioactive waste by Envirorape Inc.

It is one thing to skull-fuck babies it is another to decide where your lemons are picked.

Negroid, why do you think God make bludgeons?

You’re talking to a well known psychopath. We are all around you and you’re likely not even aware of us.

Robert Hare, who is about the biggest name in psychopathy research that I can name, uses Resevoir Dogs as an example. He says that Mr. Orange is a good example of a sociopath, and Mr. Blonde is a good example of a psychopath. If you've seen the movie, you know exactly what that means.

Then why are you telling us to be more environment friendly or more moral? Your goal should be to stop the chinks and and kikes. American corporations pale in comparison to the Insect Homehive's exhaust. Jews make American war atrocities look like In The Night Garden.


Like I said, what is your ultimate point?

Both are incapable of full functioning in society, both lack conscience, both are incomplete human beings.

Moral virtue is a goal all of it's own. If you cannot see this you are not fully human.

nvm, didn't check IDs.

I will just state that anyone that uses a Jewlywood movie as reference to a behavioral conditionin that is heavily weighted on environmental conditions, is either a moron or not worth listening to.

Sociopaths don’t have a conscious. They only seek gratification of personal behavior. Psychopaths aren’t after such things. Most only seek amusement. Psychopaths stay away from sociopaths as they try to manipulate us into becoming monsters.

Like I said, you’re talking to a well known psychopath. We do recognize each other when out in the wild and for the most part we don’t interfere with each other’s Cheerios. As for feigning emotions, that’s rubbish. I have plenty of real emotions, they are just very muted compared to most. I tend to feel other people’s emotions more than my own.

I don't believe in recycling, veganism or man-made climate change, so who cares about China? If they want to poison themselves that's their fucking problem. I do believe pollution of your own habitat and food sources is simply retarded.

Anyway, the pollution thing was an example. That problems like that arise from bad people thinking it's not their problem. That then invites tyranny to solve the problem. My ultimate point is that responsibility is literally not optional for a free society. Free will is a problem for humanity that can and will only ultimately be solved by total personal responsibility or total authoritarian control.

You're just agreeing that your argument is a word salad. You're saying "morality is good because it's good".

They're not only poisoning themselves though. They're poisoning the planet we all live on. Strange that you come out so strong for environmentalism but balk when it concerns nonwhite pollution.

This is only true in a society for niggers and jews. In a high trust white society we wouldn't need security cameras on every corner and implants in our wrists to convince robotic cashiers we're old enough to buy plastic forks.

Ad hominem.

Robert Hare said that himself. If you disagree with him, you may as well scrap the words sociopath/psychopath because you're ignoring what they actually mean for some headcanon that you got from nowhere.

For everybody else reading this, psychopaths are the best liars on earth, and they will lie about anything for no reason at all. Don't take my word for it, do some reading yourself.

You already know what I'm going to say
Bring back free helicopter rides for commies

Or there should be no government.

So at some point either they will take responsibility and stop (unlikely) or we will have to control them. Which we might well do, and it's not going to be fun for them. They can't take responsibility, so they will get tyranny.

We're agreed. A high trust white society is one where people take personal responsibility. Are you low IQ? I feel like I'm banging my head against a wall here. Your reading comprehension is low and I don't really know how else to spell it out for you.

Apparently there is no strict definition of sociopath vs psychopath. This is from Robert Hare himself, the guy who created this test we are talking about. I always thought their was a difference, but now that I researched it apparently I was wrong.

From Robert Hare.

TL:DR Semantics

Attached: brooks.jpeg (940x646, 53.19K)

Well, it takes one to know one. ;-)

I am one of the most honest psychopaths on the planet. The rest call me white because I am so open and honest. They say I am too clean all the time. We are all around you man, get used to it. If you come after us it’s only a matter of time before you piss one of us off and you end up losing your shit and going on a rampage, as that’s how the majority of psychopaths operate these days, they leak your information to the sociopaths and start pulling the rope out for you.

You come after one of us, and it’s not like the rest won’t notice it. You won’t even see them coming for you.

Ok, what do you do all day aside from derailing threads?

This is a fucking joke answer. You don't care at all about the planet or the environment.

...

dont respond to it

...

I contemplate life and if the weather isn’t too rough I workout.

This thread is about responsibility. It’s my responsibility to be moral and correct information that I know to be incorrect. There is nothing stopping you from continuing your discussion aside from mine. It’s not like this thread has a limit on the number of directions it can go.

Unless you’re a shill trying to craft a narrative around someone like me, which is probably a bad idea ;-)

It

I love that, some sociopath calling me It again

Look at your fucking OP you retard.

You picked number 2
If you had any balls you'd be writing up threads about the Chinese problem.

That's because it is, you fuck-muppet. Tell me how morality isn't good. If you can't, eat shit and live in a cave.

He’s a sociopath trying to craft a narrative to manufacture concesensus mate. Don’t feed him with vitriol. You’re only doing what he wants.

it's just baiting you

anytime you call out the paths, they infest your thread to fuck up your optics

By the way folks, if you've studied jews and studied psychopathy, you know that jews are basically a race of psychopaths. You guys all need to research psychopathy as well, to understand some of the neurological differences that explain why they act like they do, and to redpill yourself against their "psychopathy/sociopathy is for badasses" meme that is all over popular culture these days

Are you 12?

I know morality is good. But there are actual reasons which might be useful to understand, which you apparently cannot imagine, let alone elucidate. Saying something's worthwhile or good because it just is is on the same philosophical and logical tier as saying refugees are welcome because "duh it's so obviously the right thing to do! It just is! I know it". I'm trying to analyse one reason why morality is important- because the lack of it invites tyranny to take you over- and you're saying "no need to understand the world on a deeper level, rah fight me, x is good because x is x." Logical fallacies are for leftists and sheep.

Yeah, someone needs to write some fiction on that. I always thought it would be a cool concept. Maybe he's chooses to be good, because it's too easy to be bad. Kinda like an antithetical American Psycho.


I disagree, I believe there are many people that are psychopaths/sociopaths that function well. I believe most politicians that make it to the national level are psychopaths, unfortunately most have such absent empathy and borders for good/evil that most are just evil. But get one sociopath for good in the system, and the whole tower is compromised.

who do you think the edgy teenage faggots are?

from an atheistic perspective, in a civilization that contains evil, no form of government will work, period
not even a benevolent dictatorship ran by a good dictator would work, because the one man who is called the dictator is only one man; he can't force everyone to do what he wants them to do
and I'm not calling myself an atheist

They aren't, the power of the human psyche to suppress all morality in the pursuit of personal gain is astounding. That's why the high road is the most difficult to travel - because it involves fighting your base, natural inclinations towards self serving gratification in favor of the common good or long term goals.

He thinks a people stricken with pathological neurological disorders, irrational phobias and neurosis are psychopaths. What do you think?

Shock collars and tear gas. You only need a few people devoted to you to run a slave aristocracy, even the pre-medieval way.

The difference is that "evil" or immoral government works only for a select few.

If your statement is true it basically disproves atheism, then, as governments can and do work, and all humans contain an evil side.

Psychopathy is characterized by the lack of or a severely diminished conscience and sense of empathy. Same for Sociopathy - it's social capability and behavioral patterns that differenciate them.

It is very much neurological and very often people that suffer the one also suffer other mental illnesses, however a person can suffer pathological neurological disorders, irrational phobias and neurosis whilst still not being a psychopath or sociopath.

Either way, all groups are in dire need of urgent and continual psychiatric attention.

Yeah but choosing that path and continuing you must have traits for psychopathy. I'd say the most qualified and best politicians are the ones living their quality life quietly at home. Because they didn't choose to sell out and acquire fundraising and recognition and corruption to reach the national level. Look at all the politicians 60% are lawyers, and what number have dual Isreali citizenship? (In essence are jews or support jewish interests?) That in my mind means they have psychopathic tendencies, or as this user quoted
do not have a sense of empathy or morality. They are ok enslaving their citizens and allowing an infiltration into the country they are supposed to protect.

Humanity is innately slightly moral - that is to say we posses basic inclinations but the full texture of our morality is more described by our society than nature itself.

Our nature is not to not kill, but to not kill unnecessarily. What is necessary, though, is a very subjective matter. This is why even things like mass-executioners can often be very functional human beings with a working conscience whereas a doctor that saves lives is more often just as likely if not more to be completely devoid of empathy.

The biological foundation for morality is very different from the perceived morality of individuals or societies, it is a template for society - not the exact definition of society.

Are you for or against authoritarianism?

Psychiatry died in 2013.
Take your pills and shove them up your ass.

Fuck you, I like being the monster under the bed.

For, I'm a small-government monarchist. Authoritarianism is not the same as totalitarianism.

Tip of the sword in the past. Now barrel of the gun.

At least you realize that. I cannot tell you how many people in my life have told me that all morality comes from religion (usually Christian), and even when I shoot that argument full of holes with a half dozen different argument they don't know how to rebut, they go on saying it anyway.
The point is, because this happens semi-often, it's forced me to think about morality a lot, and I came to the conclusion some time ago that, in all actuality, morality is a "social construct" (yes I know the irony of the fucking dyehaired landwhales screaming that phrase about everything). It's a social construct just like logic is a mental, abstract construct; both of them are invariable "real" things that serve a very important purpose, but they are intangible and created solely by use to help in a certain way. For logic, it's meant to help us think and act in accordance to how reality operates. For morality, it's to help make society a cohesive whole with a high degree of social trust. EVERY single human society has "murder is wrong" as a part of their ethical code; if they didn't, such a society would die off horribly fast, and they certainly would not be able to maintain civilization, or even build it. So morality is an abstract, socially constructed set of rules that is absolutely necessary in order for society to exist.
I've also heard people mention things about "absolute morality," usually the same religious people, and those don't exist. The Middle East has a whole bunch of laws not only allowed but demanding that the women be treated like complete trash, and that is considered "moral" in their society. There's nothing wrong with it there, and it's expected, it's a part of how that society operates. It's "wrong" to us because we have a different set of moral principles (one that has allowed us to transcend beyond the stupidity and violent nature of the retarded mudshits, in comparison). That alone should tell someone that morals aren't absolute, that there is no hidden list of all the things that are completely moral or immoral according to the universe.

Paranoia over psychiatry, really medical treatment in general, is typical symptom of mental illness. If you present a danger to society you must chose between sedation or seclusion.
To do otherwise is to openly engage in malice - malice which is not excused by your mental illness.

False. Social contract. No morality can be imposed by force that is not held together by common will.

Good and evil is relative concept.

Attached: 6356345.jpg (843x904, 108.89K)

Check out this nerd.

Kill those who oppose your morality. Now your morality prevails by natural selection. Can't object if you are dead. Religious people got this very clearly.

Attached: 43534543345.jpg (404x396, 37.43K)

Check out this blood sucking child mutilator.

Only a little.

Evil is the lack of empathy, basically. Just like cold is the absence of heat and dark is the absence of light.

If you just don't care about other lives, you're evil.


You don't care about evil idiots, because they are harmful to life (namely yours and that of your family/race/whatever). But you do care about innocent life, whereas they don't, so if you kill them in order to protect other life, is that evil or not? I guess that's where it's relative, but there is no question they are evil. I say it's not, btw, but it can be if you go overboard and kill more than necessary and/or enjoy it, which is where I split off from many anons here.

Good and evil are not relative. Maybe in your pilpul jewy semantic way, but good and evil are not relative.

That statement claims that no one has a moral code or feels guilt and that all "bad" things are only prevented from being carried out by threatening use of force. As if the government said "okay we'll stop enforcing the law now," all of white society would just up and start raping and murdering. The blacks definitely would, but whites have empathy, compassion, and their own morality (i.e. sense of guilt).


This doesn't happen in a vacuum. You're working with the presupposition of a fucking society where absolute power is wielded with an iron fist and imposing a "moral" code. The people who follow it out of fear does not necessitate an internalizing of it or agreement with it, which if true for the whole of society, would vanish as soon as the power structure stopped its enforcement. We aren't dealing with modern day monarchies with tyrants on the throne here. If such a tyrant decreed that everyone kill their own firstborn, you seriously think that would become the morality of the society maintained by force? Fuck no, parents would reject it on pain of death, the military itself would revolt, and the monarch would be deposed. No amount of force would stop that from turning the tables.

Is there any genetic predilection for morality?


Schizos need meds, 15 year old boys need to run outside. And 20 year olds need hobbys. 60 year olds need to get off their fucking tablets.


This. Genetically, different races (Jews, African Bantus, Aborigines) have poor moral constructs.

They are relative to societies. I can beat my wife in Iran with absolutely no problems whatsoever. That society does not consider it evil, and if I were born and raised there, neither would I, nor you. It would simply be a reasonable application of force whenever the woman got a little too uppity, it's no big deal. In the Western world, it's obviously different. You would call such a thing "evil" because that's dictated by YOUR moral code, by YOUR society. We see it as wrong, and for our people, it is wrong. If you were born and raised a mudshit, you would disagree vehemently. Morality is not subjective based on the individual, but it's contingent upon the society.

You can't enforce your morality unless it's strong enough to motivate and hold you together as a united force. That's why different cultures have developed similar concepts such as honor, responsibility, truth etc. If your morality is "every man for himself, hierarchy is evil" then you're not overcoming anyone. See antifa trying to fight.

Ever heard about?
Many people care is paving road to Hell. Communists executed millions without blinking and put chains on everyone in their reach because "they cared" and they genuinely believed that were doing it for good, to "protect innocent life from oppression". Enough of empathy but still evil. Or maybe not evil? Ask your college professor of history!

Attached: 24324.jpg (600x399, 118.09K)

So it is semantics with you. I don't care if a nigger things robbin a mufugga is moral, or if a shyster cheats you out of a fifty and considers it fine because you're too stupid to notice. That kind of thinking undermines what morality is.

Who are you again? Are you the Emporer? The King? Are you just some sally posting your moral equivalency bullshit passing judgement on people you don’t fucking know like the kike you are?

Psychiatry is not medical. It a Jew con to push brain debilitating chemicals on individuals that won’t follow the leftists delusion of a “planned” society.

I believe so. Really, the answer is "yes," to a certain extent, but the question is to what extent and it's a big open question. It comes back down to the entire nature versus nurture debate that's been going for decades. It is nature to some degree for sure, because whites have empathy, yet blacks have absolutely zero. Blacks are incapable of putting themselves in another person's (or animal's) shoes, and imagining pain or suffering on their behalf. They don't give a fuck about anyone or anything that isn't family. That is quite obviously genetic, due to how widely such properties are held by so many people of either race. Personally, I'm of the opinion that whites are born with an innate "soft" morality, sort of like a blurry image that's out of focus. It's still very much possible for a white person to be raised without morality, even with that blurry out of focus foundation, and the image doesn't focus "correctly" for that society, but in general most white people are moral because they're raised in Western society and learn from both that and their parents. That doesn't change the fact that whites still have empathy, which is not something learned or taught, and empathy is related to morality. The real question is "if a white person grows from childhood alone in a forest into an adult, would they still think it wrong to kill another person, and would they feel guilt?" And as far as that goes, I'm not sure, because I could see it going either way. I suspect they would feel it's immoral, because we have an behavior passed down through all of human history that says "try not to kill other people," because we're social animals and we depend on society to succeed as a species.

Huh uh. Commies are without exception evil fucks who know damn well what they're doing. Yes, they're stupid and do things without realizing what the end result will be, but they knowingly do evil shit to their perceived enemies while claiming to be doing good.

This is obviously working out tremendously in parts of the world where it's going on. The sword is used to coax common will, not define it.

If you keep killing people you're written down as a tyrant and will, if you're lucky, get slaughtered in your sleep.

Never said that wasn't the case. The problem is that we have a lot of people here saying all psychological or psychiatric aid is "hur dur muh kiked" and encouraging people who are legitimately mentally ill to avoid treatment.
This is not good.

You're thinking like a leftist. Anytime you say "if only everyone did x" or "if only everyone behaved like y" then it is leftist and retarded. That's pretty much the core of all types of leftism, denying reality and human nature.

The right starts from the premise of the actual reality of the situation and then finds out a way to use military force to kill degenerates.

checked for kikes being willfully evil
It's like people don't even know about the central tenant of Frankism.

Is it more evil to provide care for less people than you can feed or more people than you can feed? Morality is not a matter of pure empathy.

Maybe you need to understand reading comprehension. I said it's relative TO SOCIETIES, not the the individual. I explicitly said that so you wouldn't come back with the putrid vomit of a post you decide to regurgitate anyway. The nigger stealing from me is still considered immoral because what HE thinks is irrelevant, it's what SOCIETY thinks. Understand that. And in practically all societies, stealing is wrong, because just like murder, society would not be able to function if it were allowed since no one would trust anyone and nothing would ever get done.
If you refuse to grasp this concept again I'll know you're just spitting shit out in bad faith and getting triggered over a couple keywords.

Right, but if we have a scientific metric of what is and isn't evil behavior, and we determine that evil behavior comes from certain genes, and we act to remove those genes, so that "everybody won't do (x)", are being leftists?

We need those psychopaths to kill degenerates. If you get rid of all psychopaths, then you just end up with a soyboy nation.

Nobody wrote Obama as a tyrant, or Israel, and yet they've been constantly killing children.

Yeah no I got you, and expected you to reply with something a little more esoteric, a little more substantial, but you keep doing this basic "critical thinking" faggotry.
Don't reply to me or my posts ever again.

Unless its called other names. Like tax, rent, alimony, interest…

Attached: 43534543345.jpg (1050x700, 539.74K)

I'm not saying "if only everyone did x", I'm saying DO x, for these reasons. I agree with your fundamental point but you can apply it to anything. I can apply it back to you and say you're thinking like a leftist by saying "if only people didn't think like leftists".

Military force doesn't come together until men are real, free and prepared to die.

are we bad people because we don't feed hordes of starving aids-ridden african niggers who will then grow up into a much larger generation of starving aids-ridden niggers? Of course not, our empathy restrains our hand; we don't want EVEN MORE death and suffering in the future.

To answer your question, obviously "more people than you can feed" because that way more people die and suffer. The devil is in the details though, so the answer could very well be the first option if you can feed 100 people and only feed your immediate family, and it depends on who those other people are.


Retarded. Psychopaths are the worst degenerates, and they are the main source of degeneracy in non-psychopaths. You don't need to be a psychopath to purge evil, and usually psychopaths are the evil you are purging. Psychopaths CAUSED the soyboy nation.


Most people consider those to be bad.