PDA

View Full Version : Arete...Virtue Ethics v Rule Ethics.


OnionPeeler
Tuesday, July 16th, 2002, 04:07 AM
Arete, as it is handed down to us, it quite late and even included some bizarre homosexual rituals which I will not here repeat.

However, I believe 'arete' in its ancient form to be one of those recurring Aryan characteristics. Think of the ethics of the Illiad or Nietzsche's admiration for the Vikings (in Beyond Good and Evil). I suspect the latter form as 'excellence' is what he found disgusting.

Ancient arete is a bit of stoicism, fatalism and heroism. Courage, honor, kin devotion and honesty (combat cunning is OK though). Roman duty, Germanic heroic resolve, Knightly chivalry are later Western echoes of it. The US Marines made a motto of it "Semper fidelis". They just didn't finish the sentence.

To the Persians it was ereta and in Rig Veda R(i)ta. The constancy and duty of the Aryan is interwined between self and the cosmos.

It has been said of Nietzsche's superman that he is willing to take a chance, cast the die and accept the result - rather than being too fearful to do anything or welching and begging for a new roll. N.s superman is overflowing with barbarian 'arete.' But the barbarian is no longer the stereotype of dumb and uncivilized.

I believe that when this is brought up, it binds Aryans at a level greater than religion. It is a brotherhood of high expectation that Christians, Odinists and atheists can agree on.

Jack
Friday, October 24th, 2003, 01:57 PM
Virtue ethics versus rule ethics - which do you hold to?

If virtue ethics, what characteristics of an individual's personality would you consider virtuous? If rule ethics, how do you mix rule ethics with your politics?

Personally, I follow virtue ethics. Kant's categorical imperetive can be twisted until it means nothing (e.g. "In this situation, I expect everyone would do this..."). Aspects I'd consider virtues: generosity, open-mindedness, self-confidence, emotional self sufficiency, courage (in contrast with fear), integrity towards one's ideals, friends and family, respect for one's enemies, and ambition.

Scáthach
Saturday, October 25th, 2003, 11:15 PM
Respect for one's enemies?
I'm not sure how that works..?

Moody
Sunday, October 26th, 2003, 07:06 AM
Virtue ethics versus rule ethics - which do you hold to?

If virtue ethics, what characteristics of an individual's personality would you consider virtuous? If rule ethics, how do you mix rule ethics with your politics?

Personally, I follow virtue ethics. Kant's categorical imperetive can be twisted until it means nothing (e.g. "In this situation, I expect everyone would do this..."). Aspects I'd consider virtues: generosity, open-mindedness, self-confidence, emotional self sufficiency, courage (in contrast with fear), integrity towards one's ideals, friends and family, respect for one's enemies, and ambition.

Moody Lawless; You are talking there of Character.
I believe that Rules foster Character [or 'virtue']; therefore the two are mutually necessary.
Take away Rules, and you spoil the character of a people.
This is my main objection to Anarchism etc.,

Jack
Thursday, October 30th, 2003, 06:48 AM
Respect for one's enemies?
I'm not sure how that works..?

Easy. I may respect and admire the courage and integrity of my enemy, but he is still my enemy. We could be great friends if we weren't opposing each other, but we are, and I might have to fight him to the death but I can still respect him.

Moody Lawless; You are talking there of Character.
I believe that Rules foster Character [or 'virtue']; therefore the two are mutually necessary.
Take away Rules, and you spoil the character of a people.
This is my main objection to Anarchism etc.,

I think your objection to Anarchism on these grounds is, well, strange. If people (socialised individuals) can't control themselves in conditions without law, what makes you think a mob can do it under democracy? You don't seem to believe in either so I'm going to make the observation that despite all the white power stuff, you really don't think much of our race.

Ederico
Thursday, October 30th, 2003, 11:44 AM
The way I understand Aloysha's first post I believe that Virtue Ethics is more important with self-created rules and directions rather than some Regimented System of Ethics. Yet Society require rules to function orderly, and Rule Ethics might play an important function there.

Moody
Thursday, October 30th, 2003, 06:13 PM
Aloysha; "I think your [i.e., Moody's] objection to Anarchism on these grounds is, well, strange. If people (socialised individuals) can't control themselves in conditions without law, what makes you think a mob can do it under democracy? You don't seem to believe in either so I'm going to make the observation that despite all the white power stuff, you really don't think much of our race".

Moody Lawless replies; You make the usual Either/Or mistake; i.e., you suggest above that one must either be an Anarchist or a Democrat when you say that I "don't seem to believe in either".

Not so, there are other positions available!

At any rate, I believe that the Rule of Law is Necessary, and that can be applied to nearly all positions, whether monarchy, aristocracy, timocracy, fascism, national socialism etc., - EXCEPT Anarchy.

You then 'conclude' that I "don't think much of our race"(!)
Presumably because I would have laws in place!
A false conclusion and marred by a tendency to use ad hominems.

Advocating Law for the White Race is no 'insult' to the White Race!
Indeed, it is that Race, from its earliest Law-Givers, such as Solon and Lycurgus - right up to the Romans, who have given the world the very concept of Law.

So Law is a feature of White Culture which should be retained - it is Liberalism which seeks to undermine Law and Order.

Jack
Thursday, October 30th, 2003, 10:47 PM
Aloysha; "I think your [i.e., Moody's] objection to Anarchism on these grounds is, well, strange. If people (socialised individuals) can't control themselves in conditions without law, what makes you think a mob can do it under democracy? You don't seem to believe in either so I'm going to make the observation that despite all the white power stuff, you really don't think much of our race".

Moody Lawless replies; You make the usual Either/Or mistake; i.e., you suggest above that one must either be an Anarchist or a Democrat when you say that I "don't seem to believe in either".

Not so, there are other positions available!

I am an Anarchist. You could've asked.

At any rate, I believe that the Rule of Law is Necessary, and that can be applied to nearly all positions, whether monarchy, aristocracy, timocracy, fascism, national socialism etc., - EXCEPT Anarchy.

So Law = morality? I don't think you made sense out of what I was saying. 'Rule ethics' refers to Kantian morality, which is, in a nut shell, 'Act the way you would have everyone act'. This doesn't have anything to do with legislation.

You then 'conclude' that I "don't think much of our race"(!)
Presumably because I would have laws in place!
A false conclusion and marred by a tendency to use ad hominems.

Just following in your footsteps. I assume you don't have a problem with that?

Advocating Law for the White Race is no 'insult' to the White Race!
Indeed, it is that Race, from its earliest Law-Givers, such as Solon and Lycurgus - right up to the Romans, who have given the world the very concept of Law.

Hammurabi was a semite. So was Abraham. They had laws.

So Law is a feature of White Culture which should be retained - it is Liberalism which seeks to undermine Law and Order.

Law and Order don't nessecarily go hand in hand.

Ederico
Friday, October 31st, 2003, 11:02 AM
Aloysha, please define the terms Rule, Virtue, and Ethics and the meaning of Rule Ethics and Virtue Ethics. Agreeing on definitions is the first step in a discussion.

Awar
Friday, October 31st, 2003, 01:47 PM
Apart from respecting your enemy being a noble and virtuous thing to do, it's also wise.

Those who disrespect regularly under-estimate their oponents, give them less credit than they deserve.

It's like a friend of mine, who's a huge muscular guy, who got beat-up by a much smaller oponent. He underestimated his enemy totally, he disrespected him, thought of his enemy as insignificant etc. which only lead to his defeat.

If you think about it, history is full of such examples, where disrespect lead to defeat, unnecessary destruction, loss of life.

I too would say that ethics of virtue are better for me, yet it seems that most men only respect the ethics of rules, or should I say ethics of 'fear of punishment'.

Moody
Friday, October 31st, 2003, 06:29 PM
Aloysha;"I am an Anarchist".

Moody Lawless replies; That much was obvious.
As there is a need to define terms, let's look at 'Anarchism' in relation to this thread, and so keep on topic;
"...Typical anarchist beliefs are these:
(i) People are benign by nature and corrupted by government.
(ii) The state is exploitative, and oppressive, whereas society is natural and free.
(iii) Man is a social animal, fulfilled through voluntary cooperation, but frustrated by all coercion.
(iv) Reforms 'from above' bear the imprint of the authority that initiates them, and are therefore worthless.
(v) Social change must be brought about through revolutionary action, perhaps even violent action".
[excerpted from Scruton, Dictionary of Political Thought]

Sound familiar Anarch?
I naturally disagree with all of these positions, and as a Nationalist, I find some of them absolutely abhorrent.
I believe in an Arche [Rule], not An-archy [No-Rule].

I also believe in ethics, and that those ethics are NECESSARILY codified into Law. Unfortunately, the mass of people are unable to behave morally and have to be subject to the imposition of Law.

The Laws of the Semites tend to be based on God [see the Old Testament, 10 Commandments, Muslim Sharia etc.,]; in this way of thinking, one must be moral because God says so and will punish etc.,

The Law developed in the Classical world, having its fullest exposition in Rome is different to the Semitic. It is based on Reason, not on the Supernatural.
The Semites living under Roman rule refused to submit to earthly Law, saying that all Law was God's Law - for that they were punished.

So, going back to the original question; I hold that Virtue is the outcome of the application of The Rule; whether it be the Rule held within the breast of the individual, or else such a Rule expressed in Law to hold the less than virtuous many to account.
Aryan man must impose Order [Law] on Chaos [disorder].

Jack
Saturday, November 8th, 2003, 04:26 AM
A note:

Rule ethics is acting how you would want everyone to act. Virtue ethics is working for personal excellence in itself.

Aloysha;"I am an Anarchist".

Moody Lawless replies; That much was obvious.

You've taken things to be obvious before which were incorrect. What you posted (which I quote below) is another example.

As there is a need to define terms, let's look at 'Anarchism' in relation to this thread, and so keep on topic;
"...Typical anarchist beliefs are these:
(i) People are benign by nature and corrupted by government.
(ii) The state is exploitative, and oppressive, whereas society is natural and free.
(iii) Man is a social animal, fulfilled through voluntary cooperation, but frustrated by all coercion.
(iv) Reforms 'from above' bear the imprint of the authority that initiates them, and are therefore worthless.
(v) Social change must be brought about through revolutionary action, perhaps even violent action".
[excerpted from Scruton, Dictionary of Political Thought]

Point (i) vaguely pertains to my own view, but not nessecarily.
Point (ii) - I object to massive government expenditure programs and the State controlling the education system. So this works partially.
Point (iii) is pretty damn obvious. Unless you're advocating something like the Janissaries and slave labour :D
Point (iv) - I'll back this up with the attempted westernization of Russia from Peter the Great onwards. Failed miserably, was initiated from above. Russian Revolution made apparent the massive void between the Westernised elite and the peasantry. The Jews hijacked the process that followed. Reforms from above have to be met by an equal movement in the social unconscious of the population being acted upon. If the reforms move too fast, a void develops between those who push them (the elite) and the system eventually breaks apart. If the reforms move too slowly, revolution becomes a considered option. Being the absolutely evil Anarchist that I am (apparently), I consider it better to leave civil society to the influence of those who participate in it, not the Government (aka 'vox populi').

Sound familiar Anarch?
I naturally disagree with all of these positions, and as a Nationalist, I find some of them absolutely abhorrent.
I believe in an Arche [Rule], not An-archy [No-Rule].

Anarchism and organic nationalism are not contradictory :p http://www.terrafirma.rosenoire.org/articles/SUMMER2003NAintro.html
Why do you have a tendency to want to control the actions of other people? I don't. I don't particularly like what a lot of people do with their lives. But they can go ahead and do it. I know our difference Moody. Commissars in World War 2 used to have soldiers who retreated shot. I'd only ever accept those who volunteered to come to the front in the first place. There is a rather large difference between leadership and control. There is such a thing as 'leadership by example'.

I also believe in ethics, and that those ethics are NECESSARILY codified into Law. Unfortunately, the mass of people are unable to behave morally and have to be subject to the imposition of Law.

You have absolutely NO evidence for the statement that the 'mass of people are unable to behave morally' - indeed, Law hasn't stopped ANYONE from doing ANYTHING if he really puts his energy into it. You think serial killers give a damn about legislation? ROFL.

The Laws of the Semites tend to be based on God [see the Old Testament, 10 Commandments, Muslim Sharia etc.,]; in this way of thinking, one must be moral because God says so and will punish etc.,

Sure, I'll agree with this.

The Law developed in the Classical world, having its fullest exposition in Rome is different to the Semitic. It is based on Reason, not on the Supernatural.
The Semites living under Roman rule refused to submit to earthly Law, saying that all Law was God's Law - for that they were punished.

I doubt you believe in Reason over instinct. I'll slaughter your arguments if you do.

So, going back to the original question; I hold that Virtue is the outcome of the application of The Rule; whether it be the Rule held within the breast of the individual, or else such a Rule expressed in Law to hold the less than virtuous many to account.
Aryan man must impose Order [Law] on Chaos [disorder].

The Aryan does not have Law imposed upon him. He is his judge, standard bearer, and executor of action. He is the only one who can comprehend nihilism (the lack of justification for anything) and still find SOME structure inside him, and act in accordance with that structure - and act with excellence.

Moody
Tuesday, November 11th, 2003, 06:38 PM
Aloysha; "Anarchism and organic nationalism are not contradictory".

Moody Lawless; The fact that you have to qualify nationalism as 'organic' shows that Anarchism and Nationalism in their usually understood and historically relevant terms ARE contradictory and antagonistic.
If that were not so, then you - an Anarchist, and myself - a Nationalist, would agree on a whole lot more than we do! Q.E.D.

Aloysha; "The Aryan does not have Law imposed upon him. He is his judge, standard bearer, and executor of action. He is the only one who can comprehend nihilism (the lack of justification for anything) and still find SOME structure inside him, and act in accordance with that structure - and act with excellence".

Moody Lawless; As Nietzsche said; the true Noble is he that knows how to Obey as well as how to give Orders.

Jack
Monday, December 1st, 2003, 10:37 AM
Aloysha; "Anarchism and organic nationalism are not contradictory".

Moody Lawless; The fact that you have to qualify nationalism as 'organic' shows that Anarchism and Nationalism in their usually understood and historically relevant terms ARE contradictory and antagonistic.

Of course, that's my point. They are contradictory given the way they are usually understood. Then, when something is common it is often poorly defined.

If that were not so, then you - an Anarchist, and myself - a Nationalist, would agree on a whole lot more than we do! Q.E.D.

Well, we don't. But that has little to do with the fact we are both nationalist. It has a lot more to do with our politics.

Aloysha; "The Aryan does not have Law imposed upon him. He is his judge, standard bearer, and executor of action. He is the only one who can comprehend nihilism (the lack of justification for anything) and still find SOME structure inside him, and act in accordance with that structure - and act with excellence".

Moody Lawless; As Nietzsche said; the true Noble is he that knows how to Obey as well as how to give Orders.

Knowing how to obey and how to give orders isn't the same as having a control obsession.

Moody
Monday, December 1st, 2003, 07:53 PM
Aloysha; "Knowing how to obey and how to give orders isn't the same as having a control obsession".

Moody Lawless; I am glad that you have come to see that the Aryan must know how to OBEY, as well as how to COMMAND [and isn't that the problem with today's anarchist types - they have never tasted the lash of discipline?].
However, you are starting to speak in riddles when you say "control obsession"(?); to what or whom are you referring?

Jack
Monday, December 1st, 2003, 09:56 PM
Aloysha; "Knowing how to obey and how to give orders isn't the same as having a control obsession".

Moody Lawless; I am glad that you have come to see that the Aryan must know how to OBEY, as well as how to COMMAND

I never did not recgonise it. I always have recognised it, and recognised it well.

[and isn't that the problem with today's anarchist types - they have never tasted the lash of discipline?].

The Anarcho-Syndicalists of the Spanish civil war always recognised the need for organisation. What they wanted was voluntary organisation - the same thing I'd prefer to have. When people join up knowing full well what they're in for, and the rest - discipline, etc. - follows. In 1914, the British Empire called on Australia for troops. Without need for conscription, hundreds of thousands of young Australians signed up to fight the Germans. This is what I'm advocating (not fighting Germans - I mean a massive flow of volunteers without conscription). A civil war (it will happen) will be much more to our advantage if we don't pre-empt it and kickstart it early (via Bolshevik style takeover), but agitate and push propaganda and educate towards our ends, conditioning the social consciousness of our people and making them ready, so they will volunteer to fight en mass when the sh*t hits the fan, for lack of better words. I don't believe we should fight for those who don't in some way support what we stand for.

However, you are starting to speak in riddles when you say "control obsession"(?); to what or whom are you referring?

I'm speaking in riddles no more than you do. Who was I referring to? To you, simply, and others. Your strange desire for a strong state (I'm not going to capitalise it anymore), non-voluntarist outlook, desire for a coup in countries not ready for it yet, your strange idea that takeovers are somehow followed with cultures that support the takeovers (in my opinion it's the other way around), utter negligence of the individual, etc.

Moody
Thursday, December 4th, 2003, 07:57 PM
Aloysha; "Your strange desire for a strong state (I'm not going to capitalise it anymore)",

Moody Lawless; What's so strange about that? You yourself advocated on this forum only a couple of months ago the following; "concentrated economic power behind the State"; "economic freedom for expansion"; "total mobilisation"; "massive militarily capable citizen base"; "Imperial self-sufficiency" etc., etc.,
I have ALWAYS advocated a Strong State, but then my reading of Nietzsche, Yockey et al., is not just a passing phase.
Was your capitalising of Strong State and adding 'tm' behind it just another of your fleeting phases?

Aloysha; "Your non-voluntarist outlook".

Moody Lawless; I do not believe in the 'free-will' of the Christian/liberal variety, sure. But I do believe in the Nietzschean Will to Power, as I have explained on many past encounters.

Aloysha; "Your Desire for a coup in countries not ready for it yet, your strange idea that takeovers are somehow followed with cultures that support the takeovers (in my opinion it's the other way around)".

Moody Lawless; Another riddle; you'll have to refresh my memory on what you are referring to here - perhaps you could give some quotes as I have done.

Aloysha; "Your utter negligence of the individual, etc."

Moody; Etc.,! Another distortion, I think.
As a Nietzschean I am all for the higher man; the superhumanly talented individual; the genius; the Leader.
That RARE inividual is of vast importance.
However, it is the duty of the MANY within the order of rank to SERVE the organic entities that make such rare individuals POSSIBLE.
Only by the many sacrificing their 'individuality', can anything rare and beautiful be made on earth.
"A nation is a detour of nature to arrive at six or seven great men".
[Nietzsche BGE 126]

Jack
Friday, December 5th, 2003, 12:04 AM
Aloysha; "Your strange desire for a strong state (I'm not going to capitalise it anymore)",

Moody Lawless; What's so strange about that? You yourself advocated on this forum only a couple of months ago the following; "concentrated economic power behind the State"; "economic freedom for expansion"; "total mobilisation"; "massive militarily capable citizen base"; "Imperial self-sufficiency" etc., etc.,

And then I conceded to myself that I was advocating slavery on a massive scale, and then I came to believe slavery was wrong, and the rest followed from there. I call it strange because you claimed to believe in pride, responsibility, independence, integrity etc. and you're willing to subordinate yourself to a tyrant. Fair enough - I'm not.

I have ALWAYS advocated a Strong State, but then my reading of Nietzsche, Yockey et al., is not just a passing phase.

Reading Yockey, Nietzsche etc. was not just a passing phase for me either.

Was your capitalising of Strong State and adding 'tm' behind it just another of your fleeting phases?

No, I got tired of it. Do you want me to go back to it?

Aloysha; "Your non-voluntarist outlook".

Moody Lawless; I do not believe in the 'free-will' of the Christian/liberal variety, sure. But I do believe in the Nietzschean Will to Power, as I have explained on many past encounters.

You missed what I was saying, apparently. By 'voluntarism' I mean volunteer - a man who needs to be forced into fighting or serving could be said to have low Will to Power and thus is not worth subordinating.

Aloysha; "Your Desire for a coup in countries not ready for it yet, your strange idea that takeovers are somehow followed with cultures that support the takeovers (in my opinion it's the other way around)".

Moody Lawless; Another riddle; you'll have to refresh my memory on what you are referring to here - perhaps you could give some quotes as I have done.

Not really a riddle. When I was a Statist (for lack of a better word), I advocated (and still do) a cultural revolution preceding political revolution. You wanted political revolution first, and claimed a culture supporting the foundations and ideals of that revolution would appear a short time later. Given the current level of support for the white power movement in the Western world and the constant Jewish propaganda efforts against the white power movement, I draw the connections and see you advocate a minority takeover against a mass majority that consciously (unconsciously I think its the opposite - the purpose of cultural revolution is to make the unconscious conscious) supports its own suicide. That means, in short, you advocate coup d'etat in countries not yet prepared for political revolution.

Aloysha; "Your utter negligence of the individual, etc."

Moody; Etc.,! Another distortion, I think.
As a Nietzschean I am all for the higher man; the superhumanly talented individual; the genius; the Leader.

I don't think it's a distortion...

"However, it is the duty of the MANY within the order of rank to SERVE the organic entities that make such rare individuals POSSIBLE."

That's exactly what I meant.

"A nation is a detour of nature to arrive at six or seven great men".
[Nietzsche BGE 126]

This does not nessecarily connect with dictatorship. We know it is always the minority which carries the task of developing and articulating culture. I'm inclined to believe that is what Nietzsche was referring to.

Moody
Saturday, December 6th, 2003, 06:23 PM
Aloysha; "Reading Yockey ... was not just a passing phase for me either".

Moody Lawless;
"The State as an actuality is a manifestation of the development of a High Culture".
[Yockey, Imperium p. 354]
"Its form for the immediate Future is the Resurgence of Authority ...
This State ends the inner anarchy of the West ...
Capitalism vanishes ...
The new unity of Culture, Nation, People, Race, State ...
The Authoritarian State ..."
[ib., f. pages 365-366]

Jack
Tuesday, December 9th, 2003, 01:38 AM
'Passing phase' assumes one just picks up a philosophy or culture or something and looks at it for a while and walks off. I believed it. I also began to think for myself, and I've come to disagree with Yockey on several things.

Moody
Thursday, May 6th, 2004, 04:48 PM
'Arete' - this notion of 'excellence', or virtue in the Renaissance sense of 'virtu' should be our desideratum.

Not 'love', or 'selflessness' and the rest of the moral-onic stuff espoused by the Nihilistic religions and philosophies.

Links for the word 'arete';

http://www.wsu.edu:8001/~dee/GLOSSARY/ARETE.HTM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arete_(excellence)

http://www.bryanpratt.com/achilles.jpg
ACHILLES