Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: Ethic: Truth Vs Loyalty

  1. #1
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    13 Hours Ago @ 07:31 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,889
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,190
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,292
    Thanked in
    550 Posts

    Ethic: Truth Vs Loyalty

    Inspired from a series which is also an interesting study of characters, where the total loyalty of Hispanics is set against the service for the truth by white Americans and the different stances resulting from there is worked out, I wondered about this question.

    It is often said that our people lack this loyalty to the people of our own folk, that there is no unity etc. which is partly true. We judge and treat people according to their deeds, even if that means to "betray" them.

    Among Hispanics, or basically all other racial groups, this loyalty is a given. Individuals help and support each other solely on the condition that they are of the same ethnicity. The truth is rather relative, meaning that when the question is to act according to the truth (a crime f.e.) and the from that following consequences or to be loyal to the other, the decision is often made for loyalty, even if that means to leave a crime unpunished.

    Another difference that is worked out there is how "bonds" are made.
    We chose to give friendship to an individual, we expect truthfulness and honesty, and in the frames of friendship, we also expect a certain loyalty from our friends and give it in return, but we dont expect loyalty from strangers. How we treat and deal with other people stands in direct correlation from our real existing relation (or the lack thereof) to them.

    Among other ethnicities, bonds are generated through deals and "debts", one favour is paid with another favour, a deal is generally higher rated than the truth, while all this builds on their racial similarity, ie it demands a basic loyalty on which everything else is relative.


    What do you think?
    Is it "stabbing in the back" to deliver someone to the consquences of his deeds / not to help him out of loyalty to escape these consequences, or is the service to the truth more important?
    Do you consider this form of unconditional loyalty good, or is it basically corruption?
    Is loyalty more important than truth, or can/should have loyalty a limit (f.e. in the context of crime)?
    Or should truth be the highest value, because without truth, there is no real honor nor real justice?


    Please discuss.
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  2. #2
    Senior Member wittwer's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Last Online
    Monday, July 18th, 2011 @ 11:25 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Ancestry
    English, Irish, German, Swiss, Austrian
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Illinois Illinois
    Location
    Chicago
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Engineer
    Politics
    Pragmatic Pluralist
    Religion
    Christian Deist, Lutheran
    Posts
    719
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post

    Ethics: Good & Evil, Right & Wrong, Virtue & Vice

    Velvet, The question that should be asked is, "Does the End justify the Means"? If the answer is "yes", we live in a world of ethical and moral anarchy. Such that there is no distinction between Good & Evil, Right & Wrong or virtue and vice. If the answer is "no", then how are we to determine what is Good & Evil, Right & Wrong, Virtuous & Viceful.

    As for myself, there is the Kantian Moral Philosophy, which is developed in the "Gorund work of the Metaphysics of Morals", "Critique of Practical Reason", Metaphysics of Morals". In a nutshell, all action and behaivor should be regulated by the Categroical Imperative, which is derived from the concept of "Duty". Categorical Imperatives are principles that are intrinsically valid, they are Good in and of themselves, they must be obeyed by all, in all situations and circumstances if our behaivor is to observe the Moral Law.

    The Categorical Imperative may be based on something that is an end intself. Such as Justice. This Categorical Imperative or Moral Obligation applies to all, but only rational agents. As such, the Categorical Imperative is an unconditional Obligation that has the force of a full duty and obligation, irregardless of individual or collective will and desires.

    As Kant so eloquently put it, "Let justice reign even if all the rascals in the world should perish from it".

  3. #3
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Last Online
    Monday, January 3rd, 2011 @ 08:06 PM
    Ethnicity
    northern Euro.
    Subrace
    Nordid/UPS
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Religion
    Agnostic
    Posts
    50
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    loyalty in that aspect seem to be domain of inferior societies to me, it reminds me of gypsies, russian mafia immigrants immediately. I'm not for total law-abiding either, no law is perfect.

  4. #4
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Last Online
    Tuesday, August 21st, 2012 @ 02:14 PM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Germany
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Politics
    Ethnopluralismus
    Posts
    77
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts
    I think it´s a matter of the current situation.

    If we were in a racial homogenous group, wrongdoers should suffer the just consequences of their action immediately.

    If it is an "we vs. them" situation, i think the loyalty should be placed higher, i.e. if i have trouble with a white guy on the streets, but there is also a turk gang nearby. I would say stick together to fend them off, and deal with our "internal" problems later.

    If a kinsman has only wronged the others and not a fellow white person, then we should look to that he´s treated fair and appropriately.

  5. #5
    Senior Member velvet's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    13 Hours Ago @ 07:31 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    German
    Ancestry
    Northern Germany
    Subrace
    Faelid
    Country
    Germany Germany
    State
    North Rhine-Westphalia North Rhine-Westphalia
    Gender
    Age
    46
    Zodiac Sign
    Sagittarius
    Family
    Married
    Occupation
    Pestilent Supremacy
    Politics
    Blut und Boden
    Religion
    Fimbulwinter
    Posts
    4,889
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    1,190
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1,292
    Thanked in
    550 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by wittwer
    Velvet, The question that should be asked is, "Does the End justify the Means"? If the answer is "yes", we live in a world of ethical and moral anarchy. Such that there is no distinction between Good & Evil, Right & Wrong or virtue and vice. If the answer is "no", then how are we to determine what is Good & Evil, Right & Wrong, Virtuous & Viceful.

    As for myself, there is the Kantian Moral Philosophy, which is developed in the "Gorund work of the Metaphysics of Morals", "Critique of Practical Reason", Metaphysics of Morals". In a nutshell, all action and behaivor should be regulated by the Categroical Imperative, which is derived from the concept of "Duty". Categorical Imperatives are principles that are intrinsically valid, they are Good in and of themselves, they must be obeyed by all, in all situations and circumstances if our behaivor is to observe the Moral Law.
    In that case the question is: what is "moral"? And more realistically asked, is it possible, in a human society with human failures and human shortcomings, to abide to these categorical imperatives to all times in all situations, or is this just another utopia?


    Quote Originally Posted by wittwer
    The Categorical Imperative may be based on something that is an end intself. Such as Justice. This Categorical Imperative or Moral Obligation applies to all, but only rational agents. As such, the Categorical Imperative is an unconditional Obligation that has the force of a full duty and obligation, irregardless of individual or collective will and desires.

    As Kant so eloquently put it, "Let justice reign even if all the rascals in the world should perish from it".
    In that case I would like to ask Kant (or you, since he wont be able to answer himself methinks ) how he defines "rascals", and if that what he calls "justice" isnt in truth arbitrary force?


    This enters quite another level of discussion to dive into that philosophical stuff, but my problem with all of them is that they take apart life, attributes, character traits whatever and look at singled out aspects to come to an "absolute" (or categorical imperative) that then exists out of any context. They might be true and good in and of themselves, but do they have a worth at all when they exist for themselves and become themselves an end in itself? An example would be to say to kill someone is evil, and to be responsible for the death of someone else delivers you yourself to death ("justice"). This might be a good guideline, for that people dont run around and kill randomly people without going to pay for it. But is this imperative still valid when you have to defend yourself? Can it still be valid? Many of socalled "moral laws" or those categorical imperatives do indeed (try to) exist outside context and claim to be valid for themselves and always, the problem is that reality works differently.


    And the artificial seperation of duty and rights, needs and desires, service and freedom, individual and collective etc and to make them an opposite, make them out as hostile to one another, is another aspect that leaves me with trouble with all that philosophical stuff. Much of the trouble all high cultures had throughout the ages was a result of philosophies that analysed human life to death and seperated good from bad, positive from negative, right from wrong and duties from rights and made each of the now seperated subjects an absolute, which had no more context or relation to each other.



    Quote Originally Posted by Metahumanoid
    If it is an "we vs. them" situation, i think the loyalty should be placed higher, i.e. if i have trouble with a white guy on the streets, but there is also a turk gang nearby. I would say stick together to fend them off, and deal with our "internal" problems later.

    If a kinsman has only wronged the others and not a fellow white person, then we should look to that he´s treated fair and appropriately.
    Well, the first above is rather a personal situation and doesnt necessarily involve laws. But you say loyalty should be placed higher.

    In the second example though the law (or truth) stands higher, although the other "only" has wronged others (racial aliens), he is still delivered to the law to be judged.

    Now, the question is, when this is the case, why should anyone forget about his "internal squabbel" and opt for loyalty, when this doesnt necessarily come in return and he's regardless of that he helped, delivered to the law to be judged?
    Ein Leben ist nichts, deine Sprosse sind alles
    Aller Sturm nimmt nichts, weil dein Wurzelgriff zu stark ist
    und endet meine Frist, weiss ich dass du noch da bist
    Gefürchtet von der Zeit, mein Baum, mein Stamm in Ewigkeit

    my signature

  6. #6
    Account Inactive
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Online
    Monday, January 9th, 2012 @ 04:09 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Country
    United States United States
    Gender
    Posts
    968
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Originally Posted by wittwer
    As for myself, there is the Kantian Moral Philosophy, which is developed in the "Gorund work of the Metaphysics of Morals", "Critique of Practical Reason", Metaphysics of Morals". In a nutshell, all action and behaivor should be regulated by the Categroical Imperative, which is derived from the concept of "Duty".
    Like much of Kantian moral and political theory, the categorical imperative is pie in the sky fantasy. To work, everyone would have to abide by it, and human experience shows that never occurs. Mussolini implicitly rejected the categorical imperative in noting that things like treaties and league superstructures collapse to the ground whenever the sentiments or interests of nations conflict with them. He was of course correct.

    Moreover, though Kant held racialist and anti-Semitic views, he was an internationalist, and the categorical imperative plays well into internationalist political schemas. An ethical system consistent with nationalism is much more relativistic, and it's no surprise that a nationalist theorist like Herder (a rival of Kant) was also a proponent of historicism.

Similar Threads

  1. Personal Moral and Heathen Ethic
    By Dagna in forum Germanic Heathenry
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: Wednesday, March 21st, 2018, 04:08 AM
  2. Replies: 1
    Last Post: Saturday, August 19th, 2017, 07:26 PM
  3. Replies: 0
    Last Post: Tuesday, June 14th, 2016, 08:44 PM
  4. Death of the Protestant Work Ethic
    By CordeliaforLear in forum Protestantism
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: Wednesday, February 25th, 2009, 07:39 PM
  5. What Is Your Main Loyalty?
    By Enlil in forum Psychology, Behavior, & Neuroscience
    Replies: 29
    Last Post: Wednesday, November 8th, 2006, 07:13 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •