Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 19 of 19

Thread: What Morals/Values Are Important to You?

  1. #11
    Senior Member Psychonaut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Wednesday, May 18th, 2016 @ 02:34 AM
    Ethnicity
    Acadian
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Politics
    Old Stock Nativism
    Religion
    Heathen Theosophy
    Posts
    928
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Moody View Post
    That is a strange order of precedence as it doesn't go from the individual, then up by ever expanding steps to the larger group; nor does it do the opposite and decline from the largest group down to the individual. Instead it 'bounces' from a group, to an individual, then up to a larger group and so on.
    Essentially you say that you would put yourself before your ethnic group.
    It is a strange order of precedence, but it's an honest one. I don't really think that placing my immediate family in the first order is really debatable at all. As the head of household, I must subordinate many of my wants for the benefit of my family. I guess. to avoid confusion, I could place myself within my family, in the first order of precidence:

    1). Family
    a). My Children
    b). My Wife
    c). My Self
    2). My Ethnic Group
    3). My Nation

    Treating the family as one unit makes the order of expansion much more natural. After all, it's only natural that you'd care more about your family than your ethnic group as a whole. Now, those who are in leadership positions, either of their Ethnic groups or their States, should follow the familial example and, while treating themselves as a member of the group, place the interests of the group, as a whole, before their own.
    "Ocean is more ancient than the mountains, and freighted with the memories and the dreams of Time."
    -H.P. Lovecraft

  2. #12
    Senior Member Patrioten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 19th, 2019 @ 04:32 AM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Protestant
    Posts
    1,919
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    If I am not mistaken, ethics is about how one should act, morals about how one acts. Ethics is the ideal, morals how you in reality act. For the most part, the two can correlate with one another if no real conflict inbetween them exist, but then there are times when your ethics model is put aside, either by choice or necessity, in order for you to respond in a way which is appropriate, given the conditions or the situation of the moment. Some are more zealous than others in how strictly they adher to their ideal and how much they are willing to compromise with it and instead adapt to a situation where the conditions have changed, or when an atypical situation presents itself.

    It becomes a matter of "what if....", of different scenarios and situations. The situation where to save 5 you must kill one is a situation which most of us are unlikely to ever find ourselves in. It's also a bit simplistic, who are these 5 individuals and who is the one I have to kill to save them? Random people? Then I would have no reason to save the one and lose the others. After that one's own personal ladder of value sets in and decides whom to save and whom to let die.

    But it has no bearing in reality, so it's pretty pointless in my opinion. We need better examples that are more realistic.

  3. #13
    Senior Member rainman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Last Online
    Sunday, February 28th, 2010 @ 06:34 PM
    Ethnicity
    Germanic
    Ancestry
    Scotch-Irish, Welsh, English, Dutch, German, French
    Subrace
    Alpine-Nordic mix
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Ohio Ohio
    Location
    ohio
    Gender
    Family
    Single, looking
    Politics
    Libertarian/Tribalist
    Religion
    Asatru
    Posts
    1,310
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    3
    Thanked in
    3 Posts
    It would take too long to really go in depth explaining it all.

    In essence: that which advances you and/or your group is good. That which doesn't is bad. The environment is part of you, therefore this implies stewardship of the land. To have a folkish ideal that we are one drop in the blood of a folk; part of a higher organism would imply that self sacrifice for the greater good is also morally superior.

    From there we build a short list of basic suggestions to help guide us in our decision making. The ten commandments for some, the Code of 9 is what I like to follow. Morality and ethics has a great deal to do with the community. Any healthy community must have a common culture, comon morals and ways of doing things in order to function cohesivley. Today we live in a such an age of chaos and individualism that we often don't see this. We think of morals or ethics as a personal choice or something to be worn like a cloak or a pair of socks.

    An example it doesn't matter if you drive on the left side or right side of the road. You just have to pick one and everyone must obey it. It isn't about individual choice, it is about the group (which effects the individual). Otherwise chaos follows. We all have morals that are common to our society. These are laws of the land. Though they are rather broad and vague so we supplement them with our own personal religious codes etc. Within any group of people there is acceptable behavior and unacceptable behavior this is the basis of morals. We have been stripped of this today as we have been taught "blind tolerance" and to accept everything and any deviance no matter how personally offensive. This has stripped us down to the lowest common denominator giving the advantage to our enemies or to those with less healthy morals or none at all. For example say I morally don't believe in being a drug addict. In the past or in any healthy society I would refuse to work with a drug addict. I would not let him in my home or be neighbors with him (as the whole community would act as one). He would not be accepted into my "church" unless he cleaned up his act etc. Today we can say "I personally don't believe in being a drug addict for myself" yet we tolerate it in everyone else. So the drug addict next store breaks in and steals all your belongings. Your morals are only partially strong. Morals involve a community.

    Less successful people have weaker morals, more successful people have stronger morals.

    I think it is only a retard or simple minded plebian that thinks lying, cheating and stealing is really beneficial to the individual or makes him stronger. It doesn't. It weakens the community which you depend on. It causes necessary retribution (from any healthy people) and so on. Where can you find the most theives, liars, lazy people etc.? In the poverty stricken ghetto. Does lying, cheating and stealing get them ahead? Is it a sign of intelligence? Not really. You may have exeptions today- very clever people who are dishonest. But they are only strong because of the relative weakness of their prey. Any healthy morals would involve being strong and fighting back. In being educated and not easily decieved. Most of society knows only slave morals which make them could cattle or sheep to feed on.

    Where do you find the most polite people (maybe not always trustworthy because our society is inferior)- in successful positions. Most of these people even if they lie to the public or whatever they usually have a small group that they function from in which they are completley moral. Otherwise they, too are weak. They are only strong in comparison to the even weaker less moral people in society.

    Morality at its core I guess is about doing what is best for the society (or group) rather than the individual and thus the individual benefits. Putting aside momentary pleasure for future gain which in the long term is also more successful. The whole sum of morals is logic in my opinion. Though today people seem to associate them with being illogical or blind faith or belief in God or whatever. Those are just tools used to control people who are otherwise too stupid to act moral on their own. There is a different moral ideal for morons and for smart people. Morons are just the slaves of smart people so they are taught a slave's moral system.

  4. #14
    Senior Member Moody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 10th, 2012 @ 10:18 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    English
    Ancestry
    Albion
    Subrace
    Paleo-Atlantid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    State
    Essex Essex
    Location
    England
    Gender
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    Investigator of Souls
    Politics
    Pan-Germanic Nationalist
    Religion
    Runosophy
    Posts
    1,904
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    9
    Thanked in
    9 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Psychonaut View Post
    It is a strange order of precedence, but it's an honest one. I don't really think that placing my immediate family in the first order is really debatable at all. As the head of household, I must subordinate many of my wants for the benefit of my family. I guess. to avoid confusion, I could place myself within my family, in the first order of precidence:

    1). Family
    a). My Children
    b). My Wife
    c). My Self
    2). My Ethnic Group
    3). My Nation

    Treating the family as one unit makes the order of expansion much more natural. After all, it's only natural that you'd care more about your family than your ethnic group as a whole. Now, those who are in leadership positions, either of their Ethnic groups or their States, should follow the familial example and, while treating themselves as a member of the group, place the interests of the group, as a whole, before their own.
    I would like to take the question away from a discussion of you own personal circumstances to a more abstract philosophical position.
    Clearly, the position becomes this: are your family of your ethnic group?
    Is one's ethnic group not part of one's family? [whether one has children or not].
    This raises the difficulty of the distinction you made. Why should only certain members of your ethnic group [those you call your family] be worth more to you than any other menbers of your ethnic group?
    This may be the reason why Plato thought the Guardians should have children only in common with other Guardians [i.e., rejecting the nuclear family unit].

    Quote Originally Posted by Patrioten View Post
    If I am not mistaken, ethics is about how one should act, morals about how one acts. Ethics is the ideal, morals how you in reality act.
    The distinction is not hard and fast - ethics is from the Greek and morals from the Latin [Cicero's translation, I believe]. The most useful distinction to make is that 'ethics' refers to character [as the word 'ethos' means 'character' - hence 'virtue ethics']; while 'moral' relates to behaviour [mores are customs] - so we tend to refer to 'Utilitarian morality'.
    Ethos is character while morals is behaviour.


    It becomes a matter of "what if....", of different scenarios and situations. The situation where to save 5 you must kill one is a situation which most of us are unlikely to ever find ourselves in. It's also a bit simplistic, who are these 5 individuals and who is the one I have to kill to save them? Random people? Then I would have no reason to save the one and lose the others. After that one's own personal ladder of value sets in and decides whom to save and whom to let die.
    What-Ifs are useful ways of testing moral positions. I gave them in abbreviated form for space. The one on the mob chasing a friend clearly shows the clash between lying and loyalty. True, these are extreme examples - but it is often only in extreme situations that our moral and ethical calibre is challenged [just as it is easy to win a war in one's armchair].

    The 5 individuals scenario can be expanded thus. You are a visitor to the wilds of South America on an adventure holiday. You visit a village where the local chieftain has sentenced six people to die and is about to have them executed. Your presence in the village excites some interest and the chieftain is fascinated to welcome a doughty European, seeing the visit as propitious [the scriptures had spoken of a 'gifted white stranger' to come at a 'time of blood'].
    He embraces you and says [in broken English], 'friend, I give great honour you: you kill just one of the six and I let other five go free - the gods love it'!
    If you turn him down he will have all six killed anyway and decide that you were not the gifted stranger he had expected to visit him.

    In philosophy we have something called 'thought experiments' where ideas are tested using hypotheticals, whether in morals, epistemology etc.,


    Quote Originally Posted by rainman View Post
    Less successful people have weaker morals, more successful people have stronger morals.
    I think it is only a retard or simple minded plebian that thinks lying, cheating and stealing is really beneficial to the individual or makes him stronger. It doesn't. It weakens the community which you depend on. It causes necessary retribution (from any healthy people) and so on. Where can you find the most theives, liars, lazy people etc.? In the poverty stricken ghetto.
    Actually, I would say that you will find the biggest liars and cheats in the upper echelons of society, either in power or in the richest elites.
    Thrasymachus in Plato's Republic says that 'injustice is profitable' - or 'crime pays', as we hear today.

    Of course, all societies need to have a secret service of some kind which spies, srpeads propaganda [lies] and attempts to undermine the enemy covertly [cheating].

    But as you infer, the question is one of community. Even the biggest gangsters have a sense of loyaty and truth among themselves ['honour amongst thieves']. The question is, while we must be moral and ethical amongst our own kin - must we be so to others who are outside that category?
    More importantly, must we always be truthful to our enemies?
    Wouldn't it be more moronic to truthfully reveal your vulnerabilities and defences to your enemy when asked to tell the truth?
    Why are there beings at all, & why not rather nothing?
    [Leibniz/Heidegger]

  5. #15
    Senior Member Psychonaut's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Last Online
    Wednesday, May 18th, 2016 @ 02:34 AM
    Ethnicity
    Acadian
    Country
    United States United States
    State
    Pennsylvania Pennsylvania
    Gender
    Age
    36
    Politics
    Old Stock Nativism
    Religion
    Heathen Theosophy
    Posts
    928
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    1
    Thanked in
    1 Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Moody View Post
    Clearly, the position becomes this: are your family of your ethnic group?
    Is one's ethnic group not part of one's family? [whether one has children or not].
    This raises the difficulty of the distinction you made. Why should only certain members of your ethnic group [those you call your family] be worth more to you than any other menbers of your ethnic group?
    This may be the reason why Plato thought the Guardians should have children only in common with other Guardians [i.e., rejecting the nuclear family unit].
    Naturally we are all of the same ethnic group. They are the number one priority because they are my personal sub-set of our ethnic group. I'd imagine that couples who miscegenate would not place their respective ethnic groups in their hierarchy.
    "Ocean is more ancient than the mountains, and freighted with the memories and the dreams of Time."
    -H.P. Lovecraft

  6. #16
    Senior Member Patrioten's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Last Online
    Thursday, September 19th, 2019 @ 04:32 AM
    Ethnicity
    Swedish
    Country
    Sweden Sweden
    Gender
    Politics
    Conservative
    Religion
    Protestant
    Posts
    1,919
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    2
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    5
    Thanked in
    5 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Moody
    The distinction is not hard and fast - ethics is from the Greek and morals from the Latin [Cicero's translation, I believe]. The most useful distinction to make is that 'ethics' refers to character [as the word 'ethos' means 'character' - hence 'virtue ethics']; while 'moral' relates to behaviour [mores are customs] - so we tend to refer to 'Utilitarian morality'.
    Ethos is character while morals is behaviour.
    My philosophical education was very limited in scope and depth so I will trust you on that.


    What-Ifs are useful ways of testing moral positions. I gave them in abbreviated form for space. The one on the mob chasing a friend clearly shows the clash between lying and loyalty. True, these are extreme examples - but it is often only in extreme situations that our moral and ethical calibre is challenged [just as it is easy to win a war in one's armchair].
    Yes but it becomes more interesting if the examples are made to be as realistic as is possible, since reality is more complex than examples that are less detailed, that was all I meant by it.

    The 5 individuals scenario can be expanded thus. You are a visitor to the wilds of South America on an adventure holiday. You visit a village where the local chieftain has sentenced six people to die and is about to have them executed. Your presence in the village excites some interest and the chieftain is fascinated to welcome a doughty European, seeing the visit as propitious [the scriptures had spoken of a 'gifted white stranger' to come at a 'time of blood'].
    He embraces you and says [in broken English], 'friend, I give great honour you: you kill just one of the six and I let other five go free - the gods love it'!
    If you turn him down he will have all six killed anyway and decide that you were not the gifted stranger he had expected to visit him.
    I would have to turn him down. Killing a person out in the jungle where the legality is in doubt, and where I could not count on being immune from prosecution, does not appear to be worth the risk to save 6 strangers.

    The example I could think of would be in a combat situation where some cannot make themselves kill the enemy even when it puts their own squad members in danger, they refuse to fire their weapons and thus deem the life of their comrades (and their own) are not worth killing the enemy soldier over.

    In philosophy we have something called 'thought experiments' where ideas are tested using hypotheticals, whether in morals, epistemology etc.,
    I am quite familiar with the concept .

    But as you infer, the question is one of community. Even the biggest gangsters have a sense of loyaty and truth among themselves ['honour amongst thieves']. The question is, while we must be moral and ethical amongst our own kin - must we be so to others who are outside that category?
    More importantly, must we always be truthful to our enemies?
    Wouldn't it be more moronic to truthfully reveal your vulnerabilities and defences to your enemy when asked to tell the truth?
    When dealing with an enemy, your morality needs to be flexible, obviously. In wars we act in ways which would be immoral and unethical in civilian life. Loyalty becomes limited to the nation or the military you are fighting for, truth does not apply either to the other side.

  7. #17
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Last Online
    Friday, May 6th, 2011 @ 08:10 AM
    Ethnicity
    Norwegian English and Swedish
    Ancestry
    Nowegian English father ,Swedish mother
    Subrace
    Nordid
    Country
    United Kingdom United Kingdom
    Location
    Valhalla
    Gender
    Family
    In a steady relationship
    Posts
    172
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    0
    Thanked in
    0 Posts

    Cool

    Assertiveness- Not always agressive or Passive
    Beauty
    Caring
    Cleanliness
    Commitment
    Manners
    Loyalty
    Compassion/empathy
    Confidence
    Faithfulness
    Consideration
    Friendliness
    Patience
    Honesty
    Gentleness
    Responsibility
    Courage/Bravery/Valor
    Creativity
    Curiosity
    Reliability
    Imagination
    Happiness
    Humor
    Lovingness
    Strength
    Wisdom
    Romantic
    Supportive
    Goal oriented
    Gratitude
    Respectful
    Humble
    Trustworthy
    Loyal
    Helpful
    Friendly
    Courteous
    Kind
    Obedient
    Cheerful
    Thrifty
    Brave
    Clean

  8. #18
    Spenglerian
    "Friend of Germanics"
    Skadi Funding Member

    Caledonian's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Last Online
    Tuesday, July 26th, 2011 @ 06:30 AM
    Status
    Available
    Ethnicity
    Scottish
    Ancestry
    Scotland,England, Germany,Austria,Switzerland
    Subrace
    Alpinid
    Country
    United States United States
    Location
    Sverige snart nog
    Gender
    Age
    32
    Family
    Single adult
    Occupation
    RecyclingPlant / College Student
    Politics
    Socially Progressive Nationalism
    Religion
    Atheist, Nihilist, And Mystic
    Posts
    2,432
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    0
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    4
    Thanked in
    4 Posts
    None.

    I'm a moral and ethical skeptic along with being a moral nihilist.

    There is no such thing as good, evil, right, and wrong as those are only fabricated concepts.

    There is only consequence and reaction.

    There is only what you can do and what you can't do.

    There is only what others allow you to do and what others refuse to allow you to do.

    Moral and ethical philosophies have weakened western civilization with all their giant deceptions. It's no wonder why those who seek to destroy our race and culture are so fond of using them against us because many of our people are so deluded to still believe in them especially the religious.


    I believe in honor, integrity, conviction, dedication, and community but not at the expense of becoming another mindless social slave of today's so called egalitarian collective socialism that is the very anti thesis of independent individuality to the point of being perverse.
    National Socialism is the only salvation for Germanics and Europids everywhere. Capitalism, libertarianism, and communism is the enemy.

    National socialized collectivism must prevail over radical individualism.

  9. #19
    Senior Member SaxonCeorl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Last Online
    Sunday, June 17th, 2018 @ 07:16 PM
    Ethnicity
    Anglo-American
    Gender
    Posts
    418
    Thanks Thanks Given 
    4
    Thanks Thanks Received 
    13
    Thanked in
    7 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by AlaricLachlan View Post
    None.

    I'm a moral and ethical skeptic along with being a moral nihilist.

    There is no such thing as good, evil, right, and wrong as those are only fabricated concepts.

    There is only consequence and reaction.

    There is only what you can do and what you can't do.

    There is only what others allow you to do and what others refuse to allow you to do.
    That.

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Similar Threads

  1. Puritan Values or MBA Values?
    By Nachtengel in forum Protestantism
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: Tuesday, May 4th, 2010, 01:46 AM
  2. Debate Needed on Sexual Morals
    By Dagna in forum Men, Women, & Relationships
    Replies: 10
    Last Post: Thursday, January 15th, 2009, 04:36 PM
  3. Jewish Family Values
    By Mercator in forum Cultural & Linguistic Anthropology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: Wednesday, June 7th, 2006, 12:16 AM
  4. On American Morals by G.K. Chesterton
    By Frans_Jozef in forum The United States
    Replies: 8
    Last Post: Wednesday, September 8th, 2004, 08:20 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
  •