Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Morals and Ethics
-By Caleb Jones
As usual, we need to get our definitions straight before we can have a discussion about this. Morals are your internal sense of what is right and wrong. It comes from you and your own internal beliefs, and that’s about it.
On the other hand, ethics come from Societal Programming (whether factually accurate or not), and are a set of rules that come from your culture and era. Ethics change from time to time. For example, in today’s Western culture, it is considered unethical to punch your wife. Several decades ago, it was not only ethical, but recommended. It still is in certain cultures today.
Your own internal morality can be influenced by Societal Programming as well; thus the phrase, “That’s not the way I was raised,” a phrase I mock mercilessly in my #5 podcast.
Given all this, we have three serious problems with both ethics and morality:
1. Your morality comes from you, and as a human being, you are flawed, and thus can be wrong. Therefore, your morals can be wrong in the sense that they may not reflect objective reality.
For example, if you were raised in a very sheltered, Christian environment where marriage was pushed hard, and because of this upbringing you were ignorant of the fact that the real divorce rate today is north of 70%, as well as ignorant to the damage divorce does to men and children (and women sometimes too, to be fair) in the modern era, you would probably consider not getting married as immoral. Yet, your morality would be wrong, based on both ignorance and outdated data, regardless of how strongly you felt about it.
If I came along and shoved a bunch of facts, science, and statistics in your face, and helped you to see objective reality for what it really is, then maybe you’d wake up to the fact that your morality was wrong all along, and modify it. Or maybe you’d call me an asshole and dig in even deeper, but that still doesn't make your morality objectively accurate.
2. Your morality is customized to you, and thus, might make you happy. But what makes you happy may not make someone else happy. Your identical morality may even make someone else very unhappy and really screw up their life. Therefore, projecting your own morality onto someone else can sometimes be harmful.
I just love it when people with very low sex drives lecture other people with healthy sex drives about how immoral sex is (or premarital sex, or whatever). Sure, not having sex very often is probably great for you, but it will probably make your neighbor very unhappy.
And so on. Despite what the right-wingers think, morality is often not something validly transferable from one person to the next.
3. Your ethics come from Societal Programming, which, as I’ve demonstrated hundreds of times over many years, can not only be wrong, but is usually wrong regarding just about everything. Societal Programming is the result of the elites maintaining their power over you, not a system by which you will achieve and maintain happiness.
History is full of examples of this. For thousands of years, slavery was considered perfectly ethical by all, even, in many cases, by the slaves themselves(!). In Ancient Greece, it was perfectly ethical for wealthy old men to have nonconsentual sex with nine year-old boys. The Societal Programming of those times was objectively barbaric; therefore the ethics were inaccurate.
Societal Programming today isn’t quite as horrible, but it’s still very bad. Millions of people still think honest nonmonogamy is unethical, and that monogamy and/or traditional monogamous marriage is the most ethical way to be with someone. This is false Societal Programming of course, a holdover from an era where condoms, birth control, paternity testing, STD testing, online dating, and retirement investing didn’t exist, and where the divorce rate was 8% instead of 70%. The conditions have radically changed, but the stupidly outdated ethics have not. Once again, the ethics are wrong because the Societal Programming is wrong.
That doesn’t mean all Societal Programming is wrong. There are unusual cases where Societal Programming is correct. Ethics, via Societal Programming, tells us to not steal from others or commit murder. Those things are objectively accurate, in that we can’t have a functioning society where people are going around slaughtering each other whenever they feel like it.
The problem is for every one correct aspect of Societal Programming (“Don’t murder people”) there are hundreds, if not thousands of aspects that are false (“Republicans are for small government” “Democrats don’t start wars” “Weight loss is mostly about exercise” “Your marriage will last forever if she hasn’t fucked too many guys” “The crash of 2008 was caused by too much capitalism”).
Therefore, if I used the public soapbox of my blogs to preach what is moral or ethical, the comments would be jam-packed with people complaining that my morality is purely subjective (which it mostly is), that my morality may not work for others (which is true), and that my morality is just flat out “wrong” since it doesn’t align with right-wing or left-wing Societal Programming (which doesn’t mean it’s wrong… actually it’s more likely to be right if that’s the case, but that’s a discussion for another time).
Therefore, instead of talking about what is moral or ethical, I instead talk about what will most likely make you happy in the long-term. Morality and ethics are almost always subjective, but what will make you happy is much more objective (though still not 100%, since everyone is different).
I’ll use the issue of lying as a simple example. I don’t lie. Ever. To qualify that...
- That doesn’t mean I use sarcasm; I’m a very sarcastic guy, but sarcasm isn’t lying.
- That doesn’t mean I never make mistakes; I’m human and make mistakes all the time, but that’s not lying.
- That doesn’t mean I have to constantly disclose everything I’m doing; I’m free to not disclose anything I don’t want to. Not disclosing something isn’t lying (and if you think it is, you really need to read this).
- That doesn’t mean I have to answer questions; oh I’m very good at refusing to answer questions. But refusing to answer a question isn’t lying.
Instead, I never say anything that I know is untrue (unless I'm clearly being sarcastic). I just don’t do it, regardless if it’s here talking to thousands of readers, or on a first date with a woman, or doing business with a client, or talking to someone one-on-one in my family or social circle. Not lying is actually part of my personal Code, a concept I talk about in my book, which is my own guiding set of morals that works for me.
Indeed, I have lost out on a few big business deals where I could have made a lot of money if I had just lied a little. I’ve lost out on having sex or relationships with certain attractive women if I had just been an Alpha Male 1.0 and lied about not having sex with other women. In my past, I could have avoided certain arguments with people I loved if I had just lied instead. And so on.
Then why do I have this rule? I’d love to tell you that I have a rule against lying because I’m a moral, ethical man. But nope, that’s not why I have that rule at all. I don’t care at all about morals and ethics in and of themselves, since as I just demonstrated, they can be inaccurate and subjective. I have my own personal Code, and I adhere to it, but that's completely subjective too. I would never shove my Code onto someone else. It may not work for others.
And yes, there have been isolated scenarios in my life where I really, really wanted to lie. But I don’t do future unhappiness, so I had to tell the truth.
This is why I recommend to other men to never lie to women. Lying to women is not only beta, but will simply create unhappiness in the future. That’s unacceptable to the Alpha Male 2.0.
Thus, all my advice to men, regardless if it’s woman advice, business or financial advice, lifestyle design advice, or any other advice revolves around what will make you happy in the long-term, not what is moral or ethical. This is even when my advice happens to coincide with today's morals and ethics, like when I tell monogamous men to not cheat.
If your response to that is that focusing on happiness will cause you to engage in actions that are not moral, then you need to read Chapter 2 in my book, where I describe how the goal of long-term happiness automatically forces you to be a generally good person. It’s built into the system.
Want over 35 hours of how-to podcasts on how to improve your woman life and financial life? Want to be able to coach with me twice a month? Want access to hours of technique-based video and audio? The SMIC Program is a monthly podcast and coaching program where you get access to massive amounts of exclusive, members-only Alpha 2.0 content as soon as you sign up, and you can cancel whenever you want. Click here for the details.
Get Free Email Updates!
Join us for FREE to get instant email updates!
Prodia 2017-09-11 05:36:59
>>>>> That doesn’t mean I have to answer questions; oh I’m very good at refusing to answer questions. It's the most typical INTJ thing ? By doing that actually by definition you could either state the 'not explicit' answer OR to reap the benefit of plausible deniability, later. PS. I can neither confirm nor deny that this is my first real comment on this blog.
Telomere 2017-09-11 06:15:36
Oh boy.. Jon Snow's morality. Never lie! You mean Never Ever Ever?! It's seem like a good portrait of character in fantasy movie but foolishness in real world.
The New Yorker 2017-09-11 06:27:38
But BD, what about people whose happiness inevitably stems from the unhappiness of others and sometimes themselves? For instance, the psychopath or pedophile who was genetically born as a monster. Wouldn't that conflict with your idea that "the goal of long term happiness forces one to be good?" Or do you consider those types of people part of the 2% rule?
Tom 2017-09-11 07:01:36
BD, interesting article, a minor quibble with your statement that you never lie, I believe your flirting with " delusions of grandeur", using the word, " never", aside from that I enjoy your work,all the best, Tom
Tim 2017-09-11 09:00:43
This is something I've implemented in my own life as well. Started when I was a child and accused of lying when I was telling the truth. I decided the only way to prevent that is to have a reputation of never lying. I do have one scenario where I believe lying is appropriate however. When in a situation where your personal safety or freedom is in jeopardy, and lying can get you out of the situation. While its better to not put yourself into those situations to begin with, sometimes you don't have the foresight to avoid them or made a choice with certain risks and consequences.
Dawson Stone 2017-09-11 09:01:11
Sam Harris wrote a 25-page essay that I highly recommend on Lying. It is largely based on a semester long course he took at Stanford where the entire course was the class coming up with different scenarios trying to find a case where lying ultimately created a better outcome than telling the truth. They were unable to do so. There is one area where I think it can be tricky. What do you do when someone shares a secret with you? Perhaps your best friend confides in you that he cheated on his wife. A few months later you are at a party with your friend and his wife is there as well and she pulls you aside and asks you if her husband is having an affair. You could try to avoid answering the question in a clever way (“It sounds like you two are having some issues. I am sorry but I really can’t get in the middle of things.”), but being in any way evasive might be seen as an admission of guilt of your best friend and land him in hot water or even divorce court. You could even say he deserves it but you are now involved because you didn't lie. The other form of lying that I see perpetrated all the time is intellectual dishonesty. In people’s effort to not look bad or to win an argument they will intentionally distract from the issue or point you made using all manner of debate tactics to distract for their flawed argument. I am reminded about an argument I had with my daughter when she was around 6 or 7 years old. I don’t even recall what the argument was about. But a few minutes into the argument, with her eyes welling up in frustration, she said, “Daddy I don’t know how to argue as well as you do but you are wrong. Please listen to what I am saying.” This comment stopped me in my tracks. As I said, I don’t recall the topic but I do recall that she was actually right about what we were arguing about and I was simply trying to win the argument. I apologized, agreed that she was right and told her I would be more careful in our conversations from then forward. BD's points on ethics are spot on. Ethics are shifting all the time. You might have one set at work, another based on your religion and another based on your culture. Society does benefit from having a shared set of ethics but there is one big problem: What is best for society is often NOT best for the individuals in that society. Marriage is a good example of this. I can see why the marital construct helps the greater society (as the marriage rate has dropped and the divorce rate has increased our society has gotten much worse) but it is a happiness killer - especially for men. I am with BD on this one. Pursue your own happiness and let society fend for itself.
Blackdragon 2017-09-11 13:17:26
Never lie! You mean Never Ever Ever?! It’s seem like a good portrait of character in fantasy movie but foolishness in real world.and
BD, interesting article, a minor quibble with your statement that you never lie, I believe your flirting with ” delusions of grandeur”, using the word, ” never”, aside from that I enjoy your work,all the best, TomYes, it's impossible for a human being to literally never lie. I'm sure if you followed me around with a clipboard 24/7 for a few years you'd catch me in a very small number of white lies, particularly when I'm caught off guard and let words fall out of my mouth, like telling a kid Santa Clause is real, "No officer, I didn't see that speed limit sign," telling a female family member that the dress she's wearing doesn't make her look fat, and so on. You get my point though.
But BD, what about people whose happiness inevitably stems from the unhappiness of others and sometimes themselves? For instance, the psychopath or pedophile who was genetically born as a monster. Wouldn’t that conflict with your idea that “the goal of long term happiness forces one to be good?” Or do you consider those types of people part of the 2% rule?Yes, 2% Rule, or at least a 5% (or so) exception to the rule. As always, the exception proves the rule.
Johnny Ringo 2017-09-11 13:45:35
I don't tell lies that harm either. I am around a lot of people who do, but early in life I learned the challenge of having to remember all of your lies, and I remember very much how much I disliked being lied to. My philosophy on the matter came from a Mark Twain essay, entitled: On the Decay of the Art of Lying http://www.online-literature.com/twain/1320/ In it, he shows that everyone lies. But, it's the difference between the lies that harm and being a brutal pervayor of truth. (white lies vs lies that harm)
Leon 2017-09-12 00:14:39
This is an interesting topic to dig deep into IMO. As Alpha 2.0s, we have many conflicts with SPs and ethical standards, even our own morals can fight against us sometimes. You know something is right but you can't get rid of the weird feeling from doing it, ''because you were raised like that'' and ''it's selfish and makes others unhappy'' (the Christian example in this article is spot on). I was raised in a typical Asian culture. Unlike in the West where individuality trumps all, morals, shames and social ethics are much bigger deals here. BD's lifestyle and blog opened my eyes and most of it rings true to me. However, after more than 1 year reading/researching/practicing Alpha2.0 materials, I still find it hard to get rid of the weird/bad feeling sometimes. It comes when I do things deemed ''selfish/unethical'' and caused my parents to be upset, when dating and having sex with girls with no intention to marry them, when choosing a more free career but not the traditional reputable jobs, when seeing my extreme-feminine-but-very-low-drama OLTR cries in my arms when we do ''the talk'' and I refuse to have marriage anytime soon, despite her getting massive social-and-family pressures for it... All of that, while I believe is right for me and will bring me consistent long-term happiness, also make me feel bad and uneasy and sometimes give me doubts. Maybe I need a slap in the face, or I have to move to a Western country (despite all the ''collapsing'' talks?)
VJ 2017-09-12 08:59:10
You have mentioned in your articles, to having had clandestine affairs with married women & pregnant women despite aggressively advocating an 'abundance approach' towards women. A couple of posts back you mentioned that the married ones, did end up giving you drama and then you were compelled to keep away from married women. Would it not have been more practical to not get into it at all?
Blackdragon 2017-09-12 10:14:35
You have mentioned in your articles, to having had clandestine affairs with married women & pregnant women despite aggressively advocating an ‘abundance approach’ towards women.I don't see the disparity. Having an abundance mentality means that even married women and pregnant women are available to you, if you're attracted to them.
A couple of posts back you mentioned that the married ones, did end up giving you drama and then you were compelled to keep away from married women.Some of them, yes, but not all. That was more of an overall warning based on what I've seen other men go through when they hook up with married women.
Would it not have been more practical to not get into it at all?No, because I've not been dumb enough to actually carry on an ongoing relationship with a long-term married woman. Just sex a few times. And all of them came to me, making the sex very easy and time management friendly.
CrabRangoon 2017-09-12 11:44:55
I could care less about societies "ethics" since most are passed down by hypocrites who don't even walk the walk. They are typically just used by those in power to remain in power. They don't follow their own ethics that they heap on the masses. The fact that ethics change all the time should prove they don't mean jack and are subject to the whims of the times in which we live. Just like when "tradition" gets thrown around, considering many traditions are not that old in the grand scheme of the world. Good old traditional marriage is a prime example. What is traditional now was not so 100 years ago. Just like now gay marriage is more or less considered ethical, it was not so even 20 years ago.
Cronos 2017-09-12 17:30:42
For me, the best ethical system is the Kantian Categorical Imperative: One should not act in accordance with any principle that one cannot rationally wish as universal law.
Blackdragon 2017-09-12 18:35:58
For me, the best ethical system is the Kantian Categorical Imperative: One should not act in accordance with any principle that one cannot rationally wish as universal law.I'm aware of the Categorical Imperative and I agree with it in the macro, but not in the micro. In other words, I think all men should pursue long-term consistent happiness, but I don't think all men should have MLTR's (as just one example).
joelsuf 2017-09-12 20:14:57
Ethics, via Societal Programming, tells us to not steal from others or commit murder.This isn't exactly hardwired into any ethical code yet, as the current narrative allows for big government to steal and murder anyone they please.
what about people whose happiness inevitably stems from the unhappiness of others and sometimes themselves? Or do you consider those types of people part of the 2% rule?This is much more than 2%. If they were given the opportunity where they faced no consequences, people would gladly make others unhappy to make themselves happy. Schadenfreude is our default method of making ourselves happy. Being aware of this and micromanaging it is necessary for long term happiness. I used to have major issues with this, but now I don't. I wish BD talked about this more.
Parade 2017-09-13 00:10:23
To bring this more back to dating...what do you do about women who, after messaging a couple times, you get the feeling they won't work at all. Send them a nice thanks but no thanks? Ghost on them? If they ask why, do you tell them? (for example, let's say you get the distinct impression that, though she's not over-33, she will act over-33 when you meet up -- some kind of "I'd love to meet, but here are a couple more questions first" style thing)
Blackdragon 2017-09-13 09:27:25
To bring this more back to dating…what do you do about women who, after messaging a couple times, you get the feeling they won’t work at all. Send them a nice thanks but no thanks? Ghost on them? If they ask why, do you tell them? (for example, let’s say you get the distinct impression that, though she’s not over-33, she will act over-33 when you meet up — some kind of “I’d love to meet, but here are a couple more questions first” style thing)I usually tell them that I'm not what they're looking for, because I try to be a nice guy, but to be honest there have been rare times I've ghosted. It depends on the scenario.
Gil Galad 2017-09-13 12:08:29
@Dawson Stone: very good and interesting points. Too often in debate, people are way more concerned about creating a sense of having "won" than about arriving to a truth that may not be the belief they started the discussion with. Granted, mental 'inertia' has its advantages, and our ancestors probably benefited from being a bit skeptical of what's new and not already known to work, but it often turns into an obstacle to progress. There's also the fact that red pill-leaning people get caught up with the idea that the whole "I stand corrected" thing isn't Alpha or something, and it handicaps their ability to judge new arguments fairly.
hey hey 2017-09-13 14:17:08
@Dawson. Being evasive or sarcastic is the best option. The result of this is non of your concern. Your friend will eventually get caught whether you put your little stone or not. If he is your best friend he knows your frame and that you don't lie no matter what. So if he really is your best friend he accepts your principles and that you did your best.
Dawson Stone 2017-09-14 00:49:26
@hey hey It was just an example. The broader point is that while I agree that avoiding lying whenever possible (and it is almost always possible) is the best approach but things aren't always black or white. There are times when someone has made an assumption about me (I knew for a fact they had made an assumption about me) that worked to my advantage and I didn't correct their assumption. I have learned that it is best to never have any absolutes and to never claim certainty. If maximizing happiness is the stated goal (and I agree that it should be) then the hubris of certainty is not the path. Having opinions and a basis for those opinions makes total sense to me. The problems come in when you treat those opinions as facts. 🙂
Cronos 2017-09-14 11:15:13
I think all men should pursue long-term consistent happiness, but I don’t think all men should have MLTR’sGood point. Another good example would be making your own company. While I agree that making a company it is a good idea for a person, if everbody did that, companies could not grow because they also need some people to stay there permanently and make the company grow.
Steve 2017-09-15 00:35:57
Instead of theory and what u want to believe to be true why not examine your own life experiences from half a decade prior when everyone once had lots of enthusiasm for stalking on the streets. Girls: talk to multiple guys they can't help being flirted with lie alot light heartedly, and in serious situations Guys: refuse to talk to another girl cause it's flirting with others don't lie cause we think we are 'honorable' One of the sexes is much better than the other should a break up ever happen.
VJ 2017-09-16 09:27:04
"I don’t see the disparity. Having an abundance mentality means that even married women and pregnant women are available to you, if you’re attracted to them." You mentioned that cheating isn't something you back at all. By saying that it was 'easy' and by partnering in it, its just simply aiding cheating - which you are so against. Felt you may have had stronger hold on yourself than that.
Blackdragon 2017-09-16 09:52:08
You mentioned that cheating isn’t something you back at all. By saying that it was ‘easy’ and by partnering in it, its just simply aiding cheating – which you are so against. Felt you may have had stronger hold on yourself than that.Incorrect. If you're single and you have sex with a married woman, you're not cheating. She is. I'm against you cheating. But if you want to have sex with a married woman provided you don't know her husband and you won't "run into" the husband by accident, and you really want to do it, go right ahead. You're not cheating. I just think the potential for drama is a little higher than normal, so I tend to abstain.
AlphaOmega 2017-09-17 08:45:00
And all of them came to me, making the sex very easy and time management friendly.How did they come to you? You dated them before they got married and they came back? Or she came to a date on a false pretext?
suidine 2017-09-17 11:19:06
As a leftist, I understand your position of self-interested happiness being paramount of all objectives. The difference seems to be that I also believe that aiming for long-term happiness of everyone in society should be part of our overall objective. That is to say, that everyone compromises and sacrifices the maximum amount of happiness they can achieve in to ensure a base-level of happiness for the most people possible. This is irrelevant of your definitions of ethics and morality since I am talking about scientifically defined mechanisms to achieve happiness for the maximum number of people. In some ways our philosophies align since I could argue that socialist governmental structures such as free schools and healthcare for everyone reduce overall crime and antagonism between members of society. So, we partly disagree on the methodology, but there is also another more innate drive in leftist thinking which is a feeling or desire to be altruistic, and that people should be forced to contribute even if they don't have those feelings themselves. This, admittedly is an exercise in projecting our beliefs on the rest of society.. but tough shit. In the end, luck of who and where you were born bears too much influence over whether a person succeeds or not. So, I believe we need to provide more equal starting points. I will assume you disagree with that, but as you say, it's pretty irrelevant. They're both beliefs.
Jack Outside the Box 2017-09-17 13:45:18
I guess responding to this Marxist garbage is how I'm celebrating September 17th: Constitution Day. Kind of appropriate:
As a leftist, I understand your position of self-interested happiness being paramount of all objectives. The difference seems to be that I also believe that aiming for long-term happiness of everyone in society should be part of our overall objective.Then you are against justice! If you actually believe that everyone deserves happiness, your beliefs dictate that all justice in this universe should be suspended, as well as all cause and effect, all merit, all qualifications, and all sanity. I hate you leftists so much for this reason. You think everyone - even those who don't merit it and should be miserable for the rest of their lives if there's any justice in the world - should be happy! This is insane!
That is to say, that everyone compromises and sacrifices the maximum amount of happiness they can achieve in to ensure a base-level of happiness for the most people possible.Now you're describing slavery, which violates the 13th Amendment of our Constitution. Seriously, today is Constitution Day here in the United States! Celebrate it by reading the fucking document! You have no fucking right to tell me how I may or may not lead my life, what sacrifices I must or must not make, or what I must or must not do for other people at the point of a gun. It's my body, my choice! My money, my choice. My life, my choice! Who the fuck do you think you are?
This is irrelevant of your definitions of ethics and morality since I am talking about scientifically defined mechanisms to achieve happiness for the maximum number of people.I don't know what's scarier: The fact that you want to achieve happiness for the maximum number of people (which takes merit out of the happiness equation, thus giving happiness to those who don't deserve it, resulting in the creation of tyrants and narcissists), OR the fact that you want to shove a gun into my face to do it!
In some ways our philosophies align since I could argue that socialist governmental structures such as free schools and healthcare for everyone reduce overall crime and antagonism between members of society.HAHAHAHAHA!!!! Government schools reduce crime? Reduce? I would not send a kid to a government school without giving him a bullet proof vest, whereas most private schools don't even have metal detectors because they're not needed! Your beliefs are literally insane! And "free" healthcare? You mean that thing where the government shoves a gun into my face, thus endangering my health, so that some broke loser can force me to be his slave and take care of his body like I'm his involuntary parent? That "free" healthcare?" Do you also believe I should pay for trannies to get their dicks chopped off?
So, we partly disagree on the methodology, but there is also another more innate drive in leftist thinking which is a feeling or desire to be altruistic,You mean narcissistic "virtue sniveling?" If you want to be a masochist, that's your business, but forcing your self-denial and a desire for pain and sacrifice to alleviate your white guilt unto me is a step too far! Back off!
and that people should be forced to contribute even if they don’t have those feelings themselves. This, admittedly is an exercise in projecting our beliefs on the rest of society.. but tough shit.This, right here, is why I'm such a supporter of the Second Amendment. And it's no coincidence that the left wants to take away the right of the people to protect themselves. They know that if leftist policies are implemented which enslave the people in violation of the 13th Amendment, many people will respond by using the 2nd. So you must preempt any second war of independence by taking the guns away (usually via false flag shootings) before your Marxist dystopia can be instituted. Disgusting!
In the end, luck of who and where you were born bears too much influence over whether a person succeeds or not.This garbage right here betrays shockingly low self esteem and a lack of self-belief. This is why most leftist males don't get laid or are usually put in the friend zone: No confidence. The Bernie Sanders supporting female gives the Bernie Sanders supporting nice guy a kiss on the cheek while she passionately fucks the shit out of the Trump supporting jerk who oozes confidence and self-reliance!
So, I believe we need to provide more equal starting points.Not at the point of a gun! Not by theft! Not by instituting slavery!
I will assume you disagree with that, but as you say, it’s pretty irrelevant. They’re both beliefs.Not all beliefs are equal. Believing in freedom is better than believing in your totalitarian philosophy!
Blackdragon 2017-09-17 14:32:56
How did they come to you? You dated them before they got married and they came back? Or she came to a date on a false pretext?They made it obvious they wanted to get down and dirty with me. I did not have to chase them and I barely had to use any game at all. Monogamy doesn't work, so married "monogamous" women are some of the most sexually aggressive women I've encountered.
The difference seems to be that I also believe that aiming for long-term happiness of everyone in society should be part of our overall objective.That is an impossible objective, as I've demonstrated many times on my blogs.
That is to say, that everyone compromises and sacrifices the maximum amount of happiness they can achieve in to ensure a base-level of happiness for the most people possible.That goes against everything I believe in for a myriad of reasons, the primary one being that the only way to achieve this is to force innocent people at the point of a gun to do certain things they don't want to do.
In some ways our philosophies align since I could argue that socialist governmental structures such as free schools and healthcare for everyone reduce overall crime and antagonism between members of society.I have seen no empirical data indicating this.
So, we partly disagree on the methodology, but there is also another more innate drive in leftist thinking which is a feeling or desire to be altruistic, and that people should be forced to contribute even if they don’t have those feelings themselves.And that's the problem, forcing. You're forcing innocent people at the point of a gun to follow your own sense of right and wrong. I would never do nor advocate such a horrible thing, as I said in the above article.
This, admittedly is an exercise in projecting our beliefs on the rest of society.. but tough shit.Well, at least you're being honest about your totalitarian views. That's more than I can say for most leftists like you. Don't worry though. Most of the planet, including most of the USA, agrees with you and utterly disagrees with me. Your side won quite a while ago, so congratulations. (That's why I'm getting the fuck outta here.)
8/ 2017-09-19 14:05:45
"Morals are your internal sense of what is right and wrong. It comes from you and your own internal beliefs, and that’s about it. On the other hand, ethics come from Societal Programming (whether factually accurate or not), and are a set of rules that come from your culture and era. Ethics change from time to time. Only people with introvered thinking (of feeling) as their main judging function are unlucky or lucky (depends how they go about making use of their "gift") enough to even know, and feel, the difference. Ordinary members of a mammalian social species only take in their mental contents from the environment... that's the course of lesser resistance for a mind. Soon as you step, jump, fall, are pushed by misfortune, off of the crowded rails, you're on your own. There is the Red Pill, but also the Dark Pill after it. And the Winged Pill is hidden beyond the Dark, very well hidden. Especially for Feeling types (as opposed to Thinking) it's a voyage through a hell of disillusionment. A mind will do everything to circumvent the breaking of societal delusions and not lose their comfort. It's likely our kind host BD suffered from some serious pain, at a certain station in his life. Lastly: I think you need a non-ordinarily present tool in your mind...that produces original emotions and ideas and inferences, to escape societal programming. Turning into a successful businessman, or a streetwalk sleeping drunkard (or asylum dweller) depends on whether your ego stands the weight of the Red/Black Pill, or yields and folds under it. Below a set intelligence treshold, there's no way to diverge from societally built rails. Women, also, seem to really have no capacity to do it. I have given up the dream of.being with a programmin-immune woman, and not have to (at least partially, and occasionally) behold the drama of their Id, Ego, and Super Ego interact. But if you try to "teach" them, their only solution to discomfort is figurative, or material eventually, escape.
Nick 2018-03-21 20:35:28
I agree with you about not lying because it causes future unhappiness, however in the case of women, I think lying might be a good idea because women act emotionally not logically, therefore if you can trigger positive emotions in the female by lying, which will ultimately make you both happier; Then wouldn't lying be the best course of action? It's a bit Machiavellian, but I'd be curious to hear your thoughts.
K 2018-03-21 23:52:37
“I think lying might be a good idea because women act emotionally not logically, therefore if you can trigger positive emotions in the female by lying, which will ultimately make you both happier; Then wouldn’t lying be the best course of action?”@ Nick Consistent happiness requires congruence of emotions and logic/ratio. Whenever one or the other is ignored, happiness drops or becomes inconsistent.