In political debate, there is a lot of talk about morality. One side states that morality should dictate that people should give each other a helping hand, that government should be a safety net for the people, and that the downtrodden should be taken care of, often at the expense of the well-to-do that supposedly became well-to-do at the expense of the downtrodden in the first place. Other political entities argue that real morality is pulling oneself up by their bootstraps, being so-called self-made successes. Some even go so far as to say that those that are weak or incapable, regardless of the reason why, should perish. Who is correct? What is the real definition of morality?
According to Dictionary.com, morality’s first definition as follows:
conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.
The definition of moral may also be of use:
of, relating to, or concerned with the principles or rules of right conduct or the distinction between right and wrong; ethical
So, what is right or wrong? How are these two concepts defined? Are there any hard definitions for these nebulous concepts?
When discussing the issue of morality, based on what I have seen in the real world, two sources immediately come to mind:
Robert A. Heinlein’s Starship Troopers
The basis of all morality is duty, a concept with the same relation to group that self- interest has to individual. – Robert A. Heinlein, Starship Troopers
Self-interest is the desire to survive and to thrive on an individual level. This innate drive can manifest itself in a variety of ways, such as fear, the quest for power, lust for attractive women, striving for money, wanderlust, self-improvement, and much, much more, all depending on the individual, their personal goals, and their position in life.
In society, however, individuals must often set their own goals aside for the greater good of their in-group. This is morality as defined by Heinlein through the character Lt. Col. Jean V. DuBois in action. The individual, or citizen, has a duty to society as a whole. To pursue the overall survival and betterment of one’s group, nation, race, or other in-group, each person must do their part, like it or not.
It is obvious why this definition of morality would not appeal to members of society that are at or on the bottom, or otherwise do not benefit much from being a part of society. For these people, the concept of “going Galt” would likely be more up their alley. Otherwise, there will likely be an unsolvable conflict between their self-interests and morality.
By this definition, I am most certainly sexually immoral. It would be in the better interest of my most defining in-group, the Black Race, to date and marry Black women for the sole purpose of breeding, building a family, and keeping my resources within my own group. My self-interest would be to pursue Northeast Asian women for the sheer pleasure that they bring me. My behavior in the sexual arena is certainly immoral by Heinlein’s definition.
Ragnar Redbeard’s Might is Right
The entirety of Might is Right makes the argument that right and wrong are not truly objective, but made objective by the force that can be executed by the powers that be. Thus, a new regime will bring new definitions of what morality is.
This perspective gives those at the bottom a slim chance of claiming morality, if they can gather strength and oust the current regime that oppresses them. Becoming the new dominant class of society will give them the chance to dictate what is right and wrong, defining a new morality and proving the definition through naked force or cunning.
According to the philosophy espoused by this book, the only immoral thing that a person could do is be powerless. Not being able to withstand one’s adversaries relegates them to a life where they will not be able to survive and/or thrive, unless it is at the mercy of their handlers.
Further reading: Black People Should Read Might is Right
The Definition of Real Morality is Nebulous
What are your opinions of morality, of right and wrong? Are these concepts etched in stone, or are they fluid with the passage of time and different civilizations? From a secular perspective, I lean towards the latter belief, but I certainly would love to hear your insight.