Warning!

Warning. The following publications may induce intense reasoning.

Monday, October 6, 2014

The New Moral Guide


Download this blogcast in MP3 Audio.

A society may be defined, primarily, by its' moral code. Those social rules that each member follows, every day and willingly, and from an understanding of their benefits.

Modern societies tend to latch on to outdated moral codes that served partially nomadic and tribal folk, but do not serve the needs and understandings that we now have.

The human condition is measured through freedom. The freedom to act, and freedom from being acted upon by others. We now know, fully and wholly, that the thing that makes us "modern" is that freedom that we have gained, from both technology & morality. However, the more free we become, the more evident are the chains that still bind us.


No person should ever serve another!


Not in coercion, not under threat, not with payment or barter, and not even willingly. It is evil for any person to serve another. In doing so, they give something that is not to be considered an item for trade or purchase; human life.

An analogy, to help see the logic behind this statement, would be prostitution.

At a quick glance, there may seem to be nothing wrong with a person giving, or selling, their body for sexual pleasures, instead of for romantic intimate love. It seems like an entirely personal, subjective choice.

Nevertheless, study shows that such behavior leads to post-traumatic stress syndrome, and all of the problems that follow, such as severe depression and self-harm.

All of that, without even going into the problems of unplanned children, their mistreatment, and the sort of adults they usually turn into. Truly a tragedy.

The entire service industry is akin to prostitution. When societies embrace human servitude, people sell themselves, and sell themselves short; because that is how trade works. Items always become cheaper and more accessible. In this case, the items are people's lives and freedoms.

An industry that sucks out the dreams of people, and returns instead mild comforts.


Some say that removing money from the equation will solve this problem. For example, The Venus Project and its' Zeitgeist fellowship go into detail, about the waste of human life modern societies inflict, and how it could all be solved through technology.

Even though they do acknowledge that it is trade in human service that is at fault, for them money is to blame. Anthropology begs to differ. Tribal humans, even without money, or coin, find ways to trade in services. After all, it makes sense to sell your services, at the expense of "some" freedom, when there is no moral rule to contradict such behavior.


On the other hand, there are those who claim that a free market will liberate us. The Libertarians, while adding to moral development in modern societies, embracing well-proven moral concepts, such as the NAP and Property-Rights, also turn a blind-eye to the evidence.

Free markets have existed throughout time, and even when and where they do, prostitution and the trade & enslavement of people were the norm!


Realizing that this problem can only be solved by a social decree - an enforced moral code of conduct, Anarchists claim the higher ground. A society of anarchy is not a chaotic society, at all. It is, rather, a society where social hierarchies are banned. No person is accepted as better than another. We are all equals, working together, and there is no authority above us; us consenting adults.

Yet, even those at the edge of experimentation and study, miss to clearly identify human servitude as an immoral practice. They would claim that as long as the servitude is voluntary, then it is fair. Obviously, wrong conduct is wrong, regardless of it being allegedly voluntary, or otherwise.

Nothing can stop a person, under threat and forced into serving another, from saying that they do so willingly. This behavior is well known in fascist regimes, where everybody loves the leader publicly, but secretly and quietly fear for their lives. No evidence to the contrary will ever be established, in such circumstances.


Religions had also embraced moral codes, but betrayed them through time, and missed out on developing their morality. Servitude and enslavement were, and are, encouraged by contemporary religions. Even regardless of money, people always were enslaved, or allegedly chose to enslave themselves, to churches and priests.

Many even became martyrs, the most extreme case of human servitude, and massacred innocents by the thousands, in the name of their leaders and creed. Pure evil willful-ignorance.

The concept of one person serving another, no matter why or how, goes against logic and evidence. It is evil. Servitude is unnecessary for societies.

People have always enjoyed working together, as equals in society, even when not equal in their own professions. After all, being good at something does not make that person simply better than another.

Thursday, September 26, 2013

Only The Wise Person Is Good

And the stupid person is bad. Let us clarify!

I have always liked the infamous quote, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." Other versions go something like this:

"Hell is full of good meanings, but heaven is full of good works." - Variation

"L'enfer est plein de bonnes volontés et désirs." - Saint Bernard of Clairvaux

"Facilis descensus Averno." - Virgil's Aeneid



What does this mean?

If a person's view of what is good or right is such that it ignores other people's views, then by necessity, that person will harm those others. This is, because being considerate of other people requires the use of empathy and sympathy based on information. When a person bases their feelings on personal opinion, then their actions ignore the will of others.

In other words, a person who is ignorant of the will (even opinion) of others, is bound to create conflict between themselves and those others, eventually and often.

How can a person take others into consideration without knowing what they think?

No person can take others into account, without knowing them properly. It is true that some things seem easily generalized. Noticeable examples would be the need for food and water, hygiene and the company of others. Never the less, beyond the very basic needs, without proper communication, there is no way to avoid the conflict of wills.

This is why we have the Golden Rule in its' variations:

"己所不欲,勿施於人。" – Confucius

"Regard your neighbor's gain as your own gain, and your neighbor's loss as your own loss." – Laozi

"Do not do to your neighbor what you would take ill from him." – Pittacus

Do notice that I take only the versions that use negation. I do not think that a person who chooses to harm themselves should harm others, likewise.
Pittacus would agree!

All Time Popular Posts