HBD and Moral Philosophy

At Z Man’s, an interesting discussion about redpilling.  In the comments, Z Man asserts:

A moral philosophy of HBD [human biodiversity] does not exist yet. But, that does not mean it can’t exist.

Which got me thinking.  So as not to clog up his comment section with abstract stuff, I’m putting it here.

Moral philosophies of HBD, or, at least, moral philosophies that can be consistent with HBD, do exist.  They’re a dime-a-dozen, actually.  Any utilitarian philosophy — “the greatest good for the greatest number” — can easily be HBD-retconned, but there’s an even better one: Kant’s Categorical Imperative.  “Treat others as you’d wish to be treated;” “treat others always as ends, never means;” “do unto others as you would have done unto you;” “don’t do to others what you wouldn’t have done to you*” — these are all great slogans, not to mention fantastic rules to live by.  The problem is, without divine sanction, they’re just good advice.

Nobody has ever marched into battle solely on the strength of good advice.

That’s the first major problem with the HBD-centric view of life.  In Z Man’s wider post, he’s talking about legitimacy.  Why obey a government that not only doesn’t represent you, but seems to actively hate you, and seeks your destruction?  A political philosophy based on HBD alone seems, unavoidably, to entail a caste system.  Which, I think we’d all agree, is a major part of America’s ongoing legitimacy crisis — we live in a “representative government” that seems determined to consign the majority of us to serfdom.

The only way “representative government” seems to work, in fact, is if we’re all pretty much genetically equal.  Which seems to entail — again, unavoidably — genocide.  It would’ve been nice if the Founders had kept all the riffraff of Europe out after 1792… but they didn’t.  It would be nice if all the “recent-Americans,” as (per Vox Day at least) everyone without a Mayflower ancestor seems to be, would self-deport… but they won’t.  We’re stuck with the population we have.

Telling our fellow Americans “caste system, genocide, or both, take your pick” is not a winner, legitimacy-wise.

The fact is, as Z Man himself pointed out in the original post, legitimacy requires something constructive.  People are — as Z also points out, often and at great length — hardwired for belief.  We need something higher than ourselves.  Whether or not that something actually exists is irrelevant; religious (in the broadest sense) belief is part of our brain structure; it shows up in fMRIs.

Which is the second big problem with the all-HBD view of life: It’s self-contradictory.  You’re telling them that the only meaningful thing about humanity is our genes, which — since, on the HBD account of human life, our genes control our belief — entails that our lives are meaningless.

And that’s why “a moral philosophy of HBD” can’t exist.  If the best it can do is good advice — “treat others as you would be treated” — then it’s not a moral philosophy, it’s a Hallmark card.  And since that good Hallmark-card advice seems to rest on nihilism, it’s not even an effective Hallmark card.

I’ll close with a practical example: The French Revolution.  Robespierre et al, like all Leftists always and everywhere, thought they were science’s BFFs.  They knew there’s no God.  But even they acknowledged that the unwashed rabble couldn’t do without it, so they offered up first the Cult of Reason, then the Cult of the Supreme Being.  But the French Revolutionary armies wouldn’t fight for those.  They fought, of course, for la patrie en danger, for the fraternité.

Any government that doesn’t recognize the realities of HBD will fail eventually… but any government that recognizes only HBD will never get started.

 

 

*my favorite, because it’s Hobbes’s.
Loading Likes...

9 thoughts on “HBD and Moral Philosophy

  1. WOPR

    What do you think of China and India being representative of two psuedo HBD societies?

    HBD seems prone to the same flaws as royalty, caste systems, and mandarin classes. Hereditary classes eventually fail. Manadarin’s end up with gamed systems that select for qualities that don’t apply in a changing environment.

    Also, my fully unworked out theory is that a good morality leads to better genetic results.

    Reply
    1. Severian

      HBD as the sole organizing principle of anything is a category error. John Derbyshire has a column somewhere about how high IQ correlates amazingly well with political stupidity. If only PhDs could vote in 1920 — you know, back when you had to have real brains to have one — we would’ve had Soviet America.

      Ditto just about anything else. IQ and behavioral tendencies are heritable, but those don’t correlate, as you say, with a changing environment. Look at the “high trust” gene that Anglo Saxon folks must have. A high trust society got so trusting that it let in a bunch of low trust folks who gamed the system, and here we are.

      A government has to acknowledge HBD. That is, in order to be sustainable, social policy has to reflect reality. The problem is, “acknowledging HBD” is incompatible with “representative government” as currently practiced. I don’t know the answer, but I do know that making HBD the organizing principle of your government is bound to fail.

      Reply
      1. WOPR - Nationalist

        I agree. Acknowledging it is important. It would have stopped the stupidity of “We’ll get rid of our low skill jobs and everyone will become a knowledge worker.” Also, like you said it won’t work in our multicultural society of today with representative government. When everyone in general worships the same god and is of the same general ethnic group, it can work.

        I don’t have a workable answer either. What needs to happen and what is doable aren’t even in the same ballpark.

        Reply
  2. Frip

    Severian. I’m not anywhere close to your level. Just part of the dense “rabble” you mentioned. So please just take this as a true question from someone who’s looking for understanding.

    You are big on people’s need for the spiritual, or the trans effing cendent. But modern life offers so many distractions that people feel passionate about, that I think it will DO for them. Sports teams. Porn. Video games. Rock gods. Dating. Hiking. Sex. Movies. Cuisine fetish. I mean, everything is so juicy and available. Who needs your transcendence? Distractions will do. People get seriously passionate and fulfilled by all these great “material” things.

    Yes, Lefty needs more, because lefty is a neurotic. But your everyday person (the guy you’re trying to recruit) is fine with family, beer and rock.

    I guess I’m sensing that you’re a religious guy covertly trying to push God as the answer.

    Reply
    1. Rod1963

      We don’t need the fat, stupid beer guzzling clowns who want to do fellatio on black athletes and drink cheap beer. They really are a waste.

      That said, people won’t fight for cuisine, sports or any of the other two bit secular distractions you mention. Instead you see those bloodless secularists of Western Europe simply rolling over for a bunch of Muzzie savages and rationalize their children being raped and their wives beaten and robbed for sport as they do now.

      And oh those “juicy things” aren’t very rewarding nor fulfilling, especially when you realize we were told they are worthwhile when they are not thanks to MSM bombarding us from the time we wake up to the time we go to sleep. So much so we sacrifice our health, family and sanity to obtain things that only give transitory pleasure and which ends up on Ebay a year later.

      Reply
      1. Severian

        There it is. If I’m pushing God as the answer, then so must Polybius have been. He said the Romans lost their virtue when they went from Republic to Empire — they traded “hard and manly republican ideals” for “soft and wussy feminine comforts.” He wrote in the 100s BC, though, so I’m not sure what God he was pushing. Zeus?

        I’m talking about what people will actually lay down their lives for. In the day-to-day, yes, Frip is right– bread and circuses will do (n.b. Polybius wrote in the BCs; the Roman Empire still had a few good centuries in it at that point). But the crisis always comes, almost by definition when you’re not expecting it, and at that point, your society’s survival depends on something for which hard men are willing to lay down their lives. A king whose knights are too fat, lazy, and stupid to ride out to battle on his behalf is just a dork in funny clothes. His kingdom is toast, and deservedly so.

        People won’t die for iCrap. If you want the society that’s capable of producing iCrap to survive, you need to instill the virtues that made the iCrap-producing society possible. That’s the transcendent bit. Rome did ok with her “Republican virtue” — leaving aside the fact that Romans were intensely religious, if you want to go with Cato-style virtus, be my guest. I don’t care which god / force / principle you worship, just that you have one capable of holding the Rhine against the barbarians.

        Reply
    2. WOPR

      White’s embraced that ethos and it’s been falling birth rates, rises in out of wedlock births and drug usage, and a general collapse. People need something that is transcendent. Something that says this is how I should live and the reason for it. This is why when things are bad I’m not deserting my wife and family. Why I’m going to suck it up one more day.

      Hedonism, which is what you are describing, isn’t a substitute. Distraction is a good description. One is trying to replace one thing with another that isn’t equivalent. It’s like making bread mainly out of sawdust when food is short and one is starving. It’s a distraction from the problem but doesn’t solve the problem.

      Reply
  3. Frip

    There’s a lot of “should” and “we need to” in these responses. Sort of my fault. I wasn’t very clear. I was asking how you know that man feels a psychological need for the spiritual or transcendent. This is a common topic in Atheist vs. Believer debates. There’s a lot of literature/talk/videos on it. I was just thinking you should explain how you know it to be true. Since it’s often a theme in your writing. Maybe a subject for a future post. Or maybe not, since this isn’t a science/philos/psy site.

    Reply
    1. Severian

      David Hume said that there are some argument so absurd, they elude the force of reason. The idea that humans don’t need something transcendent in their lives strikes me as one of those.

      Evidence? How about History: Every known human culture, at all times and in all places, has had a religion. Evolutionary biology: Religious belief seems to have evolved in tandem with language. Medicine: Religious experience (broadly defined) shows up in fMRI scans.

      And how about the plain evidence of your own two eyes? I’ll bet the cost Obamacare — not the price of a premium, the whole damn program — that every single person you, I, and everyone else knows, has something bigger than themselves that has waaaay disproportionate influence on their lives. Atheists are the best meta-example: They think they have discovered THE transcendent truth — that there is no such thing as transcendent truth — which is why they always bring up atheism within five minutes of meeting you. It’s the only thing that gets them out of bed in the morning.

      For the Left, it’s politics. They can switch their deepest fundamental “beliefs” 180 degrees in the blink of an eye, because the only belief they have that matters is “I am a Liberal.” The specific content of Liberalism is immaterial — just as whatever Joe Stalin found expedient suddenly became the quintessence of Marxism-Leninism, so whatever the hive decides today is The Truth. They are transcendent Leftists.

      For stoners, it’s “being a stoner.” Their entire lives are oriented around advertising how much they like marijuana. For the football fan, it’s his team. I stopped watching football when I realized that I used to wake up angry on Monday when my team lost on Sunday night. For guys in the trailer park, it’s NASCAR or Metallica or whatever. For guys in the ghetto, it’s being “street” (or whatever the current slang is).

      Try telling any of those guys that “it’s just a ___.” Just a herb, just a ball game, just music, just sneakers. If you want to veg out, get the munchies, and laugh at stupid shit, beer works just as well, right? The Cowboys, the Packers, what’s the diff? Just a collection of millionaire mercenaries in tight pants. Pantera’s just as loud and angry as Metallica… Air Jordans are just sneakers….

      There is not, nor has there ever been, a person that doesn’t have something in his life that he’d punch you in the face for saying “it’s just a ____.” That’s the hardwired human need for the transcendent. Any “political” movement that doesn’t recognize it — and offer a way to fill it — is never going to get off blogs with 8 readers.

      Reply

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *