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.