Old Is New Again - of Morality

Me | 04/24/2015 | Me

[tbw2]

Ancient society morality was based on concentric circles, with the free male of that tribe at the center, females and children farther out, foreign and slaves at the bottom. Christianity held that all were equally valid before God, even if not necessarily the same in real life. You may have a master in the world, but your soul was equally valid. That was revolutionary at the time.

Liberalism has brought back the old concentric rings of value. The woman is worth more than a man, hired first, her opinion more valid from her experience. The non-Caucasian is worth more; that person is assumed the victim in a confrontation, given more moral weight in a debate. The heterosexual is assumed inferior by accusations of privilege. The immigrant receives a higher moral weight than the native-born. Question a woman and you must doubly justify your arguments against the person in case you are called sexist. Question a minority and risk being called a racist. Question a stance by a homosexual, risk being called a homophobe. Debate a matter on Islam, you’re an Islamophobe.

Question the arguments or positions of someone, and you are likely to be put in your place, told “check your privilege”; this phrase is reminding of your place in the concentric circles of morality and valued less for being in a lesser one. The demographics of the two parties is more important than the logical reasoning or evidence they bring. The black woman is assumed right compared to the white one, the Latina woman more right than the Asian, the homosexual’s points more valid than the heterosexual, unless overwhelming evidence proves the contrary.

The moral weight and perceived correctness of the argument is assigned to the person with more demographic check marks. White, heterosexual, American men are last on the list. The best they can do is say yes, I uphold these new values wholeheartedly and gain tolerance of their superiors. In the quest for equality, we’ve ended up inverting the totem pole. As if putting those who were on top on the bottom is somehow fair to the next generation, but that’s modern social justice. Those who question the moral system, like any religion, are considered outsiders at best and evil apostates at worse. This is why a black who joins the Tea Party is no longer considered black, an Uncle Tom, thus losing his higher inner circle status and kicked out. A Hispanic who challenges a homosexual on values becomes an argument of who has the higher social status and thus the more right.

Perhaps this is inspired by Islam, where the man is worth twice as much as a woman in court and inheritance. The Muslim is worth twice that of a non-Muslim, but three times that of a non-Dhimmi (Dhimmi are the non-Muslim people of the book who get to pay extra taxes and live disarmed but have paid for the privilege to live as non-Muslims in a Muslim state). Slaves are worth less than Muslims, unless they step into an inner circle by committing to Islam. The free are worth more than the slave, but becoming a “slave of Allah” makes him morally and socially more than the Christian slave.

Social engineering means that there is deliberate suppression of information contrary to the narrative, like religious mantras not to ask questions that challenge dogma. The charge of racism isn’t applied to many minorities such as blacks attacking Hispanics for moving into “their neighborhood” and brought up regarding the “knockout game”, where blacks assault whites for fun. This is the same reason you’ll see the race of a Caucasian perpetrator always mentioned if the attacker was white, but almost never if the perpetrator is black. The biases in favor of specific groups come up with the assumption that a rape victim must always be believed, despite repeated proven false stories from Tawana Bradley to the Rolling Stones fake expose of college “rape” culture.

We haven’t moved to a flat society, where all people are valued equally for their abilities and contributions. We’ve abandoned Martin Luther King’s “don’t judge them for the color of their skin but the content of their character”.

There is a moral adage not to punish the children for the sins of the parents, but that is the result of such a system. Because someone’s grandparents participated in Jim Crow and one of their great-great grandparents might have owned slaves, they are considered last for a job, the first fired, the aggressor in any confrontation and wrong in a discussion unless proven otherwise.

Witness Ben Affleck trying to suppress three slave owning ancestors in a PBS genealogy research project – as if a far left progressive paragon could suffer today for having such ancestry. Actually, he could, because it negates all the social merit his charitable acts and the moral value that his cohorts have allowed him as a white man for adhering to far liberal dogma. He has value only in the outer circle as a member of the religion, and he is cast out for having any association with the “untouchables”. Wealth can offer some protection, just as donating jiyza to the Islamic state let dhimmis continue as Jews and Muslims under Sharia law. But we’ve moved back to a moral pyramid, where some groups are inferior to others, and he’s truly afraid for his career (at least not his life) for having any “impure” associations.

The old morality is new again. We’ve moved back to the pagan concentric circles of moral value, inverting what was hated by many of the 1950s of the white man being the paragon of society, somehow considering that moral progress while committing new inequities on an innocent generation. The old morality brought back as the new morality is an immoral one for that reason.

[DiogenesLamp]

And do you have a proposal as to how we deal with it?

[tbw2]

Short of a Great Awakening revival, I don’t know.

[Canedawg]

More bread and circuses!!

/s