But morality is rationalization only on a certain level, because there is actually an absolute level where morality is connected to absolutes, and where there is no justification at all for fiddling with three-year olds, fucking sheep, or buggering doe-eyed bacha boys. Unfortunately, this absolute level requires much more intellectual rigour than most people are capable of, so morality is effectively an emotional dimension.
But this kind of “I want it, so let’s rationalize it” morality is a comparatively recent innovation. Also it doesn’t necessarily push things – as it has done for decades – towards Leftist degeneracy. As things get worse, it may actually push them in the other way.
Take the ongoing migrant crisis. You often get statements, like that recently made by Christos Stylianides, the EU commissioner in charge of immigration, that we have a "moral duty" to accept migrants:
"Christos Stylianides, the EU commissioner in charge of immigration, enraged Eurosceptics by insisting that turning boats full of migrants round and sending them back to Turkey or Libya is 'against our EU values.'In this case, the existing morality is clearly pushing us to do what we don’t want to do, rather than enabling us to do what we do want to do, which is its much more common application today.
Mr Stylianides is said to have to become angry when he was asked why the EU has not adopted the Australian system of sending boats full of illegal migrants back to their point of origin.
The revelation came as EU leaders threw open the Continent’s doors to Turkey in a deal to tackle the refugee crisis. Talks to start the Turkish accession to EU membership process will now start in days and will eventually give its 77million citizens the right to come to the UK.
In the meantime the Schengen area countries will give Turkey visa free access in exchange for allowing Greece to return migrants who arrive after Sunday back to Turkey after being assessed. And the EU has promised to accelerate payment to Turkey £2.3bn promised last November with a further £2.3bn to also be made available."
|Two Europeans battle to save their nemesis.|
"If morality had naturally no influence on human passions and actions, it were in vain to take such pains to inculcate it; and nothing would be more fruitless than that multitude of rules and precepts, with which all moralists abound. Philosophy is commonly divided into speculative and practical; and as morality is always comprehended under the latter division, it is supposed to influence our passions and actions, and to go beyond the calm and indolent judgments of the understanding. And this is confirmed by common experience, which informs us, that men are often governed by their duties, and are detered from some actions by the opinion of injustice, and impelled to others by that of obligation.Hume's keen psychological insight prepared the way for modern-day morality as rationalization of whatever we want to do, which is where it is now. But once you change from morality acting on the passions to the passions acting on morality, you create a double-edged sword that can cut both ways.
Since morals, therefore, have an influence on the actions and affections, it follows, that they cannot be derived from reason; and that because reason alone, as we have already proved, can never have any such influence. Morals excite passions, and produce or prevent actions. Reason of itself is utterly impotent in this particular. The rules of morality therefore, are not conclusions of our reason."
A Treatise of Human Nature, Book III Of Morals
|Ask not for Hume the bell tolls.|
The present moral status quo is a loose, one-world, globalist, liberal democratic humanism that was cobbled together to undermine Soviet Communism in the Cold War period.
This morality, which is held by EU apparatchiks like Stylianides and most liberal democratic politicians, clearly favours mass migration. Resistance, such as it is, can only be justified by temporary practical difficulties, as in "We can only cope with two million this year," or "We haven’t built enough accommodation yet. Please come later," etc. This is not unlike complaining about being buggered not because you disagree with the act itself but simply because it hurts too much at the moment and you need more time to go shopping for lube.
|That moment when your emotions |
and morals coincide.
Indeed, the version of half-hearted Islamophobia prevalent in the West that seeks to exclude Muslims – but not other non-Whites – on the basis of how radical Islam views Jews, gays, and women, seems to be a expression of this, and an attempt to partially line up with existing liberal morality. But its effectiveness is clearly held back by accepting some of the premises of liberalism, which means that the pressure will continue to build to reformulate morality in accord with a mass emotional rejection of liberal values.
In short the migrant crisis, through the medium of emotionally-derived morality, is creating the forces that will ride roughshod over liberalism and reformulate its outdated morality along much more illiberal lines. Get ready for the ride!