Sign into an existing account

If there is a universal goal to life, it is to increase the number of organisms that express genetic traits that are similar to your own, and to increase the number of similar genetic traits that are expressed by those other organisms.

Increase the number of organisms with phenotypes in common to yourself, and increase the number of common phenotypes that coexist within those other organisms.

To this end, many organisms have developed internal systems of reward and punishment that reward them for experiencing perceived conditions that are associated with the increased capacity to fulfill their life's mission to a greater extent, and punish them for experiencing perceived conditions that are associated with the reduction of their ability to fulfill their life's mission to the greater extent.

What motivates all human action are two sets of neurochemicals, reward chemicals that make us feel happiness and pleasure, and punishment chemicals that cause us pain and misery, we are all neurochem addicts chasing the highs and trying to avoid the lows that are given to us by our own brains as a mean of driving us toward what success is on evolutionary terms.

All that we associate with feeling good or bad is merely a proxy for these chemicals that are the actual thing which makes us feel in these ways. We are all monkeys on juice.

The operant conditioning of our joys and sorrows is our desires and fears, these too take many forms, but we are conditioned to pursue some things and avoid other things, the "things" being the perceived existence of certain conditions, usually experiences we are having, have had in the past, or could be having in the future. Some we act to cause, others we act to prevent.

These conditions include the behaviors of others, we feel good or bad in response to what we perceive as being the conduct of other people, and this can motivate us to take actions accordingly to cultivate behaviors on others that make us feel good, but more often we are motivated to take actions to rescue behaviors of others that make us feel bad.

Thus is the essence of our personal moral instinct, what others do makes us feel in certain ways, because of neurochemicals being released in response to perceived environmental stimuli such as the actions of others, because certain environmental condition such as how others are behaving impact our ability to propagate genes similar to our own, particulary our phenotypes.

When we talk about empathy sympathy, conscience, outrage, vengeance, or a sense of justice, all these and more are merely the expressions of evolutionarily programmed releases of neurological chemistry that produces emotion or sensation responses in us, precisely to motivate us to take the actions we've undertaken that help us pursue better conditions for our genetic cause as exists as the standard of the game of life according to evolution.

When we talk about the "objective morality" that conservatives continually refer to, we are actually talking about the moral consensus of our culture and society.

Yes, there are certain primal desires that we have programmed into us from birth, and they are associated with the instinctive needs we have for the survival and procreation of ourselves, our genetic kin, and the potential sources of mates for each.

But what we have in terms of our moral culture, is the interaction of the preferences of many individuals interacting with one another, and finding a common ground where they are complimentary in terms of game theory.

Basically, we are against killing and stealing because we all agreed that we dislike the prospect of being killed or stolen from, basically when humans form a collective, their rules are made to satisfy the negative desires, or fears, of the individual members of that collective.

We place fears above desires when making rules because we perceive our fears as greater, same as we perceive a loss far more intensely than we perceive a gain.
For most of us, life is full of many gains that we feel very faintly, and a few losses which we feel very strongly.

Speaking of which, there are a few primal fears that we get born with, but we have most of our fears as the result of conditioning, we have learned to hate things, same as we have learned to love most of the things that we love. It's part and parcel of living within a society, or any human collective.

Any moral system out there breaks down into egoism when subject to a line of socratic questioning.

It all ultimately reduces down to personal preference, to the value judgement of an individual, typically the one advocating their ethical system or the one who they are proposing it towards.

"What is the nature of morality? What constitutes good or evil?"

And then we ask why they or I should want that, and so on, and at the end it's either "because that's what I want" or "because that's what you would want".

Conservatives hate this, that all that motivates people are subjective experiences relative to their point of observation, that personal feelings are all the things which make us think and act as we do, and that these exist in us because they allow us to increase the number of other being like ourselves, and to increase how much like ourselves such beings would be.

Because conservatives are exactly like the liberals they present themselves in comparison to: they are merely the religious counterpart of their establishment-approved ideological alternative.

Both are a bunch of autistic retards that exist as a clique more than as a group holding any consistent ideological position on anything.

The Bible says nothing about pedophilia and when it speaks of slavery its explicitly encouraged rather than condemned.

Yet the biggest sales campaign of the republicans of today is their opposition to both racism and child abuse. These aren't biblically sound positions to take. Yet they portray this as being due to their religious foundations for morality.

It's not religious, it's peer pressure. These assholes are just like the opposition, for them high school had never ended.

Women are economically advantaged over men.

If older women want a man to provide a family to them and prevent them from becoming a genetic dead end, they can offer to pay for it.

If a younger slut wants us to ignore her past riding the cock carousel and hoeing it up on onlyfans, she can pay me to look the other way.

Either way, me raising a bitch's bastard kids for her will cost her extra, and I will only do it if they look enough like me that I can pass them off in public as being my own.

We're manchildren, peter pans, and the best the pre-/post-wall foids can get.

It doesn't matter anymore how much we turn them on, their options are gone and time is running out.

Drizzle drizzle.

We'll do the cooking and cleaning, we'll be the ones at home raising our children, spending the money our wives make for us at their jobs.

And as with everything else, men will be better at it than women ever could be.

Petersons opinion on incels:

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=lUJjPoTjTkU&pp=ygUFSW5jZWw%3D

https://incels.is/forums/must-read-content.23/

Life began with self replicating organisms, whose replications would produce new organisms with slightly different DNA from themselves due to mutations, but the majority of the DNA of the new organism produced would be inherited from their parent(s).

Under certain conditions the probability of replication would improve for these organisms, while under other circumstances these chances would decrease.

Organisms who were more likely to act in ways that would produce conditions that made then more likely to replicate would replicate more often.

Thus the organisms would develop an internal system of reward and punishment to incentivize them to seek out the circumstances most favorable to their potential at replication.

Hence, we have reward emotions and sensations like happiness and pleasure, as well as those for punishment like pain and misery. We also have the state of desire that causes us to seek out the reward states, and the state of fear that causes us to avoid the punishment states.

This extended not only to the replication of our own DNA, but also to the replication of our kin, with whom our DNA is shared due to our most probable degree of relation to them.

There is no morality, only emotional and sensations, only rewards, punishments, the desire for the former, and the fear of the latter.

The student pursues his own happiness above all, and by the same principle he avoids his own misery, he loves his sister, and so whatever she feels causes him to feel the same way, thus her happiness or misery is his own.

When his sister is raped, she feels sadness, this makes him sad as well, and he desires to cause suffering to the rapist because it would make him happy if he were to do so, the rapist would fear an encohter with the student as a result of the threat he poses.

No morality involved, it's just people pursuing their own happiness and avoiding their own misery. All in alignment with the principles of evolution. Each character of this story acts in ways most conducive to the replication of genes within the society in which they live. And their feelings and sensations drive them to their actions.


When we look at the net effect of people each acting on their own personal preferences, we see the emergence of a common culture among these people that represents the generalized consensus of all the individual preferences found within that collective.

As certain acts are responded to with a desire to kill or otherwise bring harm upon the perpetrators these actions, the types of individuals who wouod perpetrate these kinds of acts are either wiped out or eliminated become a minority, and the acts themselves become pretty universally accepted as being wrong among the surviving members of that society.

FYI we are currently seeing 2 wars being fought in the news whete people are killing other people over a disagreement wirh each other's preferences being in confluct with their own.