Sign into an existing account

deleted

Watch the documentary series "brainwash", a Norwegian (or was he Danish?) Comedian hosts a series where he explores nature vs nurture questions about things like differences in sex, race, etc.
It's extremely based for its time, and shows up the difference between the politically correct public facing side of the science and the actual science which is politically incorrect to the point of being problematic.

I was Inspired to this idea by the fact that in leftist political tracts, there's often this guy who represents the stuff the left hates, who is killed, discredited, or otherwise defeated bu the end of the work.

Which brings to mind: what if he wasn't? What if this guy, their representative of evil, was victorious?

Well then, they'd not accept that they would have to settle for a mere noral victory where the bad guy just enjoys every bit of actual victory, so they would try to take the guy out again, and again, until it become embarrassing for them.

The dark truth the series aims to expose is how people associate a position of dominance with the vindication of some ideology.

If the hero beats the villain, his ideas are shown to be correct.

Or, if the hero is defeated, but the villains victory is depicted as a tragedy, then the heroes ideas are shown correct.

Etc.

But what if none of that happens? The villain isn't defeated, bit emerges victorious, and his victory is shown to be exactly what it likely would be, not some great tragedy, but maybe a mix of good and bad consequences for people, or perhaps some wholly good consequences, or most likely, barely a noticable difference is made.

The idea is to take post modernism and flip it on its head to work for us, make it post post modernistic.

If there are no real moral truths, then isn't is peculiar how people act like racism is objectively wrong?

How can one appeal to there being negative consequences for society as an argument for some objective standards of morality? Why does the generally preferable or generally disliked from a human perspective even factor into establishing some objective standard, upon which a human perspective shouldn't have any significance?

What does it even mean for some moral standards to be objective anyway? If you want some greater judgement independent of a subjective view, then all you can get is dominance again, the evolutionary perspective of whatever is most superior from a darwinian-mendelian-hamiltonian-dawkinsian perspective is the most just.

Whatever moral perspective dominates the prevailing cultural narrative at any time and place is the determining factor of right and wrong in that place and time, which means that if the racist can continually pull victories over his rivals, that he could shape the moral-cultural -societal narrative to coming in line with his own personal beliefs, which is that racism is morally justifiable.

Appeals to consequences? Those could very well favor racism over the opposite, especially if the downsides of not being racist are shown next to the upsides of racism.

Also, again, why do consequences matter when it comes to supposedly transcendent noral principles? And if morals aren't transcendent, and a matter of I divided valuing, then again, why would consequences matter? Some might view what is generally disliked as being preferable, and even if no one does prefer this kind of thing, the fact remains that just because something produces a result which no one likes, it doesn't mean that it's somehow established as objectively bad.

And racism is just an example here, the same goes for any idea.

I want to make fiction that challenges the leftist dogmas on their own terms.

To embrace postmodernism, but only to use it to challenge the assumptions made by the left regarding the things they belive in.

I do adopt the view that morality is a matter of personal preference, that it's the result of individual valuing, there's no real true morality that exists outside of people, nor anything that all people can agree on.

But I'll qualify this with the fact that our moral preferences are the result of evolution, and so they exist for a purpose, to serve the propagation of our genes, and that this sets clear limits on what moral preferences we humans are capable of having.

It's not a matter of everyone being able to do whatever they want, it's a matter of what is best for our genes.

There's also the matter of how ideas also follow the same processes to some degree, just as argued by Richard Dawkins, that memes, the DNA of the soul, have many of the same rules applied to them as genes do, that the ideas which are best at propagating themselves will dominate the minds of people, and they will change over time to become better at doing so, at spreading themselves and competing with alternatives in the game of survival.

Traditions form when we find that some ways of doing things are better at being adopted and spread among people than the alternatives, they are selected for, and that is how they are formed.

Our ideas regarding ethics are also selected for against their competition, which means our most dominant moral positions are essentially noral traditions.

Doesn't mean they are the best, amd doesn't mean they will always be the ones at the place of cultural dominance.