You can't absolve people of moral agency because it's "their nature"

KrispyMcSockington · 2016-08-23T04:11:38+00:00

This is an argument we had in first year philosophy. It always boils down to determinism I.e. what makes us do what we do (the whole nature vs nurture argument). Feminists are generally on the nurture side with blank slate theory while RP guys say nature is the more important determining factor. If you argue morality, you are arguing more for the nurture part because nature doesn't really care about lying, killing or stealing.

On the other hand, if you excuse someone because they cannot help themselves, you are arguing nature (think: the scorpion stinging the fox while midway across the river). The problem with both is the very complex and technologically advanced society we live in. The rules keep changing but they are not all natural rules. Therefore any rules we inevitably lay down for society to exist somewhat peacefully will be to control nature and reduce behaviour that is destructive to society.

So what is wrong with controlling nature? Well, nature likes to fight back. Our urges, needs and desires are always bubbling under the surface. Imagine never being able to say no to sex because there is always this itch that needs scratching. Nature has you by the balls. But now imagine seeing sex as dirty and disgusting. Nurture has pretty much lopped them off and discouraged you from enjoying something natural.

There is, however, something we can do to make things a bit easier. If we meet everyone's basic needs, a lot of petty crime could be solved, for example. This is a resource challenge and while it does have moral implications, it does not necessarily have a link to sexual strategies. You can be clothed, fed and sheltered without getting laid because no one has died from a lack of sex. That does not mean you won't be frustrated, though.

As we climb Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs we see that once people can take care of resources they begin reaching higher, for social acceptance, self achievement and eventually self actualisation. Friedrich Nietzsche calls it our Will To Power - our drive to keep succeeding. Our ambition. What does this have to do with nature and nurture? Well, some people don't like the rules or feel the rules we have don't apply to them.

They look for ways to satisfy their ambition regardless of the impact it has on others. They are basically selfish and see no reason to consider others in what they do. Should we as a society with rules then throw our hands up and declare nothing can be done? No. There are natural laws we have to obey or die: things like gravity or hunger don't go away no matter how much we socialise people to think they are special.

The simplest way is to apply consequences equally across the board. Let the punishment fit the crime, so to speak. If we have societal rules and the person wants the benefits they should take on some responsibility. Morality can suck if you are selfish but if you want to be part of society, being a dick to society is biting the hand that feeds you. If a woman behaves poorly, do not reward her with attention. Let her understand her moral obligations if there are any and what the consequences are. If she commits a crime let her suffer the same sentencing as men.

The one thing we can control in society is fairness in how we treat each other. It is a nurture part but society as is, is not necessarily pure nature because of the rules in place to control it. So if we are going to do this, let's at least be fair to everyone legally first. Socially, we can strive to be better people but until there are actual rules in place to control social interactions, we're going to have to teach our children to be better or we will continue to get selfish people screwing up the SMP.

TL;DR Nature vs nurture. Don't give attention to people who behave poorly. Treat people equally before the law.

jackandjill22 · 2016-08-23T00:03:08+00:00

You say that's not how it works, yet it clearly works. Our collective expectations of women are astoundingly low. Women can do an amazing amount of lunatical bullshit and get away with minimal consequences, if any at all.

As a man, you either put up with it, stay single, or hope to be one of the lucky few who manages to find a woman who isn't borderline deranged.

DemonConsulting · 2016-08-23T06:53:16+00:00

Yes, some individual people can be more shitty than others and the fact that being selfish or illogical is largely human nature doesn't keep you from noticing or pointing it out. Then again, how does this help the individual who wants to better navigate through society?

If I know for a fact that a large number of people are generally selfish assholes, it makes sense to operate on the premise of "all people I encounter are selfish assholes unless proven otherwise" instead of expecting everyone to be nice and then getting screwed over.

You can phrase it more nicely of course like "Most people care about themselves so I should care about myself too, acts of charity can be performed after I am taken care of" (aka don't be a doormat)

For the sociopath it translates to "Many sociopaths and people with natural sadistic tendencies are dangerous, therefor I must be extra careful around them." If they end up being a serial killer, they are evidently a shitty person, however knowing about their nature helps me keep myself safe because I'm on guard.

If I were to operate on a premise of "Many sociopaths are decent people despite their lack of empathy and their sadistic tendencies" and actively tried to push away any of my biases, ignoring all red flags to give them the benefit of the doubt, the chances of me ending up dead in their basement would be significantly higher.

Assholes don't care about your morality and neither do sociopath serial killers. Knowing that both of these are wrong is good for you, if you want to live by your personal moral code or the one that is largely accepted in the western world. It will certainly help you make more friends and get along in society. However, assuming that everyone else will abide by the same code, despite knowing that human nature acts against it in many cases, is dangerous.

If you end up getting killed by the sociopath, no amount of whining about how the world is unfair and telling him that killing is wrong will bring you back. The same way, no amount of complaining about women going for dominant assholes and it being so unfair that nice guys don't get pussy just for being nice will actually improve the situation. Saying Karen was such a bitch for leaving, even though you didn't abuse her but just picked the wrong woman, won't give you custody of your kids or half your money back. Ranting on tumblr that men only go for "skinny bitches" and don't know a real woman won't make you attractive.

Know human nature, accept it and then live accordingly. You can condemn "immoral" behavior all you want, it just doesn't change the facts of how the world works and complaining about it on the internet won't help the discussion. So it's best to save that for social activism and in debates about facts just go "that's how it is" and carry on from there. Otherwise you end up with a place clogged up by comments about how the world should be. It may make you feel better but it ultimately doesn't help anyone who wants to figure out how to live in the present world.

lbspredh · 2016-08-23T11:19:34+00:00

It's a simple matter of consistency, you can't claim your behaviours come from an amoral standpoint and then complain that everyone else's are immoral.

Your serial killer analogy interests me, if we are saying some people are just evil then they never really had a choice, and if we're saying people are not inherently evil then something is wrong with the mind of a serial killer

Whisper · 2016-08-23T19:17:44+00:00

Whether it's women or anyone else you can't really pretend morality plays no role in this world, because "nature".

And yet I just did. And will continue to do so.

Morality is invented, not discovered.

It's not a law of the universe. It's a strategy for tribes. It helps them stick together and cooperate. Good moral systems are ones that work efficiently to produce the desired result. Bad moral systems are those that don't.

Moral systems that try to blame women for "bad" behaviour are crappy moral systems, because they don't work. Women don't come with a built-in sense of responsibility to men or society.

Moral systems that justify controlling women to produce prosocial behaviour from them are better moral systems, because they do work. Women respond to authority, clear boundaries, enforced rules, and spankings, not appeals to reason or morality.

Entropy-7 · 2016-08-23T03:19:50+00:00

It's not how the OP characterizes it at all. If something is hardwired then by definition there is no moral agency. Strap t-bone steaks to your naked body and walk into a hungry lion's den and see what happens. Are you going to blame the lions?

Obviously, humans are different but your expectations can be blunted when you know that 6 out of 10 will act in a certain way.

AutoModerator · 2016-08-22T23:40:51+00:00

Attention!

You can post off topic/jokes/puns as a comment to this Automoderator message.
For "CMV" and "Question for X" Threads: Parent comments that aren't from the target group will be removed, along with their child replies.
If you want to agree with OP instead of challenging their view or if the question is not targeted at you, post it as an answer to this comment.
OP you can choose your own flair, just press Flair under your post!

Thanks for your cooperation and enjoy the discussion!

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

kick6 · 2016-08-23T11:48:04+00:00

WTF is moral agency?

___Jamie___ · 2016-08-23T12:28:22+00:00

For some serial killers it makes sense to become a serial killer. The urge to kill is just THAT strong in those few, and the emotional release is enormous.

[deleted] · 2016-08-23T14:25:47+00:00

I understand that a lot of RPillers don't even believe in morality, but the fact remains that some make it seem like women's bad behaviors should somehow be excused because "female nature".

Contrary to your quote above, I have a very STRONG sense of morality. The thing is, the modern West does not, and I have no power to enforce any set of morals on society. When I say something like "its female nature" (which I really don't say often anyway) I'm not excusing the behavior, I'm calling out that unless women are held to a standard, we can expect that kind of behavior from them.

I guess you can say I'm of the mind that people only "behave" when forced to by some external pressure. I get that people can be altruistic, but in reality I don't see it often at all. Instead, most people do what they can to get what they want and MAYBE try to reduce collateral damage. And that's a BIG maybe.

So AWALT isn't excusing bad "female nature", its acknowledging that if women aren't forced to play by some set of moral rules, they will tend to behave as they can get away with. Men tend to do the same, so in that respect AMALT (which I've never argued anyway.) Or APALT. However you slice it, people are not naturally "altruistic" in my mind.

GaiusScaevolus · 2016-08-23T15:25:22+00:00

Understanding a person's nature is not absolving them for their choices/actions. But it isn't healthy or worthwhile for you to spend time angry/upset over that nature. It's also would be foolish of you to deny that nature.

[deleted] · 2016-08-23T15:57:11+00:00

I gain nothing by trying to enforce moral agency on others and lose a lot. Why bother? As far as I'm concerned western society is not worth altruistic actions

winndixie · 2016-08-24T18:51:46+00:00

So why did my wife leave me?

deskgrunt88 · 2016-08-24T21:30:17+00:00

The glass is already broken.

aanarchist · 2016-08-26T03:47:30+00:00

most red pills are actually blue pills but don't know it.

mistixs · 2016-08-27T23:21:31+00:00

What about men being excused for things because it's male nature?

drok007 · 2016-08-23T03:26:31+00:00

I agree, but if they act against human nature, that is what is immoral. Which is why universal collectivists, and therefore BPers, are immoral.

Title	You can't absolve people of moral agency because it's "their nature"
Author	[deleted]
Upvotes	5
Comments	63
Date	August 22, 2016 11:40 PM UTC (9 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/PurplePillDebate
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/PurplePillDebate/comments/4z3iek/you_cant_absolve_people_of_moral_agency_because/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/PurplePillDebate/you-cant-absolve-people-of-moral-agency-because.273443 https://theredarchive.com/post/273443

Comments