I made this post on TRP yesterday, and was eventually told that TRP officially does not condone any questioning of its mindset within its echo chamber. Instead, they farm out all actual thought to an external community. I was recommended here instead.

http://www.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/1xy1g1/meta_trp_sexual_strategy_and_moral_content/

I've read, a couple of times, on this subreddit, that "sexual strategy is amoral." I have reason to believe (and will explain why) that this phrase is used in error to mean that sexual strategy is without moral content. I am going to show that this is not true. Then, I am going to remind you that sometimes, some of the things you do and say can be wrong, and that you should concern yourself with morality.

Terminology and basic ethics.

First, dealing with terms, and parsing the claim that "sexual strategy is amoral." The sidebar links to a post by redpillschool representing this midset. This post is, in fact, not discussing morality at all, but I'll get to that.

One version of the argument is that sexual strategy is "without moral content" -- that sexual strategy is akin to the brushing of teeth, or saying hello to people, and is never good or bad. I address this below.

This is distinct from "amoral," a concept that there might be moral content -- killing a murderer might be good or it might be bad -- but that you just don't care and will do what you want anyway. "Without moral content" refers to actions, motivations, strategies, and stuff like that. "Amoral" refers to people and motivations (yes, both can refer to motivations). Since "amoral" means that things you do might be bad, and that this will not stop you from doing those bad things, an "amoral" person and an "immoral" person are practically identical. To say sexual strategy is amoral would mean that you are all bad people and should be ashamed of yourselves, but behave the way you do anyway. Nobody here seems to care about morality, except some of you seem to get upset when you are told that you are bad people. If you get upset about this, and try to claim that you are good people, or even that you are not bad people, then you are not "amoral" -- but that means you care, and have to enter the other parts of this debate.

Finally, I will address redpillschool's actual argument from that post, which is that since you do not agree to one sexual strategy or another in the social contract, sexual strategy is without moral content. The social contract is not a theory of morality. The social contract, a concept based mainly on the work of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and John Locke, is a political theory that made the foundations of democracy. It is, generally, the principle that a democratic government, in that it is based on the will of the people, is a valid government with rightful authority. redpillschool's comment does a decent job explaining why sexuality is generally not a part of the social contract, and thus not ripe for government intervention except in special cases such as rape or education. The post does not address any theory of morality.

Such theories include Deontological Ethics (ethics based in absolute rights and duties, which produces statements like "You should not kill people"), Utilitarian ethics (a theory that what is right is what causes the most good across all people), Virtue Ethics (dealing with which qualities are good and bad), Moral Relativism (a theory that there is no overriding theory of ethics, that none of the other five here are compelling, and that ethics relates to society and is thus malleable in certain ways), Existentialist Ethics (a complicated theory that explains that, since we define ourselves, all actions that we do take, in that they further that definition, are good), and Egoism (a relative of Utilitarian ethics wherein what is right is what causes the most good for you--essentially, an imperative to be selfish). I've listed these very roughly in order of their acceptance among philosophers--if you're in one of the last two camps, you are, to say the least, odd, and probably evil by the standards of the first two or three (virtue ethics is a somewhat distinct conversation).

Under each of these theories, some actions are morally acceptable (IE permitted), unacceptable, required, good, bad, advisable, et cetera.

The Moral Content of Sexual Strategy.

redpillschool's post is made in reply to nicethingyoucanthave's argument that "After all, rape is a 'sexual strategy.'" This is compelling evidence that sexual strategy does have moral content--one sexual strategy is rape, rape is wrong, wrong is a moral claim, a sexual strategy has moral content, and, therefore, sexual strategy has moral content. There might be sexual strategies that are acceptable, but not required -- and thus have no moral content -- but such a claim does not inherently apply to all sexual strategy, as (unless you want to argue this point) rape is morally unacceptable.

Generally, since "sexual strategy" has to do with the way you treat people -- whether you treat them with respect, cause them physical harm, et cetera -- I would argue that it often has moral content.

Conclusion.

All of this means that it is unsafe to assume that something is acceptable because it is strategy. Some strategies are unacceptable!

Of course, this depends on moral theories -- an existentialist (you probably are not an existentialist, so don't jump on this) would probably not call anything you do unacceptable. But my point here is that there is a question to be asked, with each sexual strategy, and at every discussion in this subreddit: is what you are advising right or wrong?

Do not ignore this question. Do not brush it off. That would make you "amoral," and practically indistinguishable from "immoral." Address it head on--is your strategy good? Is it, for example, respectful? harmful? caring? charitable? parasitic?

I'd personally argue that TRP is, on the whole, extremely disrespectful toward women--but this discussion is prior to that one.

Do you recognize that morality is not a subject that can be brushed away, or do you still not care? If you do care, how do you deal with it? If you do not care, why not?