Prologue.
This is a compilation of aphorisms from Sayings which more succinctly define my moral positions, and create a document to defer to in debates on morality.
A Compilation of Moral Texts by P. Michael Amedeo.
Without theology, there can be no morality, as all would be subjective. Any purported secular morality is easily deconstructed by the mere utterance of the word “why?”, which unveils purported absolutes of the subjective bride. Even consensus-based morality is subjective, as one must reconcile with defining how localized this morality must be, otherwise this consensus-based morality entails populations are beholden to the most charismatic leaders, with the most aggressive personalities, becoming the arbiters of all that is moral and right, molded to their whim. Moral relativism is further immoral, as one must contend with people acting as they please without any means of objection, even if these people had become murderous, barbaric coprophagics, to the moral relativist, they are equivalent to a Christian monk who denies himself and lives in virtue. Invoking “rationality”, “empathy”, or merely “humanity” all fall short as to the “why?” necessary to substantiate these purported absolute secular ethics. To merely baselessly assert that humans have some kind of inherent value is blind, being entirely contingent upon emotions, and an emotional view of humanity without answering the inquiry as to “why?”, of course without defaulting to these subjective feelings. Utilitarianism is predicated on the irreverent notion of “happiness” being a quantifiable, almost tangible, substance, which I find to be insightful into the internal psychology of individuals who espouse such notions, those who deny metaphysics, tradition, and embrace the utmost of materialism. Of course, the dilemma of quantifying happiness derives from the intangible nature in which it is confined, and how subjective happiness ultimately is, ergo, unable to be truly quantified into any applicable governance. Why would anyone follow any honor code if there is no consequence for refusal? I suppose consequence could be invented, such as execution or imprisonment, however, this brings into question where morality even derives. Where do these honors emerge and how are we sure we are not mistaken? So what if humans have empathy, reason, or even emotion? Why not torture the innocent and pillage the scarce and plentiful with equal brutality? My questions are, of course, rhetorical, as divine command is the only answer. This is a problem with secularism. Was Eleanor Roosevelt a prophet? How did she know what was and wasn't moral? Is Mrs. Roosevelt the goddess of modernity who we must worship, and organize into UDHR temples and parishes? The problem is the "why?". Why do we care if people suffer? Why care about anything if we live in a godless world? Rape, batter, and destroy, in a godless world, these actions are of an equal moral weight to providing charity to the unfortunate, or petting a kitten, or constructing roads. In a godless world, all moral weight is the invention of fallible humans. Why is it so that some humans are just endowed with some kind of divine authority to dictate a moral code? Well, if we presuppose the ideas of Pareto or Mosca, true consensus morality itself is merely the imposition of an arbitrary moral system by a charismatic, a will-to-power Ubermensch, so to speak. As for the constructivists, so what if it is useful? Why should we even have society? Why should we not brutalize eachother? Why? Why? Why? Of course, I am a theist, so I know why, because hell awaits the corrupt, and heaven awaits the righteous. This religion, Holocaustianity, dominates the Western world. There is Eleanor Roosevelt, the prophet who delivered us, the banal peoples of the West, the UDHR, and what authority? The ruins of Dresden, Berlin, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki, alongside the power of the atom bomb. And just as the Ottomans humiliated the Greeks, the UN humiliated the German people, most of whom were innocent and benign, undeserving of such reprimand which was rightly placed on the leaders, who organized and commanded forces, not the innocent Germans who were brutalized by Allied occupation. This is the consequence of Marxism: innocent peoples collectively beholden to barbarism over the actions of the few. In this view, the Holocaust was the original sin, and the German people are this race of demons who must be subject to chains, as the new gods in the UN proclaimed "never again!", as they endorsed draconian laws throughout the 20th and 21st century, and demanded any nation illiberal, or otherwise heterodox, be subject to the most hardship, such as the Russian state, who the economic punishment now lies with the Russian people. If some kind of moral, theonomic, possibly libertarian civilization were to be established, all of the rights and laws cherished are all objective imperatives, and therefore, if this civilization were to allow itself to fall, per the liability of the sovereign, that would be the moral detriment of the sovereign who had not secured the civilization, and thus his metaphysical detriment. Nothing which perverts or degenerates civilization should inculturate itself and lead to gradual collapse. This is ideally achieved through voluntary means, a sort of counter-inculturation in which civil, moral values become cultural to ensure longevity of the theonomy. Anything which corrupts the family unit is something which is degenerating society; this is no incitement of repression, rather, an incitement for all determined sovereigns to assure the civilization of prosperity via cultural manipulation. I find modern matters of socially liberal films, especially for children, to be almost like the reverse Hays' Code, so encouraging matters of homosexuality, which indeed may become detrimental over time as a disruption to the family unit. There is no meaning or reason without God. The totality of God, as Jesus Christ, seperates the rational from the irrational; the theological foundation of God. Without God, one could easily deconstruct any argument of secularism with a mere "why?" as mentioned in prior aphorisms. Without God, there is nothing in the way of reason of morality, and through the abundant evidence of the New Testament, we may clearly see the objective nature of morality as defined exclusively in the New Testament. And why we must follow? Eternal life and eternal death. Beyond that, why would we follow anything? Empathy? So what?... Reason? And?... arbitrarily defined "human rights"? Okay?... Society? Why even care about society?... The point is that there is nothing without God, who is loving, who is just, and who is supreme. Consensus is just the sediment left behind by someone’s power. The secularists essentially believe that whoever imposes their will is correct. And they cannot say that is wrong, because without foundations, everything is merely the will of the proverbial kraterocrat. This does not apply to God, because He is correct and just by nature, and does not have this will as a direct imposition, but as a moral code for the nations to ensure eternal life, and evading eternal death. I mean, is consensus not force as well? I mean, under a Hobbesian, Nietzschean, Carlylean, or even Confucian framework, it is rightly pointed out that most people are not latent philosophers, and are dull and skittish, and so whoever can enchant these millions with whatever --whether threats, promises, or otherwise-- and so the consensus is shaped by the sovereign, and thus truly is a matter of will and imposition. Consensus is just the sediment left behind by someone’s power. But even the king is beholden to the throne of God. And it is only rational to evade eternal death, and so one must follow Christ in orthodoxy, and in piety. And so if divine order must be imposed by the king, he is thus liable for decay. There must be some benevolent, peaceful body to uphold the universal rights, and a body, under a ruler, which is indicated and judged before Christ in their failure to perpetuate civilization, allowing for the entropy of the civilization which defends these rights. I say that there is no reason or meaning without God in a very nihilistic sort of way, but not without its optimism in Christ. Essentially, the passive nihilism which Nietszche had spoken of, albeit with the conclusion in Christ. It is nihilism with the caveat of God. Why have civilization? For Christ. Why have human rights? Because they are derived from God, and any violation is an egregious misdeed. Why even live? To worship God. And my view on intellectualism is similar. I am naturalistic, however, in a very Carlylean sense, the masses are unintellectual peoples bound primarily by nature, as all peoples are, both intellectual and laggard. And in this, the nature must be followed to elude ruinous consequences of severe detriment to civilization and the human soul, however, this nature is not absolutely totalizing, and explains the base necessity of matters of family, marriage, and other institutions, though does not explain certain models, culture, and what is necessary in the matters of understanding history, theology, or otherwise, thus entailing a necessity for intellectualism.