Well, yes, there is no avoiding some form of moralism— but there is...
R.Сам 🦋🐏@Logo_Daedalus
44 views
Mar 22, 2025
~2 min read
Advertisement
1
Well, yes, there is no avoiding some form of moralism— but there is “sentimental moralism” & “moralism grounded in concrete reality”— the sentimental moralist can only be persuaded by drama, the concrete moralist is persuaded by *practice*
x.com/JackBuckman5/s…
x.com/JackBuckman5/s…
2
When we say “moralism” we tend to refer to the former, for which there are vague “rules” about morality that are themselves holy. The opposite is purely based in results (but is not some form of “idealistic consequentialism”).
In the Bible, Jesus flouts the “letter of the law” all the time— he breaks many of the ten commandments— & his justification is simply “the results speak for themselves”— ie: “by their fruits you shall know them”
In the Bible, Jesus flouts the “letter of the law” all the time— he breaks many of the ten commandments— & his justification is simply “the results speak for themselves”— ie: “by their fruits you shall know them”
3
The Communist Morale is “the Communist society produced retroactively justifies itself”— justification ethically exists not now, but then. Now, there is chaos under heaven— Then, ie: in the last judgment, there is justice.
So to speak of “justice right now” is nonsense. There is no justice right now. There is only the process of history.
So to speak of “justice right now” is nonsense. There is no justice right now. There is only the process of history.
4
For instance— the forgiveness of one’s enemies— is this done out of sentiment? Or is this practiced because of the results it produces? It is pragmatic to forgive one’s defeated foe— it is expedient— it doesn’t really matter if this is sentimentally “justice”— vengeance is far more satisfying sentimentally as a form of justice— vengeance is satisfying RIGHT NOW.
5
To ground ethics in sentimentality is to be more fundamentally amoral than to ground ethics in the Transcendental mediation of history. We just have a perverse sense of ethics in the West due to the corruption of Christian teaching, primarily. Such that we are told that the charitable oligarch is a “good guy.”
6
This Charitable Oligarch may be! He might weep at children petting puppies. He might build a hospital. He might donate his wealth to an NGO. But none of this is ethics, it’s sentimentality.
7
Hitler for instance was an extremely sensitive & sentimental man! He would weep at Wagner! He yearend for a “wholesome Germany” etc. Is this ethics? Or is this just pornography?
Stalin didn’t even exchange prisoners with the Nazis to secure his own son’s release. How cruel! How heartless!
Stalin didn’t even exchange prisoners with the Nazis to secure his own son’s release. How cruel! How heartless!
8
After German field marshal Friedrich Paulussurrendered at the Battle of Stalingrad in February 1943, the Germans offered to exchange Dzhugashvili for him, although he specifically asked not to be exchanged for a field marshal. This was outright refused by Stalin, who later stated "Just think how many sons ended in camps! Who would swap them for Paulus? Were they worse than Yakov?"
Soviet Foreign Affairs Minister Vyacheslav Molotov also recounted that Stalin refused to swap his son for Paulus because "All of them [Soviet prisoners of war] are my sons."
Soviet Foreign Affairs Minister Vyacheslav Molotov also recounted that Stalin refused to swap his son for Paulus because "All of them [Soviet prisoners of war] are my sons."
9
Is this not a profound sense of ethics? Yet how strange it is to the sentimental moralism of the West…
