What if the consequences are an eternity in Hell?
January 13, 2016 § 99 Comments
I pointed out a while back that to associate yourself with the neoreaction is – according to the neoreaction itself – to deny God. The neoreaction itself insists that neoreaction shall be explicitly anti-explicitly-Christian. Christ simply must not be permitted to matter; indeed the very name of Christ is associated with the enemy.
But that’s OK, because under alt-right ethics what matters isn’t whether you are doing good or evil. Any action can be justified as long as it has desirable consequences. Presumably this includes denying God. If you aren’t a moral consequentialist you are just a contemptible normie:
This distinction and concept needs to be understood in the alt right, because most of us are consequentialists (whether we understand the distinction or not) while most normies probably believe in deontological principles.
There are of course many examples that can be used to prove the correctness of consequentialism over deontological ethics. For instance, is it wrong to murder (most would admit that this is a worse action than discriminating based on race)? Most people will say yes. Yet most people would agree that murdering baby Hitler in the crib would be a moral action because it would save many more lives. If you can get them to admit to this (or any number of hypothetical scenarios where actions that they consider morally wrong lead to such undeniably desirable consequences to the point that they have to admit that the action in that specific circumstance must be moral) then they have given up the principle. Then explain to them that it is consequences that determine the moral value of an action and not some inherency to the action. Hopefully the scales will fall from their eyes and they will adopt consequentialism. Then you can start having a conversation without having the other guy dismissing your arguments in favor of certain actions due to the actions being counter to his deontological moral principles.