The Theory of Evolutionarily-Derived Morality and the Case for Moral Racism

Bumping for quality effort thread. Well done OP.

This pretty much explains the difference between modern white morality and the morality of semites and blacks. Whites have a hard time distinguishing the outgroup and see a single "human race" (likely the result of decades of propaganda/social engineering) while semites and blacks exhibit this kind of "hypocritical" morality frequently.

Are we able to condense this into a more pleb-friendly format for easy sharing? We know the masses don't read. Maybe put the thesis into bulletpoints or something? Is there room for memetic evolution of this theory?

I think I made this graphic the last time you made this thread.

Oh, I get it; we're Jews for asking questions about the foundations of ethics? Even though the answers apparently defy everything Judaism espouses? Are you "mentally challenged"?

Bump, well put together OP. Not much to discuss really, you're just right. The counterargument to address is where to set the bounds of that in-group preference, is it Whites vs. Niggers, or is it French vs. Germans?

reddit.com/r/DarkEnlightenment/

No thanks.

Difference in empathy between men and women.

perma ban this sack of shit

Yeah cause that won't get shutdown soon as the zog mods find it.

Didn't read lol but consider whites have the most amount of empathy, which I believe is found in the frontal lobe. This part of the brain handles empathy as well as conscience, dopamine and risk/reward decisions. No wonder the kikes pump our media and education with white guilt and oppressed non-whites. Its to trigger a response from us to cuck out so we get a little bit of pleasure from doing so. Its to keep up with the people, to go with the crowd.

Fuck off

Then go back to cuckchan.

You're right OP, but here is why I think normies would disagree with your argument:

1. They _don't want_ to fight for their own "group"; they want to blend all groups of humans together into a single human race. And they think the differences between races are no longer relevant to modern man. Perhaps you could argue some evolutionary value of having multiple competing human groups, but even then,
2. They are so cucked that they don't care about evolutionary success at all - in fact most of them consider evolution a bad thing. They want peace, non-violence, and living happily ever after. Evolution is eternal war, fighting and strife.

I propose to concentrate on the fact that racialization leads to speciation and therefore will create a "new" human.

Reiterate the fact that blending races retard evolution.

Why do you hate the African so much that you deny him his nature? They were created as impulsive, spontaneous, emotive, happy-clappy-rhythmy leaf-eaters. We European men were created grim-faced, majestic, patriarchal tamers of beasts. What compels an ignorant person to say “class, not race” and thus twist an African into something he’s not?

i hate the word morality. it was created to be used as sophistry. thats it. look up the definition of morality and what the words mean.

morality- principles (truths) concerning the distinction between right (true) and wrong or good and bad behavior

so before you answer if an act is a moral one you have to have a base will to determine if your action is "moral" (in line with that that will) or immoral (not in line with that will). an action is only immoral when it is based on deception. it depends entirely on what your will is, if that act is moral or not. this does not make morality relative. only will is relative. so when people say white nationalists are immoral its only because their will is equality. too bad equality is a false god in the first place so anybody acting under the will of desiring equality is automatically immoral unless they advocate for the absolute death of all life. that is the only way the will of desiring equality can be accomplishing morally (truthfully).

Why do you spout a bunch of shit entirely unrelated to my post?

look up frank salter's "on genetic interest". you will find it interesting.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_Genetic_Interests

cheers. I'll check it out.

In common is said twice in one of the quotes and it sounds odd.

Also

Memetic evolution about a genetic meme?
There is always room for such natural evolution.

I take issue with this passage about the raptors. It's interesting and provocative, but I don't think it speaks truthfully towards what makes sexual reproduction successful.

If you think of our angiosperms, plants bearing flowers, the fundamental evolutionary success in that form is that the healthiest plants with the most ideal living conditions produce the most pollen and seeds. A large number of factors go into this reproductive success e.g.:
1)soil conditions
2)access to sun
3)prevalence of herbivore browsers
4)resistance to parisitism
5)efficiency of metabolic processes
6)symbiosis with other species (pollinators)
and other minor factors

But the factors that the plant has any "control" over with its 'mutations' in its DNA are 4, 5 and 6 less so with 3. The plants with the best soil and the best sun are going to produce the most pollen, and will be responsible moreso than others for 'fathering' the next generation of seeds. But among those plants with the best access to soil and sun, the plants with the most efficient metabolic processes, resistance to parasitism, and symbiosis with other species will produce the most pollen and hence the most offspring. To juxtapose with a simplistic illustration, the plants that just clone themselves will not have any efficient way to disseminate these beneficial mutational "discoveries" any better than a simple march of slowly overwhelming numbers, limited by seed dispersion or root cloning.

Thus the raptor who was depicted in this story likely has an unsuccessful reproductive strategy. She shuns interaction with anything that does not resemble herself. Yet the yellow-nosed raptors may have discovered a new and beneficial strategy or metabolic process for survival. In the instance that yellow-nosed raptors are more numerous, their overwhelming numbers might not necessarily indicate superiority in cognition, metabolism, hunting technique etc., but on the average it would indicate such.

The problem with relating this to the present state of humanity and the white race, is that the most successful communities of humans have taken anti-fertility measures to reduce their population in light of how difficult it is to produce highly-adapted offspring in this already high-investment-parenting species. Thus "the best" of the human race is actively limiting its fertility, and in this light, the passage about the raptor avoiding the "other" and shunning breeding with them is actually a good policy to follow (for white people, lol).

On a less-related note, I actually have a theory about why whites have a concentration of highly-desirable *yet* recessive genes. It has to do with monogamy and sexual restraint as mechanisms to carry extremely recessive genes to prominence. Not enough sexual restraint in other species to allow desirable genes to flourish. They resemble more plants and animals, that overwhelm with quantities of sperm and pollen instead of reasonably selecting desirable traits.

yeah no. i've seen this rehash meme before. you're giving them a copout to their responsibility. niggers know it's bad, they just don't care because they're fucking niggers.

ur 2 slow :^)

What the fuck are you talking about, you stupid nigger? At least read what I wrote before spouting off your unrelated nonsense.

No, no. The Vedic Texts are over 12,000 years old. This image is total fucking bullshit.

OP, what you discovered has been rediscovered countless times, let me expand on this

Racism in Monkeys: The Evolution of Prejudice

scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=evolution-of-prejudice

scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=evolution-of-prejudice

The study itself:
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21280966
yale.edu/caplab/Main/Publications_files/mahajanetal.pdf

Its almost like the people who host these conferences, despite the fact they are typically high IQ proffesors, are either apathetic to imagery/aesthetic or are paid not to give a shit.

Racism is Natural, Innate: The Human Brain Makes Unconscious Decisions Based on Ethnicity
medicaldaily.com/news/20120626/10458/racism-decision-cognition-emotional–ethnicity-human-brain-psychology.htm

Change natural human nature? - Why not change unnatural multiculturalism?

QUICK - how can we alter human nature?!

Reduce immigration? Don't forcefully implement "diversity?"
medicaldaily.com/news/20120626/10458/racism-decision-cognition-emotional–ethnicity-human-brain-psychology.htm

The study itself:
nature.com/neuro/journal/v15/n7/full/nn.3136.html#access

You naturally love people who look like yourself more
psyc.nott.ac.uk/research/vision/jwp/papers/pentonvoak1999.pdf

Experiment 1 showed that people tend to find their own face, when morphed into the opposite sex, most attractive, even when he/she doesn't know it's their own face, suggesting that people typically prefer those who look like themselves, in other words; their own racial/ethnic group.

Child's Play? 3-Year-Olds Fancy Their Own Ethnic Group:

>Even very young children are influenced by the culture around them, the scientists wrote, and studies in the 1980s and 90s found that, when given the choice, children of the same ethnicity preferred to play with one another rather than with kids from different ethnic groups. Unless a child has the rare genetic disorder Williams syndrome [livescience.com/8189-individuals-rare-disorder-racial-biases.html], these preferences emerge by age 3 or so. The new study of French-Canadian and Asian-Canadian 3- to 5-year-olds finds similar results.
livescience.com/14837-children-play-ethnicity.html

The "Other-Race Effect:" Why Faces of Other Races Look Alike
"They all look alike"

This study is the first to identify a possible neurophysiological basis of the other race effect.
arstechnica.com/science/2010/11/understanding-the-other-race-effect/

Different article, same study:

However, the amplitude of that increased brain activity [i.livescience.com/14848-babies-attuned-human-sounds.html] only predicts whether an other-race face, not a same-race face, is later remembered.

livescience.com/14879-faces-races-alike.html

The study:
pnas.org/content/107/46/20081

Science proves blacks are the most racist race
Empathy for one's own race neurally distinct from empathy from mankind

eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-04/nu-rae042610.php

This is very important when it comes to looking at so called "multicultural societies" in which there is no such strong connection among the people. Instead the end result is an individualised and fractionised society.

The study itself:
Neural basis of extraordinary empathy and altruistic motivation
Abstract
culturalneuro.psych.northwestern.edu/MathurHaradaLipkeChiao_inpress.pdf

Another very important study about how we perceive other people's action if they are from the own/known group or not:

Empathy constrained: Prejudice predicts reduced mental simulation of actions during observation of outgroups
Abstract
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022103110000661

The human brain recognizes race

eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2010-04/uot-hbr042610.php

From the paper:

Racist Babies? Nine-Month-Olds Show Bias When Looking At Faces:

>New research indicates that by the time they are 9 months old, babies are better able to recognize faces [livescience.com/14879-faces-races-alike.html] and emotional expressions of people who belong to the group they interact with most, than they are those of people who belong to another race.

>"These results suggest that biases in face recognition [livescience.com/9054-imperfect-brain-cells-gender-biases.html] and perception begin in preverbal infants, well before concepts about race are formed. It is important for us to understand the nature of these biases in order to reduce or eliminate [the biases]," said study researcher Lisa Scott, a psychologist at the University of Massachusetts, Amherst, in a statement.
huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/04/racist-babies-nine-month-olds-bias-faces_n_1477937.html

So the study suggests that such racial biases are genetically determined, inherited by race and therefore essentially fixed, yet in the last paragraph in the above article you see that an aim for the researchers is not to understand, but to change (subvert) human nature. The doublethink is outrageous.

Racist Hormones? Or just immutable human nature?
The neurotransmitter Oxytocin "makes people more co-operative, benevolent, loyal, generous and trusting of others. It is involved in the parent-child bond - new mothers and fathers have raised levels of oxytocin. Production also increases when people hug and when they have sex and, recent research suggests, when they receive psychological warmth." However, oxytocin has been alleged to "foster racism."
guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/jan/30/bright-ideas-oxytocin-hormone-racism

Human ethnocentrism-the tendency to view one's group as centrally important and superior to other groups-creates intergroup bias that fuels prejudice, xenophobia, and intergroup violence. Grounded in the idea that ethnocentrism also facilitates within-group trust, cooperation, and coordination, we conjecture that ethnocentrism may be modulated by brain oxytocin, a peptide shown to promote cooperation among in-group members.

Results show that oxytocin creates intergroup bias because oxytocin motivates in-group favoritism and, to a lesser extent, out-group derogation. These findings call into question the view of oxytocin as an indiscriminate "love drug" or "cuddle chemical" and suggest that oxytocin has a role in the emergence of intergroup conflict and violence.
pnas.org/content/early/2011/01/06/1015316108

Oh I guess none of you guys are interested. Had so much more too. Oh well. Facts, science, statistics the left hates these things with a passion but now you guys too? What's the point anymore?

hey man, I'm reading it. Please continue.

See the problem I have with evolution and fitness is that it would make perfect sense in the current climate that white women would be mating with the invading nogs and arabs as their mixed offspring would be more likely to survive in the coming world where whites are systematically hunted down and killed.
And that pisses me off, because not only are we fighting kike propaganda, we are fighting women's natural instincts, which are correct.
Our best shot is to assert MASSIVE dominance and destroy ALL non-whites in our territories as soon as possible.
If we don't, we are done, miscegenation will ramp up exponentially and we will be too few to recover.
Women are only loyal to their greatest chance of survival and replication, so WE have to be that.

Third position: Develop artificial wombs and then destroy females. Build skynet and let Terminators inherit the Earth.

Hopefully this isn't too off topic, but the one thing trannies and faggots don't–and refuse to–believe in evolution. Well, they believe in animals evolving, but not humans believing that we have achieved a point in which we cannot go further. That argument has several flaws, one of which being that some people view autism as the next step Advanced thought, for the cost of being a social outcast. Then there are the severely retarded members of society as follows: literal niggers, downies, victims of trisomy 18, and so on; for in which they believe are just as equal as someone like Stephen Hawking or Einstein.

bump

...

This is a more fluid thing than you'd imagine. Take Ireland for example.

No, we need a plan B if men end up being equally horrible creatures given power.

If we are speaking in the sense of separate tribes of different races, (like you did in your essay) I would have to disagree with this statement because an obligation could be for trade or the exchange of technologies from the two unique cultures. I think this may be an area in your essay that may need revision.
I would say that genocide wouldn't probably lead to the winning population's survival. Killing off an entire race would mean killing off many people that could invent things that lead to increased chances of survival from disease or wounds. The chances of this turning out well for the race that comes out on top would be very low, even if the other race was intellectually inferior as an average compared to the intellectually superior group, there would still be thousands of possible hard-working, intelligent and civil people that would be lost. If you were afraid of them reproducing then you could just make it illegal for them to do so.
Other than that I found it to be an interesting read and hope to see it continue to be refined.

I think a way he could strengthen his argument would be to try and address why he believes that doing what is best for evolution is the highest moral idea.

k

Unfortunately I see a huge flaw in your approach. Saying attacking outgroups violently (etc.) is morally okay is a slippery slope. Each race is not the final group. From there you can make finer and finer distinctions until you get down to individual families and from there even down to the individual because you can be more closely related to people you've never met than to some members of your own family. Basically your constructed morality would mean everyone for himself, then for family or genetically similar strangers, then for somewhat similar people of the same race, then for the whole race and then for humanity. Now this is obviously CORRECT. But you can't sanction violence or any other destructive behaviour based on it without dissolving civilization / society. It's not a functional framework for a nation to operate on. You can't have a national justice system that allows warfare between families or regional tribes.

Basically, in a way you just reverse engineered why we have the cucked rules we have. You would need to do two things for the race-based morality to work: Allow only one race per nation and arbitrarily draw the line at race, not allowing the finer distinctions even though they are just as valid as race.

Good thread for all the links and quotes though. Nice work.

Women compartmentalize empathy. Men are either empaths, sociopaths, or retarded faggots.

Robo-Waifus are the future.

Actually, no, she shuns interaction with anything that looks both too much like herself AND which bears divergences in physiology as to inhibit recognition with the self.
Basically, she avoids what amounts to something nigh-equivalent to the uncanny valley - the closer something gets to what you are, while not actually being what you are, the less liable you are to want to interact with it.

Hardly, and reliant upon your flawed association with non-motile floral organisms.

By your rationale, a gazelle could be argued to be "superiority in cognition, metabolism, hunting technique etc.,", relative to, say, an elephant, or even a cape buffalo, and that's nothing but arguable.
Keep in mind - the yellow raptors are likely more numerous because they are quite a bit smaller than the red raptors (utahraptor), and smaller creatures in social contexts tend to reproduce more quickly and thus generally espouse a greater population size.

Further, it ignores the reality of hybridization - the vast vast vast majority of hybrids fail to surpass their combinant forebearers. That is, they are inferior relative to either of the two species components which came together to form it. So, in the very simplistic context you created, perhaps it might stand to argue; but in an overall picture of the evolutionary context, its quite the opposite - the vast majority of the time, hybridization with another, physiologically-distinct clade of your organismal ilk, is not going to produce an improvement, but a detriment, a failure, and so, by the numbers (which is really how evolution functions), it is not in an organisms best interest to pursue hybridization.
That's really the point of that entry - evolution selects in favor of what we would likely term today "racism", because by the numbers, it doesn't benefit an organismal line to hybridize, it harms.
Sure, there are always exceptions, but if those exceptions are exactly that - exceptions to the rule, and they are - then the rule continues to dictate that hybridization, or a behavioral predisposition towards such activity, is NOT evolutionarily fitness-positive, and will be selected against.

Exactly, but this has nothing to do with the modern context - all modern extant hominid clades are biologically racist. We have the data at this point, and signs - such as a nigh-universal disgust-sector neural, biological response to visual data of hybridization (ie interracial couples), for example - to indicate as much: all humans are racist, assuming the obvious obligatory exceptions (being exceptions, of course), at the biological level, because evolutionary history has dictated as much.
Long before there was any contraceptive, anti-fertility measures in play, this remained an evolutionary dictate - those who were like you (who you could theoretically mate with), but yet unlike you (physiologically variant/aberrant), were not viewed as appealing, because extant appeal in this context increased the probability of hybrdization which reduced probability of producing many healthy offspring/attracting a mate with which to do so.

Woops

I'm surprised Robo-Waifus aren't being pushed more often. You can make monstergirls with the robots, monster-robo-waifus for everyone!

No, you really don't.
You'd be a Jew for denying the foundation of ethics, which is effective function - ethics exist only to further our functionality as organisms.

If something is anti-function, it is not ethical.
Jews claim that nature is not the dominant force of our world, and that it is not sacred in any way, producing their own set of 'rules' which they claim are 'true ethics', a set of dictates regarding behavior amongst ourselves…

… But these dictates are anti-Nature, they promote behavioral patterns which are oppositional to behavioral patterns which would be evolutionarily fitness-positive, and decry such behaviors as 'immoral', racism being a fine example.

Not the underlined terminology of the Jew:

So, basically, the Jew is saying that evolutionary fitness in a behavioral pattern has NO IMPACT on the value of that behavioral pattern, that nature is not important, is not sacred, is not dominant… But we know this is folly.
And, by extension of previous points, we can discern that Judaism is, at its core, unethical, in that it seeks not only to inhibit behaviors which that conditions of this world dictate to be evolutionarily fitness-positive, but to deny the very paradigm whereby something might be judged in terms of functionality as of any import at all.

Basically, Judaism - and by extension, the organismal Jews created under its tenure, so to speak - are not only unethical, they are antiethical, for they and their belief system directly oppose any degree of engagement within the context of evolutionary functionality.
The Jew is the physical manifestation of anti-evolutionary behavioral patterns motivated by ideology, they are the physical manifestation of a cognitive manifestation of the concept of species death through abolishment of functionality-based ethics in favor of anti-functionality-based ethics.

That is the path to stagnation, or worse.

Look into Eclipse Phase, and realize that the horrors we've witnessed are only the beginning of how weirdly awful things can become.

Every discovery has its risks,user.
A scalpel can just as easily take a thousand lives as it can save a hundred.
This doesnt(or at least shouldnt) mean that the developement of surgery was not worth it.

It is true. The next phase will be necessary, painful, and rejuvenating.

Keep writing and thinking OP, very good.

People shit talk moral relativity but it makes perfect sense when you apply natural selection to morality as a concept.

An user on here once put it like
>Racism would not exist if it had a negative utility. If racism was in fact "wrong" and didn't have a utility, then nobody would engage in it. If racism was totally incorrect, why would one be "racist" if it's true we are "(((all the same)))"?

Interesting that a generation raised in an environment of perpetual global conflict choose conflict over peace.

James Watson’s most inconvenient truth: Race realism and the moralistic fallacy, by Rushton is a good read.

This is an interesting read. I'm not a moral philosopher by any stretch, but I do occasionally listen to philosophers discussing moral philosophy, and to be honest, I think they would nitpick your piece.

Just a few things I've noticed. First, it's important to know whether you're discussing 'objective' morality or 'subjective' morality.
This would seem to indicate that you are arguing for subjective herd-type morality. Morality in this instance is a fashion of behavior evolved differently to suit each race group, and is therefore subject to each race group.

Arguing for subjective morality is kind of pointless IMO, because people are under no objective moral obligation to approve. One could simply ask why they should care about moral racism at all, if this 'good' behavior is subject to group preference and not an objective
standard applied to the whole of humanity. Why favor one race's preferences over another? Someone who chooses to flout his race's 'good' in preference to another is still doing a subjective 'good' in relation to that other race. This is why arguing for subjective morality is kind of pointless when trying to push an agenda.

Another question a moral philosopher might have is, why can morality be applied 'only to each separate racial & ethnic in-group individually.' Because you've equivocated 'good' and 'bad' as evolved natural behavior? A bit more on this below.

You seem to be merely defining 'good' as 'that behavior which aids a groups continued survival.' Someone else might have a different definition, and consider morally good behavior as 'that behavior which hinders each groups continued survival.' Merely claiming that racist behavior is evolved and perfectly natural, then defining said behavior as morally good isn't enough to convince someone who will simply disagree with your definition right at the outset. Your thesis is almost question-begging I think. It's like saying, 'This is true because I define it as true' or, more specifically, 'This is good because I define it as good.'

what is considered “right” and “wrong” or “good” and “bad” behaviour must also be derived from this same evolutionary source and ultimately serve this fundamental evolutionary goal.
A white person donating money to feed homeless Africans could be – and likely commonly would be – considered morally good, but would do nothing to serve the evolutionary survival of white people. In fact, it might be furthering their extinction. And again, given that morality is race-subjective, even if it was commonly considered bad behavior for whites to donate to homeless Africans, there is nothing in your work that obligates that person to prefer his race over another.

I am by no means a moral philosopher, and this is just what I noticed. I'm totally with you in what you're trying to do, but I think actual moral philosophers would nitpick your work. You might want to listen to some moral philosophy debates and discussions to see exactly where the current thought on that subject is at. Keep up the good work.

Eliminate welfare. It subsidizes failure and keeps dysgenic effects rolling.

m8 don't be such a whiny faggot. there are multitudes more lurkers here than posters. you shouldn't need the emotional validation of "Hey Wow Good Job!" to continue spreading the truth.

What I got from the OP is actually objective morality. That is the reason race is in the OP title. The morality is objective to each race. It is not a pick and choose what feels good, it is what is best for that race, objectively. That is why he discusses evolution. It is not based on feelings and opinions. Objective European Morality, Objective Asian Morality.

I also got from this thread that trying to make a morality for ALL humans could result in ambiguity of whether it is subjective or objective.

But isn't, this is already argued and in context.
It rests on the premise of evolution:
Since we have established that racial bias and discrimination serves a vital function in the human evolutionary process by ensuring ones own group is kept safe from external threats such as evolutionarily competitive populations (thus maximizing its chances of reproduction and survival), it can be concluded that “racism”, which is defined as “prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race”, is not only not morally “bad”, but in fact morally “good”.

This is what happens when you try to engage with academic philosophical concepts and problems without first doing a basic review of the history of the discipline and the approaches and fundamental issues that have already been discussed at length, in incredible detail, at a level of extreme rigor, for centuries.

...

Holy shit user, thanks for supplying this fantastic video. This is a must-watch for anyone serious about delving into the historical context of moral universalism as a uniquely Western ideal, and how it is being exploited by cultures that value ethnocentric nepotism/kinship over the Western individualistic trust/morality. Also touches on "shame" (universal and cross-cultural ostrization of transgression) vs "guilt" (wholly individualistic response to the betrayal of trust which again is unique to the West)

For those having trouble with playback, YouTube:
Prof. Kevin B. Macdonald - The Psychological Mechanism of White Dispossession

Interesting about that Williams disease thing. It is actually a disorder to not have racial biases.
And they want us all to have it.

but we wont
it is adaptive evolutionarily

Racism is evolved, and is also rational in many cases.

However I disagree that morality = darwinian survival.
All animal from the most base have instincts to help them pass on their genes, but we don't consider them to be moral agents.

Humans have instincts for co-operation and altruism, but also deceit, rape and theft. It is sometimes advantageous to betray your race to help your nuclear family, and sometimes the opposite. How can these all be moral?

And where is the room for beauty? Classical European architecture and art do not help us survive, and indeed waste resources. It would be morally better, from your perspective, if we all lived in cheap but well-engineered concrete structures, living life according to an AI dictator, which would perfectly ensure the survival of our genes as they currently are, taking care of us like animal in a zoo.

There could be no progress towards being greater beings, because mutations for greater intelligence or beauty would mean the death of the old genes. We wouldn't need more intelligence to survive anyway, as a powerful AI could do the thinking and planning for us.

I suggest you revisit your thesis, and consider how beauty, civilization and well-being and what must be aimed for. This in any case requires European genetics to maintain what we have produced, but there is further we can evolve in this direction, which requires a morality beyond mere survival.

Like newfags whom must be banished to lurking for the next 2 years, you must be banished from the computer screen until you read a few books. Head to /pdfs/ or /zundel/ immediately.

it is every nazi chad's duty to cuck a leftist so your nazi genes pass down instead of his faggot genes and his kid grows up to be a nazi.

SEX WAR NOW!

if you get stuck paying the bill you fucked up and failed to cuck him!

I have my own "evolutionarily-derived morality theory," and I agree with you, however your theory stops short of further sophistication which could answer some of the criticisms brought in this thread. It also could do with further introduction of the basic concepts.

Let's start by examining why we're "moral" at all. We can construct it from the basic instinct to survive. The *value* of one's own survival must be held by an individual or else he or she will not live much longer to reproduce; a species of such individuals would die off. This base value drives us to evaluate everything by that standard. Our world as we perceive it is colored (literally and figuratively) by this brush, and what affects our survival is what we find to be meaningful. As an individual experiences the world he accumulates knowledge of it necessary for survival. To manage this knowledge and make predictions, he consciously organizes what he sees into objects and categories and recognizes patterns of cause and effect, while the powerful subconscious mind processes larger volumes of information outputs emotions and other instinctual responses. To account for the unknown, the fit-to-survive man will ascertain conscious policies, strategies, personal rules to adhere to in order to live with the best chances of survival going forward into the uncertain future, the more abstract and generalized of which being we might think of as "values." The subconscious mind has also values of its own, manifesting in intermediate drives toward survival, our other instincts that serve that base value of survival as the ultimate good, or at least heuristics toward it.

Of course, the atomized individual is a myth. At some point, our species, in some form, figured out that we are stronger as groups than on our own. What we usually think of as "morality" involves those particular survival strategies for managing a group, the rule system for interpersonal relationships, the generalized values and virtues that offer heuristics for the good of the group. Our instincts too are laden with social drives. Even the survival instinct applies more to the group than it does to the individual, as an individual need not necessarily survive for a species to withstand the test of evolution, only his offspring or his group must continue on to survive and reproduce. Groups may also offer mates for the individual to reproduce himself. So, we have the capacity to be moral because value systems help preserve the group, which helps preserve the individual. Our instinct to be moral is the "survival instinct" for the group.

Shared value systems result in hierarchies, orders of rank of individuals in groups. Those that embody the values of the group are favored, endowed with social status. This social status gives one power among the group, netting preference for resources, leadership, support in case of conflict, and most importantly, from an evolutionary standpoint, access to mates. Women tend to select mates based on this hierarchy, trusting that those closer to the top are of higher genetic stock (or perhaps in an earlier age, men at the top of the hierarchies had first pick of their women, being seen by their peers as deserving of reproduction).

This has some important implications. If individuals are born with varying ability potential and personalities, than those with the traits that are favored by the group will continue to propagate itself and steadily replace those that it does not favor. So, it is very much in the interest of those at the bottom of the hierarchy to subvert the values of the group, and for those at the top to maintain the values that put them there. Some will even sacrifice themselves to show just how important their values are, evidencing the primacy of the group survival in our instincts over the individual, as it is the values of one's group that preserve it. Those with varying traits may compete to forge a value system that favors them, but as we've seen these values are not arbitrary, being tied to survival. Complete subversion to the point of reversal of values, as is needed for some individuals to be at the top any hierarchy, would result in weakened fitness, so naturally, groups will act to prevent that; the strong will "oppress" the weak out of necessity. However, most of us do not stand at these extremes, and are constantly competing both within value systems and to change the value system to be more in our favor. Value systems may be further refined by this competition, since as the environment changes, value systems should adapt to suit it. We agree to rules of the game of climbing the hierarchy, but we might further play a meta-game of deciding the rules of *that* game, the meta-game itself having rules so that the value system is allowed to change but not so much that it is destroyed. The rules of that game are subject to change as well, and so on, but this practice is naturally suspect, as when following this progression, groups are eventually left with the ultimate game of life and death, one that we'd prefer not to play – that is unless there is no mutual benefit that can be extracted from playing any other one.

Not only is this game multi-layered, groups, too are multi-layered, and I have so far ignored this complication. It's not only to species or races that this "group" distinction applies, it may be any group that has identified itself as such. Of course, we tend to identify with those that are similar to us, as an extension of our preference for ourselves, and because it's easier to cooperate and share values with those that are similar to us. So, the strength of our group identity and preference fades as the lines of our concentric circles of family, extended family, friends, community, and nation are crossed. Within these circles there are groups competing with other groups all under an umbrella group that competes with other umbrella groups, which themselves may be competing with a different group of umbrella groups, and so on. As individuals we may compete with others within our group, but groups too may also do so among other groups, and as there are values and rules that govern competition within groups, there are also those that govern inter-group competition. In either case we simultaneously cooperate for our mutual benefit and compete with each other under a set of rules and values that maintain the relationship, and this competition is subject to the same, previously mentioned dynamics of the hierarchy. Nobody truly sits outside any sort of group unless they become an existential threat. Even animals may become members of our social circles in some form as pets, and even the animal lives those outside them have some value, since the effect on the ecosystem of total annihilation would be a negative impact on the environment and in turn, on ourselves.

That's it for the "evolutionarily-derived morality," as this theory can explain all human behavior, though I'm not going to get into the corner cases that require more involved explanations. This is usually where I stop if don't want to get into race, but one can easily make a case for racism from this theory of tribal-moral behavior with the help of race realism.

Good post. Not really the greatest at formatting my thoughts, but I'll try to clarify what I was thinking.
I will right off the bat agree that there is such a thing as "that which is objectively prudent for a race to do to ensure its own survival." I do not agree that he has shown that "that which is objectively prudent for a race to do to ensure its own survival" is necessarily objectively "good" for that race.
Evolutionary prudent behavior isn't, but claiming that behavior is objectively "good" is.
This dude right here very succinctly sums me up.
youtube.com/watch?v=eT7yXG2aJdY

bump

Morality and ethical thinking are tied to intelligence, since IQ makes long-term decision making possible. Low IQ = Low moral and ethical level = Low inhibition = Unstable societies = Low IQ.

First, christian, second, i believe in evolution, third, thats loaded and false as kikes selling crosses, just check your own saying and statistics, its kinda hard taking something serious if you start with lies.

From an evolutionary standpoint a dog is no more or less evolved than any other species. At least without quantifies like "more evolved to do X".
You could argue for example niggers are more evolved in handling harsh sunlight. In modern society we have plenty of quantifiers for what makes a "good" citizen. Smart, attractive, funny etc. Non-whites in general are shitty for modern society.