'Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the weak. Historical law subverts it at every turn. A moral view can never be proven right or wrong by any ultimate test'. — Jack Cummins

It's only a novel. The quote matches the bleak, bereft setting of the book - circumstances where god seems to be missing.

It made me think of the previous movement of the 'moral right', as represented by Mary Whitehouse, which argued against pornography and art forms which showed forms of violence. — Jack Cummins

Mary Whitehouse was a fanatical Christian moral guardian with ties to fundamentalism. She wanted Dr Who banned.

She said that as it is a charity supporting children, they will not stock CDs, in case there has been any exploitation of children in the making of the music'. — Jack Cummins

There are many intellectually backward fanatics working for charities, I've met many of them. Who knows if this was policy or just the views of a store cooridanator? Given some of charities (often religious) are also anti-women's rights, anti-trans and highly judgemental of others in general, this is hardly surprising.

What do you think about the relationship between ethics and politics? Also, what is 'right' or 'wrong' about political correctness, and how far should such correctness go in outlawing what may some may regard as being 'offensive'? — Jack Cummins

I don't see how anything you have raised is connected to political correctness.

Your question seems to be about censorship and this is a pressing issue all around the world where books are banned for all sorts of reasons, generally through religious fundamentalism or political autocracy.

Perhaps the salient question is how do certain discreet communities led by fanatics who do not represent mainstream views, end up causing culture to be censored?

I don't see why Cormac McCarthy's ideas should be dismissed as simply 'a novel'. That seems to involve compartmentalism, as if academic philosophy is supreme. So many ideas are pursued in fiction and distinguished philosophers, including Sartre and Camus, used both fiction and philosophy. As for the bleakness of Cormac, he does represent the post-apocalyptic genre. It is grim, but it may involve fiction as raising critical questions about culture rather than as mere entertainment.

As for my own post being about censorship as opposed to wider questions of political correctness, I would argue that political correctness is about censorship but other aspects too, such as choice of language. My working definitely of political correctness would be about the attempt to convey ideas in such a way that it does not cause offence, especially in relation to ideas of difference, such as race and gender.

One key difference between political correctness and the 'moral right' may be about angle and emphasis. Ideas such as pornography being wrong were based more on ideas of 'moral purity' as opposed to attempts to remove ideas which may be perceived as problematic in relation to marginalised groups. It may not be a complete distinction though, because pornography may be seen as treating women as sexual objects, which is not simply about purity but also about the subordination of women.

Even the pope has made a shift in his thinking in his ideas of gender, from what I have read in recent news. He sees gender transitions as problematic as blurring the distinction between the sexes, but has suggested that homosexuality is acceptable. That is a shift from the Catholic Church's previous attitude towards gay issues. It may reflect the awareness of the priesthood as having a shadow, with so many priests in the closet and issues of abuse.

I don't see why Cormac McCarthy's ideas should be dismissed as simply 'a novel'. — Jack Cummins

Not dismissed. Just hoping to sharpen your OP. You'll note your examples were of three different phenomena. 1) an artistic statement (not necessarily the author's view) 2) a notorious conservative zealot who sought to gatekeep public morality and 3) an untheorized charity service worker, who may or may not be following actual policy.

None of these seem to be connected to political correctness, which is generally a product of the Left: a phenomena seeking to modify or rehabilitate public discourse through correct speech, cultural representation and inclusivity. It is often accused by the Right of being overly censorious.

I think it's important in discussing censorship to parse what the motivating factors are. Censorship is a multifactorial equation and a similar result can be arrived at through utterly different paths.

Hey you, Whitehouse
Ha, ha, charade you are
You house proud town mouse
Ha, ha, charade you are
You're trying to keep our feelings off the street
You're nearly a real treat
All tight lips and cold feet
And do you feel abused?
You got to stem the evil tide
And keep it all on the inside
Mary you're nearly a treat
Mary you're nearly a treat
But you're really a cry

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gZM1WQKwpl0

What do you think about the relationship between ethics and politics? — Jack Cummins

I think ethics (re: moral agency) is concerned with the cultivation of human flourishing whereas politics (re: solidarity, legitimacy) is concerned with resolving conflicts in ways which to varying degrees arrange (or derange) the material-symbolic conditions for making the cultivation of human flourishing possible.

Also, what is 'right' or 'wrong' about political correctness, and how far should such correctness go in outlawing what may some may regard as being 'offensive'?

"PC" is and always has been useless – "identity politics" shite – and, where it harms more than it helps, it's wrong. Don't be an Asshole or a Cunt! (billboards? PSAs?) – civility & (a little) empathy when in public almost always suffices. Fuck censors, prudes, fundies & other hypocritical, virtue signaling, "offended" twats! :strong: :mask:

'Blood Meridian'

... on my short list for The Great American Novel.

The quote matches the bleak, bereft setting of the book - circumstances where god seems to be missing. — Tom Storm

:fire:

I admit that I juxtaposed a strange combination of sources in writing the thread. As far as the charity shop worker's comment goes, I was left wondering about the member of staff was expressing her view or a policy of the charity itself. Independently of which is the case, the particular view was one which I have come across in many aspects of life, especially in relation to music artists.

I have seen various people cast aside 70s album compilations aside for having a track by Gary Glitter, or even the Glitterband, which did not include him, as a matter of principle. I was a bit stuck myself as I had albums by Lostprophets and simply didn't wish to listen to them any longer after the lead singer, Ian Watkins, was convicted of child sex abuse.

It does depend how far one wishes to go or achieve, and the divide between the nature of censorship between the political right and the political left roots of political correctness is an interesting area of contrast. That is because the moral right sees it as being necessary in order to prevent sexual immorality and violence, with the assumption being that a person viewing certain material is likely to engage in these as a result. This is a rather dubious argument. In contrast, the political left does not come from such particular logic or rationale. It is more based on avoidance of upsetting those who are are in so-called minority positions.

I do agree with your distinction between ethics and politics, or their underlying foundation. Nevertheless, the two may be blurred so much in the experience of life, especially in social systems and organisations.

Generally, I see political correctness as being 'over the top'. However, I am inclined to try to use language with a certain amount of sensitivity. That is probably because I have seen language used against people with mental health problems and LGBTIQ issues in a hurtful way. However, that is more in the context of real life social interaction and personal insults. Where it gets complicated is with artists like Eminem who used the term 'nigger' and some people took objection. It may depend on context as to whether it matters and, motives. For example, many gay people have used the word 'queer' to affirm a positive identity.

I also think that Cormac McCarthy's book is one of the Great American novels. I was rereading it when I came across his view of moral law. I am aware that @Tom Storm sees the view as an artistic statement, and it is, but it may also be an observation of lived experience of social life.

'Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the weak. — Jack Cummins

This seems to me a far more sweeping generalization than the refusal to sell music. Are specific examples given of which moral precept disenfranchises which group of "the weak" - and who they are?

What is demonstrated in the quote above is the way in which any moral law is based on values and interconnected with power structures. — Jack Cummins

Moral "laws" are religious in origin. They connect to civil law through the religious affiliation of those who have sufficient power to influence the law. But moral laws are far more adhered-to by the powerless faithful than their rulers.

Of course they're about values. All ideological, moral, ethical and legal judgments are.

This may be relevant for thinking about cultural clashes and about ideas of 'political correctness'. In such ideas it may be that values are being upheld to an extreme as though they are 'laws'. — Jack Cummins

By some people some of the time. Others continue to publish racist slurs and extreme political screeds, personal attacks and obscene literature. A moral precept isn't written into actual law until the majority of lawmakers in some constituency decide it's to their advantage.

It is true that Cormac McCarthy's statement is an overgeneralisation, and I don't wish to make too much of an issue of this, but your post's quote of it does make it look like mine. I will go back and look at the examples in the fiction content which follows the specific statement. Maybe, Tom Storm is right to see it as an artistic statement more than anything else and, despite the way McCarthy's book is seen as a literary classic, I wonder to what extent the quote has been looked at as a philosophy statement. If anything, I saw it as having a Nietzschian feel or criticism of ideas of morality.

The role of religion has played such a significant role in ideas of morality. Here, the dialogue may come down to the politics of religion, which was Nietzsche's starting point for the critique of morality and of going 'Beyond Good and Evil'.

Of course, the side-issue would be the way ij which Nietzsche's ideas were made into potential for Nazi ideas, independently of how he intended them to be interpreted. If anything, the history of philosophy has been filled with racist and sexist comments. It may have been that awareness of historical issues of racism and sexism gave rise to the movement of political correctness and wokeism.

Lawmakers and policy makers do have a big role to play in defining what is acceptable. If anything, there may be a reverse of this happening with objections to 'politically correct' views currently, with a potential for expression of hatred, as a backlash.

It is true that Cormac McCarthy's statement is an overgeneralisation, and I don't wish to make too much of an issue of this, but your post's quote of it does make it look like mine. — Jack Cummins

I assumed you quoted it because you agree with it, and I wondered on what basis you agree with it.

If anything, I saw it as having a Nietzschian feel or criticism of ideas of morality. — Jack Cummins

You mean it just "feels" like it should be true? Generalizations often feel this way, whether they are accurate or not; they articulate an idea that we have not (?yet) formulated. It's easy to let them slide past without too much scrutiny, and to generalize them even further, onto subjects that engage our attention - whether they are appropriate to those subjects or not.
This is what I think happened to your OP: the topics of P3, 4 and 5 do not seem directly related to P1.

The role of religion has played such a significant role in ideas of morality. — Jack Cummins

Morality is entirely a religious idea of what is virtue and what is sin according a god. Of course, that immediately becomes political, since gods are the Wizard-of-Oz puppets of a ruling elite. The secular/societal version of the idea is ethics: how members of a community need to behave in order to preserve peace and order.

If anything, the history of philosophy has been filled with racist and sexist comments. — Jack Cummins

Philosophers are products of their time and culture, like everyone else. Each individual philosopher may question, even reject, some aspect of the prevailing attitudes, while accepting a whole body of thought as the natural order of things. I suppose Nietzsche was more radical then most; because more unhappy and discontented than most, he questioned and rejected more of his society's middle-class mores.

It may have been that awareness of historical issues of racism and sexism gave rise to the movement of political correctness and wokeism. — Jack Cummins

Of course. Every movement is a response to what came before it. People got fed up with the crude jokes, ugly stereotypes, baseless characterizations and casual insults. While subscribing to the principle of freedom of speech, I very much prefer civil public discourse. I don't miss many of the words that were common parlance in my youth. Of course, every movement is a response to what came before it. The backlash against 'political correctness' has been much longer and fiercer than the movement itself was.

My quoting of Cormac McCarthy was on the basis of it being a point worthy of reflection. I would say that I think that it makes a fair point but it may be not a full enough view and would need far more substantiation.

Most moral systems evolved in conjunction with religious worldviews and the move towards more secular ideas has not been straightforward. It is probably difficult to take a writer's viewpoint outside of the social context in which they emerged.

It definitely seems that the backlashes of the present time may be far 'longer and fiercer' than the original movements towards liberation. This is what makes them into cultural wars, amidst a background of cultural relativism, with specific groups arguing for their values and interests.

What do you think about the relationship between ethics and politics?

To me, politics is the application of ethics to power and monopoly.

Also, what is 'right' or 'wrong' about political correctness, and how far should such correctness go in outlawing what may some may regard as being 'offensive'?

What is right about political correctness is that we ought to treat people with respect and dignity, and avoid insult. What is wrong about political correctness is that respect and dignity ought to be applied to amorphous groups of people, whether they deserve it or not, and not individually. That is precisely where it becomes unjust.

Add on top of that coercing people to do so with threat and force, rather than through argument and example, and we have the makings of an authoritarian movement.

My quoting of Cormac McCarthy was on the basis of it being a point worthy of reflection — Jack Cummins

I I didn't ask why you printed the quote; I asked on what basis you agree with it. But perhaps you have not yet reflected enough to know whether you do agree with it.

Most moral systems evolved in conjunction with religious worldviews and the move towards more secular ideas has not been straightforward. — Jack Cummins

The purview of religious codes is the welfare of the soul - or man's keeping on the right side of his god(s); it rules on matters of sacrifice and penance, sex and marriage, ritual practice and the three rites of passage. Alongside this, there was always a secular law code to rule on mundane matters like business transactions, taxation, land ownership and water rights, as well as orderly public conduct. They're straightforward enough by the lights of each society, according their circumstances and economy.

It definitely seems that the backlashes of the present time may be far 'longer and fiercer' than the original movements towards liberation. — Jack Cummins

?? You were talking about 'political correctness'. How did it turn into 'liberation' and to whose liberation from what are you referring?

The basis for my partial agreement with Cormac McCarthy is a fairly negative view of human nature, based on reading of history and so much which is going on in the world currently.

However, I don't see human beings in an entirely negative way. It may be that reflection itself is part of the stepping point towards authentic morality. The authentic morality would be based on wisdom, or some degree of self-mastery.

However, such self-mastery is not without awareness of one's weaknesses, as opposed to the perfectionism aspired to by the Abrahamic religious traditions. The highest morality may have been achieved by some human beings, Socrates, Jesus Christ, the Buddha and Gandhi. However, what was passed down in religious traditions was a mere facade.

The same may be true in secular ethics. So much is projection of 'evil' onto others and this is happening in both the left and right of politics, including the backlash against political correctness. Such a backlash paves the way for Neo-Nazi totalitarianism and that worry is probably the basis for my incongruous mixture of sources for my initial outpost.

Maybe, Tom Storm is right to see it as an artistic statement more than anything else and, despite the way McCarthy's book is seen as a literary classic, I wonder to what extent the quote has been looked at as a philosophy statement. If anything, I saw it as having a Nietzschian feel or criticism of ideas of morality. — Jack Cummins

I didn't say that was all there is to it. I would probably agree with (and not endorse) McCarthy's statement. But in the context of that baroque ode to violence and moral depravity and America's moral history, the quote takes on additional meaning.

I think people generally interpret morality to suit their worldviews. No one can demonstrate they have access to an objective morality - even the religious folk can do no better than interpret god's will based on personal preferences, which is why even within a single religion views on moral issues are subject to manifold disagreement.

The basis for my partial agreement with Cormac McCarthy is a fairly negative view of human nature, based on reading of history and so much which is going on in the world currently. — Jack Cummins

Sure. It's also a standard nihilistic account. A view I held from childhood. Morality is a code of conduct that ususally supports the powerful. But while this is how things transpire in the world, this does not mean that morality is meant to be this way.

The basis for my partial agreement with Cormac McCarthy is a fairly negative view of human nature, based on reading of history and so much which is going on in the world currently. — Jack Cummins

Granted. We're a mad, bad species with moments of brilliant goodness. I was referring specifically to the statement itself: "Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the weak." That's what I was asking: Who are 'the weak' and how do moral laws disenfranchise them? I don't see this in any moral system I'm aware of.

The authentic morality would be based on wisdom, or some degree of self-mastery. — Jack Cummins

Does that mean all past and current concepts of morality are inauthentic? Or that they don't require self-mastery?

However, such self-mastery is not without awareness of one's weaknesses, as opposed to the perfectionism aspired to by the Abrahamic religious traditions. — Jack Cummins

Aspiring toward perfection is at the center of all religious ideals. But none expect each individual to be capable of perfection; the Abrahamic religions have built in mechanisms to atone for wrong-doing and seek forgiveness for trespasses, in the full expectation that even the most fervent believers will fall short of perfection.

So much is projection of 'evil' onto others and this is happening in both the left and right of politics, including the backlash against political correctness. — Jack Cummins

How does that relate to secular ethics? Accusations and hyperbole are cheap, dishonest tactics in a conflict.
(BTW, you could perhaps examine that apparently balanced "both the left and right of politics" and compare the truth content of claims actually made by representatives of those factions.)

Such a backlash paves the way for Neo-Nazi totalitarianism and that worry is probably the basis for my incongruous mixture of sources for my initial outpost. — Jack Cummins

I understand your concern, but I think you misplace the origins of the problem. Totalitarianism is not about morality or ethics or law or civil discourse. It's the result of anxiety (insecurity and fear) caused by societal breakdown. Certainly, corruption in the pursuit of wealth and power play a large part in the slow implosion we're witnessing. But it's not because the principles were wrong; it's because the principles are slighted, breached, then abandoned altogether, first by the elite, imitated by the privileged classes, and finally the masses.

The nature of politics as 'the application of ethics to monopoly and power' is the basis of the dialogues and debates of social ethics, and is probably where it goes beyond ideas of personal morality alone.

The issue with political correctness is balancing conflicting interests. In particular, Equal Opportunities policies have been developed to protect issues of difference. The problem is that some who don't wish to adhere to such a perspective see it as being authoritarian and don't like to be told what is acceptable. In Scotland, anti-hate laws have been developed because some rebel by wishing to express hate, to the point of violence.

Regarding the anti-hate laws in Scotland,
JK Rowling has protested about these in relation to trans issues. She is not arguing against transgender people as such, but suggesting that people should not be told that they can't 'call a man a man', which means an invalidation of people's gender transitions.

Trans is one aspect of where there are conflicts of interests but there are so many others too, including people of varying religious faiths, which has always been a problem, especially when ideas of superiority come in.

Thanks for your recent post, which makes many interesting and critical points. It is indeed a good question as to who are the 'weak' and on what basis is there a criteria?

The finding of a truly authentic morality is complex because so much is about values handed down during socialisation, with potential for modifications. This makes authenticity in ethics a spectrum and it would probably be hard to pin down the exact difference between inauthentic and authentic ethics and, each person's exploration of how to live is unique.

Do you not think that projection is an important aspect of hatred, because as far as I see it, this has occurred so much at the centre of conflicts and war, including when it is projected onto minority groups or leaders, as the psychodynamics of politics. As for potential totalitarianism, I see it as an authoritarian response to the existential fear of the panorama of the pluralism, in a multicultural and multifaith/worldviews.

You are correct to place McCarthy's ideas in America and the quote was in a discussion of war. Nihilism is a position which can be slipped into easily and it involves attitude as opposed to logical arguments.

Ethics may be about the highest ideals, but it may become so much less in the chaos of life, especially amidst suffering and oppression. It may even tie in with Maslow's hierarchy of needs, with many struggling with the basic aspects of physical survival and not being able to achieve self-actualization and creativity in life.

The finding of a truly authentic morality is complex because so much is about values handed down during socialisation, with potential for modifications. — Jack Cummins

I'm not sure what you mean by 'authentic'. Original? Personal? Unique? Effective?
As far as I can see, moral and ethical issues are always decided in the public sphere, rather than invented by individuals. The 10 commandments may have been carved by Moses, but they had to reflect the values of his people, or they would not have accepted either or the rules or the leader who announced them. I can't imagine humans learning to behave ethically, except through socialization in early childhood. I agree, however, that individuals do adapt the prevailing code to their own understanding of what's good and bad, and some individuals contribute disproportionately to changes in social mores, and that each generation brings a new perspective to the traditional belief system.

Do you not think that projection is an important aspect of hatred — Jack Cummins

Very likely. Of course, imagination and projection play a role in all of our complex emotional states, so this would be true of personal hatreds as well as ethnic or class ones.
As to the wars and oppressions, there is usually a practical motive behind the propaganda. Even if that unacknowledged goal only benefits a small minority, the populace can usually be persuaded to take out its frustrations and resentments on a designated scapegoat. There is always a segment that can hardly wait for permission to express its dark side.
But these motivations don't necessarily lead to the kind of governance we usually mean by totalitarian. They can move the loyal subjects of a 'good' king, the faithful flocks of a 'good' pope or the patriotic constituents of a democratically elected president.

As for potential totalitarianism, I see it as an authoritarian response to the existential fear of the panorama of the pluralism, in a multicultural and multifaith/worldviews. — Jack Cummins

I don't see that. North America was diverse all through the 19th and 20th centuries, and there were plenty of local rivalries, enmities and conflicts, but there was no threat of a megalomaniac taking over the Canadian government or tearing up the US constitution or outlawing opposition parties.

Now, there is a prevailing anxiety regarding the future - whether there is one - due to the imminent end of work, the unstable world economy, the pressure of mass migration, the prospects of more and bigger weather events, the threat of nuclear war and famine, and the lack of ideals to believe in. This is the kind of fear that calls for a protector, a father figure, a "strong man" who promises to fix things, restore the correct faith and return all your former security and privilege (whether you had any or not).

Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the weak. — Jack Cummins

I disagree with this. IMO, morality is rooted in empathy. It feels wrong to hurt another person, because we empathize with the one who is hurt. The golden rule formalizes this into a "moral law" of sorts. Assessing what is morally good becomes trickier as situations become more complex, and often there's moral ambiguity - partial goods and partial evils. This opens the door for the perceived "disenfranchisement of the weak" in those cases. It's worthwhile to debate those cases, but I disagree that all moral law should be assumed to motivated by such a cynical motive.

She said that as it is a charity supporting children, they will not stock CDs, in case there has been any exploitation of children in the making of the music'. — Jack Cummins

She's not being immoral, she's being cautious - perhaps overly cautious. Why deal in materials that she has suspicions about? Perhaps her suspicions are irrational, but is that relevant?

It made me think of the previous movement of the 'moral right', as represented by Mary Whitehouse, which argued against pornography and art forms which showed forms of violence. It is based on forms of moral absolutism and what is acceptable being enshrined as 'moral law'. — Jack Cummins

This is similar to the charity lady scenario only in that it seems rooted in ignorance and irrationality, but it differs from from the charity scenario in that it represents a movement to generally restrict access to pornography, whereas the charity lady was just choosing not to participate in something she was suspicious about.

"Political correctness" has both positive and negative connotations. On the positive side, it may deter people from offending others. On the negative side, it can be based on false assumptions and become a sword to shame people (sometimes appropriately, sometimes inappropriately).

In thinking of the concept of authenticity, I read the writing of a twentieth literary critic, Lionel Trilling, 'Authenticity and Sincerity'. He saw the movement from sincerity, as being honest to one's word, to authenticity, involve experimentation, in finding one' 'true self'. Authenticity also involves questioning of social roles and norms.

In thinking of social dynamics, scapegoating has probably played a significant as has martyrdom, with people being prepared to lay down their lives for the highest ethical ideals, including Socrates and Emiline Pankhurst for the Suffragettes. There is the negative equivalent of this in the form of terrorism. It is questionable to what extent there is a place for philosophical martyrs within secular ethics, however, without the idea of rewards in the afterlife.

As far as the gravitation towards totalitarianism goes, it may definitely come in the context of fear in the complete uncertainty about the future, with a wish for a sense of a leader who is 'in control'. Within the pandemic, there may have been a lot of obedience to rules due to a whole aspect of uncertainty, which still exists in the effects of the lockdown and the uncertainty in general, especially in relation to the threats of climate change and the fear of potential World War 3. Humanity is living with so much to fear as a source of moral panic.

Authenticity also involves questioning of social roles and norms. — Jack Cummins

I see. Personal reflection and perspective. That's something every intelligent adolescent does, whether they articulate their conclusions or not. In my circle, we wrote everything down in essay form and discussed our ideas ad nauseum. For less word-oriented people, it comes as rebellion against rules, against authority, against religious dogma. I think it's an important part of growing up, and essential to responsible citizenship: the unexamined principle tends to become dogma and dogmatism is dangerous.

It is questionable to what extent there is a place for philosophical martyrs within secular ethics, however, without the idea of rewards in the afterlife. — Jack Cummins

Martyrdom need not be sought deliberately. Many non-religious people put themselves in harm's way in order to uphold a principle - like, say, democracy, racial equality, national identity or economic justice - that they consider important enough.

I agree with your idea or ideal of morality as being based on empathy. However, achievement of this may not be simple because it involves compassion which is a form of wisdom. The degree of empathy or compassion which a person aquires is so variable, and some individuals are extremely deficient, especially those who are diagnosed with an antisocial personality disorder. It was Gautama Buddha's experience of witnessing poverty and sickness, which led him to contemplate the importance of compassion.

The lady in the charity shop, or those in higher positions of the charity were being cautious about stocking music. It is hard to know whether this comes down to risk assessment or fear.

Political correctness as a 'sword to shame people' is definitely problematic, as people make mistakes in language, especially in relation to ideas of understanding differences. Also, changes in language change so much. Within mental health nursing, I found changes from the way people were referred to as 'patients', to 'clients', 'service-users' and 'customers'. It may have been pedantic as much as about political correctness. A more political correct change was that the diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome has been replaced by autistic spectrum disorder, not simply because it is a spectrum, but, also, because Asperger was a Nazi.

Adolescence is such an important time for thinking about values and rebelling. Some are more inclined to write and, as adults writing on philosophy sites, ongoing development and modification of ideas may occur. I see it as a lifelong search.

The negative opposite to martyrdom may be forms of self-harm, including alcohol or substance abuse, and even suicide which Camus saw as a form of 'metaphysical rebellion'. In the collapse of so many aspects of life, alongside nihilism, there may be a loss of self-care as well as regard for the needs of others.

You are correct to place McCarthy's ideas in America and the quote was in a discussion of war. Nihilism is a position which can be slipped into easily and it involves attitude as opposed to logical arguments. — Jack Cummins

I've read the novel twice: isn't the point of it an account of Manifest Destiny and the moral nihilism of the war of atrocities against First Nations people in the pursuit of more land and the expansion of settlement?

A moral view can never be proven right or wrong by any ultimate test

It's worth noting that this problem doesn't seem limited to practical judgement (good/bad), but applies as readily to aesthetic judgement (beautiful/ugly) and theoretical judgement (true/false). For instance, we might allow Descartes' his claim in the Meditations, that his experience warrants a belief in the existence of his own experiences. But what about the "evil genius" who controls all of Descartes' perceptions and intuitions—who essentially pilots his consciousness like a remote control car? Can we ever completely rule out the evil genius?

Perhaps the universe was just created an instant ago with all our memories? Perhaps all the world's leaders are reptiles from another planet disguised as human beings? Etc.

Likewise , it seems we can always ask of things, "but is it really beautiful?" Or "why is it beautiful?"

The open endedness of reason then, seems endemic. Even when faced with syllogisms we can simply question our inference rules.

What is demonstrated in the quote above is the way in which any moral law is based on values and interconnected with power structures. It leads to the idea of the way in which moral views are connected to power structures and interests, even to the point of being ideologies.

Again, I think the same thing can be said of theoretical judgements and aesthetic judgements. Scientific paradigms don't sit outside power structures or historical currents either.

This is an important point. However, it seems it is often taken too far, such that all judgements becomes reduced to nothing but power structures and historical currents.

I would agree with your summary of 'Blood Meridian' and its idea of First World expansion. It seems prophetic, as if we are living in a 'post-apocalyptic age'. I don't wish to sink into nihilistic doom and gloom, however, because there may be some truth in self-fulfilling prophecies...It may be the battle between 'new age' utopianism and nihilistic visions of doom and gloom of human dreams becoming manifest in the dramas of human civilisation, with an odd mixture of chaos.

It is true that all aspects of life, including aesthetics are based in historical and political contexts. This applies to the arts so much and the interplay between politics and art. There is artistry in politics and the dynamics of this may have been so influential. The philosophy of the Judaeo-Christian tradition may have been expressed in church architecture as a backdrop to the power and wealth structures behind it. Similarly, in the twentieth century, postmodernism questioned aesthetics and power structures, as well as forms of objective morality.

Your mention of humans as reptiles makes me think of David Icke, who argued that the Royal Family in England were shapeshifting reptiles literally. This was rather extreme literalism, missing the symbolic aspects. Humans are part of the evolutionary process of reptiles and the reptilian aspect may be the 'lower self'.

She said that as it is a charity supporting children, they will not stock CDs, in case there has been any exploitation of children in the making of the music'. — Jack Cummins

That isn't PC, and while the method may be misguided, the intention would be to discourage the exploitation of children. The goal is to prevent exploitation, not offence, which is what is meant by "political correctness".

It made me think of the previous movement of the 'moral right', as represented by Mary Whitehouse, which argued against pornography and art forms which showed forms of violence. It is based on forms of moral absolutism and what is acceptable being enshrined as 'moral law'. — Jack Cummins

You're using the term as if "PC" is a term that literally refers to people going overboard or being ridiculous with moral intentions. It seems like you've just taken the word "political" from PC and ran wild with it, as though laws are relevant to PC because they're political? Moral absolutism and PC are like opposites.

Also, what is 'right' or 'wrong' about political correctness, and how far should such correctness go in outlawing what may some may regard as being 'offensive'? — Jack Cummins

In my view, there is nothing inherently wrong with political correctness, and as with most things, there are both agreeable and disagreeable examples of it.

Perhaps the main issue with PC is its complexity. Morality ought to trump all else in priority, and that complicates many smaller moral issues, including PC, but also the example of the CDs you brought up.

It's an exceedingly minor good to refuse to hold any CDs in your store, and when the good is so small, at some point, it's impractical for it to remain a moral imperative. Instead becoming unreasonable and absurd. What about all of the good things about CDs? That should be taken into account as well.

Most don't wish to offend, and will comply with an easily fulfillable request, but PC is infamous for the inconvenient, impractical and unreasonable demands made in order to avoid offending. The difficulty of the request ups the requirements for its necessity, and that's something some people don't seem to get. It really bothers that something like convenience could trump a moral issue, but if the moral good is miniscule and the inconvenience is significant, then yeah, it actually does.

I am raising the topic as being about the interaction between ethics and politics, based on the following quote from Cormac McCarthy, in his novel, 'Blood Meridian':
'Moral law is an invention of mankind for the disenfranchisement of the weak. Historical law subverts it at every turn. A moral view can never be proven right or wrong by any ultimate test'. — Jack Cummins

Um, what the heck is 'historical law'? I have no idea. I am guessing based on your context that you really mean something like 'Pragmatic efficiency'.

Further, moral law IS NOT an invention of mankind. It is an interpretation of mankind of reality. In all cases we fail with that interpretation. And yes, the powers that be LIE constantly about the role of morality in their decisions. They do so to sell immoral action as moral to their constituency.

What is demonstrated in the quote above is the way in which any moral law is based on values and interconnected with power structures. It leads to the idea of the way in which moral views are connected to power structures and interests, even to the point of being ideologies. — Jack Cummins

I view morality as objective and a law of the universe. The fact that power abuses it DOES NOT reflect on morality in any way. It only reflects on them, the choosers. I think Cormac is a terrible cynic as presented and cynical projection is a lamely immoral way to be. As in if everything is bad that excuses your badness. That is a deeply tedious and wrong world view.

This may be relevant for thinking about cultural clashes and about ideas of 'political correctness'. In such ideas it may be that values are being upheld to an extreme as though they are 'laws'. — Jack Cummins

Real morality is a law of the universe, yes.

I must always go back to Milton, 'Let truth and falsehood grapple, truth is strong!'

I do not think people behave according to their values as often as they delusionally believe. Instead they constantly hedge and shave, hedge and shave. They intentionally do immoral things rationalizing that everyone does, exactly in the vein of cynicism, even if they are not purely that. I am aware that when I stand on principle, and I have in life many times, people distance themselves from me because they all smell death in such a decision. I find that the height of cowardice and laziness and self-indulgence, to abandon friends, family, coworkers; when they are making a stand because you can't even support it. I mean they are not the main stander. I will still take the brunt. But they are just slimy so very often.

Again, the most ways that morality is broadcast is just a sell-out hypocrisy. Feel good about us stealing your tax dollars to peddle influence with your money. And it used to be countries. I could almost understand that. Now it's just elites, individuals. In other words the countries ARE NOT being served properly in any way. The common man is always just betrayed over and over again.

For example, I was in a discussion with someone who worked in a charity shop (and I won't name the charity', who told me why the charity won't stock music CDs any longer. She said that as it is a charity supporting children, they will not stock CDs, in case there has been any exploitation of children in the making of the music'. I was stunned because it seemed to be such a sweeping generalisation about music. I would understand if the charity did not wish to stock Gary Glitter's music, or other questionable artists but to outlaw music entirely seemed like political correctness going to the point of absurdity. — Jack Cummins

You really cannot track absurdity. It knows no bounds. Best policy is to pull off site and nuke the planet from orbit. It the only way to be sure. Even then the cockroaches that think this way will survive and evolve as any good vault dweller will tell you.

Virtue signaling and posturing is so epic these days that anyone that doesn't engage in it seems like a dinosaur. And they say no man is an island. So I nicknamed myself JP, for Jurassic Park. Yeah ...

It made me think of the previous movement of the 'moral right', as represented by Mary Whitehouse, which argued against pornography and art forms which showed forms of violence. It is based on forms of moral absolutism and what is acceptable being enshrined as 'moral law'. — Jack Cummins

One must be aware of darkness, almost familiar with it, in order to fight it. Exposure to its various shadows is wise. Those who seek to bury their heads in the cleanest of sands are without hope of being truly virtuous. All they can do is pretend. Don't worry, if they hide their eyes, they cannot see you, and they will in general.

Kant and others argued for moral law on the basis of a priori principles. Plato argued for ideas of justice and goodness based on forms, however, he saw the elite philosophers as being the influence that mattered, which was a form of authoritarianism. What do you think about the relationship between ethics and politics? Also, what is 'right' or 'wrong' about political correctness, and how far should such correctness go in outlawing what may some may regard as being 'offensive'? — Jack Cummins

I agree with Kant and Plato both in that sense. Choosers must interpret moral truth because it is esoteric and distant from most people's awareness. It takes invested philosophers to dig it out and frame it back to the general population. That happens the same way any discipline makes itself useful.

Political correctness is a horror show only.

The basis of all systems we have today is greed and power. Does that sound GOOD in any way? Nope! It's so obvious that currently morality is like a smokescreen only. The real believers should be mortified. If anything, we are becoming more subjective and foolish relative to moral truth.

More children are learning less and committing suicide. Is power making the right choices? No, and less than in the past.