The Illusion of Moral Superiority

[Natasha Tori Maru]

Does evil require intent? 

Some ignorant shit leads to the most heinous, evil outcomes.

[oOo]

On 09/10/2026 at 11:41 PM, AerisVahnEphelia said:

You're not better than Trump or Hitler; you're just not them.

You're not “selfless” or “spiritual.” You're simply not living under the conditions that would lead you to commit violence and rape in the same manner as other forms of life. You're not ethically superior or better.

If you're full of “empathy,” it's because that's how you survive. You're Netanyahu and Hitler; not metaphorically, but as a raw, direct realization.

Every day, your life is sustained by killing and death, indirectly through your country. But you'll passively say, “It's not my fault; I'm earning a salary.” Yet if you support the state that kills or does evil for you instead of fighting it, you're not condoning it. That means you survive through its absolute, unchecked violence. And why won't you question it? Because you survive through it. In fact, you may be worse than Genghis Khan: you won't rape or kill yourself, but you'll condone it. You'll also remain biased about it and be VERY LAZY about questioning it; for survival reasons.

You're as evil as everyone else. Trump isn't some stupid, magnificently awful embodiment of evil; he's just extremely evil toward YOUR survival strategies. Or maybe not?!

You're evil, your mother is evil, your country is evil, and you're no different from Hitler or Netanyahu. No matter how much you soothe your ego with nice stories, your brain is a survival machine that will use every tool at its disposal to rationalize its own evil.

And the only reason you're not murdering or raping isn't that you're some angel or an ethical person; it's mainly that you're weak and lazy, and someone else does the killing and raping for you.

Everyone who lives through the state is a rapist. Your country sells weapons used to murder people so it can stay rich, let you rent cheap housing, and steal resources cheaply from other countries.

Remember: everyone around you is equally evil, just with a different flavor of it.

This reveals a need to generalise to replace a local understanding built from first principles.

Morality is not purely collectivistic, that only covers memetic morality, not philosophically earned morality.  

First and foremost however, any disposition towards a 'moral concern' as an emotional outcome is the result of nervous system interactions; logical arguments to the contrary are usually motivated by those emotional predilections rather than being the basis for their input.

And that's the basis for any responsible requisition on behaviour concerning, to hold a philosophical standard concerning emotional reactions of all kinds, including empathy, and even altruism.

That said on those emotional reactions, those that experience more empathy than not, tend to have a greater sense of morality than those that do not. 

This is the same as how not only altruism works, but also to their opposite end: selfishness, sadism, greed, lust, addiction and many other responses.

This is not something that's able to be debated with. These are well-measured.

What can be debated however?

Just because someone has an empathic response to a situation it doesn't mean they're right about a situation or that their empathy is accurately placed, the same with altruism; either can lead to many different dangerous justifications depending on compounding interactions. As I said, philosophical enquiry re-reads where the baseline emotional response should meet the behavioural follow-up/action.

The lack of accuracy or if not accuracy, grounded responses, is where most conflicts arise in the context of interacting consequences of empathy, morality and ethics; ego as well, including on the part of those higher in empathy or altruism: fascinating co-interactions. 

This is where your argumentation has merit, but until then, you're just revealing your interesting biases. 

By definition, ethical and moral superiority exist, just like any other superiority 'exists', like in argumentation, what matters are the terms generating that status, including the terms used to justify the taking away of said status. But not to empty it out as if it never existed, couldn't exist or won't exist. That's a bit childish, and warrants deeper reflection, at the very least reflection on the thing that's motivating this kind of reactive formation.

 

Edited 8 hours ago by oOo

[Leo Gura]

16 minutes ago, Mellowmarsh said:

No claim, no shame, no blame, no fame.

No game

[Mellowmarsh]

3 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No game

No lame. 😎

[Leo Gura]

No flame

[Mellowmarsh]

4 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

No flame

We all know what happened to Icarus. 🤓

[JoshB]

True Moral Superiority

[JoshB]

1 hour ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Does evil require intent? 

Some ignorant shit leads to the most heinous, evil outcomes.

"some men just want to watch the world burn"

Edited 7 hours ago by JoshB

[kavaris]

2 hours ago, Mellowmarsh said:

 

We all know what happened to Icarus. 🤓

You know whats crazy, the story of Theseus and the Minotaur is like the original vers., of the Secret house of Leaves ... Yous know the story?

Theseus arrives, hearing the story of the Labyrinth and the Minotaur already. Ariadne, Mino's daughter is touched by Theseus' courage  And subsequently gifts him the thread (in some vers, it is a sword) of which he is to tie it at one end and carry it w/ him as he moves through. After finding and killing the Minotaur, he is then to follow the thread back out through the maze... Like... ehhh uh whywould you need thread like that, if not to navigate the endless halls of an ever changing maze?

Theseus then ties the thread around himself, navi gates , and eventually slays the Minotaur  where he uses the thread to be lead back out.

p.s. everyone is unrealized evil, per their untapped potential to be lead towards good or evil: Virtues that can be had that can appear in many forms; Language that can be misinterpreted, per the evolution of English and its unfortunate way of changing things...

inb4 the secret house of leaves, i skimmed through it oike 20 years ago so i dont remember it, it wasnt exactly easy to explain... Theres names like Jonny Truant, thats all i remember... dont ask chatgpt, cause itll give you a very bad interpretation.

Edited 6 hours ago by kavaris

[AerisVahnEphelia]

6 hours ago, Natasha Tori Maru said:

Does evil require intent? 

Some ignorant shit leads to the most heinous, evil outcomes.

Try to suspend the idea that evil exists as a force in itself. Most of what we call evil is done in the name of something loved, and it’s not simple ignorance but love combined with a narrowed field of view. Hitler’s hatred of the Jews grew out of an inflated, idealized love of Germany, so intense that anything he perceived as a threat to it became an enemy.

The same mechanism works on the economic side. A certain strand of capitalism values money, and the structure and power it brings, above any attachment to an ethnically defined nation. Seen from that angle, mass immigration can be read as a way to expand the labor supply and lower its cost, and some anti-racist campaigns as having served, among other motives, to make the native population accept competition in the labor market. You can accept or reject that reading, but the logic underneath is a hierarchy of loves: this capitalist ranks the love of money above the love of an ethno-nation.

I’m not stating what I believe or where I stand politically. I’m describing a mechanism. Love creates hatred, because whatever we love, we come to hate whatever threatens it. Stop loving and there is nothing left to hate: everything is perfect as it is, including your own death or the death of what you cherish.

But if you want to protect what you love, the logic pushes you toward more hatred. Even the universalist who dreams of a utopia where every people lives in harmony faces this: to fully realize that world, he would have to eliminate everyone who values the ethno-state, and he becomes what he opposes. Every totalizing love produces its own enemy.

This is also what conservatives are reacting to in “non-identitarian communism/neoliberalism.” Their refusal of a “mixed world” isn’t (only) ignorance. It’s closer to aesthetics, a preference about what the world should look like.

Ignoring that this hatred can be aesthetic rather than ignorant is the real problem. Ignorance can be solved by informing and correcting. A preference about what the world should look like can’t be corrected, so treating it as a lack of information guarantees failure.

Edited 2 hours ago by AerisVahnEphelia