Cockblockotron 2000: The Nature of Subjective Morality

I am unconcerned with whether morality is subjective or objective.  Ultimately, the only morality that matters is my own and it is fluid insofar as it serves me.  However, those that claim to be above the psychopath’s self-serving ways are often rendered crippled by the very question of morality.  In today’s foolishly multiculturalist world, in which the sins of many are overlooked in the name of “progress,” we are effectively defining subjective morality to be the rule of the land.  After all, it isn’t wrong under today’s politically correct lens so long as it is someone else getting beheaded or child-fucked.  I bring all of this up because the political landscape is about to take a turn for the worse in America – meaning less centered – due to the untimely death of a bigoted Supreme Court justice that many (including myself) did not care for.  However, I did appreciate the fact that his existence brought a center to a messy nine-judge panel.  We need crazies from both sides in the debate for ultimate truth – lord knows the common masses can’t be trusted for this job.  So what does this have to do with psychopathy?  Everything.

The world wants it both ways:  it wants to declare their own morality to be absolute and for the morality of others to be given either a complete pass in the name of multiculturalism or a complete cockblock in the name of bigoted difference.  Read that a couple times.  Either we overlook the extensive sins of another culture due to fears of internal bigotry or we overcorrect and declare another culture to be without merit due to differences that “obviously” must be chalked up to morality.  Since we grasp onto selective morality to frame our lives and the lives of others, we should not be surprised when the inevitable truth under those conditions is revealed.  Namely, a legislature dictates the morality of the country through their own lens.  The laws are judged through the lens of another’s subjectivity.  The actions of another are always subject to the poison of the eyes through which they are seen.  Without a group of diverse voices, each with their own interpretations of right and wrong, there cannot be any hope for a relatively fair code of morality in which liberty is honored.  However, in the meantime, our love with the subject means that we have firehouses that won’t respond to the poor and drug manufacturers that raise prices once they buy out the patents for various drugs.  If morality is relative, than is any of this actually wrong?  Rather than blame themselves for this mess, the neurotypical will, of course, divert their attention elsewhere and proclaim this to be the work of psychopaths.  And, maybe they are right.  If morality is truly subjective, than am I not just doing myself a service when I take my pound of flesh?

The psychopath, I strongly believe, is immune to this debate.  She will seek to subvert the rules in place, no matter who put them there.  She will treat others in a non-uniform fashion depending on their worth to her.  Whether someone loses a hand or another has his testicles cut out is of no real consequence so long as the psychopath themselves is not damaged.  I’m scared shitless of a world in which either pole of the political spectrum has absolute power.  Why?  It’s simple, really.  I do best when the morality involved is universally murky.  When there is continual fighting over what is right and what is wrong, it is easier to slip into the shadows.  And, with those things that end up being set into law, there is usually a mitigating factor that makes usurping the code less painful than it need be otherwise.   Do I care if the law of man is based in absolute or subjective terms?  Nah.  All I care is that it remain fair to me.  In the meantime, I’ll dance to my own decree and merely execute the logical end to a non-existent debate over morality.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *