A theory of righteousness (1)

To understand something, you need to see the structure. Unlike most people would think, morality is not straightforward, it has a structure: the basic material is trust / believe, I don’t know why there are different words for the same thing. You consume trust in exchange for public morality, like you spend the money for the goods. There is a method to measure your wealth, it doesn’t count how much money you have, it counts how much money you spend. Because money is coupon, it only realizes its value by being spent. It makes sense, but anyway, you cannot become richer by spending money. If you want to be rich, you should make money. Seems by me, the real good people are the producers of morality instead of the consumers.

The basic form of morality is trust. It’s like our food, it might come from animal or plant, but ultimately, it comes from sun light. That’s why God says Sola Fide. That’s why God only asked you to love your neighbors. Perpetual motion machine doesn’t exist, and you cannot lift yourself by pulling your hair. The only way to increase the amount of good is by generating trust and believe. Otherwise, goodness people take upon themselves will end up bad results. I appreciate the kindness of Wilsonianism, but it fed all the evil in the 20th century.

Real trust is generated between people. Morality is simply how you treat people. Strictly speaking, only the relation between you and people around you is morality, because relation = stimulation + reaction. The relation isn’t complete if it is unidirectional. For example: How good is a soccer player? You cannot use “what he can do” as a standard. The standard is: under what conditions, what is the successful rate of doing something. You tell me, I can score free kicks, it doesn’t say anything. If you say: I can score about 10 free kicks in a season of Serie A. That gives me a good understanding about how good you are. You hate people around you, but you are filled with undifferentiated love towards humanity, that’s not your morality, that’s the sage mode (Kenja Time) after you jerk yourself.

Sometimes we cannot get the answers because we asked the wrong questions. Once you learned Non-Euclidean geometry, you won’t bother to prove parallel postulate. Morality is trust that produced by community, it will overflow when there’s a surplus. The more surplus we have, the more we are able to care about the externals. When you consider it from this perspective, there’s actually neither hypocrisy nor contradiction about ethics and morality. Questions such as “Is Thanos right?” are not real questions, because you cannot talk about right and wrong without the subject of community. Unfortunately, that’s how sociologists do their research. When they talk about morality, it’s always about “you got 10 innocent people on the right, 1 innocent people on the left, you’ve got a button in front of you…” That’s why they are going nowhere.

to be continued