Niko Maheras
Today’s piece will be referencing the work of Mark Passio and his explanation of moral relativism. I highly encourage people to watch his Natural Law, De-Mystifying the Occult Part II presentations, and check out his other work as it is vast and detailed.
Moral relativism is defined as a belief that true morality cannot be known, and that what is morally right and morally wrong depends upon one’s perspective or frame of reference. In other words, right is what is right for me, and wrong is what is wrong for me. Some examples according to religious and or national ideologies would be making homosexuality punishable (in some places by death), banning the consumption of specific substances, and governments stealing (by way of taxation) from the people to build public utilities. Does the morality of a behavior or action change depending on location or cultural ideology?
It might help to address what morally right actions are not. If the actions result in harm to sentient beings, they are NOT morally right actions. Those actions are immoral. According to Natural Law (may also be called Karmic Law, Divine Law, etc.) murder/assault, rape, theft, trespass, and coercion are the five transgressions of immoral actions. All immoral actions can be grouped into at least one if not more than one of those categories.
It is NOT morally right to murder or assault others.
It is NOT morally right to rape others.
It is NOT morally right to steal from others.
It is NOT morally right to trespass the physical space and property of others.
It is NOT morally right to violently compel others’ will with that of another’s.
Now let us use this guide to test if specific actions are morally right.
Is it morally right to punish homosexuality? If punished by death, this violates the first transgression listed making this action instantly morally wrong. It is also a form of theft. A person, or group of people (for instance, government), does not have the right to steal the ability to engage in a consensual act from another. It is also a form of coercion. In the example of laws that pertain to this situation, a group of people (government) have claimed the ability to write rules, backed by the threat of violence (police and/or military), to force others not to behave in a certain way.
Is it morally right to control what one can put into or do with their body? “Do individuals own themselves?” would be another way of asking this question. This is theft. For any number of people to control what another can put in or do to their body is to claim that they do not own themselves; that they are slaves. This is also a form of trespass as those who deny this right to others are violating the most basic form of property that we all possess, our own bodies. It is coercion as it violently forces a set of behaviors upon others.
Lastly, is it morally right for one group of people to tax (extort) another group? It does not matter whether we receive schools, roads, or law enforcement (legalized gangs/thugs) as a result of “paying” taxes. To get ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING that government offers requires theft to begin with! As mentioned in the first article posted (For The Common Good), you will be jailed against your will if you choose to withhold taxes from programs with which you do not agree nor want. For the IRS and police to imprison someone for tax evasion is assault, trespass, and coercion. Therefore, the existence of government requires assault (and in some cases murder), theft, trespass, and coercion. While rape is not necessary for the specific action of taxation, it should be noted that government agencies and representatives have engaged in this act incessantly (here, here, here, here, here, not to mention the myriad of accusations resulting from the recent Jeffrey Epstein scandal).
The following scenario is also useful to use in determining the morality or immorality of a specific action.
Imagine a planet in which only two people exist, Person A and Person B. Now apply the action in question to determine its morality. Is it right for Person A to use violent force to punish the sexuality of Person B? Is it right for Person B to tell Person A what they can or cannot do to their own body? Is it right for Person A to steal resources from Person B without their consent? No. No. And NO*. Immoral acts do not magically become moral based on the number of people committing the act.
Even though disgusting actions like those listed above, and even worse ones, are conducted daily, it does not make them moral. EVER. Believing that any actions are morally relative allows for the belief that “I (we) can do this action because it is right for me (us).” And it is here that the selfish feeding only of the ego lies. By believing this worldview and convincing ourselves that certain people have rights that others cannot have allows for corruption amongst all ruling classes. Once one removes the spotlight from and stops feeding the ego, will he recognize that all actions are objectively moral or immoral. If an action is in question, ask “Does this action or behavior result in harm to another sentient being without their consent?”
It is now up to the individual to act in accordance with this reality to begin ending their own and, as a result, humanity’s self-induced slavery.
* It must also be stated that self-defense is different from initiating any of the five transgressions. For example, Person B is trying to force their sexuality upon Person A without consent from Person A, then Person A has every right to defend themselves and stop the actions of Person B by whatever means necessary. If someone is trying to murder you, you are morally right in defending yourself, and in extreme situations, even if it means to kill them. Murder and killing are NOT the same thing.
The Power Within 