Moral Standards and a Caste System

[Leo Volont]

Moral Standards and a Caste System

I was raised to assume that America being a classless society was a good thing – that Societies that admitted to Aristocracies were inherently unfair. But then came a line of thinking, which started the other day as I argued that “moral degeneracy has never been worse” tacitly adding in my own thoughts ‘among the middle classes’ because I understood well enough that the lower classes had always been hideously beastly. The thought passed and I would have supposed it was forgotten, until, like a Satori Experience, I realized in a flash just now that a Classless Society inevitably becomes the Lowest Class.

A quick review of Victorian and Pre-Victorian Literature reveals an attitude which assesses the Lower Classes – the Commoners – as little better than animals. Yes, in the Rural Areas it was thought that the Parish Churches could redeem the Villages under the watchful eyes of the Aristocratic Landlords, but the City Populations were quite given up for Lost.

With this Realization that Society is Degenerating, again, to the Lowest Levels – that Civilization has indeed effectively collapsed – We are forced to wonder how the damage might be repaired. This is my thought: To arise again, like a Phoenix from the Ashes, it is necessary that Society, again, become Class Conscious. Higher Behaviors must be distinguished from lower behaviors. A select few must decide what separates Man from the Animals.

This will require a Class acceptance of a Unifying Moral Standard. This may not require much. After the Last Dark Ages, any family that could trace itself back for 3 consecutive ‘Legitimate’ generations was considered ‘Noble’. Now we find that this would be quite a restrictive test, considering that now, just at the mere twilight of our Demise as a Civilization, already more than half the births are illegitimate.

But more would be required. A Consensus in Moral Standards, good manners, education, appreciation for Arts and Refinements, and a conscious breeding for health and intelligence. And as in any working Caste System, a intentional segregation – an understanding that there can be no fraternization with the Commoners, inferior, as they are, in mind, spirit and physique.

Ordinarily my charitable and liberal instincts would prompt me to be an Egalitarian, but that Experiment in Civilization has played itself out and we see it has become a disaster. When left without Distinctions, Society did not all Rise Up, but quite to the contrary, it All Fell Down. We should now return to acknowledging that those who wish to Transcend the decadence of ordinary bestiality, must separate themselves out from the common orders of humanity. By consistently acting Better, those of Noble Aspiration will certainly become better. And those who chose to live like Animals, will finally have Worthy Keepers for the Zoo they created for themselves.

 

[the preacher]

all hail, the lord and master.

There is always more misery among the lower classes than there is humanity in the higher.
Victor Hugo (1802 - 1885)

Upper classes are a nation's past; the middle class is its future.
Ayn Rand (1905 - 1982)

The classes that wash most are those that work least.
G.K. Chesterton

you are a complete and total psychopath. I don't mean that in the criminal sense, of course, but in a professional sense. People like you will do anything to hold on to their infamy.

He is not dead who departs from life with a high and noble fame; but he is dead, even while living, whose brow is branded with infamy.
Tieck

 

[Leo Volont]

all hail, the lord and master.

Ayn Rand (1905 - 1982)

Have you ever read Ayn Rand. There is no worst nazi living or dead then Ayn Rand. I we lived in a World of Ayn Rand's imagination, then we'd all be begging to crawl on our knees and wear the dog-collars of our Natural Masters who are infinitely superior to us in intellect, creativity and physique.

And you quote her to make me sound like the bad guy. You need to figure out where you are coming from.

 

[Leo Volont]

Upper classes are a nation's past; the middle class is its future.

Read my little Essay. I try to keep them short enough to read and so sometimes I do not make explicit what I think should be obvious, but I thought it was obvious that what I was saying was that Our Civilization's Middle Class was disappearing.

Middle Classes are known for carrying a well-worn but serviceable Sense of Morality. Have you heard the phrase "Middle Class Morality". Well, it is quite disappearing, no?

The Populations of World's Advanced Nations are not becoming one large Middle Class -- as the Propaganda on TV would have us believe. By all historical standards these Masses of People are morphing into a Great Lower Class. Solitary, Poor, Nasty, Brutish and Short will be the names of Our Children.

 

[audible]

Have you ever read Ayn Rand. There is no worst nazi living or dead then Ayn Rand. I we lived in a World of Ayn Rand's imagination, then we'd all be begging to crawl on our knees and wear the dog-collars of our Natural Masters who are infinitely superior to us in intellect, creativity and physique.

And you quote her to make me sound like the bad guy. You need to figure out where you are coming from.

Ayn rand was an atheist-novelist-philosopher, or is that what you mean by a nazi.
The Ayn Rand Institute
The Center for the Advancement of Objectivism
educational facility
established in 1985 in Irvine, California.
or are you just jealous, as nobody knows you.

 

[James R]

To see if your idea is any good, Leo, here's a good test.

Imagine that your class system became accepted around the world, but with one small catch - every individual would be assigned to a class (lower, middle, upper etc.) entirely at random. Now, imagine that your system was not yet introduced, but the legislation was about to go through to bring it into practice. You, of course, will not be able to control which class you are assigned to when the system is introduced.

What do you say in these circumstances, Leo? Do you want to rethink, or do you say "Bring it on!"

 

[Blaphbee]

To see if your idea is any good, Leo, here's a good test.

Imagine that your class system became accepted around the world, but with one small catch - every individual would be assigned to a class (lower, middle, upper etc.) entirely at random. Now, imagine that your system was not yet introduced, but the legislation was about to go through to bring it into practice. You, of course, will not be able to control which class you are assigned to when the system is introduced.

What do you say in these circumstances, Leo? Do you want to rethink, or do you say "Bring it on!"

This is an illogical refutation, and a shoreless point - a caste system does not function as an absolute, arbitrary categorizing system which can haphazardly substitute any one individual for any other; not only are people born into it through their ancestral lineage, they must do the work themselves that is required of the caste itself. Thus, a retard could never function at the intellectual or spiritual level needed from a priestly type who leads the community, same as a great warrior or artisan could never truly spend his life's energy and mental/physical capacity on being a farmhand.

The caste system exists because it is a societal reflection of the naturally occurring process of differences between individuals within the natural world. One cannot simply divorce themselves from this process and begin to playact at being something they are not. People are intrinsic to the caste they function within; the "twice-born" are few for a reason - not everyone can aspire to and achieve their level of spiritual and intellectual enlightenment.

Since it couldn't work in reality, let's stick to examples that have, and will, okay?

 

[James R]

Blaphbee:

The thing about caste systems is that people aren't allowed to change castes, whether or not they are able to. The unclean can never become priests - not because they lack the skills, necessarily, but because the system keeps them in their place. Your caste is usually set by the circumstances of your birth, and you're stuck with it for life. It's not a merit system.

 

[Cris]

Leo,

You have to be joking. Class is determined entirely by wealth.

And James, why is this thread in the religion forum?

 

[Bells]

I was raised to assume that America being a classless society was a good thing – that Societies that admitted to Aristocracies were inherently unfair. But then came a line of thinking, which started the other day as I argued that “moral degeneracy has never been worse” tacitly adding in my own thoughts ‘among the middle classes’ because I understood well enough that the lower classes had always been hideously beastly. The thought passed and I would have supposed it was forgotten, until, like a Satori Experience, I realized in a flash just now that a Classless Society inevitably becomes the Lowest Class.

America has always been a society based on class. Trace back to its earliest history and you should realise this. While it was advocated that any notion of class was wrong morally, a class system has always existed. As it has in just about every country on this planet. Laws may be passed to attempt to lessen the divide, but the mentality will always remain.

A quick review of Victorian and Pre-Victorian Literature reveals an attitude which assesses the Lower Classes – the Commoners – as little better than animals. Yes, in the Rural Areas it was thought that the Parish Churches could redeem the Villages under the watchful eyes of the Aristocratic Landlords, but the City Populations were quite given up for Lost.

In those days Leo, the lower classes, especially those who resided in country areas were chattels to the upper classes. They were forms of property. Servants to the upper class. They were there to accept and bow to the whims of the upper classes, both in their labour and in their very ways of life.

With this Realization that Society is Degenerating, again, to the Lowest Levels – that Civilization has indeed effectively collapsed – We are forced to wonder how the damage might be repaired.

My my Karl Marx would just love you. In all seriousness Leo, you cannot blame the degeneration of society on just one class. All have contributed to it in some form or other. Some more than most. Upper and middle classes have always ensured that their morals and values are held above the rest. And their morals and values were not always the best to be cherishing either. As a result, we see the divide between the classes increasing as the lower classes strive to achieve some form of status within society. The words 'the poor get poorer and the rich gets richer' comes to mind. The damage can never be repaired while any social class status remains in place.

This is my thought: To arise again, like a Phoenix from the Ashes, it is necessary that Society, again, become Class Conscious. Higher Behaviors must be distinguished from lower behaviors. A select few must decide what separates Man from the Animals.

The main issue you have failed to address here is who would be chosen to lead the pack? Who would be chosen to make such a decision? Who's higher behaviours should we be distinguishing? As I'm sure that you are aware that not all of human kind have the same morals and values. You have also failed to take into account the fact that man is man and not animal as you have portrayed them in this case. We are already class conscious, so therefore your argument that the 'select few' is moot. We have systems of Government in place that is meant to separate man from animal, and those who form part of or lead these governments are usually of the upper classes.

This will require a Class acceptance of a Unifying Moral Standard. This may not require much. After the Last Dark Ages, any family that could trace itself back for 3 consecutive ‘Legitimate’ generations was considered ‘Noble’. Now we find that this would be quite a restrictive test, considering that now, just at the mere twilight of our Demise as a Civilization, already more than half the births are illegitimate.

Again, who's standards would humanity be forced to accept? And you are wrong, it does require a lot more than you think of. And many people of today can trace their geneology back to more than 3 generations. Many are traced back from the 'blue bloods' or aristocracy, even if the child is illegitimate.

But more would be required. A Consensus in Moral Standards, good manners, education, appreciation for Arts and Refinements, and a conscious breeding for health and intelligence. And as in any working Caste System, a intentional segregation – an understanding that there can be no fraternization with the Commoners, inferior, as they are, in mind, spirit and physique.

How charming. And to think you actually call yourself a Christian. But again you have failed to realise that it is not just the upper classes who have these qualities. They may have been born into what you call the lower class, but they are educated. We have had countries that have imposed your form of segregation Leo and they have always failed. South Africa is one that comes to mind with its apartheid regime, where the lower class blacks were abused and their very lives diminished because of the kind of system you are advocating. How about in many of the South American countries where the upper classes segregate themselves from the lower class that these lower classes are starving and dying because of this? How about in the US, after slavery had been abolished and the African Americans were and are still treated as the lower class and their rights are less than non-African Americans? Hitler's Germany comes to mind also.

Your chauvinistic and now it seems elitist views are what society as a whole have been working years to eliminate. Again I ask you Leo, how would you choose who gets to be on top of the pile? Who's values and morals should be held to be superior, when one considers that morals and values differ with each individual? And what pray tell would you do to any one in the upper classes who decided to fratenize with the commoners?

 

[Blaphbee]

Leo,

You have to be joking. Class is determined entirely by wealth.

Class yes, but not caste.

There is a wide difference between the two.

James, over generational periods of time, with hard work and dedication to one's ideals and tasks in life, and through proper cultivation of one's family, honour, and commitment to the community, one can ascend through the ranks of the caste system. Merit does play a large part in deciding such things, but it isn't just physical labour. Case in point, your example of the unclean becoming priests: while they could certainly discover something in their religion that entices them to communal action to benefit those within their society, they will never understand the spiritual side of the issue in the same manner as the priestly caste will; this is why the priestly caste remains in it's hierarchical position above the rest - the work they put into achieving enlightened understanding, acceptance and direction of their culture's spiritual vitality and health determines their position above the hordes who don't possess the same depth of comprehension.

Yes, they must be born into their respective role, but they cannot in turn retain such a societal function indefinitely by forsaking the corresponding duties involved.

 

[Blaphbee]

Your chauvinistic and now it seems elitist views are what society as a whole have been working years to eliminate. Again I ask you Leo, how would you choose who gets to be on top of the pile? Who's values and morals should be held to be superior, when one considers that morals and values differ with each individual? And what pray tell would you do to any one in the upper classes who decided to fratenize with the commoners?

Your resentful, individualistic, egalitarian belief system is stifling your good sense.

Stop demonizing the ideas presented with ridiculous strawmen that fall easy prey to your dogmatized ranting, and consider where you are drawing your values from, and how they apply to the concepts raised.

1. "Progress", in this case defined by you as "stomping out the natural differences that occur in every human being, so that we can all agree upon the lowest common value denominator to appraise ourselves as a species - this value being money", is a "progress" based upon material acquisition of wealth: whoever collects the most pretty coloured pieces of paper wins, and is deemed to be more fit for survival and directing others than someone else, when all they are truly good for is making good business decisions that turn personal profit, and neglect the needs of the natural world around them. No one with a healthy intellect should consider this to be a viable option.

2. A society of individualists is what we are already plagued with: when no one can agree upon a collective course for their people, when no one is willing to sacrifice for the needs of the whole over personal comfort, cultural unity disintegrates, values dissolve, and we are left with this mockery of an entertainment-crazed population we are currently interacting with.

3. Someone from the upper class is free to do what they wish with whomever they wish, as class distinctions matter only to capitalist societies, which revolve around the concept that money = highest value; an individual from an upper caste (again, let's not confuse the two) should refrain from reproduction with those of the lower castes - however, they will still interact communally, for the benefit of their society. Their society will not be advanced by careless dalliances between two different individuals of drastically different cultural roles.

In all seriousness Leo, you cannot blame the degeneration of society on just one class. All have contributed to it in some form or other.

This is the most sense you made in that knee-jerk reactionary post, but I don't think you quite understand the full scope of just how we all did it. It happened quite slowly and insidiously through the machinations of individualist liberal democratic value systems, which engender people to uphold transient, worthless material tokens over eternal truths and ideals; with everyone chasing after material wealth, how could we NOT become insane?

 

[Knife]

no such thing as a classless society, never has, never will. even though i agree it sounds good, if you are a society of two and have a kazillion dollars!

To arise again, like a Phoenix from the Ashes, it is necessary that Society, again, become Class Conscious

yes. but society always has been class consious. but since you have come to this conclusion, you must first decide what the class differentiation is based on. Please give us your thoughts on this

Unifying Moral Standard

or on the

Consensus in Moral Standards

.

Civilization has indeed effectively collapsed

was it really ever built? it seems like it is collapsing, but it isnt. civilization has been pretty much remaining stable. in fact, humans are growing in numbers, therefore, it cant be so bad that we are detroying oursleves in to extinction (the rich get richer and the poorer multiply!). the thing today is, never a day goes by without you hearing bad news. its everywhere, radio, tv, internet, conversations. it is in your face all the time. as a result, you feel this impeding doom. "cheer up, it may never happen!" -- A.F. many years ago, it took 4 months for people to discover something happened on the other side of the country. in those days, if you have a great week, you have a great week. you never knew what was going on.


many of the differences with each, and within each, society is not the fact that people do not think there should a

Unifying Moral Standard

or a

Consensus in Moral Standards

, but they differ on the details within the standards. people differ on how detailed the standards should be. then you will get the people with the technical loophole arguments. humans will disagree on many things by nature, what may be serious to one may not eve be an issue to another.

it will not change. humans will stay the same. i have a feeling it is not meant to change. humans are generally good by nature, but there is a thing inside that just pushes humans that extra little step that corsses the line. you cant take that thing out of humans. many philospohers discuss this. life goes on.

 

[Knife]

about the indication to america. the upper class is very well aware of the an existing class system. it is the middle and lower class that are the ones fooled in to the existence of a classless system. read more by paul fussell. also upper class and lower class do not mix.
"yes, my kids are attending boarding school at hotchkiss ($24,000/year) and while i am sailing around on my sailboat and talking on the phone to my accountant telling me this years interest in 6 figures give or take a couple of million".

these kind of people are fully aware of and ensure the stability of a class system.

 

[Bells]

1. "Progress", in this case defined by you as "stomping out the natural differences that occur in every human being, so that we can all agree upon the lowest common value denominator to appraise ourselves as a species - this value being money", is a "progress" based upon material acquisition of wealth: whoever collects the most pretty coloured pieces of paper wins, and is deemed to be more fit for survival and directing others than someone else, when all they are truly good for is making good business decisions that turn personal profit, and neglect the needs of the natural world around them. No one with a healthy intellect should consider this to be a viable option.

Your comprehension skills have failed to recognise that I was putting forth the argument that all humans should be equal. I do not consider wealth to be th 'viable option' in determining who should lead society. Far from it, I find the whole notion of a system where society is based on class and caste to be quite vile. Man's striving to acquire wealth is what has led us down to the path that we are now on. Man's race to reach the middle/upper classes has destroyed us in so many ways. In the bid to acquire more wealth, we have left behind not only our humanity, but also our perspectives on the environment. We would progress more as a society if wealth, class and caste was not seen to be so important.

2. A society of individualists is what we are already plagued with: when no one can agree upon a collective course for their people, when no one is willing to sacrifice for the needs of the whole over personal comfort, cultural unity disintegrates, values dissolve, and we are left with this mockery of an entertainment-crazed population we are currently interacting with.

The reason we are unable to come to a consensus on how to be a collective is because we are all in pursuit of wealth and status. I agree with you, we fail to take into consideration the fact that in our chase for the dollar (and therefore to enshrine ourselves in the upper echelons of society), we are destroying all around us. We have developed into a society where I, as the individual, comes first. Where I, as the individual, should be able to trample over all to get the social status I think I deserve. What Leo has proposed would result in a further destruction of society and of any notion of humanity itself. Not to mention the very environment we need to survive. As a whole, man does not care who or what is destroyed in their bid to gain the mighty dollar and a place in the upper classes.

3. Someone from the upper class is free to do what they wish with whomever they wish, as class distinctions matter only to capitalist societies, which revolve around the concept that money = highest value; an individual from an upper caste (again, let's not confuse the two) should refrain from reproduction with those of the lower castes - however, they will still interact communally, for the benefit of their society. Their society will not be advanced by careless dalliances between two different individuals of drastically different cultural roles.

I find such a stance to be off-putting. While we have existed in that line of thought in the past and in the present, we should not be holding such values as superior.

This is the most sense you made in that knee-jerk reactionary post, but I don't think you quite understand the full scope of just how we all did it. It happened quite slowly and insidiously through the machinations of individualist liberal democratic value systems, which engender people to uphold transient, worthless material tokens over eternal truths and ideals; with everyone chasing after material wealth, how could we NOT become insane?

Oh thank you for pointing it out to me.

 

[Blaphbee]

1 - Your comprehension skills have failed to recognise that I was putting forth the argument that all humans should be equal.

2 - I do not consider wealth to be th 'viable option' in determining who should lead society. Far from it, I find the whole notion of a system where society is based on class and caste to be quite vile.

3 - Man's striving to acquire wealth is what has led us down to the path that we are now on. Man's race to reach the middle/upper classes has destroyed us in so many ways. In the bid to acquire more wealth, we have left behind not only our humanity, but also our perspectives on the environment.

4 - We would progress more as a society if wealth, class and caste was not seen to be so important.

1 - They failed to recognize nothing; your egalitarian sentiment is immensely apparent to anyone with eyes, thus it was unnecessary to dwell upon it (even though I did bring it up). Why should they? What benefit would it give the world as a whole? (I ask "for the world" because there is a world out there that exists beyond the fronts of our noses; humanity is not now, nor should ever be, the sovereign concern of life itself, or forward progress or evolution for all life)

2 - This was implied from your previous post - you seem to understand that value has become synonymous with the concept of money, therefore all value and goal-setting in society has descended from this proposition. Also, Your next sentence strikes me as indescribably resentful; why does the thought of caste (the method with which society functioned quite ably for thousands of years prior to the institution of liberal democracy) strike such a chord with you? See point 4 for expansion upon this question.

3 - I agree, in that, we now view the environment as resource to be exploited, not a beautiful, sensual thing to be cherished, respected, and tended to.

4 - To dovetail with 2, I again call into question your definition of the word "progress", when applied to society as a whole using your concept of egalitarianism as the paintbrush to obscure and faze out all naturally-occurring variety, discrepancy, and competition for our dwindling resources. How will your system make it better, and what ramifications does it have for the rest of the world (i.e. the environment that sustains us)?

By the way, it was terribly impolite of me to not introduce myself before engaging in this debate - Greetings, Bells, and James. I'm Blaphbee, and it's a pleasure to lock horns, although as a person, I'm unimportant to the ideas being discussed.

 

[Blaphbee]

it will not change. humans will stay the same. i have a feeling it is not meant to change. humans are generally good by nature, but there is a thing inside that just pushes humans that extra little step that corsses the line. you cant take that thing out of humans. many philospohers discuss this. life goes on.

Bullshit. It's this kind of apathy which prevents meaningful change from occurring. This society rewards you subconsciously for not trying, and it seems to have found a willing victim in these sentiments.

Change begins within you. People see the honour you carry within yourself, and the convictions you hold, and the standards that are the foundation of every life's decision you make, and they will unconsciously begin to adopt such traits when they observe the success you obtain as a result.

All it takes is putting down the remote control, and opening your eyes.

 

[James R]

When you're talking about equality, it is important to specify what you mean by equality. There's the equality of reducing every person to a lowest common denominator. Then there's equality of opportunity - for each person to achieve his or her full potential, unimpeded by artificial restrictions placed on him or her by society.

 

[Knife]

Bullshit. It's this kind of apathy which prevents meaningful change from occurring. This society rewards you subconsciously for not trying, and it seems to have found a willing victim in these sentiments.

Change begins within you. People see the honour you carry within yourself, and the convictions you hold, and the standards that are the foundation of every life's decision you make, and they will unconsciously begin to adopt such traits when they observe the success you obtain as a result.

All it takes is putting down the remote control, and opening your eyes.

touchy..touchy...

please provide examples of how human society has changed over history. and i dont mean the invention of television. this change you refer has not stoppped violence, not stopped injustice, has not eliminated famine, or made everyone love each other in the past.

everyone knows it "begins within you", that statement has been repeated so many times it is starting to make me sick! so why hasnt everybody "begun within themselves". it aint gonna happen buddy. why not start yourself and use more polite language.

life just is. it is not supposed to be anything other than what it is today and now.

 

[Leo Volont]

Leo,

You have to be joking. Class is determined entirely by wealth.

And James, why is this thread in the religion forum?

Check history. The old theories were that all Wealth sources out of the land, and land has ordinarily been acquired through Conquest.

Monetary Wealth is often snubbed by the Aristocracies who despise "new money".

Granted that at the Collapse of Civilization, Money, as concentrated wealth exercises an overwhelming influence, but that is for the Fall of Civilization. Civilizations rise up again not from monetary wealth, but from consolidation of control of the Land.