A criticism of moralfags and moral hardliners

The moralfag is someone you are familiar with. He thinks himself on the moral high ground. He endlessly spouts on what is right or wrong, what is good and bad. He thinks grandoise displays of his conviction (leaking) proves his moral virtue all the more right. I argue the opposite. Moral certainty that ignores context, experience, and the limits of human judgement is not moral high ground, and internal moral conviction is not an indicator of righteousness. The tirades the moralfag wages only display the thoughtlessness of his inner mind, and that he is in fact, one of the least moral people around.
I. The perspective problem
Moralfags fail to understand that attempts to enforce their own subjective views on right/wrong do not prove superior ethics. A simple question: Why would your standpoint override someone elses'? You have not lived their experiences, don't think their thoughts, don't feel their emotions. In your condemnation you throw away empathy and consideration for the would be defendant. You propose a sentencing only on what seems obvious to your moral framework.
Believing you are right does not grant you ownership of another person's moral world. This doesn't purport no moral standard should ever be enforced, but it's hard to argue this degree of disregard for another's being could be viewed as a virtue of those on morally high ground.
II. Domination in moral discourse
Morality is not a rigid mathematical formula, proven and indisputable. It is constantly developing, shaped by experience, conflict, and revision. People share stories, imagine things, and change their minds. There is nothing wrong with sharing a conviction or opinion; discourse is how morals are refined and developed.
The moralfag pivots from discourse to domination: declaring someone/something le bad only because it doesn't use his framework. This does not complete moral reasoning, it strangles it and cuts it off. In replacing the work of understanding with verdicts and the bang of a mallet, it converts other peoples into props for the moralfag's theatre of righteousness.
Discussion develops morality. Instant condemnation destroys the conditions under which discourse can flourish. Confidence mistaken for clarity, disagreements viewed as corruption, the moralfag hinders the development of morality for the good of everyone.
III. Naivety of moral absolutism
Moral absolutists, referred to titularly as moral hardliners, claim that a universal set of rules apply to everyone in every situation. This is naive and ignores context, consequence, and nuance. Operations in the real world are not so shrimple. Motives conflict, information is partial, loyalties pull, emotions thunder, and all cloud judgement.
Another simple example. A killing to avenge a previous killing of a family member. Many can follow the line of reasoning, even if not praise the act. Rigid rulests that libel the revenger le bad are not depth, they are a rejection of such. The argument is not for whether revenge is justified, it simply reveals that moral absolutism's ignorance of intensity is insufficient to rule over real life.
The suggestion that a finite ruleset can be used to judge an infinite amount of situations, while being perfect and retaining empathy for every involved party, is simply absurd. The moralfag naively asserts himself a sort of Laplace demon in moral judgement, claiming to understand all, while not operating in reality and therefore understanding nothing.
It's reasonable to believe some rules are applicable widely without being purely mechanical. The moralfag instead hardlines on slogans that "wrong is wrong" and skip the process of critical thinking entirely, "why, in what situation, context, and awarenesss is something right or wrong?"
IV. The wicked judge and jury
An appointment of oneself the judge and jury over the entirety of someone else's life is not a culmination of moral seriousness. The moralfag claims the high ground, yet is the furthest from it.
The person on the receiving end of a judgement is no longer part of moral inquiry, but a defendant in a court that only admits conformity to the judge as evidence. Frameworks built on dismissal of nuance are poorly positioned in claiming correctness, let alone superiority.
Moralfags thinking they are always right are not shown to be the best in being right. Certainty is cheap. It is producible with temperament, fear of ambiguity, seeing oneself as above others. None of which are the wisdom through which morals are developed.
V: A changing mind, and reality.
Absolutists have another major crack in their assertation of correctness: their own history. All who preach their truth developed it from once holding different views of what was truth. Their morals were reformed from growing, experiencing, learning. They changed.
Absolutists are self contradictory by nature. If your judgements evolved, then your definition truth is at minimum something reached by a contingent path. You are still changing and growing, not a finished product of truth. It is implausible to enforce your moral rigidities on others when you cannot even enforce it on yourself across a consistent timespan.
Changing the framework you operate on while denying morality is revisionable is not logically coherent. You cannot bounce around on different idea sets all the while claiming a constant trophy of truth.
The moralfag and moral absolutist deny human uncertainty regarding morality, and absolutist rhetoric overstates the confidence that a changing person is entitled to.
VI. What this criticism is not
It does not say no act may opposed, that persuasion is forbidden, that all attempts to define morality are futile. Discussion, disagreement, and refusal to enable cruelty are valid actions and at times necessary.
This criticizes the moralfag's particular failing points
- assuming his framework to be self evident
- erasing context in pursuit of condemnation
- conflating emotional confidence with epistemic authority
- using morals as theatre instead of for discussion
- hypocritically claiming absolute truth on a reality based in change
Hold conviction without charading omniscience over others. Argue without appointing yourself judge and jury. You can believe in wrong without acting performatively in which complexity is the foe, and humility a betrayal
Ϫ. moralfag soyteens are retarded little fucks in particular
nigger like why are you leaking on the sharty of all places? you dont give a fuck about "save children from the pedos!!!" or anything else. if you actually cared about children, about the future of the world, about anything, you would pursue a career in criminal investigations, in being a lawyer or attorney, in being a politician. positions with the power to actually change the world for the things they care about. you spamming threads on the party about DOCKTOOESSS MOOODS ARE PEEDOSSS doesn't do jack raisin. # of children no, people saved or helped by (You): zero, zilch, nada. you are a loser with nothing better to do than sit and spam here all day, and nobody better to display your thoughts or opinions to than a silly soyboy site. this is a site to have fun and post cartoons and you have to crap it up with your moralfagging. if you hate it so much just leave, admins dont give a fuck what you think anyways. you wouldnt be missed. i promise.
VII. Conclusion
The moralfag presents himself the peak specimen of society's conscience. However, he can only put up a fanciful display of what morals are really about. Strong morality should coexist with patience, listening, empathy, and a willingness to admit wrong. In failing this, moralfags display their morals as a weapon to rank and rule others, not ethical achievement.
I will not assert which morals are correct or incorrect, only that well functioning moral frameworks develop from discourse rather than distraction, treats changing minds as growth instead of a target for slogans, and refuses to hammer judgements as understanding. Moral clarity incapable of nuance is not clarity. It is a shallow excuse for morality. Moralfags will always be the worst in terms of moral correctness.