Female morality revolves around one central tenet: is this good
for her sexual strategy? If yes, do it / agree with it / subscribe to
it. If no, don’t.
Note: this article is part of a discussion on female morality among
experts who view the subject through different lenses. In this article,
Part 1, Hector Castillo discusses the perspective of women as existing
outside what we typically think of as morality.
Defining morality is tough. Even the Stanford Encyclopedia of
Philosophy, which begins with a statement about how it’s simple to
define, winds up incorporating an entire dissertation on the various
details that go into defining morality.
This particular comment from the entry jumped out at me:
“This
is strikingly illustrated by the fact that both C.H. Whiteley and
Neil Cooper took themselves to be revealing the important ambiguity in
the meaning of “morality” when they distinguished the sociological
sense from the psychological (Whiteley 1959) and the social sense from
the individual (Cooper 1966).”
This perfectly sets up the context of this article on the
amoral nature of women.
Let me be clear. I’m not arguing that women don’t
have moral standards. Of course they do. Even sociopaths have a moral
framework, though it is devoid of sympathy and concern for others if it
doesn’t also benefit them.
The most basic definition of normative morality is “what a person
ought to do.”
The operative word here is “ought.”
For many people, their “ought to do X” revolves around
duty. This is called duty ethics, for obvious reasons. “My family, my
tribe, or my culture demands that I do X, thus X is my duty.” Of
course, at some level they have to accept this duty, but this is
meta-ethics, and a digression.
Others argue that we should be utilitarian, that our actions should
benefit the greater happiness of society. This might also be classified
as a duty ethic.
For some moral frameworks, morality is absolute. In others, it is
relative. In some scenarios, you should act according to “good,” in
others, you should act for yourself, even if it means doing something
“bad.”
The usual response to this is some pseudo-intellectual form of
“Well, who can define good and bad, huh? It might be bad to one person
but good to another,” and it’s left there without an actual foray into
meta-ethics.
This response, if anything, is an implication of normative moral
relativism, which states that “Because we can’t come up with a good
definition of good and bad, we should tolerate everyone’s definitions.”
How that works out in practice, you can judge for yourself.
Fortunately, this isn’t an article on normative or applied ethics.
It’s an article about descriptive ethics.
I am describing the observed amorality of women. Nothing
more, nothing less.
What you do with this information is up to you. Any anger or spite you may cultivate
as a result of this article is your responsibility alone. If anything,
I respect women for their savagery. They may not be as violent as men, but they can
sure inspire violence, socially and physically. If you want to truly
become a lover of women, you need to
understand and accept the amoral nature of women. Any remnant of false
idealism, and you are loving a false ideal of women, not women
themselves.
Let us begin.
