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.
6. They Would Have You Believe Otherwise
7. Sexual Strategy Makes Queens
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.
SHOW COMMENTS (35)