47
48

THEORYBack to the basics - TRP is amoral. (self.RedPillWomen)

submitted by loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor

The importance of morals and ethics

An issue that many people grapple with when first discovering TRP is the issue of morals and ethics. For example, is it moral to have a threesome? To masturbate? To have casual sex? Is it ethical to enhance your looks with makeup? To lead someone on, get into their pants and then ghost them? To marry someone for money and/or status?

All these (and many many more) are extremely important questions to ask yourself and to take very seriously. After all, a person with good morals is a good member of society and a person who lacks morals can often be a menace to themselves and society. Furthermore, morals and ethics plays a central role in shaping our character and in providing purpose and meaning to life.

TRP is amoral

However, despite the extreme importance of morals and ethics, on a personal level and on a societal level - TRP remains amoral. This is because TRP is an ongoing study of human nature, male nature and female nature and how they all interact with each other. When you say x to a man, he'll take it one way and when you say the same to a woman, she'll perceive it completely different etc etc etc.

TRP is a form of social science and science - by definition - is all about understanding how the world works. Science is not about manipulation of the world, that would be engineering. Engineering comes as a follow up to science, discovering the best ways to utilize the nature of the world for our benefit.

Likewise, the core of TRP is akin to science. It's a study of the actual nature of men and women. How you'll engineer your life as a result of this information is up to you. It's here that there's a difference (often vast difference) between various subgroups within TRP community. PUA, RPW, MRP, MGTOW and so on.

Science is amoral and so is TRP. There's no morality to the properties of water, air, soil or any other field of science. Morality only exists in Engineering. Which medical inventions are moral and which are not. Which are ethical and which are not. TRP as a community generally has a live and let live attitude on life and therefore, does not get into the discussion on what's moral and ethical and what isn't.

Amoral does not mean immoral

It's important to point out that amoral does not mean immoral. Amoral means that it exists regardless of morality. Immoral means that engaging in it is immoral and should therefore be avoided.

Example one - hypergamy is part of female nature. When a man of much higher value presents himself, the urge will be there to monkey branch to him. However, forsaking your husband for this new man is immoral and unethical.

Example two - a married man still has the biological urge to have sex with as many women as he can. This urge is amoral. However, if he cheats on his wife, it would be immoral and unethical (according to most people).

Example three - women get sexually turned on by dominance and even violence (hello fifty shades of gray) and are turned off by emotions in men. This part of the female hard-wiring and is amoral. A woman who lies to men, saying that she's attracted to someone soft and sensitive while friendzoning such men in favor of bad boys is immoral because lying to and deceiving people is immoral and unethical.

Example four - men find youthful, thin and radiant women attractive and are turned off by overweight, older and bitchy women. This nature is amoral. Abandoning your wife because she gained 20 lbs post baby would be immoral and unethical.

We can go on and on with more examples all day long.

Conclusion

The essence of TRP theory is like science. It's a study of the nature of men and women. Of what IS, not of what should or shouldn't be done.

What to do with this knowledge is like engineering. That's where morality and ethics come in. This is where religion has its place. This is where scholars of morality and ethics can debate. This debate is not part of TRP because TRP takes a live and let live approach.

Nature itself is both beautiful and cruel and human nature is no different. Many elements of male and female nature is cruel to the other sex, sometimes brutally so. However, this is amoral, not immoral. Immortality is when you act in accordance with such nature. We all have the freedom to choose and we're therefore responsible for our actions.

Cheers!


[–]organicsunshine 5 points6 points  (1 child)

I will put out there that much of the 'unethical' is a subconscious response to the amoral in women. The DECISION to act on it is the ethics and morality at play.

ETA: the subconscious resoponse is stronger in women than it is for men. Be aware ladies. It bites back.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 2 points3 points  (0 children)

The DECISION to act on it is the ethics and morality at play.

Yes.

However, people who follow instinct often do so mindlessly. Therefore, I'd hesitate to refer to it as a decision to act. Rather, a more accurate description IMO would be - morality and ethics play out in action. Sometimes it's a decision, but oftentimes it isn't.

[–]2-3-or-not-2-3 3 points4 points  (4 children)

Most things are amoral and morality itself, even in action, is subjective - it changes across time and locations. The act of slavery is considered morally wrong, but thousands of years ago it was natural that the strong control the weak.

For me, TRP is about truth, and truth is about scientific reality. What is immoral is the denial of truth, or the misuse and/or over simplification of science to provide a false justification of a point of view. Thus, though I agree that TRP is amoral as a science - it is POSSIBLE that groups could be IMMORAL in their description or application.

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Thus, though I agree that TRP is amoral as a science - it is POSSIBLE that groups could be IMMORAL in their description or application.

I agree that one can be immoral in the application of an idea or scientific truth. But how can one be immoral in the description of something? Description is to articulate the actual truth and therefore is amoral.

[–]2-3-or-not-2-3 2 points3 points  (2 children)

Because it falls under the umbrella of the denial of truth. A group that takes a scientific claim then analyzes this and incorrectly (and knowingly) makes a second claim based upon this is committing an immoral act.

Whatever action ('application') is associated from that second claim is linked to the falsehood that was derived when the claim was created. It may even be that the first 'sin' of description is worse then the second of the application as the latter can claim naiveté / ignorance.

It is not the mere act of describing something that is immoral, it is the intentional creation of a false narrative.

Example:

A verifiable scientific statement: A wage gap exists between men and women of x cents.

A causal description from a group: A group uses this fact and states the claim this is discrimination.

An application of the new description: We remove meritocracy and replace it with equality of outcomes.

I see the falsehood as either stupidity or immorality. Refusal to accept reason to change from stupidity leave immorality. Any side is prone to this issue

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

Okay. I see what you're saying. I'm with you on this.

[–]2-3-or-not-2-3 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Phew.. It involved some mental gymnastics for me to figure it out :)

[–][deleted]  (1 child)

[removed]

[–]pearlsandstilettosModerator | Pearl[M] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Men's questions belong in askTRP or PMs.

[–]Buchloe -2 points-1 points  (12 children)

I don't know about some of these points. Sexual strategy is amoral. So if cheating on your wife allows you to have more children than you otherwise would, or leaving your husband and having your kids raised by a richer man assists their survival, is that immoral, or is it successful?

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 1 point2 points  (8 children)

Sexual strategy is amoral.

No.

The word "strategy" connotes something that's planned (at least to some degree). This is not Amoral. Things that you do can be moral or immoral.

As I said in the post, I'm not getting into the exact definitions and parameters of morality. What you describe may be highly immoral to some, slightly immoral to others and a moral imperative to others. Then there's the ethical question... it's a can of worms which isn't for this forum to open.

[–]LateralThinker133 Stars 0 points1 point  (4 children)

The word "strategy" connotes something that's planned

To the degree that sexual strategy is created and shaped by our biological wiring, it IS amoral. And testosterone, for example, is a huge shaper of how men tackle the world (whether they want to or not).

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (3 children)

Yes. You may be shaped by things like testosterone, but what you do with it can be moral or immoral and that's why you'll be held accountable for certain immoral acts that you choose to do. Being fueled by testosterone won't be a good defense in court.

[–]LateralThinker133 Stars 0 points1 point  (2 children)

But we're not talking about court. We're talking about amorality vs. immorality in the context of sexual strategy. And I'm saying that to the extent that testosterone fuels and shapes male sexual strategy, it's amoral because there is no intent - it just is.

Whereas some manipulative gang recruiter offering young boys a chance to beat up strangers, make some money, see some action, based upon their hyper/aggressive/testosterone-fueled male nature, IS immoral. His action, his intent, is to corrupt and bring to lawlessness young boys by giving their testosterone-driven urges an (illegal) outlet.

Incidentally, being young, stupid, and fueled by testosterone is likely to get some leniency to the boys caught up in the gang example, while the gang recruiter would get hammered. Intent matters.

A strategy isn't necessarily something that is consciously derived. Strategy doesn't always have intent. Many people have an unintentional strategy of "do nothing and hope for the best" in life. This isn't conscious or immoral, it just is.

Morality is demonstrated through conscious, intentional actions. A high-status woman not noticing the betas around her isn't immoral because her nature literally has her unable to see them except as furniture, as set dressing, in the world she lives (unless she makes a conscious effort, against her nature, to see them as more).

The power of fire to burn you isn't any more moral than the power of testosterone to drive you. It's what you consciously do with each that matters.

[–]Abara4 1 point2 points  (1 child)

It might not be a court of law but a court of peers. In a society everyone judges your actions, yourself first. Ignoring betas is amoral but chosing to cheat is immoral, even on the spur of the moment or because of a biological "imperative". Biology is not an excuse for being immoral. Even persons that "do nothing and hope for the best" have choices to make every day regarding TRP and sexual strategy, these choices result in actions that are moral or immoral. You cannot impose your conscious morality on others but only take care of yourself and your actions. Excusing others actions on ignorance is ok but you must hold yourself to be a moral person otherwise you will simply be a bad person.

[–]LateralThinker133 Stars 1 point2 points  (0 children)

You're conflating concepts.

chosing to cheat is immoral

Never said it wasn't. A violation of your word, if you have promised monogamy, is immoral. If you aren't in a monogamous relationship, or you have spousal consent, it isn't cheating.

Biology is not an excuse for being immoral.

Biology isn't moral or immoral. It simply explains the biological impetus of certain behaviors.

you must hold yourself to be a moral person otherwise you will simply be a bad person.

You're kind of all over the place here. The opposite of moral is immoral, not bad. Furthermore, morality varies from country to country, and between different social strata. What is immoral for an Argentinian farmer may be moral for a French aristocrat. This is because morality isn't the same as legality or the ethicality of a matter. Morality is much more subjective.

We say that TRP is inherently amoral because it describes human nature. It doesn't proscribe how we should be - that IS morality - but rather, it describes how we ARE. What we do with that, well, that's where good and bad, moral and immoral, come into play. But stating TRP tenets and investigating biological impulses isn't, can't be, anything other than amoral.

EDIT: TL;DR TRP is descriptive and hence amoral, while morality is proscriptive.

[–]ReddJive 1 point2 points  (0 children)

The word "strategy" connotes something that's planned (at least to some degree). This is not Amoral. Things that you do can be moral or immoral.

I missed this comment in my initial read.

This is interesting distinction that I have not read/heard nor considered.

[–]Buchloe -1 points0 points  (1 child)

Well, in TRP "sexual strategy is amoral" is literally in the sidebar.

It's how we learn to accept reality and not hate women for cheating, branch swinging, and divorce rape. We try to accept female tendencies, because how can you be mad about a biological imperative to to procreate and secure resources by any means necessary?

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Well, in TRP "sexual strategy is amoral" is literally in the sidebar.

TRP is not a religion and the reddit version of TRP is certainly not the Bible. One of the beautiful things about TRP is that we're in constant search of the truth and we think for ourselves. Therefore, it doesn't matter who said something, all that matters is the content of what was said.

Morality by definition is an ideal brought into action, as explained in the post.

I therefore take issue with your premise here. However, I'm still going to answer your actual challenge.

It's how we learn to accept reality and not hate women for cheating, branch swinging, and divorce rape. We try to accept female tendencies, because how can you be mad about a biological imperative to to procreate and secure resources by any means necessary?

The answer lies within the part you quoted.

There's a fundamental difference between your own morality and that of others. When it comes to yourself, you ought to hold yourself up to your moral standards. No ifs ands or buts about it. However, when it comes to others, you aren't able to impose morality upon them (unless you're a judge, police officer etc). Therefore, all you can do is accept that they acted out of instinct.

This is not a simple concept at all. There's a reason why acceptance is the last of the 5 stages of grief. Acceptance also doesn't mean condoning. But all this is really worthy of its own post.

[–]ReddJive 0 points1 point  (2 children)

Sexual strategy is more then just having sex.

For instance some women have no problem accepting gifts or benefits from men. After all, they aren't asking and who are they to say no if the man really wants to do these things. We won't talk about the beta implications here. Still some women use thier sexuality as Chekov's Gun. It just sits there.

Rule Zero of TRP is to develop men to understand how to do the same thing in pursuit of their goals and mission in life. Only it is more pronounced as fucking because...well...for men the act of sex is a top of the biological needs for them. While I am a man I will only speak on the male half here. If man decides to have an affair, if he is within his frame, he's made the decision that his partner is no longer meeting his needs but there is still a reason he hasn't left. Of course in the MRP vernacular this is a process of Dread designed to induce the idea that the man can and will leave. he has options he'd rather stay but if his partner is no longer willing to meet his need he's proven that there are others that will.

To add the morality aspect to this and to point out the differences between RP being moral and amoral. It's oft said by Christian men that adhere to RP principles that Christianity is Red Pill. Well no it isn't. What it does is acknowledge that the Red Pill tenets are in fact true. Yet the Christian belief system levels a layer of morals and ethics on top of that. To remain consistent....no cheating. It's also why christian men in sexless marriages remain. They believe thier faith calls them to suffer or endure this as a sacrifice to god.

Where it gets murky at best is that the amoral side would say this is beta. Sacrificing yourself is not what being red is all about. they may not judge the the decision if it could be justified in a man's frame but the act of sacrificing yourself is a beta trait which is strictly abhorred.

So there are times when the amoral crosses into moral territory and can seem to judge it. When in reality the guiding principle is Rule Zero. Pursue your life's mission.

I only see my objective. The obstacles must give way ~Napoleon

[–]loneliness-incEndorsed Contributor[S] 0 points1 point  (1 child)

To add the morality aspect to this and to point out the differences between RP being moral and amoral. It's oft said by Christian men that adhere to RP principles that Christianity is Red Pill. Well no it isn't. What it does is acknowledge that the Red Pill tenets are in fact true. Yet the Christian belief system levels a layer of morals and ethics on top of that.

It seems like you're conflating the general idea of TRP with the specific idea of gynocentrism.

Christianity and PUA's (for example) are both gynocentric, just in different ways. Being gynocentric is embedded in nature. It isn't contradictory to TRP. What you do as a result of your RP knowledge is what will place you either within TRP sphere or outside of it. There are many RP ideas found in ancient scriptures of all kinds. In fact, RP knowledge used to be common knowledge before being suppressed by feminism.

[–]ReddJive 1 point2 points  (0 children)

I retract my comment i originally placed here not the one above.

I missed a nuance I hadn't previously considered. I made mention of it.

I need to think about that. Thanks for the conversation