Slave Morality taken to its logical conclusion

There's something weirdly addictive about Daily Mail. Its a sort of Decadence Times, they mix celebrity gossip with all the fucked up news they find around. And if there's something not lacking in the UK is fucked up news. I'm always trying to stop reading it, but then I always stumble upon some other gem.

Now please read this news: A woman gives her kidney to a total stranger.

I was not going to write about the race angle, but fuck it. Of course only white people do things like that. And they mostly do it to non-white people. I wonder how can we stop immigration when things like this happen. Imagine when the news arrives into Laos! "You can get free kidneys in that country!!" First it was black immigration, then Muslim, now it'll be Disabled immigration. The kidney have-nots. Just great.

Ok now stop thinking on those pesty NAMs, and try to forget the race of the recipient. Think like a liberal for a minute. And now read the comments.

What a fantastic woman. I wish there was many more like her.What a moving story, and what an exceptional, brave, beautiful person. If anyone deserves our adoration, and may be a medal, she does.What a fabulous story, and how amazing that they matched the kidneys for the procedure! Wouldn't it be great if 2012 could be the year when we all did something self-less for someone else?Lovely woman. How many more are like her.She would be a lovely next door neighbour.

Wait a fucking second. This is nuts. I mean just imagine that its just two random white Brits doing this. She deserves adoration? We should all strive to be like her? Note that she self-identifies as Christian.

Is giving kidneys to random strangers our highest moral good?

Since I was little I used to feel a bit uneasy about the unspoken moral assumptions of our society. That being a good person meant being selfless, working for others. What Nietzsche called Slave morality. I always thought it was nuts, even if I couldn't quite articulate it. I still can't. So I always had this weird feeling of being immoral myself.

Of course all societies must command a certain amount of altruism for them to function. Else you have the famous me-and-my-brother-against-my-cousin sort of clannish barbarism. Orientals have this Confucian hierarchy of duty which I find more sound: you must be nice in general, but you should obey your father, then your older brother, then your elders. You just don't fucking go around giving away your kidneys.

I mean don't you have a duty towards your own body? Why stop with a kidney anyway, livers can be cut out and they recover. You could probably give a third of your liver every 5 years. And there's plenty of poor Laosians who could use a liver or two. Or a hand! Who needs the left hand anyway. We got Siri now, no?

Then there's the family angle: the broad has two sons. One may have an accident and need a kidney. But oh, sorry, Mom can't help you, I gave away my kidney to some chubby Southeast Asian. So please die.

I mean its just too much: you have the race angle (the NAM recipient own brother bailed out), you have the sex angle (she's a woman, most comments praising her are by women), you have the Game angle (the beta husband agreeing with the deed!), the religion angle (heart bleeding Christians). Its really a comprehensive picture of all that is wrong today. Yet 99% of people you ask would say there's nothing wrong; on the contrary she's a wonderful person we should all strive to imitate.

Well maybe it's just me being evil, but I don't get it. I got this thought that civilizations decline when their base assumptions are taken out of context, and taken to their logical conclusion. Muslims can't do that because they're dumb and don't get logic. We on the other hand invented the thing. And now look at us.

Minor nitpick, but NAM means "non-Asian minority": It's a polite term for low-performing minorities. But the chick from Laos is clearly as Asian as any other Laotian. There are a few relatively low-average-IQ Asian nations, IIRC, and Laos may be one (pretty sure Cambodia was, right next door), so whatever.

True, but in the real intended meaning of 'backward race', Southeast Asians more than qualify. All of them are low average IQ, and are largely run by their ethnic Chinese minorities. We need a word which includes all ethnies besides whites and Northeast Asians. Something like a PC version of Barbarian.

As a Christian, I find this kind of competitive altruism rather disgusting. The NT is abundantly clear that you're not supposed to use publicized acts of 'piety' to win status competitions. This is, writ large, what most of the various 'adopt a 3rd world or black child' couples are doing. Refusing to grant any 'status points' or a validated 'non racist' card to any such persons is the proper course of action. There is almost certainly a small fraction of such persons that do these acts because they truly love the ones benefited, but those persons also keep a much much lower profile about such things as well.

Well refusing to give status point may well be the valid course of action, but selflessness has been the epitome of holiness in Europe since time immemorial; the NT abundant clearness notwithstanding. Adopting african kids or giving away kidneys to random third worlders should be a capital sin. What did Jesus say about the gene pool?

Spandrell, Jesus is pretty silent about the gene pool, although he does say that the man who does not look after the interests of his family is worse than the heathen. He also orders his followers to go and make disciples of all nations, not to go and drag everyone into your own nation. The Old Testament spends quite a bit of time discussing the origins and lineages of the various nations and ethnicities of Man. The clear implication is that such differences exist because God likes it that way. Jesus would probably describe at least 95% of the individuals adopting African kids as Pharisees---doing these deeds to be esteemed by men.