On the failure to understand the concepts of consequentialist and deontological ethics in a conversation within Sargon of Akkad.
First of all, this article is meant as constructive criticism and to foster an understanding of a very powerful and useful concept in the alt-right. We’re all flawed, we all make mistakes, no one was born with the knowledge they currently have. Leave your egos at the door and accept and absorb this knowledge I’m about to preach.
In an extremely infuriating YouTube stream on Millenial Woes’ YT channel around year's end, I witnessed some—otherwise intelligent—alt-righters getting trolled hard by Sargon of Akkad for hours in a Google hangout. The reason why there was a disconnect in the conversation to the point where he got fed up and started trolling was a lack of understanding—on the other participants’ part—of the moral paradigm that Sargon of Akkad was operating under. In the video (linked below) Sargon asks them repeatedly whether or not they believe that it is morally acceptable to discriminate based on race. The answers they give are basically ‘yes’, and they proceed to list reasons why we need to discriminate based on race. See here:
Sargon of Akkad then says he’s not interested in the reasons and that he, along with most people, think it is wrong to discriminate based on race in principle. An hours long clusterfuck erupts where the other participants keep giving reasons why we should/must/ought (some of which were good reasons) discriminate based on race. Sargon keeps pointing out that this is not relevant to his question or his position, and he’s right.
Here is the reason for the disconnect that nobody seemed to grasp: Sargon of Akkad believes in deontological ethics, i.e. a paradigm of ethics where actions (in this case specifically the action of discriminating based on race) are wrong in and of themselves. He believes in moral principles. Giving him reasons to break his principle will not, and did not, sway him. What they should have done is to tear down his moral paradigm altogether.
The reason why Sargon is wrong is because actions are not wrong in and of themselves. What determines if an action is moral is whether or not the consequences that result from that action are good or bad. This is what is called consequentialism. In other words, the correct answer to the question Sargon posed (do you believe that it is morally acceptable to discriminate based on race?) is ‘lol deontological ethics in the current year?’
This distinction and concept needs to be understood in the alt right, because most of us are consequentialists (whether we understand the distinction or not) while most normies probably believe in deontological principles.
There are of course many examples that can be used to prove the correctness of consequentialism over deontological ethics. For instance, is it wrong to murder (most would admit that this is a worse action than discriminating based on race)? Most people will say yes. Yet most people would agree that murdering baby Hitler in the crib would be a moral action because it would save many more lives. If you can get them to admit to this (or any number of hypothetical scenarios where actions that they consider morally wrong lead to such undeniably desirable consequences to the point that they have to admit that the action in that specific circumstance must be moral) then they have given up the principle. Then explain to them that it is consequences that determine the moral value of an action and not some inherency to the action. Hopefully the scales will fall from their eyes and they will adopt consequentialism. Then you can start having a conversation without having the other guy dismissing your arguments in favor of certain actions due to the actions being counter to his deontological moral principles.
Another annoying thing was that Sargon asked that if blacks became majority and took over the US, would it then be morally wrong for blacks to enslave white people? This was not dealt with well. One of the people in the hangout even answered ‘no’ to this question, which is obviously moral nihilism. I’m not a moral nihilist, neither should you be. Of course it would be wrong, but not because it’s discrimination, but because it is slavery, and more specifically because the consequences that would arise from that slavery are negative. Slavery, again, is not immoral inherently. No action is, as we've already demonstrated. If the blacks, on the other hand, were to throw whitey out of their country then that would not be morally wrong because it would result in more stability and peace in that country. Of course that’s not really true since blacks are uncivilized savages who actually benefit from white presence, but it is true in the parallel where whites are the majority and Arabs and Latinos are the minorities getting thrown out.
Sargon is a smart guy. He’s not stupid, but he is operating on a stupid moral paradigm. I think this was an opportunity missed.