It always boils down to one thing…
Morality and ethics is a commodity, fetish, luxory, extragavence, or elaborate decor of appearances that not everybody can afford to buy into.
Morality and ethics is a commodity or luxory that only those who have social security along with mobility can afford.
Chances are if you have no social security or mobility you can’t afford them but those who can like a salesman will make you believe that you can further putting yourself into eternal bankruptcy.
Speaking of moral fetish, Joker, I was wondering about masochism lately, that of the weak passive person, who gets pleasure from the pain of giving pleasure to another. Do you think the masochist at least thinks they are morally superior to get thru the ordeal? If so, are there any other dymanics of the masochist that you can recognize, analyze, ect?
I’ve been trying to find info on this subject, but its hard to find someone admitting to it.
No no no… You’re confusing morality with supremacy.
Morality is about minimizing wrong and suffering, promoting pleasure equally can only come afterwards.
The fetish that exists is not between one man and his moral beliefs, but between one man and what he believes about himself.
One thing that i have come to learn is that a moral world cannot function. Not everyone can pull their own weight, therefore problems must necessarily arise.
The moral thing to do is to counter act these problems the fairest way possible.
To do nothing is immoral.
perhaps the fetish exists between a man and his employment of immoral actions.
Probally. 
That is a excellent comparison. 
( Morality as just another form of masochism.)
We need to make a thread on this. 
None that I can think of in immediate thought.
Isn’t it the same? Does not the moralist delude their fanatical dispositions to be absolute or supreme?
So it says but fails to do every time.
( Most of the time morality is a mask used for ulterior selfish motives from what I can observe.)
Quite possible. 
And they do arise too.
The ideal of the fairest way possible is a illusion that cannot be met apart from dreams and fantasy.
It is a unachievable end.
Yet by doing somthing is often enough the same as doing nothing in that both have equal outcomes.
Also quite possible.
Whats the difference between a moral fetish and your immoral fetish?
the nun costume
-Imp
I’m not sure what you mean by ‘social security’ (but I suppose you mean something like a ‘safety net’?) and I take it that by ‘mobility’ you mean ability and opportunity to improve one’s circumstances? Could you please clarify before I attack the topic itself?
no its the concesus of left or right.
Maybe the nun-costume reflects that but when i think nun i think of 2 things.
First i think of the movie “how stella got her groove back” specifically the part where wuppie yells “SISTERS! MAKE EM HOLY”
And secondly the nun from the teletoon cartoon “Quads”.
Well that will never do. Morality is about humility; which is quite different from luxury and extravagance. Not wanting to hurt a fly is moral, wearing a tiger skin coat and eating live prawns is extravagance; material extravagance, and extravagance with life. Granted, when a Chinese of the interior kills one of his pigs, and feeds himself and his wife and his daughters he does this without extravagance and without conscience, and with a lust for life, a brutality, which is in itself an extravagance over death. When St. Francis kissed the leper’s wounds, the only extravagance in this was the extravagance he took with his own life; much like Christ giving his life away 'cause it was nothing anyway. Morality can be the total opposite of elaborate decor; what is very unfortunate is that some people’s idea of what moral is has become perverted to the point that it is a consumable good, a trophy, a Foundation.
If I donate one-hundred tax deductable dollars via Unicef to the victims of Hurricane Nargis out of my fifty-thousand dollar yearly salary that is totally different than flagellating or crucifying myself.
I understand fetish as a cousin of phobia. By phobia I objectify a dread into some object that is more comfortable to fear than the noumena; it is a sort of denial of primal anxt. A fetish has a similar function, a denial of death with sex; in particular, an objectification of sex, a fetish denies both vital life and death in a single negation. Morality is also a sort of denial of the terrible truth of existence; but it is more that ethics are the inauthentic objectification of the primal moral feelings. The moral feelings themselves play in death and in God; and at the sametime are the vital life force…
In ancient societies didn’t they encourage homosexuality to promote passivity in males as they were growing up thus to create a harmony between the masculine and feminine tendencies of the mind. Since then this kind of behaviour has been outlawed and declared taboo which is maybe a reason for the dominance of masculinity today yet the desire is still there for harmony and is maybe what is sought in sexual practices such as masochism, so I disagree that it is a weakness to be passive, rather it is a desire for harmony.
No.
When sex becomes a social pleasure and reproduction is controlled by “strong” males & females, then an archetypical male may have sex with whoever he pleases. He will be alpha and he will have mating rights. Therefore, if the Ancients engaged in homosexuality and many other kinds of sexual practices, it wouldn’t really matter.
Passivity was instigated by more immediate factors, whatever they may be. Sex would just be the expression of said factors.
one word answers 
the question isn’t a matter of yes or no, the point is homosexuality was accepted and encouraged thus they thought it was beneficial and healthy.
Even the ancient Greeks were uncomfortable about sexual relations between men. They were seen as a debasement of pure platonic love, which was considered the highest form of love between two men (or a man and a boy). Nevertheless, homosexual relationships were often accepted, depending upon the circumstances. Read Foucault’s book The Care of the Self if you’re really interested.
thanks for the recommendation. The subject of ‘taboo’ sexual practices is interesting though a tangent to this thread.
Yes.
And,
Yes.
Humility being a luxory.
Is it now?
How is morality not a commodity?
I’m not quite understanding what you are trying to illustrate here.
What are primal moral feelings?
How?
Never said passive was a weakness, but the perception of weakness. I suggested that it is/was superior. However, I think guilt over this superior feeling can be countered in the punishment of humilation. Even if its confused with humility.