Philosophical question. Is virtue virtue if it is not willed?

So the question is, is the will necessary for an act or person to be virtuous? Or another way to phrase it to make the question larger is: What is needed to mean an act or person is virtuous?

For example. If a person is a drunk and there is some sort of health scare and the local offlicence is closed. They don’t have access to alcohol for a year. Is it still a virtue that they stopped drinking?

Virtue: “behavior showing high moral standards”.

I’m not sure “morals” comes into play when there are no choices to be made. If there is absolutely no access for example.

But it would be an opportunity being offered to stop alcohol excesses. Yet the person could still forego that opportunity and make the choice to seek alcohol by any other means, including making it themselves. That being said, personally I am not even sure I would call refraining from alcohol to be virtuous per se.

So, regarding virtue, I see it more related to “choice” rather than “will”. Of course, will comes into play when it’s time to manifest your choice.

1 Like

Isn’t that a tautology? If you then go to morals it says: Standards of behaviour, principles of right or wrong.

Virtue is to attempt to do good, to positively aid in the improvement of others, and to align with ones conscience.

I suppose the Law of One vernacular would be positive polarity? Or is that something too different to align?

Well, if the person is a drunk, as I defined. Then they would be having alcohol regularly and it is almost definitely destroying their life and their health. So there is a reflection of that onto virtue. As they are also destroying themselves. They are also addicted.

Part of this curiousity comes from the fact that it seems America is shutting down a lot of globalism and so a lot of people will not have the opportunity/ incentive to do bad things anymore.

So another example might be that a girl has a boyfriend that beats her up. But then her brother comes round one day and tells the boyfriend that if he beats her up again, the brother will kill said boyfriend. Then, the boyfriend and sister have a good relationship. Was that virtue or was it not? The new behaviour of the boyfriend?

I think it is an interesting question. I am lacking real world hypotheticals. Like, someone I know who had this kind of thing. Real world hypotheticals are better because a hypothetical can be stated without understanding some subtle element of a situation that makes it not possible.

In my understanding, the positive path shows us how counter productive it is to judge each other’s intentions.

Since any examples we can come up with, even real life ones, are based on our own personal sense of morals, I’m not sure how we can address them in a general/phylosophical sense.

So with this in mind, I’ll happily share my personal answers/opinion to your questions.

I don’t think stopping excessive alcohol cunsomption is virtuous. Rather this shows more respect and love for one’s own body.

I don’t think what the United States are doing is virtuous. I see it to be very much self serving and unloving.

I don’t see virtue coming into play when the brother stops the boyfriend from hurting his sister. He demonstrates a wish to keep her safe, most likely because he loves her.

So, I see those actions and choices related to Love rather than morals and virtue.

Love speaks a universal language that transcends any differences people might have in morals and virtue.

1 Like

This makes me extraordinarily happy Patrick.

I don’t know what commonality and discussion can be had when our viewpoints are so diametrically opposed. You have basically said here, in that last line, in my understanding, that moral don’t exist.

Morals exists, but it is particular to the community we are living in. And it is not necessarily the best guiding principle that one might follow in my opinion.

I personally prefer to let Love guide my behaviour rather than what my community believes is virtuous or the moral thing to do.

2 Likes

So postmodernism? You believe there are no universal moral standards. Googles search on postmodernism brings back:

“Focus on relative truths”: Postmodernism focuses on the relative truths of each person, rather than universal truths.

Postmodernism is the preferred ideology of almost all globalists.

You are saying that the fact that in some cultures the age of marriage is 9 does not mean that there is a universal moral system that people in that culture are neglecting. But simply that we see it differently since we have been conditioned to believe that the age of consent is 16-18?

Does that align with the law of One? In order for their to be a service to others path, others must objectively exist in reality, like, there has to be an other to serve.

If someone is doing something self serving. Then you are saying they are engaging in behaviours that are (objectively) destructive towards others for self gain. They are doing behaviours out in the world that are destructive, that people do or should agree is destructive.

But that is fairly objective. Can you say “There is no such thing as objective truth, objective value, but Donald Trump is selfish?” Well you can, but you are not being consistent.

Yes.

I also believe the Confederation is pretty clear on that point.

We are here to learn the ways of Love.




What I shared about this subject is my personal opinion, thus my personal judgment of the situation. Others will judge for themselves what is right and what is wrong for them.

If we follow the ways of Love, then all will work out well no matter what we individually judged to be right or wrong.

Me thinking that the USA is “acting selfishly at the expense of others” is subjective to my point of view. Others might very well believe otherwise and they would not be wrong either.

We each must make choices. Making choices might be called making judgment. That is inevitable in my opinion. We came here to make choices/judgments.

The issues arises when we try to push our personal choices/judgments unto others. I do not believe we can be aware of universal Truth while incarnated in 3d.

2 Likes

That segment on abortion is… pretty sick in my opinion. I wondered a few times if Carla had a ‘distortion’ towards preferring women in general and generally cowtowing to some of their irrationality. I think I saw something from her saying that women that dress in slutty ways are just ‘seeking the approval of their peers’.

I mean, OK, but that is not what they are doing every time. They are not unaware and lacking in desire of male attention. They are not all perfect. And secondly, a man who walks through a violent neighbourhood carrying a transparent container of cash. No one would give him excuses they would just say he acted like a moron. If you walk through a dangerous jungle unarmed, expect to get eaten by tigers.

This is another example. Currently, abortions can be done as late as 30, or 36 weeks in some states. So they are just basically carving up live babies. The earliest child that was born that survived is 22 weeks. I don’t know whether I agree with Carla and Quo here that a woman can sit there and decide based on her subjective feeling if a being within her body, with an entirely different set of DNA, lives or dies. I don’t see that as moral at all, according to an objective moral standard I believe exists. Not gratuitously killing babies I think qualifies.

I have definitely felt better from Quo readings and have observed this odd effect that I have very good insights into other areas in general when I go on them. But I might have to bear in mind that for me personally, it would go against my own standards to indulge them, especially through Carla, theoretically another channel that does not offer such morally abhorent views might be OK. I believe strongly that a lot of women are very unethical and that the central belief kept up through social shaming that women should never be criticised is extraordinarily destructive.

1 Like

A hundred percent we have to push our moral standards on others. If we are never ever to do that, what you are arguing for is the utter moral correctness of the existence of government.

If there is a guy going around and killing people then it is the government, the police, that will lock this person up.

But, if the government weren’t there, then we would have to handle these things. Which would mean we would have to construct a universal standard on which to judge each other. If a guy goes around raping and killing, we would have to lock the person up and/ or execute them.

It is the same with people in our lives in general. We have to decide who we will and will not see based upon our standards. Like, if the raping killing guy is not caught do we still keep this person as our friends? Do we keep cheaters as friends etc. etc.

This is all our own standards which we subject others to.

Later edit:

Also, if you are saying that people should not place their moral standards on others, have you ever voted? Because if you have even once then that is a contradiction. People that vote left are voting for the initiation of force on some individuals to give money to others. That is a pretty extreme standard to subject others to since it is done at the barrel of a gun. That is forcing your own opinion onto others in a pretty serious way.

Actually, I was unable to find a proper place so far within the political compass.

I wish for an environment that would protect us from harming each others and protect us from government tyranny as well as protect us from corporate tyranny.

I’ve never seen a position on the political compass that resolves all these together.

I believe there is a good reason for that in that “they” have set up things this way so that we cannot come to naturally gravitate towards a true unification of ideals.

Instead, the way things are set up it encourages us to hold a point of view that encourages us to say things like: “A hundred percent we have to push our moral standards on others”.

I understand that point of view. I held it for the greater part of this incarnation. Thankfully, for these past 15 years, I was able to let go of it in the melting influence of Love.

I believe a form of governance would arise in any case.

The question is, what is the true collective intention for this form of governance?

I posit that it is possible to have a workable one that is so minimal that we each feel free to be who we are and still have protection from harming each others without paradox.

It requires trust and faith in the Universe. In the great plan. Or we could say, trust and faith in the ways of Love.

It requires these, because it also requires us to relinquish the idea that we can succeed at such an endeavour all alone by ourselves.

I also pay income taxes that goes in part to the army, which they can then use to kill people. I accept my part of responsibility in this. I believe that part to be somewhat small, since without intention accrued karma is much smaller in my opinion.

As I have mentioned earlier, these political concepts of “left”, “right”, “libertarian” and “authoritarian” are all part of the system of control that keeps us from seeing the larger view.

The larger view is that we either “love ourselves and each others” or we “love ourselves at the expense of others”.

What form of governance could allow both to interplay without harming each others?

That is discussed in the Ra material. It looks like when these are resolved, it would mean this planet has completed its movement towards fourth density.

That probably cannot manifest while we are still sharing the playing field with those intentionally walking the negative path.

You’re missing the point of what I said. The point of bringing up the idea of a small tribe as an example, is that decisions that involve ethics and whether or not to force your ethics onto someone else, sometimes in a very harsh way, as with a murderer or other dangerous individual. You are saying we don’t push our viewpoints on others but you are only able to hold that point because government is doing the law enforcement for you. This means that it is not necessarily a natural state for you to not have to deal with that kind of thing. It is an artificial state. The governments keep letting criminals go on early release and importing them to convince you that their system is justified.

But wait a sec, did you not say later that people can’t unify because a good section of them are service to self? Isn’t that a contradiction.

There are plenty of extremely destructive political ideas out there that people get benefits from engaging in. Like, hook up culture as one. That came from feminism.

Well, this is some of the things that are talked about in the Ra Material:

A) During the industrial revolution, wanderers came down first to put in the ideas before those that came down with actual plans to make it happen.

B) Something relevant to the harvest either did or should have happened in 2011.

C) There is a 100 - 700 year transition period.

Which means we are probably in some sort of transition period and birthing a new world that can accomodate the first of the 4th density beings being born here. We will have to do that, not them, because they will be babies. Which means it is likely that all the relevant political ideas to create a workable system that fourth density can incarnate in is probably on the earth now.

ALSO, the segment you excerpted was about fourth density. Perhaps they cannot handle any single bit of negativity once they get going. But we are not fourth density. We are all the way from 3rd through 6th with a lot of wanderers being sixth density. Therefore, we are capable of constructing a system that can handle the negative elements on earth.

Well, this is a bit of what the thread is about. Firstly, the reason you pay taxes is so you don’t go to jail, so that is a different moral choice than being unconscious of something. If someone points a gun at someone else and tells them to do something or else they will be shot. If it is unethical, it is far more understandable to do the unethical thing in that situation than it is for ones hedonistic pleasure.

I don’t really agree on the intention vs. karma point. People who do casually crappy things go to great lengths to avoid moral clarity. If you have moral clarity you have to stand up for what’s right. I don’t think people will escape “karma” since I think people knowingly keep things vague when they know they are in the wrong. I don’t think the Creator is so stupid that he is fooled by this.

But that’s just a thought on “karma and awareness”.

In a small tribe or a whole planet, I would let people do whatever they want except hurt me and those wishing not to be hurt.

The only control required for protection is that which is required to prevent another from hurting us.

Why would ethics come into play here? Forcing our ethics/morals on others would mean that whatever is not a good idea for us should also not be a good idea for others. For example, if we were to believe masturbation is bad, we would then try to push this same idea of badness on others. Such control is not required for protection.

It’s an extremely small number of people who are intentionally walking the negative path. The great majority of people doing hurtful things are just caught in the play.

Those few true negative entities are running out of time to play here. Eventually, the environment will no longer be compatible for them to incarnate here. As you pointed out, within the next 100 to 700 years.

“hook up culture” is a good example of something that is not hurtful to others in and of itself. Unless they were to try and force others to adopt that lifestyle, why would anyone have anything to say about their choice?

I’m not sure I understand your meaning here.

Yes and that again brings intention into the equation. We cannot know the true intentions of others.

Why does one believe all is subjective? Is it because they glimpse the true nature of things down here or because they wish to use this in order to control others.

I see it very simply, are they behaving lovingly or unlovingly towards themselves and others?

One can stand up for oneself on what one believe is right for them. If one believes it is right for them to hurt others, they might be stopped if those others believe they are entitled to protect themselves.

In my opinion, there is no way to escape karma nor should one desire to do so. It is a tool we use for growth.

The relationship in between intention and karma is very strong. In my opinion, if we cause the death of another by accident, it will not result in the same strength of karma as if it was done on purpose. But karma per se will be accrued whatever the intent was.

At this time, wanderers are coming here to share how this process can be helped.

Here is that message:

Here is more on that subject:

You know, we are a little into this discussion by now. I just wanted to mention that a lot of people that state they believe in this subjective thing. Nihilist perhaps. There is no truth kind of thing. Postmodernism. These people don’t even slightly believe it as evidenced by their claims that this or that is fascist or Nazi behaviour. I’m not saying you are like that, I can’t quite capture what you are about, but that is the behaviour of many with that stated belief. The reason in this case I believe they are saying there is no truth is so that if other people believe that, then they can step in with their own viewpoints.

No, in any social situation there are prescribed standards of behaviour. You stated this before. For instance, if we take the example of women that sleep around a lot. In some cultures that is not at all allowed. In other cultures, it is encouraged. In the ones where it is encouraged they will generally push back hard on other more traditional behaviours. Hence why liberals have such deep hatred for Conservatives.

But this is a very basic point of human interaction. Like, it is almost too basic to be having to explain.

OK so this

Contradicts this:

When it is answering my point about people having destructive political ideas and choosing those.

You started with the idea that the negative has confused the situation so badly and that is deliberate so that we don’t unify. I countered with a comment on hook up culture that you have responded with this with:

My point here that I want to back up is that people can’t unify because they are choosing different things based on their MORAL preferences. Not some mysterious deep state program.

So you have stated here, clearly in a tone of ‘live and let live’ kind of thing. Hook up culture is not dangerous to anyone outside of the situation it’s in.

So this is a good example. The left believes that it is not, the right believes that it is, at least some of the right. So it is a good MORAL point to show the separation between people.

The right believes that if women are promiscuous they tend to divorce more. As the statistics back up. That two parent households do better for children on almost every metric. That children growing up with two parents are generally better equipped socially for dating and living happy lives. Children of single mothers are thirty times more likely to be raped due to the other men that the mother dates often raping said daughters.

The left believes it is all great. That everyone should do what they want IN THEORY. But in practice, as studies show, the left are far more unpleasant and ostracising towards the right than the right are to the left. I bring in this point as it is important. The left might claim “tolerance”. But in actual fact for many of them others that are even slightly right of centre are treated like an enemy, as I have personally experienced. Studies show that the left will not hire someone who is right wing but the right, will hire someone that is left wing (the right believe in meritocracy, the left believe in their own self righteousness!). Over time, that is how academia and other fields become full of left wing individuals.

Now, if you have an individual woman that does not want to settle down but wants to have a “hot girl summer” or whatever vernacular zoomers are using. Then it could very well be this specific desire that keeps her left wing. Thus it is not some super brainwashing from the deep state but is her own personal choice. This same analogy could fit with a lot of other vices.

So people don’t unify because they are morally different.

On the last point there, with all the quotes. I had just had a bit of a brainwave earlier today that I should not pay attention to Quo any longer after that earlier quote you dropped, so I will not read those. I might in fact distance myself from the channeling. I cannot abide those statements on killing unborn children based on the personal whims of the mother. This has potentially lead to a small but potentially quite powerful insight I have had into my personal habits.

I agree with everything you have said though I am not sure what you mean by this, would you explain? Why cannot we not understand universal truths or laws while we are here?

I agree that the worst error a human can make is to kill another innocent human being. Killing animals is bad enough but to kill a human being that has done nothing and is innocent is the worst error one can make.
Sure, it is a choice and we are here to make choices but we can place restrictions on behaviors such as this to make it more difficult to do such horrible things to one another.

1 Like

complicated subject…that’s for sure

Those channelings are nearly always prefaced with exactly that request. That we discard whatever they say if it does not resonate with us.

So yes, I think you are making a wise decision.


The best way to know that is by being around me and witnessing what I output and how it affects others.

Of course, we’re online here and all we can do is try to better clarify our point of views.

In terms of subjectivity, what is important to me is that we allow each others to believe as we will. So that is a complete opposite to using subjectivity in order to push my personal views on others.

I also mentioned my thought that these were not the best guiding principles to follow. I believe it is much better to follow our inner guidance, for each situation is unique.

Please, explain to me how sleeping around with other consenting people is hurting anyone else? There is no protection required in such matters and so no one should have anything to say about those personal choices.

In my opinion, you are caging yourself within the confines of those concepts you are referring to. In my views, humans cannot be reduced to liberals and conservatives for example. All those labels only serve as stumbling blocks.

We come here to subject ourselves to this environment/illusion in order to know how we will answer the call of Love while being nearly blind.

This negative part of ourselves is used to increase the difficulty level of this game. It is well documented that this planet is one of the hardest playing field in which to wake up from while still being inside.

So, that is of course deliberate. But we are doing this to ourselves. Ultimately, there is no “they”. The negatives are a part of us.

As part of increasing the difficulty level of this game, the negatives are doing their best to influence the choices that are available to us when putting in place those virtue and moral standards.

But we are not constrained to those peddled choices. It just becomes very difficult to see this and make alternative choices to the ones being put in front of us.

How could it be otherwise?

I’m talking about protection from bodily harms. How would such personal choices cause bodily harms to others ?

This whole section of your post is an example of operating within the false confines being presented to us.

Banning promiscuity would result in even more societal problems.

The solution is not found at this level. Einstein was clear that a solution comes from a higher perspective and not from the same level as the problem.

People don’t unify because they accept operating only within the falsely constrained choices presented to them.

We are better than that. We can step up our game.

Anyone shedding those constraints will witness their Universe transform for the better.

Your post has gone the route of not addressing any of my posts arguments because you are upset by this analogy. The analogy was used to summarise the fact that people have moral differences and that these are the basis for differences NOT “Deep State Brainwashing”. It wasn’t really on the example per sey.

You are also trying to take this weird perspective that liberals themselves often do. You are trying to define any viewpoint that opposes your viewpoint as simply not worth engaging in. Therefore, the only viewpoint that is left is your viewpoint. This goes back to the point I made earlier that people that support subjectivism. Don’t actually support subjectivism. They tend to just not want other people to have objective standards so they can then step in with their own viewpoints.

A lot on the left tend to view anyone who does not think like them as “brainwashed”. So perhaps that’s where you are coming from with this.

Your behaviour perfectly fits the category of liberal behaviour and, I believe the concept of the right, left divide is very good at expressing this difference. So if I have a concept that perfectly explains a difference in behaviour, I think it is good to use that.

The reason that hook up culture is not good according to some on the right, is as follows then. I have already explained it. But I will explain it in more detail.

Basically, it’s due to this. Women tend to see themselves as at the top of the heirarchy. They are “all 10’s”. Without social controls in place. Women tend to all gravitate towards the same kinds of guys. These guys then don’t have time for all the women on their “roster”. Then the women start wanting commitment from guys out of their league that they are just sleeping with in truth. The guys won’t commit. So the women get very upset and toxic. They tend to walk around saying “all guys are trash” and such. Or that they were in a “narcissistic relationship”.

Back in the 1955 example here. There were no dating apps and less globalism and easy travel, “The Pill”. So women stuck with some guy in their orbit. This meant that men were motivated to gain money and give it to their family and this is how the entire society we live in was created. Society is created from the male sex drive. All the buildings, all the technology, all the towers, and waterways, and garbage collection etc. Comes from the male sex drive.

So anyway, in the modern example, women have all slept around at the top, and she feels she is entitled to that kind of man. She feels if she gets someone that is her match in sexual market dating terms she is “settling”. Because of this she will likely divorce. Also, 1/3rd of marriages over the age of 40 are sexless. Which comes from the fact that the women have already slept around in their 20’s with hook ups, then they are not that interested in sex or any guy below their standards, such as their husbands.

Also, a lot of couples struggle with fertility. When women do this and have a hoe phase in their 20’s, and settle down with someone they don’t really want in their 30’s. 90% of a womans eggs are gone in her thirties.

It is a long life without kids if you happen to have wanted them. What are people going to do in the last 40 years of their lives?

Men notice this, and other issues and stop getting married. Thus, the birth rate plunges (as it has!). The marriage rate plunges (only 6.5/1000 men are willing to get married). Thus, a lot of guys are not ambitious and are fine to live on only a little and go home to beer and video games. From that situation, it is the literal end of society. It just withers on the vine and dies. There is no competence anywhere and things fall apart. There is no tax revenue! Accidents happen.

So these are some reasons that a society might want to put restrictions on female sexuality. As almost every single society has in every time and every place that humans have ever lived.

I bring it back to my original point as well. We started with the idea stated by you that people are brainwashed and that’s why there is no unity. I have countered here that there might be moral reasons for the choices people are making. A young girl that wants to sleep around and doesn’t want to hear it that she will get older, her options will shrink, and she will end up bitter. And that the best solution is to settle down in her early twenties when she has the highest chance of settling down with someone who is high status enough for her not to resent. If she doesn’t want to hear that, if she wants to feel the fun of just going on dates all the time with no real commitment. Then of course she will choose the left wing as her preferred political side.

This could be guys as well. Some of the worst behaviour I have received from people is guys whose girlfriends didn’t like something right wing I said on facebook. Guys that want to hook up and will be turned down if they don’t pay the left wing piper, will also choose leftism.

There is more to say about how free will works in quite a bit of detail. But we will leave it there I think.

While incarnated here, we cannot experience what is real. We can only perceive the illusion. The Truth is beyond all illusions.

So anyone wishing to get closer to the Truth, to get closer to what is real, must release all certainties that the mind fabricated and in Faith trust that only Love resolves all paradoxes.