Share on social media:

https://www.youtube.com/@DeliberatingDogfaceDudes/streams

Watch 

Should Parents be Charged in School Shootings? 3D Debates #9 ~ Deliberating Dogface Dudes LIVE

Is Morality Objective or Subjective? A Deep Dive with Will Keller and Benjamin Balderson
The Great Morality Debate: Objective vs. Subjective Ethics
Exploring Moral Philosophy: Objective vs. Subjective Morality
Universal Principles or Personal Perspectives? The Morality Debate
Deliberating Dog Face Dudes: The Nature of Morality with Will Keller and Benjamin Balderson

WillKeller.com

(00:01:30) Introduction and Episode Overview

(00:01:54) Debate Topic Introduction: Is Morality Objective or Subjective?

(00:02:24) Introducing the Guests: Benjamin Balderson and Will Keller

(00:02:34) Philosophical Foundations of Morality

(00:06:04) Dog Face Debate: Opening Statements

(00:10:03) Will Keller's Position: Morality is Objective

(00:14:20) Benjamin Balderson's Position: Morality is Subjective

(00:19:03) Debate on Objective vs Subjective Morality

(00:36:01) Key Arguments and Rebuttals

(01:22:12) Audience Questions and Real-Life Examples

(02:13:05) Closing Statements and Final Thoughts

- allen marcus

- Benjamin Balderson

- John Roeland

- Will Keller

https://serve.podhome.fm/deliberatingdogfacedudes

https://serve.podhome.fm/episodepage/deliberatingdogfacedudes/8

Welcome to another engaging episode of Deliberating Dog Face Dudes! In this week's episode, we dive deep into the age-old debate: Is morality objective or subjective? Joining us are two thought-provoking guests, Will Keller from the Natural Freedom League and Benjamin Balderson. The discussion is moderated by none other than Alan Marcus.

We kick off with an introduction to some of the greatest philosophers who have shaped our understanding of ethics and morality, including Emmanuel Kant, David Hume, John Stuart Mill, Friedrich Nietzsche, G.E. Moore, A.J. Ayer, and J.L. Mackey. Each philosopher's perspective sets the stage for our debate.

Will Keller argues that morality is objective, rooted in universal moral principles that can be known and discovered. He outlines seven transgressions that he believes are universally immoral: murder, assault, rape, theft, trespass, coercion, and deception. Keller emphasizes the importance of aligning our behaviors with these objective moral principles to create freedom and positive change in the world.

On the other side, Benjamin Balderson contends that morality is subjective, influenced by societal norms, personal experiences, and even epigenetic factors. He argues that what is considered moral or immoral can vary greatly depending on cultural and individual perspectives.

The debate touches on various real-world examples, including the Milgram experiment, the influence of societal conditioning, and the role of government and authority in shaping moral behavior. The discussion also delves into the complexities of human nature, free will, and the potential for societal evolution.

As the debate unfolds, both guests present compelling arguments, challenging each other's views and offering thought-provoking insights. Whether you lean towards objective or subjective morality, this episode is sure to make you ponder the nature of right and wrong.

Don't miss this intellectually stimulating episode that explores the depths of human morality and ethics. Tune in and join the conversation!

[00:00:34] Unknown:

You win.   9, 30, 8,   7,   33, 33,  

[00:01:20] Unknown:

21,   fight.  

[00:01:31] John Roeland:

Hello, everybody. Welcome to deliberating   dog face dudes.   I believe this is week number 8 that we've been doing this   and, really looking forward to this one.   My partner from,   the Natural Freedom League, Will Keller, is joining us.   Today's   title is Benjamin Balderson versus Will Keller Will Keller. Is morality   objective   or subjective?   This is a good one. It'll be moderated   by   none other than   allenmarcus.com.   What's up,  

[00:02:09] allen marcus:

Alan Marcus? How are you doing? Doing well. It's MC Escharides' Eschaton. Let's get it on and begin the end.  

[00:02:16] John Roeland:

Alright. I'm gonna add the other 2 gentlemen to the stage   and   let Marcus take over.  

[00:02:25] allen marcus:

So we have Balderson with us and   first time guest,   Will Keller. I got a little bit of   a What's up, Blair? I did a little book report. Let's set the stage with some of the greatest philosophers.   These thinkers who have shaped how we understand ethics, morality, and the human condition.   First up, we have Emmanuel   Cannot. No. That's Emmanuel Kant. Emmanuel Kant with a k k a n t with his classic work groundwork of the metaphysics of morals.   Kant's all about duty and the categorical   imperative,   laying down the law on what it means to act morally.   We've got David Hume next, the skeptic with the heart.  

From his treaties   of human nature, Hume brings emotion into the mix, showing us how our feelings,   not just reason, play a big part in our moral decisions.   John Stewart Mill comes in strong with utilitarianism.   I think I've mentioned that word a few times on the show before,   championing the greatest happiness principle.   For Mill, it's all about maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, not just for yourself, but for everyone   involved tonight.   And then there's Friedrich Nietzsche, every teenage boy's favorite,   angsty   black t shirt wearing dude from Germany with beyond good and evil. You know, Nietzsche's the rebel questioning everything we think we know about morality.  

He's famous for his idea that morality isn't some objective truth, but something we create ourselves driven by our own will to power. Let's write some songs about it   and cry   together.   That'll get us all girlfriends.   G e Moore takes on a different path with Principia   Ethica. Oh,   fancy.   Moore is an ethical non naturalist. I don't know if that's a nudist. I don't know if he gets out of nature much. He's probably writing a lot of text arguing that moral properties are real and objective,   but not something you can just pin down like a donkey tail or a tail on a donkey would comes first, the categorical   imperative or the the cart of the the horse, the the donkey,   like pleasure or pain. I don't know if that's allowed.  

Delete that from the notes. That wasn't supposed to be there.   AJ Ayer. Have you heard of this guy? Switching up things with language, truth, and logic. Ayer is all about emotivism.   I don't think those are emojis or little, you know, happy smiley faces   or, pinatas or what is it? The aubergine? Yeah. The dick emojis. That's what it's about. Right? Emotivism.   Moral statements are more about expressing how we feel   rather than stating facts. For him, saying something's good or bad is like giving it a thumbs up or down on Facebook or YouTube. I think they took away the disapproval.   So now it's just   everything's good.  

And finally, we've got   jl Mackey, if that's his real name. He's got his view from nowhere, Mackey's own first error theory,   arguing that while we talk about moral facts as if they're real, they actually aren't. Morality is more subjective   than we often think.   Now even though these philosophers have their own takes on ethics and morality, they've got some common threads. They all dig deep into the nature of moral judgments,   question whether morality is something objective or subjective,   and explore what it means to live a good life. And of course, each of them contributed to building or challenging distinct philosophical systems.   Kant's got his deontology, Hume's sentimentalism,   Mills utilitarianism,   Nietzsche's radical critiques, Moore's ethical non naturalism,   or   Mackie's   moral relativism.  

Class is in session. I hope you guys are taking notes.   Now that I've set the stage with some of history's most famous dudes, let's get ready to rumble and tumble in today's dog face debate.   We've got guests with us who are ready to tackle the big question.   Is morality   subjective   or objective?   Gentlemen, introduce yourselves and state your position. Let's start with our guest, Will Keller.  

[00:06:31] Will Keller:

Excellent. Thanks for having me on, gentlemen. It's a pleasure. First time on here.   So   my position is that   morality is objective, meaning that there is a universal   moral principles, a moral standard of right and wrong behavior.   And   we can know and discover   these principles, and we can align our behavior to these principles. And in fact,   to create freedom and   to create change in the world   that is   directly   associated   with,   if we align our behaviors   with the objective   moral principles.   Want me to keep riff riffing?  

[00:07:24] Unknown:

No. I didn't know if you were or not. I was like, I'm not sure if this is his, full speech or this is his I was like, should I do the whole 5 minutes or just state in the position? No. I think we're just, I think, we're just introducing ourselves. And then tell everybody where they can find you too, brother. Yeah. Thanks, man. You can go to my website, willkeller.com.  

[00:07:44] Will Keller:

All my presentations   and podcasts are on there. So,   that's it. Willkeller.com.  

[00:07:52] Unknown:

Excellent.   And,   I'm Benjamin Balderson.   You can find me. We're on a hiatus currently on   weaving spiders, but normally waving spiders on Saturdays.   And,   you can find interviews with me all over the interweb.   Just not everywhere. And, obviously, here, I'm deliberating   dog with, dog faced meats with these fine gentlemen.   There's another fine gentleman we're about to be meeting up with. Also, I've got Flattoberfest   coming up in just a couple weeks. We're about to be heading out, and I'll be grabbing Marcus and meeting   mister Billing Tano over here. And,   heading down there, it's gonna be most excellent.  

Marcus and I are gonna be doing a live,   spagyrics alchemy experiment,   so that's gonna be fantastic.   A lot of people talk about a lot of things,   but,   we're putting the, rub we're going where the rubber and the road meet, and we're gonna put it right there in front of everybody.   So,   Flattoberfest.   Yeah.   But   absolutely, look forward to this, and,   let's do this.  

[00:09:11] allen marcus:

So Flytoberfest   is coming up real real quickly here. That'll be at flat earth festivals dot com. Benjamin Balderson, do you have a position tonight?  

[00:09:24] Unknown:

My position is gonna be that,   reality or   morality   is subjective,   that things that are objective,   meet certain qualifications.   And while we can strongly,   feel subjective things generationally even,   and eventually that becomes a societal thing,   it's still a subjective thing. It's, an objective to it's a subjective to an objective.  

[00:09:58] allen marcus:

So let's talk about the reality of morality. Is it objective or subjective?   We'd like to start with Will Keller,   And then there's this big question here. Is there such a thing as universally   wrong   action? Are there actions that are wrong no matter where   or when or how they happen?  

[00:10:18] Will Keller:

Great. Yeah. Absolutely.   So,   touching on reality,   how I speak on it is that we each are having our subjective   experience   in an objective reality.   Meaning that we are   sharing this reality together and we each individually have our perception   and our influence on our environment,   but yet   reality   has   principles or laws that are in place that are the governing dynamics   of reality. I call them natural law, the laws of nature,   and law   the etymology and definition meaning   a binding and unchanging condition.   So,   these constant laws of are there. They are the the principles and of course, we can   interact with these laws. Everyone does. And when it comes to morality,   we can look at it as cause and effect.  

So as we perform an action onto another   human or sentient being,   if that if it causes harm or initiates harm that is an immoral action.   Right? And if it does not initiate harm then it is a moral action. Now are there universally   immoral   acts?   My position is yes there is and we can sum them down to 7.   Right? Murder, Assault,   Rape, Theft,   Trespass,   Coercion   and Deception.   Like, willfully lying.   I think   all throughout the universe, these,   these 7 transgressions   are universally,   objective. Right? They're immoral actions   and   each one of these transgressions   are a taking of something.  

So they're all theft in some form or fashion. Right? Murder,   the taking of   life,   assault, the taking of bodily autonomy,   rape,   the taking of   sexual   free will.   So and all the way down the list. So it's a taking of something so it is theft.   And there is, from that cause that immoral action there is an effect that happens.   So individually, if people human beings are acting   immorally,   then there will be an aggregated condition, the human condition   where I   see us in now. One of, you know, duress, coercion, and slavery.   So absolutely   universal actions   and I also I'll preface it with ethics. Ethics to me is   the systematic study of moral principles.  

So it's almost studying   the the science of morality or the attributes of morality of,   right or wrong action. And of course, there are virtues that I think are also   universal as well.   And I   do take a stance that there is a gradient in ethics from objective to subjective   depending on the context.   Right? If you're talking about an organization,   what's the   the organization's   ethos or ethics.   So their internal   qualities,   but yet morality   is that standard   that no one can   can should violate.   So yeah. I'll end it on that.  

[00:14:00] allen marcus:

Thank you. And Balderson, do you have   your opening statement   prepared and ready to go?  

[00:14:20] Unknown:

Today, we debate whether morality is   subjective or objective.   To understand this, we need to understand the terms.   Grammarly states when comparing objective and subjective,   objective means verifiable information based on facts and evidence.   Subjective means information or perspectives   based on feelings,   opinions, or emotions.   An easy example of a moral situation to be examined is murder.   The objective part of this situation is a person has killed another person.   There is something we can look at, measure, verify,   something anyone can walk up and determine without having been informed of previously.  

How we feel about the objective fact that has happened is entirely subjective.   Based on the objective fact,   we can take a raw stand.   Murder is bad or good.   We can add situational   factors putting this into a more into a more gray area rather than black and white.   Was it self defense?   Was it in the heat of an emotionally charged moment, like finding a cheating spouse or someone hurting your child?   Was it preplanned?   All of these being ways to determine your subjective position to an to the objective fact.   In some debates, I have seen broaching this subject. The person confuses a subjective   with an objective fact. They say,   I objectively felt this was wrong or evil.  

Without understanding, their feeling in the relate in in relation to the event is the very thing that makes it subjective.   I cannot in any way measure how you felt about this act. I cannot verify that what you state is how you felt,   nor can most   psychologically   verify   what they think about a try a traumatic event.   The second common argument I see for objective morality is religious in nature.   And given the wide array of religions in the world, the only way that one could that   could be this could begin to be argued is if people followed the same religious structure.   I personally am an odinist, and our views on murder in many ways differ from Christianity,   such as whether the victim was a friend or an enemy to begin with.  

The last argument I see used   is the general societal reaction to the event.   The example of of murder,   most of society deems bad. The people before us deemed it bad. Everyone feels this way.   The simple argument to that is, obviously, not everyone felt that way or the moral infraction   wouldn't even be a thing to discuss. We just wouldn't do it.   The second part to my argument that I have never seen discussed is the epigenetic   factor.   When you look at studies on the generational effects of induced traumas in mice, we find some very surprising physical results.   We also find that some of their behaviors   logically do not track, but they are expressed anyway.  

We see this when things like a secondary stimuli are added.   Many have at least heard of the study, including electric shock and the scent of cherry blossoms on mice.   When one generation was shocked and the scent of cherry blossoms was presented that at the same time,   the reasonable reaction became   cherry blossoms are bad.   Later in that generation   and in successive generations,   the scent of cherry blossom was bad, even though the electric shock stimuli was removed.   The logic that shock and the scent were not necessarily tied together did not occur.   Obviously, cherry blossoms are not immoral, but you cannot convince the mice in the experiment of that.  

If they were able to vocalize their morality,   everyone would just know cherry   about cherry blossoms innately.   The 2nd generation, it would have been stories about the event, and by the 3rd generation,   only nerdy mice into obscure into obscure history would care, and the rest would call him a conspiracy theorist.   The moral laws or natural laws   we primarily agree on as a society   follow the most traumatic and reoccurring   experiences in society,   which would carry epigenetically   each time they reoccur,   such as murder.   I don't know which of these arguments or new arguments that Will is gonna bring tonight, but I look forward to hearing them.  



[00:19:03] allen marcus:

Thank you. Will, do you have any immediate thoughts about what you just heard?  

[00:19:08] Will Keller:

Yeah.   Ben, you bring up some good good points.   I do wanna say when I'm   talking about objective morality,   9 out of 10 times most people,   associate that with religion.   And   absolutely religions have co opt that category   of morality.   Right? They they wanna be the arbiters of truth. They wanna be the arbiters of right and wrong. So across the board, all culture religions,   really any type of religion always wants to be that arbiter.   So I do recognize   that when discussing objective morality, it has a lot of,   cultural religious baggage, mainly Christianity   and Catholicism.  

So   but when I'm talking about objective morality, it it is separate from that. I'm talking about a science   that through our   human   quality of logic and reason   and our capacity to feel,   we can discern   and come to know and understand   this science that is inherent   in the fabric   of reality and nature   for us as human beings.   The distinction   from animals   having morality versus humans, I do make that distinction because human beings are not animals. We are a separate species. We do have an an animalistic,   by biological   components to us, but we are at a higher evolved species   endowed with, you know, that evolved neocortex,   higher order and logic and reason.  

So just by using logic and reason and we can feel   when we have created harm and we can see when we have created harm and we can see the effect that it has.   It does not matter about   the perception   or the belief or the feeling   of the justification.   Right? Murder is murder.   Assault is assault. Rape is rape. Now,   in a shared reality,   we can we can talk about as as if they're separate. Right? We have natural law   cause and effect, but it's still up to human beings   to discern   and come to know and discover   how   reality operates.   How objective morality operates and we still have to convey that.  

For instance, talking about self defense.   If, you know, there's no there's no witnesses,   so you you   know, jury of our peers, we still have to discuss that to see if it really was self defense. But yet,   the fact the truth in reality,   it could have been murder for sure.   So I look at the objective principles   of morality   as the non aggression principle and the self defense principle. And I also incorporate self ownership because as individuals,   we are responsible and accountable   for the actions that we take.   Epigenetics,   great topic.  

I'm passionate about this topic because   in the current human condition of slavery   where the control system   has been going on for   who knows how long, 100 of 1000 of years potentially.   That absolutely there's been this conditioning and religion, the cultural religions have a big part of it.   Through the violation of rights   and the conditioning and programming of human beings   that   for sure this is why the belief in government or the belief in human authority that certain humans have authority over others is so is so prominent.   So the main thing to consider when we talk about morality and defining our terms, what is morality? Morales   from Latin means   the difference between right and wrong behavior.  

Stating that there is a difference and there is.   So this is based on   right or wrong.   So what is a right? How do we discern right behavior?   Well, using the apathetic method, we can discover   what not to do by looking at the negative.   So by looking at the negative, we can discover the affirmative. And there's   millions and unlimited amount of rights someone can take as long as it does not initiate harm or aggression on another, sentient being. Right? But when we look at the wrongdoings   this is where we get into murder, assault, rape, theft, trespass, coercion and deception.   So now we can have a more concise   logical,   perception.  

This is what our goal as human beings is is to align our perception   with the truth,   with the laws of nature, the real   facts   in reality.  

[00:24:25] allen marcus:

Bolderson, your reply.  

[00:24:33] Unknown:

So,   obviously, Will has taken the religious   aspect off the table. I'm just fine with that. Again, that was   one of 3 normal arguments. This one is is gonna fall more into   the societal feeling   argument.   And and there was numerous examples given,   and I absolutely don't agree with those examples.   Or, I mean, don't disagree with those examples that many of the things that what we today would consider   morals   would be,   something you feel   naturally.   Now once again,   I do understand that,   humans are of a higher,   mind   than mice.   Now with that said,   most people aren't very much higher.  

They're still subject to their most base animalistic,   desires, their most base animal animalistic,   instincts,   and they do nothing in any way, shape, or form to,   try to   have an inner work or discover anything.   And when something's a traumatic event,   which funny enough, every moral listed,   unlike most   things, like you would go into a gym, you would expect to see the list of   things   as aspiring.   These are things I should do. These are moral odds.   But that isn't where things ever go because   somebody has committed   something   enough   to where an entire society   has decided   we don't like that.  

These people that were doing it,   they apparently didn't feel the same way. So society   then starts making laws   and saying,   we know you might wanna do some murdering,   but we're kind of against that as a whole.   We don't really like that as a whole. And if you, yourself,   are going to come bringing your murdering in here,   then we're going to have to come up with some sort of punishment   or correctional,   system   in order to try and bring you into alignment   with the not murdering, because we're just not about murder.   And so this is all,   again,   subjective,   even the term   where he's broke down   discover where it whether it's murder or not.  

Literally, what we're talking about is a human killing another human.   The fact that we have numerous different words,   numerous different stances,   what was the situation?   This all becomes very subjective.   The one objective   thing is that a human killed another human.   All the rest of these things become   how do what is my juxtaposition   from this one objective   fact?   And that can include many gray areas,   or it can be extraordinarily black and white. Gray areas tend to or the black and white tends to be more masculine. This is why the law is considered masculine.   Did this happen or didn't it? Did you kill another human? You did?  

Then you need to stand trial for murder.   Then at the trial for murder,   we can decide   according to mitigating factors,   such as, was this person intending me harm? Was this person taking from me? Again, was this a heat of the moment crime? I came home and found him   my wife.   And I just I lost my mind. Are you a crazy person that doesn't understand   morale? And that's what we start calling these people that live in a different moral system. It's crazy.   Are they a crazy person that does not live by the same morality as I do? So they're not even fit to stand trial because to them,   they did not break a moral code.  

So all of these things,   again,   are all   sidebars   to the actual   fact   of a human killed another human.   Objectively, that happened. I can walk up. I can see that it happened.   I can this human is dead.   That's the end of the story.   Now we can   decide   subjectively where we stand according to that, which I'm not even saying that this set of principles   or laws is bad.   I'm saying that they are subjective.  

[00:29:32] Will Keller:

Alright.   And I I agree with you on some of your points that you made.   Human beings are the or the majority   of the populace into in the modern age is completely unconscious   and and rooted in that animalistic,   state of mind,   which I think that's a big problem. Right? That's a big problem and kinda, you know, the goal of my work is to inspire and influence individuals to look within themselves   to shatter their religious,   dogma and their false axioms   and to start to do that inner work   of of, you know, waking up or evolving and, you know, looking at   reality and what is going on in the world and themselves   for sure with, with a clearer lens and and a wider aperture.  

So I totally agree with that. And   this is   this is how I equate   the effect of the human condition   where governments are out of control,   wars, the murder,   the theft of,   you know, the human condition. Why why humanity is enslaved   and that is due because human beings do not know   what a right is   truly. Right? They think a right is something that,   government can can you know, pass in law, policy, and code or it can be agreed upon.   And if it can be agreed upon, well, then   we're just gonna go more and more into enslavement   because that's what that   mindset, that   out of control ego mindset, that's what it wants. It wants to play God. It wants to say what the law is.  

I see nature as the supreme authority. I I take nature and creation or source,   they're interchangeable for me. That's what I'm referring to. There's this higher   creative intelligence   and   we can come to know that on a personal level, meaning that we can come to know its laws.   So   the law of freedom   states that   as a society   becomes   moral   then that society will become   more free.   And if a society becomes immoral   then that society will become more enslaved.   Because   the individuals that make up the aggregate or the collective   they themselves do not understand they do not know the difference between right and wrong behavior.  

And due to that ignorance   then   they're living in this relative   state then absolutely   corporations,   feelings,   wokeism,   governments   they can justify   which   justify,   the etymology means to create a right   or I say what the right I say what a right is.   This is what that means and that's exactly what they're doing. So sure, there can be some alignments   like murder. Murders, you know, illegal in in all states in in America for sure. But of course, that's just,   that that is obvious. That's logically sound with the natural world.   But then you get into other things like taxation,   you know,   property tax, license   and,   and driver's license and and license to work etcetera etcetera. Right? What is this really? This is a claim of ownership   and this is all due and why do people go along with it? Because people do not understand the difference between right and wrong   in truth.  

In that which is the realm of the real in nature.   I think human beings,   human beings can absolutely discern,   in reality what is real and what is fictitious,   what is fake. And   the social conditioning   that has been propagated is very similar to how religions have propagated or kingship or royalty   that this one person has the divine right to rule just because of their blood.   Right? That they're the the arbiters of truth. They get to say what the what   what the right is, what right and wrong is. They get to make up the law. And, of course, human the aggregate of consciousness, human consciousness started to pull away from that,   a little bit. So they had to make up some new form of control, which would, you know, be democracy   or modern forms of government. So it's all of this   facade,   the social engineering   to keep human beings from not understanding the natural world and not understanding that there is an objective standard   that we can   know and not only do we know it   and we hold ourselves accountable to it, we hold everyone else accountable to it including government,   institutions,   its henchmen, etcetera, etcetera.  

Because   murder is always murder, and again I I agree with you, Ben, that just because there someone died, again, we still we still have our perception. Was it self defense? Who initiated it? That that is important because violence and force   are separate things.   Violence is the violation   of another's rights   and force   is is energy expelled   to defend yourself.   Right? It's like boxing. Boxing is not violent because it's consensual.   It's forceful.   So I make that delineation.   But yet you know there is no handbook like you know the bible or any of these holy books that say got it. Sorry. Ranting.   I was waiting to hear the beat, but  

[00:35:26] allen marcus:

It got quiet for some reason. Will, you put out a lot of really great stuff on the table here. Is there one specific argument   that is in favor of your position being   that's that morality   is objective?   What is your best argument in favor   of reality   for for for   subjective   or versus   I'm tripping over my words. This is this is a lot of a lot of big $5 words vocabulary here.   So your position is   morality   is objective.   What is your   biggest,   toughest, baddest argument   for, Boulderson to chew on?  

[00:36:10] Will Keller:

Yeah. Great question. I I went on all types of different tangents.   So, yes, morality is objective   and it's not based on perception or feelings, it's not relative.   So I'll pose this.   If   there is an island with 20 people,   Those 20 people,   I'm saying that is objective. If those people understand what rights are and they understand   the 7 transgressions,   they are gonna be more harmonious.   If each individual person   has   their own beliefs   on it, for instance, well, I believe in raping,   women.   Right? That is obviously gonna be out of harmony and there's gonna be opposition   in that group. You can do 10 or a 100 people. Right? But this is a an equation to society.  

It doesn't really matter the numbers. It's the state of mind and the action.  

[00:37:08] allen marcus:

So with the 7 transgressions,   could you remind us all? We're taking notes here. This will be on the quiz on Friday. What are the 7 transgressions?  

[00:37:16] Will Keller:

Correct. It's murder,   assault,   rape,   theft,   trespass,   coercion,   and   deception,   or willfully lying.  

[00:37:29] allen marcus:

And these are objectively   the reasons why morality is objective.  

[00:37:35] Will Keller:

They're objectively   knowable because we can observe their effects.   We can do that through logic and reason and we can it's also written on the human heart. Right? We can feel,   we have empathy, we can feel when we harm someone.   Now, whether or not   that person is, you know, a narcissist, a sociopath,   a primary,   psychopath where they're they're they don't feel.   It's it's a human quality that we can discern and feel.  

[00:38:07] allen marcus:

Alderson, let's check-in on to you. Are you discerning this argument and then you're ready to tear it apart?  

[00:38:18] Unknown:

I very much like Will's standards,   and I like Will as as a person.   So   the assertion   that   there is   a   a   a   presupposition   to   understandings   of morality.   Again,   there was   somebody that broke that in the first place. That person did not feel that.   And that we had to list, a a list of what we would consider   mental   mental,   disorders,   the which   is growing   by the minute. There's probably 6 new ones while this debate happened.   The number of mental disorders   in order to   box in   people that don't agree   with this   societal presuppositions   of morality.  

And   I definitely   agree with,   a lot of where he went with   corporations   and things like that,   which is why we see things becoming what I also   would consider   not a good path.   But, again,   I also understand that, a, those corporations are doing that, so they would consider it a good path   that they find those things to be beneficial and good for them and the society that they want to achieve,   which is,   in my opinion, what good and bad is in the first place that there is no good and there is actually no bad. These are very subjective things.   We, again,   just like morality, we step back, we look at the base action,   and then we're deciding   where we stand, hot or cold.  

Well, I'm 87 degrees. I think that's hot. I think that's cold. Well, when you step back, there is a raw objective   fact. 87 degrees.   Nobody is gonna argue about that.   There's not gonna be outliers that are that don't realize that this is it's as 87 degrees.   It's everywhere else from there that we start gaining perspective.   I also, again, don't disagree that there's things that we naturally feel.   But as in the rat experiment   and, again, I am with Will on this that there has been a whole lot of manipulation   with this knowledge already   in place.  

So there's feelings that people have about things   that   they should not have that have been manipulated and put inside them.   With that said,   they will tell you 100%   that   what they feel is innate, what they feel is correct,   what they feel is just right,   and   everybody knows it.   This kind of thing can be   pushed into any society,   and all's it takes is traumatic events   and then a secondary   input   that's associated   with the traumatic event. We've all experienced things like that.   Like earlier today,   my, partner, Brian,   he goes,   whenever I smell flowers, I think a death.  

Because the only time that he typically would smell flowers was in a funeral home during a week,   things like that.   So it had a negative connotation   that   a lot of people wouldn't necessarily experience for when they smelled flowers.   These kind of secondary   inputs,   while a traumatic event go on, the strength of those, because that is very subconscious,   is insane. And   then when that's repeated   over time,   this one, this is just becomes   something everybody knows   because   this has been preprogrammed.   But it's preprogrammed   because it's able to do that because   subjective is a is subject to change.  

Objective is not.  

[00:42:56] allen marcus:

So you've heard   Alderson's response to Will's argument. Will, do you have a rebuttal   to that response?  

[00:43:04] Will Keller:

Yeah.   And I do agree on some points, but with the rebuttal,   I think it's important to kind of to state that, you know,   there's a difference between   nature   reality   and an individual   experience.   So just because a bunch of people believe one thing that doesn't necessarily   make it right   or true.   For instance,   a look at, you know, Divock 19 and the needle craft. A whole bunch of people thought this was   a major issue.   They they believed it so people needed to get the needle craft and that was the only thing that's gonna save us. Right? Now, what Ben explained with that tactic of that dialectic of instilling trauma and then the program right after. That's absolutely one of their main main,   tactics that they use. Right? They they traumatize people, creates a disassociation   and then they feed them the actual programmed information,   which   it's all perception management for behavior control.  

So we all as human beings,   we all act and behave   by the information and the knowledge that we have   through our subjective   experience.   And that's why it it is our goal to educate ourselves   philosophically   metaphysics   and and morally   to have an accurate perception   of truth.   Truth is objective. It is that which has manifested   and is manifesting.   It's factual.   So I can believe I'm a furry   that doesn't necessarily   make it true. Right?   So and we can observe that and see that.   So,   I wanna delineate that from,   like, your buddy that smells   flowers and thinks of death.  

He's associating that with his subjective personal opinion,   but flowers are alive   and they're a living thing. Right? That's outside   of of his experience   and his perception.   Another example just to kinda hit what truth is in reality a quarter. You have heads and tails.   Right? So but the truth is that it's a silver coin   and heads and tails are in are encompassed in that as well.   But the silver coin is the object is the objective truth.   Rights   can be known   now   that doesn't mean human beings just because you know them they're gonna act morally. Right? We have to interact with reality   and this is why I stated the law of freedom. We can look at, you know, Nazi Germany or even today.  

If people   understand   that   coercion   is wrong, someone   violating you is wrong and that the only truthful   correct moral   stance is voluntary   interaction.   Meaning, I can't go to my neighbor's house and just kick in the door and just grab his dinner. Right? That's   that's a wrongdoing. I'm violating him. And this is what government does all the time.   But if we understand   that in our day to day interactions,   it's mostly   voluntary   interaction.   Right? You're drive to the grocery store, someone there voluntarily   bags your groceries   and you interact with the teller. So there is a standard, that moral standard of voluntary interaction. And as soon as you   you apply that transgression, that violation, it's an immoral action. Now   my my point being is that we can have an effect.  

The human condition is slavery and it will get worse   through this false belief.   People thinking   reality and behavior   works a certain way when it's a falsity.   And that's done through obviously programming and conditioning   and trauma.  

[00:47:13] allen marcus:

Thank you for that rebuttal.   Let's let that sink in.   Balderson is preparing his best argument for presentation.   Balderson, when you're ready,   let's have it.  

[00:47:29] Unknown:

And so   each one of these things that you list,   situationally,   I can   point out where   they,   are just fine and everybody accepts them.   Even something such as coercion.   The typical feminine,   way of achieving things is through coercion.   Men do things by force. Women do things by coercion.   That is just a basic feminine act.   And through enticement,   through   creating a desire that you did not have.   This is a a standard operating procedure for a bunch of the world.   And it's only in situations   where we decide that this is a wrong that this is a wrong thing.   This is again where I talk about the gray area   that Billingtano had asked about what a gray area is.  

And this is where   we have decided something is right or wrong,   but now there's also situations where   sometimes it is right, sometimes it is wrong.   Killing another human.   Where   when Will mentions it,   that,   the only time that killing another human could possibly be okay   is   when,   they are possibly trying to hurt you and in a self defense situation.   I can think of a lot of situations   beyond that that I would   very much like to do so   and and would.   They,   in my opinion,   we're a very neutered society   that actually,   has been taught that,   violence is such an abhorrent   thing.  

And I believe   that that was programmed into us because there is things   morally that have happened that I would commit great violence   against   if I had any kind of an army.   Right?   And and I would put some heavy changes to some things.   And   this is all because I realized   that this is all perspectives.   When we call something good or bad, what it is is something we like or don't like.   What it is is our   object, our subjective   position to something that has occurred to us.   And I am fine with a list of societal things that we have experienced enough time   that we just don't want it to happen.  

Rape is a good example.   There should be 0 times   that there should be rape.   If   some people didn't disagree with that, we would never have rate. This wouldn't be a there wouldn't be a term for it.   Nobody would even experience it. Unfortunately,   it's something that is actually   there's an epidemic worldwide of rape.   So those guys apparently didn't get the message   or and girls at this point. Actually,   there's a a huge   Marcus over here has been build building a dossier   of older women and teacher positions taking advantage of young men, which definitely   we would put in the coercion   and using authority in order to gain position over somebody that doesn't have the experience   or the, you know, understanding to even get into this realm with them.  

This kind of thing is is just become rampant.   So those people apparently don't agree. And while I will call them bad people because I'm with Will   on almost all of his moral standings,   I also realized that those are not   the actual fact that a woman   was violated   is an objective thing. Where you stand on it is subjective.   That guy that was doing it, he thought it was okay.   Me kicking his head in and tells something goes squishy squish.   I didn't.   And then, apparently, we get into a whole another objective subjective because I thought that murdering was pretty okay,   but he probably didn't.  

So  

[00:52:14] allen marcus:

So   best argument presented there. I like to hear   Will Killers respond  

[00:52:21] Unknown:

proud of it about the the back and forth,   section if you wanna do, like, a close-up of that, Marcus.   And then we can do more of it instead of the   extended periods where we can back and forth, and we can also delve on the into some other things   where Will brought up a lot of points that were kinda outside of this that I would definitely dig into. And and also and I could see where they connect. I'm not saying they don't, such as right.   And so there's some things we can do some back and forth, but, yeah, let's go ahead and you go ahead and close-up. It's, by the time you're done closing up, we'll be in an hour or so. Yep. Will will respond to Ben's strongest argument for morality being subjective. And then Balderson, you'll have your rebuttal to his response to you and then we'll open the floor and, gloves off. We'll go dirty  

[00:53:09] allen marcus:

and blow the belt.  

[00:53:12] Will Keller:

Awesome. Yeah.   You bring up some some good points, Ben, for sure.   And I think it's   important to know that, you know, when I talk about objective morality   and what we what we need to do to create change and create freedom,   the word utopia   means nowhere. It doesn't exist. This reality is almost like,   it's a spiritual school yard. We're here to grow and evolve in consciousness.   So   where we're at now, we're out of balance.   We're in an imbalance   to,   you know, violence, violations   and immorality.   In homeostasis,   in a balanced approach, you'd have the majority of people understand how to act correctly in the world. And   absolutely, the condition   in society would be a hundredfold better. But that doesn't negate that they're still gonna be people that are gonna, you know,   take incorrect   behaviors   because this reality,   it is objective that we are in it together,   but we still have free will choice.  

So,   you know, I can know and teach murder, assault, rape, theft, trespass, coercion, and lying, someone still has the I have the choice.   Right? I I can violate that.   But what I'm proposing is that   by violating   one of those one of those transgressions,   it creates a negative effect.   That a negative effect is harm.   When we multiply that in society,   it creates a condition,   an imbalance condition   of slavery.   So   another thing. I do disagree on,   while men create force and women do   coercion. I understand what you're saying, but I don't see that as coercion because a man is still responsible and accountable for his own free will. So he's still making the choice even though he's unconscious of it. Right?   A woman's,   innate abilities   to persuade  

[00:55:19] Unknown:

and use Look, you're not Christian or else I'd have it or else Adam would be getting it right now.  

[00:55:28] Will Keller:

To,   you know, use those innate   characteristics   and abilities that has an influence. And that's what we're here to do as human beings. That's what we do naturally. Right? We influence each other. As men have a certain type of influence on other people and women and vice versa. But I do not see it as actual coercion   which is the theft of another's   free will.   Regardless of if they're conscious or unconscious of it.   And,   my last point real quick is,   let's see. So we can come to understand   for instance,   the law of thermodynamics   or the principles of   aviation   to fly a plane, let's say. But we still have to fly   it ourselves.  

We still have to make that choice and perform the behavior   and understanding   the   objective standard.   The the standard the the foundation   of interactions   in reality   is what I'm calling objective morality. These principles,   this is what we need to know, but we still have to align and act correctly. Now I agree with you Ben. If I saw a woman getting raped,   I and I go and I I beat that person to death.   Now   I'm helping that woman out in her self defense.   Right? Same with an elderly woman.   This is kind of our our   goal   to in this shared   co creating reality is we're gonna have certain situations where people need help.  

And, you know, it's there's gonna there's no handbook to this. There's just these objective principles that I that I think that are observable.   And then the the effects   are observable   observable   and,   and,   calculated as well   for a certain outcome to equate to a certain outcome.   Are those all your thoughts, Will? Yeah. I'll I'll leave it on there because I don't wanna keep reiterating   stuff that I've been saying.  

[00:57:40] allen marcus:

Is going to respond   to this   and So disappoints.  

[00:57:47] Unknown:

So   when Will States and I I haven't quite gotten a grip   on where he's landing on this   in order for when we get into the more, back and forth portion. So I'm gonna use my, time to try and get a more of a grip of this. When he states nature as a supreme authority,   there's   2 schools of thought.   Nature   as in nature,   and I personally live in nature.   And one of the things that I noticed quickly is nature is very rapey, very murdery, very lots of theft.   It's the way it happens.   And so   when I look at nature and I see that,   then I understand that humans   who have been imbued with the ability of higher thought,   which is something that you can do above and beyond your natural   above nature,   we're able   to   start coming up with   ideals   that are gonna exemplify us as people.  

Once again, this is only after a separation   from nature,   which is horribly murdery and horribly rapey.   Like, to cross species rape is amazing.   Like, when you get out and rape by nature, the things that will try and hump on each other is shocking.   But   the other school of thought then is   that it's what comes natural to human beings.   And it somewhat   seems more along the lines of where Will is going with this,   which again then would bring me back to the epigenetic   memory where the reason that you feel like this is wrong is because   a whole bunch of times in the past, people that you have known have been murdered.  

If you believe in   reincarnation,   you've been murdered most likely a bunch of times. You're like, you know, that murdery thing's not that great. It's just not awesome.   And nobody really likes it. Just a tiny few. We should not do it. We should make laws as a society against   it. And we should just like not allow people that do murder y things around. And I'm cool with that.   But again, that all was just because of the human experience   and then deciding   we didn't like it so much. At one point in time, we can go back. There really wasn't that many laws about murder. Like,   you know, well, were you 2 arguing? Yeah. Did he have a gun too? Cool. Cool. You murdered. You shot the hell out of that dude. Yeah.  

He he called you he called you a scumsucker while you were playing cards. He had it coming.   Like,   so the the   the things that we have decided that murdering is acceptable   for,   like, for them, even under Will's   no harm principle,   he called me a scum sucker. I can't have people thinking I'm a scum sucker.   Like, that's ruined my reputation. And you think I'm a let somebody just do that right here in front of that guy is expressing true harm that he thinks   he has subjectively.   That if now apparently   given him license to go ahead and shoot this other person because these 2 have equaled in exchange.   Not my system, but it was definitely a system that was heavily used   in the western world   not very long ago.  

So the fact that these things are evolving   says how very subjective   they are.   And, again, not disagreeing necessarily   with   what   Will's   principles   that he's laying out are.  

[01:01:55] Will Keller:

Should I respond or okay. Cool.   Yeah.   So I I'd see when I say nature,   talking about the intelligent   creative higher force. Right? The all,   of everything and of course, light and dark is gonna be in there. There's gonna be entropy and   and centropy.   Evolution and involution.   So both of those are gonna be in there.   And that's the, you know, the metaphysical and the physical just as we have a metaphysical   consciousness   aspect to us and a physical. Right? A physical vessel.   So but I do see a difference,   I do not when I say morality,   I'm not talking about   verbal or emotional   harm   if   if that's a thing. Right? Sure. Someone can be cussing you out or gaslight you. Right? But morality   is behavior in action. So it's rooted in   in the physical   and it's   it's with another person. Right? So 2 or more beings.  

And but in the ethical side,   sure. The the aspects, the internal characteristics   like don't be a dick   all the time. Right?   Have integrity and honesty.   These are virtues   that lead to   objective morality, that lead to being a moral   good   correct acting person. Again, you have free will choice for sure.   And   human nature, I see bring it back to epigenetics.   I see human nature as   programmability.   That humans are programmable.   This is, kind of, our our essence   that we can use the mind, which is prime   and then we can   manifest and influence   certain outcomes.  

So as information   goes in, then the quality   of interaction and behavior   is proportional.   So good good information and knowledge on like how to act in morality,   then most likely you're gonna be a good person and you're gonna act morally and correctly and same thing with with on the the negative.   Falsities,   religious, which I see is holding one back. Right? That's not in harmony with nature or truth.   Programming and conditioning absolutely, you're gonna you're gonna be taking immoral incorrect actions. So that's how I see human nature,   as programmable   versus the religious,   position of, you know,   depending if you're a Gnostic,   you know, humans are are bad or you're Christian,   you need to be saved etcetera etcetera. Like that there's those dialectics that are playing. We have the choice.  

And when we choose in this reality there are consequences   to our choices.   And those laws can be can be known as well. So natural law, sure. That applies   to, you know, the the physical laws as well. You know, gravitation,   thermodynamics,   etcetera, electromagnetism.   But there's also the the moral aspect as well. And that is the the effect of our behavioral choices.   And yeah. That's Go ahead and,  

[01:05:33] Unknown:

we're at the halfway. Go ahead and close-up your thoughts there, Marcus, and we'll go into the   into the direct   confrontations.  

[01:05:42] allen marcus:

Yeah. I've got some some notes scribbled out here. We can talk about, you know, libel laws and the subjective   thin skin goat herders who don't like to be called dirty names, and they wanna   fight it out. I wanna get to this issue of how   society   is actually playing out these these roles of morality with taboos,   the pleasure principle, avoiding pains, taking pleasure.   So then the question becomes with this idea of the aggregate behavior   of man, including man and woman. So everybody,   you know, and then corporations as humans themselves   have a a different set of behavior. You know, a group of humans become a corporation and a corporation is a person. So now corporation is acting   maybe in a subjective way, maybe in the best way for their stockholders. So there's a financial   implication to morality. You know, greed is good, but are we saying greed because greed takes something away from someone else? You know, Gordon Gekko in the movie, greed is good, and then we have the stocks in the eighties and the dotcom boom, and people are getting money. And how does money influence behavior?  

So with the way things have played out, you know, 2020, that big event, we all remember what happened. There was a lot of discussion about morality   involved with certain decisions and certain   decisions that were forced upon   the the population.   So the way all of this is playing out, we're immunizing the Eschaton. We're in the end of days. This is a zombie apocalypse.   There's no reason for people to behave   politely   when there's so few resources,   and people need to get that last cheeseburger,   and the gloves are off,   and people aren't having babies. So the rape gangs are gonna keep the population alive, and people are going back to these these tribalistic ways.  

This experiment of America, this great big melting pot bringing in different populations, different religions, different skin colors, different sexualities, different genders, different pronouns, all of these different   people who are discovering their identity   in an aggregate.   Is this the best argument that proves that   morality   is   subjective   because the people themselves are playing out   subjective beliefs and attitudes and opinions, and everyone in this current society   is entitled to their own subjective   opinion about what is morally right and what is morally wrong.  

Will,   do you have a response to this?   In reality, how things are actually playing out, not in our minds, on how we want things to play out, not saying, well, there's a 7 transgressions   that's   taking property. It's always a a theft of something. It's taking something that doesn't belong to you. And now   the way that things have played out, especially the last 4 years   in reality and people are documenting   their lives digitally. They're committing crimes   on Snapchat and boasting about it. You know, all cops are the b word.   They're burning down   police stations.  

There's no law. There's no order. These rules and laws that are put in place by an enslaving government   aren't being upheld in court.   What is this leading towards? What is this proving to you? Yeah. Exactly. It's it's proving to me, ignorance,  

[01:09:08] Will Keller:

of morality and ignorance of the current situation.   So I see the solution as education itself   because all change must stem from the mind.   If it doesn't if you don't know it and it doesn't come from that mentalism,   then it's not gonna change for longevity.   Right? So that's why we see so many people,  

[01:09:30] Unknown:

you know, reactive, emotionally reactive. So so would you not agree we're   in the back and forth portion. Would you not agree that,   that   controllers   have studied the same occult?  

[01:09:49] Will Keller:

Oh, yeah.  

[01:09:51] Unknown:

And so would you not agree that they,   with that same knowledge have chosen what they've just think is the best course   possibly even for humanity?  

[01:10:02] Will Keller:

Yeah. Good point. And   not for what's best for humanity, for their own egoic   self interests, right, to play God.   They themselves, the ones that the social in, social engineers,   they are   they're it's dark sorcery. Right? They're just propagating a certain type of information, but guess who's actually manifesting the behavior and doing the behavior. It's regular humans like the police and military or anyone in,   you know, even   nurses and doctors and teachers or just the average person that says, yes, we need more government. I'm voting for orange man or I'm voting for, hooker lady. Whatever it may be. Right? So that's how they kind of,   they they mind control   human beings, right? They they're they're putting out. They control publishing   companies   and and the I mean, religion's one of the biggest for sure and still is.  



[01:11:02] Unknown:

So so if if you believe if you don't believe in a utopia,   then you're axing out which   civilizations   which are none of which, you know, they all call them breakaway civilizations   or they just blooped out of existence like Atlantis and Lemuria and such   Mhmm.   Then you're more on the realist   end of things, which I would also be.   You understand that throughout history,   there is,   only and always has been   vast groups of people who have no interest   in their own decision making.  

[01:11:42] Will Keller:

Yeah.   Yeah. Absolutely. They're unconscious,   not evolved human beings.   That my whole my whole kind of point and position is as humanity, if we want to evolve   as a species   this foundational level of how to act in the world, which I think we're in a negative state.   If you're looking at like the,   the scale of just species on itself, we're in the negative state. Right? So we have a we're enslaved. We have this control system.   So to get out of that, we need this basic fundamental knowledge and we need to act on that.   So but for sure, there's gonna be people they're they're I mean, look at the majority of people right now. Right? They're they have no   concern.  

They're in that fear state and they just want safety and security, where safety and security doesn't exist.  

[01:12:33] Unknown:

So let's let's say, hypothetically,   and I'm not saying again, this is a debate, people, so I don't necessarily have to agree or disagree with anything I'm saying.   Hypothetically,   you're making a preset position on the   motives and the achievements of the controlling class.   Hypothetically,   they could see the situation   much the same to you as you do   and possibly   feel like this has been despite their best efforts to control.   In that situation,   in order for this   growth that you want to happen   as an alchemist and as a basic person who   watches nature,   in order for something to make a transformation   and a growth, the old thing must die.  

It must tear itself apart. It must   completely rot and fall away.   So Yeah. If what they are doing   is achieving   that result,   could they not then say they are also   attempting to bring about the enlightenment of man?  

[01:13:55] Will Keller:

Yeah. But, you know,   you can't, like, really believe, right, that, you know, raping will,   children   and trafficking   children is for anyone's best interest.   You know, enslaving people, violating people is in a   the best interest of the species.   Right? That's like I mean, if if you have a garden if you have a garden, but you can't If  

[01:14:21] Unknown:

I if I have a short period where I let people   I do this to my children. Here, go do something. It hurts. It sucks, don't it? Now next time, maybe you should listen to me.   If this is over a societal   course,   they need to let this happen so the better man   who will automatically   make these choices   starts emerging.  

[01:14:46] Will Keller:

They don't have that right to play god. They they don't have that right to say, okay. We're gonna guide and dictate where human humanity is going. Right? All they do is all we have to do is observe the institutions, observe   the education system, the health system. It's there   for a reason and a and a purpose. The control system is working   exactly how it's designed to.   That's how I mean, that's obvious and that's that's just,   it's keeping people in a state of involution due to their own ignorance and own inaction.  

[01:15:21] Unknown:

There there's a giant though presupposition   that   all mankind   wants to take any kind of active part in becoming something better. Taking an active part in doing internal work. When we can look around us, and I would say this has always applied historically,   that   95%   to 98%   have no desire   to do that, that they, without guidance,   will automatically   become more subject to their baser desires.   I personally live in an area where it's pretty lawless.   It's it's about as wild west as it gets in inside the continental United States.   And I I tell you what,   the amount of thieving and,   other kind of nasty kind of activities that almost   all the people around here partake in,   you end up becoming the porcupine   real quick.  

Like, I'm ready to commit some violence.   Y'all come over here doing some things, some violence. Oh, you don't like violence? Stay over there.   Cool. We're happy now because I don't even like you people.   Right?   This is this is as soon as you leave people   to their own devices,   this is what happens.  

[01:16:42] Will Keller:

Do all those people in your community are let's just say the question would come up. I mean, just look at the the state of the world. How many people actually know what, like, the definition of what a right is?   Or   what or morality.   But but my my point is being is that they they don't have a right to be ignorant on how to act in reality. Rights, sir.   A right is any action or behavior   that does not initiate harm to another sentient being.   A right.  

[01:17:14] Unknown:

So   the   gay tranny the trannies that wanna hang their balls in front of little kids and read books?   That that, they have the right.  

[01:17:26] Will Keller:

They have the free will choice, but that is that's an immoral unethical   thing to do because you're because you're talking about an innocent child.  

[01:17:35] Unknown:

They didn't arm him.  

[01:17:38] Will Keller:

Yeah. But, again, there's there is gray area. Overnight. He just read a nice story. Everybody likes a nice story. Yeah. But does that person have the right to do do that to a kid in their own house? Unfortunately, they do. Unfortunately, they do have that right, but that doesn't make it ethical or wise   just like I have the right to harm myself.   I have that right, but it's not ethical or wise.   Now other people in in this shared reality, they don't have a right to be ignorant on how to act in reality. That's like   they don't have that right because it affects the whole system.  



[01:18:18] Unknown:

So   what I would call a right   is,   a privilege   absent a duty.   And so what,   and so   in my world, there really isn't any kind of a thing as a right   because I I do very much live in nature.   And   the in my world and then when I look at the greater world,   the only things that have ever   been given are taken by force.   And then the person who's willing to   exert force says,   these are the acceptable bounds in which I've created.   So   there is not truly any such thing as a right because   any of those things   can at will be taken away from you, whether just even the right to live.   Tell that to the murderer.  

I have a right to live. Well, if a right was a concrete thing that was real,   then he could not murder you. It would be like a video game. Like, dude, why are you sticking that knife? Dude, that knife is annoying. Why are you doing that? Because I have a right to live. God gave it to me. It can't be taken away,   and I don't have to do anything in order to earn that.  

[01:19:43] Will Keller:

Well, this is where accountability and responsibility is. I mean, you can know something. Right? We can know what a right is, but still free will is   is activated. It it is here. So I I mean, I could say, oh, yeah. I know I know objective morality. I know the rights and someone can kick in my door and rob my house and shoot me in the head.   Right? So or I could go get drunk and drive and and hit someone. Right? So there there's we we are we exist in this reality which is like it's the university. It's like a school yard. We're gonna learn lessons   but we can still understand   the the foundational,   dynamics.  

Where humanity goes, I get a lot of people that ask me, you know, certain situations or or what would a free society look like. And this is a lot of shit that we're gonna be figuring out   because we're still a negative knowledge like the majority of people want   a a government and enslaved system.   So,   but we can we can   inherently   feel   and use reason   that   stealing something, stealing life because I have the capability   to do it is wrong.   Is absolutely wrong. You can feel that it's written on your heart. It's written on the mind as well.   Because it wasn't yours. Right? So that maybe it brings up the question,   what is ownership?  



[01:21:09] John Roeland:

Hey. Can I can I ask you a quick can I ask a quick question? Yeah. Go ahead, John. I thought of a I think it's a pretty good question and both of you can answer to it.   How look at the Milgram experiment.   How would you, looking at the Milgram experiment, argue that morality is objective   or that the Milgram experiment proves that morality is subjective?  

[01:21:32] Unknown:

And that I've that's the one where the doctor had I know the Milgram experiment. It's the one where it's the post World War 2 experiment   where they tried to isolate out the rebel gene,   And what they were calling   the rebel gene was the gene where despite what authority had told you,   you had your own set of morality and chose to go against what they were telling even though you were gonna get penalized for it.   And so, obviously, you're rebelling.   And so they call this the the rebel gene, and the disturbing part of the end analysis, the experiment was that they believed that they could   work that out of society.  

And,   more recently, they repeated that experiment,   somewhere in the 20 tens,   I think.   And they weren't wrong. The rebel gene   is the desire   to go along   has definitely   increased.   But I I don't know if I would agree with that entire analysis because in my opinion,   the entire society has been feminized.   And on the feminine side of things, you tend to want to fit in with the crowd, so you naturally would have had more of a move toward group think anyways.   But,   obviously, it's subjective because most of them thought that they were doing good and right. And then a small percentage even   decided,   no. The right thing is not doing what I'm told, and   I'm sure all of us here would agree with that,   but we would be in the minority.  



[01:23:20] allen marcus:

Balderson, could you repeat your definition   of a right?  

[01:23:26] Unknown:

Uh-uh-uh-uh.   A right is a privilege   absent a duty.   Something that I have been given,   god given   according to the way it's put,   that it so then it's something that should be inviolate.   And there is in my experience,   I've been beat up. I've been robbed.   I've not been raped, but,   you know, I I I've had most of the other bad things happen to me, and I didn't want any of them to happen to me. That not a one of them. God never came. No kind of God. Not none of them came down to help me out in the situation.   They they left it to   the thing that nature always falls back on, which is doctrine of force.  



[01:24:15] Will Keller:

Yeah. You brought some good points, John. Talking about the Milgram experience, I found that study extremely fascinating because   I do see the,   the a couple good points. 1, you have the belief in human authority with the actor pretending to be,   an authority figure and the, issuing a command and then the   the participant,   accepting that and then they themselves   pressing the button that supposed to be,   the electric shock on another on the victim. And they would do that up to lethal   frequencies, lethal doses of frequency.   So there's there's an objective,   in that role playing. Right? There's an objective,   immoral act. And that that person is pressing a button and creating harm to another person all the way up to death.  

Now who has accountability for that? Is it the person that gave the orders or is it the person that actually physically   in reality   created that that violation and for sure it's the participant   pushing the button. The the   the authority.   Right? He's just the he's the the dark wizard. He just might control the person. What about the coercion? Didn't he coerce?   Yeah. But they could no. Because they could have stopped at any  

[01:25:36] Unknown:

time. But they didn't coerce and say that this is the right thing to do? That was When when you object when you're telling me that it was objectively wrong, that person was telling them that it was right. That's not coercion?  

[01:25:49] Will Keller:

Well, they they could've quit. They could've stopped and said no. And But they were coerced.   How were they coerced?  

[01:25:56] Unknown:

Because they were told that that was the thing to do, that that was the right thing to do. Well If you partake, how how what else they never of coercion. No. But the study, they never said, if you don't do this, then this will happen to you. It just said, please just press the button.  

[01:26:11] Will Keller:

I'm I'm giving you a command. Please press the button. Of the test. The rules of the test were,  

[01:26:17] Unknown:

if this person gets the the question wrong,   the rules are you give them a good old zaparoo.   And then, more   more questions they get wrong, the more it gets cranked up.   So this person,   apparently,   they they need to answer these questions. Right? And you need to zap them and be the moderator of this. This is all well and good. That's what most people found.   Most even. They didn't   most didn't feel this, what you're calling objective   because if it was objective, a 100%,   all of them would have said, fuck off.  

[01:26:54] Will Keller:

No. But see, that's the thing. Like, we're we're it it you're a human being. We're each at our own different levels of awareness.   Right?  

[01:27:01] Unknown:

So so Objectively is a kill if if a human No. The objective happened with the victim. Are they objective with the death?   Are they objectively dead? Yes.   Right.   Correct. Now that person Can I give any caveats to that?  

[01:27:17] Will Keller:

No. They're dead.  

[01:27:19] Unknown:

Yeah.  

[01:27:20] Will Keller:

To just objective. Right? In that experiment, did was that person not getting shocked? I mean, it it was role playing, but Objectively getting shocked. Yes. Correct. There is harm. Bam. Immoral. You were calling it morally wrong, which is subjective.  

[01:27:35] Unknown:

Those other majority of people who were involved in the experiment thought it was morally fine.   Yeah. But they can That makes it They can be subjective. You can't argue the dead guy. The dead guy is just dead. No matter how you feel about it. But this is a question this this is getting into the nature of reality.  

[01:27:55] Will Keller:

If if you think something that doesn't mean it's actually real in reality or it manifest or it has manifest.   That does not make it true.   It is it is a thought form. Right? It's a thought form. It's so I mean,   this is what we see going on nowadays. Right? People are believing in stuff. He's definitely dead.  

[01:28:15] Unknown:

He's been he's somebody killed him. He's dead. Right there. Boom. Kick him. Sure. Yeah. I'm I'm referring to the the Milgram experience.  

[01:28:23] Will Keller:

It's it's objective immoral act that the person is pushing the button and sending a and is creating harm through electric current.  

[01:28:32] Unknown:

8 most people don't agree with you.   Yeah. But they they don't have to agree with it because they thing is, the objective thing is is that a man   answered a question wrong,   and another man   pushed a button that gave him an electric shock, which it didn't actually shock him people. The guy in the room was yeah. I know you knew that. I was telling anybody in the audience that haven't read the experiment because I haven't ever explained that part. The guy in the room with the electrodes on him was an actor, and he was watching a light and acting like he was getting more and more violently shocked. So nobody was actually shocked in this in this   psychological experiment. But   those people all thought that they were doing the good and right thing.  

Every single one. This is how you know that this is subjective, that you can have different opinions on it. Nobody has a different opinion on whether the man was shocked.  

[01:29:28] Will Keller:

That we all agree on. Yes. That is the violation.   That's the violation.  

[01:29:33] Unknown:

Morality counts for 2 or more people. Subjective   with it.   You're immediately but you're immediately jumping the subjective off of that. That we agree the man because   you're now   making an opinion on the fact. The fact was he was shocked, and you're like, yeah. That's wrong.   What was it? Something like 81%   of the people said   you're wrong.   That that makes sense. Matter.  

[01:30:01] Will Keller:

That's group think. It doesn't matter if the collective agrees on something. Right? Well, we live in this democratic  

[01:30:07] allen marcus:

republic   society thing where we agree that Mob moves.   Casting ballots   and having opinion polls. There's a lot of I don't know how many   opinion polls are to be trusted and are objectively verified and all the ballots are counted, but you go man on the street interviews   and, you know, group think and peer pressure   is going to determine what the answer is gonna be out of politeness or just wanting to fit in and and this sort of constant,   need to conform to a consensus reality. We see that with, you know, Twitter   becoming x, and now Brazil   is saying no.  

Our citizens cannot express their thoughts and opinions and their peer pressure sort of deciding for our culture what taboos and mores and morals are gonna be. You know, that's a online thing, but that's coming from America. And America is trying to impose their values on our our Brazilian elections, and there's election interference.   So in actual functioning   society, the way things are playing out,   now x is banned in Brazil, and they're trying to separate from American western values. Now how is that playing out? Is that just a peer pressure thing?   Is it is it   a coercion technique?  

What is what is going on with Brazil and this banning of x, and and how does that form a consensus reality bubble within Brazil that's gonna be different from America? And does that then say that because America has different ideas, morals, laws, and things than Brazil, does that mean overall in our human experiment,   this greater society of globalism, we've got 2 different countries with 2 different sort of laws and cultures and taboos and music.   Is that subjectivity?  

[01:31:54] Will Keller:

It there is an aspect of subjectivity to it, but the violation   and the wrongdoing   is objective.   You you you can't you can't grant someone the right to violate someone.   So that consensus,   ideology, it   it doesn't work. Right? I can't get 10 of my friends to say, hey, let's go rob my neighbor because we got more people than you. It that's not based in reality. That's not a right. Even though we could do it by force, yes, we could do it. There are teenagers that But that makes it absolutely. But it's They gather up. They choose a they choose a house to go into  

[01:32:31] allen marcus:

and then they live stream themselves   I've seen it. Intruding on a house   And they're doing that, and they're getting away with it.   And that's happening. So is that a subjective   thing that that's happening? This peer pressure, this group, this gang mentality,   they're they're doing it. No one prevented them, and now there's other consequences on the other end. So how is this enforced?   Absolutely. There's gonna be consequences. Right? I mean From their father, from their mother, from their parents, from the government,   who enforces it?  



[01:33:03] Will Keller:

It   it's it's wrong but that doesn't mean someone's gonna enforce it. So I'm I'm talking about when looking at cause and effect   or like the law of attraction,   it's just the energy and the influence is gonna have an effect in the environment.   So it that doesn't necessarily say that there has to be someone policing   this this kind of stuff. You are your own   the only person when it comes to safety and self defense is yourself.   That's it. Right? So   everyone has that responsibility   to defend themselves.   Now looking at like America, like, do I have the right if a police officer pulls me over and is trying to extort money from me? Do I have the right to   to defend myself?  

Absolutely, I have that right. But that might not be wise   because he's   obviously,   you know, has a gun. Maybe I maybe I got mine but force.   Yeah. Oh, for sure.  

[01:34:02] Unknown:

For sure they do.   Hard to fight with people that have the monopoly on force. Yeah. Exactly. And you can say this again goes out the window.   Morals out the window. He's got force. It don't matter.  

[01:34:15] Will Keller:

Yes. I I I see what you're I see what you're saying for sure.   But even looking at other countries that don't have that has had their natural right of self defense taken away. Those are those are typically the the more neutered societies.   Yeah. So we have there's that responsibility,   that self ownership that is there, that someone need that we need to   we need to defend ourselves because safety and security isn't a thing that that can be granted to you   So by someone else. I  

[01:34:47] Unknown:

don't even disagree   with your,   the entailment of the behaviors that we're seeing   bring about the society that we're experiencing.   I do not at all disagree.   And I would say we align   almost entirely   on what type of society we would like I we would like to see. I would say that 90%   of what   of that, I you and I would see completely eye to eye.   But once again, that's our opinion.   There are definitely people that would   that are very happy seeing this society.   And in fact, the majority of society is happy to see itself this way.   You know, the famous Star Wars when Queen Amidala is sitting there, and he's like, so this is how it all ends, you know, to to thunderous applause.  

And, like, fuck yeah.   What the bugs?   Like,   one o' nothing.   You know? And and and they're gonna cheer for it, and they and they are gonna think it's good, and so are the people running.   They're gonna think it's moral. And you and I,   we are gonna be the outcasts that live in the the inhuman lands that, yeah, baby, still have we're procreating by viperously.   Yeah.  

[01:36:09] John Roeland:

Yeah. I wanna I wanna add in something real quick just on the Milgram experiment.   You would have to be able to assess   how the people felt about what they did.   So I looked up just a quick search.   It says participants in the Milgram experiment often reported feeling stressed, anxious, and conflicted about continuing to administer shocks.   Even though they knew they were harming the learner because of the pressure from the authority figure, the experimenter, to obey,   despite their own discomfort and moral reservations, many expressed relief   after learning the experiment was a deception and the learner was unharmed,   but some still felt disturbed by their actions.  

I I've gone back and forth on this topic. I mean, it's been a real struggle for me. You know, Will and I, I'd be like, where is objective morality?   And, you know, one light bulb moment I've had, which I haven't   stuck on completely, was that   it exists within us. We all have this process. It it is discernment.   And you look at is that thing high or low? Is it to my left or my right? Is it black or white? Is it up or down? Like, there that's real. That's objective.   And now, again, if a guy's in a plane above me, then to him, my up is his down.   To him, that's objectively true. To me, that's objectively   false. I mean, I understand that it's down to him. But so   it's interesting though because then when you say that, that light bulb moment of, like, no. It exists within all of us. Then you go to the question, does it exist within all of us?  

And, you know, not in our natural state, would that thing exist?   And I watched Pinocchio about 10 times in a row with my son, and it does exist. It's a little cricket.  

[01:37:58] Unknown:

But that you're making a   presupposition that you   everybody feels this way. And if that was the case, nobody would do those things. They wouldn't exist. They wouldn't be rampant.  

[01:38:07] John Roeland:

That's a fact. Unless I would say all those people wouldn't feel bad about what they did   if there wasn't an objective morality.   That would be my argument for the Milgram experiment proving  

[01:38:19] Unknown:

objective morality. Morality doesn't match the experiment's morality.   And it says it did not say all. Do you notice  

[01:38:26] John Roeland:

that? It said many, not all. I know. I know. And that's what I'm saying. Like, does that exist within in everybody? And if it doesn't, why doesn't it exist anymore? Has it been conditioned out of us?   Or   can you be born with a broken brain   where you're just a psychotic,   or has that been a psyop to make us think that that's a reality?   So I, you know Yeah.  

[01:38:52] Unknown:

I would make the case that naturally, we're actually much more violent than what we've been led to believe,   and that the curbing of the violence has actually hurt us quite a bit.   And so   one of my, bigger examples would be when you saw the,   stand against Wall Street, occupy Wall Street where all these dumbass kids sat on their hands and   and quietly waited for police to come by and just use up the entire back reserve of pepper spray right in their face.   And they did nothing.   It it accomplished   just absolutely   0. So it it's very interesting to me   that the controllers   who who we all would agree, control society.  

We also believe that violence is such a morally   reprehensible thing.   Well, that's funny to me that all of us think that, but they don't.   They have no problem with killing off a bunch of us just to make a point.   It just because they're irritated, just because they wanna do an experiment. Well,   wouldn't nature be if something is harmful to you like that to attack back?   Would that not be the very nature of of most things? And so to to me, would it not be that we have been so heavily programmed   against violence   that they are able to do the most reprehensible   things to us, and we don't stand up and act like any natural animal would?  



[01:40:24] Will Keller:

I I agree with that point. I would, you know, I instead of saying violence, I would say self defense or or   a a right and objective right. And I agree with you.   The the populace of humanity is neutered. I mean, beyond beyond imagine   and,   we absolutely   and this is why I take the task on trying to educate people.   Is it can and will are 2 separate things. Right? But can we change the condition of humanity,   in a more   natural progression through the mind, through learning and   like John has said, detachment activism.   Yes. It's possible. Is it likely? Not not right now but it can happen but will it. And will means personal responsibility from people. But do we have the right to stand up in large   and and use force to defend ourselves?  

Absolutely. And unfortunately, it would probably just be a few of us to do that. So  

[01:41:27] Unknown:

in this current time Well, it only ever it only ever takes 3%   overthrow.   And so that tells you that less than 3% are involved in the   in the overseeing   if it only takes 3% to overthrow that.   And so and that's been every revolution historically.   It it tiny percent of the population,   which is part of why, obviously, not tonight because I think, you guys should go through and find some nice, audience,   questions   and have Will and I, hit those.   But,   in the future, I would like to   debate government   and things like that,   which for because for myself,   I'm an Odinist, and Heimdall separated man into the classes. I'm a I actually believe in the class system.  

And where you're calling things slaves,   we call them we call them thralls.   And   that that doesn't mean that you get to abuse that person or that their well-being isn't something that they don't have an investment in.   It it means that,   like, at any basic job site,   you have the guy who's in charge.   You have some supervisors.   Those are Carl's.   And then you have the basic workers who don't really give a shit. They just wanna shovel some whatever, throw down some bricks,   eat some lunch,   grab a few beers, get their packer touched, and go to bed. Is that what they want, though?   What's that? Is it consensual? Yeah. That is consensual. That's what they want. That's a choice? And that is what most of these people want or else the controllers,   again, who are at least 2% or less   would never be able to control. They want to be controlled because   95%   of people don't think.  



[01:43:24] Will Keller:

Yeah. I I understand that point for sure. But the   when you have the majority of people that want slavery.   Right? That's violating the people that don't want slavery and that is a big problem.   Because we're not talking about preference or in a community where some people are just workers. You're talking about the the continue   evolving violation of other   other free will   beings.  

[01:43:54] Unknown:

I also don't like this system.  

[01:43:56] Will Keller:

Yeah.  

[01:43:57] Unknown:

It's whether it's objective or subjective that we disagree about.   Go ahead.   But go ahead with, hit us with some audience questions.  

[01:44:07] allen marcus:

Yeah. I'll throw one in real quickly. You guys talked a lot about violence. We wanna talk a little bit more about   sex and sexual immorality.   I know you both have not included   religion   into this argument, but I wanna say that in America, there's a certain part of the school day where we would stand for the pledge of allegiance and then we'd recognize the bible and then there'd be a time for prayer in schools and that could be to any god that people believed in. So this element of moral   education   in the school systems and this quality   of teaching   children   what rules are, what morality is, what taboos are, giving, like, Aesop's fables   types of stories   for moral education   that seems to have been removed. I had a 7th grade homes,   homeroom teacher, you know, 6th, 7th, and 8th grade, and his personal faith was brought into the classroom,   and he did his best   to instruct us   morally.  

The curriculum of the homeschool class was sort of a basic thing, you know, it's let's talk about these issues today. He would take it a step further and he would say, you know, biblically,   the Bible says this and this type of thing in a public school. There's also private Christian schools. So this idea   of moral   education   seems to me proving   that morality   is the nature and the nurture. It's it's taught. It's reinforced through examples.   And the whole disciplinary system through the principal,   through detentions,   through hall pass monitors, all of this being trained into people that might also include the idea of neutering   the students so that they don't respond in violence if that's the the masculine,   impulse   to get up, take your shirt off, and run around the classroom. And then the female,   impulse is to say, no. No. No. No. We're gonna drug you. So the the use of the use of sex, drugs, and rock and roll, let's let's have at it. Will, what's what's up with that?  



[01:46:17] Will Keller:

Yeah. There's I mean, there's a reason why morality has been stripped out of schools, but   morality for the longest point, I mean,   with without the religious context   is it almost you're in the realm of a cultism when you're looking at it as scientific and metaphysical and philosophical.   Right? But morality and ethics is a branch of philosophy.   But when we look in public education, of course, it's always been in in the guys of a religion   and that religion   is also the arbiter of truth. So it's using a type of, you know, mind control for sure.   But   but, you know, aligning   something.  

It murder   in in government law. And then in in reality,   it's contradict I mean, it's not contradictory. It it it goes together. It cancels each other out. Like you don't need a government to say, oh, don't murder. You can discern this yourself in reality.   So,  

[01:47:18] Unknown:

if that was the case, then then why do people still murder?   And and and and to more to the point, the government even says don't murder.   The the Bible says don't murder. All these things actually say don't murder, but people be murdering as hell. Yeah. Lots of murdering. Because they have free will choice. Right? Why do people still make cat videos? It's like that shit's so, you know,   mid 2010s. Cats are fucking wonderful, Will. I love cats. I just told you guys Let's get into this, man.  

[01:47:47] allen marcus:

So we on Weaving Spiders, we did talk about how babies are made. We talked about penis and we talked about vagina and talked about sex education.   We've been talking a lot about violence and taking of life. Is there a place for the government to   give life, meaning forcing married couples   to have children or in some way incentivizing   them to have children? And is there a role   in   subjective and objective   morality in terms of, you know, marrying and making babies and raising family and getting them?  

[01:48:21] Will Keller:

Well, there's there first of all, I I I'm an abolitionist, so I think external government should needs to be completely decomposed and needs to be rid of as as a belief system in a religion that it is.   Right? Because,   it it does not align with reality.   Right? It is mind control. It is coercion. It is violence, etcetera. That does not mean that there's a structure that aligns with   moral principles and ethical principles. For sure, there can definitely be cooperation in a voluntary   society where there's voluntary interaction.   And objective and subjective with,   having babies in marriage,   was that the  

[01:49:02] allen marcus:

part of the question? Yeah. We we talked to a guy who was in kind of the red pill community in the terms of pickup artists leading to sexual encounters, pleasure principle, orgasms, and that sort of thing. So, hypothetically,   if I course   a woman to, you know, in the missionary position on a Saturday night, Sunday morning. She's pregnant. 9 months later, we're having a baby together, and then marriage   is a choice along the way, shotgun wedding or whatever. If I've coerced her to have my child   and she didn't wanna have children, but then she discovered that   she likes to have   children because she's a mother now, and I gave that to her. But before then, she was no. Didn't wanna have any children, and now she's has children. This is a hypothetical situation Sure. You know, where maybe   she had an idea about wanting to not be a mother, but then, you know, she was forcefully   impregnated.  

Didn't like it. Didn't file a rape kit situation. Didn't cancel me or anything, but raised the child, didn't abort it. You know, it's a separate issue. But then discovered later that name, Marcus. I wanna be a mother. Was that a subjective   morality   choice in this hypothetical situation?  

[01:50:13] Will Keller:

I I would say she she has transmuted that experience that actually happened in reality,   you know, for from a different subjective   perception. But as long as the initial act was consensual,   right, you may maybe she didn't want kids but there was no protection used. The male, the female, they both have a responsibility   in that aspect,  

[01:50:35] allen marcus:

and Fifty Shades of Grey and all of this, smut literature   proves   that seems to sell. It seems to sell well, and women are going to the theater   to see domination   and submission and men forcing themselves on women, and this is what's exciting them. And they're buying movie tickets to see this stuff.   There's no consent involved, and that's   exciting. And then maybe babies are made, and maybe that's how the species is procreated. There's such a concern now in Japan and other, you know, further industrialized   civilizations. Now this is the 4th industrial   revolution. We're we're getting into love dolls and AI and VR work experience.  

So in this now future cyberpunk world that we're living in,   with the laws that have been in place   and the laws that are gonna dictate future decisions,   what is the argument for   morality being objective   or subjective   based off of our current   future. We're living in the future. We don't have flying cars yet, but this is not the past. This is not the 19 nineties. We have the Internet. We have x Twitter banned in Brazil. We have this new thought war happening.   The world that we're living in today   is this proof   that morality is objective or subjective?  



[01:51:56] Will Keller:

Oh, I think it's proof that it that it is,   it's proof that it is objective because you're always gonna get a condition of chaos   always and disorder   with immoral actions. What you were describing, earlier is epi dysugenic.   Right? Through mind control, through social engineering, you are   influencing   people from a distance, influencing them with information   to act a certain way and that is for for down breeding.   Eugenics, dis dis eugenics.   So, you know, the Margaret Sanger Society, Planned Parenthood,   all this type of propaganda has done this,   movies in Hollywood, etcetera.  



[01:52:43] Unknown:

So,   for myself,   it wasn't a singular moment,   But, honestly, a lot of things when I started setting up my own intentional community   is where I started having a lot of realizations   about objective and subjective.   Because   there's nothing like being a leader of a community tonight and having to navigate   through personal issues.   And   you can only do that so much without   have understanding   that on the face of things, you're a hypocrite.   And it's only through the,   situational,   variables   that you come to understand that certain things in certain situations are acceptable and in certain situations, they're not.   And that's a very personal decision   on where that stands.  

And   that may or may not align with the society around you.   But it's the actual act in and of itself is the only objective thing that you come to understand.   And then you have to,   as a person, own   your position according to that act and then   understand that that is your choice, your morals that you chose to follow, that I choose not to murder people. I choose not to be to rape people. I choose those things. I don't need   a god. I don't need,   internal monologue, any of those things. I, myself, as a as a person, have made those choices that those are things that I think are good.   And I own that entirely.  



[01:54:36] Will Keller:

Yeah. So having the the subjective experience in an objective reality, absolutely, you are responsible for your choices.   Just but  

[01:54:47] Unknown:

going with finding what's on the screen, Will. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Oh. Gotcha. I was responding responding to the   question. Got it. For our,  

[01:54:55] allen marcus:

for our listeners, the question on screen in Ginger's every book love day asks, curious about real life moments, see all as individuals have experienced an objective encounter that made you question your prior subjective held beliefs about objective subjective morality. So real world examples of this.  

[01:55:14] Will Keller:

For me, putting my dog down is a real real world thing. Right? I mean, my dogs had hip dysplasia so bad he couldn't stand up and, you know, he's going to the bathroom everywhere. He's looking me in the eyes and I can see and feel him,   his pain and he's looking to me as like a steward or a companion   help me.   And I made the choice to have him put down.   Now   is that my right   to take his life?   It's not my right, but it is a choice   that I took and I live with the consequences.   Absolutely.   You I mean, looking at everything is kind of energy and what has is murder, is that worse than,   than coercion or stealing someone's bike? Absolutely, it is. It has more energy,   negative energy attached to it. So,   here's another touchy subject, abortion.  

Abortion,   you you don't have the right to take another's life, but you do have the choice and you might be in a bad situation where you're gonna make that choice and have to live with the consequences.   I myself was in that situation.   We we made that choice. It's something we were, my partner at the time and I   regret to this day.   So  

[01:56:35] Unknown:

I'm down with the public duels for,   public official slick. I did see that question.  

[01:56:41] allen marcus:

Question being public duels to defund and redefine the sports industrial complex. I guess, put it in, like, a bad back thunder dome.   Let,   let people   fight it out, gentlemen, duels, or  

[01:56:53] Unknown:

fisticuffs. They they they teased us with it. They teased us with it. They're like Zuckerberg and   and,   what Elon Musk are gonna MMA it up. They teased us with it. All's we need was needed with Zuckerberg to get a little midget to sit on top of him and them to put a dome on top of it.   Gold.  

[01:57:13] Will Keller:

Yeah.  

[01:57:14] allen marcus:

Sure. Yeah.   Question like the UK. What's going on in the UK right now? Demon parasites,   angels, demons, spiritual dimensions.   There hasn't been a lot of, talk of capital r religion. We did, an episode where we talked about religionism.   The audience wants to know specifically   about this a spiritual dimension to consciousness   levels and what's that play there?  

[01:57:39] Unknown:

I I like that. I do believe I wouldn't call them as much parasites as   energetic things. I think there's energetic forces, and we're in a a I've seen this mentioned in the chat, the season,   a number of times, and I think we're in in in a specific season.   But I think it's a cyclical thing where just like my garden, at the end of the year, I have to destroy everything out in the garden. So that way there's room for those next year's things to come up.   So I I definitely think that that's I mean, I'm not into the whole Abrahamic   angels and demons, but I think there's forces that are very destructive,   at play right now going on.  

And religiously,   it gets funny.   Again, I'm a heathen.   So   was the guy my enemy or not that it got killed?   If he was my enemy,   so he would have tried to kill me. What difference does this make?   Like, this guy probably would have killed me. Like, if and these people that are going around thieving and doing things like that and causing harm on our properties and things.   Well,   that they need a murdering?   Like, they're much more ambiguous. If you ever read the,   the Greenland saga, while, societally,   you didn't just go murdering people, they were much more,   ambiguous about it. Like, the start of the the Vinland saga   is where Lee Farricks said it's like, he gets kicked out of a village, like and and it just says, there was some killings.  

And so we moved to a different village.   And then there were some killings in that village too, so he moved over into this area in Greenland.   But, hey.   Like, you're not about borders.   Good old Germans. They're like, there's zero motion attached to it. Like, yeah, there were some killings.  

[01:59:35] allen marcus:

So so we put up fences. We put up walls. We separate each other. You know, some animals don't get along. If it's a human zoo, we gotta keep different animals in their separate   cages. This sort of self imprisonment or the self imposed   quarantine over the last 4 years seemed to work really well. We had carbon emissions down. The the skies are blue and green. I didn't see any chemtrails or contrails or anything in the sky. Maybe some UFOs or flying saucers or project blue beam or programming for that. But you know what? Last 4 years when   the roads were clear and people were staying home, that was that was pretty good. People weren't getting in fights. So maybe we should all just ground ourselves and   live in   our backyards and not explore anywhere and, you know, stay in our little cubicles and   not not, look at,   our neighbor   Mhmm. With lust in our hearts or eyes. And   if we don't interact,   then how are we gonna procreate and continue the species?  

That's that epigenetic, eugenic sort of, birth control argument that probably comes into   morality being objective subjective, and we're not specifically talking about, you know, other rights of abortion, but that is always   a topic   in rural areas. You know, you have cities and then you drive out of the city and you drive through pastures and farms and cornfields, and then you see   people voluntarily put up signs talking about rights to life and abortion is murder and the heartbeat starts at, you know, how many weeks and all this thing. And then the cities, you know, in the cities, they're all,   you know, marching around the courthouse with pussy hats on saying it's a woman's right to choose, and the man saying, well, I wanna choose for   us as a family.  

We're talking about   creating   families and the best way to live.   And regardless of whether   morality is objective or subjective,   there is   a need for companionship   and friendship. We've talked a lot about violence and fighting and breaking rules.   What are the spiritual rewards for living a good life, and is that coming from government, from your neighbor, from your wife, from your girlfriend, from, you know, your thrall, your your crush, the person you submit to, s and m relationship, your sugar daddy, your mama? I mean, what is what is driving   human behavior   in this world?  

Subjectively objectively,   morality,   immoral behavior, greed is good? Is it is it really, profit margin? Is that the economy stupid? Is it the economy? Is it Bidenomics?   How does this play out in the US of A in 2024?  

[02:02:18] Will Keller:

Yeah. I think it comes down to what do what do humans value?  

[02:02:22] allen marcus:

Donuts.   They got needle craft because they were given cheeseburgers.   Exactly.  

[02:02:29] Will Keller:

And you could see how what what people value and you know, it it's unfortunate and sure,   I'm not talking about, you know, certain preference and how you like your ice cream or something like that.   Big things like the lack of meaning and purpose,   the the lack of value of truth and then of course morality   and just,   nature and the the human connection, the interconnection that we have. Right?   These things aren't aren't prevalent in, you know, Normiville in in the society.   So I mean, I'm very much, I'm a pagan animist. I think that cities are the 3rd world. And I'll   I I think somewhere like where Ben's living, nature's the first world. Naturally creates a universe 25 situation.  

Yeah.  

[02:03:19] Unknown:

I it is what I think happens because, obviously, I think you agree that we're not as a as a,   plane   or as a a world, the the whichever you wanna call it, the space has not been taken up. But what's happened is is because all these people have moved out of the country   and have conglomerated   into the city where before, like, in the United States, small town America is fucking dead. It's dead. Like, there is a million little tiny towns that are are used to be thriving, and they're now dead because everybody moved to the city. So do you think that, more of this is this, societal degradation might be,   the universe 25 effect due to them all   pulling into this into these isolated spots.  



[02:04:08] Will Keller:

What is the universe 25 situation?  

[02:04:11] Unknown:

What they did it's called 25 because they repeated this experiment 25 times.   And and so   they took these,   rats,   and they gave them a utopia.   So then Oh, yes. Okay. Yeah. The rat utopia experiment.   And   so eventually,   each time   before they ever reach that was the interesting part. Before they reach capacity, they would have this   societal breakdown   that we can match very similar to what we see happening. And I would state that happening primarily in cities because you go out to small town America,   you still see what you would have expected out of, like, the 19 fifties.   And you go to the cities, this is where you see all the extraordinarily   wild things.  



[02:05:06] Will Keller:

Absolutely. Yeah. I mean, you know, that comes down to perception.   Thinking that this is the way that we we need to live, and   this is that lack of connection of just of the natural world. And, yes, the natural world has has, entropy and centripy for sure. There's gonna be both. There's death and life   in balance.   But to think that we all can live packed in a city   and   and that's not natural. There's there's it's bound to   to break down for sure. Compacted in a city for sure. I keep hearing the word centipede.  

[02:05:41] allen marcus:

Centipede is that a Pokemon? Is that a Pokemon go thing where we entice people to play a video game and we give them XP and experience points and gym badges. What what is centipede   and what does it have to do with Centrip. O.  

[02:05:55] Will Keller:

Centripede. The the centripet force.   So you have entropy, which is the breaking down and the condensing.   Uh-huh. You could look at it as as death. I'm still here in evolution like in Pokemon.   Yeah. Evolution or involution. There are two forces of nature, macro forces that that interact and do this dance.  

[02:06:15] Unknown:

Right.  

[02:06:16] allen marcus:

Yeah.   We're we're talking we're talking about a civilization, a society in America where Pokemon is the biggest thing. It's out of Japan and everyone loves Pokemon Go, and they love the incentive to have a smartphone with GPS, and they and that's what got them out of their houses   to go on hikes, the sort of virtual thing,   which is leading to this, question of   social credit score and   good guy points and good boy points, and you get your chicken nuggets and you get your coupons and you can spend your money, your EBT on your universal basic income, and these are ideas   that are   coded and ready to go. They're ready to press the button, flip the switch, and say civilization now has a universal basic income.  

You know, you have your good boy points, so your car can allow you to travel 25 miles today or 30 miles today.   What happens   if society   doesn't raise its consciousness   regardless   irregardless   morality, subjective, objective, what's actually playing out in the near future? This doomsday scenario,   50 minute cities, you'll own nothing and be happy. World Economic Forum, the you know, we had agenda 2020, now it's agenda 2030, and the climate change is happening, and Greta Thunberg is getting cuter and cuter by the minute.  

[02:07:38] Will Keller:

It's the elimination of free will. You know, it's ultimate control.   The the the technocratic   control system   where material   technology   is increasing   but but,   spiritual maturity is decreasing to the point where   people don't even think they have free will because that's the thing. Free will, sure it's a gift but it has to be activated.   You have to act on it. You have to make the choice.   So   everyone right now for in the majority spiritual infants.   I do think that there is a, you know, a depopulation   agenda that's going on. They they wouldn't mind having a few less slaves on the plantation so they can condense them all into those 15 minute cities.   But they they ultimately,   they want that control system. I do think I believe   that   I think nature answers   to the energy   that we that we put out as well. Being in, you know, the web of weird, being connected with everything. And I could see something as is immorality and that energy gets such at it in an imbalance.  

We're going in opposition to nature and the flow, the rhythm of life. I think nature actually has, like, an immune response. I mean, I'm talking about the the the planet has an immune response and there's some type of claddichism   or something like that.   And   another thing to consider, the social engineers   might stage that because why not? You create trauma, you knock people back in their,   in their public technology   and you create that trauma, yet the social engineers will be totally fine in their bunkers and have their technology and they can reset the control system and tighten it up even more.   Those are potentialities.  



[02:09:30] John Roeland:

I I I wanna I wanna make   one last  

[02:09:34] Unknown:

oh, go ahead. I knew that the ladies have been waiting to see my old ass flex. I knew that. That's you know, we've been saving that. We didn't wanna get flooding the show at first,   but, you know, fit old men flex. That's what that that was what we're gonna minute name the show.  

[02:09:54] John Roeland:

I wanna, just say and then this will probably be my last comment, and then I'll let Marcus take us out tonight. But,   that you know, in arguing objective morality for a long time, one thing that I got stuck on was, like, with the law of freedom that Will was talking about, that if a society is moral, it'll be more free. If a society is immoral, it'll be less free.   And I was just like I thought about that. Like, well, you would have to then show me the moral society.   But   you could argue that that doesn't really exist. Like, all societies have fallen. So   were we all immoral?  

And it brings me to this quote, which   Martin Luther King said it, but I think he took it from somebody else. But it's the arc of history   is long, and it bends towards justice.   So I would present it from the position of   over   the long haul, we are working this out.   We are   we are,   sort of, discerning morality. We're we're figuring out what it is over time.   However, to take that position, you would then have to say that that there was a reason why we had to go through all this,   you know, what seems so terrible and end of the world and all of that, that we had to go through that to then intellectualize   this. And I would point to a document like the the declaration of independence where,   you know, obviously those ideas have been expressed before   but these men who were, you know, you know, expressing an idea to,   you know,   inspire people to,   you know, to have you know, it was based on this idea that there is this objective thing that we all have within us. So   I think you have to sort of accept   the   the violations that have happened   as learning opportunities for us to evolve.  

So, anyway,   that was my last comment for the night.  

[02:11:53] Will Keller:

Great point.  

[02:11:55] Unknown:

Good stuff.  

[02:11:57] allen marcus:

Great. So we're getting close to about 2 hours   12 minutes,   and you guys have been very respectful of each other's   time limits. We'll stretch it out just a little bit further to see if there's any comments in chat, and then we'll kinda close it up  

[02:12:13] Unknown:

with this argument. It's good because anything else is gonna require much longer to get into because it's like, there's a bunch of pieces to that that,   again, entire debates on their own. And we're trying again. We're trying  

[02:12:27] allen marcus:

very   diligently and very purposefully   to really focus on specific arguments, going deep on very specific,   at times, contrived   arguments.   So the final question for you both,   you've been master debaters tonight, Will Keller and Benjamin Balderson.   Is the statement   is morality objective or subjective? Is that a contrived   question? Is it a contrived   argument for the sake of debate? Sounds contrived. It's been made legitimate tonight.  

[02:13:05] Unknown:

Go ahead, Will. You're the you're the guest, sir.  

[02:13:08] Will Keller:

Closing statement?  

[02:13:10] allen marcus:

Yes. Is is the argument tonight, the debate we had tonight based off of a contrived   premise?   Is it just clickbait?  

[02:13:20] Will Keller:

No. I think I think it's not just clickbait. I think, you know, we both made some good points and hopefully, you know,   planted some good seeds for people.   And I would just end on my biggest art argument   for, you know, moral relativism.   When you have a society that enshrines   moral relativism,   you can justify   anything.   Even truth,   right and wrong, any type of action, what's going on in the world,   you can justify it. And that's exactly what the control system does.   And I I do like what John said.   It's just like an addict. Right? You don't know. You're not like, oh well, we're at rock bottom here. This is my rock bottom. I better start, you know,   improving and working my way up. You always look back on it like after you've re you got over the hill.  

And I do see that this the, the cyclical nature in,   humanity's evolution   And it's like a wave function with the trough and the arc. The question is,   how long and deep is the trough gonna go before we start to turn back upwards   and make that climb to the arc and look back and say,   fuck that was brutal.   We we learned a great lesson.   And I think that   understanding   the the fundamental and foundational   principles,   the standards on interactions   with each other,   that it is objective.   Understanding that is that the core of   evolving and and turning the tide,   from   the condition of slavery   towards freedom   and higher awareness and consciousness.  



[02:15:13] Unknown:

I'm all just saying here's your final thoughts.   Tonight's show is brought to you by seeds. Grow your own fucking food.  

[02:15:22] Will Keller:

True that. Absolutely.   So  

[02:15:26] allen marcus:

It's good food for thought.  

[02:15:30] Unknown:

Well,   I I agree with Will on most of his, what I would call, morality,   again, I don't see where this is,   at all objective.   In my opinion,   all morality   is,   nobody   all morality is relative.   They,   whether you've picked a religious system   because you think that it aligns morally or you've decided to go left hand pack path and just pick your own set of morals.   Moral relativity applies to all of us.   Straight out, some of us wanna own it, some of us don't.   But we all end up choosing as as Will has pointed out numerous times. We all have that free will to act   in the way that we deem best,   and we all do.  

I don't, in any way, believe that there's any doctor evils   that, anybody sits in a mirror and goes, I'm evil.   I I believe that everybody, even the ones that we would consider evil, are acting in what they would consider their own good,   possibly in the good of society.   And so with that, I I   what I believe is is the opposite of what Will does,   where when people start believing things are objectively true   and not owning it as a choice,   that's where religious zealotry   derives from. Where this is the   absolute truth. Anybody that believes this is wrong,   and they're abhorrent. And this is where   the true root   of   abusing other people   comes from. When you start believing they are lesser than you, that's when you start gaining license   to do things that most of us would consider immoral.  

In the control system that we have now, we all realize that they think of us as sheep, that we are not equal to them. And that way, they feel like they can do the things that, to us, that that we are doing. You see this in certain religions   that have smaller hats that they wear up here and things like that. Where, you know, certain classes of people are,   are cattle and can be   harmed, can be eaten, can be done anything you want done to them because they're a lesser being than you.   And so anytime   you can put such an   absolutist,   spin on your morality, then anybody that does not fit into that, it becomes   by the very nature of it evil and something that should not be.  

Where when you start owning your   morality   and saying,   this is my choice that I think is better and   possibly a choice that a larger society should also experience   such as I don't think you should be murdering.   Maybe the whole society should do that.   But, again, that's not because I'm   somehow god given or,   some giant superior being that's out of desire to see the embedderment of all.  

[02:19:03] allen marcus:

And now I'm scrambling   to look up some, cliff notes for that Nietzsche book beyond good and evil. If   evil and good and evil in are in the eye of the beholder, maybe that's   a position some people take. It's sort of this point of view, reality tunnels   with our social media   x Twitter,   Snapchat.   This idea that everyone has a phone and they can record their lives and they should vlog it and live stream it. And people are putting on the sort of character   and whether or not they see themselves as good or evil. I mean, we didn't even mention de facto satanism and people who practice certain   occult magic systems, and they do portray themselves as being   evil   and very self serving.  

Maybe one of those individuals is hearing this and wants to enter the debate. Maybe there's a more religious figure. Maybe there's an orthodox.   You know, we we want to encourage debate. Now we're looking at forward thinking for new topics every Tuesday night. We got a lot of   a lot of Tuesday nights in the calendar year, and we're what is this? 8 episodes in, John.   We're gonna keep doing this. There's an infinite amount   of topics, and then we'll circle back to topics we've explored.   Is there a way that people can, contact us with   hookups for people who wanna show up on camera and voice chat with us in this little   stream yard and debate?  

Is there a way to contact and suggest topics for debate? How would how would our audience go ahead and participate with us?  

[02:20:44] John Roeland:

I believe it is [email protected]  

[02:20:50] Will Keller:

for now. So You can also put that in our show notes. Otherwise, you know very much, Will. You too. My brother. Thanks, man. I I don't do many debates. This was fun. You guys are all respectful,   and,   you know, this is this kind of stuff needs to be done more. So thanks for having me on. What could we find at willkeller.com?  

[02:21:08] allen marcus:

And what should we look for at willkeller.com?  

[02:21:12] Will Keller:

Yeah. I think my presentations are are my strong suit. I do a logical progression in each of those presentations.   So the freedom   presentation, the spirituality   presentation is good. Also, the rights of passage,   and I have one of my main topics that I focus on is conscious parenting   and kinda helping parents kinda evolve their,   their outlook on what stewardship or parenting is.  

[02:21:40] Unknown:

Now now see, if I would have been in Marcus's position when I was interested introducing you, would I I would have said,   well, not so chill,   Keller.  

[02:21:52] allen marcus:

Well, this is a lot of recording. The h one, and he said, I'm not Will Chill Keller anymore. I'm, you know, I've progressed. So  

[02:22:01] Will Keller:

Will not kill your real name. He comes out every once in a while. John knows.  

[02:22:09] allen marcus:

It's been a lot of fun. John's in control of pressing the button and playing the music.  

[02:22:14] John Roeland:

Alright, you guys.   Good job. That was a great great discussion. I really enjoyed listening to you guys. You guys both influenced me on both ends. So,   it was good to hear you guys hash it out.   You guys have a good night. Thanks everybody for commenting and joining us. You win.  

[02:23:09] Unknown:

9, 30, 8,   37,   38, 25,   4, 3,