People are entities that mimic role models in society which allows us to orientate our actions and understanding in relations to society. A boy imitates the father, the father imitates other successful men; the successful men imitate successful men who blazed the trail in the first instance. In traditional societies, this process is heavily formalised and organised, with specific rites of passage marking the successful achievement of manhood of womanhood in line with schema previously developed by ancestors who have successfully acted as guides for good behaviour.
In modern society, this process has been broken up, largely by bureaucratic organisation emanating form the nation states, which have broken apart societies for their own power dynamic needs. The resultant “enormous Megatherions, as ugly as were ever born of mud” have been pattern matched with some false sense of order, be it diversity or capitalism, when in fact it is just chaos.
Putting aside this rationalisation for lack of order, we can see that humans still operate on a basis of mimicrcy and learning from schemas of success and taking cues from societal values. This process when it works and is organised is a thing of civilisation, when it is polluted and systematically mutilated, it becomes a process of suicide. The left being comprised of the best and brightest are fully aware of the mechanisms of societal transmission, so they petition and pressure the leaders in society to push and demonstrate the values they wish to transmit. So we see movie stars and other celebrities pushing the latest trends in civilisation destruction that are developed in our universities, and so we see the natural elite being co-opted in all sorts of perversity. It is a kind of open secret which flies in the face of the underlying premises of progressivism which asserts that we are all perfectly capable of enlightenment. Of course, instead of accepting the reality of this situation the progressive right, and progressive alt right and all the other dissident progressive concept s of western society do not take it for what it is, but instead criticise society and the general public for not waking up. The alt-right and the rest of conservatism can really be seen as naïve progressivism.
Imitation, as a human trait is arguable what civilisation is really all about, or to put it in rather profound terms “If no one had the power to imitate action, life might just wash over us without leaving any trace.” As such, any political theory which does not take into account this imitation, and any ethical system which does not have this imitation as central is pure bunkum which is not set towards developing human society. Liberalism being the key example obviously, with it’s individualised imbecile that does not imitate, but is enlightened and capable of understanding right and wrong without context or exploration.
The problem with imitation is also that is inherently requires a heirachy. What you imitate, you acknowledge is something better than your current schema, and such a concept requires betters, it requires sophisticated and organised society, and it requires a core of exemplars whom can teach the schema to be imitated. Catholicism, for example, possess this, Modernity possess it in a fraudulent and diseased way.
To make matters even more difficult, the possession of a sophisticated and complex ethical system is needed for human society to function in any sort of sane manner. Modern ethical systems which seek to base themselves in a universal basis are unable to do so, and must rely on such things as deontological ethics or consequentialist ethics. The utter perversity of both of these is so clear it is an indictment of modernity that they have been allowed to exist for so long. The key reason being that there is no central rational organisation of modernity that can take stock of the philosophy of modernity and the anti-tradition tradition of liberalism and then acknowledge and understand the utter confusion and contradictions inherent in the liberal tradition. Who do you go to get the orthodoxy of liberalism? Havard? Even they do not have a clue; no one is in charge.
Any ethical system can only exist as a process of learning and development in relative position to other aspects of society and behaviour, that collectively and reflexively provide context and meaning to each other. The best metaphor I can provide for the process is to compare a working and functioning sophisticated ethical system to a painting. The shapes of the ear only makes sense in suspended position in relation to each other, and then the ear itself only makes sense in context of the image of the head, which then only makes sense in context of its position to the body, which is then suspended in a position of relativity to the context of the setting of the painting, which is then only made sense of in relativity to the frame of the painting, all of which by themselves are meaningless, but when taken as a series of relative concepts in suspension make the masterpiece. Each point takes it’s meaning from its relation to other points in a continual process of reciprocation that creates a piece of beauty that cannot be referred to a universal point that is objective or “set.”
Deontological ethics in setting the right and wrong action irrespective of the context of the action in relation to other aspects of society denies this relativity and rationalism, and asserts a form of fundamentalism. Consequentialism goes far into the other direction, and proposes a form of fundamentalism which acknowledges context in a perverse manner in that it does not have a rational overall picture of the meaning of that action to the tradition and society as a system, but instead, like deontology, betrays its Cartesian origins in being only understandable as the rational outcome of a Cartesian mind acting in an inductivitist manner.
The upshot of virtue ethics, which are the equivalent of a Rembrant masterpiece to the drawings of a lunatic, is that an ethical system is extremely complex, beautiful and not at all universal, but this does not imply relativism, as any ethical system can be judged by its ability to deal with problems thrown up by the systems themselves. If the system has come to the conclusion that all white people should die and be replaced with Muslims, it has clearly failed in its function as a means to resolve the issues inherent in building a functioning society by its own standards of tolerance and existence; so alternatives can prove themselves superior.