Author: Curt Doolittle

THE SIMILARITIES AND DIFFERENCES BETWEEN EUROPEAN JEWISH AND EUROPEAN PROTESTANT ETHICS

Similarities between Ashkenazi and Northern European (Protestant) ethics: both the extended model of the jewish community, and the aristocratic ethics of the Northern European community, place onerous burdens on non-conforming, uncompetitive members, and force them out of the community where they will either reproduce elsewhere or reproduce poorly.

Then eugenic result of these reproductive strategies is still evident in the Ashkenazi jewish population, and at least evident in the middle and upper classes of protestant civilization – although, if Lynn is correct, we protestants have lost intellectual parity with the jews over the past 150 years because we ceased our constraint on the reproduction of the lower classes and weakened our high investment parenting (and the state actively prohibits it via public education), while the jews continue their high investment parenting.

Then major difference in these ethical systems is that the scope of Northern European (North Sea / Protestant) ethic contains the warrior constraints which have a higher standard of prohibition on externality than the Ashkenazi, which in turn has a higher standard of prohibition, and more outcasting than the eastern european, mediterranean, and middle eastern.

1) Requirement of fully asymmetric information in an exchange.

2) Requirement of warranty to prove symmetry of exchange.

3) Prohibition against externalization of costs.

4) Requirement for value added to goods.

5) Prohibition on profit from disadvantage.

In addition:

6) Requirement of contribution to the physical commons.

7) Requirement for militia service in exchange for membership.

These ethical extensions are caused by the origins of these two peoples as an homogenous majority of land holders in the cast of northern europeans, and a homogenous minority of diasporic non-land holders in the case of the european jews. Majoritarian Militial Warriors and Minority of diasporic, unlanded traders develop very different needs.

All ethical systems must reflect reproductive necessity. What is perhaps most interesting is that by the time we enter the 20th century, the difference between Scottish presbyterians and european jews was indistinguishable by other than trinket symbolism and surname.

It was the introduction of eastern european jews that increased 20th century domestic friction, which is now, only three generations later, accommodating. I think McDonald has pretty much settled the case on this topic. It is what it is. We each need our reproductive strategies to survive.

I get a little flack for my criticism of Rothbard’s ethics as the failed attempt to reconcile the ethics of european aristocratic egalitarian liberty with Jewish ethics of the diasporic peoples. But the point of my argument is a necessary one. I cannot repair the ethics of liberty without correcting the properties of those ethics by expanding those set of ethical constraints to reflect the aristocratic high trust society.

Because it is that high trust society that makes northern europeans unique in the world.

Just as I get quite a bit of flack for attacking the assumption that feminist ambitions can be perpetuated without the near universal adherence to the absolute nuclear family.

Just as I get quite a bit of flack for attacking the libertarian movement as autistically blind to moral diversity, and our attempt to assert moral monopoly on human cooperation. Morals must reflect reproductive needs, at least within groups, even if the only moral constraint between groups is can bear no difference between private property rights.

I just get flack for these arguments. But the fact is that they are simply true. Its just objective. Our reproductive strategies determine our ethical codes.

I cannot recommend institutional solutions to the problem of cooperation in a morally heterogeneous polity absent a tyrannical state unless I make it also clear that these reproductives strategies are rational, and moral for their adherents. It is not rational that individuals should prefer strategies and moral codes that are against their reproductive interests.

So, as always, I apologize in advance for the murder of sacred cows, but it’s necessary for mutual benefit.