What is Morality?

[ThePainefulTruth]

The Question: Other than the issue of limited moral grey areas (subject of another thread), what human interactions can be defined as immoral?: The violation of the equal rights of all human adults to their life, liberty, property and self-defense through force or fraud. Therefore, true morality is much less than the wide array of sins that most if not all religions claim that it is.

A simple moral code, a refined statement of the Golden Rule, uses only two assumptions: 1) That life is of value to creatures that can comprehend that they are alive (enabling them to value it), with human/sentient life being of ultimate value due to a full self-awareness defined as the comprehension of mortality; 2) The desire for (value of) good order among humans mandates a universal morality among humans. The only ones who wouldn't agree with those assumptions are those wishing to establish a double standard with themselves being in the elite favored status; and anarchists who only want to watch the world burn. Some will say that restricting the elite class is subjective, but just the opposite is the case. To allow for a morally elite class or individual would automatically invite chaos, and devalue those of the second class based on the subjective (self-determined, exceptional) values/superiority the elites give themselves.


IOW, morality is an objective means to fulfill a subjective but nearly universal goal. If no objective/universal morality is allowed, there is only social/human chaos.

The more universally honored the moral code is, the more universal good order is. In order to work toward that universal acceptance, we must keep the moral code as simple as possible without mandating individually determined virtues—the disagreements over which are the cause of most human strife. Understanding the need to separate subjective virtues from objective morality is our greatest obstacle to good order.

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 40 by ten10ths]

How about a morality that would be in everyone's best interests?

i.e. maximum happiness (by which I refer to the state of achieving desired states)

Including changing what would make one happy (eg through rehabilitation) to be compatible such that general happiness could be higher than otherwise

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 34 by ten10ths]

I have no means, method or desirie to project my morality on John.

It may not be your morality, but there will always be some form of morality projected on the people, by the government, in it's laws. Even moral anarchy is enforced at the street level. The choices are anarchy, tyranny, or consensus based on reason or ignorance (which leads immediately back to tyranny).

That's not in dispute - at least not to me. That also doesn't equate to universal morality like some claim,
Besides, if someone does try to force their morality onto others - successful or not - that doesn't mean I have to. The only one I'm truly in control of is myself!

So you'd prefer to surrender your right to life to whoever is in charge of the government, which could in turn put you at the receiving end of a firing squad as a symbolic form of protest? Gandhi and Martin Luther King knew that non-violent protest relied on a degree of civility in the government they were protesting against. Such tactics don't work with Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro etc. etc.

And if you decided to band together to defend yourself, what would you be defending, the right to life only of your group? The literal fight would never end. Only when you gather enough people to demand that right over the will of the tyrants, will it become a meaningful right. Rights and morality are inextricably connected. Masturbating isn't a moral issue, but the freedom to do it is.

I don't remember saying I surrendered anything relly. Though to that point, who says I have a 'right to life' anyway? That seems to be an assumption to me.
You seem to be going off track with 'rights to life' and things where I simply stated there is no universal morality. Getting tangled into the woven 'rights' like you have only muddies the issue here from my perspective.
I outlined what morality is to me and showed where there is no universal morality as defined as morality that everyone agrees on (or should agree to).
Other than that, the rest is filler lol

Your outline for morality was that it's whatever anybody (including you) cares to say it is. That's a totally useless definition, since it says that morality is a vacated word--or at least you and the Truth-is-what-we-way-it-is Left are trying your best to make it that way.

[higgy1911]

I agree that there is an objective way to insure maximum good order, and enforcing a moral system designed to achieve good order is probably part of that.

But morality is more than the code society follows to achieve good order, it's also a code of individual conduct that applies in situations which don't pertain to social order at all.

You keep excepting tyrants and anarchists but I'm not entirely sure that in a social context there is any other animal, just tamer versions of both. Tyranny and anarchy are two entirely different things. But everything between them is just some bastard child of them both.

[ten10ths]

[Replying to post 34 by ten10ths]

I have no means, method or desirie to project my morality on John.

It may not be your morality, but there will always be some form of morality projected on the people, by the government, in it's laws. Even moral anarchy is enforced at the street level. The choices are anarchy, tyranny, or consensus based on reason or ignorance (which leads immediately back to tyranny).

That's not in dispute - at least not to me. That also doesn't equate to universal morality like some claim,
Besides, if someone does try to force their morality onto others - successful or not - that doesn't mean I have to. The only one I'm truly in control of is myself!

So you'd prefer to surrender your right to life to whoever is in charge of the government, which could in turn put you at the receiving end of a firing squad as a symbolic form of protest? Gandhi and Martin Luther King knew that non-violent protest relied on a degree of civility in the government they were protesting against. Such tactics don't work with Hitler, Mao, Stalin, Castro etc. etc.

And if you decided to band together to defend yourself, what would you be defending, the right to life only of your group? The literal fight would never end. Only when you gather enough people to demand that right over the will of the tyrants, will it become a meaningful right. Rights and morality are inextricably connected. Masturbating isn't a moral issue, but the freedom to do it is.

I don't remember saying I surrendered anything relly. Though to that point, who says I have a 'right to life' anyway? That seems to be an assumption to me.
You seem to be going off track with 'rights to life' and things where I simply stated there is no universal morality. Getting tangled into the woven 'rights' like you have only muddies the issue here from my perspective.
I outlined what morality is to me and showed where there is no universal morality as defined as morality that everyone agrees on (or should agree to).
Other than that, the rest is filler lol

Your outline for morality was that it's whatever anybody (including you) cares to say it is. That's a totally useless definition, since it says that morality is a vacated word--or at least you and the Truth-is-what-we-way-it-is Left are trying your best to make it that way.

My morality is mine, yours is yours. I don't subscribe to yours and you don't to mine (I would guess). You don't have to accept it, but it is what it is.
Useless definition? Only for the ones that wish there to be universal morality I would guess. Unfortunately, there is no such thing.

[ThePainefulTruth]

I agree that there is an objective way to insure maximum good order, and enforcing a moral system designed to achieve good order is probably part of that.

But morality is more than the code society follows to achieve good order, it's also a code of individual conduct that applies in situations which don't pertain to social order at all.

That's where we differ. Morality can only be justified by making the rules for our interactions as reasonably derived and universal as possible. But it's the only thing that should be legislated. Of course, there are individual codes of conduct but they're individually adopted within a social network that exerts non-legal pressure. I call them virtues. Until now the two have been hopelessly intermixed and thus the chaos and confusion we see. My maxim for defining freedom is, doing whatever you want, on your own dime. There are moral gray areas but the only ones I've come across deal with non-adults and animals (subject for another thread).

But I have an open mind. Can you given an example where a virtue (as I've defined it) should be legislated?

You keep excepting tyrants and anarchists but I'm not entirely sure that in a social context there is any other animal, just tamer versions of both. Tyranny and anarchy are two entirely different things. But everything between them is just some bastard child of them both.

I'm not excusing them from the moral imperative of the moral code, only saying they are the agents of chaos when it benefits them since they put good order and the equal rights of others secondary to their desires.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 44 by ten10ths]

Useless definition? Only for the ones that wish there to be universal morality I would guess.

Well, now we're getting somewhere. What is the definition then? And by that I mean, what is it we should see when we look it up in the dictionary.

[ten10ths]

[Replying to post 44 by ten10ths]

Useless definition? Only for the ones that wish there to be universal morality I would guess.

Well, now we're getting somewhere. What is the definition then? And by that I mean, what is it we should see when we look it up in the dictionary.

I would think you'd have to look it up as I'm not a living dictionary - lol
My morality is mine and I live by it - I straight forwardly reject any idea that I would need to amend that. Same goes for anyone else.
Whatever rights one wants to attach to that is their choice - but I'm not obligated to adhere to it
Peace out!!

[ten10ths]

[Replying to post 40 by ten10ths]

How about a morality that would be in everyone's best interests?

i.e. maximum happiness (by which I refer to the state of achieving desired states)

Including changing what would make one happy (eg through rehabilitation) to be compatible such that general happiness could be higher than otherwise

I'm not sure there is any morality that would be in everyone's best interest. We are individuals after all
Do you have an example of morality that would make everyone happy (remember everyone means every living person, not just a few thousand)?

[Jashwell]

[Replying to post 48 by ten10ths]

"Including changing what would make one happy (eg through rehabilitation) to be compatible such that general happiness could be higher than otherwise"

It seems to me that, for example, preventing people going around killing without discretion, is in everyone's best interests. If you rehabilitate the killer, then it's now in his best interests. Maximising happiness while minimising change (which in turn maximises freedom and liberties).

[ten10ths]

[Replying to post 48 by ten10ths]

"Including changing what would make one happy (eg through rehabilitation) to be compatible such that general happiness could be higher than otherwise"

It seems to me that, for example, preventing people going around killing without discretion, is in everyone's best interests. If you rehabilitate the killer, then it's now in his best interests. Maximising happiness while minimising change (which in turn maximises freedom and liberties).

Take 100 people.
How can you prove that allowing those 100 people to live their natural life is in everyone's best interest?
Maybe one of them rapes children or abuses women or the like.
Maybe it is
Maybe it's not
Sounds silly but the truth of the matter is no one can say for sure one way or the other. Erroring on the side of caution is fine, but it's not 100% assurance.
Besides, who is to say that killing is immoral? It happens in every society on earth.