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.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 27 by ten10ths]


Morality is what an individual decides is good or bad for them. My morality doesn't always go hand-in-hand with another person's. And that's OK. We just have to understand that.

So there are no individual rights except as granted by tyrants and oligarchies as it fits with their convenience.

Hitler's or Hamas' morality is fine with you, even if you were a Jew?

I never mentioned rights so I won't comment on your point there as that's not the point of this thread. To me, inferring 'right' and 'morality' are the same thing is erroneous.
And I never said I agree with another person's morality - just that I acknowledge that they are different than mine. That's what's OK

Rights, or their absence/violation, are derived from morality--not the convoluted "morality" of the various revealed religions, but the inherent morality based on our self-awareness and the free will it enables. That's the justification for its universal application to all self-aware beings, but we are the only ones who can enforce it, and the only ones who can violate it. You make one exception and there is no reasoned morality, and our rights fall without it.

Either the law is based on a universal morality for all, or there is a double-standard and thus no morality or rights--ultimately, eventually, even for the elite.

[ten10ths]

[Replying to post 27 by ten10ths]


Morality is what an individual decides is good or bad for them. My morality doesn't always go hand-in-hand with another person's. And that's OK. We just have to understand that.

So there are no individual rights except as granted by tyrants and oligarchies as it fits with their convenience.

Hitler's or Hamas' morality is fine with you, even if you were a Jew?

I never mentioned rights so I won't comment on your point there as that's not the point of this thread. To me, inferring 'right' and 'morality' are the same thing is erroneous.
And I never said I agree with another person's morality - just that I acknowledge that they are different than mine. That's what's OK

Rights, or their absence/violation, are derived from morality--not the convoluted "morality" of the various revealed religions, but the inherent morality based on our self-awareness and the free will it enables. That's the justification for its universal application to all self-aware beings, but we are the only ones who can enforce it, and the only ones who can violate it. You make one exception and there is no reasoned morality, and our rights fall without it.

Either the law is based on a universal morality for all, or there is a double-standard and thus no morality or rights--ultimately, eventually, even for the elite.

Probably true, but for me, my morlaity is independent of my right. It may be my right to kill my pet, but immoral.
I differentiate the two personally.
I also don't believe (because I don't see) a universal morality of any sort. Seems to me morality is based on the individual and culture of the time. Morality is also, in many cases, viewed differently over time.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 27 by ten10ths]


Morality is what an individual decides is good or bad for them. My morality doesn't always go hand-in-hand with another person's. And that's OK. We just have to understand that.

So there are no individual rights except as granted by tyrants and oligarchies as it fits with their convenience.

Hitler's or Hamas' morality is fine with you, even if you were a Jew?

I never mentioned rights so I won't comment on your point there as that's not the point of this thread. To me, inferring 'right' and 'morality' are the same thing is erroneous.
And I never said I agree with another person's morality - just that I acknowledge that they are different than mine. That's what's OK

Rights, or their absence/violation, are derived from morality--not the convoluted "morality" of the various revealed religions, but the inherent morality based on our self-awareness and the free will it enables. That's the justification for its universal application to all self-aware beings, but we are the only ones who can enforce it, and the only ones who can violate it. You make one exception and there is no reasoned morality, and our rights fall without it.

Either the law is based on a universal morality for all, or there is a double-standard and thus no morality or rights--ultimately, eventually, even for the elite.

Probably true, but for me, my morlaity is independent of my right. It may be my right to kill my pet, but immoral.
I differentiate the two personally.
I also don't believe (because I don't see) a universal morality of any sort. Seems to me morality is based on the individual and culture of the time. Morality is also, in many cases, viewed differently over time.

Universal morality (for sentients) is based on the inescapable, inherent ability to understand what it feels like to have done to you what you do to another. You can stifle that knowledge and stuff it in a rat hole somewhere in your brain, but even the most evil still know it's there.

What you're saying when you claim there's no universally acceptable moral code is to say John can kill, torture, rape or enslave Mary with no justification but his say-so; that no one has a right to his life, liberty, property or self-defense. I dare say that you would not be so amenable to despotic whims if you were on the butt end of such a system, in real life; not sitting in front of a computer engaging in a social thought experiment, saying that you, here and now, "differentiate between the two personally".

Just because morality has been viewed differently over time, doesn't mean it wasn't wrong before, even in all cases. They used to think that the world was flat and the center of the universe.

[ten10ths]

[Replying to post 27 by ten10ths]


Morality is what an individual decides is good or bad for them. My morality doesn't always go hand-in-hand with another person's. And that's OK. We just have to understand that.

So there are no individual rights except as granted by tyrants and oligarchies as it fits with their convenience.

Hitler's or Hamas' morality is fine with you, even if you were a Jew?

I never mentioned rights so I won't comment on your point there as that's not the point of this thread. To me, inferring 'right' and 'morality' are the same thing is erroneous.
And I never said I agree with another person's morality - just that I acknowledge that they are different than mine. That's what's OK

Rights, or their absence/violation, are derived from morality--not the convoluted "morality" of the various revealed religions, but the inherent morality based on our self-awareness and the free will it enables. That's the justification for its universal application to all self-aware beings, but we are the only ones who can enforce it, and the only ones who can violate it. You make one exception and there is no reasoned morality, and our rights fall without it.

Either the law is based on a universal morality for all, or there is a double-standard and thus no morality or rights--ultimately, eventually, even for the elite.

Probably true, but for me, my morlaity is independent of my right. It may be my right to kill my pet, but immoral.
I differentiate the two personally.
I also don't believe (because I don't see) a universal morality of any sort. Seems to me morality is based on the individual and culture of the time. Morality is also, in many cases, viewed differently over time.

Universal morality (for sentients) is based on the inescapable, inherent ability to understand what it feels like to have done to you what you do to another. You can stifle that knowledge and stuff it in a rat hole somewhere in your brain, but even the most evil still know it's there.

What you're saying when you claim there's no universally acceptable moral code is to say John can kill, torture, rape or enslave Mary with no justification but his say-so; that no one has a right to his life, liberty, property or self-defense. I dare say that you would not be so amenable to despotic whims if you were on the butt end of such a system, in real life; not sitting in front of a computer engaging in a social thought experiment, saying that you, here and now, "differentiate between the two personally".

Just because morality has been viewed differently over time, doesn't mean it wasn't wrong before, even in all cases. They used to think that the world was flat and the center of the universe.

I don't believe universal morality exists in reality. It's nice and fun to think it does, but I see no evidence of it existing.
Personally, I don't care if John kills anyone other than the ones I know. If John kills Melissa, and I don't know Melissa, I don't care.
He rapes her? Not my problem
Torture? Sure why not - it doesn't effect me at all.
Is it moral for him to do these things? Maybe to him it is. It's not to me, so I won't partake in it. I have no means, method or desirie to project my morality on John.
Because I exists in the universe, and my morality isn't the same as everyone else's, there is no universal morality.
You don't have to agree with it. But there it is. lol

[higgy1911]

I love the golden rule, it's the foundation of my moral code. However it isn't justifiable by reason to presuppose that one ought follow the golden rule. To treat others however one wishes and simply acknowledge and endeavor to avoid the consequences is also reasonable. I would also posit that it is quite a common practice among both the dregs of society as well as among the successful.

The problem with the golden rule as a foundation for objective morality is it's hard to answer "why ought one follow it" . Barring self interest. Self interest is an "is" issue, not an "ought" issue. Whatever is in your self interest is in your self interest. Morals aren't necessary to pursue it, only knowledge of action and consequence.

[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).

[ThePainefulTruth]

The problem with the golden rule as a foundation for objective morality is it's hard to answer "why ought one follow it" . Barring self interest. Self interest is an "is" issue, not an "ought" issue. Whatever is in your self interest is in your self interest. Morals aren't necessary to pursue it, only knowledge of action and consequence.

The motivation is good order through enlightened self-interest. Good order is in your own best interest (unless you're the tyrant), and you achieve that good order by leading by example, and garnering consensus for laws that enforce good order against the would-be tyrants that populate our jails. If 10/tenths (above) had his way, there would be no courts or laws or jails, because there can be no universal morality. BTW, universal morality nothing more than the morality that applies equally to all. The only ones opposed to that are the tyrants and anarchists.

[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!

[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.

[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