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]

If that, as you say, is a worthy premise, what's the problem?

The problem is, and have been, your insistence that morality is objective.

Yes, morality is an objective (universal) solution to a subjective but nearly universal desire for good order. The only other moralities would be based on the desires of oligarchs/despots or anarchists (miniscule minorities). When you reject assuming good order as a justification for morality, those are your only choices. If you see an option I don't, please put it out there.

[Bust Nak]

Yes, morality is an objective (universal) solution to a subjective but nearly universal desire for good order.

That's your claim anyway, what makes it objective? Once we decided "good order" is the goal, there are still plent of different way of achieving that goal.

What do you even by by morality is a solution in the first place? Is "murder is wrong" synonymous with "refrain from murder?" Or are you thinking of the tautology along the lines of of "it's moral to do good?"

The only other moralities would be based on the desires of oligarchs/despots or anarchists (miniscule minorities). When you reject assuming good order as a justification for morality, those are your only choices. If you see an option I don't, please put it out there.

That is irrelevant to my complain. I am not debating whether it is moral or not to work for "good order." I am want to focus on the nature of morality. I can grant you that it is morally right to aim for "good order," but what makes it objective?

[ThePainefulTruth]

Yes, morality is an objective (universal) solution to a subjective but nearly universal desire for good order.

That's your claim anyway, what makes it objective? Once we decided "good order" is the goal, there are still plent of different way of achieving that goal.

I've asked several times already and I'll ask again, What?

What do you even by by morality is a solution in the first place? Is "murder is wrong" synonymous with "refrain from murder?" Or are you thinking of the tautology along the lines of of "it's moral to do good?"

If we have a right to life, then murder is wrong, and if you don't refrain from murder, then you will be brought to justice. If there is no enforcement of our rights, or if that enforcement is unequal or intermittent, then the anarchists and tyrants are in charge.

You have some few who don't want good order, making the overall desire for it subjective. Once you determine good order is the proper goal, you determine what rights you want to make universal, i.e. objective, and the laws you're going to pass to enforce them--which be applied equally for all. The instant you allow a double standard, the whole thing is in shambles because the tyrants and anarchists can take over.

The only other moralities would be based on the desires of oligarchs/despots or anarchists (miniscule minorities). When you reject assuming good order as a justification for morality, those are your only choices. If you see an option I don't, please put it out there.

That is irrelevant to my complain. I am not debating whether it is moral or not to work for "good order." I am want to focus on the nature of morality. I can grant you that it is morally right to aim for "good order," but what makes it objective?

To focus on the nature of morality, you have to determine what it is! If we agree that good order is the goal, then the only thing that remains is determining how best to achieve that goal and apply it to everyone equally--universally. The rules for achieving that goal are the moral code. Working for good order is then moral.

There's only one way to do it, equality under the law for all, even the tyrants and anarchists that would overthrow it.

You have some few who don't want good order, making the overall desire for it subjective. Once you determine good order is the proper goal, you determine what rights you want to make universal, i.e. objective, and the laws that you're going to pass to enforce them--which will be applied equally for all. The instant you allow a moral/legal double standard, the whole thing is in shambles because the tyrants and anarchists have won and can take over.

[Bust Nak]

I've asked several times already and I'll ask again, What?

What, what? Be specific. Are you asking me what are the ways of achiveing good order? Well everyone becoming buddist would work, everyone becoming Christians would also work. Everyone doing exactly as I order would also work.

If we have a right to life, then murder is wrong, and if you don't refrain from murder, then you will be brought to justice. If there is no enforcement of our rights, or if that enforcement is unequal or intermittent, then the anarchists and tyrants are in charge.

I get that, but I was asking what you meant by "morality is a solution." Which part of the above would you say is the moral and how is it the solution? Are you saying punishing murderer is a solution? I could see how "it's good to punish murderers" or "we should punish murderer" could be a moral statement. How is "punishing murderer" is a moral statement, let alone a moral truth? Your choice of terms and wording is problematic.

You have some few who don't want good order, making the overall desire for it subjective.

Stop opening new cans of worm. It would still be subjective EVEN if absolutely everyone wants good order.

Once you determine good order is the proper goal, you determine what rights you want to make universal, i.e. objective, and the laws you're going to pass to enforce them--which be applied equally for all. The instant you allow a double standard, the whole thing is in shambles because the tyrants and anarchists can take over.

Listen to yourself. You are saying you can make things objective by wanting it.

To focus on the nature of morality, you have to determine what it is!

Right, so lets forcus on what morality is instead of what is morally right, which end goal is best, or how best to achieve that end goal.

If we agree that good order is the goal, then the only thing that remains is determining how best to achieve that goal and apply it to everyone equally--universally. The rules for achieving that goal are the moral code. Working for good order is then moral.

There's only one way to do it, equality under the law for all, even the tyrants and anarchists that would overthrow it.

You have some few who don't want good order, making the overall desire for it subjective. Once you determine good order is the proper goal, you determine what rights you want to make universal, i.e. objective, and the laws that you're going to pass to enforce them--which will be applied equally for all. The instant you allow a moral/legal double standard, the whole thing is in shambles because the tyrants and anarchists have won and can take over.

Yes, yes, you are still talking about what is morally right, and not what the nature of morality is.

[ThePainefulTruth]

I've asked several times already and I'll ask again, What?

What, what? Be specific. Are you asking me what are the ways of achiveing good order? Well everyone becoming buddist would work, everyone becoming Christians would also work. Everyone doing exactly as I order would also work.

So Theocracy or Dictatorship? It doesn't appear you're taking this seriously. And if you're going to say you were kidding, then give a serious solution.

[Bust Nak]

So Theocracy or Dictatorship? It doesn't appear you're taking this seriously. And if you're going to say you were kidding, then give a serious solution.

I was serious, these are solution that will lead to good order, given "perfect use." Besides, how serious I am, is irrelevant to the validity of my points.

But that's secondary. I want to focus on objectivism vs subjectivism, as I been saying all along. What about the rest of my post? Particular re: "you determine what rights you want to make universal, i.e. objective." How do you make something objective? You simply declare it? Universal consensus means the same thing objective to you?

[ten10ths]

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.

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.

[ThePainefulTruth]

So Theocracy or Dictatorship? It doesn't appear you're taking this seriously. And if you're going to say you were kidding, then give a serious solution.

I was serious, these are solution that will lead to good order, given "perfect use." Besides, how serious I am, is irrelevant to the validity of my points.

But that's secondary. I want to focus on objectivism vs subjectivism, as I been saying all along. What about the rest of my post? Particular re: "you determine what rights you want to make universal, i.e. objective." How do you make something objective? You simply declare it? Universal consensus means the same thing objective to you?

The goal of the objective position, or objectivism if you must, is equal rights for all. Your subjective position is that there are no rights, or at least whatever rights some have are subject to the whim of an elite class. Thus your, "Are you asking me what are the ways of achieving good order? Well everyone becoming Buddhist would work, everyone becoming Christians would also work. Everyone doing exactly as I order would also work", would mean nothing but chaos by definition. There would be no inviolable individual rights except for the elite's--and those would shift with vagaries of the ebb and flow of power.

I take it from your attitude that you'd willingly become a Buddhist, or a Christian, or a Muslim or bare your throat to a tyrant at the say-so of those entities? If so, you either aren't serious, as I said, or (there is no alternative I can think of that would fit within the rules of the board).

[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?

[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