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.

[Divine Insight]

Understanding the need to separate subjective virtues from objective morality is our greatest obstacle to good order.

It appears to me that you are using these terms incorrectly.

Subjective does not necessarily mean "individually independent opinions". Although individual independent options certainly are subjective.

Subjective simply means that it is a point of view of a conscious mind, versus being "objective" (i.e. an absolute property of reality).

All human morality is subjective. Even the morality that you have described in the OP.

Now you may be able to find, or show an overwhelming subjective human consensus to support a particular moral ideal. However, that doesn't make it "objective". It's still subjective. It just happens to be a subjective opinion that has a lot of individual subjective support.

I hold that this is true, because nature herself (i.e. the real objective world) does not recognize the Golden Rule, or any respect for humans at all. Natural disasters, disease, and even wild animals will attack and kill humans without any "Objective morality" being observed.

There the idea that it is "objectively" wrong to treat a human in any particular way is simply wrong. There is no such thing as objective morality.

What you are attempting to get at here is nothing more than a consensus of subjective morality that you want to then incorrectly label as "objective morality".

So I hold that you are using these terms in correctly.

[Bust Nak]

[Replying to post 1 by ThePainefulTruth]
You post is rather disjointed, probably due to the odd choice of terms and words, so I'll just pick out specific bits to comment on:

"That life is of value to creatures that can comprehend that they are alive" means value depends on the mind, which makes it subjective.

"The desire for (value of) good order among humans mandates a universal morality among humans."
Universal vs siturational is a seperate debate to objectivism vs subjectivism. Subjective moral can be universal, and objective moral could be siturational.

"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."
The part in bold is non sequitur. Allowing elite class to make rules may well lead to chaos, but that doesn't mean that restricting the elite class is not subjective.

"If no objective/universal morality is allowed, there is only social/human chaos." It's not a matter of allowing. The objectivism vs subjectivism debate is not a matter of ideology or solutions to problem. It is about the nature of morality. You cannot allow subjectivism any more than you can allow gravity. You cannot ban or allow for the nature of something, it's either true or it is not.

"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."
What would non-individually determined virtues be? Virtues that are determined by convention? Virtues that are not determined at all?

[connermt]

What is Morality?
The individual code one tries to live by and, to a lesser extent, the code one expects from others.
As best as I could describe it

[Mr.M]

[Replying to post 1 by ThePainefulTruth]

creating the absence of needless suffering without causing it elsewhere. That's a close as I've ever come to a solid answer for this question.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 1 by ThePainefulTruth]

creating the absence of needless suffering without causing it elsewhere. That's a close as I've ever come to a solid answer for this question.

So if you're unable to relieve someone's suffering, you're immoral? And doesn't "without causing it elsewhere" come under the heading of unintended consequences? Under your definition, God (if It exists) would be immoral. Suffering per se isn't a moral issue unless someone causes it or tries to.

I'm saying (simply) that morality is honoring the rights of others, which would include doing something to prevent another's rights from being violated.

[Mr.M]

[Replying to post 6 by ThePainefulTruth]

no,no, sorry, I did not mean to imply that, forgive my poor verbiage. I think rather that one must avoid causing the suffering of others and then I caution against hurting others by unintended consequences while doing so.
I beg your pardon, but it is so hard to put into words, and I fail readily. It’s a very difficult topic, but I enjoy trying to wrap my head around it.
I do think however, if god is real in the theistic sense it would be immoral in the human sense. I’m not sure about the last bit,� Suffering per se isn't a moral issue unless someone causes it or tries to.� that raises uncertainty but maybe suffering is not suffering, unless it is viewed as such? Like, hard work makes a goal obtained more worthwhile than a goal obtained with little effort. I wonder if there is an absolute definition of suffering or if it is ultimately relative.

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 7 by Mr.M]

Exactly. "Suffering" is hard to define, particularly when you're talking about morality, because it's so easy to accuse others of causing your suffering through indirect means. And then there's the degree of suffering. Being thirsty for an hour for any number of reasons, is different than dying of thirst in a jail cell. Violating another's rights is a hard and fast act of immorality, and those rights I've listed are simple, few, and objective. But it's so easy to pile on other acts that are deemed immoral by preachers and politicians, which muddle the whole issue.

[wiploc]

[Replying to post 1 by ThePainefulTruth]

creating the absence of needless suffering without causing it elsewhere. That's a close as I've ever come to a solid answer for this question.

So if you're unable to relieve someone's suffering, you're immoral?

...

I'm saying (simply) that morality is honoring the rights of others, which would include doing something to prevent another's rights from being violated.

So if you're unable to prevent another's rights from being violated, you're immoral?

And what would be the point of honoring people's rights if that didn't tend to increase happiness?

[ThePainefulTruth]

[Replying to post 1 by ThePainefulTruth]

creating the absence of needless suffering without causing it elsewhere. That's a close as I've ever come to a solid answer for this question.

So if you're unable to relieve someone's suffering, you're immoral?

...

I'm saying (simply) that morality is honoring the rights of others, which would include doing something to prevent another's rights from being violated.

So if you're unable to prevent another's rights from being violated, you're immoral?

You're being intentionally difficult. A little old lady seeing a woman being raped by 10 guys isn't expected to wade into the fray. But the should pick up the phone which surprisingly a lot of people don't do. You can't take on an army with a toothpick, but you can warn of their approach. The idea is to try to do something within your power to stop it, which may even involve risk. But 99.9% of morality is NOT violating the basic rights of others.

And what would be the point of honoring people's rights if that didn't tend to increase happiness?

Happiness is up to you, not anyone else. Someone can be happy, or miserable, through no fault of anyone else; and it isn't your duty to make others happy any more than it is to make them miserable. Doing so isn't our duty, but they can be considered issues of individually determined virtue, which would be subject to social pressure, but not the law.

Hate or other politically incorrect negative emotions such as being offensive should not be a crime. Only actions should be. I know every liberal in the country would go apoplectic if they read that, but it's time to leave the playground, grow up and quit whining to the thought police.