O.K. have at it. In setting your personal values as a "code of morality",
does it not logically follow that anyone who holds a personal preference, or
preferences, different from yours is considered by you to hold "immoral
values?" You say chocolate ice cream, another wants vanilla; you say brick
house, another prefers frame; you say no theft, another says steal. What
you have not said is by what rationale your values and preferences are
superior as implied by your declaration. If all other individuals are not
afforded the same claim of "morality" via personal preferences, don't you
feel obliged to explain how and why they are excluded from the criteria you
assert as fact for yourself? If each is afforded the same criteria, and each
individual is of equal standing, if in a given instance you say "moral" and
another says "immoral", do we not have a sum, zero; meaning that the term,
morality, has no meaning?
>As I see it, morality is a strong individual statement of universal intent,
>by which others are able to, with reasonable accuracy, predict our future
>behavior.
>
>If, for example, I state that theft is morally wrong, you can be reasonably
>sure that I will not steal from you, or anyone else, even if the
>circumstances were such that I would probably not get caught.
>
>If you make the same moral commitment, this moves us in the direction of
>being able to peacefully coexist, making both of us safer. Such a
>commitment, being universal (I will not steal from *anyone*), is a
>unilateral offer to all others to join in peaceful coexistance, making all
>safer. It is in our individual interests to make such commitments. And it
>very well may be instinctive to do so, as well.
To be sure, you, I, and\or anyone else may agree not to steal, nor initiate
force and coercion in any way. This will, as you say, result in a peaceful
coexistence. I have no quarrel with the conclusion. The conclusion is
reflected in natural law as pertains to means and ends. The means selected
and applied are right because they result in the end mutually desired and
identified. Here choosing and implementing right means (suited to the
purpose) you call "morally right." However, suppose we agree to steal and
produce a hostile coexistence? Once again, the means selected and applied
produces the end mutually desired and identified. Would you then call this
"morally wrong" although you agreed to it?
Let's look at the third option: Suppose the end you choose is peaceful
coexistence and select the appropriate means, non theft, etc. to achieve
this end, but another within your social realm prefers a hostile enviroment
and selects predatory means appropriate to achieve this end. Since the
predatory means chosen will produce the hostile environment end desired, are
not these means chosen technically right the same as yours are technically
right? What remains for you to call wrong, and why? The end chosen, is it
not? Thus must you presume to qualify terms, and arrive at: Technically
right, but "morally wrong." Right AND wrong applied to the same
circumstance? True, yet false? Exist, yet does not exist? Dead, yet alive?
Doesn't this make you a bit suspicious of the concept, morality?
The confusion, conflicts and contradictions are derived from illusory
beliefs that lead to pursuit of the impossible. An end chosen is a matter of
volition, a natural condition that is not subject to proof or disproof. It
is means and only means that are subject to evaluation as right or wrong. To
presume to evaluate a chosen end as right or wrong is to claim the
individual creator of said end as personal property to be evaluated as means
to one's own goal.
So, what is "morality", that is what is the meaning of the term, and by
reference to what is the meaning derived? I can find not a trace of
objective criteria except subjective personal preference as you acknowledge.
Ergo, "morality" is dependent on being created by individual mind. Having
examined and weighed all the factors known to me from root premise to end
result, I am obliged to accept the definition that corresponds to the evidence:
Morality is a FEELING; specifically a DOMINANT feeling of a "universal
ought" nearly universally felt. It is a feeling that there exists an
objective and universal standard of values. It is a feeling that one "ought"
to discover and live by these values. It is a feeling that most individual's
look to and depend on to measure their self value and the value of others.
It is a feeling that directs thoughts, conclusions, beliefs and actions like
no other. It is the ultimate warden of the psyche. It is the ultimate
religion for it commands more subservience of more individuals that all the
others put together.
Since "morality" is a matter of feelings peculiar to each individual, (but
believed to be an objective dictate of nature), is it any wonder that the
endless disagreements are endlessly "resolved" by violent conflict? The
concept, morality, is by billions believed to be an absolute necessity for
peaceful coexistence. They believe this even as the earth has been for
centuries, and still is, drenched in blood in the name of morality. This
tells not of any truth of "morality", but of a suicidal and destructive
commitment to a revered and dominant fallacy. "Morality" is just one of the
many popular beliefs that are 180 out of phase with reality. For more, see
"The World In A Mirror" at
http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/Lobby/7764/text.txt
Delmar England