Having defined morality as a strong individual statement of universal
intent, I recognize that others, having different personal values, may have
different intentions. It is in my interests to judge whether those
intentions pose a danger to others, and thus potentially, to me.
>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.
Knowing their moral intent, I may predict their future behavior, and judge
them to be potential friend, or potential foe. From my viewpoint, a
potential friend is more valuable to me than a potential foe, and his values
thus superior.
>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?
When I say "moral" it has meaning to me and to others. When others say
"immoral" it has meaning to them and to me. It communicates intent. Is it a
hand or a fist?
>>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."
In accordance with my personal values and goals, yes.
>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?
If I called it "morally wrong" that would be a fraudulent statement
concerning my universal intent. The end selected, however, poses a potential
danger to others, and I would expect them to consider that end, and the
means of achieving it, to be immoral.
>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?
Yes, they are the technically right means for achieving his desired ends.
>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?
You are mixing his means with my ends...and vice versa. He has chosen the
right path, from his POV, to the wrong destination, from my POV.
>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.
I make no such claim. I simply predict his future behavior and act
accordingly. I judge his moral values to be dangerous to others, and
consider it to be moral to defend myself. I will not aggress against him,
but will defend against his aggression. This combination (the primethic
decision) precludes claiming others as personal property.
>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 rooted in the objectively observable phenomenon of
aggression/defense. It comes from the fact that humans, as volitional
creatures, must necessarily choose to defend themselves against aggression,
and decide that it is "right" to do so. The far less desirable alternative
survival strategy is to subjugate themselves to aggressors, thus losing
volition.
>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.
It is defense against aggression. It is a reluctance to subjugate oneself.
>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 results not from morality, but from subjugation of will to others,
whose ends are dangerous to others, and thus immoral. The aggressor's
perceived need to convince their followers that their aggression is
defensive, and thus moral, attests to the widespread existance of the
primethic decision.
>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
Gary
==============================================
When the boot of government is on your neck,
it doesn't matter if it's left or right.