What is Morality?

[abcqwerty123]

Hi everyone. I have looked up definitions of morality but most definitions talk about good and bad, or right and wrong. The problem I find in good/bad and right/wrong is that a person can be trained to believe things like spending time behind bars for smoking a plant inside of your own home is good/right. So, I need a definition that can be more specific while trying to keep it short.

 

Here is a definition I came up with:

 

"to not do to others what you do not want done to yourself, except when defending your property or the property of another person from actions that the property owner does not want done to their property."

 

Along with this definition, I will explain that property is anything a person owns, including their own body.

 

So, there are a few things I am looking for help with.

 

First, I would like help finding any problems with this definition.

 

Secondly, if there are any problems, I would like to hear possible solutions to be changed or added in.

 

Third, I would love to hear the definition written differently to possibly make it easier to understand.

[dsayers]

Welcome to FDR. There can hardly be a more important question, so I thank you for your sensitivity in this matter.

 

So, I need a definition that can be more specific while trying to keep it short.

 

Specificity isn't the problem with most failed attempts to define morality. The problem is usually subjectivity. This includes your definition, as it calls upon a person's wants. Though your definition was right to observe that morality comes from/is property rights. The proof (which I realize isn't the same as a definition) of objective morality is:

 

You own yourself. People are not fundamentally different, therefor everybody owns themselves. If everybody owns themselves, then theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as they require exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else.

 

The other thing to understand when it comes to trying to crystallize morality is its requisites. Morality can only apply to behaviors for example. It requires free will (no coercion) and another person (moral actor). There is no moral component to riding a horse as a horse is not a moral actor (lacks reasoning). There is no moral component to preferring chocolate over vanilla because this preference isn't binding upon others. Fantasizing about murdering somebody is amoral as it is not a behavior.

 

Given all that, I shall attempt to offer what I would define morality as: The conformity of voluntary behavior to the property rights of others.

[june]

 

You own yourself. People are not fundamentally different, therefor everybody owns themselves. If everybody owns themselves, then theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as they require exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else.

 

again dsayers you are stating an incomplete description of your version property rights, because you claim that some people are fundamentally different, in that some can reason, and some can not. and those who cannot reason do not have self-ownership, and thus theft, assault, rape and murder become legitimate upon such people.source: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38964-nap-vs-moral-dilemma-solved/ 

Self-ownership requires the ability to reason, which a newborn does not have.

either you stand by your claim that it is fully justified within property rights to murder and rape newborn children, or you change your position

[Kevin Beal]

Morality describes the good and evil categories within UPB. These categories justify the use of force to enforce. The good "do not rape" is the moral good and the violation of the rule justifies the use of force to prevent rape. This category includes: rape, theft, murder, fraud, etc.

 

Morality is distinct from aesthetics and morally neutral behavior in this way.

[abcqwerty123]

Welcome to FDR. There can hardly be a more important question, so I thank you for your sensitivity in this matter.

 

 

Specificity isn't the problem with most failed attempts to define morality. The problem is usually subjectivity. This includes your definition, as it calls upon a person's wants. Though your definition was right to observe that morality comes from/is property rights. The proof (which I realize isn't the same as a definition) of objective morality is:

 

You own yourself. People are not fundamentally different, therefor everybody owns themselves. If everybody owns themselves, then theft, assault, rape, and murder are immoral as they require exercising ownership over that which is owned by somebody else.

 

The other thing to understand when it comes to trying to crystallize morality is its requisites. Morality can only apply to behaviors for example. It requires free will (no coercion) and another person (moral actor). There is no moral component to riding a horse as a horse is not a moral actor (lacks reasoning). There is no moral component to preferring chocolate over vanilla because this preference isn't binding upon others. Fantasizing about murdering somebody is amoral as it is not a behavior.

 

Given all that, I shall attempt to offer what I would define morality as: The conformity of voluntary behavior to the property rights of others.

 

Thank you!

 

You said that morality requires no coercion, however, couldn't this depend on the amount of coercion?

An example: If you have a gun to your head and you are told to kill another person or you will be killed; If a person has a sledgehammer held above your computer and tells you to kill someone or your computer will be annihilated.

 

You also spoke of a horse as though it lacks reasoning. Is there proof that a horse or any animal lacks reasoning?

How can a horse learn to run in the directions that the rider tells it too, or to not continue to run into a wired fence? Wouldn't you say that the horse uses the experiences to reason when to run left or right, or when to slow down and stop? Wouldn't you say the horse uses the experiences of running into a wired fence to reason that the wired fence is a boundary that can't be passed by simply running into it? This would be the same with a newborn. The newborn uses their experiences to reason and in turn, learn.

 

If you could please answer my questions above, I could get a better understanding and accept the definition more, but thanks for the reply because it made me think differently. Especially with the problem of subjectivity.

 

 

Morality describes the good and evil categories within UPB. These categories justify the use of force to enforce. The good "do not rape" is the moral good and the violation of the rule justifies the use of force to prevent rape. This category includes: rape, theft, murder, fraud, etc.

 

Morality is distinct from aesthetics and morally neutral behavior in this way.

 

The problem I am having is creating a definition for morality that does not leave loop holes, but I do appreciate the different explanations because it helps me understand it better myself as well.

[Kevin Beal]

The problem I am having is creating a definition for morality that does not leave loop holes, but I do appreciate the different explanations because it helps me understand it better myself as well.

But isn't the whole point of an objective methodology to be able to apply it consistently? It seems to me that the requirement for a loophole was not something that would have served Einstein or Darwin or whatever great scientific mind we can think of.

 

We don't want a theory that makes it okay to murder this guy but not that guy, right? Or for this set of features to describe a mammal, and then the same set of features to describe the opposite of a mammal...

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding...

[abcqwerty123]

But isn't the whole point of an objective methodology to be able to apply it consistently? It seems to me that the requirement for a loophole was not something that would have served Einstein or Darwin or whatever great scientific mind we can think of.

 

We don't want a theory that makes it okay to murder this guy but not that guy, right? Or for this set of features to describe a mammal, and then the same set of features to describe the opposite of a mammal...

 

Maybe I'm misunderstanding...

 

I am trying to create/discover/tweak a definition that I can apply consistently and does not have loopholes. Seems like we are saying the same thing but maybe I am misunderstanding you. 

[dsayers]

How can a horse learn to run in the directions that the rider tells it too, or to not continue to run into a wired fence? Wouldn't you say that the horse uses the experiences to reason when to run left or right, or when to slow down and stop? Wouldn't you say the horse uses the experiences of running into a wired fence to reason that the wired fence is a boundary that can't be passed by simply running into it?

 

The ability to reason is the ability to conceptualize standards, to consider consequence, and to make decisions based on those standards and perceived outcomes. A horse doesn't go left or not try to pass through solid objects as a result of such things.

 

You said that morality requires no coercion, however, couldn't this depend on the amount of coercion?

An example: If you have a gun to your head and you are told to kill another person or you will be killed; If a person has a sledgehammer held above your computer and tells you to kill someone or your computer will be annihilated.

 

Does this gradation cast doubt on a definition that speaks of "voluntary behavior"? I don't mind debating the gray areas of morality, but I thought you were looking for a definition.

 

If somebody ordered me to kill somebody, I would fear for my life. If somebody used a sledgehammer in a threatening manner, I would fear for my life. There is no uncertainty that the act of somebody being murdered in this scenario accrues to the person doing the threatening.

 

I'm not saying there isn't a gradation. However I think the disparity has to very large and has to take the victim into consideration. For example, what would frighten a 4 foot tall rape victim might not frighten a 7 foot tall soldier. Or if that 7 foot tall soldier was abused as a child by way of being held underwater, then their sensitivity to asphyxiation is going to be exaggerated.

[abcqwerty123]

The ability to reason is the ability to conceptualize standards, to consider consequence, and to make decisions based on those standards and perceived outcomes. A horse doesn't go left or not try to pass through solid objects as a result of such things.

 

I apologize, I am still confused on this one. The horse doesn't go left or not try to pass through solid objects as a result of what such things?

 

 

Does this gradation cast doubt on a definition that speaks of "voluntary behavior"? I don't mind debating the gray areas of morality, but I thought you were looking for a definition.

 

If somebody ordered me to kill somebody, I would fear for my life. If somebody used a sledgehammer in a threatening manner, I would fear for my life. There is no uncertainty that the act of somebody being murdered in this scenario accrues to the person doing the threatening.

 

I'm not saying there isn't a gradation. However I think the disparity has to very large and has to take the victim into consideration. For example, what would frighten a 4 foot tall rape victim might not frighten a 7 foot tall soldier. Or if that 7 foot tall soldier was abused as a child by way of being held underwater, then their sensitivity to asphyxiation is going to be exaggerated.

 

I agree. So, I want to ask a scenario to hear how your definition would apply, just to be clear in case I am ever asked the exact question.

 

"The conformity of voluntary behavior to the property rights of others."

 

If a person is walking down the street and they see a girl being raped, what would be the correct action? If you say that it doesn't matter since the person would be under coercion, then I must ask how? I can understand that if you run in there, then you will be threatened, but if you go down the street and ask for help or snap a quick photo, could you say that you are still being coerced? If you can since just seeing the rape happen can be taken as a threat, then even in a free world (no government or religion), couldn't most, if not everything you do in life have the fear of punishment, aka threat? An example would be, "I couldn't study algebra because I was scared I wouldn't understand it.".

[dsayers]

couldn't most, if not everything you do in life have the fear of punishment, aka threat? An example would be, "I couldn't study algebra because I was scared I wouldn't understand it.".

 

Are you suggesting that "scared I won't understand it" is comparable to a moral actor using a weapon to threaten other people? Are you suggesting that there is a moral component to studying algebra?

 

This isn't the work of somebody who is trying 

[abcqwerty123]

Are you suggesting that "scared I won't understand it" is comparable to a moral actor using a weapon to threaten other people? Are you suggesting that there is a moral component to studying algebra?

 

This isn't the work of somebody who is trying 

 

My apologies. That was a bad example since there wasn't another person involved. How about more like, "I couldn't study algebra because I was scared my parents would be angry if I didn't understand it.".

 

I completely understand the difference in severity between the two situations, but if someone tries to get this technical with me, I want to make sure I explain it well enough that only an illogical person would not accept.

 

I have a hyperactive mind so it is tough to organize my thoughts. I feel I fully understand something in my head but I can't explain why, so I am working on this by asking questions to people like yourself who do a great job of explaining.

 

I understand it seems as though I am not trying because after reading your replies, even I am shocked at my questions. However, I really am trying to fully understand and I appreciate the time you are spending to make that happen.

 

So, after all we have discussed, would you agree with my understanding thus far?

Objective morality can be defined as "The conformity of voluntary behavior to the property rights of others." and the immoral can be punished by the involuntary owner of the property. Subjective morality is the right from wrong values of each individual person that does not fall under objective morality and can't be punished without becoming objectively immoral themselves.

[dsayers]

Subjective morality is the right from wrong values of each individual person that does not fall under objective morality and can't be punished without becoming objectively immoral themselves.

 

I would argue that if you can apply the descriptor of subjective to something, it can't rightfully be called morality. It's like when somebody tries to defend a "legitimate government" by describing completely voluntary interactions. The moment it's legitimate, it can no longer be described as government.

 

This is the way psychopaths subjugate an entire planet: They seize the language in order to control thought. Like how the word "anarchy" will conjure for most images of chaotic, violent, unrest.

 

My apologies. That was a bad example since there wasn't another person involved. How about more like, "I couldn't study algebra because I was scared my parents would be angry if I didn't understand it.".

 

I appreciate you making the effort to work through this despite not being very good at providing examples. This is 3 for 3 now where I think I understand the point you're making, but your example fails to deliver.

 

When you consider that so much of what we do is failure and we must fail before we can succeed, for a parent to get upset for a child that doesn't understand something that doesn't interest them, may not be useful to them, and was forced upon them would be completely irrational. There are parents who do this to their children and it is abusive and can be to the point of inducing a sort of mental paralysis in the child's capabilities and motivation. Given the context that the child is not in that relationship by choice, is half the parents' size, and is dependent upon them, the scenario you paint is a very real example of initiating the use of force (immoral).

 

This is kind of what I meant by you have to take the victim into consideration. If some random stranger told me, "Study this and if you don't understand it, I will be very cross with you and send you to bed without supper," I'd say, "Blow off, choffer." Sorry, been playing too much Dishonored recently.

 

I suppose if you're looking for a succinct explanation of what constitutes coercion in the evaluation of voluntary behavior, it comes down to a perceived legitimate threat.

 

Let's go nuts and say that the threat being made is "do this, or I will steal $1 out of your wallet." Sounds like we're just talking about $1, right? How are they going to extract it though? Assuming you're not going to stand by and let somebody take $1 from you, now they have to render you unconscious or immobile. Suddenly the stakes don't appear so petty, do they?

[square4]

 

 

 

I think that morality still fully applies when under duress. Moral rules such as against murder are based on the right of the victim not to be attacked. Suppose someone is threatened and told to commit a crime. Can this in any way change the rights of the victim of the crime? Of course not. So this means it is still forbidden to attack him. Does threatening suspend the free will of the actor? No, the actor still has the possibility to refrain from doing it. In practice also, many people have resisted the temptation of giving in to threats, which shows that it is possible. This could never happen if free will was indeed gone. This means the actor is still responsible for what he does to his victim, even though he himself is threatened. The one who threatens is of course responsible as well. Moral responsibility does not have to add up to 100%; they can be both responsible. Because people are often threatened (by the state, especially), if giving in to threats would be permissible, there would be little left of morality. For example, consider the masses of people that fought in wars against each other, because each of them had been threatened.

[Kevin Beal]

Also, you could read UPB right now for free

[abcqwerty123]

I would argue that if you can apply the descriptor of subjective to something, it can't rightfully be called morality. It's like when somebody tries to defend a "legitimate government" by describing completely voluntary interactions. The moment it's legitimate, it can no longer be described as government.

 

This is the way psychopaths subjugate an entire planet: They seize the language in order to control thought. Like how the word "anarchy" will conjure for most images of chaotic, violent, unrest.

 

I can understand someone defending government by describing completely voluntary interactions is wrong, let alone legitimate government. However, how is subjective morality the same? How would you defend your argument? How would you convince a person that morals can only be objective and never subjective?

Anarchy originally meant no-rulers. Many people have replaced what they were told would be the outcome of anarchy, by their rulers, with the actual definition.

 

 

I appreciate you making the effort to work through this despite not being very good at providing examples. This is 3 for 3 now where I think I understand the point you're making, but your example fails to deliver.

 

When you consider that so much of what we do is failure and we must fail before we can succeed, for a parent to get upset for a child that doesn't understand something that doesn't interest them, may not be useful to them, and was forced upon them would be completely irrational. There are parents who do this to their children and it is abusive and can be to the point of inducing a sort of mental paralysis in the child's capabilities and motivation. Given the context that the child is not in that relationship by choice, is half the parents' size, and is dependent upon them, the scenario you paint is a very real example of initiating the use of force (immoral).

 

You are right. I have one more problem that I read somewhere else on the forums, that I will add to a little. I would like to hear what you have to say about it as well. 

If someone was on their own property playing music so loud that the neighbors who were on their own property were being harmed by the sound, then is there any action possible by the neighbors being harmed without being immoral? Another example could be something like poison gas. The people are letting off poison gas for whatever reason, from their own property, and it is affecting the neighbors. Again, is there any action possible by the neighbors being harmed without being immoral? (This is also under the assumption that the neighbors have asked the people playing the music or letting out poison gas to stop and those people have refused.)

 

 

I think that morality still fully applies when under duress. Moral rules such as against murder are based on the right of the victim not to be attacked. Suppose someone is threatened and told to commit a crime. Can this in any way change the rights of the victim of the crime? Of course not. So this means it is still forbidden to attack him. Does threatening suspend the free will of the actor? No, the actor still has the possibility to refrain from doing it. In practice also, many people have resisted the temptation of giving in to threats, which shows that it is possible. This could never happen if free will was indeed gone. This means the actor is still responsible for what he does to his victim, even though he himself is threatened. The one who threatens is of course responsible as well. Moral responsibility does not have to add up to 100%; they can be both responsible. Because people are often threatened (by the state, especially), if giving in to threats would be permissible, there would be little left of morality. For example, consider the masses of people that fought in wars against each other, because each of them had been threatened.

 

If someone is threatened and told to kill a person, then morality can't apply to the victim because they are being threatened. This goes for the victim that they are told to kill as well. The only person being immoral is the person that did the threatening. This doesn't mean that the first victim who is told to kill another person can't choose other options, it just means you can't say they are moral or immoral for a situation that was forced upon them by another person. There is that classic problem that I want to bring up to argue against you.

You are on a train and if you do nothing, the track will end and you will crash into a large group of people, but if you pull the level right in front of you, the track will switch and you will kill only a single person that is tied to the tracks.

Now, my answer to this would be, you should choose what you see as the best option, but you were coerced into this situation and no matter the decision, you can't be immoral for it. If coercion can't negate morality, then no matter what you choose, you will be immoral, correct?

 

 

Also, you could read UPB right now for free 

 

I have actually been slowly going over UPB, but it takes awhile for me to grasp it.   for the suggestion though.

[dsayers]

Like all philosophical disciplines, morality accurately describes the real world, which is not subjective. Were it not universal, morality would have no meaning as even people who don't understand what morality means understand that it's normative.

[abcqwerty123]

Like all philosophical disciplines, morality accurately describes the real world, which is not subjective. Were it not universal, morality would have no meaning as even people who don't understand what morality means understand that it's normative.

 

Well good sir, thanks for the help with all of this. If you get bored and can think of an answer for the situation in my last post or stumble upon an answer you had already posted and can link me, that would be awesome. Thanks either way though.

[dsayers]

Sorry, I can't help you there. As somebody with very sensitive hearing who lacks self-soothing (insomnia; difficulty falling asleep), I am HEAVILY biased against noise pollution. To me, it comes down to reasonability. Nail guns can be loud, but roof maintenance is necessary and is only required once every decade or so. Lawnmowers and snowblowers are part of maintenance and upkeep; a feature of living around other people.

 

Stuff like dogs barking due to negligent owners, revving engines in a residential neighborhood, loud music, etc I think this is a different category. Plus it's different from somebody sunbathing in the nude where you can just look away. You cannot escape sound. I don't view earplugs as a viable excuse because it means that rather than ONE dog owner investing ONE TIME into training the dog, EVERYBODY ELSE within earshot has to plug up. That's not efficient nor accountability.

 

But like I said, due to heavy bias, I have a hard time knowing if my conclusions are sound or stilted with my preferences. I actually started gathering footage of a dog barking and its owners doing nothing about it or worse: exacerbating it or demonstrating that they acknowledge it, but refuse to address it. This was around the time that I started studying philosophy. So right about the time I was ready to try and press charges, I came to a conceptual shift of what seeking resolution by way of the courts really was. It sucks too because it led to me instead making repeated efforts to try and work it out voluntarily and they've only shoved it in my face, knowing I won't resort to force (courts). Even though I view it as them being the initiator.

[abcqwerty123]

Sorry, I can't help you there. As somebody with very sensitive hearing who lacks self-soothing (insomnia; difficulty falling asleep), I am HEAVILY biased against noise pollution. To me, it comes down to reasonability. Nail guns can be loud, but roof maintenance is necessary and is only required once every decade or so. Lawnmowers and snowblowers are part of maintenance and upkeep; a feature of living around other people.

 

Stuff like dogs barking due to negligent owners, revving engines in a residential neighborhood, loud music, etc I think this is a different category. Plus it's different from somebody sunbathing in the nude where you can just look away. You cannot escape sound. I don't view earplugs as a viable excuse because it means that rather than ONE dog owner investing ONE TIME into training the dog, EVERYBODY ELSE within earshot has to plug up. That's not efficient nor accountability.

 

But like I said, due to heavy bias, I have a hard time knowing if my conclusions are sound or stilted with my preferences. I actually started gathering footage of a dog barking and its owners doing nothing about it or worse: exacerbating it or demonstrating that they acknowledge it, but refuse to address it. This was around the time that I started studying philosophy. So right about the time I was ready to try and press charges, I came to a conceptual shift of what seeking resolution by way of the courts really was. It sucks too because it led to me instead making repeated efforts to try and work it out voluntarily and they've only shoved it in my face, knowing I won't resort to force (courts). Even though I view it as them being the initiator.

 

I am sorry to hear that man. I can see where you are coming from though. I have also been thinking about this question for awhile and here was what I came up with.

 

I believe that everyone voluntarily accepts sound no matter their location because by not accepting it, they are being hypocrites as they themselves make sound when they do anything. So the real question is, when does the sound become involuntary? Since morality requires knowledge, then as soon as the involuntary neighbors inform the people making the sounds that they are being harmed, the people making the sound are now able to be moral and stop the sound or immoral and keep on doing so allowing for the involuntary neighbors to defend themselves. It is like one person shooting a rifle from their own property into the property of their neighbor, except with the sound situation, the person(s) making the sound must be informed to become knowledgeable of the situation before they can take action while the person shooting the rifle would be knowledgeable from the start.

 

Does that sound agreeable or is there a flaw?

[Rainbow Dash]

again dsayers you are stating an incomplete description of your version property rights, because you claim that some people are fundamentally different, in that some can reason, and some can not. and those who cannot reason do not have self-ownership, and thus theft, assault, rape and murder become legitimate upon such people.source: http://board.freedomainradio.com/topic/38964-nap-vs-moral-dilemma-solved/ 

either you stand by your claim that it is fully justified within property rights to murder and rape newborn children, or you change your position

I think you made really good points. I would like to hear someone else give a response to this.

[june]

I think you made really good points. I would like to hear someone else give a response to this.

thanks. your opinion is shared with me as i too would like to hear more responses on this topic, because it may shatter the concept of property rights entirely (what good is property rights if it fully permits, without recourse, the rape and murder of newborn children?). 

although it should be noted that the claim "selfownership requires the ability to reason" was only claimed by the board member dsayers, and may not represent the position of others.

[Kevin Beal]

I think you made really good points. I would like to hear someone else give a response to this.

June doesn't care about the truth of the proposition because many proofs have been offered and ignored. This is a personal fixation on dsayers. June has been requesting dsayers' input on this point on several threads that don't really have anything to do with the topic. June cannot take a hint. It's basically harassment at this point.

[Rainbow Dash]

June doesn't care about the truth of the proposition because many proofs have been offered and ignored. This is a personal fixation on dsayers. June has been requesting dsayers' input on this point on several threads that don't really have anything to do with the topic. June cannot take a hint. It's basically harassment at this point.

Can you link me a couple of these proofs you mentioned?

[Kevin Beal]

Can you link me a couple of these proofs you mentioned?

Sure, I'll PM you since it's off-topic.

[june]

June doesn't care about the truth of the proposition because many proofs have been offered and ignored. This is a personal fixation on dsayers. June has been requesting dsayers' input on this point on several threads that don't really have anything to do with the topic. June cannot take a hint. It's basically harassment at this point.

this topic is expressed when it is relevant; firstly in the thread in which dsayers first made his/her claim, and recently when dsayers has explained his/her definition of property rights whilst excluding (purposefully or not) his/her very claim that "selfownership requires reason".also, i would very much like to see these proofs in support of dsayers claim that selfownership requires the ability to reason (which legitimizes violence upon those who cannot reason by the way, such as newborn babies and the mentally incapacitated.). PM is fine.

[Rainbow Dash]

also, i would very much like to see these proofs in support of dsayers claim that selfownership requires the ability to reason (which legitimizes violence upon those who cannot reason by the way, such as newborn babies and the mentally incapacitated.). PM is fine.

I sent you what Kevin sent me.

[HasMat]

morality is the product that results from the contrast of 2 causalities. The power balance of the causalities determine the form.

 

Ragnar Rothbard says "Might is Right". All non-arbitrary powergrabs are moral. When you kill a chicken for food. When you cut down a tree.

 

When a man sneaks into another mans house to steal his property its expressly arbitrary. The other man could just as easily rob him, and if the owner was aware then he could challenge the aggressor and likely kill him. Is it moral to kill a lion? its not about physical strength, its about ability to ensure outcome.

 

The key to might equating to right is that is must be non-arbitrary. The more dramatic the contrast between the causalities, the less arbitrary incursions inherently are.

 

If a race of omniscient omnipotent beings arrived on earth, and wanted to exterminate us, I would argue it would be their moral prerogative. Just like its mankinds prerogative to exterminate any species here that we dont need to survive. for it to be 'might' it must come from a power source that is not removed by its action. killing all honey bees would be immoral because we wouldnt have the Might to kill them once their absence destablized the worlds ecology. its mutually assured destruction->immoral.

 

What most of mainstream morality is concerned with is the economy of power between arbitrarily positioned peers. You were born to money, you were born to be a slave, you were born stupid and ugly, strong/weak, etc. In those cases, the first rule is integrity, the second is NAP, and the last is 'get paid' or 'might is right'. take initiative and powergrab. If you are honoring yourself (integrity), honoring your peers (NAP), then take whatever you can get away with. its the right thing to do. yet the only place this type of initiative is really celebrated is self-help, but it applies literally everywhere.

 

For these reasons I find your (OP) definition to not be of morality, but more precisely NAP. You are really only interested in morality between arbitrarily positioned peers, not between self and self, and not between individuals in a drastically unequal power dynamic.

 

Many of my countless hours pondering morality comes from a sports context, and the dilema of written rules and umpire enforcement. I've always been concerned with doing what I considered to be morally right. For some reason i got it in my head that the written rules dictated morality, yet it was the officials who DETERMINED outcome. morality is the contrast between causalities. it caused me no end of torment bemoaning the sensation of being cheated and despising those who actively and intentionally skirted the rules. my own brothers who would be considered highly upright citizens felt that 'cheating' was not only acceptable, but preferable.

 

my problem was

1. not understanding the source of morality

2. not understanding the effects of contraining circumstance

 

Maybe its my theology, but i would rather die than succumb to temporary might. basically i dont respect arbitrary fleeting power.

 

maybe someone else has a better grip on constraining circumstance because i am quite inflexible here, and i would love to learn it. i would never murder someone out of coercion. its a matter of principle. if you put me in a 'mad max' situation i would still feel bound by my moral beliefs. that means no robbing other survivors unless they needed a death-penalty for their own crimes. if you want to see a depraved lot, go to the 'Walking Dead' forums. there you will see some ppl who like coercive manipulative lying murderers. its like TMZ downloaded their values and the poor souls have no room left for morals. Showing empathy at the right time to the right group erases guilt (in some viewers minds) from heinous acts.

 

i imagine these ppl have a deep understanding of 'constraining circumstance'. Apparently I missed school the day this was taught, cuz it goes right over my head. I suspect it comes from an awareness of the arbitrariness of rules and systems. But in the moment, that cant be changed. So then what? pragmatism?

 

I've always hated the notions of seniority and hazing. Now I'm starting to understand why.

 

I think constraining circumstances only apply if there is no judgment day with god. otherwise all circumstances are within an eternal context. in atheism, the moment is all you have. gotta give your cellmate a blowjob or else he kills you? the moment is the only context with causality (sans metaphysics). for an atheist, it would be immoral to NOT survive. it changes things when the strongman of the universe wants you to be 'honest' and 'straight'. his causality would trump all. even if he was inconsistent, it would still be immoral to deny him. kill, dont kill, steal, dont steal, etc. Might is Right. do what he says or you are f#$%ed.

 

if you think killing infidels will give you immortality, then your eternal perspective basically demands you to kill them to powergrab immorality. letting that slip away has permanent and lasting results (which are detrimental to your Might). at the end of the day, it all comes down to how things really play out in the largest perspective frame. if allah doesnt eventually reward you then it was wrong, if he does then it was right.

 

if no metaphysics, then the only source of causality is GUT (electro-weak, strong, gravity). In that universe, there IS no contrast of causality between persons, they are each mere functions of GUT, played out on arbitrary groupings of matter. Its no more wrong to kill one of these then it is to close a web browser.