Why Be Moral?

[RCSaunders]

You really don't get it, do you? There are only individual human beings. There are no groups, or classes, ethnicities, or races that are in any way special, inferior, or superior to others. Any view that regards individuals as more or less important because of some class or ethnicity they claim or belong to is RACISM. Anyone who claims membership in any class, ethnicity, or race as if that membership conferred some kind of value or importance on them is a racist.

Your thinking is very narrow.

Yes it is. It is trimmed to the maximum by the application of Occam's razor and a rejection of mystic nonsense and a refusal to accept any contradiction.

Tribalism [us versus them] as encoded in the DNA/RNA and embedded deep in the brain, which gave rise to racism and other "group-ism" was critical to humanity survival long time ago.

There are so many, such as yourself, who insist they are in some way controlled by something they inherited, that I am beginning to believe it is true, at least of those who make that claim. I do not believe in evolution as you do, but if human beings actually evolved and those who deny that everything they do is not determined solely by their own conscious choice, I have to presume they have not fully evolved into true human beings.

Since you obviously claim to be one of those who is not capable of only thinking and doing what you consciously choose, but are also driven by mysterious forces inherited through your DNA, it is probably impossible for you to understand or believe there are others who are not so limited. It is kind of sad that there are such creatures, like some kind of chimera's, half animal and half human (and easily mistaken for humans) but not-quite-human.

True, fully-evolved, and developed human beings are not driven by anything inherited and all they think and do is by their own conscious choice.

[Immanuel Can]

I have been promoting we need a secular ideal objective absolute moral ought [the ultimate GOOD and sub-goods] as a GUIDE. That is justified via empirical evidence upon the principles of Morality [PURE].

We might "need" such a thing. I don't doubt we do.

But that's not to say we can have it. We may need it to the point of death, and still not have it. It depends on whether or not one can go from the claim,

"There is no God, and this world is just the product of a cosmic accident," (basic to secularism)

...to the claim,

"Therefore, we are morally obligated to do X." (a binding moral conclusion of any kind)

...and have anybody have reason to believe us.

The problem? We cannot. There is no logical route that will take us there.

RC's is just dependent on the independence of the individual which is groundless, very vague and flimsy which could generate possibly some 'good' people, but also evil people like Hitler, Stalin, despots, mass murderers, mass rapists, etc.

Well, RC will say it cannot generate any Hitlers. Let's grant him that much, though I take your point. Let's just grant him that, for argument's sake, because it's not really the issue.

The issue is, what does one of RC's great "independent individuals" have moral obligation to do when a Hitler shows up? And the answer seems to be, "Nothing." So the Hitlers et al. of the world are set free to rampage, according to his reasoning.

That is, unless he has something he hasn't shown yet on that.

[Veritas Aequitas]

No human being is born a slave of other human beings. No one is born with a duty to or responsibility for anyone else's life. Everyone is born with their own mind and must choose to use them or not, to learn all they can or not, to make the best choices they can or not, to waste their life allowing their desires, feelings, whims and gullibility to determine their choices or not. It is not anyone's responsibility to make choices for others (it is wrong to do so, it's called oppression), and every individual's life and experience is determined by that individual's choices.

You are simply making claims but without justifications nor grounds.

You don't have to agree. If you don't agree than you must believe the opposite of what I said.

1. I said, "No human being is born a slave of other human beings," so you must believe some people are born slaves of other human beings.

2. I said, "No one is born with a duty to or responsibility for anyone else's life," so you must believe some people are born with a duty to or responsibility other's lives.

3. I said, "Everyone is born with their own mind and must choose to use them or not, to learn all they can or not, to make the best choices they can or not, to waste their life allowing their desires, feelings, whims and gullibility to determine their choices or not, so you must believe some (or all) people are not born with their own minds, do not have to choose to use them, do not have to learn all they can, are able to make the best choices without knowledge, and should waste their lives letting desires, feelings, whims, and gullibility determine their choices.

4. I said, " It is not anyone's responsibility to make choices for others (it is wrong to do so, it's called oppression), and every individual's life and experience is determined by that individual's choices," so you must believe it is some individual's responsibility to make choices for others, that it is OK to control and oppress others, that an individual's life and experience is not determine by that individuals choices and actions.

Is that right?

Nope!
You are too stuck with 'the excluded middle' and pure dualism, i.e. either 100% black or 100% white.

I agree with your points 1-4.
Re 1; I have been proposing endlessly 'No human ought to be a slave to another human' all over this Ethics section as evident there can be 'ought' from 'is'.

However I disagree that your points must be limited to a person as "independent" rather than conditioned upon the collective, i.e. the human race and its inherent direction.
When grounded on the collective, ultimately the person cannot be absolutely independent, i.e. no man is an island [general interpretation].

All that happened in Nazi Germany was only possible because most Germans were not independent individuals.
An independent individual never identifies oneself or anyone else as anything but individual human beings, never as members of any class, race, ethnicity, or ideology. What happened in Germany would have been impossible to a society of independent individuals because there could not have been anyone who regarded any unchosen aspect of a human being, what one is born with, as a matter of significance, only what an individual actually did and made of himself matters to independent individuals.
...

What happened in Germany is not because of the absence of independence.

I never said it was. Read it again. I said it was because of racism, and that independent individual's cannot be racist. Only those with views that are not individualistic and independent can be racists and almost always are.

Don't try to pull a fast one on me?

Your 'most Germans were not independent individuals' is the MAJOR PREMISE that all the other premises are subsumed.
Note your thread:

• Independence—Better Than Morality
  viewtopic.php?f=8&t=28686

As such your racism claim is grounded on 'independence' of the individual.

What happened in Germany was a lack of the GUIDANCE of what is Ultimately and Morally Good, i.e. the Pure Moral Principles.

No. What happened in Germany was because the individual's in Germany were racist, believed in government solutions to individual problems and that it was moral to interfere in others lives and the use of force was justified, and perhaps, the worst thing, when those in danger were warned, they refused to heed the warning and take measures to protect themselves believing that their neighbors, society, the law, or government would protect them.

You forgot your major premise?
Why the Germans then were racists was because they were not 'independent'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You really don't get it, do you? There are only individual human beings. There are no groups, or classes, ethnicities, or races that are in any way special, inferior, or superior to others. Any view that regards individuals as more or less important because of some class or ethnicity they claim or belong to is RACISM. Anyone who claims membership in any class, ethnicity, or race as if that membership conferred some kind of value or importance on them is a racist.

Your thinking is very narrow.

Yes it is. It is trimmed to the maximum by the application of Occam's razor and a rejection of mystic nonsense and a refusal to accept any contradiction.

Again you are too "either 100% black or 100% white" and very rhetorical.

• 1. Occam's razor is more to Science not philosophy proper, anologically Science is like standding with both feet firmly on the edge of a 3000 feet cliff.
  This is pure empiricism with <50% reason.
  
  2. Philosophy-proper is not limited to Science, thus is able lift a foot off the 3000 cliff with the other foot stabilized at the edge.
  This is pure empiricism with >90% reason.
  In this case, philosophy [meta-] exploit the faculty of reason to the full with the highest achieved level of critical thinking [grounded on the empirical].
  
  3. The theologians, theists, mystics are too adventurous and make the attempt to jump off the cliff with both legs in the air based on beliefs.
  This is <50 empiricism and 5% PRIMAL reason.

Your thinking [limited to Occam] is too narrow and do not engage the senses, intellect and highest reason faculty to the full from the fullest perspective.
Your foundation is not solid and do not use critical thinking to the fullest.

Note Russell's on Philosophy - where Science = Occam's Razor, Philosophy is more extensive but supported with >90% reason;

“Philosophy is something intermediate between theology and science.
Like theology, it consists of “Philosophy is something intermediate between theology and science.
Like theology, it consists of speculations on matters as to which definite knowledge has, so far, been unascertainable; but like science, it appeals to human reason rather than to authority, whether that of tradition or that of revelation.
All definite knowledge—so I should contend—belongs to science; all dogma as to what surpasses definite knowledge belongs to theology.
But between theology and science there is a No Man’s Land, exposed to attack from both sides; this No Man’s Land is philosophy.”

– Bertrand Russell, A History of Western Philosophy (1945), Introductory, p. xiii.

The above 1-3 is exemplified by Kant in the following;

It was thus that Plato left the World of the Senses, as setting too narrow Limits to 2 the Understanding, and ventured out beyond it on the wings of the Ideas, in the empty Space of the Pure Understanding.
He [Plato] did not observe that with all his efforts he made no advance meeting no resistance that might, as it were, serve as a support upon which he could take a stand, to which he could apply his powers, and so set his Understanding in motion.
It is, indeed, the common fate of Human Reason to complete its Speculative Structures as speedily as may be, and only afterwards to enquire whether the foundations are reliable.
All sorts of excuses will then be appealed to, in order to reassure us of their solidity, or rather indeed 3 to enable us to dispense altogether with so late and so dangerous an enquiry.
CPR-[A5] [B9]

In your case, whilst you did not leave the World of Senses [empirical] you have not engaged your faculty of reason sufficiently >90%, thus your proposition are not solidly grounded.

Tribalism [us versus them] as encoded in the DNA/RNA and embedded deep in the brain, which gave rise to racism and other "group-ism" was critical to humanity survival long time ago.

There are so many, such as yourself, who insist they are in some way controlled by something they inherited, that I am beginning to believe it is true, at least of those who make that claim.
I do not believe in evolution as you do, but if human beings actually evolved and those who deny that everything they do is not determined solely by their own conscious choice, I have to presume they have not fully evolved into true human beings.

Evolution is a wide topic.
My acceptance of whatever is evolutionary in terms of principles are solely based on what is inferred from empirical evidences.

Since you obviously claim to be one of those who is not capable of only thinking and doing what you consciously choose, but are also driven by mysterious forces inherited through your DNA, it is probably impossible for you to understand or believe there are others who are not so limited. It is kind of sad that there are so many creatures, like some kind of chimera's, half animal and half human (and easily mistaken for humans) but not-quite-human.

True fully-evolved and developed human beings are not driven by anything inherited and all they think and do is by their own conscious choice.

Nope you got it wrong and create straw-man 'mysterious forces inherited via the DNA.
I never claimed humans are not capable of thinking and consciously perform good acts.

I believed all humans must strive to think independently and act mindfully in alignment with humanity's direction. This is secondary to the primary path.
Whilst not officially a Buddhist, I am very on to the practice of Vispassana which is a meditation to improve mindfulness at all times to ensure one's acts is on the Right Action and Right Path [2 of Buddhism 8 folds path].

There is still a lot for you to catch up. Note DNA in relation to evolution;

There is nothing mysterious with the DNA anymore.
Are you up to date with the completed Human Genomic Project?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Genome_Project
It is claimed to be an impossibility but humanity has completed it in good time.
Are you aware of the full potential of this completed project?

The next is the,
http://www.humanconnectomeproject.org/
to map all the neuron pathway within the brain.

It is likely you are ignorant and do not have sufficient knowledge of the above and the potentials they can contribute to mankind's progress in all fields, including this discussion Morality and Ethics.

I'll repeat again;
Your thinking is very narrow.
You're living within your own narrow silo [archaic and obsolete], thus your propositions cannot be that credible and well grounded.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have been promoting we need a secular ideal objective absolute moral ought [the ultimate GOOD and sub-goods] as a GUIDE. That is justified via empirical evidence upon the principles of Morality [PURE].

We might "need" such a thing. I don't doubt we do.

But that's not to say we can have it. We may need it to the point of death, and still not have it. It depends on whether or not one can go from the claim,

"There is no God, and this world is just the product of a cosmic accident," (basic to secularism)

...to the claim,

"Therefore, we are morally obligated to do X." (a binding moral conclusion of any kind)

...and have anybody have reason to believe us.

The problem? We cannot. There is no logical route that will take us there.

Strawman! I never claimed there must be a binding moral conclusion of any kind!

Note this imperative for the question of Morality;

• 1. Surely you are aware humanity is facing a whole range of problems and sufferings with possibility of the human species being exterminated.
  
  2. All human problems re bad and evil are reducible to the question of Morality and Ethics.
  
  3. In this case we need problem solving techniques to resolve, prevent and mitigate those morally related problems.
  
  4. For a problem solving technique to be effective, it need to be embedded with a control - feedback system.
  
  5. To be effective, a control-feedback system must have an objective standard to compare results and so that variances can be feedback for control and improvement. [hope you are not ignorant of this?]
  
  6. Since this is a question of morality, we need the absolute GOOD as an objective standard to be embedded within the moral control-feedback system to facilitate continuous improvements.
  
  7. The absolute Good, i.e. the moral ought as GUIDE or standard only can be justified from empirical evidences. [I have demonstrated 'is' from 'ought' is possible]

Therefore if you are a normal human being you will agree with point 1 which follows through to the need for a secular objective absolute moral ought as a GUIDE only for the moral control-feedback system.
The GUIDE is never binding but merely to guide continual improvement towards the impossible ideal.

It is not a claim of a binding-ought but for humanity sake and its future, we need the justifiable moral ought as a necessity [imperative] for guidance.

IF you do not agree to point 1 and all the premises that follow then, you are an ignorant, selfish and useless human being.

Generally it is true of theists, they are very selfish and are desperately clinging to their own selfish salvation [as with other selfish theists] as driven by an inherent psychological desperation to soothe the pains from an inherent existential crisis.
Certain theists [large quantum of Muslims] will kill those who question their beliefs.

[Age]

... That is these five senses actually exist and the environment actually exists as well. This is the real existence. However, and this is a big HOWEVER, because the information, which is fed through those five senses of the body, from the environment around that body, interacts with the previously gained thoughts/information, which is already stored within the brain can and does affect the legitimacy of the accuracy of the current information coming in.

We aren't going to agree, then, because you do not distinguish what is directly perceived (percepts) from what our knowledge of what we perceive, (concepts).

You did not ask me to distinguish what is directly perceived (percepts) from what our knowledge of what we perceive, (concepts).

So I am not sure on what you think or believe we are not going to agree on exact.

Also, when you use words like 'we' and 'our', then who and/or what exactly are you referring to? I think you will find that there are very few things that 'we' and 'our' agree on anyway. And, for you to think 'you' know what 'our knowledge' is exactly is a far stretch.

By the way, the whole point I was making was distinguishing HOW percepts are obtained and HOW concepts can and do distort thee actual Truth of things (percepts).

Why did you not see that I actually did clearly distinguish what is percepts from concepts?

I may be a useless and lousy communicator but surely it was obvious that I was making a distinction between the two here?

It is a epistemological mistake. No amount of knowledge changes what we perceive.

I agree. So, you were WRONG about "we are not going to agree".

Of course no amount of knowledge changes what we perceive. I NEVER said it did nor would.

What I was saying was; that all of the currently held knowledge affects the way one looks at and sees things. Therefore, what is actually seen, heard, et cetera/experienced was effected by 'our already gained knowledge'. And, now this new knowledge, which was just seen and gained, will effect the way we look at and see things from now on.

So, our current knowledge does NOT change what we perceive. Our current knowledge affects what we perceive. We can only perceive once, so we can not 'change' that perception. But our perceptions are influenced by our already gained knowledge.

I was NOT saying what you were assuming I was saying. Your already gained and stored knowledge was affecting your perception of what I was saying. This is a PRIME EXAMPLE of what I have been saying. That is; thee actual Truth of things, which is directly experienced through the five senses of the body, is the information fed into the brain. This gained information is stored within the brain, and held as knowledge.

Obviously ALL of what is direct perceived (percepts) are of what is real and true, but sadly and unfortunately previously gained information, which is now 'our current knowledge', now effects what we perceive (concepts).

I hope you can now distinguish between what you were assuming and/or believing I was saying and meaning, from what I was and am actually saying, and meaning.

That is post-modernist nonsense with no basis whatsoever.

And, if you want to have a discussion with me, and be right, then I suggest you do not make any assumptions, nor do you jump to any wrong conclusions either, like you have already been doing so far.

Otherwise, our discussions will take far longer than is needed to be.

What a boy sees when he looks at an apple is identical to what a botanist specializing in apples sees when looking at an apple.

I was NOT talking about a "apples", nor talking about what you are here, which can be clearly and obviously SEEN in what I wrote. That is; if one is looking at what I wrote from thee OPEN perspective, instead of looking at it with their pre-conceived thoughts, assumptions, and/or beliefs.

You are doing exactly the very thing that I am talking about.

A new born human body experiences things for what they really ARE. An older human body mostly experiences things from the already gained knowledge, which is held within that body.

For example; A new born human body experiences (percepts) light or dark, which means (perceives) nothing. Whereas, an older human body experiences (percepts) light or dark, which 'day' means (perceives) "usually" working "to make money because I can not live without money" or 'night' (perceives) either partying, resting, or sleeping "to overcome from the stresses of "needing" to work so much".

EVERY body perceives the exact same thing. But EVERY person perceives very different things. This is because of the currently held knowledge. What is perceived by EVERY person is dependent upon the previous experiences of the body, which has formed the currently held knowledge within that body.

Seeing an apple is perception. A boy will know very little about an apple beyond what it looks and tastes like while botanist will know about the entire nature of apples.

And, as I have been saying a new born human body will know NOTHING about an apple. A new born sees an object. If a so called "boy" sees a so called "apple", then this is ONLY because of what the body of that "boy" has experienced previously. A "boy" does NOT see an "apple" if the body of that boy grew up in a country or in a time where "english" was not spoken, and thus not learned.

Seeing a so called "apple" only happens to those bodies who have previously experienced the english language. Otherwise what is being seen, and being perceived, is still the same "object" just known by another name. So, as I have been saying EVERY body sees, experiences, and perceives an "object", but because of, and depending upon, what previous experiences and perceptions that body has had, then this will affect what is seen, experienced, and perceived from now only.

Absolutely EVERY thing that has been experienced previously, affects how one looks at (perceives) things now, and thus obviously also how they see (conceive) things now.

So, yes 'seeing an apple is perception'. But, NOT every body (every person) sees an 'apple'. Depending on the past experiences of that body (that person) affects what is actually seen, and understood. A so called "apple" is only seen (perceived) if the knowledge of "apple" has already been conceived of or experienced previously.

Does this make this any clearer, to you?

If what the boy saw and what the botanist saw when looking at an apple were not the same no knowledge about apples would be possible.

Well this obviously does not logically follow.

If what two human beings saw was different, when looking at what you call an "apple", then how would no knowledge about apples supposedly not be possible? You already have the knowledge of "apple", because you just said that "they were looking at an apple".

Obviously the current information coming in is absolutely true, right, and correct, but sadly and unfortunately the currently stored and held thoughts can and does distort the actual accuracy of information.

HOW?

Most human beings, in the days of when this is being written, believe and will say, "All of us living in peace and harmony is just not possible". They believe and say this because they have not yet experienced this.

All the information coming in does not show that living in peace and harmony is not possible. It is just, with the incoming information, there is no sign of how living in peace and harmony is possible.

What happens is although there is NO information at all "saying" 'all of us living in peace and harmony is not possible', knowledge from past experiences tells the person "all of living in peace and harmony is jut not possible".

So, previously gained thoughts, assumption, beliefs, et cetera distorts and twist what is actually Real and True.

There is no way what one knows can change what they see, hear, feel, smell, or taste.

What the body, itself, sees, hears, feels, smells, and/or tastes can certainly be twisted or distorted by currently held assumptions and beliefs, as explained above.

As for what one "knows", then this is another topic and subject. This is because what one "knows" can not be refuted. Whereas, what one thinks, assumes, and/or believes can be.

One can learn about the things they see, hear, feel, smell, or taste (which is knowledge) but that knowledge cannot change what that knowledge is about.

This is so far off the mark and nothing about what i have been talking about as well.

As I said earlier, already held knowledge does NOT 'change' newly gained knowledge. Already held knowledge just influences what new knowledge will be gained.

Consider your own examples:

1. A baby sees objects, like an actual clock, which actually exist. An elder sees the same object, but also sees 9.03am, which does not actually exist.
2. A baby hears noise, like an actual motor vehicle, which actually exist. An elder hears the same object, but also hears "I need a new car", which is not actually true.
3. A baby feels hunger, like when it is actually hungry, which actually exists. An elder feels hunger, but also eats at other times just for taste, which is certainly not actually needed.
4. A baby smells scents, like its own actual feces, which actually exist. An elder smells the same scents, but also covers them up, which is not actually necessary at all.
5. A babe tastes nutrients, like actual milk, which actually exist. An elder tastes milk, and a variety of other completely unnecessary things, which are obviously not needed in any way, shape, nor form.

1. A baby and an adult see exactly the same thing when looking at a clock. No one can, "see," what the position of the hands of a clock, "mean."

But the hands of a clock do NOT 'mean' any thing.

Only human beings give things 'meaning'.

A new born baby does not give any meaning at all to the object 'clock'. Whereas, an elder human being gives whatever 'meaning' it wants to give to the object clock, and/or the hands of that clock object.

That the position indicates 9:03 am cannot be seen, it is understood by means of concepts, not percepts.

Which is EXACTLY what I have been saying and pointing out.

Knowing what time is indicated by a clock certainly does not change how it looks.

And, this has NOTHING to do with what I have been saying and meaning.

2. A baby and an adult hear the same thing in exactly the same way. What an adult is able to think about what is heard does not change how it is heard. Thoughts are not, "perceive," they are only formed and held by means of concepts, that is, language.

And, as I have been saying, it is these preconceived concepts (pre-conceptions) and already held language (in thought), which affects what new perceptions come in, which are the new conceptions.

3. Actually we do not know what a baby (or any other organism) feels, because it is a conscious experience and no one can know what another consciously experiences.

We might not know what another feels, but we surely know what we ourselves feel, correct?

Whatever a baby feels when it is hungry it would be the same feeling an adult had when hungry.

This is exactly what I said, and meant.

What one things by means of concepts does not affect that feeling in any way.

Provide absolutely any example you like, and I will show you how this is not true at all.

4. & 5. Are the same. You have confused perception, what is directly seen, heard, felt, smelled, and tasted, with our knowledge that thoughts about what is perceived.

I have NOT confused any such thing.

You are just not understanding what I am saying. This is because you are looking at and reading my words with and from your already gained and held preconceptions, assumption, beliefs, et cetera.

You are missing the mark, and thus not seeing the actual Truth of things, or in your terms the "real existence".

You are providing PRIME EXAMPLES of exactly what I have been talking about.

The confusion is not your fault. It is what is being taught in all universities today and believed with all the credulity of religious faith.

And here IS the very reason WHY you are reading my writings, from a Truly INCORRECT way. You are reading my words with some pre-conceived ideas and perceptions, which have absolutely NOTHING at all to do with what I have been saying. Thus, the very reason why you are misinterpreting my words, misunderstanding me, and taking out of context what I have been actually saying and meaning.

What is taught in school or in universities has absolutely nothing at all to do with what I have been talking about.

If you are truly interested, you might have a look at two of my articles, one on epistemology, Epistemology, Concepts and one on the nature of perception, Perception.

Okay.

[Age]

"Does not really help in clarifying any thing at all really."

okay

#

"can a 'you' only be a person/free will"

yep

#

"can they not be person/determined?"

nope

#

"So, what is 'morality', to you?"

you wouldn't get it

That is one way of showing that one does not actually know something.

Do not provide an answer for just me. Provide an answer so other readers will know what you are referring to in 'moral' topics.

Okay.

In this place, no one really gives a damn, so: I'll pass.

So, to you, some 'thing' is just a consensus, you guess. And what that 'thing' is, you assume and/or believe no one really gives a damn. Even though one did actually show interest, and thus did actually give a damn, and so asked you: What is 'morality', to you.

I found just saying, "I do not know", and thus just being Open and Honest, when answering questions posed to me, being far more rewarding, then being closed and dishonest IS.

[Immanuel Can]

I have been promoting we need a secular ideal objective absolute moral ought [the ultimate GOOD and sub-goods] as a GUIDE. That is justified via empirical evidence upon the principles of Morality [PURE].

We might "need" such a thing. I don't doubt we do.

But that's not to say we can have it. We may need it to the point of death, and still not have it. It depends on whether or not one can go from the claim,

"There is no God, and this world is just the product of a cosmic accident," (basic to secularism)

...to the claim,

"Therefore, we are morally obligated to do X." (a binding moral conclusion of any kind)

...and have anybody have reason to believe us.

The problem? We cannot. There is no logical route that will take us there.

Strawman! I never claimed there must be a binding moral conclusion of any kind!

I know. But really, that doesn't matter. It's what we need. A non-binding one would be worthless, because it would be merely optional. The "Hitlers" of the world would simply ignore it, and we'd have not one thing to say about that, either to them or anyone else.

Therefore if you are a normal human being you will agree with point 1 which follows through to the need for a secular objective absolute moral ought as a GUIDE only for the moral control-feedback system.

"Guide"? That's a very weak thing, because a "guide" need not be followed by anyone, and it can't compellingly be used to identify those who are doing the right or wrong thing. They just say, "Well, your guide doesn't count for me."

We need some sort of binding force that enables us to say, "Mr. Hitler, even if you don't agree with this, you're simply wrong," and to be right when we say it.

we need the justifiable moral ought as a necessity [imperative] for guidance.

An "imperative" is, by definition an obligation, and if it's "categorical" it's universal. If it's a "necessity," then it cannot be avoided. This is WAY more than some "guide." And I agree...that's what you need, on the premise of secularism.

And it cannot be had. (If you think it can, then create the syllogism that shows it can. But nobody's ever been able to do it so far, so you'll be the first.)

IF you do not agree to point 1 and all the premises that follow then, you are an ignorant, selfish and useless human being.

Ad hominem.

And a bad bluff, I'm thinking. I can see you're rattled when you lapse into such things.

Of course, I could as easily write, "If you believe in your 'guide' idea, you are an ignorant, selfish and useless human being." Would it make you stop believing? Would it even be a good reason for your to stop believing in "guides"? Would you be moved, and would any sensible onlooker be impressed?

Of course not. It would be just as pointless and illogical for me to do that to you as it is for you to try to do it to me. We don't need ad hominems. I hope we're both too old for that nonsense.

[RCSaunders]

1. Surely you are aware humanity is facing a whole range of problems and sufferings with possibility of the human species being exterminated

If the human species were instinct, who would care? All human beings are going to die. There are no problems for something called, "humanity." There are only individual human beings (without which there would be no humanity) and all problems are only problems for individuals. If no individual human beings had a problem, would you still believe in some mythical, "problems of humanity?"

Your problems are your problems for you to solve for yourself. No one else is obliged to solve your problems for you.

[henry quirk]

I found just saying, "I do not know", and thus just being Open and Honest, when answering questions posed to me, being far more rewarding, then being closed and dishonest IS.

I'm very happy you've found a formula that works for you: congrats.

[IvoryBlackBishop]

While philosophers debate what morals or ethical principles are, or if morality is objective or subjective, the one question that is carefully evaded is:

Why should anyone observe any moral standards?

The possibility of moral principles assumes individuals a have choice about how they behave. If human behavior were determined by something other than individual choice, whether there were moral principles or not would not matter, since no one could choose either to observe or evade them.

If there really are moral principles, however, then one must choose to either conform to those principle or defy them. The question is, even if there are moral principles, why should anyone bother with them? What difference does it make if someone lives morally or not?

That would apply to your own arguments as well (e.x. you equate "dependency", or at least dependency through violence as "immoral" behavior), so based on your own axioms in which said dependency is "immoral" or "wrong", what difference does it make?

[Immanuel Can]

While philosophers debate what morals or ethical principles are, or if morality is objective or subjective, the one question that is carefully evaded is:

Why should anyone observe any moral standards?

That would apply to your own arguments as well (e.x. you equate "dependency", or at least dependency through violence as "immoral" behavior), so based on your own axioms in which said dependency is "immoral" or "wrong", what difference does it make?

Nobody's "evading" it, RC. People are discussing reasons why we should think that "independent individuals" are the right things to be. Because saying so, As IBB points out, means that you're implying "independent individualism" is (at the minimum) recommendable, if not actually commendable, if not actually right, and "dependency" is disrecommendable, if not discommendable, if not wrong or even evil.

Because if you're not actually saying that "independent individualism" is better than dependency, then what are you saying at all?

So you are asserting what you regard as a moral principle: "Thou shalt be independent individuals," with some degree of discredit attached to dependency, like "or thou shalt be stupid," or "or thou shalt be a foolish follower," or " or thou shalt be second rate."

[IvoryBlackBishop]

I'm guessin' by being moral you're talkin' about the old standards (don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, etc.).

Practically: being moral is about peace-makin' and -keepin' (I won't mistreat you, you won't mistreat me, we'll both be free to do other things besides self-defendin' 24/7).

Less practically: being moral is about the self-maintenance of one's spirit.

That's not the philosophy of morality in 1st world nations (e.x. if one uses the theory of Common Law, as an example).

The philosophy is essentially that modern, 1st world legal systems (with notions such as rights, courts, trials, judges, etc) are an evolution up from more "primitive" conditions, such as blood feuds and private vendettas. Modern law having incorporated elements of older legal or moral systems (e.x. Rome, Exodus), with some principles having been more or less ubiquitous in every major legal or moral system (e.x. punishment for murder has obviously been around since the days of ancient Rome up until the present day; the overarching philosophy of the law seems to be a variation of the golden rule, such as respect for individuals' autonomy, property, families, the "public at large", etc), even though there are literally 10s of thousands of individual "laws" allegedly on the record, sometimes with the original reasons for specific laws being forgotten.

To directly conflate older legal systems with modern law though simply on the bases of having similar acts decreed to be immoral (which the philosophy of the law holds that all are capable of rationally discerning, and presumed to be aware of, or capable of being aware of and "ignorance of the law" is therefore no excuse), would be a bit fallacious.

[henry quirk]

I'm guessin' by being moral you're talkin' about the old standards (don't kill, don't steal, don't lie, etc.).

Practically: being moral is about peace-makin' and -keepin' (I won't mistreat you, you won't mistreat me, we'll both be free to do other things besides self-defendin' 24/7).

Less practically: being moral is about the self-maintenance of one's spirit.

That's not the philosophy of morality in 1st world nations (e.x. if one uses the theory of Common Law, as an example).

Which part of my answer are you objectin' to, the practical or the less practical?

[RCSaunders]

Immanuel Can, IvoryBlackBishop:

While philosophers debate what morals or ethical principles are, or if morality is objective or subjective, the one question that is carefully evaded is:

Why should anyone observe any moral standards?

That would apply to your own arguments as well (e.x. you equate "dependency", or at least dependency through violence as "immoral" behavior), so based on your own axioms in which said dependency is "immoral" or "wrong", what difference does it make?

Nobody's "evading" it, RC. People are discussing reasons why we should think that "independent individuals" are the right things to be. Because saying so, As IBB points out, means that you're implying "independent individualism" is (at the minimum) recommendable, if not actually commendable, if not actually right, and "dependency" is disrecommendable, if not discommendable, if not wrong or even evil.

You, IC and IBB are both making the same mistake: a presumption that what one should do is determined by some floating abstraction, as though something could just be good or right without being good or right for anything, such as recommendable, commendable, or right, without specifying what a thing is recommended for, commendable to, or good for. Nothing is just right, commendable, or good.

As a preface to my original question, let me ask, "for whom or what is living morally good for?" The usual answers to that question are, one's neighbor, one's family, the community, society, mankind, humanity's future, some mystic purpose (like duty or moral obligation), or some deity. Even if any of those things could be the purpose of morality, they do not answer the original question.

If living morally does not benefit oneself, and does not result in one's own life being all it can be and one's own enjoyment of it to the fullest possible, if it results in loss to oneself, suffering, and self-destruction, why should anyone choose it? Why should anyone choose anything that makes the potential of his own life less than it would be, if he chose otherwise?

If anything called morality does not result in the greatest possible benefit to an individual or in any way diminishes the fulfillment and enjoyment of his own life, there is no reason to be moral, and only a fool would choose to be.

Why should anyone choose to do anything that prevents them from achieving and being all they can be, enjoying a life rightfully deserved and earned, free of fear and guilt, and full of that sense of integrity that is only possible to those who know they have done the best they can in all aspects of their life? They shouldn't, and they won't.

You can promote any view of morality you like, but unless you can demonstrate how it will benefit those who choose it, you won't get any takers except from the gullible and superstitious.

So you are asserting what you regard as a moral principle: "Thou shalt be independent individuals," ...

Absolutely not. There are no, "commandments," no, "mandates," no, "duties," or, "unearned obligations." There is only the fact that you must choose how you live, and whether your life is a successful life of enjoyment or an unsuccessful life of suffering will be determined by how you choose to live it.

I am only pointing out that a successful life is only possible to those who choose to be fully responsible for all they choose, think, and do, refusing to be anything less than they can possibly be, never seeking anything they have not earned or achieved by their own effort, and never seeking relationships with any others except those all parties agree to for their own chosen mutual benefit, socially or in business.

My commandment is, live any way you choose, reality will teach you when you are violating its requirements. If you choose wrong, you will suffer the consequences and you cannot do wrong and get away with it. If you choose to do wrong, you will suffer for it. It's called justice. Do not ask me to be sorry for you or to pick up after you.