Why Be Moral?

[RCSaunders]

For others, whose interests he does not see as ever serving his own, he cares nothing at all.

That's right.

He will not go off to foreign countries and kill people he neither knows or knows anything about, or go there to bring them the Gospel along with smallpox and diptheria. He will not steal his neighbor's money to give to the "needy" in some backwater uncivilized swamp, and will not oppress others to ensure his views of morality is forced on everyone. These are the kinds of things done by those who, "care about others." Every predator cares about others, and we know why, don't we?

[RCSaunders]

That is, if you believe there are any "oughts" in the world.

"Ought," like a value term requires an objective, goal, or purpose. Reality determines what is possible and what is not. If any objective is to reached, what, "ought," to be done to reach it is determined by what is possible, because what is not possible cannot achieve the objective. Where there are no objectives, there are no oughts.

Again you are ignorant of much on this matter re morality.

Well, don't worry about. What you mean by, "morality," is something any normal human being is much better off being ignorant of.

[RCSaunders]

RCSauders,

From your posting I gathered you have been brainwashed promoting Ayn Rand ...'

Why do you insist on presuming things about which you have no knowledge at all, especially about what you think others know and think. I've studied Ayn Rand, I've studied, John Calvin, I've studied hundreds of philosophers and often quote them when what they wrote is well expressed. But I do not accept anyone as authority on any subject and certainly not Ayn Rand, and I do not promote anyone else's views.

But I will say this. I have not read a single critique of Ayn Rand's philosophy that ever begins to understand what it is. I have read the entire corpus of Rand's works (except some of her journals which ARI (the Ayn Rand Institute) has suppressed. The quotes you gave are typical of those who are totally ignorant of what she actually wrote and expressed.

If we were to abstract the principles involved within this current fight with COVID19 pandemic, it will be exactly like how I have formalized the Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

I'm certain that is true. Most of the world is driven by ignorant paranoia, irrational fears, and gullibility. My friend, we are all going to die, sooner or later, and there is nothing you can do to stop it. You know you have the life you have now, why not live that life as well as you can. You cannot possibly know there will any life in the future and all your worrying about saving future generations may be totally wasted.

[RCSaunders]

Have you ever had your reading comprehension tested? What I said was: "But for anyone who wanted more than that, who wanted to fully live as a human being and achieve and be all they could possibly be, only taking full responsibility for one's life and choices, learning all one possibly can, thinking as well as one possibly can, and make choices based on knowledge without contradictions is absolutely necessary."

Do you see the word, "good," anywhere in there. Do you see, "independent individualism," in that sentence. Is it your evaluation that the description I gave describes what is good? I only pointed out what would be necessary for anyone who wanted their life to be more than mere existence.

You believe it's "good" or "better" for a person to live more than "mere existence".

Instead of trying to read minds, why don't you ask what someone believes. I do not believe anything is just, "good," or, "better," including how someone lives their life until some specific objective, purpose, end, or goal is specified.

I don't think most people want that.

Yet even though they don't want it, you're attempting to persuade them to your point of view.

Absolutely not! I have no interest in persuading anyone else to think or believe anything. Every individual's life is their own and they must use their own mind to learn, think, and choose how they live.

It's not true, anyway. There are plenty of things people consider very good that they get from being socially interactive or interdependent.

Who said anything about not being socially interactive--and there is a huge difference between social interaction and mutual parasitism (interdependence). Only those relationships which are entered into willingly by all parties where each regards the relationship a value to himself are benevolent relationships. All other relationships are those between slave owner and slave or criminal and victim. You do not seem to know the difference.

So you believe those things are morally wrong; slave ownership, crime, victimization

Not, "morally wrong," but for anyone who chooses to live happily and successfully in this world, crime and oppression of others will preclude it.

[Immanuel Can]

You wrote:

... 'death to the Kulaks,' No pity for them at all? And no condemnation for Joseph Stalin.

... a disgusting and horrible sentiment I could not even think, much less write.

See the question marks, RC? These were questions. I intended no accusation; only an inquiry as to how far you would go. The questions themselves are harmless...whether you say yes or no to them is still entirely up to you.

As such, you are perfectly free to write as you wrote here. And I get it. I wanted to see how far you would got with the logic of "independent individualism." And now it's apparent that you "get off the train" at this station. You won't individually watch other individuals get killed.

That means that you have not been misrepresented. You have been asked what you would and would not stand behind. That's all.

Since the outcome of "independent individualism" taken all the way, is this extreme, then I don't blame you for jumping out. I would, too.

Let me ask you this instead. The government has just mandated that no one be allowed to leave their homes until the corona virus pandemic is over and requires all citizens to report any observed violations of this quarantine. You see you neighbor leaving his home. Do you report him or her to the authorities?

I would presume my neighbour had not heard, and inform him. Hopefully, he would return home. But if not, and if the facts are exactly as you have stated, yes. It is the same case as if I saw my neighbour beating someone else to death; any good person would stop that happening, or would report it immediately to the police, if he could not.

* * *

See, here's the thing, RC. Whether you realize it or not, I'm 80% of where you are. I'm an anti-Collectivist, pro-free-enterprise, pro-free will, anti-Constructionist, anti-Social Justice, small government conservative -- not quite to the Libertarian extreme, and not a Randian or, so far as I can see, the sort of almost-unrestricted-individualist you appear to be. But I realize that the Left has a small wedge of truth that they are using as if it were 100% of the truth...I estimate it at about 20%. But in that 20%, they have a point -- a point worth taking seriously. Human beings are social creatures, and do not do well alone; and we do owe our neighbours certain duties of respect and care. And in saying so, my interest is not in seeing an agenda on the one side or the other advanced to its ultimate extreme, but in balancing the 20% of truth that the Left has with the 80% of truth that the Libertarian side has, so as to arrive at the ideal -- the whole truth.

And my argument to you would be this: the 100% independent individuals argument is unfortunately weak, in that it is too terrified to admit the 20% that the Left has going for it. And this makes it seem lunatic and extreme to anyone balanced better. It strengthen's the Leftist critique, by insisting on being 20% unreasonable, extreme and unrealistic. That 20% is a permanent vulnerability that will keep the conservative agenda from ever seeming balanced, reasonable, thoughtful and truthful.

So what I'm arguing for is that you consider relaxing your hold a tad on the indefensible extreme, relax your fear of social responsibility and even of positive interdependence, in the few issues in which it is necessary, and adopt a view that gives better due place to the importance of others in the life and welfare of the individual. That's the limit of where you and I are disagreeing, really.

Now, you may see conceding anything to the other side as a kind of "selling out the Left." I don't think it is. I think it's listening carefully to your opposition, and trying to prefer the truth to one's particular ideological bent. However, when we drill down, you and I are in 80% the same place.

Let's keep that in view. We're arguing only over what to do about that 20%, not about the broad goal of supporting the idea of individual moral responsibility.

[RCSaunders]

You wrote:

... 'death to the Kulaks,' No pity for them at all? And no condemnation for Joseph Stalin.

... a disgusting and horrible sentiment I could not even think, much less write.

See the question marks, RC?

Of course, but I just followed your example, and only quoted the part that did not say what you mean by itself, just as you only quoted the part of my comment that did not say what I meant by itself. What's good for the goose, is good for the gander.

Let me ask you this instead. The government has just mandated that no one be allowed to leave their homes until the corona virus pandemic is over and requires all citizens to report any observed violations of this quarantine. You see you neighbor leaving his home. Do you report him or her to the authorities?

I would presume my neighbour had not heard, and inform him. Hopefully, he would return home. But if not, and if the facts are exactly as you have stated, yes. It is the same case as if I saw my neighbour beating someone else to death; any good person would stop that happening, or would report it immediately to the police, if he could not.

You would presume. A lot of Jews had neighbors like you in Germany.

See, here's the thing, RC. Whether you realize it or not, I'm 80% of where you are.

No you're not!

I'm an anti-Collectivist, pro-free-enterprise, pro-free will, anti-Constructionist, anti-Social Justice, small government conservative ...

I'm none of those things.

But I realize that the Left has a small wedge of truth that they are using as if it were 100% of the truth...I estimate it at about 20%. But in that 20%, they have a point -- a point worth taking seriously. Human beings are social creatures, and do not do well alone; and we do owe our neighbours certain duties of respect and care.[Emphasis mine.]

Nobody owes me anything and nobody with any personal integrity wants anything from anyone else they have not earned or exchanged equal value for, and, if anyone wants my respect they must make something of themselves for me to respect. Perhaps you need others respect and need others to take care of you. Presume what you like, but you are mistaken if you think everyone suffers from the same deficiencies you do.

And in saying so, my interest is not in seeing an agenda on the one side or the other advanced to its ultimate extreme, but in balancing the 20% of truth that the Left has with the 80% of truth that the Libertarian side has, so as to arrive at the ideal -- the whole truth.

And my argument to you would be this: the 100% independent individuals argument is unfortunately weak, in that it is too terrified to admit the 20% that the Left has going for it. And this makes it seem lunatic and extreme to anyone balanced better. It strengthen's the Leftist critique, by insisting on being 20% unreasonable, extreme and unrealistic. That 20% is a permanent vulnerability that will keep the conservative agenda from ever seeming balanced, reasonable, thoughtful and truthful.

So what I'm arguing for is that you consider relaxing your hold a tad on the indefensible extreme, relax your fear of social responsibility and even of positive interdependence, in the few issues in which it is necessary, and adopt a view that gives better due place to the importance of others in the life and welfare of the individual. That's the limit of where you and I are disagreeing, really.

Now, you may see conceding anything to the other side as a kind of "selling out the Left." I don't think it is. I think it's listening carefully to your opposition, and trying to prefer the truth to one's particular ideological bent. However, when we drill down, you and I are in 80% the same place.

Let's keep that in view. We're arguing only over what to do about that 20%, not about the broad goal of supporting the idea of individual moral responsibility.

Here's your view in a nutshell. "I'm opposed to oppression. I'm opposed to feeding people poison. But in both cases, not an extremist. Oppression and poison are just ducky if it's only 20%.

[IvoryBlackBishop]

Instead of trying to read minds, why don't you ask what someone believes. I do not believe anything is just, "good," or, "better," including how someone lives their life until some specific objective, purpose, end, or goal is specified.

So you don't believe rape or murder are necessarily "bad" or "wrong" - it simply depends on what "end" they're trying to achieve by it?

So what ends make rape and murder acceptable, and which ends don't?

And if this is so, you can't say all government is "wrong", since this would be contradicting what you said earlier; government could only be "wrong" depending on its objective, purpose, end, and so forth.

Absolutely not! I have no interest in persuading anyone else to think or believe anything. Every individual's life is their own and they must use their own mind to learn, think, and choose how they live.

And yet you're evangelizing about it here...

Not, "morally wrong," but for anyone who chooses to live happily and successfully in this world, crime and oppression of others will preclude it.

The criminals obviously don't think so, so why should they care about your "judgment of their lifestyle", or your belief that you're justified in judging how they live?

Plus, that's not any different than a lot of so-called "religious" or "moral" arguments anyway, such as karmic ones.

[Immanuel Can]

You would presume. A lot of Jews had neighbors like you in Germany.

With this difference: that the Jews were harming no one, and the murderer in the street or the plague-stricken spreader were killing people.

"Minor difference," you may say; but still, one I consider significant.

See, here's the thing, RC. Whether you realize it or not, I'm 80% of where you are.

No you're not!

I'm an anti-Collectivist, pro-free-enterprise, pro-free will, anti-Constructionist, anti-Social Justice, small government conservative ...

I'm none of those things.

So you're a Collectivist? A Social Justice type? A big government advocate, and anti-capitalist? A real Leftie?

Imagine my surprise.

Here's your view in a nutshell. "I'm opposed to oppression. I'm opposed to feeding people poison. But in both cases, not an extremist. Oppression and poison are just ducky if it's only 20%.

Well, that's a false analogy, RC, and rather transparently bad.

That 20% of which I spoke is truth, not poison. (And where you got the word "oppression" from, I cannot imagine. It was not mine.)

As I'm sure you'd agree, lies are poison. Truth never is. One can resist the truth, or refuse the truth, or hate the painful truth, and even pay the price of truth; but truth remains good, in spite of all these things.

Right and wrong in these things isn't a matter of ideology, RC. You can't pick one side -- the "individualists" or the "collectivists," and end up being 100% right simply by buying their membership card and their ideological package of beliefs. Neither side has it 100% right, because human beings are fallible, and are NEVER 100% right. Far less are the ideologies they invent. They worship them at their peril.

Truth doesn't care whether it's on the side of "independent individualism" or some other social concern agenda. It just is what it is. And when an ideology, from either the Left or the Right, ceases to be disciplined by truth, it becomes a toxic ideology.

My argument is that the 20% you have wrong is poisoning the 80% you have right, and making the 80% appear irrational, when it's not.

[RCSaunders]

It is more critical with 'without the species, tribe and collective' the individual and individuality will not survive rather the other way round.

I suggest you go out into the woods and explain that to a badger, a bear, or a lynx and come back to tell us how it worked out for you.

Team versus Independent Individual[s]: Collectivists version (for those suffering from throw-back, not-quite-human-yet genetic disorder).

Say there are 100 sacks [10 kg or 25 lbs] of goods to move 5 meters away to a store.
There are 5 men [all same abilities] available to move the goods, therefore each man will have to carry 20 sacks of goods.
Now consider this if you are the supervisor fighting for time;
1. Would it be faster if 5 men were to move the goods individually i.e. each carry 20 sacks to the store,
or
2. The 5 men standing side by side and passing the 100 sacks from one to the next person to the store.
Experiments has shown method 2 is more faster than method 1 due to synergy,
i.e. Synergy is the creation of a whole that is greater than the simple sum of its parts - wiki.

Team versus Independent Individual[s]: (Human version)

There are 100 25 lb. sacks of goods to move 5 meters to a store.

While 5 collectivist stand around trying to decide the best way to manually move the bags as a team, because that's the way it's always been done. A fully human individual who does not do things just because that's what everyone else does, can think for himself, and does not depend on, "studies," done by academics who have never done anything original in their lives, invents a wheel barrow and moves all 100 bags by himself, while the five laborers complain when they lose their job.

[RCSaunders]

You would presume. A lot of Jews had neighbors like you in Germany.

With this difference: that the Jews were harming no one, and the murderer in the street or the plague-stricken spreader were killing people.

"Minor difference," you may say; but still, one I consider significant.

The Germans who turned their Jewish neighbors in to the Gestapo had exactly the same view you do, that they were saving society from some kind of contamination, which they were sure was true, after all the government and the news said so.

See, here's the thing, RC. Whether you realize it or not, I'm 80% of where you are.

No you're not!

I'm an anti-Collectivist, pro-free-enterprise, pro-free will, anti-Constructionist, anti-Social Justice, small government conservative ...

I'm none of those things.

So you're a Collectivist? A Social Justice type? A big government advocate, and anti-capitalist? A real Leftie?

"I haven't stopped beating my wife." "Then you are still beating her." or to use your version of the same lying technique: "I'm not anti-collectivist." "Then you are a collectivist." Not being against something does not mean being for that thing. I'm not a member of any movement, or any kind of -ism, I'm not fighting for or against anything, or promoting anything.

I am not in this world to make sure other people believe and do the right things. My only relationship with others is, except in those cases where others mutually choose to work or associate with me to our mutual benefit, is to stay out of other people's lives and business.

I cannot speak for others, but I do not want anything from anyone else unless I can pay for it in whatever coin (value) another is interested in. I regard all unasked favors as unwelcome intrusions in my life as anyone of real personal virtue and integrity would and assume, unless I learn otherwise, all human beings are virtuous and would desire the same. It would be a presumptuous intrusion to attempt to, "help," another unasked. But that never stopped a moralist who believes he knows what's good for everyone.

Here's your view in a nutshell. "I'm opposed to oppression. I'm opposed to feeding people poison. But in both cases, not an extremist. Oppression and poison are just ducky if it's only 20%.

Well, that's a false analogy, RC, and rather transparently bad.

That 20% of which I spoke is truth, not poison. (And where you got the word "oppression" from.)[/quote]
Well I think the analogy is perfect. You support the, "20% of truth that the Left," has. Since, in the US, at least, the left continually promotes taxing (extorting) producers' money to support the leaches and parasites of society, I think, "oppression," is exactly the right word.

I'm totally a-political and regard all views that believe any good can come from the use of force, except for individual defense, as mental and social poison.

[Immanuel Can]

You would presume. A lot of Jews had neighbors like you in Germany.

With this difference: that the Jews were harming no one, and the murderer in the street or the plague-stricken spreader were killing people.

"Minor difference," you may say; but still, one I consider significant.

The Germans who turned their Jewish neighbors in to the Gestapo had exactly the same view you do, that they were saving society from some kind of contamination, which they were sure was true, after all the government and the news said so.

Well, that's not me. Any imagined analogy glosses over the difference between the plainly innocent and the factually guilty; and I think most sane people would regard that as an important one.

Not being against something does not mean being for that thing.

True. It can entail having no opinion at all. But I'm thinking you do, because you campaign quite loud and long for "individualism." And it's pretty clear you don't like anything at all that smacks of Collectivism...even if that's only how you imagine it to be.

Here's your view in a nutshell. "I'm opposed to oppression. I'm opposed to feeding people poison. But in both cases, not an extremist. Oppression and poison are just ducky if it's only 20%.

Well, that's a false analogy, RC, and rather transparently bad.

That 20% of which I spoke is truth, not poison. (And where you got the word "oppression" from.)

Well I think the analogy is perfect.

Then you don't understand what I'm saying at all, really. And I'm not sure how to help you out, there. It's too far off the truth for me to help you save it.

You support the, "20% of truth that the Left," has. Since, in the US, at least, the left continually promotes taxing (extorting) producers' money to support the leaches and parasites of society, I think, "oppression," is exactly the right word.

Nobody said the 20% I think they're right about includes taxation. In point of fact, it doesn't. It's like your "oppression" reference, which you pulled out of nothing at all I ever said. It's like you've been involuntarily indoctrinated by the Radical Leftist ideologues, and have come to believe there are only two points possible: 100% individualism, or 100% Collectivism, with all the Collectivist jargon thrown in.

In other words, you would make the Radical Lefties very proud. They've successfully caused you to think that when any moderate speaks up for the good of others, or for moral accountability, that person must be only a Radical Leftist, because they want to convince people that nobody can be largely for individualism, or on the right, or capitalist, and be a morally healthy person -- we've all got to be Radical Lefites. In doing this, you've essentially given them their fondest wish...to polarize the debate and take the appearance of holding the moral high ground.

Meanwhile, in that process, you've also let them demonize you. For they wish to cast you as the spokesman for what they always accuse their opponents of being...uncaring, selfish, and incapable of absorbing any concept of the common good. And you may not even care...for individualism will tell you that it doesn't even matter what any others think.

The problem is that the moral field always takes into consideration the status of others. So if you do that, if you vacate the moral field in favour of saying "well, I'm only responsible to myself," then essentially you've surrendered the whole moral field to the Lefties. Congratulations.

Now, you'll note that I've explicitly said, and said several times already, that I agree with them only insofar as they speak about moral responsibility for what happens to the people around you, and insofar as they rightly recognize that human beings are at least partly social creatures. I have said that we do not do well outside of civilization, as well. However, you'll also note things I have NOT said. I do not recall ever having mentioned advocating any taxation, or the oppression narrative, or many of the other things you (wrongly) ascribe to me. Where you got those things from, I recognize...the Lefties! Once again, if you think that's me, they've won with you.

Let's turn to another matter, however. I note this: you're not a thoroughgoing "individualist." You pull back at the point of being so strictly "indvidiualistic" that you will watch the Jewish folks get rounded up, or watching the Kulaks get sent to the gulags, and I'll bet in a whole lot of other areas as well. So you're not an 100% individualist, even if you imagine you are. Let's call it "95% individualist," because you won't tolerate such obvious moral evils.

Which is good. It means you're a better person than a "100% individualist" would ever be. But it also means you're now only arguing with me over the balance point...not whether we are responsible for other people, but at what (perhaps extreme) point we may be. And since you clearly don't know what MY balance point is (since you wrongly ascribe to me an interest in taxation), you don't even really know how much you disagree with me.

Interestingly, you just seem to want to do it anyway. But I think that's more borne of a hatred of even the moderate views on the Left, a hatred that imagines it cannot even hear them speak at all, or hear anyone say they have any point to make, than it is of a balanced reflection.

But you're not a lunatic. You can do better.

[RCSaunders]

Let's turn to another matter, however. I note this: you're not a thoroughgoing "individualist." You pull back at the point of being so strictly "indvidiualistic" that you will watch the Jewish folks get rounded up, or watching the Kulaks get sent to the gulags, and I'll bet in a whole lot of other areas as well. So you're not an 100% individualist, even if you imagine you are. Let's call it "95% individualist," because you won't tolerate such obvious moral evils.

So now you are worried that I'm not 100% individualist? I suppose it doesn't occur to you that perhaps what you think is an individualist is not at all what an individualist means by individualist.

Which is good. It means you're a better person than a "100% individualist" would ever be.

Well, I wouldn't want to be what you think is, "better," because I would have to be less human than I am. I do not think it is possible to be better than a 100% individualist, but not what you think an individualist is.

But it also means you're now only arguing with me over the balance point...not whether we are responsible for other people, but at what (perhaps extreme) point we may be. And since you clearly don't know what MY balance point is (since you wrongly ascribe to me an interest in taxation), you don't even really know how much you disagree with me.

Think whatever you like. I'm not interested in convincing you.

Interestingly, you just seem to want to do it anyway. But I think that's more borne of a hatred of even the moderate views on the Left, a hatred that imagines it cannot even hear them speak at all, or hear anyone say they have any point to make, than it is of a balanced reflection.

As I said, think what you like, but none of my views are determined by hatred of anything, especially the left. Both so-called left and right political views are absurd and entertaining, hardly worth hating.

[Immanuel Can]

Let's turn to another matter, however. I note this: you're not a thoroughgoing "individualist." You pull back at the point of being so strictly "indvidiualistic" that you will watch the Jewish folks get rounded up, or watching the Kulaks get sent to the gulags, and I'll bet in a whole lot of other areas as well. So you're not an 100% individualist, even if you imagine you are. Let's call it "95% individualist," because you won't tolerate such obvious moral evils.

So now you are worried that I'm not 100% individualist?

Worried? No.

Maybe I should be "worried" if you were, but I don't think you're much of a danger to me, either way.

I do not think it is possible to be better than a 100% individualist, but not what you think an individualist is.

A 100% individualist cares nothing for anybody else, except to the extent they serve his self-interest. I wouldn't call that "good," and neither would most folks.

Think whatever you like. I'm not interested in convincing you.

And yet...you've spent a heck of a lot of time trying to convince me.

Well, perhaps that's a wrap, RC.

Still, something worth thinking about: those who vacate the moral field leave it to the Left. And a truly 100% individualist vacates the moral field, in favour of taking care of only himself.

You're not that. You're better than that, as evidenced by your willingness to advocate that people should take more moral responsibility for their own lives, and to argue in favour of it. Evidently, you're still caring enough about people to want to change some minds. But you're giving away too much to the Left if you leave them as the only people who give a moral thought for the welfare of the other.

[RCSaunders]

So what ends make rape and murder acceptable, and which ends don't?

Is this problem for you? You really cannot think of a reason why it is not in your self-interest to rape and murder? I have no such problem. My objective is to be the best human being I can be and to know all I have and enjoy is because I have earned it and my life is all it can possibly be. My own sense of self-worth and personal integrity make it impossible for me to even consider such a despicable question as you ask. I see it's no problem for you.[/quote]

And if this is so, you can't say all government is "wrong", since this would be contradicting what you said earlier; government could only be "wrong" depending on its objective, purpose, end, and so forth.

Government is wrong because there is not a single objective or purpose which it can fulfill, unless you consider oppression, war, mass murder, and the impoverishment of people suitable objectives or purposes.

Absolutely not! I have no interest in persuading anyone else to think or believe anything. Every individual's life is their own and they must use their own mind to learn, think, and choose how they live.

And yet you're evangelizing about it here...

No, I'm just answering ignorant questions as kindly as I can. You and anyone else can think and believe whatever you like about whatever you like, it will make no difference to me. I don't need or want anyone else's agreement or approval of anything I think or choose. It makes one wonderfully free.

Not, "morally wrong," but for anyone who chooses to live happily and successfully in this world, crime and oppression of others will preclude it.

The criminals obviously don't think so, so why should they care about your "judgment of their lifestyle", or your belief that you're justified in judging how they live?

It's not my judgement and there is no reason for anyone to care what I think of how they choose to live their life, because I won't be judging them, reality and their own nature will judge them and, no matter what they think, no one can do wrong and get away with it.

[Veritas Aequitas]

THIS is the problem. There are no "justifiable moral secular oughts."
More than that. Not just "guides" but standards. And the standards themselves don't produce moral improvement, anymore than a thermometer could "produce" the temperature of the atmosphere; the standards can only tell us when we have obtained or located the right actions...it cannot make them happen.

You are too rhetorical here by sliding to a thermometer.
Morality do not work like thermometer with variable standards that are set by humans subjectively.

Thermometers are not arbitrary. If they were, no two would agree.

They are oriented to things like absolute zero, or to O Celsius, the freezing point of water. But they do have to be calibrated; and that means we have to know a fixed point, like absolute zero, in order to know when the level of mercury indicates anything. Otherwise, all we have is a tube with liquid metal in it.

If you are bring in absolute zero, i.e.

"0 K on the Kelvin scale, which is a thermodynamic (absolute) temperature scale; and –273.15 degrees Celsius on the Celsius scale"
https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/absolute_zero.htm

then yes, such a standard can be used to guide improvement in temperature.

Scientists has used this absolute zero [an impossibility] to guide improvements in achieving lower and lower temperature, note;

While scientists can not fully achieve a state of “zero” heat energy in a substance, they have made great advancements in achieving temperatures ever closer to absolute zero (where matter exhibits odd quantum effects).

In 1994, the NIST achieved a record cold temperature of 700 nK (billionths of a kelvin).

In 2003, researchers at MIT eclipsed this with a new record of 450 pK (0.45 nK).
https://www.sciencedaily.com/terms/absolute_zero.htm

It is because scientists has justified and established an absolute zero temperature -273.15C, that they are able to make improvements in the achievements of reaching lower temperature by changing and tuning the related variables.
Otherwise if they has reached -200C, they may think they have reached the absolute.

But for secular morality, we have no such marks. We can't calibrate our moral-ometer from the natural world, because the natural world contains no moral marking points like "absolute morality, and in any case, an "is" does not give us an "ought"; and we can't calibrate our moral-ometer by universal consensus, because for any point we choose, people disagree.

Note the absolute coldest possible temperature also do not exist in the natural world and it is impossible to achieve such a state in nature. [see the above].

It is the same with secular morality.
The absolute moral standards do not exist in nature and not possible in practice, but the absolute moral standard can be justified from empirical evidence and philosophical reasoning.
This absolute moral standard [ought] is then used as a GUIDE only and never enforced.

The moral ought as a GUIDE only can then guide improvement in human behaviors.
The moral ought re no killing of another human is represented as absolutely ZERO death via killing by another human.
If the present count is 1,000,000 death, the ethical actions are then to reduce this 1 million towards absolute zero death by changing and tuning the related variables.
When effective strategies are made, moral improvements will be made, i.e. the number killed will be reduced progressively towards the future.

As I had argued, within Morality [Pure] we justified from empirical evidences and philosophical reasoning the absolute ideal of the Highest Good.

You keep saying this.

But you can't list the empirical evidence you think justifies morality, and tell me what the absolute ideal of the Highest Good is. We don't have what you are claiming we have.

Prove me wrong, if you think I am: just list these "empirical evidences" you think give us morality, and tell me what "the Highest Good" is, so we can all aim at it.

If you can't, then you're just talking about what you WISH we had, but we do not have.

The highest Good is the preservation of the human species optimally as evident empirically.
There is a hierarchy of good that support the highest Good.
One of the contributing objective is ZERO death via killing by another human being.
All humans should adopt the Highest God and the hierarchy of goods as a GUIDE to guide them towards moral improvements.

.. the standards themselves don't produce moral improvement,

Why not?

Easy. Take an easy standard, such as "The purest gold must be 99.9999% free of other metals," say. That's a very empirical standard. It is, in fact, the standard for Perth gold, the purest gold ever minted.

Now, how many gold bars has that standard MADE pure? Not one. The standard itself never smelted a single bar. Rather, it was the standard or "thermometer," if you like, used to decide when the Perth bar had already been smelted by someone. A standard never MADE anything happen, not in all of human history. Rather, human beings referred to that standard to decide whether or not they had arrived at some particular point. That's all.

Morality is a set of standards. It is not a magical "human improvement" machine. Knowing that, say, giving charity to orphans is good, does not prize one single pound, dollar or shekel out of your pocket. It feeds no empty bellies, and provides neither clothing nor shelter.

"The purest gold must be 99.9999% free of other metals,"
It is the necessity of such a stipulated standard that will drive every gold miner and producer to improve on their quality and purity to improve on the existing quality if they have not done so.

In general, these universal standards of physical objects are used for various reasons and cannot be compared to morality which involved behaviors.

Your charity to orphan is off tangent to this discussion.

As I had explained, the moral absolute of ZERO DEATH killed by another human as a GUIDE will guide humans to improve by reducing the number of people killed by another human.
In addition, there is a need for an efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics to ensure everyone is guided to improve one's moral competence via various self-development programs without force but on a voluntary basis.

Let say,
the absolute Moral Ought is,
"no human shall kill another human"

But that isn't true. So we can't "say" that without being arbitrary, and, in fact, wrong.

First of all, people (empirically speaking) kill all the time. You need an "ought." But you aren't going to be able to get one from any reference to empirical situations ("is" situations) and you certainly don't have one in this case. People DO kill.

Secondly, it's not at all true that killing is always bad. If a man breaks into another's house, with the aim of stealing his possessions, harming his children and raping his wife, and the man fights back, and in the course of the struggle kills the home-invader, he's not a murderer...he's a hero.

• the absolute Moral Ought is,
  "no human shall kill another human"

note this is only a GUIDE and not to be enforced. I have repeated this many times.

Yes, due to human nature at the present state, some humans will kill another human for various reasons. This is why we have 400,000 homicides in 2017 worldwide.

It there is no absolute moral standard, people will accept 400,000 homicides per year as the norm and would not be bothered to do anything about it.
All humans are also "programmed" for improvements over any existing state.
But it is only that we must have an absolute moral standard [ought] as a GUIDE that we are able to generate a negative variance to drive reduction and continuous improvements.
Get the point?

It is obvious we will not be able to achieve the impossible ZERO Death via killing of another human from 400,000 homicides but there will be a progressive trend towards the impossible ZERO, provided we are focus on the impossible ZERO target.

There will definitely be the number of killing due to self-defense, passion-killing, accidental, non-premeditated.
Now if our target is ZERO Death regards of what type of killing, the expected negative variance will drive humanity to find preventive solutions to manage the variables involved in self-defense, passion-killing, accidental, non-premeditated.

If we can manage the impulse of those who has strong tendencies to be violent, to hurt, to kill others, then there will be less opportunity for others to be in a state to defend oneself from attack by others.

As you will note from the above, you are always a few step behind because your thinking is shallow and narrow as evident. [This is not ad hominen but stating the facts].

In addition you missed my point.
{don't think it is because of my English, but rather your philosophical confirmation bias}
Suggest you do what Peter Holme did,
he paraphrased my points and seek confirmation and we had to go tru a few posts before he got to understand [not agree] my point.