Morality must be fundamentally concerned with experience, not principle.

[Ourora Aureis]

Experience is the totality of ones instances of qualia and mind. This is a pretty unique way of defining it, but you should understand the substance of its meaning though its contextual use below.

Individuals value experience and arrange differing instances of experience into hierrachies, denoting their value in relation to eachother. This is a neccesary condition for the concept of value to have meaning. To value is to prefer over another (this doesnt mean you cannot have equivalent value).

However, individuals do not exist only to experience an instance of qualia. Instances of qualia proceed the other, leading to chains of experience. These instances are not predetermined and are constantly influenced by our actions. Our actions are therefore valuable based upon the lines of experience they travel through. (No this isn't a debate about free will, to an individuals perspective, all outside factors appear to be predetermined).

All ethical frameworks must refer either to some principle or experience itself (as we have a natural preference and rationality which can be used to ground our morality, subjectively of course).

All principles are neccesarily arbitrary, since one can easy construct an anti-principle and yet it has the same effect in a moral framework. As explanations which use the same arguments must be considered equal in terms of explanatory value, all principles are in effect the same as all others. Since I can create a randomness principle, stating to commit acts randomly, it holds no weight for a moral framework to ground itself in.

However, one cannot construct an anti-experience as it is not a conceptual ideal placed onto the world, but our reality. The mistake moral philosophers make is to ignore the quality of perspective. Principles must apply to the entirely of reality via what they are. However, you only experience yourself and your inherent inclinations, and rationality. Experience can ground an egoist morality, but principles are susceptible to other principles, it provides no grounding.

No, experience is not a principle. The sensory inputs entering your eyes, and the preference for orange juice over apple juice are not conceptual ideas, but are natural values we hold and so can be used to ground an ethical egoist morality.

I do not believe in the existence of objective categories, this includes moral or aesthetic values. However I believe value can be described just as langauge can, its simply subjective and can be molded to your personal use. However, just because something isn't "objective" does not mean it can be literally anything, you must follow your own set of rules if you choose to make a framework. Morality is simply a system to designate whether to commit to an action or not, just as the purpose of language is to communicate and store information, withoput consistency they are both meaningless.

Surprisingly, some consequentialists who understand this inherent flaw of principles and degrade a belief in deontology, do not realise they themselves use principles to value "all conscious beings" even at the cost to their own experiences, and even in cases where they not do know of the existence of these beings (a hypothetical principle, arguably the worst kind).

If you define morality as something completely seperate from what I'm describing here then thats fine but do not enter needlessly into a semantic rant. For all intended purposes, assume I have said "value-action system". Also, to avoid more semantic confusion, this isn't a psychological analysis but a model of morality.

I would like those responding to suggest how principles could be used to ground morality and gives potential examples of such.