moral relativism

[Veritas Aequitas]

I think 'morality' covers both what you say and also separate moral codes.
I agree that Dasein is true however I also think that the theory of the axial age offers a practical heuristic for establishing moral codes.

I think all moral codifications are misguided. Sure - they are practical tools at given periods in time/history aimed at tackling immediate issues but they don't survive the test of time.

The mystics were right - the less said. The better.
If not for any other practical reason, but to spare ourselves the time arguing about it.

Waste no time arguing over what a moral person is. Be one...

But your advice would permit all sorts of present day bad activity , from torture to extreme nationalism. The central and key messages of the Axial Age are present world wide and have indeed survived a significant test of time , about 2,500 years.
Moreover both atheists and theists can endorse the central morality of the Axial Age.
Psychologically, is it possible to be a moral man if one lacks any moral principle? I'd have thought I need to be moral about something.

Just like intelligence and other basic functions, humans are "programmed" with the moral potential [with moral principles therein] within their DNA, but being a "Johnny comes lately" it is not active like the other more basic functions [4fs, intelligence, etc.].

Re Maslow's Hierarchy of Need, the moral needs at present are higher up within the hierarchy over the basic psychological needs, thus not dominant but is nevertheless activated. This is the reason for the slow more progress in chattel slavery, i.e. taking more than 10,000 years to arrive at the current state of moral progress related to chattel slavery.

So yes, all humans should be a moral person in alignment with what one is naturally destined for, but we cannot wait for another 1000 years or more to reach higher moral progress unless we make the attempt to find out the exact mechanisms [neural] of the moral system so that we can expedite its progress.
To do so we need to research, explore, debate, argue and discuss about the related moral issues.

[Skepdick]

But your advice would permit all sorts of present day bad activity , from torture to extreme nationalism.

Nothing of that sort. I recognize that the same law that is being exploited for moral purposes can also be exploited for immoral purposes by extremists on either end.

Laws guide the enforcers, not the moral agents.

The central and key messages of the Axial Age are present world wide and have indeed survived a significant test of time , about 2,500 years.
Moreover both atheists and theists can endorse the central morality of the Axial Age.

Not ideologically they can't. Theists would see it as worshipping a false idol. Morality comes from God not man.

The conflicts between these paradigms is over philosophical sacred cows, it's not of any substance.

And yet...humans bicker because they lack the knowledge to unify paradigms.

Psychologically, is it possible to be a moral man if one lacks any moral principle? I'd have thought I need to be moral about something.

Sure. Principles are just best effort expressions of what morality entails.

But after you waste some part of your life trying to put that in perfect words, laws or moral codes - you realize that exercise is itself immoral insofar it robs you of the time of actually being moral.

[Belinda]

But your advice would permit all sorts of present day bad activity , from torture to extreme nationalism.

Nothing of that sort. I recognize that the same law that is being exploited for moral purposes can also be exploited for immoral purposes by extremists on either end.

Laws guide the enforcers, not the moral agents.

The central and key messages of the Axial Age are present world wide and have indeed survived a significant test of time , about 2,500 years.
Moreover both atheists and theists can endorse the central morality of the Axial Age.

Not ideologically they can't. Theists would see it as worshipping a false idol. Morality comes from God not man.

The conflicts between these paradigms is over philosophical sacred cows, it's not of any substance.

And yet...humans bicker because they lack the knowledge to unify paradigms.

Psychologically, is it possible to be a moral man if one lacks any moral principle? I'd have thought I need to be moral about something.

Sure. Principles are just best effort expressions of what morality entails.

But after you waste some part of your life trying to put that in perfect words, laws or moral codes - you realize that exercise is itself immoral insofar it robs you of the time of actually being moral.

But The Golden Rule always conflicts with cheating, torturing and exploiting.True the concept of The Golden Rule may be exploited for evil ends, but intentions governed by the Golden Rule cannot be evil intentions.

You say "Morality comes from God not man". But no, it doesn't. God does not intervene in history: morality evolves unless some cataclysmic event happens that obliterates human cultures.

[Skepdick]

But The Golden Rule always conflicts with cheating, torturing and exploiting.

Does it? Pair it up with the Silver rule - the negative form of the Golden one.

Would I really mind my wife cheating if I was a lousy husband.
Would she mind me cheating if she was a lousy wife?

If torture worked (it doesn't) wouldn't I torture somebody to save loved ones from something worse than torture?
Of course I would. And I would understand if somebody did the same to me.

Exploitation is innevitable. Even in a win win situation somebody wins more.

True the concept of The Golden Rule may be exploited for evil ends, but intentions governed by the Golden Rule cannot be evil intentions.

The road to hell is paved with them...

You say "Morality comes from God not man". But no, it doesn't. God does not intervene in history: morality evolves unless some cataclysmic event happens that obliterates human cultures.

Anything we say about morality; or how it works is too much.

[Belinda]

I think all moral codifications are misguided. Sure - they are practical tools at given periods in time/history aimed at tackling immediate issues but they don't survive the test of time.

The mystics were right - the less said. The better.
If not for any other practical reason, but to spare ourselves the time arguing about it.

Waste no time arguing over what a moral person is. Be one...

But your advice would permit all sorts of present day bad activity , from torture to extreme nationalism. The central and key messages of the Axial Age are present world wide and have indeed survived a significant test of time , about 2,500 years.
Moreover both atheists and theists can endorse the central morality of the Axial Age.
Psychologically, is it possible to be a moral man if one lacks any moral principle? I'd have thought I need to be moral about something.

Just like intelligence and other basic functions, humans are "programmed" with the moral potential [with moral principles therein] within their DNA, but being a "Johnny comes lately" it is not active like the other more basic functions [4fs, intelligence, etc.].

Re Maslow's Hierarchy of Need, the moral needs at present are higher up within the hierarchy over the basic psychological needs, thus not dominant but is nevertheless activated. This is the reason for the slow more progress in chattel slavery, i.e. taking more than 10,000 years to arrive at the current state of moral progress related to chattel slavery.

So yes, all humans should be a moral person in alignment with what one is naturally destined for, but we cannot wait for another 1000 years or more to reach higher moral progress unless we make the attempt to find out the exact mechanisms [neural] of the moral system so that we can expedite its progress.
To do so we need to research, explore, debate, argue and discuss about the related moral issues.

I hope to do so via philosophy and other intellectual interests such as they are for me.

I disagree that holding to the core Axial Age morality is destiny or "what one is naturally destined for". I am a determinist not a fatalist .

[iambiguous]

Question of the Month
What Grounds or Justifies Morality?
Carl Strasen

Secular readers scoff at the idea that God gave the tribe of Israel eternal moral truths codified as the Ten Commandments on a mountaintop in the Sinai desert millennia ago, or that Jesus Christ reiterated as the Son of God that we are to ‘love the neighbor as the self’ (Leviticus 19:18).

Actually, where any number of secular readers scoff is when confronted with the threat of eternal damnation. Accept Jesus Christ as your own personal savior or you are toast --- roasted 24/7 when He sends you down.

On the other hand, if the Christian God is shown to exist -- He reveals Himself for example -- what then if you worship and adore another God? One that, in fact, does not exist. Or what if by and large the Christian God does turn out to be a rather sadistic sort? He just sent Helene to Florida and He has many more "acts of God" coming down the pike. Many of these ghastly calamities He pummels us with infuriate you...but you come around to them because, well, the alternative is Hell or Purgatory or Oblivion. And, of course, those "mysterious ways".

Yet divine communications to the sages through the ages has had a huge impact on morality. Moral truths cannot be proven, but they resonate through our lives, since we always act or try to act as if they are true.

Yet even here most of us acquire our understanding of God as children. The Divine communication is derived from Mom and Dad and other family members, more or less reflecting the will of the community or, in some cases, the theocratic state

As Rupert Shortt notes in God is No Thing (2017), “Christianity’s stress on the radical equality of all, and the founding of hospitals, schools and other philanthropic institutions, were [sic] genuinely revolutionary.”

Coinciding over and again historically with the Protestant Reformation. Coinciding over and again with the historical evolution of mercantilism and capitalism. The Catholic hierarchy with its "other world" mentality had their own way of accumulating comforts on this side of the grave....

"Bankers' best guesses about the Vatican's wealth put it at $10 billion to $15 billion. Of this wealth, Italian stockholdings alone run to $1.6 billion, 15% of the value of listed shares on the Italian market. The Vatican has big investments in banking, insurance, chemicals, steel, construction, real estate." time magazine

The Protestants on the other hand not only rendered unto Caesar but are eagerly prepared these days to render unto Trump as well. And not just the Evangelicals.

A sailor was asked what the most important piece of equipment on a sailboat is. They replied, “A good anchor!” When the wind blows hard in the wrong direction, you need a source of moral absolutes and a good anchor. And as Henry Bergson writes in The Two Sources of Morality and Religion (1932), “through religion all men get a little of what a few privileged souls possess in full.“

That is basically how it has all unfolded alright. And the good news for many is that there are so many different privileged paths to choose from: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions

[Belinda]

But The Golden Rule always conflicts with cheating, torturing and exploiting.

Does it? Pair it up with the Silver rule - the negative form of the Golden one.

Would I really mind my wife cheating if I was a lousy husband.
Would she mind me cheating if she was a lousy wife?

If torture worked (it doesn't) wouldn't I torture somebody to save loved ones from something worse than torture?
Of course I would. And I would understand if somebody did the same to me.

Exploitation is innevitable. Even in a win win situation somebody wins more.

True the concept of The Golden Rule may be exploited for evil ends, but intentions governed by the Golden Rule cannot be evil intentions.

The road to hell is paved with them...

You say "Morality comes from God not man". But no, it doesn't. God does not intervene in history: morality evolves unless some cataclysmic event happens that obliterates human cultures.

Anything we say about morality; or how it works is too much.

Good intentions are necessary but not sufficient to do good or to avoid evil.
Good intentions

True, sometimes good or evil happens willy nilly' however we are discussing morality not acts of god.

Good intentions , to bear fruit, need the power of agency. This power is composed of knowledge, judgement, and sympathy, not necessarily on that order.

[iambiguous]

Question of the Month
What Grounds or Justifies Morality?
Guy Blythman

Guidelines ruling out negative behaviour between a society’s members, are justified and grounded both in practical considerations and in those one might call spiritual or emotional.

Here, for example. Guidelines that may or may not be pursued and then enforced. The part about politics, of course. The part about objectivism. The parts embodied in dasein and in philosophical prejudices.

But then down through the ages, the part where some philosophers avidly championed sets of behaviors that other philosophers just as avidly eschewed. All of the different schools of philosophy that focus not so much on what they believe is rational and moral but in insisting that there is, in fact, the best of all possible technical methods in which to pin that down: deontology, consequentialism, utilitarianism, contractualism, pragmatism, metaethics, postmodernism, deconstruction, "realism, relativism, and nihilism".

It is less likely people will respect you and seek to do you good if you do not respect them. It is therefore prudent to promote moral behaviour.

Then the part historically where, in particular communities, rewards and punishments tended to revolve either around one or another rendition of right makes might or democracy and the rule of law. Not to mention those theocratic thugs which were and often still are often little than "might makes right" autocracies.

But morality is of even more value when derived from virtue, that is, a genuine desire to benefit one’s fellow creatures. Practising benign emotions leads to happiness – your own or others’ – whereas the negative emotions, or indifference, lead to unhappiness through their harmful effects. And happiness gives purpose to life, being therefore rational. One can only either ‘just live’, or have a reason for living which one is seeking to actuate. So to live without a reason, a purpose, would be illogical.

Right, right. As though down through the centuries we haven't encountered any number of communities that understood happiness in very different ways. For some happiness revolved around capitalism, for others socialism. For some big government, for others little or no government at all. For some everything comes to pertain to me, myself and I, for others it's we, the community, "our people". For some it's God, for others ideology.

In fact only a lower organism could simply live. A fully conscious, sentient being would seek a purpose for living and identify it as emotional gratification. That gratification should include the uplifting feeling we experience when treated to the milk of human kindness, and the sense of wellbeing from knowing you have saved a life or done something to improve a life’s quality.

Indeed, and if we could somehow create and then sustain a world that revolves more around "they're right from their side and we're right from our side", replacing government edicts with moderation, negotiation and compromise...?

Alas, in nation after nation, the world now seems more intent instead on putting so-called "strongmen" in power.

You do the math when they are in charge. Or else.

[iambiguous]

Question of the Month
What Grounds or Justifies Morality?
Stylianos Smyrnaios

Why should someone be moral if they know that by breaking the law they will be able to escape the consequences? If I’m sure that by robbing a bank I’m going to get rich and that nobody’s going to arrest me, why wouldn’t I?

Or, sure, you accept the possibility of being caught, but roll the dice. After all, you may not get caught, and even if you are, what's a few years in prison compared to all of eternity in Hell? That's why it doesn't really surprise me at all that...

In the Republic, Plato says that even if they escape human law, an offender must face the possibility of punishment after death.

Of course! God and/or the Gods have always been around for the deontologists to fall back on. And fall back on Him/Them, they did. In droves. And why wouldn't they when even a cursory understanding of crime and punishment reveals the enormous gap between laws and moral commandments.

Some philosophers agree with Plato that when one follows the dictates of reason and conforms to the moral law, one acquires a form of inner harmony, a mental health that makes happy.

I suspect however that philosophers of Plato's ilk wrapped their mental health around the assumptions they made about God, and in regard to such things as "Theory of Forms" and the "allegory of the cave".

Talk about general description intellectual contraptions.

Otherwise, inner imbalance makes one deeply unhappy.

Actually, in my view, what makes any number of philosophers here experience imbalance is when others refuse to share their own assessment of what that "inner balance" means. And we all know those in particular here who can get really, really unhappy if that happens.

Aristotle for example considers that only by observing the moral law is a person led to happiness, as people reach their telos, completing the purpose for which they were created.

Then the part where whose like me ask those like him to bring the Moral Law and Golden Mean down out of the theoretical clouds and note their applicability to actually human interactions.

So for Plato and Aristotle, moral behavior contributes to the life of humans in harmony with their inner world and their fellow human beings, identified with happiness or mental balance.

Of course, it's been thousands of years since Plato and Aristotle advised us on things such as this. So, "here and now" how are philosophers doing in the quest for a deontological morality.

[Belinda]

Question of the Month
What Grounds or Justifies Morality?
Stylianos Smyrnaios

Why should someone be moral if they know that by breaking the law they will be able to escape the consequences? If I’m sure that by robbing a bank I’m going to get rich and that nobody’s going to arrest me, why wouldn’t I?

Or, sure, you accept the possibility of being caught, but roll the dice. After all, you may not get caught, and even if you are, what's a few years in prison compared to all of eternity in Hell? That's why it doesn't really surprise me at all that...

In the Republic, Plato says that even if they escape human law, an offender must face the possibility of punishment after death.

Of course! God and/or the Gods have always been around for the deontologists to fall back on. And fall back on Him/Them, they did. In droves. And why wouldn't they when even a cursory understanding of crime and punishment reveals the enormous gap between laws and moral commandments.

Some philosophers agree with Plato that when one follows the dictates of reason and conforms to the moral law, one acquires a form of inner harmony, a mental health that makes happy.

I suspect however that philosophers of Plato's ilk wrapped their mental health around the assumptions they made about God, and in regard to such things as "Theory of Forms" and the "allegory of the cave".

Talk about general description intellectual contraptions.

Otherwise, inner imbalance makes one deeply unhappy.

Actually, in my view, what makes any number of philosophers here experience imbalance is when others refuse to share their own assessment of what that "inner balance" means. And we all know those in particular here who can get really, really unhappy if that happens.

Aristotle for example considers that only by observing the moral law is a person led to happiness, as people reach their telos, completing the purpose for which they were created.

Then the part where whose like me ask those like him to bring the Moral Law and Golden Mean down out of the theoretical clouds and note their applicability to actually human interactions.

So for Plato and Aristotle, moral behavior contributes to the life of humans in harmony with their inner world and their fellow human beings, identified with happiness or mental balance.

Of course, it's been thousands of years since Plato and Aristotle advised us on things such as this. So, "here and now" how are philosophers doing in the quest for a deontological morality.

The trials of Nazis at Nuremberg settled the deontological question for the foreseeable future. The Nuremberg defence is unacceptable, except for young children and .slow learners.

[iambiguous]

Question of the Month
What Grounds or Justifies Morality?
Stylianos Smyrnaios

Why should someone be moral if they know that by breaking the law they will be able to escape the consequences? If I’m sure that by robbing a bank I’m going to get rich and that nobody’s going to arrest me, why wouldn’t I?

Or, sure, you accept the possibility of being caught, but roll the dice. After all, you may not get caught, and even if you are, what's a few years in prison compared to all of eternity in Hell? That's why it doesn't really surprise me at all that...

In the Republic, Plato says that even if they escape human law, an offender must face the possibility of punishment after death.

Of course! God and/or the Gods have always been around for the deontologists to fall back on. And fall back on Him/Them, they did. In droves. And why wouldn't they when even a cursory understanding of crime and punishment reveals the enormous gap between laws and moral commandments.

Some philosophers agree with Plato that when one follows the dictates of reason and conforms to the moral law, one acquires a form of inner harmony, a mental health that makes happy.

I suspect however that philosophers of Plato's ilk wrapped their mental health around the assumptions they made about God, and in regard to such things as "Theory of Forms" and the "allegory of the cave".

Talk about general description intellectual contraptions.

Otherwise, inner imbalance makes one deeply unhappy.

Actually, in my view, what makes any number of philosophers here experience imbalance is when others refuse to share their own assessment of what that "inner balance" means. And we all know those in particular here who can get really, really unhappy if that happens.

Aristotle for example considers that only by observing the moral law is a person led to happiness, as people reach their telos, completing the purpose for which they were created.

Then the part where whose like me ask those like him to bring the Moral Law and Golden Mean down out of the theoretical clouds and note their applicability to actually human interactions.

So for Plato and Aristotle, moral behavior contributes to the life of humans in harmony with their inner world and their fellow human beings, identified with happiness or mental balance.

Of course, it's been thousands of years since Plato and Aristotle advised us on things such as this. So, "here and now" how are philosophers doing in the quest for a deontological morality.

The trials of Nazis at Nuremberg settled the deontological question for the foreseeable future. The Nuremberg defence is unacceptable, except for young children and .slow learners.

That's certainly one way to look at it. On the other hand, there are those who to this very day continue to insist the Final Solution was, in fact, a moral crusade to rid the world of people the Nazis had accumulated their own moral and political prejudices regarding. And, after all, any number of Jews see themselves [and only themselves] as God's chosen people. Just as any number of Christians and Muslims do.

And who wants to be told by others that their souls are damned for all of eternity because God chose another people instead.

And then the part where the Final Solution now unfolding in Netanyahu's head is being plotted against his enemies instead.

[Belinda]

Question of the Month
What Grounds or Justifies Morality?
Stylianos Smyrnaios



Or, sure, you accept the possibility of being caught, but roll the dice. After all, you may not get caught, and even if you are, what's a few years in prison compared to all of eternity in Hell? That's why it doesn't really surprise me at all that...



Of course! God and/or the Gods have always been around for the deontologists to fall back on. And fall back on Him/Them, they did. In droves. And why wouldn't they when even a cursory understanding of crime and punishment reveals the enormous gap between laws and moral commandments.



I suspect however that philosophers of Plato's ilk wrapped their mental health around the assumptions they made about God, and in regard to such things as "Theory of Forms" and the "allegory of the cave".

Talk about general description intellectual contraptions.



Actually, in my view, what makes any number of philosophers here experience imbalance is when others refuse to share their own assessment of what that "inner balance" means. And we all know those in particular here who can get really, really unhappy if that happens.



Then the part where whose like me ask those like him to bring the Moral Law and Golden Mean down out of the theoretical clouds and note their applicability to actually human interactions.



Of course, it's been thousands of years since Plato and Aristotle advised us on things such as this. So, "here and now" how are philosophers doing in the quest for a deontological morality.

The trials of Nazis at Nuremberg settled the deontological question for the foreseeable future. The Nuremberg defence is unacceptable, except for young children and .slow learners.

That's certainly one way to look at it. On the other hand, there are those who to this very day continue to insist the Final Solution was, in fact, a moral crusade to rid the world of people the Nazis had accumulated their own moral and political prejudices regarding. And, after all, any number of Jews see themselves [and only themselves] as God's chosen people. Just as any number of Christians and Muslims do.

And who wants to be told by others that their souls are damned for all of eternity because God chose another people instead.

And then the part where the Final Solution now unfolding in Netanyahu's head is being plotted against his enemies instead.

Whole cultures may be evil for the reason that they condemn certain demographic groups as sub-human. Nobody know what is is to be a human being, and all thinking people are in process of trying to find out what it is to be a human being.
Self-selected 'chosen peoples' have not understood the wisdom in their religions, and so their political beliefs are superficial and usually supported by lies.

[iambiguous]

Question of the Month
What Grounds or Justifies Morality?
Stylianos Smyrnaios

Morality also guards the coherence of societies, outside of which we cannot live. Selfish motives are not always predominant: very often there are positive feelings of compassion, sympathy and love towards others. This comes from a mental need for communication and solidarity amid the hard trials we face in life. This is the most essential answer to the question of why one should be moral.

Then Marx and Engels came along and suggested that human motivation revolves as well around the nature of political economy...as it too evolves over the centuries sustaining one or another means of production.

In other words, as though the means of communication and solidarity have little or nothing to do with either political or economic power.

Now back up into the clouds...

Since we accept that we must maintain a moral attitude to life, we must consider the following principles. Any moral judgment has a practical character. In essence, it guides us on how we should act in our lives.

Cue the pragmatists?

Moral judgments are universal by nature. The same principles apply in similar circumstances, and to people with similar characteristics. In making and acting on moral judgments we must consider the rights and interests of other people, as our behavior always affects them too. We must understand certain values as essential components of justice; for example, the common good, impartiality, equal treatment, and respect for basic individual rights and freedoms. Finally, we must cultivate the virtues which will allow us to act correctly in situations of moral dilemmas.

See what I mean? All up and down the moral and political and spiritual and philosophical spectrum there are those who will embrace this frame of mind. Only to tack on a proviso:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

Chances are your own is among them.

[Belinda]

Question of the Month
What Grounds or Justifies Morality?
Stylianos Smyrnaios

Morality also guards the coherence of societies, outside of which we cannot live. Selfish motives are not always predominant: very often there are positive feelings of compassion, sympathy and love towards others. This comes from a mental need for communication and solidarity amid the hard trials we face in life. This is the most essential answer to the question of why one should be moral.

Then Marx and Engels came along and suggested that human motivation revolves as well around the nature of political economy...as it too evolves over the centuries sustaining one or another means of production.

In other words, as though the means of communication and solidarity have little or nothing to do with either political or economic power.

Now back up into the clouds...

Since we accept that we must maintain a moral attitude to life, we must consider the following principles. Any moral judgment has a practical character. In essence, it guides us on how we should act in our lives.

Cue the pragmatists?

Moral judgments are universal by nature. The same principles apply in similar circumstances, and to people with similar characteristics. In making and acting on moral judgments we must consider the rights and interests of other people, as our behavior always affects them too. We must understand certain values as essential components of justice; for example, the common good, impartiality, equal treatment, and respect for basic individual rights and freedoms. Finally, we must cultivate the virtues which will allow us to act correctly in situations of moral dilemmas.

See what I mean? All up and down the moral and political and spiritual and philosophical spectrum there are those who will embrace this frame of mind. Only to tack on a proviso:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_r ... traditions
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_p ... ideologies
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_s ... philosophy

Chances are your own is among them.

"Then Marx and Engels came along and suggested that human motivation revolves as well around the nature of political economy...as it too evolves over the centuries sustaining one or another means of production."

Yes but one thing we do know about human nature is humans are not political economy machines, but unlike machines adapt to a huge variety of often adverse circumstances.And that is true not only of natural selection but also true of individuals. The addition of socialism was badly needed in the Black Satanic Mills. What we need now is still to be invented -evolved-created, if climate change and atomic missiles allow us the time to do so.

My bet is on universal education, especially for all potential and actual thinkers ; that's why I'm a liberal socialist.

[Iwannaplato]

Question of the Month
What Grounds or Justifies Morality?
Stylianos Smyrnaios

Morality also guards the coherence of societies, outside of which we cannot live. Selfish motives are not always predominant: very often there are positive feelings of compassion, sympathy and love towards others. This comes from a mental need for communication and solidarity amid the hard trials we face in life. This is the most essential answer to the question of why one should be moral.

Then Marx and Engels came along and suggested that human motivation revolves as well around the nature of political economy...as it too evolves over the centuries sustaining one or another means of production.

In other words, as though the means of communication and solidarity have little or nothing to do with either political or economic power.

Now back up into the clouds...

The above that I highlighted is already in the clouds. The clouds were never abandoned.

Since we accept that we must maintain a moral attitude to life, we must consider the following principles. Any moral judgment has a practical character. In essence, it guides us on how we should act in our lives.

Cue the pragmatists?

Meaning?

Moral judgments are universal by nature. The same principles apply in similar circumstances, and to people with similar characteristics. In making and acting on moral judgments we must consider the rights and interests of other people, as our behavior always affects them too. We must understand certain values as essential components of justice; for example, the common good, impartiality, equal treatment, and respect for basic individual rights and freedoms. Finally, we must cultivate the virtues which will allow us to act correctly in situations of moral dilemmas.

See what I mean? All up and down the moral and political and spiritual and philosophical spectrum there are those who will embrace this frame of mind. Only to tack on a proviso:

Is it different from suggesting that compromise, negotiation and moderation were the values that seemed best to you. Yeah, sure you admitted this came from dasein, your own. But you pressed for these values for years while judging other values. There are many objectivists who consider their positions potentially fallible.

You didn't really address whether a common morals might lead to societal cohesion, might not be so different from suggesting for example that we be moderate, compromising and negotiate, at least for many people. Do you think he was wrong in his assertion that morals can lead to societal cohesion?

And yes, I am aware of potential problems that can arise from such cohesion and also from the lack of it. But it seems like compromise, moderation and negotiation as values seem to value cohesion. Is it possible he was saying something similar to what you used to believe, if you no longer do, when you called for those values?