morality

Clearly. Hence, “morality”.

Philosophically, I can only assert that all beings are good to themselves, even if they do not think so - because they always behave according to their values, whether they can own up to them or not. If not, they feel shame, or guilt, or simply sorrow. This too reflects their consistency toward themselves, their standards. A positive standard is what we bounce the idea ‘good’ off, what makes this idea sensible.

All beings are good in their own terms
The consequences of the enactment of the terms of different beings differ
Therefore, conflict is good.
The outcome of conflicts often involves the end of a being
therefore the end of beings is good.

I present this as something for people to attack logically. I am aware of the prejudice that ties the argument together. This is what makes it a morality rather than a philosophical observation.

Have you read social psychology? Humans are not rational animals, they are led by instinct and passion. You can see it in day to day reality, you don’t need propaganda to tell you that.

Notice in my quote:

If a murderer gets away with it, and if they has no regret, paranoia, etc. about it, then breaking a moral law would be irrelevant to them. I am not in favor of murder at all, that is not what I am arguing here.

I am in agreement with this if we say that it is more true to the character of those who do not think of themselves as good that they act in accordance with what they do think is good (for example the community). If that is so, then I agree with this.

Why do you keep referring to what people might reject, like, or feel?
We are talking about the objective reality, not what people might accept. Very few people accepted that the Earth wasn’t flat. For some strange reason, their rejection didn’t change the fact of it. Some things just take getting used to before fully accepting.

Because morality is intricately tied to a belief of the best life. Beliefs about how to act are not stable, they are a result of perspective (who the subject is, where he/she is, what he/she is capable, what are the current goals, what are expectations). There is objective knowledge which is relevant, it is knowledge of natural law, the current conditions of convention, and prudential virtues. Physics are a form of natural law. Certain feats can only be accomplished with a knowledge of physics, so in that case it is necessary to have that knowledge. I previously made the proposition that the closest we would come was prudential virtues (so there is awareness/knowledge and training/skill). This knowledge combined with forms of natural laws (in which I am including scientific law, though true, there is a distinction, I just did not make it grammatically. I suppose to say a knowledge of physis might be better.), and current convention, is a basis for how to live which gets as close to objectivity as I can see it. How people apply this knowledge varies.

It is good to possess that knowledge mentioned (physis, the state of convention, and prudential virtues) as well as the skill to apply it.

Add to this this:

and you are closer to what I would consider a true system of ethics. Ultimately though, the application (or way of life) depends on the circumstance and disposition of the interactant.

FC speaks of the currently popular subjective morality. But there can never be a subjective reality without an objective reality underlying it. And every subjective morality must have an objective morality underlying it as well.

It took some 10-12,000 years for Man to learn of basic physics, which he still seems to not have exactly right. The physical laws never changed merely because Man imagined them to be different. It’s understandable for Man to take another 1000 years or so to grasp the morality that has also never changed regardless of his great imaginative misunderstandings of it. It is deducible that it exists to be discovered.

If you feel it is a worthwhile task then that is a good thing. I would never try to keep you from it. I have stated what occurs to me through my inquiry. I will continue to engage in directions of inquiry and I am open to new insights as they arise.

As I originally said

If you, and perhaps others, make breakthroughs in the field that is great. As you know the truth will out in the end. And, as for what needn’t be said, if you feel that way I’m sure my perspective won’t keep you from engaging in potentially fruitful iquiry. Only I feel, from the conclusions I have gathered, my mind is better applied elsewhere, like areas of knowledge I referred to above, in particular practical virtue.

You seem to confuse the terms morality and reality.

Could you explain why you’d set this as a condition? I do not see how this directly matters for what I said to be true or not.

I could agree, generally, that there are degrees of individual- and community- based ‘goodness’ to the mind of men. But all communities revolve around individuals, and those that form structurally crucial components of a community act as standards of ‘good’ to the ones that join the community to find support and alike-valuing humans. Somewhat hypoerbolically, I am saying is that the ‘‘idea’’ (standard) of goodness is the cohesive component of the conscious form of being. Thus, a refined notion of morality is essential to understand oneself.

What is the probability?

Even in VO, if an entity does not value itself, it disintegrates. Thus not self-valuing is immoral, not benefiting itself nor the community that was expecting or depending on it to do so.

Every life has certain specific abstract needs that are the same for every other life. To not maintain those is to not self-value and to not actually be living because of the definition of “living”. Thus to not maintain those specific abstract needs is immoral, not benefiting itself nor any community that was expecting or depending on it doing so. It is objectively true whether it is or isn’t doing so, thus objectively immoral if not doing so.

Assuming that there was such a community, and that the decay is not seen as moral by other entities. So - only under conditions of a specified teleological (moral) context.

This thus stands refuted.

And here we’re back at the permises of the OP. If we take the largest context we can grasp, (never “The Whole” – we are not primitives – but for example the perceivable/conceivable universe) and affirm/“will” its existence, both struggle and death are “moral”.

Any more specific context, teleologically perceived, also includes the death of many entities, as well as perpetual struggle.

Good, benefit, moral.
Death isn’t on that list.

And perception and “what it is seen as” have nothing to do with it.

James, what did you have for breakfast?
Was it good? Did it benefit you?

Is it still alive?

Your mother.

There are abstract inherent needs that are common for all people that lead to a best possible behavior regarding how one interacts with oneself, a personal morality. And there are social groups that depend upon interactions between members of the groups which leads to a best possible interaction behavior, a social morality.

And because a person can only have one actual morality, there is a best possible combination of the personal and social moralities that constitutes the single best possible morality that can be obtained. That best possible morality has an abstract objective foundation as well as versatile subjective amendments. But if you are about to suggest that either offering oneself up to be someone else’s breakfast or having someone else for breakfast is the best possible behavior and morality, I think that I will just leave this discussion in the mud.

Huh?

Why are you assuming conflict is additive? Why can’t a good against a good cancel out?

There’s the million dollar question.

I won’t answer it. This is my morality.

This is utter nonsense dear boy.

All this is predicated on

  • existence of exact terms of good
  • singularity of their validity
  • teleological nature of life

and a couple of other things from Abrahams hollow leg that I reject with extreme prejudice.

The only thing that you said that was accurate.

Morality is a why turned into a how.

A faultily answered why becomes a belief. Say for example; a God.
This God now in turn becomes the How. Not only the "how to creation, but mainly the How to society and Humanity.

At one point, all that matters is the ends, and the means become farcical. This happens after one has already attained the true ends, for which sound and integer means (sound to the heart) are essential. Ends found by nasty means are never originating acts, they are victories in a chain of sorrow. Much victory is provided in this way by the universe to man - there is much possibility to take the wrong good at the wrong time and create a gate of debauchery and hedonism where pleasure is reaped like paint of fresco’s in the wind of time. And to have pleasure as the painting, as the creator of that paint, oil turned into color in magical processes and into visions by human skill, the shape out of shape, this pleasure is timing and delicacy, it can pass one by for a decade as in the blind of an eye - there is time within it, and time without it, and when the two meet it is disaster or divine. Epicurus is the first walker of this ledge, the first man who saw good only opposed in error, and error only in distraction. Those to whom life is essentially good, and to whom philosophy is a means to keep it undisturbed, are wise, but those who seek goodness as a final end are utter fools; and good nonetheless