morality

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

It’s the only part you can recognize the truthfulness of, absolutely.

…and there is a reason for that. Reasoning, rationality, philosophy … all related.

Edit: Nevermind

This is why any proper ethics system is a selecting device. It can never be the aim to include everyone, yet it must be open to everyone who meets the standards.
In fact there is not that much of a difference between a standard and a system of ethics.

And this is why, in this particular thread, I only seek resonance, not agreement.

Morality: The ideological and philosophical systems of bullshit.

The art of manipulation by saying one thing and doing the complete opposite.

A shield of immunity for one’s actions especially if you say you’re doing something in the name of God, government, or the so called greater social good.

Use those three excuses in the name of tyranny and you can get away with the most horrific of actions.

Am I missing anything here?

Not essentially. Morality is always an excuse to stop thinking and feeling at a certain threshold.

How do you understand the difference between morality and ethics…

Never mind you don’t.