Morality in a Perfect World

Topic's posts
Posts in total: 77
--> @RationalMadman
Fair enough 
--> @secularmerlin
I would thank you for the compliment but I am aware of how quickly you become sarcastic and dismissive in elongated interaction.
--> @RationalMadman
It is not my intention to be either. In fact sarcasm doesn't translate well into static posts and I find it is better to say what you mean. 
--> @secularmerlin

--> @RationalMadman
I recall you didn't like the idea that you could not be right about a hypothetical boxes contents but sometimes that's how hypothetical boxes are.
Moral concepts {metaphysical-1 } are based in action.  I think there is some buddhist teachings or sayings in those regards,

right action, right livelyhood, right thoughts{ think good thoughts } etc.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes as complementaries.

1} Perfection is metphysical-1, mind/intellect/concept ex a perfect circle or sphere does not exist only closer and closer approximations of perfection.

2} Morality is cause and effect ergo detereministic, occupied space judgement ergo an action based on circumstances and all actions are tainted properties that  have;

charge{ ex emotion plus or minus }, color, taste, spin, temperature, complexity, direction and magnitude.

If yes, must they always coexist?"
Yes, occupied space and concepts are eternally complementary to each other in general, not in every specific special-case.


Ex we have existence of a macro-infinite non-occupied space and the concept such a space, whereas we do not have an infinite set of occupied space dogs, automobiles numbers etc, yet we can have the concept ---talking point--   of such and this is known as a fiction { falsehood/false narrative }.




--> @secularmerlin
If you don't bet on it being purple, in your scenario, you are not playing optimally.
--> @RationalMadman
There is no optimal play. You simply cannot know what is in the box. Ever. This is not sarcasm or dismissiveness it is actually a parameter of the thought experiment. 
--> @bsh1
To answer your question:

"Can morality and perfection coexist? If yes, must they always coexist? What implications might this have for discussions of heaven and hell, for example."

Yes, and yes. A person's moral character is intertwined with the concept of "a perfect person." If a person is amoral or immoral, then they aren't as great, for example, as an identical person who is also morally good. Maximal greatness is the same thing as perfection.
 
Morality can co-exist in a perfect world if people choose to do good. Perhaps those who chose to do God's will here on Earth will be guaranteed a perfect world in Heaven and their "choice" was made during their years on Earth.




--> @Fallaneze
There is a lot to unpack here so let's start with "perfect person". Perfect is a subjective standard to begin with. Moral perfection and physical perfection are not the same thing and mean different things do different people anyway.

--> @secularmerlin
I don't accept your view that perfection is wholly subjective.
--> @Fallaneze
I understand that but the mere fact that we disagree does certainly seem to indicate subjectivity. 

--> @secularmerlin
There have been many disagreements over science's history. It doesn't mean they aren't arguing over interpretation of facts. Quantum mechanics still has about 7 interpretations.
--> @Fallaneze
You and I mean different things when we say perfection. If there is some objective perfect then it is clearly unknowable and an unknown thing or concept is indistinguishable from a nonexistent one. Perfection is, by any measurable metric, subjective. 
--> @secularmerlin
Perfect circle, perfect square... geometry.
--> @Fallaneze
Those are mathematical distinctions. A perfectly shaped human is not, I suspect, what you mean by perfect human. In any case perfection as described mathematically would seem to be unattainable and so is only a hypothetical model. 

Now please try again but without falsely conflating the meaning of two different usages of the word.
--> @secularmerlin
The concept we're discussing is perfection. Yes, a perfect shape versus a perfect person are two different subjects but they both still refer to perfection. Perfect shapes are *theoretical* (not hypothetical) and derive from geometry. Scientists, architects, mathematicians, etc use geometry everyday. A person can have varying degrees of beauty, intellect, power, moral character, health, etc which all factor into the concept of them as a "perfect person."

Moral truths, likewise, are theoretical.

--> @Fallaneze
I believe you are using the colloquial form of the word theoretical. If so you are muddying the waters. If not I think we may disagree about this. Also there are no moral truths only moral judgements. 
--> @secularmerlin
I await your case that there are no moral truths.
--> @Fallaneze
Allow me to soften my language regarding this claim. There is no apparent objective moral standard and if one exists it is indistinguishable from subjective. That being the case I reject the idea of objective morals unless they can be demonstrated. 

Skepticism is the default position. If something cannot be demonstrated it can and should be dismissed. 
--> @secularmerlin
If something cannot be demonstrated it can and should be dismissed. 
Subjective morals { concepts }  are demonstrated objectively with actions.

We see their actions and judge them by their actions if not also their words, that stem from metaphysical-1, mind/intellect/concepts.  

--> @secularmerlin
What makes it seem like there are no objective moral standards? It's apparent to me that the opposite is true.

It's okay to "reject" something until it is shown to be true if by "reject" you mean merely non-acceptant.

The default position is mere non-belief.

--> @Fallaneze
What makes it seem like there are no objective moral standards?
That people disagree and argue over what us moral almost as if it is just a subjective opinion.
The default position is mere non-belief.
Skepticism, non-belief, fail to accept, reject. You seem to be making a distinction without a difference. 
--> @secularmerlin
I don't find people arguing over whether punishing innocent people is immoral or not. Mere disagreement isn't indicative that there's no fact of the matter.

You can hold any position and be skeptical of it.

Reject implies falsehood.

--> @Fallaneze
But what constitutes innoscent? The word just means not having done wrong. Who is and is not innocent is what we actually debate. Innocence is prescriptive.