Test Your Morality

True. And I am asking, first, should it be?

And second, if it is based on personal tastes, how can anyone's personal tastes be an "ought" for another person?

Then the system of everyone having his own moral code has not worked very well has it? This is why we have jails, police, and courts.

My point is that when morality is used only as a framework for social interaction, and is based on personal taste, moral chaos is the only possible result. So societies produced a "morality" and officers to force us into a single moral code called the law.

But everyone has a different idea of what a morally consistent framework is. This is saying how things ought to be. But things are never that way, and have never been that way. Your comment amounts to the impotent "We should all get along".

Thank you! And what we ALL ought to do cannot be set by the personal tastes of a few. "Ought" implies a moral imperative for all.

I'm asking, "What makes a morality an ought?"

If you believe like Zed, that morality is only subjective, then no morality is an "ought" for everyone. Only people who accept a certain moral code are bound to that morality.

If you believe, like I do, that there is a moral code that IS an ought for everyone, then that moral code is the most coherent standard on which to base a framework for social interaction.

Not necessarily. This is true only if we first accept the materialist's view of reality.

And still, the materialist must tell us why we should follow his moral code, and why we are immoral if we don't.

A consistent moral framework incorporates the capacity of each individual to optimally (and there's a reason I continue to use this term) manifest their personal tastes. And the only moral framework I believe does this is Individualism, which is based on the posited axiom of individual sovereignty. That is, I have discretion to pursue my values especially as it concerns myself and my property so long as it does not infringe on your capacity to pursue your values as it concerns yourself and your property, and vice versa. And I use the term optimally because it implicitly suggests a standard where conflicts and disputes are diminished as much as possible.

Well stated.

What any sane human being would determine was personally "bad", as in bad for him.

Yes.

I'm talking about a moral framework that incorporates the personal tastes of all individuals...

...and provides a prescription best suited for each individual to manifest said tastes. And by "best-suited," I mean with as little conflict and dispute as possible. 

Hence, everyone ought to abide by individualist morality.

I don't see how materialism ties in with the fundamentally normative nature of morality; can you explain further? 

And the "ought" is inherent to the ends.

What do you mean by empirically bad? 

In other words something that everyone  agrees with their subjective standards is bad?

Okay. By that definition the answer to question one is 'yes'.

Ok. So, do you have a personal objection in giving us an example a moral action that is empirically "bad" but prescribed by your moral code?

I hope what you meant to say, was that you suspect that I wouldn't kill or rape.

Furthermore I would suggest that my propensity for not killing and raping is probably the same as yours is.

And in that particular respect, I think that all we are actually doing is using different words and interpretations of acquired data to say the same thing.

Developed social reasoning and consequent social conditioning, generally dictate that most rational social participants are able to confirm with the developed social rationale.

Though, If I understand you correctly, what you seem to be purporting is the idea that morality is something that is wholly separate and extra-humanly existent, therefore something that perhaps we do or do not download irrespective of social conditioning or inherency.

Maybe, but nonetheless a notion that doesn't fit with my current way of thinking/organising data.

.....The trickier question of yours is that of value. I can imagine an immoral act that is of negative value to one person and positive value to another (theft, for example). An individual's perspective relative to an action would decide its value.....

...." WITH ABSOLUTELY NO RULES " .....

Ok his a mind game for you. .

Before going to bed tonight, denounce your religion. 

Waking up with not a single moral is a rush. 

You then have to start learning things again like Not Eating Kids and stuff. 

...empirically "bad"?

Thats why i don't eat sun dried tomatoes.

...Good day......

Most of your post ex #44, your have overly sun-dried infantile brain.

I also collect stamp.

And you offer many 'rubber stamps' aka infantile comments.

3Ru7al gives you his "stamp" of approval for 2 or more of you comments. Wow, your own a roll with 3R7.

And the 'stamp' goes on, and the stamp goes on, stamping beating rythm to the brain,
La de da de da........sung to Sonnie and Cher song....."and the beat goes on".

They get E for pop musical effort.

You get a failing grade for " stamp" collecting on this thread of 'testing morality'.

Is it moral to collect stamps?  Isnt more moral to recycle stamps, in a world that is millions of times and ways falling short on recycling?

Ive gone on 3 cruises and I think that is immoral to the ecology of the oceans of Earth yet, here I want to go on another one. 

OMG, have you seen the new commercial for X Cruises, that uses the Jefferson Airplane song "White Rabbit" song. Sail away into wonderland.

Which is more immoral, not recycling your stamps or my going on  4th cruise?   Duhh, this is a no brainer.  I am being much more ecologically immoral.

It is one thing to need and drive a auto to get to work, but a cruise?  Somebody please talk some moral sensibilities  too me on this issue.  Another cruise is perhaps the greatest test of my personal immorality. 

Ok I'll stop now.

Thank God, cause, you were going nowhere,

as you have one paddle gflapping in, and out of the water, with no forward or reverse motion, and,

your other paddle reversed with the handle  just going around and around in the air,

creating a mental air bubble of bubbles above your  sun-dried brain at the center of the boat of that post.

Yes, It would be moral of me to be in your row-boat-going-nowhere, than on and ecologically detrimental cruise.

Just not sure I can handle the infantile mind games for much longer ride.

This is a category error.

EMPIRICAL is necessarily Quantifiable (scientifically verifiable).

BAD is necessarily Qualitative (experiential, AXIOLOGICAL).

Why? I agree that it is, but why should it be?

It isn't so much that it "should be" as much as it is inescapable from personal values. Morals are concepts which establish a condition in which man ought to interact with man. And when one discusses "ought to" it is fundamentally a personal judgement--hence any argument that seeks to establish a standard of general behavior is normative.

No moral framework can 

incorporate the personal tastes of all individuals...

I just mentioned one that does: Individualism. It essentially delineates that one is justified in pursuing one's own self-interests. And to sustain this as a consistent moral framework, one needs only respect the capacity and justification of another to do the same.

But you cannot know which prescription with be "best-suited," to producing as little conflict and dispute as possible until after 

conflicts and disputes arise! Morality should not be guesses. Morality should be a guide of how to behave.

Why is it that in reality everyone doesn't? Do you know?

I'm talking about about moral authority in the context of ethics. A logical moral framework does not make it authoritative.

But we often do not know what the end will be.

In those cases our morality will be guesses which could end up being grossly immoral in the end.

Here is an example. Say at a football game I, a simple fan, sneak in a whistle and blow it just before the ref does, making the players think the ref has blown his whistle.

Though I did exactly what the ref was about to do, and did it at the time the ref would have done it, I did not have the authority to whistle the game into a timeout.

What is the difference between my blowing a whistle and the ref blowing his whistle? Authority. A player would be correct to ignore my whistle and continue playing.

Now, if we make moral laws those whistles, and we the players, what makes one moral law authoritative and another not?

You keep telling me how a whistle blower should behave fairly and consistently in order to produce as little conflict and dispute as possible in the game, and I'm asking what is it that makes the whistleblower authoritative in the first place?

The person who blows his whistle in such a way that the game has as little conflict as possible is not then the "best" whistle blower. How good a whistle blower he is matters not to whether he has authority.

As you can see, the word "empirically" refers to the "action", which someone then determines subjectively is bad.