Warning!

Warning. The following publications may induce intense reasoning.

The Moral Guide

17th of April, 2015


Preface


The purpose of this guide is to establish a contemporary moral code that can be referenced & adhered to by individuals, yet be regularly updated.

Morality is the application of method to behavior. When an act can be reasoned, to reveal its cause and its effect, then it can be defined morally. Is it good, or is it bad, or is it of no moral interest?

Current societies, in contradiction to morality, emphasize utility. A world-view that only regards the products of our labor, materially. Learn a craft, make stuff, use the items.

The fault is found in the reason. Utility is not able to reflect human morality, and so it creates societies that hurt their members, turning them into enslaved animals in a greater machine. We have needs, and so utility has its place in life, but only after morality. Morality comes first!

Each section of this text, including the preface, is meant to be very concise, and as such, easily readable and easy to grasp.



Chapters

Click on any chapter or section, to toggle it open & close.

+ No Aggression

+ Only self-defense justifies force.

To use force on another, not in self-defense, is to create a standard of "might makes right". This standard is to the benefit of those with power, at the current time, which encourages them to abuse the weaker.

Because any of us can be either weak or strong, depending on many conditions that are beyond our control, such as the body we have or the family we are born into, it is unwise to support such a standard. A person might be strong today, enjoying his power, and weak tomorrow, then to suffer the wrath of others.

The conclusion is that force should only be applied, when force is already present, and initiated by another. After all, any unresolved threat may escalate and cause harm.

+ What is self-defense.

In order to act in self-defense, we must first identify a threat. The threat may be either verbal, physical, or even insinuated from previous behavior. After identification, there must be evidence of the threat, or we will be judged as the aggressors.

Also, the choice of retaliation must still conform to moral reasoning. Only what is actually a measure of self-defense, and nothing further - such as revenge, is legitimate for the use of force.

For example, say a thief broke into your house, and stole from you. You are justified in returning your lost property, or if that is not possible, then be compensated by the thief. You would also be justified in apprehending, threatening, and publicly accusing the thief, to discourage them from repeating.

If the thief repeats, towards anyone, then they deserve worse treatment. Otherwise, there is no reason to assume the worst of them.

In other words, avoid cutting off the hand of the hungry boy who stole some bread.

+ Freedom

+ Authority is personal.

There are cases when a group can threaten an individual, and feel that because they are many, then they are righteous. They are not. A wrong does not become a right, if more people do it, or agree with it.

It is wrong for the many to force themselves on the few, even passively, by excluding or ostracizing others. Authority cannot exist outside of the person. Each individual is their own authority, responsible for their own choices and actions, and liable for them on their own.

After all, if an adult is not their own authority, then neither can they be held responsible for their choices and actions.

+ Agreement is not binding.

It is unreasonable to expect from any person, in service to another, to be able to truthfully testify to their own freedom. No sane man would ask a slave if they "are free", because they would fear for their well-being, to say otherwise.

Just as is the case of the wage-worker, who had become dependent on his employer, and would be in harm's way without his job. Any relationship of employee & employer is immoral to practice. Voluntary association, where agreement is given freely, but is then extended and binding, is immoral.

The only way to trade services morally is through free association. Either party can renege on the agreement, at any point, without recompense. It is a trade between equals. A partnership, in which both sides are constantly free.

+ Responsibility

+ The error of good-will.

Any person can claim righteous intent, by saying that they acted for, or in the name of another. Without explicit permission from that other person, there is no way of establishing such a claim. This means that it is immoral to claim good-will, without actual proof that the other party agreed.

The only exception is in the case of a response to an immediate threat. But that threat would have to be proven, with evidence, after the act.

+ Ownership also means responsibility.

There are two ways to approach any conflict. The first is preemptive; preventing conflicts that can be expected. The second is to attack anyone who offends, either scaring them off, or disabling them, as a threat.

It is preferable to avoid physical conflict and harm, so focus should be given for preventative measures. For example, say misfortune or neglect causes a person to lose their ability to shelter themselves. They will seek shelter, urgently, even if this means trespassing into the property of another; such as an abandoned house, or less-used shack.

While the trespasser is not justified, as no one else specifically must help them, it is easy to sympathize with those in need. It makes sense, as a community, to organize an emergency shelter, for just such an occasion - which might happen to anyone. The effort and resources are worth the added value to the community and each individual within it.

+ Skills

+ Challenges are a necessity.

Being skillful in life, means we can plan ahead and make choices, instead of getting jerked about from necessity. Without our basic needs [minimally] fulfilled, morality - being a good person, becomes a hopeless venture.

In order to become skillful, training is required; in the form of challenging tasks. Challenging to the extent that they are hard, and partially unfamiliar, but not seemingly impossible or deadly.

For example, going to travel in a foreign but friendly land; or practicing a new art, and becoming good at it.

+ Cooperation is a priority.

A single person is more limited in time and ability, than a group. It is not by chance that human nature is to live in small communities, instead of alone, or in [the rare] separate family-unit cells.

To cooperate, each party of the group must clarify their needs, and negotiate those choices that affect the whole group. Basic needs first, and then our individual wants second; the latter is not as important, but still crucial for a functioning community, or else resentment will arise.

The basic human needs are as follows: Shelter [from nature], Water, Food, Company [of people], Sex, Socializing (such as games), and Liberty [from the coercion of other people].

However, people can want pretty much anything, depending on the situation, time, age, and endless other factors. This is why it is ever more important to discuss negotiate how to get them with others. Unless a want creates a clear threat against another person, there is no reason to disqualify it, ever.

A society in which both basic needs & personal wants are taken care-of, allows for a stable moral culture.



Notes


Comment in the form below, and share your questions, criticisms, and appreciation of this guide.


Be the first to comment!

Constructive, thought-out, and finely argued comments are encouraged.

Advertisement

All Time Popular Posts