Every time when I said that morality is tied to desires, needs, goals and intentions … Daniel blew it off. 
I agree that morality is tied to desires but how do you decide which desires you should listen to and which ones you shouldn’t?
Do you agree that there is a will separate from these desires that determines which desires to pay attention to and which ones not to?
If so, then what is the logic of this will? or rather, what is the best logic to use?
You said earlier:
This is nicely put. So the logic would be to moderate one’s desires in such a way so that conflicts between them are minimized.
Daniel would argue otherwise. He would probably say that conflicts are less relevant and that desires are to be moderated according to some sort of plan that defines the correct set of actions to be taken irrespective of whether that would create conflict between desires or not.
For example, if the right thing to do is to abort one’s baby, then what one should do is abort one’s baby, even if that act conflicts with one’s desires and thus causes pain.
That would be deontological ethics.
You, on the other hand, appear to be some sort of consequentialist with your emphasis on resolving conflicts between desires. The focus on resolution of conflicts between desires suggests peace, happiness and pleasure as a direction of development, which would make you a hedonist.
My position is similar to that of Aristotle’s, nowadays going by the name virtue ethics, where the direction of development is strength. Here, one does not aim to resolve conflicts between desires but to apply Aristotle’s golden mean rule to them by aiming to maintain their intensity at an optimal level: not too tense and not too relaxed.
Rationality always requires an end goal, purpose, or objective. Rational morality is based entirely upon a theory of purpose. But arguing about the theory of purpose tends to be a serious waste of time among non-rational people.
There is a difference between goals and directions.
Goal is an end point, a final state, that once reached disappears into the void while life continues.
Direction has no final state. It’s an infinite process. A kind of movement that can never be exhausted.
When someone asks “what is the best way to live?” he is asking “what is the best direction of movement?”
Such questions aren’t meaningless simply because they do not posit an end point.
Since there is only one brain and one mind within a person, I don’t see how ‘a will’ could be considered separate from desires. It all seems to amount to various thoughts processed (more or less) sequentially. 
You don’t choose a purpose. A purpose chooses you.
The only universal answer is simply: truth. All life, all consciousness, all being, even all “non-living” things are at all times always seeking truth. This simply means: engaging honestly with reality. As Nietzsche knew, even dishonest means of reality-engaging are still… honestly engaging with reality. And are designed to up the ante on that, so to speak; to invent new powers of reality-engagement.
Other than this most general level, there is no one answer to “what is the best way to live”. The specific answer is specific for each individual for which that question can be meaningfully posed.
For Aristotle it was eudaemonia, for other philosophers it was other things.
Also, the idea of a “purpose” is a reification. Life doesn’t need a purpose, most of the time. In fact, nature itself is basically purposelessness par excellence, whereas we humans invent and retroactively apply the notion of purpose to things in order to… learn some things, and obscure others.
Try defining purpose without teleology. Good luck.
That’s true if you have no mind – if you do not regulate your instincts – and simply do what gives pleasure.
Only access to mind, which is also the capacity regulate instincts as you call it, will give you the capability to be accessible to purposes. This isn’t about “pleasure”. Hedonists have it backwards: doing what gives pleasures isnt about “getting pleasure”, it is about the fact that what gives pleasure is a sign of something greater. Only idiots (non-philosophers) think that pleasure is an end.
The proper question there would be, “why does this give me pleasure?” But hedonists and non-hedonists alike don’t tend to go there.
Strength does not give pleasure. It actively resists it because pleasure indicates that potential is being wasted – it indicates weakness.
Purpose is chosen. It is not something that chooses you.
Smart people dont talk in absolutes.
Pleasure is the absolute in my book. Satyr may hate hedonism, you may hate hedonism, so be it.
I believe seeking Truth is indeed a pleasure, being creating and doing philosophy is a pleasure as well. Truth seeking is a hedonism and to deny this is to deny the truth of it.
Don’t know what you’re talking about. When I have a hard day’s work out and look at my guns, it is indeed a pleasure.
Pleasure is a feeling of lower level of tension in relation to the optimal level of tension given one’s capacities.
Pain is a feeling of higher level of tension in relation to the optimal level of tension given one’s capacities.
Feeling of strength is a feeling of optimal level of tension given one’s capacities.
If you aim for strength, you want to avoid both pleasure and pain.
I disagree.
The definition of “a living being” implies an inherent purpose. To fulfill that purpose, one must not grow or choose contrary to it. To do so is analogous to a government choosing to ignore the purpose for which it was formed and subvert it population (a historically common practice).
Thus purpose is not actually an entirely subjective issue. Purpose is objectively inherited by every living entity (despite often being thwarted via confusion and ignorance). Along with inherit objective purpose comes objective morality even if never known.
This purpose can be stated, in it’s simplest form, as “survival and growth”.
It’s applicable for the individual organism and also a society formed by social organisms.
“Growth” can be considered improvement and reproduction.
Right?
If you can choose contrary to your “inherent purpose” this means that there are no inherent purposes in the true sense of the word.
We can discuss better and worse purposes and we can argue that the best purpose consists in affirming one’s nature but we can’t speak of inherent purposes in the true sense of the word.
That’s like saying that if you think (or someone else thinks) 2+2=5, then there is no inherently correct answer to 2+2.
It denies the possibility of error.
Whether there are or are not inherent purposes, goals, depend on whether you accept Heidegger’s thought of inherency, where, such as analyzed by Aristoteles onward, place reflection uppermost. It’s an either/or, either one logical system or another.
That modern philosophy obviously appreciates this difference, thereby places the intention, or original thesis toward a goal of objectivation of conscious choice-as an ethical pre-rogative, makes ethics into a regression to a pre cogito ergo sim argument.
It appears, as though the study of ethics, being still caught up in this argument, has lagged behind other , more modern and post modern arguments.
This inherency is obvious on modern questions such as, how can a person be trusted with the nuclear button?
The objectication of metaphor was Nietzche’s most obvious problem, a disaster waiting to happen in misinterpretation.
Folks, don’t worry, I am merely filling in, pertinent gaps in my own understanding of the flow of this forum, excited and very much interested, where it is heading, and what are the goals, which could signal a relevance worth noting.
I would state it more as simply survival (aka “anentropy”), as long as everyone understands the sophisticated philosophies of survival. Growth and reproduction are merely ways to try to survive. A cell grows and/or reproduces more of its own kind so as to surround itself with something compatible. Birds flock for the same reason. People gather and bear children for the same reason. Just about everything every species is know for, is their inherent philosophy and method for surviving.
Of course such “attempts” are not generally conscious attempts. They are literally inherited traits which lend toward survival even though not quite accomplishing it. A fundamental purpose cannot be chosen, but must be given because to chose implies a decision making arbitration that cannot exist without an already established purpose. Surviving requires a very complex strategy, as every individual being, species, and government throughout history has demonstrated.
The truly best method for surviving, whatever that might actually be (still quite unknown to most), is what constitutes the morality (again, as long as everyone understands the nature of the task). The confusion arises because people do not inherently understand the sophistication and are not well taught, more often entirely misled.
As you know, I often refer to Anentropic Harmony and MIJOT (Maximum Integral of Joy Over Time) as the inherent purpose, goal, objective, “direction”, path, way, or Tao. I use those terms rather than merely “survive” so as to point out the more relevant details of what survival requires and to avoid presumptions concerning survival strategies. And from those deeper details comes essential values that form the most rational morality possible.