ethics.. morality.. a universal theory

as I have pointed out, we in the west don’t have a universal ethical/moral theory
upon which to base our actions on… and we haven’t had a universal ethical/moral
theory since at least 1900… and most likely earlier then that…Nietzsche pointed
out this lack of an universal ethical theory in the 1880’s and his writing was an attempt
to create a “secular” moral and ethical theory…BTW, he failed…

we can see this failure of having a moral/ethical theory in the role of our actions…

bear with me a moment as I lay out the ground work…

I hold that the government actions and laws are moral/ethical actions…

laws aren’t about the law, they are the creation of a morality…

recall that the laws, the law governing such things as slavery and the Holocaust…
both slavery and the Holocaust was legal… as is the two world wars and the nuclear
bombing of Hiroshima… I hold that these actions are not legal or political actions,
but they are moral/ethical actions…and that is the difference between the left and
the right… the left sees governmental actions as being moral/ethical whereas the right

to put this into concrete terms…bring it to earth as someone around here is always saying…

if you cut the W.I.C. program… (mothers infants children program which gives
families the money to pay for food for their children) that is not a political act,
that is a moral act…to save the taxpayers money on their taxes by cutting the
social/welfare programs that keep people out of poverty, that is not a political
action, but a moral/ethical action…if we kick people off of welfare to save taxpayers
money…we are committing moral and ethical actions that are no different then
slavery and the Holocaust… we are negating and dehumanizing people and that
action, however done, is immoral and unethical… white nationalist are always saying,
white folks first… but really why not say, all human beings should be first…

to say, someone is beneath me or he is 'barely human" is to make a moral judgement…
and then instituting laws based on that moral judgement is ethically/morally wrong…

and the grounds upon I make this statement is simple…


if you deny human beings, any human beings value or deny they are created equal,
then you are making a moral judgement and if you act upon this moral judgement,
then you are immoral/unjust/ethically wrong…

and if you declare that some human beings have more value then other human beings,
I demand to know the grounds you make this declaration…
for there is no factual evidence that proves that some human beings are “superior” to
other human beings…

you might say that Einstein had more value then other human beings, but what
factual evidence do you bring to the table that proves this? we know from other post
that we cannot, cannot prove ethical/moral statements with facts or evidence…

what fact would you bring to the table to “proves” that Hitler was a more moral
person then Gandhi? every fact, Hitler killed millions and Gandhi didn’t, still
involves a moral judgement…to say the death of millions is wrong is still
a moral judgement… a value judgement…so at some point, we must make a stand
and decide what is "Moral/ethical…

I make my stand on the statement, “all human beings have value and are created equal”
and why this stand and in this phrase?

because to say, some people don’t have value and aren’t created equal,
means you have to wonder at the standard use to make such a statement…
how are we to judge that some people have no value and aren’t created equal?

to restate the argument… any budget passed by any governmental agency,
be it local, state or federal, is a moral document… it doesn’t lay out
our economic priorities, it lays out our moral and ethical priorities…

and that is the failure of the right… its failure to see budgets as moral
documents…a budget lays out the moral and ethical vision of a society…

the way we reach a vision of people being of equal value and created equal,
is to reduce morality/ethics to the lowest common denominator of existence…

as I cannot, cannot decide who has value or who is “worthy”, I must conclude
that all people are of value and all people are “worthy” of respect…
because I cannot decide on rational choices, who is not created equal,
I must conclude everyone is of value and created equal…
there is no way to sort out who is superior and above the crowd…
there is no way to “sort the wheat from the chaff” in human beings…

to decide that one is “above” the crowd is to make a moral judgement and we
have no grounds to make such a judgement… therein lies the failure
of Nietzsche… how do we go about finding the “superior” man?
how is that person “superior” to other human beings? to claim that
one is the “Ubermensh” is to make a moral judgement that has no basis
in facts…to say I am superior to others because I am… is to make
a judgement that the value picked has greater value then other values,
is to randomly pick a value that has a supposed greater value then other values…

if we think about it, every action we take is not a political or economic action,
but is moral, ethical action… our actions and words are moral and ethical…

we need to rethink what it means to be human and by making
our words and actions ethical and moral… we rethink what it means
to be human…and as the only basis for our ethical and moral beliefs
lie in the lowest common denominator, we must hold that ethical/moral
actions and words like in acting as if,


anything less is to make a value judgement that has no basis or
standards in which to make such a judgement…

we now have a universal ethical/moral standard by which we can judge
all human beings,… everyone, all human beings have value and are created equal…
and all our actions and words are ethical and moral in nature…every single action
and every single word is an ethical/moral statement about who we are…

any type of ethics or morality must include everyone… it cannot create exceptions
or exemptions…if it doesn’t include everyone, it has no value…everyone or no one…


You’ll see Peter.

In spiritual courts, where your heart is weighed by everyone… when you cry your eyes out about your life relative to another, it becomes very obvious what love is. And love is superior.

You know that. You know it too. But I’ve suffered WAY more than you, and for no reason at all, actually, being sent to hell for no reason is what makes me so forgiving of ignorance of what I know today… maybe there was a reason.

Anyways… karma is just reputation. We were never born, we never die. You’re pretty sharp, but there are things you really need to sit with that are too hard for you right now.

If I hadn’t made a new plan for existence; I’d not be able to sit with it either. (Hope)

There can be no morality unless all consent violation ceases.

All consent violation cannot cease.

Ergo; there can be no morality.

(tell em Ecman)

as I have made it quite clear…I don’t hold to any, ANY metaphysical
theories… which means I reject any such belief in a “spiritual court”…
which judges me…I don’t hold to any type of afterlife, before, during or after…

the problem with your “spiritual” beliefs that there is no proof or evidence for it…

the fact you claim to have “seen” heaven or hell, doesn’t provide any proof
or evidence for me…it doesn’t prove anything… that you have experienced something…

for example Emanuel Swedenberg once said, " the last judgment had occurred
in 1758" given that there is no way or evidence I can prove or disprove such
a statement, means I must reject that statement…

I cannot hold to a statement that cannot be proven or shown to be true in some
manner…if I were to say, everyone is doomed because they are immoral,
you cannot take that statement seriously because there is no proof or
evidence for my statement…


Peter, be so thankful that you didn’t endure in your current state of what I endured.

Like I said, it seemed pointless. I wouldn’t want you to go through pointless shit to correct you.

But I have to admit… you’re actually an outlier. Most people have spiritual experiences.

All I say about this is that if you want to build a good reputation (good karma) give existence the middle finger and instead of modeling what existence is, try to violate as little consent as possible.

One of the hardest blows a person can take when they presume to elevate themselves here… is that everyone knows that when they’re having the best times of their lives, they are knowingly shattering at least one other heart and are stomping on it a billion times. They are complete assholes and bitches!

Peter can’t absorb this. He’s a dust to dust guy.

To Peter: it’s so much better on the other side.

Let me give you a proof Peter:

If YOU ever die, than YOU couldn’t be here right now. The YOU right now is a subset of the totality of YOU eternal.

I’ve learned over the years how to talk to people who haven’t actually seen.

now to continue working out ethics/morality…

during 2003 we had Abu Ghraib prison
where Iraqi prisoners were tortured, physical abused, sexual abused,
rape and sodomy and murdered…all was fine until it was actually
exposed and everyone suddenly backtrack on it… there were memo’s before
the Iraqi war in 2002 that supported this violence against prisoners…so the
claim that it was “bad apples” who committed these offences is just a lie…
to protect the bush administration…now some at the time, and I suspect
many now would suggest that torture is a legitimate tool of the state…
the override of ethics and morality comes when the defense of the state
arises…in other words, anything becomes justified if it is in the defense
of the state… including torture, murder, the violation of human rights are
all secondary to the defense of the state…the “Bourne Trilogy” is a perfect
example of this…to protect the state meant we could act unilaterally…
in the Bourn movies, the third one, we kill a British reporter in broad
daylight… and the defense… the defense of the state…

what kind of terrible actions have we hidden under the guise of
“the defense of state?”

is murder and torture acceptable under such broad, undefined terms?

as I have argued elsewhere, we must have no exceptions or exemptions
can occur for us to to hold moral/ethical theories… any exceptions or
exemptions negate a moral/ethical theory…it is everyone or no one …
there is no in- between theory of morality or ethics that we can hold
to be universal…for the very word universal means everyone…
if it isn’t universal, it is “ad hoc” which means the situation dictates
the ethics/morals…

one of the goals of the future is to get the states/culture/societies,
all states, societies, cultures to exists within and by the exact same rules…
what is good for Russia is good for India which is good for France and which
is good for the U.S…if we have exceptions, then we don’t have universal
ethical/moral rules/laws… every state law is “ad hoc”, the local situation
dictates the rules/the morals…

if you hold that the state can commit actions in its defense, then you
hold an “ad hoc” view of morality/ethics… and it certainly isn’t a universal
morality/ethics…thus if you hold the state is free to act in any way it
desires to protect itself, then you are not a Christian or a believer in any
sort of universal beliefs or a universal ethics/morality…



Let me explain this to you in extremely simple terms.

You make interesting points.

You also basically don’t have much responsibility or understand much about existence at all.

You need to get over yourself man.

We were never born, we never die. We have a current plan that we all agreed to, to keep us entertained forever. You’re still in that plan. I am not. I’m the new plan. It’s literally my fucking job, even in the current plan, how to protect a complete and utter douchebag like yourself from going to hell.

Peter. The difference between what you do and what I do, are on scales of magnitude that you don’t understand.

I actually like your posts Peter.

Have you ever tried to protect someone like yourself Peter ? It’s really fucking hard dude.

Morality has to do with life existence cravings and feelings and instincts.

Say no to that, and you become a devilish figure.

Sheep probably feel that wolves are evil.

Predation in the ecosystem disproves that nice guys control the game.

Successful moral theory is an oasis.
It is an island.
A system of better, easier states of affairs.
Once protected, we change the dynamic of evolutionary selection.
This produces decadence and nobility both at the same time.
Protecting life from life.
It’s paradoxical.

But what if it’s a simulated paradox?

I am legitimately interested in a universal theory but I will diverge at this point and only in this post to show what I will show - so Peter you may not want to read this because what I going to write is outrageous and in a way just stupid.

I have asked the question before whether morality should only apply to humans or whether it should be enforced on the whole planet.

This on the surface is just lunatic in my opinion. Why on earth would I even bother suggesting it. If we keep reproducing at our current rate I am interested in what it will be like when there is not much room to move or stand. Another possibility is if AI takes over the world, would it stop enforcing its way on just humans or would it continue on with animals and vegetation and eventually inanimate matter.

Perhaps we could simulate non-paradoxical scenarios and otherwise paradoxes to help us find out the most peculiar answers regarding our future and how ethics and morality fit into it before things just come to a grinding halt or we start having civil wars or an asteroid hits the planet or we finally realize we have no free will…blackholes…whatever…


K: I read it and here is what I think… do you honestly hold these thoughts? if yes,
then by no means are they “outrageous” or “stupid”… they are honestly held thoughts
and values in which you have no reason to apologize or degrade them…
your thoughts have just as much values as my thoughts or anyone else thought…

be proud of them but don’t hold them in stone… if new thoughts come and they
are “better” then your old thoughts, then by all means change your thoughts, your values…
and no one will deny you your rights to hold thoughts or to change your thoughts…

be proud of you and your thoughts…


I have been thinking about this, as is my typical behavior. I appreciate the full message, the positive intent, and each nuance presented. What worries me is not so much our exchange but how others out in the world process information…how people learn.

So…in discussing what is right and wrong. I think it is right for you to offer this kind of encouragement to me if you believe I am capable enough to work things out for myself. I think it is wrong of you to offer this kind of encouragement to me if you believe my own style of thinking could lead to me endangering my own life or other people’s lives. I think a universal theory would be impossible because we don’t apply theories the same way to everyone - we are free to believe we do but the truth of the matter is that everyone is different and learns differently. Our application is dependent on the person. Our application depends on people learning what we are saying. It is at this point I don’t believe you need to finish reading what I am saying because I believe you are well equipped enough to get it. So the rest is up to you - but I do enjoy rattling on a little.

I could, for instance, delude myself and say that all philosophers since the beginning of time clearly hinted at transhumanism for instance and sadly there are people who would believe me. On the fortunate side, there are people that would totally refuse this trash about transhumanism and so the process of learning at least some truth from philosophers would continue.

Now…I totally appreciate what you said to me and what you said is something that I hold to be true when applied to me and I have faith that this would work for you too. I believe your positive intent is a good thing. Positive intent can become bad if we encourage someone who has this idea that they can fly so we encourage them to jump off a cliff - I think your brain/mind is sufficiently structured to accept this example, no matter how extreme.

The best we could do is present a general theory. There is something inside me that entertains and nearly wishes that a universal theory could be worked out but at this “exact” point in time I have to wonder what it might take away from humanity as a whole. Despite all this, I am one of those people who is always ready to be proven wrong and sometimes find disappointment in not. NO, I do NOT think I am RIGHT about EVERYTHING < this emphasis is for those who need it.


Let us maintain our hope until the very end.

What’s the difference between political and moral actions?

This is difficult to comprehend (as is most of your post) but the impression that I got is that you’re saying that because you do not know who is worthy that it follows that everyone is worthy.