…is the underlying optimization-algorithm under moral theory and moral acts.
There is an ideal truth-adherence that underpins and causally potentiates anything morally-meaningful, be it philosophical ideas and theory, our sentiments and emotional reactions, or our actions and the things we say or intend to one another. The moral sense of right and wrong, GOOD and BAD are hard-wired and tautological. More correctly, they are truisms. What is good is good, what is bad is bad. Obviously. These concepts define themselves.
But when it comes to expressing or speaking/knowing morally-relevant occurrences, there is an association that occurs running in parallel with the co-occurrence or what philosophers like to call the correspondence between truth (reality as the wider purview) and the individual mind’s perceptions/subjective inner reality. This is naturally (logically) optimizing as much as possible toward a perfect tracking of the actual truths at hand which are, in fact, morally relevant to the given situation.
One consequence of this is how proper moral analysis requires something like a very hyper-individuated approach. Every relevant aspect, detail, subtle factor, intention and outcome needs to be considered. If you miss one important detail then your moral analysis can be entirely incorrect. But this level of individuation is also unrealistic. So there is another, sort of law of diminishing returns effect at play between the optimization tendency and the real world pragmatic impositions of cold hard facts of human psychology and something like societal tolerance.
As philosophers we are in a better position to improve our moral analysis because we can understand everything I just said, and we can suspend judgment and attain a greater objectivity, to as best as possible, incorporate every relevant angle and detail necessary. This may mean that we don’t come to a conclusion at first, or that we need to take a hard look at our conclusions on moral issues. But in the end, if we are intellectually honest enough to subject our ideas, beliefs and feelings to this kind of higher philosophical scrutiny, they should emerge all the stronger and purified of so many errors.
Oh shit. I just noticed this. There is a perfect parallel here between how neurology works. Get this: neurons are always feeling pressured/pulled in oppposing directions by two antithetical natural forces that cannot be reconciled or balanced. These are 1) the energetic-logical tendency to find the path of least resistance through the neurological network with regard to the specific informational data at hand given the actual situation causing the neurological activity at that point in the brain (attempting to as best as possible track the truth that did really cause those neurons to respond in the first place, to properly order them as completely as possible to reality), and 2) entropy, or the tendency for neurons to not expend any more effort than necessary.
Now, compare that to what I said above.
Morality (and the brain) have a tendency to best-possibly track truth with respect to actually true, real conditions in order to minimize errors and excesses; but morality (and the brain) also have an opposing tendency to keep things as simple as possible and not waste any energy, basically to trend toward a more entropic conclusion of less ordered states (ordered states here meaning the most-accurate, most-logically-precise brain-neurological energetic configuration as properly corresponds IN FACT to those realities that happened to have inspired them).
Anyone seeing this? Does this really mean that morality and a moral sense is necessarily hard-wired into our brain-neurological architecture as a kind of parallel process occurring at once at the level of thought and conscious experience but also at the level of memory-encoding and emergent neural network configuration of individual neuronal states?
morality is a very simple discourse it is very Arthurian in nature it is might for right not might is right the law keeps us free because it protects us from harm and danger the mighty fight for the weak and evil is defeated by the rightuoes
however in this day and age strength has overcomed justice corporations now rule the world and so corporate executives dictate who is righteous and who is not… fighting for ones life has been a nuissance
Corporations have taken over the world however they are entrusted with a social responsibility to take care of the mainstream in the propagation for the betterment of everyone for the progress of the human race although some have crossed the line to unfulfill their duties
the Roman concept of the collisseum has been forgotten…
Corporatism having taken over and adopting the “might makes right” creed has no bearing upon actual ethics.
Ethics as in “good and bad” is the simplest issue in the universe, and means quite easily to understand: “What is good (for whom and how and why it is actually good) is good, and what is bad (for whom and how and why it is actually bad) is bad.”
Ethics and morality. The easiest issue in all of creation. Yet humans make a royal mess of it, as they usually tend to do with anything that requires either 1) non-pathological thinking or 2) a level of emotion not previously indoctrinated with modernistic ideological subversions (their own deliberate brainwashing).
