The most useful way to define morality, unless of course you`re associating it at the same in conjunction with a second term placed alongside it is ultimately in the doing for others for the best possible outcome for them.


This would apply in the absense of induction, surely, but in my view perhaps even with it, partly as a constant and partly in flux.

This whilst giving balanced consideration, the balance also being in a state of flux, for past, present, and future influencing states and circumstance, `influences` also being in flux.

I think of ethics in terms of societies imposition of consciousness, and morality in terms of second level consciousness, that level of awareness required to cope with the individual factor.

Example: That 60 year old man that seeks out to chat with six year old girls may be of either the highest or the lowest risk to their well being/There might be considerably more morality in that same man having his eighteen year old girlfriend than she`d likely be privy to morality otherwise, or there might indeed be considerably less.

Not with feelings/ethics, but with truth/morality!

Morality comes not with a feeling for/emotions for what`s true, as is the case for ethics, but rather with what is actually true.

Advanced chemistry/the fullest possible blending of conscious states plus genuinely unconditional love would surely at least help in creating an environment for common understanding of the nature of (ultimate) morality. After-all we are only concerned here with human morality?

Belinda
I`m not however a believer in opinion over such matters, and any absolute position which I put forward for morality is a suggestion for conditions which actually exist in a constant reality. The nature of this constant reality probably does require much further defining however(?)

I do realise what has been written on this subject, and of consequence what almost everyone seems to believe, but I`m not of this opinion myself, not by the definition of morality which I`ve given. I also believe that this definition is the only genuinely workable one.

I suggest to an ultimate morality on the same basis as one might to an ultimate immorality. To understand the nature of the ground in the middle is to understand this term, and hence the sliding scale I propose.

Although my assertions arrise partly from out of instinct, it is also quite possible at the same time that they are the correct ones.

It`s also easily possible that language may be more of an issue for truth here than the looking in the right direction.

My definition for morality didn`t visit a place of opinion!

Belinda
Quite so, but mine is a quite different cake, different by ingredients and different in definition. What I`ve suggested one should add`s the following, sufficient (a certain fixed quota) unconditional love, chemistry (understanding of eachothers person past and present) and a sound mind. The product being, not the same response, but rather the same place on a sliding scale for morality. Morality being in terms of the best outcome for that person as a person.

My reasoning is simple, that this may be the formula, once understood, obviously, for realisation of a high order moral response, regardless of circumstance, for everyone.

High order is not necessarily absolute, for we are only human. There is no requirement whatsoever here to understand the nature of a good moral response, or indeed anything consciously of the nature of morality.

Not to include the human with the human condition, and a thorough understanding of it, philosophical theory apart, may be to only put up white elephants, for what can be genuinely left but for the ether, the submissive in a substantive wrap.

What is established philosophical theory more than controversy, a road to recognition? My suggested route may not lead to absolute answers, but it will surely lead to definitive ones.

I believe that there`s still a case for morality in going back to the beginning and thinking independantly.

Belinda, that is already more than I was expecting, and it`s hard for me, for I can see many of the dilemas in attempting to go further.

I agree, it couldn`t be a prescription for anything, and I`m only proposing it in terms of, not even realising, not directly, but a responding to a secong party in a way which on human terms (human morality) which would embrace both organic and inorganic states, but however, only as far as what`s known, this being the extent of human morality in any case, and then by the best possible instinctive outcome.

We are totally together on most of this, because the living with the whole environment bit is all I`m basically working with.

I`ll try to add to this later.