Morality

Morality may be defined as rules of conduct which determine what rational•1 beings•1a should do and what they should avoid doing. Or we may assert that morality relates what a rational (moral) being may•2 seek with the acceptable means for obtaining what is sought; this while simultaneously identifying what may not be sought, and what means may not be employed, in the pursuit of a good end.

The justification for delineating what constitutes morality, and why morality is necessary is because so much today is politicized, and thus is evaluated, not by whether it morally obligatory, but rather whether it is politically expedient. Forgotten, purposely in most instances, is that Law presupposes moral beings and moral beings presuppose rational existence which presupposes God.

Note that morality relates to virtue and that those seeking to be virtuous strive to conform their actions to the moral law; an individual ordered passionately cannot be consistently just. As a practical example, witness Special Council Robert Mueller – reported to be possessed of inestimable integrity (Note that philologically, “integrity” means: “to walk with God”) – but his actions – clearly seem – to indicate Bob Mueller is devoid of integrity… If Mueller were just (moral and possessed of integrity), Mueller wouldn’t have taken the job as Special Council because collusion isn’t a crime, and POTUS – in firing James Comey – was not obstructing justice but was exercising his Article II authority…Mueller seems to be the personification of lawlessness, for he seems to be using the law to harm his enemy and to aid his friends; such embodies the pre-Socratic notion of justice… And unfortunately, lawlessness/injustice has become the norm not only in Government, and the Press, but has become the norm throughout the former Christian West (Western Culture i.e., Christendom)…

We note that the government of the United States has no Constitutional interest in the health-care of its citizens, but it has a compellingly selfish interest in its citizenry’s moral dispositions. And thus, we reiterate: “Law presupposes moral beings!” Thus, the impetus for passing on a few thoughts regarding what constitutes: moral, and why our Nation’s institutions should ubiquitously encourage both the assimilation of moral principles and the practice of moral conduct through the self-imposed regulation of the panoply of human impulses a.k.a. virtue•3, and individual choice. Note: We will not – here and now – delineate a moral code, or system, but put that off for another day.

The social-political Right – which embraces objective moral principles, but is either afraid to articulate and defend those principles or is dispositionally/intellectually incapable of articulating such principles – instead coins utterly stupid phrases like “family-values•4” to attempt to move the population on a moral issue. One fears that some on the social-political Right tacitly reject objective moral principles for pragmatism; such as they, may think themselves conservative, or Christian, or both, but by rejecting objective moral principles – tacitly or explicitly – they deny conservatism (note that conservatism and Christianity presuppose the same intelligently ordered objective reality) and deny Christ; such as they, thus they may be anti-Christian Christians like B. H. Obama…

Where the social-political Right appeals to intuitions of sentimental virtue, the social-political Left appeals to human vice•5. The social-political Left which rejects morality – and has utter hatred for the limitations which morality imposes – ‘adorns’ its insatiable appetites – each issue is driven by human appetite – in “apparel” calculated for winning an issue to advance and consolidate political power. If the Left controls the Government, they may, do and have, utilized the power of Government to further reduce any opposition to the end of the social-political Left•6 – their goal – heretofore is cleverly masked absolute despotism; if they ever achieve their goal they shall mandate a public morality; as in: “You do what you are told, or we will Kill (murder) you, and all that you hold dear!” Be confident that the Nancy Pelosi’s, Hillary Clinton’s and Barrack Obama’s – of the social-political Left – itch to be able to have, and to use such power…

Morality – or a code of morality – that is not universal and objective (i.e., independent of the moral entity), is not morality; a moral system, or code, should be as objective and universal as a mathematical function, thus what is then deemed as “moral” cannot be reasonably accused of favoring one individual, or group, over another.

Morality must be universally binding; that which is moral today, if moral, will be so tomorrow, and it’s geographical location – or cosmological, for that matter – will not alter what action ought•7, or ought not, be performed; nor what ought to, or ought not to be desired.

Rational beings (e.g., humans) are sapient entities (i.e., possessed of intellectual discursiveness, or a discerning mind); sapience is an essential property of moral beings (logically contained in the concept of moral being); sentience i.e., sensuality, is not essential, but accidental•8. One may assert that: “all moral beings must necessarily possess bodies, and that their body exerts an influence upon the moral judgment…”  Several points are raised in such an assertion, we address them thus: 1.) Possessing a body, or being possessed of a body, does not alter what constitutes moral conduct 2.) Moral beings need not possess bodies e.g., angels•9 and the-day-may-arrive when moral beings may possess a body e.g., robots, which have been programmed for moral choice.

Of course there is a sort of anthropological•10 genealogy to morality, which we will not endeavor to detail, but only mention such regarding the demonstrable ameliorative utility which an organic refinements of the rules i.e., morality – regulating the social interaction of moral beings and their responsibilities – produced within a social structures, which lead to the apogee•11 (e.g., abolishing slavery) of culture’s – Christendom – and how a continued “refinement” has promoted that very culture’s dénouement e.g., promoting abortion, divorce, sodomy, and hedonism in general…

There is a social utility in morality, as a means to realize: “…a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity…” And the Constitution of the United States, ratified in 1789, was a perfect organ to approximate the realization of such a happy state, with the exception of two glaring blights – Slavery and suffrage limited to males… Moral imperatives were the basis ameliorative social changes; social decadence results from their disavowal, or rejection…and thus we offer up a prognosis of the moribund United States, in particular, and Christendom (the rational worldview dominant as the United States of America was founded i.e., it informed the Founding Fathers…) in general; unless the Constitution of the United States be re-attached to an objective moral (note: moral and rational are mutually analytic terms i.e., one logically contains the other…) ground, the United States of America shall become – and is becoming – the antithesis of its founding…

•1 Rational: measured intelligently…

•1a. rational being: an entity which knows the truth through reality’s measure, whereby the conscious being – intentionally (conceptually) becomes – reality… Note that rational being = moral being…

•2 May seek: There are things moral beings may seek, which are objectively opposed to morality – for example the destruction (murder) of innocent moral beings e.g.., compromising the moral e.g., utilizing embryonic stem cell research – to live, is to surrender one’s nobility and wickedness… There are other things which they should seek; those things which perpetuate moral beings, as moral beings…

•3 Virtue: A habitually willed, self-imposed limitation of the panoply of a rational being’s impetuses to their natural i.e., ontological intent i.e., to the purpose for which God created said impetuses…

•4 Family-values: a stupid way of asserting “objective moral principles;” the social-political Right argued, in the 1990’s, “family-values” – without ever defining what constitutes a “family,” as a means of blunting the homosexual movement – only allowed the Left to hijack the penumbra “family,” thus utilizing the term for the advance of decay…

•5 Vice: those behaviors which are antithetical to the general Welfare…

•6 The end of the social-political Left: We do not here wish to homogenize the Left, some are consciously – maliciously – advocating power acquisition for the very end which we assert; others are motivated by selfish intuitions, these latter are used by the former to advance the former’s agenda’s; ultimately what drives them is an abject hatred of the Truth, because the Truth carries an objectively obligatory deferential imperative… In the social-political Left’s diatribes regarding objective moral principles, and especially for the advocates of such imperatives, is an echo of Lucifer’s: “I will not serve!”  – characterizing their opponents by a litany of epithets e.g., misogyny, racism, homophobia, sexism, isolationism, xenophobia etc.

•7 Ought – The very concept of morality presupposes ontologically Created existence; such an existence is inseparable from Purpose for which its’ Creator intended His Creation i.e., the final-cause or reason for being…

•8 Accidental – To speak of morality, and moral action, is to assert intellectually deliberating agents of choice; such entities may be incorporeal, a body is the mode of some moral beings, but not all…

•9 Angels – the Superstring theorem Crowd cannot have their “cake” without its “frosting.” angels are incorporeal rational beings.

•10 Anthropological genealogy – I do not want to develop this here, but will assert that synderesis i.e., the native conscience, in a circumspective – unconsciously lamenting sentimental reflection on human suffering lead to intuited generalized altruistic impulses, and those in turn developed into codified moral systems; thus sentiment and emotions play a role in moving rational beings towards the thought necessary to discover the natural law, but they – emotions and sentiments – play no role whatsoever in determining what constitutes morality.

•11 Several points: although Christendom was a product of an organic process, it was synergistically aided by Creation and Revelation effect upon both synderesis & finality…The embrace of Creation and Revelation established a moral teleology – or purpose to the human faculties of reason & will, which leads to the gradual emergence, and embrace of the Rule of Law on the part of the Judeo-Christian West.