Preliminary investigation into a system of dogmatic morality

[GeistFaust]

Morality is one of the most ambigious and vague defined areas of philosophy itself, and in order to understand it a clearer light, it must be understood in the most rational of light. A mere metaphysical morality, which has no roots or grounds in reality itself can not qualify to be considered a proper system of morality. That said it is important to not negate the metaphysical qualities of a system of morality in our preliminary investigation, since its essential to our investigation itself.


Without the concept of such metaphysical qualities or the "thought" of it existing the foundations and "structures" of morality itself would not be able to depart to conclude upon a proper system of morality. It is this proper system of morality, which we are attempting to discover and uncover from a dogmatic principle, upon which morality derives its very self in the process of thought, behavior, and action.



It would be unreasonable to exclude the "possibility" of such a dogmatic code existing, since it appears that even if there is not an absolute truth, there is sometimes a quasi-similarity in the conceptual understanding of morality as it pertains to humanity in its totality. That is there are a few specific situations, actions, and thoughts, which can be said to be considered objectively wrong the world about.


That is in a broader cultural and social context there are necessary actions, which ought to be obstructed, in order to maintain "civilization" itself, and this applies to both people with culture and lesser forms of culture. It is upon this broader culture and social context that individuals learn to derive their own models for morality, but how does the larger socio-cultural complex play a role in the formation of a dogmatic morality itself?



The socio-cultural complex itself is a "relative" phenomenon itself, and all of its thought structures and regulations are relative in the true and authentic sense. This does not "mean" though that there is not an objectivity and absoluteness to this relativity. That is we can not say that the relativity and objectivity of morality in the context of this larger socio-cultural complex are mutually exclusive to each other, because then we would be negating the "possibility" of morality itelf.


This would cause us to delete a dogmatic code of morality, which if it exists, would be found as determined both in a fixed and dynamic manner within this broader socio-cultural complex. In a sense the relative and objective nature of morality in the socio-cultural complex are mutually inclusive in the sense they don't necessarily exclude each other, but merely condition each other.


That is an objective and dogmatic code of morality can not possibly be affirmed in any true and authentic sense, even if it exists independent of reality itself, without being applied and derived in the context of the larger socio-cultural complex. This means that an objective and dogmatic code itself is dependent on the structures of the socio-cultural complex in order to be considered in the organon of the human consciousness as a module "operator" of morality itself.


That is without the multiple individuals, cultural norms, legal codes, and a broader sociological consciousness "morality" itself in the dogmatic sense could not "facilitate" itself. The critical question regarding this is that is this merely a psychological affirmation and reaction rather then a truly "rational" and "real" understanding of morality. It takes a broader concrete social consciousness in order for morality to feel itself as a "real" process, which has both a dogmatic and legislative nature to it.


The broader concrete social consciousness gives a context and conditions morality itself as an objectivie and dogmatic code that lies within the cognitive intuition of the mind. This means that in a sense a dogmatic code of morality could not be possibly fixed. This is due to the fact that society and its environment within the context of the broader socio-cultural consciousness is subject to change.


The perceptions, thoughts, and intuitions regarding it will be subject to change as the moral norms are advanced and adapted to accord with the "changes" of the broader socio-cultural consciousness. These "changes" are not mere dynamic processes that occur external to social conditions, but they are conditioned by the orientation of the broader socio-cultural consciousness.


Yet they operate as "separate" from this broader socio-cultural consciousness, and are "extending" upon its framework within a cyclical model of decay and growth. It is within this cyclical model of decay and growth as it relates to the broader socio-cultural consciousness that we can truly begin to understand how morality works in a conceptual sense in the dynamic processes of society and the environment.


Morality in its true sense operates off the external "changes" of its environment and the thoughts/actions of specific individuals, which are "located" and conditioned within the broader socio-cultural consciousness. It is within this complex that we find a union and disjunction between its member's actions and the actual fixed dogmatic codes of morality as contained in the externalities of the environment.


It is at this point that I would like to substitute the multiple members and individuals of society for the broader socio-cultural complex, which is merely a collection and colloborating force of a multitude of individuals in response and reaction to the wants/demands within the context of the environment. Its impossible to delineate the understanding of dogmatic and relativistic morality within the context of merely the broader socio-cultural complex without understanding it in the context of the individuals which define it.


The broader socio-cultural complex is purely a construction and format derived from the individual within a certain socio-cultural structure, which operates off of specific dynamic and mechanics. That said it is likewise impossible to understand how dogmatic morality applies to the individual if we do not understand it within the context of the socio-cultural consciousness and the externalities of the environment, which represents itself in a metaphysical manner in the individual and through his behaviors and actions.


That is we can not evaluate the possibility of a dogmatic system of morality until we have "understood" the actual and conceptual relationship between the "dual" parts of the individual. This is something we must understand from an individualistic perspective, and if it is not conditioned and grounded on such a perspective then it will be impossible to derive and apply a dogmatic code within the larger context of the socio-cultural consciousness and externalities of the environment.



That is without considering the individual a dogmatic code completely fails, but if the individual does not consider the dogmatic code within the context of the socio-cultural consciousness then it fails likewise to act morally. This means that there needs to be a mutuality developed between the individual and state regarding moral matters, but it must not center around the individual. That is a dogmatic code of morality ought not to center on the individual other then when the individual is striving and acting to derive a dogmatic code of morality.


This is done in order to apply it to the relation its thoughts and actions have to the structures of the broader socio-cultural complex and the externalities of its environment. The individual takes a central point in the establishment of the groundworks of a system of dogmatic morality in so far as it is conditioned by relative measures.


Relative measures, which include both subjectively and objectively understood principles and rules, but which depends on a certain organon of the broader socio-cultural complex to define subjective and objective. This issue relates back to the issue regarding a quasi-similarity in a conceptual understanding of morality regarding specific actions and behaviors in order to preserve the self in the broader context of the socio-cultural complex and the externalities of the environment.


If one kills, steals, or rapes then they have negated the self in a sense from the broader context of the socio-cultural complex and the externalities of its environment, because it has violated the framework and structures of the socio-cultural complex. It is because killing, stealing, and raping constitutes a series of actions, which are contradictory to the model and organon of the socio-cultural consciousness, which is the grounds upon which subjective and objective are defined and conditioned.


That is the organon of the socio-cultural consciousness, which "forms" the dogmatic conceptions and understanding of morality itself in the individual, must be understood as objective in a "sense." That is there are a few specific actions, which ought not be committed, unless civilization and culture, regardless of how primitive or advanced it is, will be terminated in the broader sense.


That is it will be terminated for the individual itself, because it will be a violation of the individual, which is the key concern for all metaphysical and dogmatic codes of morality. That is because the individual is critical for conditioning, facilitating, and projecting the organon of the socio-cultural consciousnes in a manner that accords in a proportional manner to its "relative" nature.


I will continue further on this, but for now I have just given a general and preliminary outlook on my system of morality as it pertains to the individual, which hinges on the "duality" of the "dogmatic." The "dogmatic" is just a substitute terminology for the abstract and concrete relationships and moral applications as derived between the socio-cultural consciousness and the externalities of the environment.

[poodletroglodyte]

"Morality is one of the most ambigious and vague defined areas of philosophy itself" I would rather say that morality is heavy religious-infected and its ambiguity comes from fatal and destructive mariage with religion (Judaeo-Christian domain). Due to that I reject metaphysical morality at all - It's nearly impossible to disconnect metaphysics and religion in morality area (maybe on conscious, rational level you can but under the surface of consciousness - no). Whats more, rational approach is still not enough clear (By the way I'm not very big fan rationality in traditional meaning: as opposite to empiricism). Morality should be build on the hardest foundations avaible for mankind - science.

I think it's not necessary to mention that I'm strongly convinced of evolutionary roots of morality phenomena (what is absolutely terrible for theists).

You include to your system socio-cultural consciousness. I understand it is something similar to Jung's Collective unconscious/conscious? Does it really exist? Don't you overreach impact of culture on individual?

What do you think about Wittgenstein's theory that problem of morality is essentially linguistic?

[GeistFaust]

Morality is one of the most vaguely defined areas of philosophy, because properly speaking it lacks a proper context upon which we can ground it in a manner conforming with an objective sequence of canons. Morality has been heavily influenced by the socio-religious complex, which always likes to posit its morality against the socio-cultural and socio-political frameworks in society. They juxtapose it against the morality of "society" and "politics" to make it seem that the morality found within these frameworks are evil.


This is nothing but an oversimplification of the matter, and is a simple strategy religions fall back onto in order to project a mentality of fear onto others. This is all in order to brainwash and subjugate the masses and people who adhere to religion in order to make them conform with a dogmatic morality, which lacks validity.


They try to claim their "subjective" canon of morality is something derives from the divine itself, but in reality its riddled with subjective definitions, which are rather flimsy when coming to provide proof of the objectivity of morality. That said ignorant people are going to believe in that which is not possible in a logical sense, because humans are naturally oriented to think and act upon their instincts.


The problem is religion can never isolated itself from social and political morality, and thus has a set of choices when applying their morality. In the Middle Ages the Church tried to possess complete control over the morality as applied in the confines of politics and society. The totalitarian nature of the age, the ignorance of a large portion of the masses, and the weak nature of the social and political structures allowed for the Church's hegemony over morality.


That said when these all began to develop into higher and more advanced structures then there was a rebellion against the morality of religion. It became suspect because people saw the inherent "differences" which existed between the social and political form of morality, and that of religion. This realization laid the foundations for the subsequent ideals which would come later in the Enlightenment about the necessity of a separation of the church from the state.


There was no longer a capacity to merely claim that the social and political forms of morality were innately evil, and against the immaterial abstractions upon which religious morality grounded itself on. Neither could one claim anymore that religious morality was self-alienated from social and political forms of morality, but linked.


The latter finding allowed the masses of people to realize that the Church had claimed that the social and political forms of morality were evil only in so far as it did not accord with their own subjective dogmatic codes. The Church had infiltrated and corrupted society and politics with their deviant, subversive, and insidious dogmatic code of morality, which was subjective in all of its nature.


This type of moral, social, and political totalitarianism would later lead to secular forms of absolutism starting with Hobbes. The Church though effectively self-alienated itself from the morality of politics and society when people became more conscious of the dynamics of society and their flexibility in it. Religion necessitates cruelty, fear, and crippling the well being of individuals in order to make them belief in their "subjective" codes of dogmatic morality, which they claim to be purely objectively and inspired by the divine itself.


The social and political forms of morality have offered us the most viable manners upon which to ground moral issues and quandaries. The paradox of morality is not a religious matter, but is merely a social and political matter, for without these frameworks in the larger sense religion would be a non-issue. The idea of the separation of the church's system of morality from the state's was a move made to protect the masses in society and the authorities in charge of politics from the power hungry ways of the Church hierarchy.


Unfortunately society and politics has gone astray from the issue of morality, and has not fared much better then the Church did in the Middle Ages. The other unfortunate thin is we have Christians/Religious people who live a double life full of double standards, double speak, and hypocrisy on a multitude of levels. That is most Christians/Religious people have adapted to the political and social forms of morality in the modern day, which are greatly flawed on the moral level.


They though apply religious definitions regarding morality when they implementing social and political forms of morality. They are merely utilizing the religious ideal of morality to justify their own subjective determinations when it comes to according with the social and political forms of morality. Christians can not get out of their Medieval/Reformation/Enlightenment mentality regarding morality, which is flawed in some manner or another.



Catholics are the worst in my opinion, because they accord themselves with a Medieval Morality, which is completely out of date with morality as we understand in the social and political format of the modern world. The ideas of morality from the Reformation and Enlightenment have more of an adaptability to the modern forms of social and political morality. This is because a large portion of the modern forms of social and political morality has been inspired by the ethos advocated during the multiple religious reformations occurring up to the time of the Enlightenment.


My problems with Reformation and Enlightenment morality is more of a quantitative issue rather then a strictly qualitative issue as it is with the Medieval mentality of the Catholic Church when it comes to moral issues. We can not negate the influence and affect the religious ideals of morality have had in so far as it regards the morality of the broader socio-cultural complex. This is even though religion is completely irrelevant when it comes to the issue of morality.


The few truly objective forms of morality as it applies to specific behaviors and actions merely have to do with natural law, and the social legal consequences and applications made against them. Morality is not an either or issue, and to understand it as a dynamic process relative to the wants/demands/needs of a society are important.


Its not merely a static law, which we can derive and apply in the social networks through which we experience the self and others. It can not be affirmed through merely an individual affirmation, which grounds itself on specific thoughts, behaviors, and actions as it regards a specific situation whether it be on the macro-sociological or micro-sociological level.


The threefold problem with the issue of morality is firstly the evolutionary dynamic and relationships within the static presence of the broader socio-cultural consciousness. The second is the relativity of this socio-cultural consciousness and the determination of this "subjectivity" within the multitude of the masses.


The final problem I have regarding moral quandaries is the psychological and cranial orientations, which create a certain perspective of morality, due to the "relative" nature of the greater socio-cultural consciousness, environment, biology of the individual, individuals thoughts and actions of the individual, and a multitude of other dynamic and static relationships within these frameworks.


Morality is strictly a "relative" subject matter in regards to its normal functioning, and rarely ever takes on an objective form, but if it does then it generally has a social consequence to it. The problem with morality is the dynamic nature of it relative to the "relative" nature of individuals within the "relative" orientation of the broader socio-cultural consciousness.


The issue is all consciousness whether it be within this socio-cultural consciousness or in the psychological and cranial orientation of an individual inclines itself towards a specific "relativity." A "relativity" which is not a question of linguistic structures, although they play a part, but rather social and psychological structures as they "apply" and "interact" with themselves within the framework of the broader socio-cultural consciousness.


The question needs to be fixed and solved within the constantly "becoming" and "processing" nature of the broader socio-cultural consciousness as "determined" through the "subjectivity" of the multitude of individuals. The greater chance of the issue of morality being adequately solved and applied is going to be in the highest and most sublimely developed and expressed formats of culture and civilization.


This requires highly mechanized and developed specimens to guide and construct such a culture and civilization. That said other then utilizing this format to solve the problem on a higher level of consciousness morality lies merely as a void within only a "scattered" field of being able to be applied in all but a few situations and instances. Morality becomes quite fuzzy and blurry when we try to understand it as something which exists outside of the social structures and psychological framework of humanity.


It seems to lose its "independent" nature, which is merely a psychological construction that is constituted when a person becomes conscious of his own "subjectivity" regarding thoughts and actions as they relate to a broader socio-cultural consciousness. Morality is merely a nothingness is we negate certain structures from it, and we must all realize that "morality" as different definitions and mechanisms in relation to the specific socio-cultural or socio-political structure which it is being applied within.


That is the canon of morality is something which is "relative" and purely social when it comes to its application, and is not uniform, but is rather dynamic in its multiple mechanisms, which derive themselves off the basis of social dynamics and static social relationships.