Morality

Time for my own theorem.

Taking the truth I found from Aristotle: Happiness/Fulfillment comes from achievement by accomplishing something through pursuing a higher purpose. Essentially -basic animal pleasures don't cut it and can in fact leads to vices very easily. Like over eating. People may enjoy food, but it certainly doesn't bring fulfillment to their lives.

Taking the truth I found from Kant: Sometimes good acts are not as good as they can be because the motives behind them are bad. This is true. Motives are important. But that doesn't make self-intrest itself a bad thing.

Taking the Truth I found in Mill: Clearly he was a fan of Buddha's... and maybe Jesus. Compassionate detachment is good. And considering everyone's happiness as part of your ultimate level of happiness is a nice thought. Very inclusive and universal. Putting someone else's happiness before your own is truely a virtuous act.


Now let's stop talking about Happiness. Or at least make some distinctions about it.

1. When you say Happiness it makes me think of everybody being comfortable/ well fed/ enjoying life/ content... So if you're going to say "happiness" have it refer to those things.

2. What we're really talking about is Fulfillment-how to live a Meaningful life. That's what really matters. Happiness waxes and wanes -it's more consistent with people who don't have to struggle with meeting basic needs- but ultimately it comes from within and cannot be controlled. Fulfillment on the other hand lasts forever. We are given X amount of years to wander around this earth and most of the time we're either distracting ourselves from life, trying to find something to do either to entertain ourselve or pass the time, or sleeping. Meaning and purpose are what give our lives a sense of direction. It's what makes life Worth living in the first place. It is also what keeps us going when Happiness leaves. And finding fulfillment boils down to: finding out who your are, who you want to be, what you want to achieve in this life, and actually reaching those goals.

3. None of this has anything to do with morals, which is what all 3 of those guys claimed to be debating. Kant says acting out of self-interest is immoral or deprives good acts from being moral. Mill says an act is only moral if it produces some good, and should aim for making the most amount of good possible. The more good = the more moral. And Aristotle says chasing virtues leads to good moral action, even though Kant pointed out himself that even villains can have courage (a virtue). These guys were too focused on fulfillment/ happiness -which has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with leading a good life (not good as in just/moral, but good as in purposeful).

4. The Key to determining if an act is moral/ immoral is this, which I have mentioned before but I'm stating again:

When you hurt yourself or someone else physically or emotionally you are doing something immoral.

All acts that can be deemed immoral sprout from this concept.

The reason, the Ultimate reason, why morality should be taken into consideration is not because of Duty -though that's nice if that works for you. It's not just about compassion -unfortunately there are some heartless jerks out there who can't feel or understand what that is. It's because when you engage in moral activity -especially repeatedly- you yourself become immoral. This life is then diluted, F*d up, and wasted. And it doesn't end there. I know some atheists assume it does, but it doesn't. The immoral acts degrade your soul and weigh against it. The repercussions of that carry over into your next life. If you don't rise above it, uplift yourself, and lead a higher level of existence you will suffer. Emotionally. Physically. Spiritually. You condemn yourself to whatever life you choose to lead.

http://lookingbacktowardthefuture.blogspot.com/2011/06/epiclog-before-blog.html

http://lookingbacktowardthefuture.blogspot.com/2011/06/golden-rule.html