There exists no objectivity for the existence of morality and ethics.
No foundation from a god or a higher power from above.
No way of direct certainty in having universal objective knowledge of them by any means. No absolutes.
What then are we left with on the discussion of morality? Relative subjectivity. ( Solipsism.)
It is not enough to say that one must behave and be moral on their own. One must enforce it onto others.
And how is morality and ethics enforced? At a barrel of a gun. At the end of a bayonet.
Through blackmail, threats,subterfuge, and entrapment. By millions of prisons.
So how is morality and ethics enforced? By violence and subterfuge for without violence as the foundation of enforcing morality and ethics they would not be able to exist on their own.
Behind every government and order of social authority there is the foundation of violence or extreme prejudice.
There are those who would like to say that every person has a kind of morality and ethics. ( Rubbish.)
A person can have preferences without ever being moral or ethical.
There is a difference between a preference and a moral.
A preference is an opinion that means nothing beyond the person holding it.
( Anybody can have a opinion and preference.)
There is no way to enforce an opinion on it's own onto everybody else.
In contrast a moral or ethic defies relativity and preference of others by proclaiming itself absolute in that rather mysteriously it feels that it has the authority to judge everyone under a narrow perceivement in that it articulates that a person must and should do this or that where any rebellion is considered incomprehensible as a sort of heresy needing retributive punishment.
So what seperates morals and ethics from preferences?
A moral and ethic is equally a preference and opinion but with a couple of distinctions.
A moral and ethic is a opinion or preference transformed from one person into a full collective belief.
In short morality and ethics is religion. To be moral or ethical is to be religious through social organization.
There are still some who would like to say that morality or ethics is genetical, innate, and inherent within human beings.
This is science's last ditch effort in trying to justify the religious dogma of social organization in it's eternal search for a moral gene similiar to the cosmologists trying to justify a universal intelligent god by means of pseudo-science motivated by hysterics.
( They still haven't found a moral gene to account for morality or ethics.)
If they are right about morality or ethics being innate,biological, and inherent within humanity then why isn't everybody moral?
What of those who's behavior that are amoral without any regards to morals or ethics?
They must be sub-human, inhuman, or even super-human if somehow they can mutate apart from somthing that is supposedly biologically innate.
( Or perhaps such amoral people are all too human.)
If morals and genetics are inherent or biologically innate within all of humanity shouldn't that include virtually everybody? If everybody can't be included then a genetical inquiry into the subject is not sufficient enough.
What we are left with then is that morals and ethics is a religious belief in the authority of social organization that some individuals choose to follow ( While others not) that becomes enforced only by that of violence, blackmail, and subterfuge.
Without the enforcement of violence in the foundation of morality and ethics we would be left with a amoral indifferent universe in that as said before without violent enforcement both morals along with ethics could never exist on their own.
Subject: You should behave and be moral. Look at the barrel of my gun. 
Mon Jan 26, 2009 10:50 am
