Morality's Utility and Purpose from a Non-Religious Perspective of Moral Relativism

I believe people are in search of something better than complete neutrality. Perhaps if people viewed their best possible outcome as being completely neutral and that is relatable to death, then the only thing that would stop them from committing suicide would be their fear of death.

Although, I couldn't say that all people consider satisfaction as neutrality. I myself am not satisfied with being subpar, and therefore I strive to be better than that.

From a utilitarian view is it ever morally acceptable to murder an innocent individual?

The reason I ask this is utilitarianism is the belief that morality relies on the overall happiness of individuals, and the happiness of the individual would not be affected if it was instant and if they did not know that they were going to die, then their happiness would not have changed, and they would have disappeared from existence. Additionally, we would add the constraint that they have no relatives and no friends, and no one would miss them or notice that they are gone.

It is in this hypothetical scenario that happiness from the individual and society would not be affected by murder, and therefore if I am correct, it would not defy the utilitarian moral structure.

From a utilitarian perspective of happiness, are we to judge the happiness of the individual by what they are conscious of and what makes them happy, or if they were fully conscious and what would make them happy?

It could be considered from a utilitarian perspective that if a person is unaware that they are lacking equality which they seek to obtain happiness that they would be happy without it and therefore by not letting them know they are lacking it you would be maintaining their happiness. Would we then treat them as if they are only conscious of what they know and say that it is morally okay not to tell them, or would we treat them as fully conscious whereas in the hypothetical scenario if they were to know all things would they be happy with the situation and therefore we must feel morally obligated to tell them?

- This example would lead me to believe that we should treat them as fully conscious and what would make them happy.

However, there is a problem with this theory.

If we were to treat a person as fully conscious and not treat them as if they are only conscious of what they know then we would essentially be making a projected or theoretical response of what would make them happy and this would not always align with what it makes them truly happy with what they are truly conscious of. For example, if a person has two options, one that would lead to more happiness to the individual and one that would lead to negative effects to the individual. This person is not intelligent enough to understand the chain of effects that is led by their actions and therefore they choose the one that has negative effects for themselves because they feel as though this would make them happy and therefore the choice that is more negative for them makes them happy in the present unaware of the future. If we were to assume that the top example was correct and that we are to treat them as fully conscious it could be justifiable to assume that we should override their emotions as being conscious of only what they are and say we're going to force you to make the better option for yourself because we're treating you as fully conscious and not what you truly are.

- This example would lead me to believe that we should treat people as only conscious of what they are.

The conflict between the ideas comes between what we are going to prioritize if we are to value human happiness.

Are we to treat people based on what they are conscious of or based on what they would want if they were fully conscious?

Is an accurate description of the Marvel movie "End Game" a battle between Utilitarian Altruism (Thanos), and Deontological Altruism (The Avengers)?

Not sure what you mean by neutrality.

Though I agreed that inherent strife was unavoidable.

And what is par?

Maybe it is food on the table a comfy bed and an environment that permits relaxation.

Or maybe par can only be relative to circumstance.

There isn't an objective standard for neutrality rather it's subjective to interpretation by the individual, (neutrality is what they feel makes life equally positive and negative).

I'd also like to discuss the positive and negative consequences of basing a moral structure on each of the three moral aspects being action, outcome, and intention: respectively corresponding with deontology, consequentialism, and virtue ethics.

These are the primary structures of each subcategory I'd like to discuss. Within Deontology I'd like to discuss divine command and contractarian, within Consequentialism I'd like to discuss alternatives to utilitarianism besides hedonism and egoism, and within virtue ethics I'd like to discuss Aristotelian and Confucian ethic theories.

I want to work towards understanding the reasonings behind the flaws of each and possibly identify an existing moral structure or develop a more ideal moral structure than we use today. This will require us to have conscious thought behind what we claim is moral rather than ideologically following the unconscious path of what has seemingly always been.

I will start out the conversation by saying that from the surface I would assume that consequentialism is the most logical structure to base morality off of being that what actually happens is what would most importantly matter. Although, without any other alternatives of consequentialism, I recognize many negative aspects of utilitarianism, hedonism, and egoism.

Where do human rights and justice come from if not morality, and if they are morals, how do they relate? I don't see how human rights correlate with utilitarianism given my comment #33.

We can never hope to answer questions such as the morality of abortion or human cloning for organs and other complicated moral topics without having a comprehensive and nuanced definition of what morality is fundamentally.

Assuming murdering the innocent is not permissible given the moral structure, utilitarianism, hedonism and egoism are out of the question for specific circumstances that would allow such to be. It doesn't make sense to me that virtue is to be had if there is nothing that virtue is to intend and therefore intention is to hope for an outcome and that outcome is a consequence and therefore I don't believe that there is such a thing as virtue ethics but rather only consequentialism. I also dislike the ontology because it self-reflects to value good from evil and therefore with no external reference you cannot find yourself guilty and any one's value structure based upon deontology could be completely absurd and they would have no reference in which to say we have pushed the boundaries. Ultimately, I don't believe in virtue ethics but only consequentialism and Deontology and consequentialism both have extreme flaws. Alternatively, I looked at moral structures that encompassed all three but then came the problem of which to way heavier than the rest and if equal then one could justify the other's absence and that was a mess. Although I recognize flaws in this moral structure that have been pointed out to me, I believe that contractarianism seems to be the most reasonable and least flawed morality. This would allow for proper equality to be set along with the set of guidelines that need to be followed and equally shared. The only problem I'm aware of with contractarianism are the individuals who are unable to make a valid contract or agreement. However, given the modern day with technology and understanding of nearly every language I don't find a circumstance even hypothetical where this would be a problem.

Assuming we are to pursue contractarianism we would have a few problems that would come up, but I believe we can overcome them. The first would be can we change the contract after we've already agreed. If you cannot change the contract after agreement, then it is likely one person was unaware of something, or both were unaware, and they are unhappy with their agreement. If you are allowed to change the terms of the agreement, then there are likely going to be unfair changes as progression moves forward. although I recognize that unfair bargaining would inevitably be associated with contractarianism, we live life in a society where contracts are used every day and therefore being how problematic and flawed every other moral structure is I believe that contractarianism is the least flawed and most logical solution to a non-religious perspective of moral relativism.

You say that people will take advantage of this logic by justifying immoral actions, but if it is logical, would it not be considered moral in the first place? I personally dislike the idea that morality is independent of thought and logic, as I would view this as an unconscious animal instinct and not an advancement of humanities intelligence and self-aware consciousness. Therefore, assuming morality is logical, it wouldn't be immoral to use logic to justify actions; rather, they would be moral in the first place because they are reasonable and logically thought out.

I believe it would be beneficial to society if morality had a foundation besides unconscious animal instinct, perhaps such as a consequentialist morality. If morality was based on consequences (aka cause and effect), morality would be much easier to assign and recognize what is moral and not.