What is Morality?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

When debating, people often bring up the idea of morality. Morality could be loosely considered as "good," circular, or "you'll know it when you see it." Morality is a difficult topic in philosophy.

After considering morality, we debate ethics. Once we know morality, what do we decide should be done about it? Finally, we argue some consideration of justice. Justice may be considered in a Platonic sense. It is a debate about how society should be structured as to achieve the best results.

Here is a theoretical example:

Morality: We should never harm anyone.
Ethics: We need to harm individuals in certain cases.
Justice: Society needs to minimize harm.

To begin with these pursuits, how do we decide what morality is? Why do many of us see poverty as an injustice? When we object to conditions in foreign lands, what fuels this objection?

Are ideas of morality simply spread by power? Thus, the idea that "poverty is unjust" has been spread by individuals? We may have an evolutionary capacity towards empathy and considering the rights of others?

[Stranger Than Paradise]

I think we definitely have a natural morality to us which survives in some shape or form irrespective of our environment. It may be tainted and disfigured in some way by unatural immoral environments but I feel it survives in everybody in someway. Ethics and justice seem more respective of the environment that surrounds us, this is due to the bourgeoisie telling us what is justice, what is ethical. The media is the main source of this indoctrination. So we are heavily brainwashed to believe bourgeois societies justice IS justice. Morals seem to survive through this however.

[Cynical Observer]

i think morality is simply the logical conclusion people develop based on the ratio of their ego to their sense of empathy. Although it's also going to have some completely random elements thrown in due to society's influence.

[mikelepore]

Morality is doing what the person who called it "morality" believes strongly that you should do. The word describes the state of mind of the person who observes other people and then uses that word.

[Nwoye]

i think the only conclusion one could come to regarding the source of morality is one's social environment. in fact, ethics and morality are inherently social things, as they only come into play when social relationships develop, and when people have to consider how their actions affect or relate to other people. basically if a man lives alone on an island, and has never met another human, he has no sense of ethics or morality, because it's not necessary. so if you accept this, you would have to accept that the nature of one's morals and ethics are shaped primarily by outside influence and human relationships, not simply reason or discernment.

however, i'm not sure what ramifications that theory would have on the cognitivism vs. non-cognitivism debate, or on the possible subjectivity or objectivity of ethical actions.

[Communist Theory]

Whatever the dear Admins say.

[Vincent]

i think the only conclusion one could come to regarding the source of morality is one's social environment. in fact, ethics and morality are inherently social things, as they only come into play when social relationships develop, and when people have to consider how their actions affect or relate to other people. basically if a man lives alone on an island, and has never met another human, he has no sense of ethics or morality, because it's not necessary. so if you accept this, you would have to accept that the nature of one's morals and ethics are shaped primarily by outside influence and human relationships, not simply reason or discernment.

I disagree. Although I think you are correct in noting that ethical decision making on takes place within a social environment, I disagree that this necessitates the derivation of ethical principles from social circumstance. The whole point of the Kantian model of morality is to break free from subjective ethical principles and to move towards a rational and objective way of 'working out' your moral principles - and I think that model is helpful to refer to here.

For example, I am poor. Really poor. I steal someone's food. Is it morally justified because my social environment dictated it as a (somewhat) necessary action? Am I, as a person whose actions are dictated by social circumstance, exempt from my own intuition that, perhaps, I wouldn't want anyone stealing from me? No, I don't think so - I think there can be, at the highest level, an objective moral principle, which might just be Kant's universalisation; the Biblical 'Golden Rule' in secular philosophical terms.

[Nwoye]

I disagree. Although I think you are correct in noting that ethical decision making on takes place within a social environment, I disagree that this necessitates the derivation of ethical principles from social circumstance.well to me, it seems that one necessitates the other. as in, if ethics only exist socially, than it would make sense that whatever social environment and whatever social influences one is affected by will determine my ethical nature.


The whole point of the Kantian model of morality is to break free from subjective ethical principles and to move towards a rational and objective way of 'working out' your moral principles - and I think that model is helpful to refer to here.well the kantian model in my opinion proves my point. if no other humans existed, then the categorical imperative would be pointless, and i could just do whatever i wanted.

also, i don't mean to say that ethics are necessarily subjective. just that they represent social relationships - which right now is leading me into a contractarian view of ethics.


For example, I am poor. Really poor. I steal someone's food. Is it morally justified because my social environment dictated it as a (somewhat) necessary action? Am I, as a person whose actions are dictated by social circumstance, exempt from my own intuition that, perhaps, I wouldn't want anyone stealing from me? No, I don't think sowhat i mean by "socially formed" is not necessarily in terms on social or economic circumstances (stealing is okay if you're poor, etc), but rather in terms of our moral values and ethical judgments. essentially, every evaluative judgment i make is a result of various outside influences working against and with one another, manifesting themselves in my actions, personality, morals, values, etc. i am a result of my environment, and therefore how i view ethical decisions (my morality) is created the same way.

no to be honest, i'm still formulating my view of ethics, and i pretty much feel like a blind man in an empty room.


- I think there can be, at the highest level, an objective moral principle, which might just be Kant's universalisation; the Biblical 'Golden Rule' in secular philosophical terms.be careful when you say objective. objective - as in obectivism and ayn rand (yuck) - means mind independant. that means that it exists independant of any social structures or relationships. that means even if all humans were wiped off of the face tomorrow, ethics would still exist, and actions could still be right and wrong. i don't see how this is possible, as ethics represent people dealing with social interactions and conflicts.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

i think the only conclusion one could come to regarding the source of morality is one's social environment. in fact, ethics and morality are inherently social things, as they only come into play when social relationships develop, and when people have to consider how their actions affect or relate to other people. basically if a man lives alone on an island, and has never met another human, he has no sense of ethics or morality, because it's not necessary. so if you accept this, you would have to accept that the nature of one's morals and ethics are shaped primarily by outside influence and human relationships, not simply reason or discernment.

however, i'm not sure what ramifications that theory would have on the cognitivism vs. non-cognitivism debate, or on the possible subjectivity or objectivity of ethical actions.

Whilst I accept that environment is the main factor towards behaviour I am not entirely sure it is the complete factor and all behaviour is linked to this. I think some things can survive in spite of environment. For example, your man on the island, one day another guy turns up, he looks distressed, tired, hurt and malnourished. So the man that was there first, with no other human contact, just leaves him there. I heavily doubt this would happen. I think each person has some sort of natural morality, because as humans co-operation is a natural trait. So I think in that situation he would help the man, and he would share the food he had.

[SharpSkin]

Whatever the dear Admins say.

Haha

That would be dictatorship, not morality.

Bur jest aside, I believe morality to be social in origin, as a poster above suggested. We have learned through centuries and centuries, that it helps to survive in a harsh environment if we huddle together.

We are social creatures, therefore we survive.

So morality is social in origin.

[Nwoye]

Whilst I accept that environment is the main factor towards behaviour I am not entirely sure it is the complete factor and all behaviour is linked to this. I think some things can survive in spite of environment. For example, your man on the island, one day another guy turns up, he looks distressed, tired, hurt and malnourished. So the man that was there first, with no other human contact, just leaves him there. I heavily doubt this would happen. I think each person has some sort of natural morality, because as humans co-operation is a natural trait. So I think in that situation he would help the man, and he would share the food he had.
i'm not sure. in my opinion if another person turned up, then moral decisions would be based on interaction. ie "is it okay if i do this?" or "is it okay if i do that?". they would each agree to respect each others interests and desires so that their own may be respected as well. this led me to social contract theory, and a contractarian approach to ethics.

in your example, the first man would probably agree to help the second guy out if the second guy promised to lend a hand in the future. or he would say "i will respect your right to life and help you, under the understanding that you would do the same thing." so it's kind of kantian but it also has elements of a social contract.

the problem with contractarianism however, is we have to determine what exactly the contract is, and what "natural" "rights" are inherent in that contract.

[Stranger Than Paradise]

i'm not sure. in my opinion if another person turned up, then moral decisions would be based on interaction. ie "is it okay if i do this?" or "is it okay if i do that?". they would each agree to respect each others interests and desires so that their own may be respected as well. this led me to social contract theory, and a contractarian approach to ethics.

in your example, the first man would probably agree to help the second guy out if the second guy promised to lend a hand in the future. or he would say "i will respect your right to life and help you, under the understanding that you would do the same thing." so it's kind of kantian but it also has elements of a social contract.

the problem with contractarianism however, is we have to determine what exactly the contract is, and what "natural" "rights" are inherent in that contract.

Yes I agree with that. But imagine it, the first time you see another human. You know nothing of how you are supposed to interact with them. For one reason or another I'm sure he would help. Maybe just out of pure curiosity.

[Nwoye]

Yes I agree with that. But imagine it, the first time you see another human. You know nothing of how you are supposed to interact with them. For one reason or another I'm sure he would help. Maybe just out of pure curiosity.
i'm not sure. obviously i can't disprove you or anything, i just don't think we can make assumptions like that.

however, even if he did help the man out, i seriously doubt it would be out of a respect for duty - ie adherence to kantian ethics. as you said, it would probably be rational egoism driving him.

[black magick hustla]

The only useful philosophical treatsie on morality is either the one that looks at morality anthropologically i.e. the material conditions that give birth to it, or the philosophical attempt at completely destroy any discourse on it because such discourse is bounded to become nonsense. (Wittgenstein, Nietzche, to a certain degree the existentialists, etc)

[WhitemageofDOOM]

For example, I am poor. Really poor. I steal someone's food. Is it morally justified because my social environment dictated it as a (somewhat) necessary action?

Your need for that food exceeded the need of the one you took for it correct? If so your act was morally correct.


Yes I agree with that. But imagine it, the first time you see another human. You know nothing of how you are supposed to interact with them. For one reason or another I'm sure he would help. Maybe just out of pure curiosity.

Yes, humans are social and gullible. You don't need to explain that as morality however when instinct is sufficient.

Though I'm a utilitarian so i do believe in objective moral principles.

[Nwoye]

Your need for that food exceeded the need of the one you took for it correct? If so your act was morally correct
i don't know if i would say that. applying that argument as a universal maxim is a huge infringement on personal autonomy. it's basically allowing me to infringe upon your autonomy because of my personal opinion of your "need".

it's also strikingly similar to Robert Nozick's justification for private property in land.


Though I'm a utilitarian so i do believe in objective moral principles.
excuse me for being so direct but utilitarianism is nonsense.

[Rebel_Serigan]

This is not nearly as difficult a question as one might think. It is a dicey topic for a philosopher but to a sociologist like me we already have it down. Morals are defined in sociology as "Rules and ideals about apropriate and imapropriate behavior" morality is defined as "The intensity in which one believes in his/her own society's morals" So in the end there really is no such thing as being moral or not because morality differs depending on what street you are standing on at that moment. For instance honor used to be important in the US now it doesn't even exist as a moral. However, honor still hold up-most importance in many Eastern countries. So in reality morality is a useless and un-universal arguement when debating anything. That desn't that people still don't use it to thier advantage when trying to sway less intelegent people in thier favor. So one could say that the idea of morality exists as a tool for people to use to manipulate others, how's that for morals?

[Nwoye]

This is not nearly as difficult a question as one might think. It is a dicey topic for a philosopher but to a sociologist like me we already have it down. Morals are defined in sociology as "Rules and ideals about apropriate and imapropriate behavior" morality is defined as "The intensity in which one believes in his/her own society's morals" So in the end there really is no such thing as being moral or not because morality differs depending on what street you are standing on at that moment. For instance honor used to be important in the US now it doesn't even exist as a moral. However, honor still hold up-most importance in many Eastern countries. So in reality morality is a useless and un-universal arguement when debating anything. That desn't that people still don't use it to thier advantage when trying to sway less intelegent people in thier favor. So one could say that the idea of morality exists as a tool for people to use to manipulate others, how's that for morals?
is this a positive or normative statement? are you a proponent of moral/ethical relativism?

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

At minimum, morality is what's "good" for the individual. I've recently become quite resistant to communist ideas of freedom which seem to necessarily entail the metaphysical worship of liberty. A being compelled by its nature to impale itself on a spike is not necessarily better off with freedom than restriction.

Humans necessarily make generalizations about objects. If watching another person die from decapitation did not imply to us the prospect of decapitation being harmful to our person, humans would be poorly adapted to any environment that contains similarities, and it is being our conception to conceive an environment without similarities as our nature dictates such perceptions.

When we consider our desire for freedom from harm, and our propensity towards seeking pleasures and valuing life, we develop moral consistencies. We apply mathematical analysis necessarily to anything meeting the criteria for that analysis. Value attached to moral pleasure is done scientifically, psychologically, and ultimately by comparison.

A commitment to freedom stems from the tendency of all avenues, scientific or otherwise, to become corrupted by the interests of people. This is a legitimate worry that I share. However, we cannot deny that degrees of empathy make individuals distinctly care about others, though perhaps in varying degrees. Even the egoist watches sad films or passes by the homeless, rationalizing their emotions, is actively fighting against their nature. Active self-discipline is necessarily used to promote good, but there is no necessary motivation to force egoistic individualism upon yourself. If you enjoy helping others, you need only the discipline required to sustain yourself and distinguish between predators and cooperators.

If someone in a communist society was a drug addict using, in fact, most of the most harmful drugs, we would be sympathetic. Although the addict rightfully valuing the pleasure associated with those actions, he is illogically evaluating his future prospects and/or we've failed to provide him legitimate prospects. Given that he's headed towards death, it's morally justifiable to intervene on his behalf "unless" he can make a logical appeal to our intuitions and logical systems.

This is inherently an issue in law with regard to the "cultural defense." A man from a culture known for mistreating women, then, proposes his intentions were "good." This kind of notion is utterly ridiculous. We have no inherent justification for incorporating his cultural norms, with no evidence of their rationality, as legitimate to our own. This is necessarily harmful because their is an irresolvable conflict between our perspectives.

If we have a position that empathy is inherently desirable, we run into problems. Empathy is not simple rational cooperation. It's not an agreement with a robotic automaton. If you think the existence of empathy is fundamentally undesirable, or individuals should not give it significance, you are fundamentally denying what makes humanity distinct. A revolution is an act of love, essentially.

If my friend was chlorine, and he asked me to go for a swim in the local pool, I would ask him, why? If his answer did not sufficiently compel my rational, I would consider possibilities. We all have different tastes and attach different values to our safety. However, his death is a likely possibility, and he shows a clear preference towards living. He is simply being irrational. I do not have infinite time to stop him. I would way the odds significantly towards stopping him, though.

If someone is doing something stupid that is stupid because it involves "physical pain and ridiculous consequences," and they show know observable rational motivations, our sense of empathy should compel action.

I sympathize with the notion of negative liberty, I think it's largely a response to illogical methods of evidence collection. Since religious people were being irrational, and weren't being convinced, we appealed to their uncertainty. The fundamental capacity to be pessimistic, nihilist, et cetera, is a universally applicable human trait. The fact that there is no certainty, but we want certainty, can prove disastrous.

There is an implied consent via the original position, in theory, to certain actions involving individual restriction - one of which is restricting the ability to kill. These restrictions are fundamentally based on subjective ideas of individuals.

If you didn't know what person you'd become, would you restrict 90% of people who believe something if the truth value is undetermined. No. There is no guarantee of results and restriction is inherently harmful.

Would you restrict 10% of people if 90% of people believe something is true, and they have access to no empirical data to suggest otherwise? That depends, you say. What do most people think about such risks? Is 10% an acceptable risk for forcing extreme pain, when we have little evidence? No. What about avoiding an extreme harm? Sure, but what percentage of people need to agree? Well, it depends on their value of risk - what percentage of authority are they willing to give others.

If 99% of the world thought I was doing something stupid, and I couldn't convince them otherwise, I'd want them to intervene on my behalf presuming I agreed with their logical process. The justification for complete liberty is you have no reason to believe a single individual is inherently worse at deciding their good than multiple individuals. Do you ask one person for advice when you have a problem, or do you consult multiple people? I wouldn't want 51% restricting my freedom on a whim, but I'm not going to forgo "all" restrictions because I'm afraid of abuse. The idea of consistency is law is an overwhelming restrictive process. You can appeal to individual and incompatible reasons for two similar cases if you have significant reason to believe the conclusions are correct. I would not forgo sleep or food if someone showed me a logical inconsistency in believing in both sleeping an eating. I would presume something is wrong with the argument. Even if I couldn't find a problem, I would presume the logical system is incomplete.

Arguing against any restrictions us a useful political technique within a society that contains many irrational and widely accepted norms. The application of restrictions to particular desirable ends does not necessitate the application to other situations. Universal logic can easily be a meta-category of distinct logical systems that we employ for particular ends. Geometric analysis of triangles does not apply to circles. They may share similarities, but these similarities are not necessarily sufficient to justify new actions of the same type.

If we were blind and a train was coming, we would be upset if someone pushed us out of the way, perhaps. If we've consistently seen the person look out for our interests, and we trust their judgment, as we are aware of trains in other ways, it's not an issue.

A society with equalized authority will not necessarily make corrupt decisions if the society is sufficiently empathetic and/or these discussions, by default, cannot generate the accumulation of private property and other socially constructable power advantages. People will quickly realize in a free society if an individual is acting in their interests, as well, as they will immediately discover the results and immediately have the ability to overturn them excluding possible exceptions.

People have the right to sell themselves into slavery so long as the relationship produces desirable results for their person. A leftist society is inherently restrictive if it limits individuals ability to restrict themselves, including assumed consent, if society wishes to adopt principles with such restrictiveness.

[Nwoye]

oof. i read your whole post DAB and i was... at best... interested. i'll address some specific points.

At minimum, morality is what's "good" for the individual.
mmk. well i assume you're supporting egoism here. egoism is kind of a weird sense of looking at ethics, first of all as it's completely subjective. and really, in order to be consistent with it, you have to claim that any act chosen freely by an individual is ethical, since, even if is "altruistic" - giving to the poor - it can still be driven by self-interest, meaning just the interest to do whatever the fuck you want.

so it's not really a normative theory of ethics or morality but rather a complete rejection of ethics and morality.

just a question here about egoism (assuming that's what you're proposing): would it be unethical for the state to intervene and restrict someone acting in their own self interest? excuse me if you answered that in your post. it was a bit vague and rambling.


People have the right to sell themselves into slavery so long as the relationship produces desirable results for their person.
the second part of that sentence doesn't make any sense. who determines that? what is "desirable"? and why should they not be able to do something which has negative consequences for them?

[commyrebel]

There is no such thing it is only programed in your brain by your parents and leaders

[Cynical Observer]

There is no such thing it is only programed in your brain by your parents and leaders

I think you should give people alittle more credit than that, do rational thought, weighing modes of belief, and free will have nothing to do with it? Certainly the environment accounts for a large portion of one's morality, but i think individuals are certainly capable of deciding much of it for themselves.

[Il Medico]

Morality, good and evil, all circumstantial. Morality molds itself from one situation to another, like water. My compass for morality is there is no good and evil, only right and wrong. Right is what is justifiable, and wrong is what is not.

[commyrebel]

I think you should give people alittle more credit than that, do rational thought, weighing modes of belief, and free will have nothing to do with it? Certainly the environment accounts for a large portion of one's morality, but i think individuals are certainly capable of deciding much of it for themselves.I didn't say we were evil and didn't care, what i said is we have instincts that can be defined as good or evil in morality. What I also was trying to say was that there is no good or evil because you define as evil could be good for others like the great purge i say that was good but others say that was evil.

[Nwoye]

I didn't say we were evil and didn't care, what i said is we have instincts that can be defined as good or evil in morality. What I also was trying to say was that there is no good or evil because you define as evil could be good for others like the great purge i say that was good but others say that was evil.
but surely there is some form of normative ideals which applies equally to all individuals and which should guide all ethical action?

or are you just a moral relativist.

[Cynical Observer]

I didn't say we were evil and didn't care, what i said is we have instincts that can be defined as good or evil in morality. What I also was trying to say was that there is no good or evil because you define as evil could be good for others like the great purge i say that was good but others say that was evil.
No you never mentioned instincts, in fact the word "instincts" contradicts your statement that morality is entirely programmed by ones environment. And wasn't critisizng you for implying that we are evil but rather that we are unintelligent sheep, subject to the whims of "programming" from those in authority, reducing us to the level of computers. And I'm familiar with the rest of your statement, it's moral relativism which i personally ascribe to (some aspects of it anyway, not justify harming others), although possibly for different reasons than you.

[commyrebel]

Ok i do like ethics and morality i just am saying it is all in your head there is no universal morality that people tend to look upon to describe good and evil

[Nwoye]

Ok i do like ethics and morality i just am saying it is all in your head there is no universal morality that people tend to look upon to describe good and evil
well the issue is that your philosophy states that no action can be better or more desirable then another action. under any circumstances.

you're seriously justifying everything from murder to slavery to rape to - gasp - capitalism.

[commyrebel]

well the issue is that your philosophy states that no action can be better or more desirable then another action. under any circumstances.

you're seriously justifying everything from murder to slavery to rape to - gasp - capitalism. I never said I justified any of that and why would i be a capitalist pig I made a promise to myself that I would purge all capitalist that are not willing to change their ways if you call that murder then call it murder, i don't and i don't care what your morals are.

[Nwoye]

I never said I justified any of that and why would i be a capitalist pig I made a promise to myself that I would purge all capitalist that are not willing to change their ways if you call that murder then call it murder, i don't and i don't care what your morals are.
well moral relativism believes that "no universal standard exists by which to assess an ethical proposition's truth". this philosophy claims that morality and ethics are based on social and cultural circumstances and norms. this means that if some particular action or lifestyle is accepted socially or culturally, then it is morally acceptable. for example in 1930's germany it was socially acceptable to throw communists and leftists in general into prison. a moral relativist would say that there's nothing wrong with this, correct?

[swampfox]

Morality is whatever the general consensus decides it is.

[Dooga Aetrus Blackrazor]

egoism is kind of a weird sense of looking at ethics, first of all as it's completely subjective. and really, in order to be consistent with it, you have to claim that any act chosen freely by an individual is ethical, since, even if is "altruistic"

just a question here about egoism (assuming that's what you're proposing): would it be unethical for the state to intervene and restrict someone acting in their own self interest? excuse me if you answered that in your post. it was a bit vague and rambling.

the second part of that sentence doesn't make any sense. who determines that? what is "desirable"? and why should they not be able to do something which has negative consequences for them?

My apologies for the incoherency of my previous post and the following post.

I was assuming egoism generously for the purpose of a theoretical skeptic of my claim. My motivation was to show that egoism rationally leads to a conception of cooperative ethics. This matters if you think simple realization can morally motivate people. I don't think this. I was simply suggesting an egoist would have to concede that, although they may be unable or unwilling to act with proper empathy, a circumstance with empathy is preferable.

For instance, predators and prey fight. If the predator reasons, he will dislike his behavior, but his rational dislike will be insufficient to overpower his nature. Ultimately, his morality will reflect a subjective opinion, but he will subconsciously realize his fault.

It's a predator/prey moral dichotomy. Instead of suggesting they are simple perspective relations, I'm implying an inherent bias towards prey.

If we all work at lifting logs to survive, assume our one armed comrade is likely insufficiently able to perform the task as well as others. If he creates some benefit, which he does, we value his assistance. If he doesn't, we have a predicament. He is passively or actively, there is little distinction, harming the net gain of the community by participating. He's a child throwing paint as their parent attempts to make a masterpiece.

Now this elitist sounding nonsense is not a personal view of inferiority justifying mistreatment, explicitly, but it is somewhat. If someone actively works against a mutual goal, unintentionally or intentionally, we need to choose the most effective solution while respecting their humanity as best we can.

Restriction is proportional to the inefficiency created. Capitalists conceptualize this incorrectly as wealth inequalities. I would conceptualize going against "the common good" as a structural or logical inefficiency that is irremovable. Once someone does this, it's simply an unfortunate circumstance that prevents action.

If 1% of people want a revolution, and the rest of humanity are all idiots who genuinely can't cooperate, in theory, we can't pragmatically justify a revolution because idiots still count. We still have a moral claim to against their behavior inherent in being the person playing by the rules. If we're trying to build a tower to climb a wall, it's your fault if you place the brings into 10 individual piles. If I keep taking the bricks and building a single tower, I'm doing the right thing. Once a sufficient number of other people are choosing the inferior method, I may have an ethical obligation to switch. At that point, the irrationality of others has made a new choice more viable. However, if I so choose to stick with the original choice, because this tower is a more important issue that doesn't necessarily have multiple solutions, I wouldn't necessarily be morally at fault.

This is fundamentally a meta-ethical notion. We might suggest there is an inherent goal, maximizing good, that necessarily requires a cooperative effort, and this effort resolvable by a theoretically fair process. This process is inherently ethical meaning it accounts for the fact that, morally, we should all care a lot about others, but many of us don't. Morality is a vision. Ethics is the blue-print, essentially, as I conceptualize it. Morality has value intrinsically because it sets precedent so an impractical action that appears unethical might be moral and ethical. I haven't figured out my opinion on that, personally. Morality seems to entail its own dismissal in some cases.

The state couldn't restrict someone for acting in their own self-interest under my view unless it is necessarily in conflict with other views in the right sort of way. Whether this "right sort" constitutes more than physical harm to others and includes "offenses" is another question. I'd probably be against offenses. However, if we could sufficiently prove that a human aversion to, say, nose rings, was genetic and incurable, and 99% of people had this aversion, it might be theoretically justifiable to censor offenses on such a basis if the offender's interests are more trivial than those of the majority. I'm not sure about that.

The main idea was paternalism is justifiable in theory, at least, unless a better explanation than simple fear mongering and liberty worshiping is provided. We're always afraid. Sometimes we need to act anyway.

Humans are fundamentally social creatures that appear to actively suffer from the absence of socialization and actively suffer from witnessing the distress of others. If a person is harming themselves, it necessitates that "they" are making a poor choice. If society sets a precedent for ignoring the causes of pain, simply because they are self-caused, individuals will regularly be left to die. Furthermore, Mill's original conception of rights was before modern psychology. If he recognized the materialistic significance of human relations and empathy, I suspect he'd change his mind.

Mill fundamentally thought social interactions were a choice, which they are. However, he though that if an individual would not associate with someone who could theoretically harm themselves, because of fear of pain, they are being selfish. It is foremost the value of liberty for Mill, that is important. Bentham had already destroyed Mill's conceptions of natural rights, and he doesn't adequately respond to Bentham's original worries.

If you don't have a friendship, you lose.
If you do, you gain, but you have to accept the possibility of self-harm.
If you accept this possibility, you have to do nothing.
When I advocate doing something, I am being selfish.
When I do nothing, I am respecting the individual.

This is egoism. My empathy isn't real. It's just egoism. If I didn't have empathy, I wouldn't reach the same conclusion. I separately argued that a rational person would agree to an ideal moral conception without empathy (although an ideal morality would have empathy) because it's an individually maximizing solution.

Socrates accepting his death is an example, if historically accurate, is an example of a rational man accepting morality, or justice, from pure reasoning. I think he was very misguided on his view of justice and morality, in some respects, but I also think knowledge, including moral knowledge, accumulates through experimentation.