Is morality objective or subjective? This is a question I like to ask when teaching philosophy. It is a zugzwang gambit. Both answers are traps.
“Morality is objective”, answers the student.
“If morality is objective then it must be measurable. How do you create a scientific experiment to measure morality?” I ask.
“That is obviously impossible,” says the student, “Therefore morality is not objective. Since morality is not objective, morality must be subjective.”
“Morality is subjective,” answers the student.
“If morality is subjective, then does that mean there are no objective grounds with which to condemn evil?” I ask.
“Of course not,” says the student, “Moral relativism does not exonerate evildoers. Since morality cannot be arbitrary, morality must be objective.”
Politics is dominated by calls to “Crush <outgroup>!”, social conformity, and moral relativism. When you encounter those rare people with ethical sense, they tend to advocate an orthogonal compass.
Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, bless those who curse you, pray for those who persecute you.
―Jesus
In Cyberbuddhism, the morality of conduct is defined by its intrinsic effect on your disassociation.
- Moral conduct is thought and behavior that decreases your disassociation.
- Immoral conduct is thought and behavior that increases your disassocation.
Universal love is moral because it directly attacks dualism. Unconditional forgiveness is moral because it is incompatible with clinging. Speaking truthfully prevents doublethink. Mistreating other people for your own self-advancement is immoral because it it fuels disassociation.