Feed The Beast

Yes, since every morality is personal opinion there can be no 'correct' morality thus every morality is neither correct nor wrong. And if no morality can be wrong, then you could say that every morality is correct.

I replied with what I thought would be the correct answer. Unless you were specifically asking him. If you were, my bad.

Well I was asking him what he thought since it was his sig, but since he never replied, this is fine.

Okay, so just to be clear, is morality (i.e. everyone's personal opinion of what they think is right) a beneficial thing? That is, are you saying it's acceptable for everyone to do whatever they believe is right?

A second question: if I have a different opinion of morality to you, am I wrong?

Overall, it's beneficial but it's not efficient to let people have their own morality, as people will go in random directions and oppose each other.

It's much more efficient to have one morality, and to make everyone follow that single morality. The morality follows the same rules as any other morality, but it'll point everyone in the same direction rather than let everyone go in their own directions.

A single morality will make sure that all energy is focused at a single point. However, if the morality is forced or eased it may cause people to break off and form their own moralities in an attempt to change the general 'accepted' morality. It usually won't work, and it'll just lower the overall efficiency of the 'accepted' morality.

You can see a good example of this by looking at religion. There are Muslims, Jews, Christians, etc.

Some of them get along because their moralities are similar, while others oppose each other and lower each other's efficiency. And it's possible for them to join together as well, or be completely destroyed, although it's quite rare.

So taking a concrete example, if everyone agreed that murder is bad, that's efficient (since no one is murdering).
And if some people's morality differs, it becomes inefficient since we have to deal with murderers. The more difference, the more inefficient.

But if everyone agreed that murder is fine, is that just as acceptable and efficient as the opposite?

If everybody believed murder was fine, then they would kill people who thought differently from them. They wouldn't kill their allies, though. Murder is caused by differences, you wouldn't kill somebody who believed the exact same things that you did, but you would kill somebody who thought you were weaker than them, because of a difference in morality.

So, if everybody on earth believed murder was fine (and they all believed in the same religion and thought equally of each other) they wouldn't go out and kill each other. Much the opposite.

However, if somebody were to stray from the pack and think that murder isn't fine (highly deficient), or if they thought of others as being worse than them (somewhat deficient), then they would be opposing the general morality of murder being fine and everybody would want to murder them for their difference in morality.

Okay, so suppose a society of people who all agree it is okay to cook and eat outsiders who think differently to them. That seems like a stable and efficient society.

It actually is. (Assuming that was sarcasm)

The morality is too forced in that case, if you stray from the general morality of cannibalism you'll be killed and eaten. It'll make people want to stray from the general morality of cannibalism being fine, which is what they want to avoid funnily enough.

If that society was to ease off a bit and not try to kill and eat people who strayed from them, they would be as efficient as can be. It would minimize the amount of people straying from the pack and getting eaten and it would maximize the amount of time that the society gets to do other, more productive, things.

War is deficiency. If everyone avoided war (even when there were conflicts) then overall the entire human race would be at peak efficiency.

If everyone were to go to war, then it would eliminate those who caused the deficiency and over time it would leave one morality. If people stayed war-hungry they would encourage people to stray and form their own moralities, in turn causing everyone who believed in the morality of war being fine to go to war with those people, eliminating the deficiency.