Morality redefinition

Commonly so called “schizophrenia” of humanity is no less serious than mine.

Morality (from the Latin moralis “manner, character, proper behavior”) is the differentiation of intentions, decisions, and actions between those that are distinguished as proper and those that are improper.[1] Morality can be a body of standards or principles derived from a code of conduct from a particular philosophy, religion, or culture, OR it can derive from a standard that a person believes should be universal.[2]

1. Principles concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior.
1.1 [count noun] A particular system of values and principles of conduct.
1.2 The extent to which an action is right or wrong.

Descriptive and normative
In its descriptive sense, “morality” refers to personal or cultural values, codes of conduct or social mores from a society that provides these codes of conduct in which it applies and is accepted by an individual. It does not connote objective claims of right or wrong, but only refers to that which is considered right or wrongDescriptive ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense.[9]
In its normative sense, “morality” refers to whatever (if anything) is actually right or wrong, which may be independent of the values or mores held by any particular peoples or cultures. Normative ethics is the branch of philosophy which studies morality in this sense.[9]

ALL DESCRIPTIVE definitions of morality contribute to the mendacity of humankind, because majority can arbitrarily and selectively determine what is good and what is bad, depending on their needs, preferences and for their own convenience.

My NORMATIVE definition of morality, which does not allow mendacity:
1. Striving to eliminate suffering without causing a permanent stupefaction
2. A way of thinking and conduct resulting from understanding of suffering caused by necessity and the pursuit of its elimination

I strongly believe, that my NORMATIVE definition, which does not allow mendacity, should be the universal one, not just an alternative for the majority’s set of arbitrary and selective rules, which contribute to the mendacity of humankind.

My definition does not include any action, effort, behavior or striving, resulting in other positive effect, which does not contribute to suffering reduction. Suffering is the most serious and the most common problem that exists, and morality is too essential term to extend its definition to the other manifestations of goodwill and thereby to blur it. The one who does not contribute to solving the most serious and the most common problem that exists is not entitled to call himself moral according to my definition.

We are at the top of the food chain. We breed and kill animals for meat. There is nothing wrong with that according to the old definition. We don’t give a shit about the suffering of livestock, because we need and like meat very much, so our morality does not concern it. I’m no better. I may be even worse, because I do not persuade anyone to vegetarianism. However, I encourage everyone to admit, that we’re mendacious and amoral cunts, according to the new definition.
I suggest a mental experiment with role reversals, but I don’t think of animals that breed us for meat or a more advanced, alien civilization, but the Nazis, who came to conclusion, that Jewish meat was a delicacy. The same concentration camps, but instead of burning or burying corpses, they are used to make food products. Nazi morality did not include Jews just as ours does not include livestock. Its suffering is best known to a butcher, so if one would like to know it better, the one should visit a slaughterhouse. I tell you… I don’t give a shit, just like the most of you… I’ll forget about livestock in 5 minutes. However, I will not forget, how hypocritical cunts we are. You shall remember it too.

Personally, I’m not going to fight hunger in Africa, or global warming, or even for animal rights. I will not move my single finger to help fix the world, just like the most of you. My only goal is to change the definition of morality to a fair and consistent one, so that everybody could make a proper self-evaluation according to it, because the present definition allows a horrible hypocrisy.

It is possible for a society have a morality that is concerned primarily with minimizing the harms that human beings can suffer. Such a society might claim that their morality is based on some universal features of human nature or of all rational beings. Although all societies include more than just a concern for minimizing harm to (some) human beings in their moralities, this feature of morality, unlike purity and sanctity, or accepting authority and emphasizing loyalty, is included in everything that is regarded as a morality by any society. Because minimizing harm can conflict with accepting authority and emphasizing loyalty, there can be fundamental disagreements within a society about the morally right way to behave in particular kinds of situations. Philosophers such as Bentham (1789) and Mill (1861), who accept a normative account of morality that takes the avoiding and preventing harm element of morality to be most important, criticize all actual moralities (referred to by “morality” in the descriptive sense) that give precedence to purity and loyalty when they are in conflict with avoiding and preventing harm.

Am I discovering a wheel? Am I trying to open the opened door? I’m riding on the wheel through the open door. I limit morality to one pursuit. I do not call it a principle, but a striving, to describe it as a feature and behavior characteristic for an empathic person. Action in favor of family, tribe, ethnic group, nation, humanity and even selected animal species is seen as a virtue in most cultures and religions, but none of them, except Buddhism, refers to suffering in general, in all forms. Buddhism puts the greatest emphasis on liberation from suffering by getting rid of attachment to everything that is temporary, including life itself. I put the greatest emphasis on an active, conscious effort to eliminate suffering, to relieve mental and physical pain, to detect and eliminate its causes. I think there is nothing more important. You may be another Einstein, discover the unification theory that combines gravity and quantum mechanics, exceed the speed of light and go back in time, make the first teleportation, build a functional quantum computer, and create artificial intelligence. But if there was a man or beast dying in agony in your presence and you wouldn’t try to help him/it somehow, you would be just a regular scum.

Back to the livestock – I think that nothing will change in our lifetimes, but the future generations will produce and distribute synthetic meat, and yet another ones will improve its taste. As for the interference in nature, in the predator-victim relationship, I think about implanting animals with nano-implants, in conjunction with monitoring and decision-making algorithms, which altogether could put the animal to sleep when it is started to be eaten alive, and the algorithm decides, that it has no chance for survival, fighting for its life. This may weaken predators, because the victim will not fight to the last drop of its blood – it is the price of interference.

On the one hand, I’m afraid that I exaggerate, and on the other hand I am deeply convinced that I am right. On the one hand, the problem seems insignificant, and on the other hand, it is fundamental to our way of thinking. I also try to guess what you may think when you’re reading this. You may think that I will not change anything, because humanity doesn’t give a shit. I tell you this: you are the representative of humanity. If you, personally, don’t give a shit, the humanity doesn’t give a shit because of the people like you.