Preface

I want to state that this isn’t a “progressive” nor “conservative” guideline. It’s a humanity moral guideline that points out that two extremist sides opposing each other does not make either side the moral authority on every topic!

For most of human (documented) history, humans have been practicing moral relativism. Even to this day, humans are practicing moral relativism. To me, morality is objective but almost all humans are practicing moral relativism and holding other humans accountable to a standard that is actually below moral objectivity. No country practices moral objectivity. Moral objectivity is the belief that morals aren’t determined by the time period we live in and the thinking of the people who set those morals. A key example is slavery. Slavery is objectively immoral. Just because humans in the past had slaves and justified slaves, doesn’t mean it was moral at the time. What does it mean? Well just like today, it just means that humans at the time practiced moral relativism under the guise that they knew what objective morality is which based on the definition of morality I will soon state isn’t true.

Principality of Morality

The principality of morality is an optimization function that reduces harm without harming yourself the same degree. This includes both physical and mental (e.g. harassment). A kid-friendly version of this is the “golden rule” to do no action to others you would not want to occur to yourself but this is a trap. The exercise is left to the reader.

Hint

• you love very spicy food but you know I don’t love very spicy food
• you like to be tied up
• you like to piss
• Kinks themselves not immoral but subjugating someone else to them without honest dialogues on top of consent is immoral
  • What is a kink? It’s moral actions that society normally does not partake in even behind closed doors. I won’t state any kinks here.
  • Critical reasoning is very important to teach and spread otherwise we can justify anything in order to protect children or “in the interest of national security”, including banning encryption, privacy, and free travel. A society is capable of differentiating what policies are moral or not if the voter base can do so themselves. How to teach critical thinking is no different from how to think objective morality, so this document serves that purpose well.

To be a follower of objective morality, you need to be able to dissect and distinguish very peculiar and nuanced topics that may be deemed immoral without rationale. A good rule of thumb is to be curious why some people around you deem an action to be bad; This is just a start. Hardly will you meet someone who has the capabilities of convincing you. A follower of objective morality questions whether they are on the path of objective morality. What sets two moral peers apart is the ability to debate oneself to changing a mind on all sorts of topics.

It is important to distinguish between morality and personal belief. For example, it may be a personal belief to not prefer pre-marital sex, but if someone else does that (including your descendants), then your response becomes a question on morality not belief anymore. So when reading these topics, it’s not about personal belief, which everyone has a right to, but whether that belief can stand at a systematic level.

The First Test

The baptism of morality is testing how open your mind is. Question something (first in your head) you have always been told to believe or act by your parents without much rationale. This could be religion, but this may not apply for some of you reading. Do not take it as a pat on the back though; being Atheist, just as following a religion, is not surmountable of moral objectivity.

I don’t recommend reading further if you haven’t been able to do this for anything you believe in. If you aren’t able to do this, then I encourage you to contribute to or improve this piece rather rather than reading it for the purpose of learning.

Difficulty and Nuance

Over a year ago, I tried to write on the topic of morality and ethics, and gave up when it became apparent that morality and ethics isn’t something you can just generalize, but over a year later, have realized it’s a way of thinking and to really write about it, you need structure, examples, and concise + comprehensible arguments.

Morality and Ethics are simple at their core, but quickly become complicated if you stop to really think about it. Morals have to do with impeding someone else’s rights (including liberty and enjoyment) and ethics has to do with decision making that harms others either directly or reasonably indirectly. Ethical behaviour usually matters when you attain power and there’s usually codes regarding the behaviour your expected to follow. Doctors, lawyers, accountants, and even CEOs or your financial advisor (fiduciary duty). Ethics stems from morality and without a proper grasp on morality, it is hard to stop oneself from being too greedy and unethical for acting in ones self-interests can lead ot others’ losses as seen from the FTX and Sam Bankman-Fried scandal. It’s not enough to recognize other people’s wrongdoings, but it is important to at least recognize what actions were in self-interests so that on topics where acting in self-interest is not harmless, you can stop yourself.

Suicide, Euthanasia, and Compelled Compassion?

Let’s start off strong. Suicide is immoral since you are killing yourself, a human being. But if you are suffering already and commit suicide, it is not immoral since you are suffering more harm alive than a quick death. For those that did rationalize and follow through with suicide, you are innocent. It is not possible to think rationally in such a state and so your consciousness cannot be guilty of your immoral actions. A slow death is more immoral than a quick death when inflicted on others, and so if one is dying with pain that is improbable to reverse or stop, the act of relieving death is not immoral as it is quicker relief than inaction.

I hope it was clear that I support euthanasia regarding physical pain, including: killing a fellow soldier on the battle field if they were in pain and it was improbable any help was on the way and they asked for it. Since humans are willing to endure pain to enjoy other artifacts of life, simply being in a state of unstoppable pain does not mean you automatically consent to someone else killing you.

Mental Illness Euthanasia

I live in Canada, where euthanasia is about to be legalized for people suffering solely from mental health

On March 9, 2023, Bill C-39 received Royal Assent and immediately came into effect, temporarily postponing the eligibility date for persons suffering solely from a mental illness until March 17, 2024.

The morality surrounding this is one that I’ve already stated. Is the mental illness curable or not? I have been suicidal 2-3 times. I’m cured of it all now, so any suicide I would have done would be immoral although I would still be innocent as I wouldn’t know any better. So with euthanasia, a medical doctor is involved and they can judge for themselves on the probability of cure is. The morality does shift here from the mentally ill to the doctors. In the cases previously stated, I said that someone has to be in highly unlikely to stop pain and consent to dying, not just consent of death or unlikely to stop pain. It’s not one or the other, it is both. So when doctor’s are signing off on euthanasia for solely mentally ill persons, they need to educated in mental illness before making a call on if the pain is likely curable or not. This isn’t a game of “unlikely to be cured due to lack of mental health resources.” The government has a large budget so reviewers need to look see mental illness reasons as “even if resources were attributed, this person cannot be cured and is suffering more alive that it is not immoral to grant relief.”

Based on Mental Health America’s “Some people fight a near constant battle with mental illness,” my fear has indeed come true. It is very sad that some people are in a situation that treatment seems unlikely.

Compelled Compassion

Homosexuality

Let’s look at the stigmatization of homosexual men and how many people believed and still believe that a personal definition of marriage should be also be held by the government.

To get into the depths of homosexuality, we must first discuss and point out the moral relativism in the western world and how the recent legalization of marriage after 200 years of being a country somehow means that people without their own country or in a country that isn’t even a century old are evil because their moral definition doesn’t involve it.

People and countries who practice moral relativism cannot argue in good faith that other countries and cultures are backwards. By living in a country that practiced moral relativism, the probability of being morally objective is less than certain. I will make arguments later on about how actions that are illegal are in fact non-harming to non-parties.

Marriage

A marriage conceptually is between two consenting human beings. But what differentiates a marriage from a girlfriend? I argue that in the 21st century, stemming from west-european culture, the definition of marriage has been so perverted to the point where the only difference compared to a long-term relationship or long-term girlfriend is that it involves the government.

girlfriend? When I use the term girlfriend, I’m referring to intimate/sensual relationships in general, not only the ones that involve a woman.

So when people say they are getting married, there’s only legal reasons to do so. Not love:

• In case of death, I want my assets to be transferred without hassle or issues or a will to my surviving partner.
• I don’t want to be forced to testify against my partner in the future

Some people may choose to follow love before marriage, but that is not immoral.

Pre-Marital Sex

Following the previous argument that marriage isn’t a devotion of love, but only a legal wrapper, let’s tackle on pre-marital sex. This is only controversial towards religious parents, but the morality of pre-martial sex is left as an exercise to the reader, as this section is about parenting.

The issue of pre-marital sex is actually only a parental-child issue. It is only further exacerbated when you do not permit or agree or bless the wishes of your adult child to get married.

A couple I went to high school with got married at 20 and already have a child. My muslim friend in University said that he won’t follow the rule related to pre-marital sex.

If we look at the past and the recent uprising of sexually transmitted diseases, it’s clear that the moral issue isn’t the act of pre-marital sex, but not teaching your child that having sex outside a committed relationship has risks that can be mitigated to the same degree as the probability of dying to a terrorist attack.

What do I mean? I mean that given that 9/11 occurred, that going outside our house increases the chance of dying. Whenever you drive a car, you are increasing the chance of death. The moral issue isn’t the activity, but the moral duty of teaching risk perception and mitigation to your children.I stress on perception because if all you did is focus on risk, no matter how small, like in Barry, you rob your child of their freedom through psychological means.

Back to the point. To be Gay? Sin or Not?

No of course not. It’s a preference based on physical trait and not just blatant heavy-handed and ramifying discrimination such as colorism or racism. The only argument would be discrimination against the opposite sex (since it’s discrimination against what is the natural workings), but “sin” implies not just immorality but also guilt…Someone who has preferences is not guilty for those preferences as an individual unless there is some implicit eugenics or genocide involved. For example, forbidding people to pick partners of differing race/ethnicity/culture. People are going to be unavailable to date for all sorts of reasons, and to cherry pick “homosexuality” is simply wrong. They aren’t harming anyone else just as the priest who chooses celibacy is not harming those who are attracted to the priest.

Family members. It is your duty to love your children until they can take care of themselves, and it is your duty to shape them to how you see fit. If they “come out,” you cannot just think it is reversible. If it was reversible, then it would imply that the child’s environment (i.e. YOU) shaped them to be who you are. So in other words, by thinking your child is immoral for being homosexual, you are the one to blame for shaping their thoughts like that in the first place. I know that racial preferences can be shaped by a person’s surroundings but the difference is that race is prejudice whereas homosexuality is preference. One is wrong, whereas the other has no need to be “retaught.”

Another way to think about it is that I find out that my child loves Apple products and I call them immoral for this transgression. I “re-educate” them to like Linux (I have my ways) and call them immoral for the sin of liking Apple products. This is an extremist position surely no? How you raise your child is up to you, but don’t chastise them for something you had very good control over.

Again, control meaning that if being homosexual is determined at birth, then there is no argument and if it is not determined at birth but by environment, then don’t go around thinking this one environmental change is allowed to be chastised but not other preferences such as a child liking iPhones more than Androids. I too would cry if my child if my child preferred iPhones to Androids, but I’m not going to call them immoral for continuing to use it. Especially in a supportive country, you can still have grand children through adoption. A child with parents of the same sex is always better than a child without any parents. It’s not possible to argue that heterosexual couples are better when the child that was adopted was most likely born to a woman impregnated by a man.

How to Convince Your Child to use Linux instead of MacOS

In this made up scenario (since I’m a Windows fan), just show them how much better you can do the task on a Linux distro than the child was doing on MacOS.

Government and Democracy

A democracy as a technical definition does not actually define what a democracy is to western countries. For example, the USA of today would not consider the USA of 1776 a democracy because the USA of the time enslaved Black Americans. You will find that a lot of people in the west will not acknowledge India or China as a democracy on the basis of muslim rights or “communism” even though there is nothing stopping someone from running in an election. Of course democracies are going to have restrictions on who can participate and how the electoral system works. The purpose of this paragraph is that a democracy does not guarantee morality and that dictatorships aren’t immoral but rather carry greater risk of immorality. The phrase benevolent dictator exists because that’s exactly what monarchies were and that’s exactly what we see in open-source projects that succeed beyond a handful of people. Most corporations are managed by a CEO, a dictator. Although shareholders may “vote” a person in, a dictator is someone who has authority to make decisions for people in an organization without requiring the consent of other representatives. Are all corporations with CEOs immoral? No, although some people will argue that all corporations that are not cooperatives or not-for-profit are immoral.

Murder

I’m at my limit for being able to write fluently and structurally.

• self-defense is not murder
• self-defense must not be excessive in terms of available options
  • for example, killing someone intentionally after neutralizing them
  • for example can’t just run away and come back
• supporting death penalty is supporting murder
  • Killing anyone should be done sparingly
  • We don’t need to spill blood over people who are criminals
  • Just as we can’t charge someone for murder who’s unethical actions resulted in many people died, we shouldn’t become blood hungry and gluttony on violence as we would be no better than the people who committed these murders. We can do better and we can show everyone that immoral people can be punished by way of isolation rather than by way of death. Isolated from impeding the liberty of innocent without impeding their basic human right to life.

The biggest moral principle for being against the death penalty is that to do no harm to innocent we cannot assume that every person put on death row is 100% guilty. The justice system and judicial system is actually not that good and one of the only charities I think is beneficial is the Innocent’s Project. Such a project should be funded via an investment yield to continue to defend and exonerate innocent people who were sentenced by 12 jurors.

Raising a Child

Raising a child should always be about success in life, liberty, freedom, intelligence. When you are raising a child, refusing to take into consideration how things can affect the child’s mental health in the future, or their intelligence when solving problems at school, or the potential harm your child may cause others (bullying), reflects badly on your morality as well.

Retaliation

Retaliation does not solve or prevent further injustice. It is wrong to retaliate when the choice of prevention does in fact exist. Retaliating instead of preventing the situation from arising is how we get