Before answering that question we need to define morality.
Good idea.
Morality was not originally designed with the individual in mind. It was designed for the needs of the group or collective.
Quite right, morality is a team sport, so to speak. There is no such thing as "individual morality". Sure, individuals can have opinions about morality, just as baseball players can have opinions about the rules of baseball, but that individual still has all of their work ahead of them if they want everyone to adopt what the individual thinks. Morality is the same.
It was designed for the needs of the group or collective.
Sure, systems created to achieve a social goal.
If everyone followed that rule of no stealing, everyone could get by using little resources to defend property from the thieves. This savings goes to all. The math adds up to a plus. Morality is about collective sum. Moral is plus and immoral is negative.
Sure, and you make a good point about the cost of certain behaviors, but I think you could simply say that society values avoiding those costs, whatever they are. Be it stealing, or drunk driving, or child abuse, of of those things have a social cost, and collectively we value our health, our happiness and our well-being and more specifically a flourishing society is the best way to make that possible.
Now, the trick is knowledge and understanding of how to achieve these things that I've just laid out. We look into the past and we see where, as a group we've made mistakes, we've been wrong. One need look no further than the Constitution and the statement "all men are created equal". We aspired to more as a group than we achieved. But, with time and understanding and cultural changes, we come closer and closer to living up to our goals as a society.
If the group decided to allow stealing, now extra resources will be wasted through loss and needed proactive defense.
Again, quite right, we value the idea of personal property for the reasons you say.
That said, your idea of morality as you define it here:
However, if we do the math the gain of a smaller number of thieves, does not balance the collective loss, due to added increase in use of emotional, defensive and insurance resources. Based on the math, optimized; we would not change that law, because it will create a worse state for the majority.
Starting to sound a little run-of-the-mill utilitarian for my taste, though I don't think you are a utilitarian, strictly speaking.
If you live in Left Wing large cities immorality is chosen; allow thieves.
Not sure what the politics has to do with it. The fact that Dems are most likely heads of large cities is a correlation, but not necessarily a cause. But I'm not going to debate crime, this is a thread about morality. back to it.
If I buy and want to read a taboo book, this does not affect people the same direct way as stealing. It is part of my individual choice, using my own resources; live and let live.
Ironic, given your last comment, surprised you didn't point out how Republicans are banning books in schools, and while I concede that some books have some fairly graphic depictions, hello, this is the age of the internet. If you are worried about graphic
books your worried about the wrong thing. In fact, if reading about blow jobs, lesbian sex or whatever interests my kids in reading, vs watching real sex on Porn hub, then fan friggin tastic.
The shift of collective resources, by government, to impose a taboo, also reduces the resources of the collective by wasting it on taboos. The taboo and all those who prosper by it, are immoral, since these wastes resources based on abstract crime.
Gonna have to be more specific.
It is part of my individual choice, using my own resources; live and let live.
Great slogan, but living in a society means giving up some of your rights. While I agree that the fewest infringements on your rights as possible while still achieving social values and morals that society thinks is necessary to achieve the best outcome is preferred, it is much harder said than done.
It really requires that we start with a list of specific goals, for example, "all children deserve a good education and heath care". That's a goal, now how can we best achieve it?
The alcohol prohibition expanded government, but it was a waste of resources since it made the problem worse; harming otherwise good citizens, while allowing the black market to prosper; darkness attracted deeper darkness.
Alcohol abuse is a problem for society. Look no further than Russian society to see, using your own idea of resources, or perhaps lost resources to see how much alcoholism affects everyone there.
That said, when dealing with the problems it creates, I like to say there are millions of ways to handle a problem the wrong way, and only a handful of ways to handle them right. It is unquestionable that society is better off, when weighing the pro's and the cons of alcohol, without it, but how to accomplish that goal is the hard part, if it can be accomplished without creating more problems than it solves.
We have an immoral government; both political sides, due to the debt and the interest on the national debt wasting collective resources in a compounding way.
Here you've strayed into unfamiliar territory. This isn't a thread on econ, but let's say you are completely wrong about the effects of debt an interest and if you'd like to debate this topic, please, make a thread in the appropriate forum and I'll happily explain where you went wrong here.
The CO2 taboo is immoral as reflected by the inflation
Again, it feels like you wrote this while enjoying some of that alcohol you were talking about earlier as your post gets less and less specific an really strays from the topic as you go on, veering away from morality an the good points you started with, and into politics and personal grievances.
Again, you are out of your lane here. CO2 and inflation aren't correlated in any way. But rising CO2 does have real social costs we can apply your "math" to and see that..
-Cheers.
