But you just repeated yourself. Why does he need to feel happiness, fulfillment, freedom, peace, etc.? Sure you can define those as good feelings, but maybe he doesn't, or just doesn't care.
I dont think im being very eloquent in my answers, i apologise for that.
Now what i mean by acting in a morally good way is to have an awareness for the lives that other people live, lives that are for the most part similar to your own, at least with regards to certain core experiences, such as pain, fear, dread, hunger, happiness, peace and content. At a minimum a person should be able to infer based on their own life what they can expect others likely experience. They certainly shouldn’t assume others experience anything less than they do themselves. We are all of the same species of course and sense dictates that we are all going to have a lot of similarities.
Because when boils down to it, morality is an issue for the individual, making choices based of their current perspective. When someone lives a life that incorporates happiness as something worthwhile, embraces freedom, avoiding pain and suffering and extreme hunger, this standard that they have for themselves should be emulated in the way they treat others. Allowing a relatively lower standard for others than yourself for no good reason is the fundamental basis of immorality.
Now clearly what is good or bad with regards to a human life is really defined by the individual, (how can you know pain without experiencing it or have the capacity to experience it yourself) and one could stretch the imagination to think of someone for whatever reason who thinks pain is good.
But the major fail-safe in the system of interaction is that of freedom, and no matter what the person perceives as good in their own life (pursuit of pain), they cant impose it upon another without exercising a freedom that they deny the other person in doing so. Their respect for freedom in their own life as evident by 'spreading the pain' imposes on that freedom of others.
We can regress this theoretical character further, but we basically reach a point where we have a creature that no longer has the capacity to be a moral agent at all. The delirious brain damaged psychopath lacks the faculties to recognise the things that are needed to make one morally aware.
Now just to note this is in my opinion why different issues hold different moral weight. Issues relating to murder, and life and death are very prominent, because all of us poses a life, and any one of us should understand that everyone else holds at least an equally valuable life to that of our own. One cant arbitrarily assume another person has a less valuable life. But on the other hand issues based on say, decor and design dont have much connection to an overall human nature, and one can imagine how people vary greatly in their views. Also you know from your own life that decor isnt the most important of things. Thus these issues are obviously different to those of life and death. Hence how a spectrum of moral weight can emerge
Why is what a lot (not all) human beings seek, what determines moral and immoral, wrong and right? Why is listening to a majority better than listening to a minority?
I think this is slightly misunderstanding me, i agree that an overall cold numbers game doesn’t serve to get to the bottom of what is moral. Mob rule certainly isnt moral. But what is relevant is the ability to project your life and experiences to those around you, to be in touch with what they likely experience as conscious feeling creatures like urself, and to avoid acting in a manner that does them harm for no good reason. (harm as defined as bad though your own subjective life). This is to be morally in tune.
