PocketMatrix

So Moose, if morality has nothing to do with good and bad, what, exactly, is it? It's obviously a system of rules, because you can't make sense of morality without them. Next, who sets these rules? Must you believe in God to see a universal morality? If not, where do they reside, and by what means can we divine them? Where are they written? And how can you make sense of a system of moral rules applying to rocks, dust, and black holes? How can you apply a system of morality without a context of choice?

It makes very little sense to say "you, asteroid, are morally obligated to NOT crash into that planet, because you will be impinging on its existence." It won't listen, and it'll crash into the planet anyway. What does morality have to do with that picture? It's driven by physics, not morality.

Whether or not one is conscious of the laws of physics, they are subject to these laws. On the other hand, if someone is conscious of this ridiculous 'universaly morality' they are not subject to its rule. If someone is not conscious of it, they also are not subject to it. What exactly does this universal morality do?

Why aren't they subject to it? I thought I just described that they are.

Well... I don't think that there's a human value judgement involved, and really either a yes or a no when it comes to the ultimate value judgement. Either something is moral or it isn't. The framework is set up this way, I think. Just as electrical current either is or isn't present.

For example, let's say that murdering, or killing, whatever, is against universal morality.
It will always be immoral to kill, under every circumstance. But some people may find it okay to kill in their value judgement, such as terminally ill, suffering patients, or a serial killer that needs to be stopped, or an ant.
But it will all come back in the end. Just like we can 'escape' gravity by jumping up (or applying a force against gravity in general), but we're not really actually defeating gravity. We still work against it, we are still working within the rules of physics; and if we're not the astronauts in the space shuttle, we will eventually fall back down toward the earth.

I guess the most useful element this offers is equality and fate. It doesn't necessarily provide one with a system to judge actions ... or it could, but doesn't need to in order to function.

I personally think that the universal morals are close to the ten commandments, all stemming from the love thy neighbour aspect. I of course can't say for sure that those are universal morals, though, and don't know that I'll ever be able to say that, except if I die and go to Heaven and have 'a closer walk with God.'
Or maybe shrooms will help.

But regardless. I believe it's important to understand that there is this framework and universality, and to attempt to discover it and live by it. Just like all philosophy, reducing morals into the smallest possible set is a good thing. Perhaps that way one could reason universal morality. I don't know how to tell you to find, it, though. I'm just pretty darn sure it exists, like gravity.

You compare evading morality to evading gravity. But there's no reactive force in morality. If Andy goes out and kills Caesar, and no one finds out about it, what will happen to him? Since just and unjust actions are not duly rewarded and punished in this world, you'll have to bring in an afterlife whre punishment is doled out with perfectly fairness.

You essentially have no evidence and no logical grounds for your belief in the universal morality. I don't mean that altogether as an insult. I just mean you have chosen to believe in the universal morality just as you believe in the Christian God -- on grounds of religious faith. There is absolutely no indication that there is an objective morality that transcends humanity, and there are serious problems with it.

Like I said, where do the rules of this morality reside? Who decides what's right and wrong?

Morality is, in the end, substantially different from the comparisons you've made. Gravity is an active force that does not judge -- it acts to do one thing all the time (unless it's perverted by some other force). Morality doesn't exert any physical push or pull. It's not a force at all -- but a value judgment of an action. You cannot say it "exists" at all without situating it in a context of subjects and their moral judges. It very completely exists only within the head of the judge.