We should take the Moral Highground

[Tempus]

I really do not understand where you think morality comes from. Please help me with that.

I kudos'd your first question in this thread because it was a good one. I'm not going to try and speak for anyone but myself here, so without further ado:

Morality, to me, is short hand for a complex set of behaviours and feelings that humans (and other animals) have developed over a very long period of time. When I speak of morality I'm referring to this behaviour and feeling set, I am not referring to grand notions of right or wrong (which, by the way, I don't believe in), rather I'm referring to the sense of what's right or wrong. This sense of right and wrong guides morality, but the idea of what constitutes a right or wrong is itself determined by biology and what is most beneficial for the organism.

Now, you mentioned earlier what's stopping person X from stealing / killing / etc to benefit themselves if our sense of morality is purely one of utility? I would answer that our sense of morality (as defined above) makes us feel killing is wrong, giving is good, etc precisely because it's function is one of utility. Consider a society where everyone acted as a parasite and stole / killed / etc. How long is that society going to last? Clearly over a period of time (if the organism survives) only the ones who were predisposed to do things beneficial to their survival (which usually includes their society unless they're powerful enough to live individually) will remain.

But what makes that good? If there's no ultimate good or bad then how do you distinguish what you ought to do from what you ought not do? Well, again in my opinion, these aren't particularly big problems. Let's say there's no god and no right or wrong. Initially, at least, your options boil down to:

1. Doing nothing and wandering aimlessly.
   
2. Developing another system to help you decide what to do / what not to do.

If you're option #1, I'm not interested in talking to you. Option #2, however is feasible. Firstly recognise that ALL worldviews are based on assumptions. For example, you might feel you know that you just ate an orange, but in actuality this is an assumption in disguise. You're assuming your senses were not deceiving you, you're assuming you were not hallucinating or dreaming, you're assuming you didn't misremember, etc. These might seem like silly games I'm playing, but they're all real assumptions which we can't possibly know in any definitive sense. But we all make these assumptions every day otherwise we'd cease to function. I'm sure you're capable of applying this example to any worldview. If you accept that all worldviews are based on assumptions you'll notice how arbitrary ALL of them are from the adherents point of view even if they're true.

The system I've developed (and I'm not claiming to be entirely original) for what I ought and ought not do makes the following assumption:

• Happiness is worth pursuing.
  

That's the only assumption (in regards to what I 'should' do) I make. There are other assumptions in my worldview but they're not relevant here. If I do not make this assumption I'm paralysed in option #1 above. From this assumption I can extrapolate other goals which then form a more comprehensive and specific motivational hierarchy or 'morality'. I personally dislike describing it as morality since that word carries a lot of baggage such as grand notions of right and wrong. It's probably also worth noting my motivation for doing what I do doesn't appeal to evolution in anyway.

Oh, and needless to say; I don't think there is any moral high ground.