What could make morality objective?

[Nick_A]

Peter, my gut feeling and what I believe you find so objectionable is this idea of god with a moral nose stuck in the air with nothing better to do than decide how people should act. The purpose of creation and moral laws is to make it possible.

But what if creation isn't a choice but a necessity? What if creation is a machine consisting of laws and relative qualities of consciousness serving an essential purpose within god which is what we know of together as I AM. I IS. It is the ineffable quality of consciousness. Where I IS , creation "EXISTS within I as am serving the process of existence.

The next question to arise is if creation is a necessity, how does universal objective morality sustaining our universe as opposed to man made subjective interpretations restricted to our earth. serve to sustain the workings of this great machine we serve our existence within?

[Peter Holmes]

Peter, my gut feeling and what I believe you find so objectionable is this idea of god with a moral nose stuck in the air with nothing better to do than decide how people should act. The purpose of creation and moral laws is to make it possible.

But what if creation isn't a choice but a necessity? What if creation is a machine consisting of laws and relative qualities of consciousness serving an essential purpose within god which is what we know of together as I AM. I IS. It is the ineffable quality of consciousness. Where I IS , creation "EXISTS within I as am serving the process of existence.

The next question to arise is if creation is a necessity, how does universal objective morality sustaining our universe as opposed to man made subjective interpretations restricted to our earth. serve to sustain the workings of this great machine we serve our existence within?

Thanks, but the claim that there is a creator god with a certain nature - an unjustified claim so far - has nothing to do with the objectivity of morality - the claim that moral rightness and wrongness are independent features of reality. Simply serving a purpose has no moral significance, even if that is what we're supposed to do. Robots serve a purpose. That an action is morally right or wrong is a judgement, and so must be subjective, by definition.

[RCSaunders]

Ironically, you're absolutely right. Because linguistic signifiers are social constructs, we could have constructed them to mean different things than they do. ...

I just noticed this bit of post-modernist nonsense you slipped in as well, in typical, "academic-speak:" "linguistic signifiers are social constructs." You couldn't write, "words?"

Of course not. That would not have pointed out what was important there...namely, that words are invented things, things particular to linguistic groups, not universals. They are both social and constructed.

In any case, words are not some social product,

Actually, that's exactly what they are. They are agreed upon by groups of people, and used for communication among them. Communication always has two ends to it; sender, and recipient (or, more often, recipients).

There are two very bad mistakes here: 1. language is not created socially, and, 2. the primary purpose of concepts is not communication, but as a means of holding knowledge as the identification of existents.

1. Groups of people do not get together to form concepts. Concepts only exist in individual minds and can only be created (or learned) by individual minds. The fact that most people in a given geographical area use the same language is because each individual in that, "society," chooses to use that language because it is the one they most easily learn and, when communicating, the most useful. The development of language is entirely by individuals ad hoc ad libitum (not predetermined) and adopted by others who must learn it from those who create it.

2. A simple fact is, before anyone can communicate anything to anyone else, they must know something to communicate. Concepts are how knowledge is held. Even if a person never communicated with another individual, they would still need knowledge to survive, and concepts are the only means by which that knowledge would be possible.

English is the same. It's a group words agreed upon by English-speaking people, for the purpose of communicating with other English-speaking people.

I must have missed that meeting. When did these, "English-speaking people," get together and make these agreements you are referring to?

The reason, "English-speaking people," speak, read, and write a similar language is for the same reason most people in a given society or culture wear the same kind of clothing, eat the same kind of food, and enjoy the same kind of entertainement. Most people think whatever they are taught and do whatever everyone else does, because the majority of people to not think for themselves or ever have an original thought or idea. With rare exception most societies are run on the principle of, "monkey see, monkey do."

Academics, anthropologists, and linguists like to turn these simple facts into some kind of esoteric mystery that earns them grants to study why people speak the same language, and it's all nonsense.

Man, you're digging up this stuff on linguistics now? Seems off topic for the present moment...

This is exactly what I mean by evasion.

You wrote: "Rationality can only tell us that this syllogism works," meaning it is valid even if the premises are not true. When I pointed out that wrong idea came from Kant, you wrote: "I'm no Kantian. You're mistaking the implication of my pseudonym. It's not Kant."

I pointed out it was your Kantian epistemology I was referring to: "... according to you and Kant, the proposition, "a bachelor is a red turnip," would be true knowledge, by definition," to which your responded, "Ironically, you're absolutely right."

It's not linguistics I'm bringing up, it's epistemology. Only an objective epistemology makes the discovery of objective moral principles possible. So long as your epistemology is essentially a mystic one, you will, of course not be able to agree that moral principles are objective.

I'm sorry I do not accept any authority, especially in philosophy, and especially some online site with an academic slant like the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy

It's a peer-reviewed site, compiled by people with the relevant qualifications and checked by the same. And while no source can ever be perfect, you won't find a better one for this sort of thing.

I actually refer to the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy when I want to be sure of some latest philosophical abomination that is being promoted, though I think the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, is a better resource. But I do not refer to any authority as a basis of what is true in philosophy or what I believe. "Peer-reviewed," and, "those with relevant qualifications," just means those who already agree with what is published.

Would you accept as authority for your beliefs what is taught on the Journal of Islamic and Middle Eastern Multidisciplinary Studies: Mathal just because it, "is a double blind peer-reviewed, open access journal dedicated to scholarly discussion of topics present in the Islamic, Jewish, Persian, and Turkish thought, cultures, literature, practices, and institutions." All the following are peer-reviewed journals (I've only included some of a great many more). How many would you accept as authorities for your beliefs?

International Journal of African Religions
International Journal of Astrology
International Journal of Neopaganism
International Journal of Atheism
International Journal of Islam
International Journal of the Shintō Religion
International Journal of Bahá'í Faith
International Journal of Hinduism
International Journal of Agnosticism
International Journal of Humanistic Psychology
International Journal of Perspectives on Gender & Sexuality
International Journal of Women's Studies

By the way, I regard most of what goes by the name philosophy today in the same class with all the subjects of these journals.

[Skepdick]

There are two very bad mistakes here: 1. language is not created socially

1. Groups of people do not get together to form concepts. Concepts only exist in individual minds and can only be created (or learned) by individual minds.

I am really, REALLY curious how/when you created the concept and word for "concept", and how I can understand what you mean if that's a word/concept you created.

[Immanuel Can]

1. language is not created socially,

What an extraordinary claim!

Who is it that you believe "created" the English language, for example?

2. the primary purpose of concepts is not communication, but as a means of holding knowledge as the identification of existents.

There's a grain of truth in this: but not enough truth. There is a role for language in holding conversations inside our heads...but even there, the language being "spoken" is socially constructed.

I assume that when you think, you think in English, no? If you think in Mandarin, or Filipino, or Swahili, you also think in a socially-constructed language.

1. Groups of people do not get together to form concepts.

In a sense, they do. They don't sit down as a committee, or anything silly like that. They negotiate the meaning of utterances in the process of engaging the world. And the words they choose do not become utilizable in a particular language until there's a level of agreement as to what they mean.

2. A simple fact is, before anyone can communicate anything to anyone else, they must know something to communicate.

Not so simple. Much of what we experience arrives to us at the pre-articulate level. In such cases, inventing new language is done to "get ahold of" experiences that approach us in this way.

Take the word "meme," for example. You wouldn't find it in an old dictionary. It's been invented for the specific experiences had by computer-engaged people, and generalize from there to its other uses. It's a coinage. People needed a word for that kind of experience, so they made one. And now we all use it.

English is the same. It's a group words agreed upon by English-speaking people, for the purpose of communicating with other English-speaking people.

I must have missed that meeting. When did these, "English-speaking people," get together and make these agreements you are referring to?

As I say, it was a long process. The "people" who assembled included the Anglo Saxons, the Celts, the Norse, the French, the Romans, and many more tribes and groups. As they lived together in England, words from each language were assembled into what we now know as English...a still-morphing language, which continues to take on new words like "morph."

But if you know anything at all about English linguistic history, you know this.

I pointed out it was your Kantian epistemology I was referring to: "... according to you and Kant, the proposition, "a bachelor is a red turnip," would be true knowledge, by definition," to which your responded, "Ironically, you're absolutely right."

I was referring to a different part of your claim. My apologies...I left it ambiguous there.

No, you're not right about Kant. I' m no Kantian.

So long as your epistemology is essentially a mystic one, you will, of course not be able to agree that moral principles are objective.

Actually, I'm very much a moral objectivist. And I'm no mystic. (But don't mistake me for a Randian Objectivist, as that has nothing to do with objectivity.)

Would you accept as authority for your beliefs what is taught on the...

Red herring.

The IEP is generally a balanced and reputable source, with no particular PC axe to grind, unlike those journals you use as red herrings. The IEP is good for keeping its vocabulary simple enough for the "layperson" rather than just for the academic; so in a way, it's a much less "snobby" site than Stanford. It's one you should like.

But since you don't like the IEP, here's another that says essentially the same thing I was saying to you earlier: https://web.stanford.edu/~bobonich/term ... sound.html

[RCSaunders]

You've swallowed all that Kantian nonsense and it has made you unable to reason. I'm sorry to say, Kant and all his disciples are a bit insane.

I am an ardent fan of Kant.

I don't believe you have understood Kant's philosophy ...

You don't have to believe it. It one sense, you are correct. While I understand perfectly what Kant intended to teach (to the degree it is cogent), one really cannot say they, "understand," what is essentially nonsense.

... because to understand one has to spent at least 3 years full time to research into Kant's philosophy.

It takes longer than that. If that's all you have studied, you have not studied it enough to have compared it with all other philosophy. You cannot study just one philosophy and think you understand it all. Of course you may have done that.

I understand Rand was crazily anti-Kant but from what I have known of Rand, she had not even understood Kant's full philosophy.

What difference does it make what Rand, or anyone else thought or taught? None of my philosophy is based on what any other philosopher says.

If Rand found fault with Kant, she was probably right, but even if she had adored Kant, I would still understand he was totally wrong.

However, after being awoke from his dogmatic slumber by Hume, Kant walked the middle path between rationalism and empiricism.

Of course that explains a lot about Kant. Hume is perhaps the worst philosopher (or perhaps I should say, "anti-philosopher," in history. Have you studied Hume?

In what manner was Kant insane?

It is called a disintergrated mind.

Since you made such a serious claim, where is your proof?

Proof for whom? I have no interest in convincing you or anyone else what to believe. If you're willing to let some philosopher determine what you believe, rather than thinking for yourself, that's your privilege.

[Nick_A]

Peter, my gut feeling and what I believe you find so objectionable is this idea of god with a moral nose stuck in the air with nothing better to do than decide how people should act. The purpose of creation and moral laws is to make it possible.

But what if creation isn't a choice but a necessity? What if creation is a machine consisting of laws and relative qualities of consciousness serving an essential purpose within god which is what we know of together as I AM. I IS. It is the ineffable quality of consciousness. Where I IS , creation "EXISTS within I as am serving the process of existence.

The next question to arise is if creation is a necessity, how does universal objective morality sustaining our universe as opposed to man made subjective interpretations restricted to our earth. serve to sustain the workings of this great machine we serve our existence within?

Thanks, but the claim that there is a creator god with a certain nature - an unjustified claim so far - has nothing to do with the objectivity of morality - the claim that moral rightness and wrongness are independent features of reality. Simply serving a purpose has no moral significance, even if that is what we're supposed to do. Robots serve a purpose. That an action is morally right or wrong is a judgement, and so must be subjective, by definition.

Peter Thanks, but the claim that there is a creator god with a certain nature - an unjustified claim so far - has nothing to do with the objectivity of morality

This is the heart of our differences. Christianity devolved so quickly into Christendom because it adopted the Hebrew God in society. The Christian god is the ineffable ONE elaborated on by Plotinus. Morality and immorality are associated with the Hebrew god. The Christian god is known by force or "dunamis"

Where God is the the ineffable source of creation, the LORD God actualizes it.
IMO this confusion over God has causes an untold amount of harm for so many. Yet for those like me who seek to unite the truths of science and religion, we have to get beyond the usual and open to how the horizontal interests of science merge with the vertical efforts of religion. Then morality is no longer the issue but the objective human meaning and purpose within creation and how man serves it does..

[Peter Holmes]

Peter, my gut feeling and what I believe you find so objectionable is this idea of god with a moral nose stuck in the air with nothing better to do than decide how people should act. The purpose of creation and moral laws is to make it possible.

But what if creation isn't a choice but a necessity? What if creation is a machine consisting of laws and relative qualities of consciousness serving an essential purpose within god which is what we know of together as I AM. I IS. It is the ineffable quality of consciousness. Where I IS , creation "EXISTS within I as am serving the process of existence.

The next question to arise is if creation is a necessity, how does universal objective morality sustaining our universe as opposed to man made subjective interpretations restricted to our earth. serve to sustain the workings of this great machine we serve our existence within?

Thanks, but the claim that there is a creator god with a certain nature - an unjustified claim so far - has nothing to do with the objectivity of morality - the claim that moral rightness and wrongness are independent features of reality. Simply serving a purpose has no moral significance, even if that is what we're supposed to do. Robots serve a purpose. That an action is morally right or wrong is a judgement, and so must be subjective, by definition.

This is the heart of our differences. Christianity devolved so quickly into Christendom because it adopted the Hebrew God in society. The Christian god is the ineffable ONE elaborated on by Plotinus. Morality and immorality are associated with the Hebrew god. The Christian god is known by force or "dunamis"

Where God is the the ineffable source of creation, the LORD God actualizes it.
IMO this confusion over God has causes an untold amount of harm for so many. Yet for those like me who seek to unite the truths of science and religion, we have to get beyond the usual and open to how the horizontal interests of science merge with the vertical efforts of religion. Then morality is no longer the issue but the objective human meaning and purpose within creation and how man serves it does..

Okay. I don't find your version of a god any more persuasive or interesting than the thousands of others we've invented through our history. I see no reason to believe there is an 'objective...meaning and purpose within creation' that we serve. And none of this has any bearing on the nature of moral judgement anyway. But your beliefs are your own business, of course.

[Nick_A]

Peter

Okay. I don't find your version of a god any more persuasive or interesting than the thousands of others we've invented through our history. I see no reason to believe there is an 'objective...meaning and purpose within creation' that we serve. And none of this has any bearing on the nature of moral judgement anyway. But your beliefs are your own business, of course.

We agree that morality isn't the issue here since we only know of subjective morality. However there is a larger question here: What are we attracted to? What supplies our meaning is our god and people find it in the world. Many worship faith and money for example. It is their god. Yet some do not find it in the world and are willing to sacrifice it in order to experience "meaning."

What are they attracted to? Is it escapism or a genuine calling to remember what has been forgotten? Is there a way we can know so as to become truly human? Is it really that much of a stretch to consider that objective morality connecting higher consciousness as a necessary part of what sustains our universe is a natural response that we do not understand so create subjective interpretations which serve our pragmatic concerns and the resulting lawful hypocrisy?

[Veritas Aequitas]

What's wrong with what you say is the expression 'absolute moral laws'.

There are only moral rules that a community or society may adopt - and that all human communities have adopted - because there are good reasons to do so. Those rules can change, and sometimes have changed, through our history; attitudes towards slavery and homosexuality are examples. So the word 'absolute' is inappropriate. It means fixed and unchanging.

The fact that we do have moral rules, some of them embodied in laws, does not mean the moral judgements they express are facts. That claim is a fundamental and elementary logical mistake, based on a category error.

That's why your approach is wrong.

Note I raised the point in another thread,
It is morally wrong not to breathe or prevent another from breathing.
Surely this is reasoned to be absolute without compromise?

It is the same with,
It is morally wrong for a human to kill human being[s].
It is morally wrong for to enslave another human being.

The above has to be reasoned as absolute moral law, i.e. fixed, unchanging and cannot be compromised in any way.
But note, I stated the above are merely ideals to be used as a guide to be strove at by all human beings.
Note as a GUIDE ONLY.

However being humans, it is impossible to achieve the ideals at all times or never at all.
This is where ETHICS comes in to deal with the practical.

On the ethical perspective, the individual while seriously adopting the absolute moral law as an eternal guide, make provisions and allowance for his known human weaknesses.
In this case, the person, may ethically make the provision that humans [or he personally] can kill another human within justified reasons.

BUT what is most critical is, if a person has committed a killing with justified reasons, then the person must realized the Moral-GAP between his act of killing and the Absolute Moral Law of killing another human is not permitted.
In this case, the person must then question how the hell did he kill another human [even with justified reasons] when the absolute moral law do not allow for any killing.
The person who killed my reanalyzed his justified reason. What is most important is for the person to ensure [as much] and take whatever necessary steps the killing is not repeated again. [including rewiring the brain/mind].
In this case, the individuals and society must understand the reason for the variance and take preventive steps to close the Moral-GAP re the moral rule on killing.

If there no established Absolute Moral Law on killing, then there is no way for the Moral-Gap to be computed and the opportunity for research and improvement toward the objective absolute moral law.
Note the direction of improvement is via the neural development of the Moral Faculty within the brain/mind of the individual. I believe you are ignorant of this potential.

Note your ignorance on how Morality [absolutes] are complimented with Ethics [practical] to enable the emergence of the variance, i.e. Moral-GAP which will facilitate improvement. This is the efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

Where a community adopt rules and laws with enforcement and changes in time, that is politics, thus not Morality & Ethics.
Morality and Ethics is focused on the individual's moral and ethical development within their individual brain/mind. Anything collective from this is secondary.

In all the above, there is no god and ONTOLOGICAL absolute moral laws involved.

Whatever absolute moral laws that are established in my proposal must be based and justified from empirical evidence and possibilities via critical thinking.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You've swallowed all that Kantian nonsense and it has made you unable to reason. I'm sorry to say, Kant and all his disciples are a bit insane.

I am an ardent fan of Kant.

I don't believe you have understood Kant's philosophy ...

You don't have to believe it. It one sense, you are correct. While I understand perfectly what Kant intended to teach (to the degree it is cogent), one really cannot say they, "understand," what is essentially nonsense.

You are the one who is talking nonsense.
If you have any intellectual integrity your would have at least explain where Kant is wrong or talking nonsense.

Note Kant's CPR is one long argument with many premises and sub-conclusions.
All you have to do is merely to argue on any premise and prove it is false in the context of the whole argument.

... because to understand one has to spent at least 3 years full time to research into Kant's philosophy.

It takes longer than that. If that's all you have studied, you have not studied it enough to have compared it with all other philosophy. You cannot study just one philosophy and think you understand it all. Of course you may have done that.

I stated at least 3 years full time. Personally I had spent more time than that to cover the full extent of Kant's philosophy into Morality and Judgement towards his proposal for Perpetual Peace.
My background is Eastern Philosophy [spent loads of time on it] and had covered all the popular Western Philosophers.

However, after being awoke from his dogmatic slumber by Hume, Kant walked the middle path between rationalism and empiricism.

Of course that explains a lot about Kant. Hume is perhaps the worst philosopher (or perhaps I should say, "anti-philosopher," in history. Have you studied Hume?

Yes, I have studied Hume.
Kant credited Hume with providing him the basis for him to improve further.
Note Hume, in some polls is rated as one of the greatest philosophers of all times. You are ignorant of the foundations Hume has provided, e.g. his Bundle Theory with is in line with Buddhism's no-self theory.. What is false about this theory?

Since you made such a serious claim, where is your proof?

Proof for whom? I have no interest in convincing you or anyone else what to believe. If you're willing to let some philosopher determine what you believe, rather than thinking for yourself, that's your privilege.

You are not doing Philosophy-proper which rest on the giant shoulders of past philosophers.
The past philosophers provide a lot of foundation for one to pivot on either to agree or disagree which will advance one own's personal grasp of philosophy proper.

I am a fan of Kant but I do not agree with everything he presented.

[Peter Holmes]

What's wrong with what you say is the expression 'absolute moral laws'.

There are only moral rules that a community or society may adopt - and that all human communities have adopted - because there are good reasons to do so. Those rules can change, and sometimes have changed, through our history; attitudes towards slavery and homosexuality are examples. So the word 'absolute' is inappropriate. It means fixed and unchanging.

The fact that we do have moral rules, some of them embodied in laws, does not mean the moral judgements they express are facts. That claim is a fundamental and elementary logical mistake, based on a category error.

That's why your approach is wrong.

Note I raised the point in another thread,
It is morally wrong not to breathe or prevent another from breathing.
Surely this is reasoned to be absolute without compromise?

It is the same with,
It is morally wrong for a human to kill human being[s].
It is morally wrong for to enslave another human being.

The above has to be reasoned as absolute moral law, i.e. fixed, unchanging and cannot be compromised in any way.
But note, I stated the above are merely ideals to be used as a guide to be strove at by all human beings.
Note as a GUIDE ONLY.

However being humans, it is impossible to achieve the ideals at all times or never at all.
This is where ETHICS comes in to deal with the practical.

On the ethical perspective, the individual while seriously adopting the absolute moral law as an eternal guide, make provisions and allowance for his known human weaknesses.
In this case, the person, may ethically make the provision that humans [or he personally] can kill another human within justified reasons.

BUT what is most critical is, if a person has committed a killing with justified reasons, then the person must realized the Moral-GAP between his act of killing and the Absolute Moral Law of killing another human is not permitted.
In this case, the person must then question how the hell did he kill another human [even with justified reasons] when the absolute moral law do not allow for any killing.
The person who killed my reanalyzed his justified reason. What is most important is for the person to ensure [as much] and take whatever necessary steps the killing is not repeated again. [including rewiring the brain/mind].
In this case, the individuals and society must understand the reason for the variance and take preventive steps to close the Moral-GAP re the moral rule on killing.

If there no established Absolute Moral Law on killing, then there is no way for the Moral-Gap to be computed and the opportunity for research and improvement toward the objective absolute moral law.
Note the direction of improvement is via the neural development of the Moral Faculty within the brain/mind of the individual. I believe you are ignorant of this potential.

Note your ignorance on how Morality [absolutes] are complimented with Ethics [practical] to enable the emergence of the variance, i.e. Moral-GAP which will facilitate improvement. This is the efficient Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

Where a community adopt rules and laws with enforcement and changes in time, that is politics, thus not Morality & Ethics.
Morality and Ethics is focused on the individual's moral and ethical development within their individual brain/mind. Anything collective from this is secondary.

In all the above, there is no god and ONTOLOGICAL absolute moral laws involved.

Whatever absolute moral laws that are established in my proposal must be based and justified from empirical evidence and possibilities via critical thinking.

Thanks for explaining your idea, once again. Perhaps I can summarise it.

1 We must adopt a code of absolute moral rules, but only as an ideal guide, and never to be imposed on anyone.
2 Those rules must be based on evidence and reached through critical thinking - not authority, least of all a supposed divine authority.
3 Individuals must adapt the rules flexibly to cope with specific moral dilemmas, such as the need to kill in extreme self-defence.

Is that about right? Would you want to change any of it, or add anything?

[Veritas Aequitas]

Thanks for explaining your idea, once again. Perhaps I can summarise it.

1 We must adopt a code of absolute moral rules, but only as an ideal guide, and never to be imposed on anyone.
2 Those rules must be based on evidence and reached through critical thinking - not authority, least of all a supposed divine authority.
3 Individuals must adapt the rules flexibly to cope with specific moral dilemmas, such as the need to kill in extreme self-defence.

Is that about right? Would you want to change any of it, or add anything?

Yes, the above is about right.
One more critical point,

4. While individuals has to adapt and be flexible due to their human_ness, they must nevertheless be mindful of the absolute moral rules at all times and strive to improve themselves [from within] on a continual basis to be as close as possible to the impossible ideals.
There is no stress and pressure to achieve the impossible ideals but what is expected is a trend of increasing moral competency towards the impossible ideals [as in 1].

The more complex issue is how to achieve point 4 progressively.

[Peter Holmes]

Thanks for explaining your idea, once again. Perhaps I can summarise it.

1 We must adopt a code of absolute moral rules, but only as an ideal guide, and never to be imposed on anyone.
2 Those rules must be based on evidence and reached through critical thinking - not authority, least of all a supposed divine authority.
3 Individuals must adapt the rules flexibly to cope with specific moral dilemmas, such as the need to kill in extreme self-defence.

Is that about right? Would you want to change any of it, or add anything?

Yes, the above is about right.
One more critical point,

4. While individuals has to adapt and be flexible due to their human_ness, they must nevertheless be mindful of the absolute moral rules at all times and strive to improve themselves [from within] on a continual basis to be as close as possible to the impossible ideals.
There is no stress and pressure to achieve the impossible ideals but what is expected is a trend of increasing moral competency towards the impossible ideals [as in 1].

The more complex issue is how to achieve point 4 progressively.

How about this for point 3? -

3 While individuals must always strive to follow the moral rules - to get closer to the ideal - they can adapt them flexibly to cope with specific moral dilemmas, such as the need to kill in extreme self-defence.

Does that cover your critical point? If not,please re-word it.

And one question for now. Why do you say the moral rules represent an impossible goal? That seems to me an unnecessarily pessimistic caveat. Does being human mean we can never achieve the moral ideal? The rules have to be evidence-based and rational, so there's no reason why impossibility has to be built-in.

[Skepdick]

3 While individuals must always strive to follow the moral rules - to get closer to the ideal - they can adapt them flexibly to cope with specific moral dilemmas, such as the need to kill in extreme self-defence.

There is no need to "adapt" those rules - they are already adapted. Perhaps you were ignorant of the spectrum/nuance that exists in Jurisprudence?

All murder is wrong. The American justice system has Degrees of murder - some murder is worse than other murder.
Manslaughter is less wrong than any murder.
Breaking the law in extreme circumstances is already justifiable under the Necessity clause.
Self-defence is recognised as a necessity.

The rules have to be evidence-based and rational, so there's no reason why impossibility has to be built-in.

We had eradicated some diseases. The number of harm causes by those diseases was 0. We "succeeded".
And then we regressed again - those diseases re-appeared, or new diseases re-appeared e.g Corona virus.
Our moral duty is to continue the effort.

It's "ultimately impossible", because possibility predicates omnipotence, omniscience and omnipresence over reality.

Only God has such power. We are only human. The idea of God is the synthesis of objective morality - it's the effect, not the cause.