Philosophy of Morality Different From Philosophy of Politics

[Veritas Aequitas]

As typical, you are building another straw-man.
You created your own rhetorical argument and introduced your own inherent tendency to wean and commit genocide on your 20% of insane. I have no such ideas.

As far as I am concern, I will just stick to;

• (1) It is immoral to do X - as justified,
  (2) Thus it would be morally right to do Y - opposite of X.
  (3) The moral objective in 2 will be embedded as a GUIDE within the moral framework.

If there are really 20% of people who will be insane, that will not have an impact on 1-3 above. The moral objective will remain intact as justified.

Nope there is no need to wean off these 20% of the insane immediately. Those can be helped they will be assisted to normality. As for the hardcore insane, humanity will have to accept them as they are.

What can be done in this case [independent of my moral system] is for humanity to ensure future humans are born and prevented from being insane as much as possible with foolproof approaches.
As such, the aim would be to reduce the % of insane from 20% progressively to as low as possible in 20, 50, 75, > 100 years.

I believe you will continue to build more straw-man[s] later.

My rhetoric is only tangential to the logic here. It is appropriate to reflect how you interpret another's view by one's own perspective. The 'Strawman Fallacy' only exists where the logic is missing such that where one has bricks to build a strong case, the offender paints the bricks to look like an eyesore about to crumble. Most fallacies are dependent upon such similar preconditions and so require that you give an explanation of HOW I was being illogical about my expressed reasoning that I opted to use an effective analogy to match.

Your above argument is nothing more that saying,

(1) X is DEFINED 'immoral'
(2) Y is DEFINED as "moral"
(3) X is exclusively outside of Y [or X = not-Y]
(4) Things that are "moral" are things that I like. I like Y
(5) Things that are "immoral" are things that I do not like. I dislike X
CONCLUSION: WE all (shall) agree to Y or risk being put up against The Wall!

The argument here is true in how we actually assign value as something we prefer all others to like because it is subjectively 'good' for ourselves. It is either that or maybe you just need a little 'pinprick' of that needle's good medicine to make you feel sane like the ME!? The argument you think is simple is mistaken because you are 'generalizing' from 'instances' where you falsely presume that you are fully qualified to know what X and Y are CORRECTLY.

Note,

• A straw man (or strawman) is a form of argument and an informal fallacy based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument that was not presented by that opponent. One who engages in this fallacy is said to be "attacking a straw man".

As usual you are refuting an argument that is not presented by me. Instead of countering my premises you invent your own to counter mine.

Note my argument.

• (1) It is immoral to do X - as justified,
  (2) Thus it would be morally right to do Y - opposite of X.
  (3) The moral objective in 2 will be embedded as a GUIDE within the moral framework.

Note I stated in (1) 'as justified'.
If it is immoral to kill another human being, then it is moral right not to kill another human being. That is so straightforward. It is a question whether I or anyone like it or not, the opposite in case is objectively right morally as justified.
Note I have already provided the logical justification so many times, you seem to have missed that?


Your exposition and counter to my argument above is off target and a strawman.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I have explained what I meant by my bottom-up and your top-down as imposed politically from above. Again your are introducing a strawman -Darwin, gym, muscled men, women, blah blah blah .. to deviate from my point.

Note my previous post;
The point is, DNA wise ALL humans are "programmed" to survive at all costs until the inevitable and therefrom contribute to the preservation of the species.
Can you dispute this?
Whatever is to be a secular moral objective must be reduced and justified to the above.

You are starting with ASSUMED premises that you expect the logic to prove it true. But Given some X true, then X is true is circularly and, though not faulty by its simple logic, fails to ADD more information, making it "uninteresting" as an appeal. You also cannot treat X itself as conclusively true because the question of its legitimacy is what is at issue. That's what "Begging" means as a 'fallacy'.

Let X be 'moral'. Then something 'moral' exists precisely because you started with it prior to proving. You can't use science here because science argues for 'conservation': for any 'good' thing, there must exist an equal but opposing value 'not good' to complement it.

Again you are attacking a strawman because you missed my point.

Hey.. X in the above case is general which can represent any secular objective absolute moral law/rule.

I have already given examples of X and with reference to 'killing another human' and 'slavery' and have provided justifications for them.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Moral Laws, i.e. objective moral laws are never to be imposed and enforced on any humans. Objective moral laws are to be used merely as guides to facilitate and improve on human behavior naturally and spontaneously.

Surely using a law/rule is the same thing as imposing that law/rule upon oneself?

What does it mean to use "no murder" as a guide only, if you go around murdering people?
A rule is a rule. Either you are obeying it or you aren't. There is some situational irony in your position, given your handle...

Connor : Now you will receive us.
Murphy : We do not ask for your poor or your hungry.
Connor : We do not want your tired and sick.
Murphy : It is your corrupt we claim.
Connor : It is your evil that will be sought by us.
Murphy : With every breath, we shall hunt them down.
Connor : Each day, we will spill their blood till it rains down from the skies.
Murphy : Do not kill. Do not rape. Do not steal. These are principles which every man of every faith can embrace.
Connor : These are not polite suggestions. These are codes of behavior, and those of you that ignore them will pay the dearest cost.
Murphy : There are varying degrees of evil. We urge you lesser forms of filth not to push the bounds and cross over into true corruption, into our domain.
Connor : For if you do, one day you will look behind you and you will see we three. And on that day, you will reap it.
Murphy : And we will send you to whatever god you wish.

How can you be so dumb and hasty.
Note natural laws [which just happened to be] for example are not enforced on humans like judiciary law.

Moral Laws/rules/imperatives with my proposed Moral Framework are DEFINED to be NOT-enforceable. The are only to be used as a GUIDE.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Re AI, what I meant we cannot expect AI or robots to deal with Morality and Ethics. The only involvement would be the human programmer responsibility to ensure the robots do not kill humans arbitrary.

See, that is a wee-bit of a problem... We have no idea how to explain to a computer what "killing" means, let alone explain the distinction between killing, murder and self-defence.

You are taking the complexity which hides behind the translation of language into behaviour for granted.

Why are you so dumb?
Why not?
In future [perhaps even now] there will be robots which can be programmed detect body heat with human features and to shoot them with powerful laser guns to kill them.
There could be a problem for these robots to identify which is the enemy if two groups of opposing soldiers clashed.

Nevertheless the point is robots can kill.
Note, I did not mention murder and self-defense.

[Skepdick]

How can you be so dumb and hasty.
Note natural laws [which just happened to be] for example are not enforced on humans like judiciary law.

How can you be this dumb? That's a rhetorical question. You are this dumb because you are a philosopher.

Natural laws need not be enforces because they are not "guides only" - natural laws are permanently enforced on humans. Unlike judiciary laws.

Natural laws carry consequences always. They are enforced consistently.
Judiciary laws carry consequences sometimes. They are enforced inconsistently.

[Skepdick]

Why are you so dumb?
Why not?
In future [perhaps even now] there will be robots which can be programmed detect body heat with human features and to shoot them with powerful laser guns to kill them.
There could be a problem for these robots to identify which is the enemy if two groups of opposing soldiers clashed.

Nevertheless the point is robots can kill.
Note, I did not mention murder and self-defense.

Idiot philosopher. A robot can kill you by accident, not on purpose simply as a side-effect of its unrestricted programming.

A dumb paper-clip manufacturing robot could lead to human extinction simply by pursuing its goals.

https://wiki.lesswrong.com/wiki/Paperclip_maximizer

The moral hazard with AI is precisely the fact that words don't mean anything. You cannot explain the concept of "killing" to a computer, so you cannot program it "not to kill".

Moral Laws/rules/imperatives with my proposed Moral Framework are DEFINED to be NOT-enforceable.

Yes. You said that already. Your moral Laws/rules/imperatives are DEFINED to be impotent.

The are only to be used as a GUIDE.

Used by WHOM, HOW and for WHAT PURPOSE?

[Scott Mayers]

Your above argument is nothing more that saying,

(1) X is DEFINED 'immoral'
(2) Y is DEFINED as "moral"
(3) X is exclusively outside of Y [or X = not-Y]
(4) Things that are "moral" are things that I like. I like Y
(5) Things that are "immoral" are things that I do not like. I dislike X
CONCLUSION: WE all (shall) agree to Y or risk being put up against The Wall!
...

Note my argument.

• (1) It is immoral to do X - as justified,
  (2) Thus it would be morally right to do Y - opposite of X.
  (3) The moral objective in 2 will be embedded as a GUIDE within the moral framework.

Note I stated in (1) 'as justified'.
If it is immoral to kill another human being, then it is moral right not to kill another human being. That is so straightforward. It is a question whether I or anyone like it or not, the opposite in case is objectively right morally as justified.
Note I have already provided the logical justification so many times, you seem to have missed that?

Your exposition and counter to my argument above is off target and a strawman.

To be more technical, for (1), you are asserting,

[1.0] (X is Immoral) if justified"

which is identical to

[1.1]"If [(X is Immoral) & (X is justified Immoral)], then (X is Immoral)"
..........[Antecedent]..........................................[Consequent]

Take the Antecedent and note what this reduces to:

[1.2] [(X is Immoral) & (X is justified Immoral)] becomes simply [(X is Jusifiably Immoral)]

Now replace this back in [1.1] and we have,

[1.3] "If (X is Justifably Immoral), then (X is Justified Immoral)"

which simply reduces to

[1.4] X is Immoral by definition.



Then because you define Y = not-X, your second statement in (2) reduces to

[2.0] Immoral behaviors should not be done, like X. which reduces down to....

[2.1] Do not-X

This is not an argument because by (2) and (1) it means only,

One should not do X.


Then with your (3), as a 'conclusion', you then just say,

[3.0]Let "One should not do X" become a rule to guide us"

or

[3.1 Conclusion]]Let Not-X be the rule/law



The point is that you have no argument but BEG the last line as a conclusion from your prior definition. There is no connection of the first two to your conclusion. Note that "rule/law" is just a 'guide' here.

[Scott Mayers]

Veritas, I reported a post of yours above to edit or be removed for quoting your words for mine and ? some mix. While this notice may be enough, the report is just a request to that particular post after it is buried. You need to change that to be correct or it is LITERALLY a 'strawman' with intention by context of the discussion. I had NOT misquoted anything you say, only INTERPRET something you believe is not 'fit' to your view as you claim.

It is this post:

...

[Veritas Aequitas]

Veritas, I reported a post of yours above to edit or be removed for quoting your words for mine and ? some mix. While this notice may be enough, the report is just a request to that particular post after it is buried. You need to change that to be correct or it is LITERALLY a 'strawman' with intention by context of the discussion. I had NOT misquoted anything you say, only INTERPRET something you believe is not 'fit' to your view as you claim.

It is this post:

...

Done.

[Veritas Aequitas]

To be more technical, for (1), you are asserting,

[1.0] (X is Immoral) if justified"

which is identical to

[1.1]"If [(X is Immoral) & (X is justified Immoral)], then (X is Immoral)"
..........[Antecedent]..........................................[Consequent]

Take the Antecedent and note what this reduces to:

[1.2] [(X is Immoral) & (X is justified Immoral)] becomes simply [(X is Jusifiably Immoral)]

Now replace this back in [1.1] and we have,

[1.3] "If (X is Justifably Immoral), then (X is Justified Immoral)"

which simply reduces to

[1.4] X is Immoral by definition.



Then because you define Y = not-X, your second statement in (2) reduces to

[2.0] Immoral behaviors should not be done, like X. which reduces down to....

[2.1] Do not-X

This is not an argument because by (2) and (1) it means only,

One should not do X.


Then with your (3), as a 'conclusion', you then just say,

[3.0]Let "One should not do X" become a rule to guide us"

or

[3.1 Conclusion]]Let Not-X be the rule/law

The point is that you have no argument but BEG the last line as a conclusion from your prior definition. There is no connection of the first two to your conclusion. Note that "rule/law" is just a 'guide' here.

I see your explanation of the above premises are a waste of time.

The critical contended point is;
3.1 Conclusion: Let Not-X be the rule/law -as justified.

Yes that is what I intended but that is to be a GUIDE only.

One point is Laws/rules with Morality [Pure] by default are NEVER be enforced at all. These rules can also be called maxims or principles which are not quite precise but are a subset of the absolute objective moral laws.

Generally it is legislature laws and other as defined to be so, are to be enforced with some kind of penalties.
As I had argued Morality is an independent set of human activities that involve establishing enforceable laws and rules.

Note I responded to Peter earlier,

• Yes, these secular objective absolute moral laws by default [PURE] are not commands and should NEVER be enforced but used as GUIDEs only to improve with the APPLIED Ethics.
  
  Analogy: A Perfect/Ideal circle in Pure Geometry is NEVER enforced but merely used as a GUIDE and reference for actual circles in Applied Geometry to be as near as possible to the Pure-Perfect circle.

[Scott Mayers]

To be more technical, for (1), you are asserting,

[1.0] (X is Immoral) if justified"

which is identical to

[1.1]"If [(X is Immoral) & (X is justified Immoral)], then (X is Immoral)"
..........[Antecedent]..........................................[Consequent]

Take the Antecedent and note what this reduces to:

[1.2] [(X is Immoral) & (X is justified Immoral)] becomes simply [(X is Jusifiably Immoral)]

Now replace this back in [1.1] and we have,

[1.3] "If (X is Justifably Immoral), then (X is Justified Immoral)"

which simply reduces to

[1.4] X is Immoral by definition.



Then because you define Y = not-X, your second statement in (2) reduces to

[2.0] Immoral behaviors should not be done, like X. which reduces down to....

[2.1] Do not-X

This is not an argument because by (2) and (1) it means only,

One should not do X.


Then with your (3), as a 'conclusion', you then just say,

[3.0]Let "One should not do X" become a rule to guide us"

or

[3.1 Conclusion]]Let Not-X be the rule/law

The point is that you have no argument but BEG the last line as a conclusion from your prior definition. There is no connection of the first two to your conclusion. Note that "rule/law" is just a 'guide' here.

I see your explanation of the above premises are a waste of time.

The critical contended point is;
3.1 Conclusion: Let Not-X be the rule/law -as justified.

Yes that is what I intended but that is to be a GUIDE only.

One point is Laws/rules with Morality [Pure] by default are NEVER be enforced at all. These rules can also be called maxims or principles which are not quite precise but are a subset of the absolute objective moral laws.

Generally it is legislature laws and other as defined to be so, are to be enforced with some kind of penalties.
As I had argued Morality is an independent set of human activities that involve establishing enforceable laws and rules.

Note I responded to Peter earlier,

• Yes, these secular objective absolute moral laws by default [PURE] are not commands and should NEVER be enforced but used as GUIDEs only to improve with the APPLIED Ethics.
  
  Analogy: A Perfect/Ideal circle in Pure Geometry is NEVER enforced but merely used as a GUIDE and reference for actual circles in Applied Geometry to be as near as possible to the Pure-Perfect circle.

Note that I used the word, "Let", to permit what you mean by "guide". When we use this, we are asserting a pretense whether it be real or not because we aren't biasing the suggestion as absolute but a way of saying, "for arguments sake, let us pretend that.....X". This is the 'guide' I think matters. You are being conflicting if you say that this arbitrary suggestion, is both a guide AND a law of nature without respecting the alternative behaviors as an arbitrary equal.

I get your analogy and remember first thinking of the distinction when doing Euclidean geometry. There, most texts assert that the drawing of geometric figures using only a pencil, straight edge, and a compass, the literal figures you draw are only approximations to the ideal because of the relative imperfecton of the action and materials used to model these, as well as to the skill of the person drawing these shapes by the given formula.

However, the perfect ideal objects, like circles, if treated as analogous to one particular 'morale' imbedded in nature that you assume is true but can only be approached in practice, fails when the formula that identifies the ideal object does not require that you HAVE to only draw circles. You can draw a square too. So while the circle IS an absolute 'truth' describable by a formulated behavior, all shapes are not circles. The formula is only applied where you WANT to draw a circle.

So reaching the perfect absolute circle in practical way is itself begging that you want a circle. If the ideal circle is mapped to a morale, then, just as circles aren't the only shape you can draw in geometry, a square too is equally permissible to aim for without bias.

What you need at first is to find a set of universal common wants. And then just define the 'want' as a moral concept. Then you can argue that there are unique ways that everyone can acheive this by some formula that should work anywhere the same goal is desired. It doesn't mean that the moral idea in mind is 'true' as a distinct universal fact that applies to all 'wanters'. THE 'wanter' and their particular 'wants' are prerequisite to define what is 'good' because what is 'good' is defined internally by what one particular person finds comfort and pleasurable to go towards and the 'bad' is defined internally for those things you 'want' to move away from, regardless of whether others share the same 'want'.

If you like a particular person, you might tend to move towards that person, and try to be in their presense. But that same person you like may NOT share the same desire for you and might even find you repulsive to them, a relative 'bad' for them subjectively. In this situation, no individual wins even if they have a commonly shared mechanism of 'wanting' that defines what is 'good' for them.

Thus, I think you need to stop thinking of select behaviors (morals) as something 'fit' UNIQUELY to nature because if it was, the alternative behaviors could not even exist by contrast.

I think what might help your project is if you can try to figure out how to DETERMINE the maximum shared wants that are most interesting of appeal to each subjects' satisfaction, then show that there can be a formulated way to OPTIMIZE the likelihood of success of those common goals by demonstrating an effective forumula to get their, your 'guide' or map TO get to that goal.

[Scott Mayers]

Veritas, can I suggest an author to read regarding practical arguments of why seemingly odd behaviors work regardless of being relatively 'immoral' (universally) and how IF you HAVE 'morals' that FIT with being most universal, the same rules of behavior still work in your favor?

I suggest reading any of the set of books by Robert Greene. But his first and most popular work was, "48 Laws of Power". See a YouTube summary to get a taste of the rules WITHOUT the author's justification first here: The 48 Laws of Power (Animated).

I do NOT expect that one should use these tactics for any means necessary. They can be clearly manipulative and be interpreted as 'evil'. They are based on the "Machiavellian" Art of War ideals extended to everyday life. The author expesses in each 'law' why the behavior works and where it fails. It also explains the pychology using many examples of historic or legendary characters, some of whom we admire and some we don't.

The video link above only summarizes the whole book and is not a 'selling' feature. In fact it might shock you at first of its declarations. But the book in question has to be read to understand the logic behind the madness. I was shocked when I first heard of it and thought it would be an interesting read to determine how and why such people would ever even SUGGEST such ideas. When I read it, although I found some flaws, the author himself caveates this for each law showing where they backfire. BUT they actually are REAL methods that people use and is what I think you need to address before you set out your ideas with permanency. If anything, think like I did, and attempt to see if you can see the flaws in the author's (reflecting people's) ideas.

In fact it might be interesting to open a thread on this separately. (?)

P.S. Note how those like Donald Trump is certain to have read this book and treat it as a bible. I don't have proof of this directly but know that his behaviors seem to coincidentally in sync with these 'laws' (guides of optimal success in practice). It is almost a kind of 'anti-morality' laws with respect to the whole because these place the subject at center. Try to see if you can UNDO each law by something more effective that IS more morally universal. I think such material should be taught if only to ARM oneself against those who use them against you too. They also suggest that to be 'good' to oneself, one requires to oppositely act 'evil'. And this 'evil' is MORE 'Universally' powerful than the opposite!

[Veritas Aequitas]

Note I responded to Peter earlier,

• Yes, these secular objective absolute moral laws by default [PURE] are not commands and should NEVER be enforced but used as GUIDEs only to improve with the APPLIED Ethics.
  
  Analogy: A Perfect/Ideal circle in Pure Geometry is NEVER enforced but merely used as a GUIDE and reference for actual circles in Applied Geometry to be as near as possible to the Pure-Perfect circle.

Note that I used the word, "Let", to permit what you mean by "guide". When we use this, we are asserting a pretense whether it be real or not because we aren't biasing the suggestion as absolute but a way of saying, "for arguments sake, let us pretend that.....X". This is the 'guide' I think matters. You are being conflicting if you say that this arbitrary suggestion, is both a guide AND a law of nature without respecting the alternative behaviors as an arbitrary equal.

I get your analogy and remember first thinking of the distinction when doing Euclidean geometry. There, most texts assert that the drawing of geometric figures using only a pencil, straight edge, and a compass, the literal figures you draw are only approximations to the ideal because of the relative imperfecton of the action and materials used to model these, as well as to the skill of the person drawing these shapes by the given formula.

However, the perfect ideal objects, like circles, if treated as analogous to one particular 'morale' imbedded in nature that you assume is true but can only be approached in practice, fails when the formula that identifies the ideal object does not require that you HAVE to only draw circles. You can draw a square too. So while the circle IS an absolute 'truth' describable by a formulated behavior, all shapes are not circles. The formula is only applied where you WANT to draw a circle.

So reaching the perfect absolute circle in practical way is itself begging that you want a circle. If the ideal circle is mapped to a morale, then, just as circles aren't the only shape you can draw in geometry, a square too is equally permissible to aim for without bias.

The 'circle' was only an example to an analogy to expound my point and principle.
Yes, there are lots of shapes [square, triangle, polygons, etc.] and ideals in many other things and measurements.

As in my Framework and System of Morality and System, it is not confined to ONE morale or moral rule/laws.
In a proper Framework and System there will a long list of moral ideals to be organized within a hierarchy or taxonomy. As such extensive research and hard work is needed to establish this set of moral ideals.

What you need at first is to find a set of universal common wants. And then just define the 'want' as a moral concept. Then you can argue that there are unique ways that everyone can acheive this by some formula that should work anywhere the same goal is desired. It doesn't mean that the moral idea in mind is 'true' as a distinct universal fact that applies to all 'wanters'. THE 'wanter' and their particular 'wants' are prerequisite to define what is 'good' because what is 'good' is defined internally by what one particular person finds comfort and pleasurable to go towards and the 'bad' is defined internally for those things you 'want' to move away from, regardless of whether others share the same 'want'.

Note my point above.
The moral ideal is an ideal for the generic human.
But in practice this ideal is impossible, thus all humans in practice will volunteer to strive their best to be as close as possible to the impossible ideal.
In this case, the ideal is an imperative guide, else everyone will be morally rudderless or have broken rudders going all over the place and not aligned to one point [the ideal].

In practice various individuals will define their subgoals based on what they can achieved and optimize to the best of their ability, but they cannot lose sight of the ideal albeit impossible.

If you like a particular person, you might tend to move towards that person, and try to be in their presense. But that same person you like may NOT share the same desire for you and might even find you repulsive to them, a relative 'bad' for them subjectively. In this situation, no individual wins even if they have a commonly shared mechanism of 'wanting' that defines what is 'good' for them.

Note the example of an profit oriented organization where all employees are aligned to achieve the common targeted profit of the organization.
In this case all the employees are aligned toward that vision and mission of the same shared goals, i.e. X$$ profit.
Now if the HR and the Accounting head could be arched enemies but as long as both are aligned to the same goal, it does not matter significantly where they have put aside the difference aside as long their organization duties are concern.

It would be the same shared moral objective rules by all humans.

Thus, I think you need to stop thinking of select behaviors (morals) as something 'fit' UNIQUELY to nature because if it was, the alternative behaviors could not even exist by contrast.

Whatever objective moral rules justified for the Moral Framework will be universal to the generic human being which is this case will be aligned with the survival of the individual and preservation of the human species.

I think what might help your project is if you can try to figure out how to DETERMINE the maximum shared wants that are most interesting of appeal to each subjects' satisfaction, then show that there can be a formulated way to OPTIMIZE the likelihood of success of those common goals by demonstrating an effective forumula to get their, your 'guide' or map TO get to that goal.

What I proposed is the following;

1. The secular objective absolute moral rules [ideals] will be justified from evidence empirically and philosophically as applicable to ALL humans. This shall not be enforced. This is the Moral aspect [PURE].

2. The individual will adopt the above ideal as a GUIDE only and then set their own subgoals suited and optimized to their individual circumstances but these are always in alignment with the ideal moral rules.
This is the Ethics aspect [Applied].

• Analogy: Whilst there are humans all over Earth, in this case, they must set and align with the same compass direction, e.g. North. Thus all will be moving from their respective location but all are moving Northward.
  So in practice they may veered from North, but they must always steer back to North in case of an uncontrollable need to change direction for various reasons.

The above is how my proposed Framework and System of Morality and Ethics will work.

[Scott Mayers]

Read Robert Greene's works. You may change your mind on your definitions of 'morality' as something literally 'universal'.

What you might think is 'universal' value is actually universal acceptance of No-univeral-values. I argue that Totality cannot occur without contradiction. This then means that contradiction is the 'universal rule' and that the subjective particular perspective is where 'morals' appear fixed or constant because to you all that matters is if your environment is concordant with your own selfish wills. When this occurs, you interpret the world as "universally moral" when this illusion is only fitting of how you successful you are IN that environment.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Read Robert Greene's works. You may change your mind on your definitions of 'morality' as something literally 'universal'.

What you might think is 'universal' value is actually universal acceptance of No-univeral-values. I argue that Totality cannot occur without contradiction. This then means that contradiction is the 'universal rule' and that the subjective particular perspective is where 'morals' appear fixed or constant because to you all that matters is if your environment is concordant with your own selfish wills. When this occurs, you interpret the world as "universally moral" when this illusion is only fitting of how you successful you are IN that environment.

The "48 Laws of Power" is more on politics than morality where both are dealt separately by different functions in the brain.

It is not a matter how how successful one is IN that environment.

Morality is individual human centric on a generic basis - thus universal as applicable to all human beings.

So the focus in my case is, how well an individual can be successful as a human being within ANY environment.

To do so, as I had proposed we need secular objective moral laws as a GUIDE for our proposed Framework and System of Morality and Ethics.

To ensure efficiency the Framework, the human activities of each individual human must be leverage on the neural circuits of their brain to enable success.
I believe I have mentioned Mirror Neurons, the Human Connectome Project, the Human Genomic Project, advances in neurosciences, information technology, etc. which we must bring them into focus.

Note the final outcome is not focus on the secular objective absolute moral laws, but how can humanity can increase and improve on the morality quotient and competence of each individual person.

What you have proposed for morality and good/right behavior, i.e. with the significant involvement from Politics, it will not be efficient since as you should know [very evident], politics and its desperation for POWER is inherent very 'dirty' with those in control, the elites.