YOU:Morality shouldn't be based on statistics of what's "normal". It should be based on allowing the most freedom possible to everyone, while minimizing harm to everyone...
ME:This statement is true assuming that freedom is superior to order, that choice suggests MORAL choice (ie. that allowing for a choice within a range between "most freedom" and "least harm" also includes a reason for making any choice over any other), and assuming that "everyone" is a priority for the individual making the "choice" of "freedom").
I don't mind if *moral* is described as "standard by which the individual might apply order within an indefinite, socially determined range of choices-- assuming only max. freedom and min. harm-- so as to define a reason for making such choices".
I personally prefer freedom over chaos (and think that this definition would allow for chaotic, or arbitrary choice making). I prefer order over freedom (such that the basis for making choice is defined by what might at least be assumed to be right rather than by avoidance of what is wrong), and I prefer the individual over the group (such that what is excellent and unique is not compromised for what is average).
That is, I prefer to think that, given a foundation which includes objective characteristics (ex. "round"), certain actions may be determined to be in line with reality (ex. "rolling")... thus that morals CAN be defined which describe an idealized "right" action (thus providing a basis for choosing and for excellence of the individual).
Brett Lane Robertson
Indiana, USA
http://www.window.to/mindrec
MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
BIO: http://members.theglobe.com/bretthay
...........
Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to
view great deals!:
http://www.utrade.com/index.htm?MID=59876