ON MORALITY AND ETHICS

Now to begin with it is important to mention that there are two prerequisites which must be pointed out if one is going to do justice to the subject of morality and also to a system of ethics and how it relates to biological life in general and these two points or prerequistes must be addressed before any subsequent theories on morality are propounded and developed by the thinker.
Firstly; nature designs everybody differently in character, feelings, thoughts and in will and so therefore what works for one person does not work for or suit another in practice. The mistakes and errors that a lot of the moralists and philosophers of the past have made in dealing with the subject of morality is that they have based their theories on morality either on a concept of god or on themselves and what they thought was correct or on an artificially imposed moral law. Also a lot of what these moralists or philosophers of the past have considered to be correct in their theories of morality has produced a lot of biased and prejudiced attitudes on morality. Also one will find that most or none of these past theories on morality have ever been based on nature and its diversity of expression.
Secondly; any ideals or theories of morality in practice requires a mutual agreement and compromise between the people involved as a standard of what is considered to be right or wrong, rather than a fixed standard, which it must be pointed out is a rigid way in which to deal with morality; also all of the dealings and agreements between these people should not be based on "selfishness" or on any sense of overt "freedom" or lack of obligation by either person, because without a practical agreement morality means nothing and degenerates into force or opinion or fixed standards. Human beings have an innate sense of morality except for a minority of a few people and so the majority of people can be trusted in most cases to make the correct decisions in their behaviour. Mutual agreement is important in morality, without mutual agreement and mutual respect humans with strong characters would tend to enforce their wills unecessarily on others and prefer to abuse whatever common ground that might have existed between them and other people, morality just like everything else in nature cannot develop without harmony or agreement. Nature and its processes in reality are above and beyond and also more fundamental than the human concepts of what we consider to be right or wrong and so it must also be pointed out that conflict and struggle are inherent within nature and are what makes things advance and grow and so it cannot be considered as a completely wrong thing if a few bad things occur in the course of events that happen in reality and its processes. For something to be considered as either right or wrong one has to agree with it in accordance with the way one is designed by nature and not by an artificially fixed set of rules which does not account for nature or its rules. If a moral law is to have any value at all it has to be artificially imposed and agreed upon by the majority of people living in a state or country and this is what Immanuel Kant meant by a moral law has to transcend the empirical causal order of nature by exercising freedom of an artificial kind if it is to have any value, because morals are not part of the empirical causal order of nature, for instance, if a lion eats an antelope it is neither right or wrong and also if a person kills another person for food it is neither right or wrong either it is simply part of survival of the fittest and also of adaptation. If morality is to have any value at all in the practical sense it has to be something that is agreed upon by individuals as a unique agreement of what is considered to be right or wrong. Morality in its truest and most practical sense can be based on duty, on values, on ideals, on virtues or on whatever one chooses depending upon what you consider to be right or wrong in accordance with your own individuality or true nature. It is a well known fact that Immanuel Kant's theories of morality which he based on the concept of duty gets attacked all the time by people who have not thought about morality for any great length of time or in any depth whatsoever, in fact many people who attack Kant's morality are usually people who cannot think for themselves and are just following the bandwagon of the writings of philosophers like Friedrich Nietzsche and also Ayn Rand. A theory of morality based on duty works for some people and plenty of evidence goes to show that morality based on duty is practised every day by millions or even billons of people whether they are aware of it or not, morality based on duty is a way of creating and proving that a feeling of trust amongst people can be attained, for instance, many people have a duty to their wives or husbands and also to their children to remain faithful and supportive to them, in fact people who are brought up in this type of environment usually end up being more well rounded individuals in most cases.
Also a morality based on duty can be observed in a lot of peoples choice of work and career, whether they are soldiers or doctors or factory workers and so on or whatever a persons chosen profession happens to be and this is because it is the duty of this person to go to work when they are meant to go otherwise they risk losing their job or career or money or the trust of the employer etc. There is nothing wrong with duty to a particular cause if this cause makes a person happy. If morality is to be progressive, practical and genuine it should be based on "reason" and "emotion" in equal measures and it should always be founded on an agreement by particular individuals involved with each other rather than on an artificial standard founded by society or by other peoples devising who are not involved in the agreement, because it is impossible to agree to standards or rules which are not in one's nature to follow irrespective of how well or fair the intentions of these standards are, a person should not sacrifice their true nature for an artificially imposed rule, this is worse than any crime you could commit by following your true nature itself unless you happen to be evil. Our true natures are what give us joy and purpose in this world and to sacrifice this is to live a life of misery simply for artificially imposed rules and standards of morality or to satisfy society and its standards as a whole seems wrong. In general society as a whole is a very manipulative entity and can be considered to be one of our worse enemies at best. Anything or anyone who tries to curb or manipulate our true natures is our enemy and must be defeated and rejected in due course. To have a will of your own and to be able think completely for yourself and to know exactly what you enjoy and desire at all times and to also be able to stick to this 100% are all the things that constitute your true nature or character. The reason that I mention that morality should be based on reason and emotion in equal measures is because they are both equally important in a balanced judgement of all decisions based on morality and how it relates to reality, too much of either gives you a false impression of what is right or wrong in any given situation. Reason or logic pertains to the mind, whereas the emotions pertain to the passions and the organism as well as how it relates to the mind as a process, as I have mentioned before and elsewhere the emotions are a very rational process especially for those who understand them fully and emotions should not be viewed as being completely groundless in their origin. Feelings and emotions are very important because they are essential to the biological organisms connection to the mind in most human beings, in general the rationality of biology and its processes is stronger than mental reason, or logic and therefore reason needs to be balanced with the emotions as a means to promote general good health and harmony in one's being. As I mentioned earlier for something to be considered as either right or wrong a person has to agree to it in the first place otherwise one would be expected to follow things blindly and without inner purpose, most relationships and friendships are founded on this type of agreement of affinity between people, if you have no affinity with a person or a thing why would you agree with it or them in the sense of what is right or wrong or good or bad, because what is considered as right or wrong is either subjective or is due to affinity and agreement because of one's nature. What is wrong to one person, maybe right and correct for another person, for instance, for a religious person adultery is bad, but for a person who is not religious and does not believe in god adultery is fun, exciting and life affirming. Amongst the greatest mistakes that have been made by religious people and moralists in the past and even by people now in general is that they have judged and attacked people because of the way they have been designed by nature and these attacks have been focused more on their personal lives whether these people happened to be gay or bisexual or whatever and any kind of morality and code of ethics which does not account for nature and its diversity or is not founded on my initial two prerequisites is a flawed morality and code of ethics.
In reality force is more real than the concepts of right and wrong and anyone who is willing to use force is more right and correct than someone who is not willing to use force, because this illustrates the fact that nature is always right, correct and real and theories on morality are not as real as nature unless they account for or are in accordance with nature in the truest sense. Conflict and struggle as I mentioned earlier is inherent within nature and exists for a reason (i.e., it makes things advance, and grow) and also one thing cannot exist without another so any theory on morality requires that we accept conflict, struggle, effort and even pain as a means to experiencing improvements and growth in events, you cannot create improvements and progress by promoting only the good without the need for the bad also, conflict and struggle may seem bad but they should be considered as necessary aspects of reality, concepts of good and bad only exist in our minds and feelings anyway and this is one of the reasons why some humans have commited so many atrocities in the past because they thought they were proving something, that they were evil or whatever, but in reality it is neither here nor there in either meaning or purpose whether you are good or evil or partly of each, because nature is simply an inevitable process that happens to exist and the things that occur in reality occur for a reason whether they be self inflicted or not, because nature has its own rules and laws which makes things and events harmonize and attain a purpose and meaning of their own which are part of the general processes of nature. The worse type of morality is the belief that everyone should be equal or the same or similar, because this is an insipid, boring, flat and rigid ideal, for example, nature thrives on diversity and difference as well as on conflict. Morality is partly subjective and partly objective, the people who claim that morality is only subjective are making the argument that I can do whatever I want to you and your family, but if you do the same thing to me and my family, then it is wrong, for example, I can murder your wife, but if you murder my wife, then it is wrong. Morality is objective in the sense that certain people have to agree to objective standards of moral conduct in their dealings together, on the other hand, morality is subjective in the sense that what is considered moral depends on your own needs as well as the period that you live in, what is considered as acceptable behaviour in one period, is not so in another. Problems in morality appear when it becomes dogmatic and rigid, we should only be moral towards people who deserve it that we meet, morality should be practical as well as being part of our values and goals in life, we should not be moral towards everyone indiscriminately. Sometimes people expect us to have more integrity and respect towards things and people that do not really mean anything to us, that we do not value or respect, they wonder why our morals do not apply to everything indiscriminately, when it cannot.