Which one of the systems of morality is the most moral and why?

Which one of the systems of morality is the most moral and why?

Capitalism because it doesn't involve coercion.

The one in which you gas jews, degenerates, etc.

WALLism

Stoicism

lol wtf kind of faggotry is this? "the most moral" presupposes a system of morality. how on earth can we compare systems of morality while presupposing a system of morality??

there is only one right: to do whatever the fuck you want

there is only one obligation: to deal with the consequences of your action

Starvation

The non aggression principle. You know I'm right.

>morality

Every system of morality has a classic monkey wrench that can be tossed into it and make it get all fucked up

The only thing that actually works is to make judgments on a case-by-case basis

And, hey, whatta ya know, that's exactly what courts do

The NAP isn't a system of morality. It's a single rule and gives zero help beyond being a red line against some actions.

Do on to others as you would have them do on to you.

Do nice things for people so they will do nice things for you. If they betray you slice their throats so that they know if you betray them to do the same.

Harm Principle - JS Mill

Atheism!!!!!

Islams, because less jews and fags, women have no rights, and slavery is allowed.

Good things are good, bad things are bad. Not very hard.
Fucking your daughter=is good.
Steal stuff= bad

Why can't a single rule function as a system of morality?
What about the Golden Rule?

None because when people strive to achieve moral ideals they are simply trying to play god. In actuality achieving any sense of a moral ideal is impossible because we are ants trying to fix the problems of god. People cant comprehend morality, they just pretend to and make everyone worse off and utilize it to make everyone just like their own miserable selves.

>Why can't a single rule function as a system of morality?
The same reason no system isn't a system.

>What about the Golden Rule?
That's communism and breaches the NAP.

How moral a system of morality is is completely relative. That's not to say they should all be accepted, just that to an Islamist, Sharia Law is the most moral system, while to a Westerner Social Justice might be.

Saying that one system or the other is "the most moral" is stupid. There is a system you agree with and you should work to spread that system to a state of maximum sustainability at whatever cost is needed. All others, that you disagree with, should be suppressed to the greatest extent possible. Doesn't mean one is moral or immoral, that's just how it is.

Why can't a simple system have one rule?

They are two different rules and two different systems, but how do they interfere with each other and how is a rule used in democratic legislation, nationalism, socialism, and market capitalism simply communism?

Also with NAP you can never instigate good because there is no way of telling if that could be considered aggressive.

>Why can't a simple system have one rule?
Well it can in theory, but not that one, because it's useless in almost every situation and doesn't tell you what society should look like.

>how is a rule used in democratic legislation, nationalism, socialism, and market capitalism simply communism?
It can't be used in any system but total communism. Anywhere else, you're not really using it.

>Also with NAP you can never instigate good because there is no way of telling if that could be considered aggressive.
No, that's the Golden Rule you're thinking of. NAP is a rule that can actually be used because it has actual objective meaning.

None, morality is subjective

>which type of water is the wettest wet

Narcissism

Not a valid analogy.

Certain faiths are objectively inferior which lead to entire societies following a lesser standard of beauty.

Evidence: Achievements of Christianity vs Shintoism in architecture, art, politics, and science.

It can't be used in total communism because it relates to dealing with individuals and not groups whereas total communism doesn't consider the individual at all, but rather the group they belong to.

morality is gay, watch this
▲
▲▲

>most moral

philosophy and what english words mean are still too new for you
I suggest you try talking POLITICS
NOT PHILOSOPHY

go there and find what you seek

Morality is relative, not universal, so anything stated here is nothing more than personal perspective. Its only debatable by fools.

No, it's not. I just gave you a legitimate comparison that is undeniable. Asian faith hasn't produced anything near the beauty of Christian faith, ergo it is inferior.

You can't hide behind subjectivity when your entire culture is visible to everyone and simply doesn't stack up. Pic related, I rest my case.

>you've activated my devil's advocate
>hmmph... another one!
Pakistan is the most moral of moral nations, as it follows strict adherence to the code of God.

Utilitarianism. Resembles fascism. If 51% of the people are benefiting from an action you should do it. kek.

Precisely because it is subjective it needs to be debated

Does it? Are you happy?

...

What's the point of debating someone objective? What is the point of debating gravity?

I'm alright, why?

You can debate an opinion, but if there is no baseline, no foundation, no metric other than opinion, it is naught but a breath in the wind.

A waste of time for fools to occupy their minds with.

Isn't all political discussion a discussion about the most moral and practical way to build a society?

What are you doing on Sup Forums?

And since morality is relative, you can only debate against those who agree with your perspectives on morality.

Asking who is most moral is like asking who is most valuable.

Political discussion is rooted in ideas that have real world cause and effect. They have measurable impacts on people's lives. Political discussion is not esoteric bullshit.

Just because philosophy uses big boy words doesn't mean it's esoteric.

Let's take abortion for example. A classical case of pragmatism versus idealism. This is rooted in peoples lifes but traces back to philosophical debates that are being held since the beginning of times.

Abortion is besides the point, but I'll humor you. Abortion is a political topic and has real world impact. It likely arose once mankind figured out how to abort pregnancies (via abortifacients).

Asking who is most moral is still rubbish any way you slice it.

Your original question is flawed at it's very beginning and therefore had no logical answer.

First we must look at the middle part, "the most moral". You can't be the most moral. Morality is based on the idea of cultural values and their inherent utility to mankind. As mankind does not exist in an absolute state but in a state of constant flux, there can be no one path. Therefore there is no "Most Moral" as there is no one path to take home everyday. Some paths take in healthy directions, some take you in swift directions, some take you in interesting directions. Each has value and may be needed at any particular moment. Therefore logic = fail.

Now as to the last part of your question. "Why?" Because of nature. We are built to not be creatures of one way or path. Even our digestive systems are quite adaptable to allow us to survive in the most environments of any known species of multi-cell higher lifeforms. So as we cannot find even one path in our bodies, we likely will not find just one for our mind's and behavior.

And now to the first part. Systems of morality again points to the idea that there is one path, one set in stone guideline for approaching a better mankind. There is not. There can't be. By nature we must adapt and evolve or fail and die. Same with how we interact with each other. If you stay to one path too long, you will only enter a mental and physical stagnation that leads to the mother of all human stagnation. Death. A mind must be flexible and temperate to traverse all of life's challenges. As must a body. Sticking to one path too long would cause the neglected portions to stagnate and cause imbalance and eventually failure.

So in closing...

YOU FUCKING FAIL. GO HANG YOURSELF.

If you mean it in a sense of 'we'll never know the most moral system' then you're right.

Doesn't mean that the debate is useless because we'll slowly develop an understanding of morality from it.

The one I like best and because I said so.

Hate to agree with a leaf, but basically this

Even entry level metaethics will show you that every theory of morality has fundamental weaknesses

The of debating something objective is precisely because there is an answer to the question, if it's subjective then there's no right or wrong answer, it's just a preference then there's no point in debating it, just let others have their preference.

in case you are not trolling, its kant without doubt

all modern ethics (eg in science) are based on his model od ethics

Who /virtue ethicist/ here?

What does 'most moral' even mean? Most justified? Most beneficial? Most practical?

Personally i subscribe to a sort of soft utilitarianism, but I am a huge beta cuck according to the metrics of Sup Forums, so whay do I know..

This post reeks of ignorance

>Asian faith

So you are you actively comparing the entirety of Buddhism, Hinduism, Shintoism, Taoism, Confucianism, Sikhism, ect. against Christianity?

Of course you aren't. You made an entirely subjective claim and then posted a picture of a painting as if that constituted proof.

How is this christian? It is made by a christian but how did Christianity influence the painter and made his aesthetic judgement better? As far as I know Christianity doesn't have any guides as to aesthetics, only religious mythology and morality. Also how do Asian religions' views on aesthetics prevent them from making good art?