All authentic moral judgements are local, necessary, and imperfect.
In my view, no permanent moral principles are possible, as applied socially. Individually, my core values are the rejection of self pity, perseverance, and perception.
The task in determining what is right and wrong begins with understanding. Specifically, we must ask ourselves why things we believe are wrong, are wrong. Why is murder wrong? What is the value to us as individuals and a society in considering it this way? Why is adultery wrong? Why is abortion wrong (or is it?) Why is torture wrong?
What would be the consequences if murder was socially acceptable? Would it not lead to more murders? Would it not make them more likely, since we all feel anger, and control it because we fear the consequences?
In war, is murder not necessary, since by definition it is the effort to resolve different goals by naked force?
Silly people look at things like the Golden Rule, and conclude that if we don’t want people to murder us, we should not murder them. But what if they are trying to murder us, despite our having done nothing to them? They have already violated the Golden Rule, by acting in a way they would not want directed back at them.
Is homosexuality wrong? As I see it, there are three principle types of homosexuality: some people are born with it; some are molested, and placed thereby on a permanently different path; and some embrace it for the political purpose of subverting our social order. The first two are beyond the control of those practicing it, and I cannot see any just reaction but acceptance.
The last, though, often leads not just to indulgence, but proselytizing, and in no few cases to seductions of younger men by older men (which itself leads to my second type). This in my view is wrong, because it is not trying to make the world a better place. On the contrary, it generally betrays a need for power and control, and the pursuit of power is the essence of how evil is formed.
In the end, what is needed for judgement is understanding. What we want, always, is to contexualize judgements such that we view people as individuals, and not as abstractions. When rules are dogmatic and hidebound, then we look at people as objects, and “deviancy” as analogous to a machine which has malfunctioned. Dogmatism and hate go hand in glove.
Thus decisions need to be local, such that we know the facts of THIS case. We bring general principles to bear, but we have derived those principles in advance, and can thus tailor them to the case. We have reasoned through why rape is wrong, and theft, and vandalism, etc.
Such decisions are necessary, since if you don’t HAVE to render a judgement, then don’t. It is silly wandering around thinking bad thoughts about people, if they don’t affect you at all. It is best to spend your time improving yourself. No doubt we often learn how to grow by observing how others have failed, but what I want to do is avoid slipping people into categories, when the reality is that most people are good and bad, and which they are varies on the day and place.
For the same reason, all judgments are imperfect. Human personalities are chaotic systems. They vary from day to day. The organizing principles are the criteria according to which that person bases his or her actions, but behavior is always approximate. Nobody is perfect, not least because what is right varies from day to day, and we can’t see in just what perfection would consist. If someone conforms to a behavior pattern precisely, I would argue they are compulsive, not perfect, even if they are Good.
Since it is impossible to identify the “essence” of a person, judgements will necessarily be imperfect. Yet, you have to make decisions, and I have already stated that no judgement need be rendered unless it is necessary.
This sort of approach adds information to our cultural order. So often one sees patent contradictions passed over with ease. For example, leftists will groan in horror at the institution of slavery in the United States, but ignore entirely the long history of slavery in Communist nations, and by and large the slavery which exists in many Islamic nations, particularly in Africa.
It is not enough simply to have the principle “slavery is wrong”–although that would be a good start. WHY is it wrong? This is the question. It may seem self evident that it is wrong, but that should make the question that much easier to answer.
For example, if one accepts my definition of Goodness as taking pleasure in the happiness of others, and being able to live happily on your own, then knowingly causing long term pain to others is simply incompatible with that. If our aim is Goodness, then we must reject slavery, in all the forms it takes.
I should add on this issue that I have at times seen the term “chattel” slavery, by which was connoted slavery where slaves had a price, presumably versus leftist slavery, where you were simply under the complete control of a totalitarian state.
No person seeking what is Good in this world could possibly make this argument. But such arguments are possible when one is failing to contextualize them, failing, for example, to look at what was actually done in Cuba or the Soviet Union: the rapes, torture, cruel work schedules and loads, the hunger, the deceptiveness and backstabbing required to survive.
My system works, and it is amenable to change and amendment.