Morality is beneficial to society, but harmful to the individual. Agree? Disagree? Think I'm just an ass?
Try to make your question even more general please. But hey what the hell do I know, its just details, who needs details?
In response to what you wrote, I think the end to morality is making the individual happy. It is strictly subjective because happiness could only be determined by your internal measurements that noone but the individual himself is aware of.
So what makes you happy is moral, what doesnt is immoral.
Obviously we all want to be left alone to conduct our pursuit of happiness, so we need a code of behavior to grant us all the peace to do so. This is where we come by the conventional behavioral prescriptions. Such a system shall have little to do with morality itself, its only tie to ethics is one in support of our value concerning personal peace.
So what this means is, there is a law concerning not running through a red light, I follow this not because my personal values tell me there is something good about not running a red light, but because my personal values tell me I like my peace. In order to have my peace, I need to ensure that others do so as well. Hence, I abide by laws that strive to create order in society.
Such laws are indespensable to morality as without order in society the individual's pursuit of peace shall be difficult if not impossible. However, when such stipulations are connected to personal values peace by peace, namely when we say that we have a rule that eating meat or killing dear is moral or immoral in itself, conventional 'morality' becomes tyrannous and imposing. This is because we all have different ideas of what makes us happy and what does not. Since our inner beings are more archetypal than ectypal, or in other words, there is more to who we are based on our inner unconscious tendencies than our external influences. In other words, it is difficult to shape the individual into what the external protocol may wish for him to be without expecting the protestation from his inner life. Hence, since there are so many kinds of inner beings, the chances are if we try to make an external code of ethic which is fitting for all, this shall be detrimental to most. Our code of ethic may apply to one set of individuals, yet shall be thoroughly disagreeable to many others. Secondly, even to that aforementioned group it is unlikely to be favorable as the inner life cannot be translated externally with exactitude. In other words, externally we can lay down but a few rigid maxims in regards to how we should behave, however, this is much too impoverished to depict the many elements of the inner life which are essential to soundness of one's inner being.
So, as for conventional 'morals' whatever conduces to maximization of maximization of autonomy of the individual is desirable.
As for the subjective essence of morality, I shall not comment on, as only the examination of the individual's inner being could put us in the position to start an inquiry into the matter.
So what makes you happy is moral, what doesnt is immoral.
The whole, "the ultimate end to every means is happiness" argument eh?
I suppose you are doomed to perpetual unhappiness if what makes you happy is what would violate the laws, because then you could never attain what would make you happy without it resulting in disturbing your peace.
And until recently child rape was moral.
So what makes you happy is moral, what doesnt is immoral.
Individuals benefit when others follow the unwritten rules of society (honesty, fidelity, etc). Individuals lose opportunities for personal gain by following those rules, themselves. The individual stands to gain the most when others live moral lives, but the individual doesn't.
I'm looking at it from a material perspective. That's the only measure that affects everyone. Feelings cannot be quantified, and that 'peace of mind' varies between individuals. Some simply don't care.I still think you're looking at "personal gain" much too narrowly. Money isn't always personal gain, and losing possessions isn't always a personal loss. The peace of mind you gain from giving charity (usually viewed as a moral act) can outweigh the benefit you lose from utilizing the money for your own end.
I'm looking at it from a material perspective. That's the only measure that affects everyone.
Not all individuals care about feeling 'good' by doing 'good'.
Karma does not exist. From personal experience, I've been most successful when I've been an asshole. It's when I've tried to accommodate others that I've been burned the most.From a material perspective, you're right, probably.
That doesn't contradict what I wrote.All individuals, I'd argue, are looking to feel good, and feeling good is the primary motivation behind all action. If peace of mind makes you feel good, it's beneficial.
Karma does not exist. From personal experience, I've been most successful when I've been an asshole.
It's when I've tried to accommodate others that I've been burned the most.
That doesn't contradict what I wrote.
I wasn't saying that good karma gives material rewards. Perhaps I should have left a blank line between that sentence and the next.You're making the same mistake as above. Karma doesn't mean you get material reward for "good actions," what is commonly associated with "success." It's better described as a law of cause and effect. When you act like an asshole, you will gain benefit, but you'll feel like an asshole does, and usually want more and more for yourself, neglecting others. That leads to more thirst and more unsettledness. It's a logical principle, not a magical force.
Of course you have expectations when you invest in others. The magnitude of expectations may vary between individuals, but everyone has some measure of expectation. Anyone who thinks they can truly have no expectations is in denial.Accommodating others doesn't require that you get burned. You only get burned when people let you down in some way. If people let you down, it suggests that you formed expectations about what they would do for you. Those expectations can be thought of as attachments, in that you've internalized what that person is supposed to do. That karma dictates that you're liable to get burned. Cause and effect.
No, what gives someone peace of mind varies between individuals. Doing 'good' does not necessarily grant peace of mind.You seemed to be saying that peace of mind doesn't qualify as a benefit because people don't care about it. If that's what you said, then I disagree. Benefit is measured by one's state of mind. How else do we know if something is beneficial or not? Maybe you remember that reclusive mathematician who won the Nobel Prize put rejected the million dollars, preferring to live simply.
I'm looking at it from a material perspective. That's the only measure that affects everyone. Feelings cannot be quantified, and that 'peace of mind' varies between individuals. Some simply don't care.
You're missing the point. Many individuals have lied or cheated to get ahead, and that does not necessarily make them sociopaths.
Individuals who use those tactics do so because they believe the reward outweighs the risk. Yes, many people miscalculate, but that does not change their perception at the time of the decision.