Dear Saltpetre,

I was looking at Bhutan as inspiration for something closer to an ideal society than we have in the West, even playing with the idea of living there, but alas, since they introduced television in 1999 it started going downhill.

<<There is no such thing as unconditional liberty;>>

Agreed. Liberty is not a primary value: the value behind it is non-violence. By practising non-violence, others enjoy their liberty.

It is crucial to distinguish between action and result: Right action is within our power, thus our duty, while the results of our action are not within our power, thus are not. In this particular case, non-violence is one's moral duty while living-at-liberty is not (though it's nice when it happens).

Morality exists and is universal even if it cannot be codified. You cannot expect a written 'universal moral-code' because every situation and every person/animal are different, yet sages have given us general principles to follow such as non-violence, honesty and non-stealing. The more intelligent one is, the more they should be expected to follow morality.

Society is not a moral construct because it is based on seeking results, rather than on morality.

While society is not expected to be moral, hopefully we should expect society to not be immoral. The fact that a number of people gather for one purpose or another and call themselves 'society' does not grant them exemption from morality, allowing them to do things which would otherwise be immoral for the sum of those people to do.

Specifically, it's immoral for a gathering of people to automatically assume that others are part of their group without seeking their consent, then make laws that also apply to those others, then use violence to enforce those laws. Moreover, it is also immoral to become part of, or cooperate with, such a group which does the above. Needless to say that people who never voluntarily agreed to belong to 'society' are under no moral obligation to follow its laws (though those who agreed are morally-bound by their agreement).

To counter moral-deficit, operate on moral-principles rather than on result-seeking.

Pericles,

Would they not, or some at least, consider the annexation of their former tribal territories by an outside 'invader' to be immoral? It seems the answer is most would and do.

I don't get you. How would you possibly construe from my posting that I might consider native land title or recognition to be 'immoral'?
(Some claims a bit far-fetched perhaps, but that is a highly vexed and contentious question, and beyond the point of our current discussion.)
I merely questioned whether your statement was accurate, by giving a possible (or potential and probable) exception.
(Or am I somehow misusing or misinterpreting what may be considered a 'moral' issue?)

And what of the great national moral dilemna (or deficit) or our time?
Is that now a finalised, and fully defined, issue (or subject) - for I have seen little of genuine discussion of this on this thread (except for those calling my earlier post in this regard 'utopian' - or impractical) - or are we happy to consider the author's proposition as 'handled', or as too ill-defined to be worthy of further serious evaluation?

Yuyutsu,

>Specifically, it's immoral for a gathering of people to automatically assume that others are part of their group without seeking their consent, then make laws that also apply to those others, then use violence to enforce those laws.<

I cannot agree. Live in a society (or nation) and one is deemed to be a part of that society (or at least as having to abide by its laws and generally understood mores and codes of conduct) or else can only be considered to be an alien - and still having to abide by the law and moral code in operation. No-one can be exempt - in any 'modern' society at least.
As for 'violence', I find it absurd that enforcement of the law of the land should be considered 'violence' (or perhaps cruel and unusual punishment), for it is, in our society at least, merely 'enforcement' in the common interest of security and stability and the preservation of human rights.

>.. people who never voluntarily agreed to belong to 'society' are under no moral obligation to follow its laws ..<

Sorry, but I definitely cannot agree - and if anyone flouts the law they will soon receive confirmation that they are not exempt.

Though you may consider the law not to be based on common morality, but rather on perhaps the whim or contemplation of some faceless men, the application of the law, and the judicial system, should clearly stand to demonstrate that 'morality' is, or is usually, at the base of any fair and unbiased legal system and system of laws.

>To counter moral-deficit, operate on moral-principles rather than on result-seeking.<

Any society which does not seek results will not persist.
However, the morality of the methods employed, and even of the results sought, can stand as a measure of the general moral standards of that society.
No-one left behind? Or, let the devil take the hindmost?
You may not wish to protect the rights of others, but someone should (and must) - or all is chance, opportunism, and, potentially, chaos.

Dear Saltpetre,

Your argument clearly comes down to "might is right":

<<if anyone flouts the law they will soon receive confirmation that they are not exempt.>>

Yes, I am well aware that your society/state has guns, trained policemen, helicopter gunships, sniffer and attack dogs, surveillance and many other oppressive capabilities.

But we are not arguing the facts of modern societies - we are arguing their morality or lack thereof.

You believe that your society's goals (such as "No-one left behind") are good? then why not try to convince others by peaceful means? If others believe this too, then won't they cooperate?

But no, you don't really trust that you can convince them peacefully, so you "deem" them to be yours, whether they like it or not!

<<Live in a society (or nation) and one is deemed to be a part of that society>>

The above is a tautology, but you hiddenly assume that all people live in a/your society. Many of us however just live our God-given life on God's earth, and although we happen to live in your physical proximity, this doesn't mean that we took a body and came to live in this world in order to be part in your society.

<<I find it absurd that enforcement of the law of the land should be considered 'violence'>>

There is no such 'law of the land' - laws are made by people, not by the land. Now you claim the land itself as belonging to your particular group. You have not asked permission from the people who live on that land nor from the land itself, then you say that it is not violence - what an absurd!

<<Any society which does not seek results will not persist.>>

Well, here is your bias: YOU want to persist, so much intent on that goal that you will not bother trying to enlist others' peaceful cooperation. You WANT to persist and you will do whatever it takes to achieve it - including killing others who won't cooperate, if necessary.

Then you still dare call this moral?

Dear Yuyutsu,

The responsible majority surely seek and want 'peaceful cooperation', but unfortunately this cannot always be relied upon - as there will always unfortunately be those who choose to cut corners, to seek unfair advantage, to 'rort' the system or simply to pursue a criminal/outlaw career. History, past and present, provides testament to the marvellous variety of 'con-jobs', scams, oppression and inhumanity perpetrated by various deviant (and even supposedly 'normal') cultures and individuals in many sectors of global humanity.

When we talk 'morality', is it 'moral' to simply excuse deviant and/or 'criminal' activity? To 'turn a blind eye' or 'the other cheek'? Almost certainly NOT - for the majority of 'our' Aus society at least. Can we effectively 'remove' ourselves from such segments of our community - and then leave the 'correction' or the 'reform' of any deviants (from the accepted moral code) to 'others' (who either choose to 'belong' to, or are unable to divorce themselves from the larger 'community')?
Isolationism? 'Head in the sand'? Neglectful, uncaring, cloistered and oblivious, or, in effect, 'running scared'?
Stand for something; or slink out and hide away from the 'slings and arrows of outrageous fortune'??
(If your child was raped, would you want justice? What justice would you seek?)

Animals are not subject to 'morality', for they operate by instinct (or by human training - and in this instance the 'human' element may be subject to the 'morality' of their handling or of the consequent actions of such animals per the training or instruction provided); the land, air, water, mountains, valleys and plants are not of themselves subject to 'morality' - though what humans do with them may well be.

So, let's be clear, when we refer to 'morality' we're talking solely of what MAN does.
And, MAN includes individuals, society, culture, religion, states and nations; what any does may conform to, may 'offend', or may be in outright conflict with any relevant 'moral code'.
That there is no universally accepted (or applied) moral code is a deficiency and a major 'flaw' in global human 'civilization'.
TBC>

Cont'd>

Dear Yuyutsu,

You may well consider your mind/spirit and 'body' to be separate entities, but I would venture that for most of humanity these 'elements' of our 'existence' are inseparable and indivisible; a collective 'whole' is essentially what we have to work with.

As for divorcing yourself from other mortals, for most of us this is not an option; and, if we do not 'produce' we remain a burden on others.
If none produce, nothing is achieved, and then 'we' cannot survive.

Not 'guns', 'justice'; and a sound and generally implemented 'moral code' - by ourselves, our 'governments', our states, our 'culture' and our 'nation'.

Live 'here' on an ongoing basis and you ARE a part of 'us', like it, and believe it, or not. No man is an island (though some may pretend, or wish, to be).

Can governments, states and nations act 'morally' (including ethically, justly, 'legally', responsibly, accountably, and genuinely in the long-term common interest of their constituencies and the 'global community' as a whole)? I believe so - and this, I believe, is the 'nub' of the article.
How such 'morality' may be pursued effectively, IS the question.