Prologue.
This is a compilation of aphorisms from Sayings which more succinctly define my moral positions, and create a document to defer to in debates on morality.
A Compilation of Moral Texts by P. Michael Amedeo.
Without theology, there can be no morality, as all would be subjective. Any purported secular morality is easily deconstructed by the mere utterance of the word “why?”, which unveils purported absolutes of the subjective bride. Even consensus-based morality is subjective, as one must reconcile with defining how localized this morality must be, otherwise this consensus-based morality entails populations are beholden to the most charismatic leaders, with the most aggressive personalities, becoming the arbiters of all that is moral and right, molded to their whim. Moral relativism is further immoral, as one must contend with people acting as they please without any means of objection, even if these people had become murderous, barbaric coprophagics, to the moral relativist, they are equivalent to a Christian monk who denies himself and lives in virtue. Invoking “rationality”, “empathy”, or merely “humanity” all fall short as to the “why?” necessary to substantiate these purported absolute secular ethics. To merely baselessly assert that humans have some kind of inherent value is blind, being entirely contingent upon emotions, and an emotional view of humanity without answering the inquiry as to “why?”, of course without defaulting to these subjective feelings. Utilitarianism is predicated on the irreverent notion of “happiness” being a quantifiable, almost tangible, substance, which I find to be insightful into the internal psychology of individuals who espouse such notions, those who deny metaphysics, tradition, and embrace the utmost of materialism. Of course, the dilemma of quantifying happiness derives from the intangible nature in which it is confined, and how subjective happiness ultimately is, ergo, unable to be truly quantified into any applicable governance.