BLOG

The interpretation of morality is highly controversial; it is taught in very different ways—or not at all—and leaves plenty of room for interpretation. Therefore, it is important to take a closer look at this concept.

It is derived from the Latin adjective *moralis*, which means “pertaining to morals.” It is originally a translation of the Greek term *êthikê* (ethics), which was coined by the Roman philosopher Cicero.

Morality thus refers to the totality of values, norms, and rules that are generally recognized in a free society or culture and serve as guidelines for interpersonal interaction.

Today, it often serves to subjectively evaluate actions as “right” or “good” versus “wrong” or “evil,” and is thus intended to enable harmonious coexistence by restricting individual rights in favor of “social justice” and fairness. But who determines what is just and what is fair, and for whom do “good” or “evil” apply?

If one delves a little deeper into the concept of morality, it becomes apparent that so-called “social values” can hardly be reconciled with morality when viewed objectively. For restrictions and constraints represent a direct contradiction to genuine, objective morality.

Human consciousness can be strongly influenced by four factors: ignorance, indifference, fear, and inertia. These factors provide fertile ground for biased narratives and ideologies that can lead to fatal mistakes. The world’s major religions represent only a fraction of the institutions that offer ample opportunity for abuse and can divert people from the true nature of morality.

Politics, governments, and the media also fall under the category of critical institutions that enjoy a great deal of trust, have already abused this trust on numerous occasions, and yet have never been required to provide evidence. However, evidence is rarely demanded in the first place.

Love of comfort, the veneration of and belief in authority, the moral legitimization of states and governments, and everything that is believed and accepted without logic or evidence can also be understood as a form of religion. Yet none of this pertains to objective morality, since religions were invented by humans.

It is considered a law of nature that freedom is reserved for the good who act rightly. Religions distract from this, as they embody the opposite of freedom. Freedom is a right to objective morality. This right requires behavior that causes no harm to others.

Violations of the law of objective morality cause measurable and demonstrable harm to others. The diminution of a being in a specific way. A form of theft. The taking of something that is not one’s own property but belongs to another.

In the Catholic faith, for example, the seven deadly sins are well known; they can lead to confusion and distract people from objective morality: pride, gluttony, sloth, lust, wrath, envy, and greed.

However, these things do not initially describe behavior but rather inner emotional states or states of self-exaggeration. None of these “deadly sins” is a behavior directed at another individual and therefore cannot in and of itself be immoral. If, however, they are directed at another individual, this directly results in immoral behavior.

Only then did they cause harm to other beings by resorting to violence, coercion, or theft against an individual or property.

There are clear acts of immoral theft in society:

– Murder (but not killing in self-defense)
– Assault (theft of physical well-being, physical property, and health)
– Rape (violation of free will)
– Theft of physical property
– Trespass (depriving someone of safety in their home)
– Coercion: taking away free will, the greatest gift of the universe
– Deception (stealing the ability to make decisions based on accurate information)

It is up to each individual to draw their own comparisons to our society, history, monetary and tax systems, politics, government, military, police, media, food and pharmaceutical industries, as well as the Catholic Church.

However, as morality increases, so does freedom. As morality decreases, freedom diminishes in direct proportion, in accordance with the law of nature. Knowledge of objective morality is therefore absolutely essential for achieving freedom.

These contradictions reveal a major difference between objective morality and externally imposed morality. It remains to be seen whether the totality of recognized values, norms, and rules will lead to a future based on freedom or one dictated by external forces.