Protecting oneself isn't a moral question, but a function of life. — Tzeentch

Ultimately, nobody knows what morality is, or can define it in a fool-proof way.

Consequently I think all moral decisions are stupid. From a philosophical point of view.

From a philosophical point of view the best model of morality, as I have seen it over and over, is "doing good". But that's not morality; that's merely doing good.

Morality is a buzz-word that everyone takes ownership of and does good or bad things, under the auspices of being moral.

Some moral questions, and the true answers to them with a clear conscience:

Was it moral to decimate their population and rob the land from the American natives? Yes and no.

Was it moral to force Christianity over the heathen population of Europe in the beginning of the middle ages? Yes and no.

Is it okay to lie? Yes and no.

Is it okay to steal bread to feed your starving children? Yes and no.

Is it okay to rape and pillage Muslim countries by force as done by the USA? Yes and no.

Was it okay to blow up the two towers in 9/11? Yes and no.

You see, all moral questions, be they big or small, can be answered either way. And there is justification, both ways. Even under the same "rules" of morality.

I spit on those who evoke morality in their arguments. Morality has no place in philosophical arguments.

The moral reasons they have is not “immigration policy”. Immigration policy is political, its not a strictly moral consideration. I think “they” would consider it a strictly moral issue, ergo when you judge them for not having the same practical mix that you do, you do so with a different standard...the point ive been trying to make is that you need to parse out that distinction for your judgement to be valid. Are you judging them by a strictly moral standard, which is how they are thinking about it, or do you want to measure their strictly moral position by the metric of Whats good for the country? (Whats good for the country may not be moral at all)
Once you parse that then your question answers itself, they obviously pass a moral standard with the former, and obviously fail at the practical consideration needed for an immigration policy.

From a philosophical point of view the best model of morality, as I have seen it over and over, is "doing good". But that's not morality; that's merely doing good. — god must be atheist

Can you explain your definitions of "morality" and "good"? It's strange that you dichotomize them like this.

I think that morals are decided upon by the collective consciousness of the human mind. So to then decide what is "right" is judged upon by those who own the moral high ground(Maybe Obi-Wan Kenobi). If a larger mass of people consider it to be morally and just to allow open borders then that is the right way to go. Just as the victors of a war write the narrative upon what happened.

A moral high ground can be ever-changing and take different shapes depending on the current state of thinking of the greater mass of people which is affected by the variables of the comfort and current state of the world in which we live. So basically the majority of the people who thinks in a certain way have the power to decide what is right and the others will be seen as derivatives.

Only a person who can look upon actions(allowing open borders) and see their definitive consequences(the impact of the decision on for example economical, social structures and individual life) in a future timeline could have the proper depth to make an correct analysis based on our current moral values about what is right and wrong. But even our moral values do change, so nothing is really constant.

I wouldn't say morality is entirely subjective (based on human consciousness, or a species consciousness).

If I sense the world, there is the sense data which is judgable.

I can make a wrong decision, but a lot of the time the best decision is the right one.

How I make this decision is by first judging sense data. Morality is the nature of judging sense data - morality is objective.

What is a measure of reality? What tool do you use? If mind, then a beneficent measure is what's moral.

Can you explain your definitions of "morality" and "good"? It's strange that you dichotomize them like this. — tomatohorse

I just said, in my post, that morality is undefinable. My definition is as good as yours and Maria Theresia's and the pope's and Hitlers. There is no definition of morality other than wholly subjective.

I did not dichotomize them... I showed that a lot of people use the same definition for morality as they use for doing good. Their definition does not delineate between the two. I did not dichotomize; I showed they are equivalent in some people's definitions.

If I sense the world, there is the sense data which is judgable. I can make a wrong decision, but a lot of the time the best decision is the right one. — Qwex

How do you judge? On what basis?

What is a good decision and a bad decision? How do you rank decisions from bad to good to better to best?

"A lot of the time... (implies but not always)" so in other times the best decision is not the right one. And the right decision is not the best one.

How do your statements support your original claim, that morality is not entirely subjective? There I see no reason or explanation of your claim.

what is "right" is judged upon by those who own the moral high ground(Maybe Obi-Wan Kenobi). If a larger mass of people consider it to be morally and just to {whatever} — EpicTyrant

So this is regional. You attach moral right to moral majority. This is a purely personal, subjective criteria of what constitues morality. So far so good, I have no problem with that, because you did state that it's your idea, and you are not trying ot force it on others as "the ultimate morality".

If one is to accept your definition, however, then the issue becomes contradictory. The larger portion of the population of the USA, say, morally condenms the mass immigration, or trans migration. But the world, most of the people in the world, morally support trans migration and mass immigration into the USA.

What then?

I judge based on the morality of the matter.

Right. But what are your moral criteria. You must weigh the pros and the cons; you must have some guidlines for yourself. You can't just arbitrarily judge "this is moral, that is not moral", because then there are no rules that others can see you apply. And judgment always depends on how well someone or some event follows or adheres to the rule.

So you say "

I judge based on the morality of the matter. — Qwex

But what is morality of the matter? You speak of it as if it is an independent judging measurement, against which you can measure how well things stand up to being moral. So what is your "stick"? how do you define the measure of morality?

Think of me marking the blackboard with a rising, green line.

That's the moral line. It symbolizes, when judging sense data, this is what's beneficent.

Think of me marking the blackboard with a rising, green line.

That's the moral line. It symbolizes, when judging sense data, this is what's beneficent. — Qwex

This does not address the issue. At all.

It's like saying

"Imagine a black knight on a white horse riding toward the mountains. The mountains represent you, and the horse, the moral judgment, and rider, a moral guide." or something similar.

You have to do better that that. Or else there is a chance, however slight or diminutive, that the MODs will yank you out of here.

No, it's not like saying that; I defined my symbol - you didn't. If anyone's lazing off, it's you.

I draw on a blackboard, a green, rising line, to aid explaning morality.

The green, rising line on the blackboard, symbolizes what's beneficent given sense data, of which, there is also a red, falling line; there always is a beneficent or maleficent alignment.

You can substitute the line for highlighting the beneficent parts of your sense data.

You can judge sense data, and act morally or immorally.

What's moral is not entirely subjective - it's both objective and subjective simultaneously.

I was specifically reacting to your statement that I quoted, where you said, "But that's not morality; that's merely doing good." That clearly shows you think of them as two different things.

I would assume you might be thinking of something like, "morality is our beliefs about what good is, while 'good' is a descriptor of certain actions." Just clarifying.

Then perhaps America will be seen as the derivatives by those who believe that they have the moral majority. Problem is that there are so many different majorities so they form their own morality tribes.

Take china that has atleast 1 billion inhabitants, they probably think they are morally justified of not taking in immigrants or putting Uigurs in concentration camps because they share an protective ideology.

So yes maybe in a hypothetical scenario in which humans all around the world share the same societal structures my theory could be more Applicable to the whole collective human consciousness but for now it has to be restricted to a regional level since we are all so divided in our values.

“Moral” and “right” are synonymous. The right thing to do is always the moral thing to do. The reason for the confusion that leads to this question being asked at all, is that for some “morality” is equated with preconceived principles or rules that are detached from real life circumstances. That is not so.
A strict follower of rule ethics, or deontology, would think that a moral rule should always be obeyed regardless of consequences. The principles are always moral and always right. If you find that unreasonable, as your introduction indicates, it’s probably because you prefer a consequentialist ethics. Consequentialists, or utilitarians, believe that the moral action is the one that has the best consequences and that would also be how to measure morality in your example.
Now, if you are correct that it is impossible to predict the consequences of free migration, we will have no way of knowing what would be the right decision, and we also can have no idea about the moral decision. In that case there can be no moral position.
A utilitarian can only make a claim about the moral and right decision when he thinks there is a reasonable possibility to predict.

"But that's not morality; that's merely doing good." That clearly shows you think of them as two different things. — tomatohorse

Thanks for the clarification.

I am glad you raised this point. In my opinion there is no definition of morality. I think of morality and of doing good as two different things, because they have two different names in the English language. "Table" and "chair" are two different things. Therefore they have two different names. Morality and doing good have two different names, therefore one ought to assume they are two different things.

But they are not different, yet people treat them as different. That is what I am objecting. If you do good, that's not moral. To do good is to do good. But what is to do moral? I don't know. Nobody knows. It is a phantasm created by the human mind, and it serves a purpose, but it is flawed as a philosophical entity.

So yes maybe in a hypothetical scenario in which humans all around the world share the same societal structures my theory could be more Applicable to the whole collective human consciousness but for now it has to be restricted to a regional level since we are all so divided in our values. — EpicTyrant

I agree.

A strict follower of rule ethics, or deontology, would think that a moral rule should always be obeyed regardless of consequences. The principles are always moral and always right. If you find that unreasonable, as your introduction indicates, it’s probably because you prefer a consequentialist ethics — Congau

Either because a person prefers a consequentialist ethic, or because the deontological ethics finds itself in self-contradictory quagmire very soon into its short-lived existence.

Is it okay to lie?

Is it okay to cause death?

There are many scenarios in which these two qestions throw the deontologist into a wicked web of indecision and undecideability.